ad: TinyPaddle-1

Repeater Group Lawsuit

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KE0LCL, May 9, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: abrind-2
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: Radclub22-2
ad: L-MFJ
  1. KF4DBW

    KF4DBW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The FCC Jurisdiction issue came up when a motion to dismiss was filed. Ken's lawyer is using the fact that the FCC will not intervene in issues of CC&R and Amateur Radio to mean that the FCC has relinquished control of the Amateur Radio service. The Wake County judge agreed, and allowed the case to move forward.
     
  2. WR2E

    WR2E XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Good luck!
     
  3. WG7X

    WG7X Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    KB4QAA,

    Thanks for the response. You have your opinion, I have mine.

    If public service is not the aim of a repeater owner, what is? I do not mean the public at large even though that does come up from time to time. Public service in this argument means service the Amateur radio community. Over the years that I have served my club we have acquired four repeaters to date. None of them are private; all of them serve the ham radio communities in which they exist.

    If that was not true, we would not have accepted them when they were given to us. I know full well what it takes to run a repeater. If I was emperor, not merely president, I would have thrown at least two of these machines to the wolves years ago.

    Fortunately, over the years, we have had folks who's interest lies in maintaining these beasts, and the club is better for their efforts on our behalf. But make no mistake, the single sole purpose of our repeaters is public service, not stroking the ego's of an "owner" who feels that it is his/her right to own a ham radio repeater pair.

    That's enough from me. As stated before, I have an opinion you have an opinion, and the FCC probably would prefer not to get involves in these petty squabbles.

    73,

    Drops Mic
     
    K1TGX and N5PZJ like this.
  4. KF4DBW

    KF4DBW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Actually, you are wrong on this. The case law cited in the lawsuit was overturned on appeal, and actually would have hurt his case had Ken's lawyer not changed tunes and gone with the lack of FCC jurisdiction.

    Regardless, at this point, this is a personal property rights case. Ken is not a protected class (fat white male American is not protected) and even so, he was not told to use the system for any reason that is not legal, i.e., because of race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

    Since we did not have the foresight to think to record every talkgroup, and of course by not doing to it is hearsay at this point, what he did is irrelevant now. Now the question is whether you retain the rights to your property if you let someone use it.
     
    K2CPR, N4AWP and KA0HCP like this.
  5. AD0MI

    AD0MI Ham Member QRZ Page

    I agree, this is stupid and silly.
     
  6. KF4DBW

    KF4DBW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Just to clarify the "private". This repeater network is not a club, it is made up of privately owned repeaters.

    Whether that owner is a person or a club is irrelevant to us. Anyone may join their repeater to the network, and they retain full rights over their repeater. No other repeater owner will have a say over what anyone does with their repeater.
     
    K2CPR likes this.
  7. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Excuse me: the FCC doesn't say anything in Part 97 about prohibiting personal gain in this context. Look at Part 97.113. (A)(3)(ii).

    Thank you for the facts. Here is why, IMO, you will lose this case if it goes to court:

    1) you did not use 'due process'--file a complaint of alleged illegality before the FCC on the questioned ' sale' transmission(s);
    2) there is nothing in Part 97 that prohibits sales 'for personal gain', as described by Part 97.113 (A) (3)(ii).


    Although I wish you well, it seems to me that K1DMR has been reasonable based on this information you provided.

    I would not in any way sign any agreement that prohibits 'personal gain'. There is nothing in Part 97 that proscribes it as an absolute.

    IMO, K1DMR is the injured party.

    Obviously I am not an attorney nor am I proffering legal advice. Just my opinion.

    Your opinion may differ, and probably does.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    N5PZJ likes this.
  8. K5FH

    K5FH Ham Member QRZ Page

    Seems to me that you (repeater group) have done your due diligence. If he continues the suit it's simply for the purposes of harassment...which was probably the motivation in the first place.

    Countersue for damages. I think you can make a pretty good case for this action being friviolous.

    I have seen things like this before, that is, a disgruntled repeater user essentially throwing a legal tantrum about being kicked off a repeater for abusing it or breaking the rules. It never ends well and Amateur Radio suffers yet another black eye.

    What people like this want is for the FCC to essentially declare that repeaters are essentially a public utility and open to all who would like to use them, for any reason. Not going to happen, but there will always be malcontents whose mommies told them they were special.
     
    K8PG, KB0TT, K2CPR and 3 others like this.
  9. WR2E

    WR2E XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Wouldn't be the first time and since I'm apparently not privy to all the facts, I can only speak to what I'm able to find on the web.

    My main point is that one should not 'take sides' based one single view of some sketchy information. At the very least make SOME effort to consider both sides before acting as judge and jury.

    So, again, good luck!
     
    N5PZJ likes this.
  10. KA0HCP

    KA0HCP XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    Really?

    Isn't this from a childs cartoon? *rolls eyes*

    If you were still participating in the conversation....

    Again "NO, amateur repeaters are not a public service", nor necessarily a service to amateurs in general. Operating a repeater per se (in itself) is an activity of the owner as an amateur. He may operate it as a closed repeater solely for his own use. There is no requirement by the FCC that a repeater be open to general amateur use.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2016
    KB0TT likes this.
  11. KC9UDX

    KC9UDX Platinum Subscriber Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Where were the secret vigilante repeater police for this one? :)
     
  12. KF4DBW

    KF4DBW Ham Member QRZ Page

    Chip,

    Ken is selling radios for his business, North Georgia Communications. When he contacted users on the air, he then gave them his business number, and they then bought from his business. I am eager to hear your opinion on how this obvious business communication is allowed under FCC rules.

    Oh, and Ken can't be an injured party when he has no financial loss from not being able to use the system. At all times he was using someone else's repeater. He is financially able to put up his own repeater and talk to all of the same people he did before. As a matter of fact, he has since done just this.

    But one other aspect. The FCC has opinioned that a repeater owner is allowed to limit access to his or her repeater, for ANY reason, at any time, at the repeater owner's discretion. No forms have to filed with the FCC. Don't have to take my word on it, you may ask Laura Smith this if you want to get it from the authoritative source.
     
    K8PG, K2CPR, N9FM and 3 others like this.
  13. WR2E

    WR2E XML Subscriber QRZ Page

    In the legal filing it is stated that other hams, knowing who he is, contacted HIM, after which, in an attempt to remain 'legal', he directed those people to contact him off the air.

    Is this untrue? Half truth? Something else?

    If the tables were turned and you were in his position, WWYD?
     
  14. WB8VLC

    WB8VLC Ham Member QRZ Page

    The sad thing is that with our screwed up legal system and lunatic judges who give unjust rulings, this guy will probably win his suit
     
  15. KW4LN

    KW4LN Ham Member QRZ Page

    Can any subscribers verify the authenticity of this thread?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

ad: MyersEng-1