They HAVE enforced local bandplans. That's a fact. They have also threatened many times anyone not following them who had better have a darned good reason for it.
Here is an interesting quote from one ham with an opinion... "Band plans are voluntary in nature," (he) acknowledged in each of the similarly worded letters. He said the FCC depends upon voluntary compliance because it minimizes the necessity for the Commission to be called in to resolve amateur problems. "Where interference results from band plans not being followed," Hollingsworth continued, "the Commission expects substantial justification to be shown by the operators ignoring the band plans." (source of quote listed below) So, they expect substantial justification, but have not always received that. In those cases, they enforced the local bandplans via Part 97.101 which states (in part): ---------------- (a) In all respects not specifically covered by FCC Rules each amateur station must be operated in accordance with good engineering and good amateur practice. (b) Each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. <snip> ----------------- EACH of the above suggests that a) Part 97's written rules are not the only thing you have to worry about following - good practice counts, too, and b) your choice of frequency should be via cooperative effort. Where a local bandplan exists, and you ignore it, you are not complying with 97.101(b), and those ARE written rules the FCC can, and DOES, enforce. But, what does Riley Hollingsworth (the person who was quoted above) know about the FCC's policies, right? You're right and he is wrong and I'm sorry for doubting you in deference to the FCC's actions and written words. I say this to end the thread since it's obvious nothing anyone says will sway your opinion. Joe M. Dave wrote: > The FCC has only enforced that which is clearly spelled out in the > standards and nothing else. No regional or splintered band plans exist. > There may be mitigating circumstances such a pavepaws etc that can have > a detrimental effect on continued operation or putting up a repeater. > That in no way is dictated by or imposed by by anyone but the FCC. > I have already communicated with the FCC and they have acknowledged that > only those standards clearly set forth in the applicable regulations > apply. Anything else is voluntary. Of course there can develop > situations and circumstances that may affect the future operation of any > transmitter. They are a case by case basis and the validity of those is > determined by and enforced by only the FCC. > The local coordination group also clearly has clearly reflected this. > the Vice President in charge of coordination is directly quoted in the > following blurb. That is from direct communications with him in > official response to a local clubs inquiries relative to the possible > setup and activation of THREE new local repeaters: > > It is Dave. > > I suggest that you form a club, nail down the best possible location, either > gather or document the equipment you will use (do NOT scrimp on the > hard-line) and be ready to go on the air. If you have the opportunity to put > it up without incurring too much cost, by all means do so. If it works out, > try to coordinate. But DO NOT get all hung up on it should we disagree with > you. > > > MCH wrote: >> That's odd, as the FCC HAS enforced local bandplans in the past. Feel >> free to tell them they didn't have the authority to do so. >> >> They cited the persons under the "good engineering practice" rule. >> >> As for your statements about not being coordinated, read my post again. >> I addressed that, and said that AS LONG AS there is no problem, the FCC >> likely will not get invovled, but IF there is, they will get involved >> and will side with the user following the local bandplan (all else being >> equal). >> >> No matter how big your font, that does not make what you type correct. >> >> Joe M. >> >> Dave wrote: >> >>> You are incorrect. The local coordinating body will tell you the only >>> band plan is that which is authorized in the applicable FEDERAL >>> regulations. NO band plan other than that is enforceable. The ARRL is in >>> NO WAY A GOVERNMENTAL BODY OR AN OFFICIAL REGULATORY AGENCY! IT CANNOT >>> BE CONSTRUED AS SUCH BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION. >>> No coordinating body is an official governmental body or enforcing >>> agency. The adhearance to any unofficial nonregulatory 'Band Plan" is >>> strictly voluntary. ANY licensed amateur radio operator may put up a >>> repeater in a spectrum area as authorized under their license class >>> authorizations. The FCC licenses the operator NOT the repeater. >>> Yes the FCC has backed governing bodies in certain situations. That is >>> only because that body was highlighting applicable FCC standards. NO one >>> other entity other than the FCC can direct or order any radio >>> transmitter or operator to do anything else. There exists NO splintered >>> or regional band plan! >>> There are local repeaters here that are on the air without coordination >>> and have been for years. The local repeater coordination group has >>> absolutely NO authority over them. At present there is a local group >>> putting up a 6 meter repeater and it has just gone 'on the air with a 1 >>> meg split. They are not now coordinated and may never be so. As long as >>> no interfearnce issues (as in any spectrum area hf or higher) there is >>> only operator license regulation required. >>> MCH wrote: >>> >>>> Not true. The FCC has upheld local bandplans. Coordinated or not - they >>>> apply to everyone. It doesn't even have to be a repeater issue. >>>> >>>> True, as long as no interference is created, they likely won't get >>>> involved, but if there is, and one user is operating according to the >>>> bandplan and the other is not, they will side with the one operating >>>> according to the bandplan. Coordination should not be an issue since any >>>> operation contrary to the bandplan should not be coordinated (unless >>>> it's grandfathered). >>>> >>>> Joe M. >>>> >>>> Dave wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> That is only true if you choose to get a coordination. It is not >>>>> mandatory. Only if some kind of interference complaint surfaces does the >>>>> fcc place creedance of any kind to the coordination thing. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> ------------------------------------ >> >> >> >> Yahoo! Groups Links >> >> >> >> >
