In Oregon, the ORRC (Oregon Region Relay Council) has taken the position that they are NOT a spectrum management group as some other areas have done. The ORRC coordinates repeaters in frequency bands they recognize in their policies. That does not stop any other group from forming to coordinate repeaters in areas/frequency bands that the ORRC does not recognize. It also does not stop operators from building repeaters in areas/frequency bands the ORRC does not recognize.
If a group such as the ORRC were a spectrum management council, that might be a different story. ------ Original Message ------ Received: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 06:48:07 AM CDT From: MCH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] 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: [email protected] > > >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 > > > > > > >
