Mike, Now wait just a minute. Cochran is not in the middle of nowhere because I live in the middle of nowhere. I like the two repeaters with carrier squelch. I have always thought of CTCSS as an inconvenience, but maybe in more populated areas it is becoming much more needed.
Just my $.02 worth. Thanks Mike for your hard work, Collin -----Original Message----- From: Mike Besemer (WM4B) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Sent: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 9:39 pm Subject: RE: [Repeater-Builder] Kenwood squelch quality We run two machines on carrier squelch. The first is located right off I-75 and we get a lot of travelers on it. Most of them comment about how nice it is to have a machine they can access without having to program a tone. The second is located in the middle of nowhere and we’re keeping it open in hopes to attract as many inactive hams as possible. It’s only been on the air for about a month as thus far we seem to be stirring up some interest from hams who have been inactive for a while and probably don’t have modern equipment. YMMV. 73, Mike WM4B 146.85 (Warner Robins, GA) 145.11 (Cochran, GA) Central Georgia Amateur Radio Club http://members.cox.net/cgarc ------------- ----------------------------------------------- From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Miller WB5OXQ in Waco Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 8:41 PM To: [email protected] 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
