[aprssig] Voice Repeater NO-TONE

Paul Zawada engineerz at gmail.com
Mon Nov 5 11:59:28 EST 2007

On 11/5/07, Danny Messano <danny at messano.net> wrote:
> My vote for the T convention is to stick with something beginning with T,
> even if you use TCOR or T000.  I think the dataset looks better with all the
> repeaters lined up.

I agree that the T prefix should stay since it would be consistent
with what folks are doing now and it gives you a "hook" to look for.
T000 also make sense since I would hope that it would be fairly
obvious to one not familiar with convention that "0 Hz tone" == no
tone == carrier squelch.  Replacing "D" for "T" would make sense in
the case where DCS ("Digital PL") is used, but I'm not sure if that
makes things too complex...  Are there a lot of ham repeaters that use

The nit I have to pick is with TCOR.  IMHO, the term to use if you
want to put an acronym in there would be TCSQ.  Carrier SQuelch (CSQ)
is a term often used to indicate audio squelch is being operated
solely by the presence of carrier, regardless of the presence of a
CTCSS tone.  Beyond that, there is a subtle difference between between
COR and CSQ in that COR can be used to activate things that operate
even when the radio squelch does not open.    (e.g. a channel busy
light)  And I agree with others in that COR is a term that is used
more in the repeater-building community whereas CSQ is more widely
used, especially by end users.  e.g. scanners, land mobile, etc.
Just Google CSQ carrier squelch and see the hits you get...

I do not think that the term "NoPL" should be used as "Private Line"
and "PL" are Motorola-trademarked identifiers.   While I know that
hams (including myself) will casually use the term "PL" because
"CTCSS" is a pain in the rear to say aloud, I don't think it should be
codified into APRS if for nothing else as to not upset mother-M.  They
might have a problem with the term "NoPL" being displayed on a Kenwood


More information about the aprssig mailing list