What's really the advantage of dcs versus PL anyways? I don't know of any
repeaters here using it, I know it blocks out the courtesy beep and
everything after you unkey, but PL encode/decode will do that too. Autopatch
could be quite interesting if you had the rig on decode, as the person on
the phone side sends no PL.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Kim Kline" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 8:12 PM
Subject: Re: PL Required for Repeater Coordination


> Hi.
>
> I can really see both sides of this issue. With the type of tropospheric
> ducting that is common in the summer months, PL can reduce a lot of
> problems, although there are some types of co-channel interference that it
> does not address.  I think that Harvey missed the point, though.  In most
> regions of the country, PL is used to keep users of neighboring repeaters
> from keying up the wrong repeater.  It isn't really intended to "close" a
> repeater or make it exclusive.  It is simply an interference reduction
> technique.
>
> For example, if a repeater in my area uses 110,.9 Hz PL, and a repeater 75
> miles away uses 71.9 Hz PL, then the folks that are 60 miles away trying
to
> work the other repeater will not bring up our repeater because they have
> the wrong PL tone for our machine.  This can also help to keep spurious
> crud from other services from getting retransmitted through the repeater.
>
> The situation where PL doesn't help is where a distant repeater comes in
so
> strong that it actually captures the signal from the local repeater.  I
> have this situation here, where a repeater in Wethersfield, NY (about 40
> miles away) gets captured by a repeater on the same frequency in Verona,
> NY, which is about 110 miles away.  But, with summer enhancement, it is
not
> unusual on 2 meters or 70 cm for a more distant repeater to capture a
local
> one, and PL will not address that issue.  Short of using very directional
> antennas at my location, there really is no solution to that problem.
>
> I agree that some radio manufacturers have not paid enough attention to
the
> accessibility of the PL encoders in their radios.  Fortunately for me, the
> Kenwood TR-751A and the Kenwood TS-790 are both extremely accessible once
> the speech boards are installed.  If you think that you might like to play
> with FM and SSB on 2 meters, and you get the chance to grab one of these
> radios, they are worth grabbing.  They have really good receivers, too.
>   Anyway, one of the unfortunate sides of being in any radio service is
> that technology changes as the frequencies get more crowded, and a service
> cannot continue to base policies on the oldest technology out there.  Good
> grief, if we did that, we'd probably still be running 2 meter AM!
>
> Unfortunately, I have a couple of "beater" radios that I like to use for
> public service events that are not equipped with PL, which I will have to
> somehow equip.  I like to have these radios because if they get banged
> around, or someone dumps a cup of coffee into the radio, I am not out very
> much money, and I won't be very upset if I lose one.
>
> In part, I wonder why we have to have so many repeaters that we have them
> spaced such a geographically short distance on the same channel.  I dare
> say that 80% of them are dead silent 95% of the time.
>
> There is always the option, for those who are on a pretty small budget to
> retrofit an older radio with an aftermarket PL encoder like the Comspec
> units, as these units are generally fairly inexpensive, but not very
> flexible.  I retrofitted an Icom IC-4AT that way, but can only work the 70
> cm repeaters that use a 110.9 Hz PL (which is most of the machines in my
> immediate area, fortunately).
>
> I guess to sum it up, I see some advantages to PL in reducing annoying
> repeater key-ups from distant signals, but I see some real drawbacks for
> those with older equipment, and I think that there is some real problems
> for travelers, especially for those who have an older PL encoder that is
> DIP switch programmable, like the encoder in my Kenwood TW4000A.  These
> things are never simple.  Perhaps, some thought should be given to
> maintaining one emergency system that is either carrier operated, or uses
> an agreed upon PL across the nation, assuming we can agree on anything
> across the nation.  It would be dreadful to need emergency assistance on
> the road sometime, and waste time trying to figure out what PL to use.  I
> think this issue needs more discussion.
>
> 73, de Lou K2LKK
>
>
>
> Louis Kim Kline
> A.R.S. K2LKK
> Home e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
> Work e-mail:  [log in to unmask]
> Work Telephone:  (585) 697-5753
>