Another spin on the topic at hand!
I currently own 2 repeaters myself 441.950mhz with a PL of 103.5 and
224.280mhz with a PL of 123hz.
Interference is the biggest issue with my being in western Washington just
north of Seattle and within easy range of southwestern BC. including
Vancouver BC.
During my coordination process I frustrated the 220mhz coordinator by
insisting that my machines would transmit their own PL tone. In otherwards,
the controller filters out the received PL which if not filtered and
retransmitted is less than 2 to 300hz of deviation and some decoders can
have a problem decoding. I transmit the same PL via a encoder on the
transmitter with a higher level of deviation. The coordinator said "it is
not the norm" my answer, "I don't care, I want the users to be able to
decode, access and enjoy!" This of course frustrated, to no end the
coordinator I was dealing with but hey, If I have to use PL tones for my
machines then I will certainly make it easy for the users whether they be
local or visiting my area to access the machines. I kind of thought that
was what ham radio was all about wasn't it? Friendly, helpful and there for
others? I too am a total but have found a way to deal with the PL tone
thing after moving up here from New Mexico where we didn't have the PL tone
issues. My answer is it is part of life and we will have to find a way to
deal with it. remember when computers were all new?
Brian, k5in Everett Washington oh yes, I am also apart of two other high
level machines and we did the same thing on those with the encoders
transmitting pl's at a level all decoders can detect and decode.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Bishop" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 12:31 AM
Subject: Re: PL Required for Repeater Coordination
I agree that the accessibility issue is really not the driving force here at
all. It is, however, difficult for someone who may just be visiting an area
to know all
the pl tones for each machine in a particular area.
I wonder if they've ever considered having repeater operators include the pl
frequency as part of the regular repeater id sequence. Do this for open
repeaters anyway.
Don W6SMB
On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 03:03:07 -0400, Ray T. Mahorney wrote:
I'm thinking you may be miss underestimating the intent of the new policy.
In most cases the
effected repeaters are open machines so there is no purpose to be defeated
by broadcast of the tone
frequencies. Also, this policy is an attempt to curb an issue of
interference between co-channel
users on a pair which has been an issue needing to be addressed for years.
Your concerns about
accessibility are valid concerns but the coordinating bodies need to look at
broader issues such as
reducing interference. They are likely aware of the accessibility issues
but those issues fall
outside the scope of their responsibilities If you are concerned about
accessibility I respectfully
suggest you address those concerns to the equipment manufacturers and
venders.
"I do think that radio is the most enormously magical medium in a way that
television simply ain't!"
Douglas Adams
----- Original Message -----
From: "Harvey Heagy" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 17:19
Subject: Re: PL Required for Repeater Coordination
Chris, I agree with you.
I also feel that the blind are being left out of the equation because not
all radios are accessible to us.
Also, if a repeater owner chooses to broadcast its P.L. tone what good does
it do to require tones since that effectively cancels out the purpose of the
tone. Most radios have a tone finding feature wherein if a repeater is
active it can find the right P.L. tone. So I really don't see that this
policy will do much good.
73. Harvey (N.5.H.A.U.)
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 8/28/2004
|
