The problem is, if everybody uses the same tone, there is no 'immunity' created.
Remember too that CTCSS doesn't SOLVE anything. it just masks the symptoms. Mike WM4B From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of wd8chl Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:42 AM To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality I'm thinking that if you really want to have one, and you can get away with it, OK. But sooner or later, an out-of-town signal will tie it up and cause grief to others on the frequency. *ALWAYS* have the means to put it in CTCSS access remotely. Not to mention the inevitable noise burps that show up... I would like to see tones standardized for a given area, like we have here in NE Ohio. 2M uses 110.9, 220 uses 141.3, 440 and 900 use 131.8, and 6M uses either 107.2 or 136.5. There are exceptions to that, not sure why, but if you come to Cleveland, those are the tones to use. You will find something to talk on. Also, if you want your repeater to be open, always encode the same tone you decode. Most of the newer radios can scan for tones, and as long as there is some activity, the radio will find the tone. > > From: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > [mailto:Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in > Waco > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM > To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com <mailto:Repeater-Builder%40yahoogroups.com> > Subject: Re: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality > > > > I am curious why anyone in modern times wants to use carrier squelch? All > radios I have seen for years had ctcss standard. Also I am in Texas and the > Texas VHF-FM society our coordinator agency frowns on carrier squelch on vhf > and does not allow it on uhf. I find ctcss much more sensitive than carrier > squelch. Just wondering? > > WB5OXQ
<<image001.jpg>>
<<image002.jpg>>
