Hi Everyone;

Some of the controllers in my area do announce the pl tone.

It is not an accessibility issue.

Anyone who thinks this is an accessibility issue should examine there own
attitude.

Just like that individual who was complaining about the paperwork for
HANDIHAMS.

73 De Anthony W2AJV
[log in to unmask]
ECHOLINK NODE NUMBER: 74389


PS. Let me know if you need a crying towel, I'll be happy to send you one.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Bishop" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, August 29, 2004 3:31 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
>