Repeater Group Lawsuit

It does not appear to be an accurate description,IMO. It seems to be tied up with banishment (allegedly unjustly), effect on reputation of the plaintiff, and lost business of same. Again, this from the claims and allegations. Seems to need substantial facts from both sides, IMO.

Why don't you guys (the repeater network)get together and settle? Has that overture been made?

 

The original posting is a little sketchy and hard to follow on the jurisdictional issue. It's likely the Plaintiff is arguing the FCC has no jurisdiction *in this particular dispute*, which is different than saying the FCC has no jurisdiction over the Amateur Radio Service. The latter argument is risible and puts you into tinfoil hat territory.

 

Thanks, so read.

Has nothing to do with who anyone chooses to be on the repeater. It has everything to do with why that choice is made, the basis for that choice, and the facts that justify it.

Ham radio is incidental to the issue.

I may not understand the issue and process properly, but if I am correct, the plaintiff can pursue a remedy from each defendant individually--and separately...that could be substantial exposure, if I am correct--please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Yeah, there's always more to a story. Bryant is no dumbazz chump. I'd like to hear his side myself, before I choose mine.

 

I don't see anywhere where he says the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction over ham radio, or repeaters.
Only "linking equipment" which he describes as "Computer software/hardware device."

 

What the plaintiff alleges is that the group cut him off on hearsay evidence and did not afford him due process.

He also alleges that he made many attempts to reconcile the situation and the NC PRN would not speak with him, not return emails, not return phone calls, and not agree to meet and talk it over.

If this is true (and a court will decide ultimately I presume) then NC PRN is the bad guy for that.

This does not in fact appear to be a federal case nor directly FCC related.

I'm not going to do anyone's homework, but Google will find the lawsuit papers for you if you care to read them.

 

Well darn it, just wanted to add this: Private ownership of equipment is one thing; (and it's completely different at least to me), than a "private organization" taking up a spot on a publicly owned resource like a ham band. Putting up your repeater on a given frequency does not give you title to the frequencies you use, they are still available for use by Joe ham.

Yes the FCC has given priority to repeaters coordinated through local coordination societies as the exist in most areas. This is common knowledge and most of us agree to operate within the guidance of the coordinators and FCC regulations. We understand the need and reasons for having repeaters coordinated. No problem, but a repeater can be removed from service and the frequency pair re-allocated, right? Repeaters are providing a public service, that is probably the main reason that the FCC lets us do the coordination ourselves.

If a repeater is for "private use only" in my opinion, it should be taken down and the pair re-allocated to someone who is willing to provide the service to the ham community at large. Having your own repeater pair for just your buddies or to boost your sagging ego is not a valid reason to take up the public airwaves.

To repeater owners: Yes, it's your equipment, but you are the one who decided to put it on the air in the first place. Pathetic bleating about guys just using my stuff for their own purposes is just counter intuitive. If you did not want people to use your repeater, keep it in the basement, powered down, and not connected to an antenna. That way all the bad guys will never stain its lily white essence.

Sound stupid? Yeah, but that's the essence of it isn't it? Some folks want build an empire on other folks backs.

 

The repeater owners never attempted to prevent the use of frequencies. They prohibited the ham from using their repeaters. The FCC has repeatedly supported this right of owners.

No. There is no 'public service' involved. The operation of a repeater is simply one aspect of amateur radio on the part of the owner.
-Why the FCC chooses not to actively perform coordination duties is an unrelated matter.

Your opinion is noted. The FCC disagrees with you and has specifically stated their position numerous times.

 

There is no such "right" to "due process" when accessing other peoples equipment for an illegal purpose. That's like making me answer the door so I can let the home invasion in!

You can use ham radio to make money. You cannot use "A" ham radio to make money!

Thanks,

Ed

 

If you read the third paragraph ALL repeater owners are at risk and may be sued!!!!
This isn't right. Another example of someone trying to use the courts to make a fortune.

 

Had a similar problem back in early 1990s with truck drivers..... I hit the OFF switch and never turned it back on

 

IMO, courts always look for evidence of attempted settlement in judging whether a complaint has merit to proceed.

Repeater owners: If you don't have the RECORDINGS of him BREAKING PART 97 rules, then IMO, you will lose and you have big bills to pay.

IF he WAS breaking the law, then WHY DIDN'T YOU GET THE FCC involved? Where is YOUR complaint to the FCC--- repeater owners??

I feel this OP was placed as HAM NEWS to drum up money for the defendants. That's my opinion. Yours may differ and probably does.

 

Ed, did you seek out and read the legal document? There is precedent case law that has ruled otherwise.

Also, the alleged illegal use is allegedly hearsay and is not even actually what the case is about.

 

With ya on that Chip.

That, and begging solidarity from the brethren... Who by the way are going to believe what they read and not seek out both sides. It's on the internet, it must be true.

This thread is going to devolve into a mess I'm afraid.

 

The offer has been made. If he dropped the suit, and agreed not to use the system for his personal gain, he may use the system again.

He declined that, and instead wanted a written apology and a statement that were were legally required to seek due process in order to remove him form the repeater. That is not going to happen, since it would then require every repeater owner in the United States, going forward, to offer due process to jammers and miscreants. So I guess it is going to trial.