Repeater Group Lawsuit

I agree completely (with WB8NUT). Repeaters cost money to install and maintain. If you're going to use it, support it!

If you think usage should be free, then I suggest you put up a repeater and maintain it at your own cost, and allow anyone and everyone to use it. See just how much time and money it costs you to do it. Maybe then you'll have a better appreciation for repeaters and their owners.

 

As was pointed out earlier in this thread, what the led to the lawsuit was how the repeater group handled the exclusion issue. They could have used the FCC rule granting them the right of exclusion, but then they should have kept their mouths shut.

Now they have learned a tough lesson. But why litigate the matter further? Why risk the "gloom and doom" to ham radio of an alleged legal precedent setting judgement?

For the greater good, just settle it, NOW! It doesn't seem that much is being asked by the plaintiff (no money?) just a bit of swallowed spite and pride. Oh, and access to the precious system. Geesh.

Then, next time do it right! NO EXPLANATIONS for blacklisting! And / or let the FCC deal with any potential rule violations from alleged commercial use.

That being said, it doesn't seem like a profitable business move to run rampant with exclusions, or to create "private" networks, unless you really want to pay for everything yourself. Figure out another way to "monetize" the network. Why not simply LIMIT access to features and / or usage? Paid members get more. Back in the day this was done with auto-patches.

DMR should allow you to track users. Then you can limit total time or number of transmissions or sessions per month by "guests", those who choose not to pay for membership. Limits could have a sliding scale, roll-overs, or other dynamics.

Aside from the ads, imagine if the Zed web site was only available to paid subscribers? There would be a fraction of the user base which potentially could convert to paying.

Friendly basic open access is how you draw people into seeing the benefits of what you have to offer.

73 de John WØPV

 

It's a shame there are no recordings of him breaking the law. If you had that, you could prove his assertions in his complaint are false. But, he's not attacking the reason he was banned, just HOW he was banned. In fact, as I read his complaint, it's less about the opportunity to conducting commercial business on the air and more about "due process" that resulted in his ban from the net. The lesson here so far is that we need to "document, document, document" such use and then use a process to confront the abuser. Then, if the abuse continues, report it to the FCC. Finally, a ban may be appropriate, under the bylaws of the repeater group.