MCH, I think in that the FCC has held up bandplans as giving a coordinator the right to deny coordination if a plan is not followed by a user.
However, the FCC has not said to my knowledge someone cannot put on a repeater if it does not fit a coordinators plan. In fact the FCC has repeatedly stated a repeater does not need to be coordinated, but uses coordination only in the event of interference issues. 73, ron, n9ee/r >From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: 2007/10/14 Sun AM 06:20:08 CDT >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater >Trustee, K6B > >Actually, the FCC has upheld local bandplans, so it does have a legal >basis. > >Joe M. > >Ron Wright wrote: >> >> Band plans have 2 requirements...FCC part 97 and gentlemens agreements. The >> latter has no legal basis. >> >> on 2 m repeaters can by FCC 97 use 144.5-145.5 and 146-148. The gentlemens >> agreement may make some freqs simplex or for repeater operation, but still >> one can use for repeaters. Simplex is use so little in many areas and >> 146.52 and maybe a few others in most areas might be used, but are perfectly >> legal for repeater use. >> >> It looks as if the 146.400/147.435 would be acceptable by most and certainly >> by FCC 97. If it works for the community it is in it is for the better. >> >> 73, ron, n9ee/r >> >> >From: Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >Date: 2007/10/13 Sat PM 11:17:19 CDT >> >To: Repeater-Builder@yahoogroups.com >> >Subject: Re: [Bulk] RE: [Repeater-Builder] RAIN Report: D-STAR Repeater >> >Trustee, K6BIV, Responds to NFCC Letter to the FCC >> >> > >> > >> >On Oct 13, 2007, at 8:27 PM, kk2ed wrote: >> > >> >> I'm not condoning such operations, but a Band Plan is just that - a >> >> band plan. If the emitter is otherwise within regulations, a repeater >> >> on simplex channels may be legal, provided it is under proper >> >> control. It is similar to an uncoordinated repeater. Unless it is >> >> causing willful interference, it is not illegal. >> >> >> >> Such practices may not be very popular among the local hams. Bad >> >> practice, yes. Illegal, no. >> > >> >Wrong. Review FCC Part 97.205(b). >> > >> >http://www.arrl.org/FandES/field/regulations/news/part97/c.html#205 >> > >> >Repeaters have specific frequencies they are allowed to operate on, >> >and are one of the only types of Amateur Stations with an >> >"exclusionary" rule in Part 97 saying that they can only operate in >> >specific frequency allocations. >> > >> >If those "simplex" channels fall outside the frequencies in 97.205 >> >(b), the owner is treading on unstable legal ground. >> > >> >I didn't look at the frequencies the two gentlemen were talking about >> >in their messages back and forth (since it looked like they were just >> >dragging their local mud into a public forum -- usually not worth >> >reading) but in most areas of the country, local bandplans place >> >"simplex" operation in an area of (whatever) band that is restricted >> >to not allowing repeater operation. >> > >> >I have no other comment on the thread, other than that... simplex >> >frequencies in a local bandplan are usually outside of the bounds of >> >where repeaters are allowed to operate by law. >> > >> >-- >> >Nate Duehr, WY0X >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> Ron Wright, N9EE >> 727-376-6575 >> MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS >> Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL >> No tone, all are welcome. >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> > Ron Wright, N9EE 727-376-6575 MICRO COMPUTER CONCEPTS Owner 146.64 repeater Tampa Bay, FL No tone, all are welcome.
