Repeater Group Lawsuit

On June 4th, 2015, Ken Bryant (K1DMR) sued the 42 repeater owners that had repeaters on the PRN System at that time. Ken Bryant filed this lawsuit after he was asked not to use the linked System because he was observed contacting radio operators over the air in order to sell radios for his business, North Georgia Communications.

ok so we all know about the bad apples in every area of the world for ham radio right? well if you want to continue to use it for free then you might want to read this. http://ncprn.net/?p=379

 

Would this possibly be an issue for the ARRL to tackle? Seems appropriate enough to me.

 

Repeaters have always had the ability to be private or require membership to be used.

Commercial use of a repeater (or ham radio in general) has always been prohibited.

The FCC does have jurisdiction.

Hopefully this gets tossed quickly.

 

Private radio networks, huh? Is that in the province of good Amateur radio practices?

Seems to me that anyone desiring a private radio network should move off of ham radio to commercial spectrum.

Now just based on the biased web site report, I would also say the fellow allegedly selling radio equipment on the "PRN" was probably out of line, but so is the "PRN" for even existing.

Two wrongs most definitely do not make a right.

Since I have no dog in this fight, I will leave it at that. Just my opinion, which you did ask for by posting this in a public forum.

 

I owned a repeater for 25 years, and it was "private" if you wanted to call it that. If I didn't want some windbag blow hard in there I told
him so. As long as it was my money and my equipment I'll do what I wanted with it. If some yoyo drove up in front of your house and said
I saw your antennas, I'm a ham and I'm coming in to use your HF radio, I want to contact a friend in Mongolia, what would you do?

I never took anyone's money, therefore, I didn't want or need their advice. After 25 years and two meters outlived it's shelf life, I took
it down, put it in the shed and use the cell phone.
W0DLR

 

All they had to do was set a policy (in writing on a web site) that sales or business was not to be discussed on the system, as a stipulation for it's use. If he violates that policy, he has no recourse.

 

They don't even have to do that. Its prohibited in the Amateur Service anyway. The only "sales" is for people conducting swap nets or similar. If he was on there actively hawking radios on a regular basis, that likely violates the FCC rule.

That's probably why he filed saying the FCC doesn't have regulatory rights, but I don't get that one at all. Course, those rules have been debated for years, and many times I've heard them stretched a bit. But the FCC not having jurisdiction? Don't get that one at all.

Being that I never heard the conversations, I can only assume he was doing a lot of it from what I'm reading.

 

Hmmm.... got to say, in that scenario, I'd say sure, be my guest. If he can make my gear work Mongolia, I can learn some tricks from this guy, yoyo or not!

But amusing example aside - yes. Many of the local 2m repeaters I use are owned / hosted / operated by individual hams, and I would respect their having rights to restrict who uses their repeater. Isn't that kind of the point of CTCSS or similar, though? Just give that out to your friends who you want to have access? Similarly, one of the bigger local ham groups which hosts a very big repeater system on nearby mountaintop, charges $20 for a 1-yr access to the IRLP and autopatch codes. That's arguably a "PRN" of sorts, although one I have been happy to support especially before I had a HF rig and IRLP was my only way to reach exotic locales with my HT.

But, if someone set up a "PRN" of any sort I'd still expect them to have to abide by amateur regs about no commercial activity, etc if it was in the allocated amateur spectrum.

Just my opinions - freely given and worth what was paid for them.

 

So are you guys thinking that K1DMR is just trying to bully them into letting him back on the system by threatening to harm them financially? It's hard to imagine this ever going to trial, but it makes me nervous as a repeater owneer. I'll be following this one closely and will contribute to the cause as soon as they set up a Paypal account, or some other way to make it easy.

 

Bringing a lawsuit is one thing having success is yet another. Seems to raise at least one point that you would think would not be at issue at all that is that the FCC has no jurisdiction over the Amateur Radio Service if that is an accurate representation in the PRN article. Will be interesting to follow.

 

Ever since the radio act of 1934 courts have held that the FCC and its predecessors have absolute jurisdiction of radio, being interstate in nature and therefore a federal jurisdiction.

Amateurs have the priviledge to use any authorized frequency. They do not have the right to use a privately owned repeater. The FCC has upheld a repeater owners responsibility for proper operation of the repeater and his right to permit or restrict the access of any and all amateurs.

 

Seems some are confusing "Private Ownership" with "Public Access".

Ownership is simply the rightful ability to control whatever it is that is possessed & accepting the associated liabilities from it; "private ownership" is simply private individuals rightfully controlling whatever it is they possess & any associated liabilities; "Publicly Owned" in utopian socialist speak is supposed to be collective control & free access for everyone, but actually means controlled & restricted by government while society owns the liabilities...

A "privately owned repeater" is simply owned & thus controlled by a private individual; they can choose to either make it "publicly accessible" or restrict & regulate its use, & it is their right to do so because they own the property, privately fund it, and accept the liabilities for its use. The overwhelming majority of repeaters in this country are wholly PRIVATELY OWNED, funded, & operated, yet the vast majority of them also allow free & unrestricted PUBLIC ACCESS so long as one follows the very basic rules & regulations everyone voluntarily agreed to abide by when getting licensed (Such as: Your communications shouldn't primarily be for personal profit purposes).

Ironically, the only repeaters, digipeaters, Winlink packet servers I've found that actively restricts or discourages casual public access, or are not coordinated for public access at all, are the ones who are publicly funded for RACES / ARES / EMCOMM use... How ironic indeed...

 

Is there a transcript that validates this allegation of commercial sales outside of that allowed by this Part 97 system?

I have not viewed the formal complaint but it would appear the claimed issue is defamation and/or libel and/or interference of business for statements made by others. I speculate that the ability to control who is on your repeater is not the primary issue, if at all. Its an issue of the effect of such banishment on the reputation and enterprise of the individual.

IMO, injury to one's reputation has to be demonstrated-- but I am certainly not a judge.

Some facts would be helpful here. What is the nature of the formal complaint, please?

 

You are able to get to the actual complaint from the link in the thread starter if you would care to read it.

 

Referring to the link provided by PRN and solely considering it content, this is certainly a battle that needs to be backed and fought with the resources of our ARRL.

Unfortunately...

As my friend,W1YW, eluded to, there is likely more to this case than the link provides and embedded in this entire scenario indeed lies nothing less than... "defamation and/or libel and/or interference of business for statements made by others. I speculate that the ability to control who is on your repeater is not the primary issue, if at all."

If these indeed are the core facts of the legal action, all I can say is, best of luck PRN. With the kind of credentials, experience and notoriety that Kenneth Bryant holds in his corner, click the link in Mr. Bryants QRZ bio, PRN has some grime days ahead. AND if this is the case, shame on PRN for not fully disclosing the root of this action.