The following lines were added (+) and removed (-):
<small><small>February 2019, last revision xxx still in draft</small></small><small><small>February 2019, last revision xxx still in '''draft'''</small></small> <small>Suggestions:* remove redundant comments* better organize information* seek additional sources and citation* address round table discussions</small>It does seem that there are often sources of conflicting information in regards to some aspects of amateur radio communication protocol. In this example the use of the term "over" or saying something like "back to you" at the end of a transmission on an FM repeater will be used as in example. This particular example may fall under type #4 because I am discovering plenty of arguments on both sides of the issue.''* And in special circumstances a government agency such as FEMA might specify a communication protocol for messages to be used by amateur radio operators in field operation when volunteering to participate in disaster or emergency event communication which can vary depending on the agency, location, and event.'' == Not All Sources Always Agree == Or, too often sources considered creditable seem to disagree. It does seem that there are often sources of conflicting information in regards to some aspects of amateur radio communication protocol. Use of the term "over" or saying something like "back to you" at the end of each transmission on an FM repeater will be used as a base example here. This particular example may fall under type #4 because I am discovering plenty of arguments on both sides of the issue, from operators as well as documented sources.For the record, I see no issue or misuse in protocol by ending a transmission with the word "over" or "back to you." It doesn't offend me as a ham operator, nor can I find any consistent evidence that it is bad practice. However, I will remark that on an FM repeater it is simply not necessary. There are almost always indicators that make it evident to the listener that you have terminated your transmission beyond the simple grammatical completion of a sentence, such as the squelch tail or sound evident from the repeater. So, it can be said that by saying "over" you are simply extending your transmission longer than what is necessary on the repeater and upsetting those global warming guys by wasting a tiny little bit of energy.For the record, I see no issue or misuse in protocol by ending a transmission with the word "over" or "back to you." It doesn't offend me as a ham operator, nor can I find any consistent evidence that it is bad practice. However, I will remark that on an FM repeater it is '''simply not necessary'''. There are almost always indicators that make it evident to the listener that you have terminated your transmission beyond the simple grammatical completion of a sentence, such as the squelch tail or sound evident from the repeater. So, it can be said that by saying "over" you are simply extending your transmission longer than what is necessary on the repeater and upsetting those global warming guys by wasting a tiny little bit of energy.This is a work in progress. You are not reading a completed article. As it stands, I am conducting research and seeking comment on the subject from the ARRL. If you revisit this article in the future you will hopefully note progress on my research and additional information.This is not a critical topic nor is it really that important. I'm investigating this out of personal curiosity and because I have been asked for advice in regards to this practice as well as have been advised on the practice of using "over" to conclude a transmission on an FM repeater. This is not a critical topic nor is it really that important. I'm investigating this out of personal curiosity and because I have been asked for advice in regards to this practice as well as have been advised on the practice of using "over" to conclude a transmission on an FM repeater.Please also note that this composition is a work in progress. You are not reading a completed article. As it stands, I am conducting research and seeking comment on the subject from the ARRL. If you revisit this article in the future you will hopefully note progress on my research and additional information.