Repeater Group Lawsuit

Do you know for a fact that he doesn't deserve to?

 

Exactly... He said, she said. All but maybe one or two posters know only what the Shepherds have told them.

 

I have a response to the question you posed in your post. Several years ago a Ham from Dallas was visiting Las Vegas and spotted my antenna when he was driving by and stopped and asked if he could use my HF rig to contact a rare IOTA station that was only going to be on the air for 3 days. I invited him in and he was successful in contacting the station. Since then he has dropped by for a chat every time he and the family visit Las Vegas and we have become friends. So now you know what I did when confronted with the situation you outlined.

 

In the scenario DLR outlined the ham was not making a request but a demand which might be taken to include the implied threat of force.

Sounds like a demand to me.

In your scenario it was a friendly request which you honored; no coercion involved. That's the difference.

 

I'm not wrong as others have mentioned. Yes, I read it and I know "law practicing" when I see it. And it doesn't matter what is alleged or hearsay.

All that matters is that the CONTROL OPERATORS suspect their privately owned equipment is POTENTIALLY being used for uses they don't agree with. Legal or not! It doesn't matter. A control operator is obligated by his Federal License to act. There is no "due process" or any silly crap like that. It's not your equipment, you don't have any say! If the control operator doesn't like it, you don't do it. You don't recall being tested this? There is your FCC jurisdiction. These control operators have no legal requirement to uphold with the users. Don't like it? Don't use somebody else's gear. Go put up your own repeater and use it so sell radios for your business on it. Sour grapes! He's just trying to squeeze some money out of a group of people he thinks has it.

Lawyers take loser cases all of the time. Most lose more than they win. Some folks forget law is a business. And judges prove how ignorant they are every day and there are plenty of cases with more merit being lost every day! Have you ever spent any time online reading many of theses type of decisions? I have. It would scare you to see how judges really think and how personal bias creeps into decisions. Any case that actually gets to a hearing is likely lost. Especially if you are going to argue that the federal government doesn't have some sort of jurisdiction. Many with a lot more money have tried to claim that the FCC doesn't have any jurisdiction over the airwaves. As far as I know, nobody has ever won. Even decency laws over rides freedom of speech. Most cases like this the legal system will allow because that's what the system does.

Also allowing a case to go forward means nothing. All it means is that particular judge thinks there is an argument to be made. Nothing more. In the long run this is stupid and an abuse of our legal system and eventually prove that it's a waste of time. Only the lawyers will make out. Trust me on that one!

IMHO, I think that if this gets too far the FCC will weigh in and put a stop to the whole thing. If this case actually wins, it's the end of ham radio as we know it. What few repeaters that would remain would be truly private. I know it sounds whacky but if the FCC has no jurisdiction due to "abandonment" (which cannot be proven) then the sky is the limit!

Thanks,

Ed

 

Watch it with the "Fat white American" thing. I'm a supporter and considering a donation!

I don't give my car up to you if I let you borrow it or use it. I don't let my neighbor keep everything he borrows! If I get to use your money without giving it back it theft. If it's a "loan" I'm using others money. I'm still expected to pay it back. The logic is broken.

As owners and control operators you are not just allowed, but expected to operate it in a way that is consistent with your license and ethical operation.

Thank you,

Ed

 

At least he wasn't talking about his prostate problems. .... sorry, had to say it.

 

Didn't say you were, did I?

All I've been saying all along is to not blindly believe everything at face value.

If you feel that you've done due diligence and have enough information to make an informed decision, then by all means, have at it!

 

The great thing about the United States is that (currently) we can all get together and banter back and forth. We do not all have to agree, or life would be boring. But, before you become an Amateur Radio operator you have to take a test. You have to know and understand the regulations. Whether you retain that information after you answer the last question and get your license is on you. Anyone in law enforcement knows that ignorance of the law is not a defense. You will not get out of a ticket because you say you did not know that the red sign that says STOP means that you have to come to a complete stop. The same is true with Part 97.205(e), "Limiting the use of a repeater station to only certain user stations is permissible." Just because you don't like it, just because in your view that is anti-Amateur Radio, just because whatever, does not change the fact that if you are asked not to use it, you should just not use it.

The PRN system was built by guys who like to experiment, and it was built at a cost of over $160,000, not including any additional equipment that is needed to make an individual site work or recurring internet and tower site rental costs. Just the backend linking software alone cost just shy of $12,000. Plus we have datacenter costs of about $60 per month. Radio operators are welcomed to use it, but everyone expects them to follow the rules of Part 97. We are not a club, so there are no other rules. No one is going to tell you you talk too much, etc, just use it, have fun and abide by Part 97.

But, it is our belief that it would not be fair to allow one user, especially one who has not contributed anything, not even a dime, to make money off of other peoples hard work and investment of money and time, especially when there ARE other radio shops that have donated tower space AND equipment and do NOT use the system for their business.

If you use someone else's repeater system, and if you do something they don't like and they ask you to not use their system anymore, then you should just not use it. We do not own a monopoly on UHF frequencies. So nothing will stop you from putting up your own, and then do as YOU want to do on your own equipment.

Some have asked why we did not contact the FCC to take enforcement action. To be totally honest, we tried to handle everything quietly and behind closed doors. We had no interest in harming his Motorola business and so we did not want to say anything publicly and possibly embarrass him, and were not looking to have enforcement action on his license. None of us wanted a confrontation. We answered his questions via email, and, since there became a point that there was nothing more to say, we did eventually just stop replying to his messages. All we ever wanted was for him to just not use our system any more. We felt he had the means to put up his own repeater (he owns a Motorola shop, after all, and all of the repeaters are Motorola), he had already received a coordinated repeater pair from SERA at this time, and he had access to tower sites because of his business. He also has a friend in Atlanta that owns the same type of software we use, so he could quickly connect up to his friend's network and get the same range of talkgroups as he had when using the guy in Tennessee's repeater. So really, it did not seem that he would be that put out, and he could sell to his heart's content on his own repeater.

Anyway.

I would like to say that, yes, I am one of those repeater owners being sued (even though Ken has never used my repeaters), and yes, I would like everyone to see it from my side. But I know that is not going to happen. I am okay with that. I am not the original poster who started this article on QRZ, but if we are able to get some people willing donate to help, then I welcome that. If people want to help Ken, that is fine, too. It was interesting seeing the range of views on here. Hopefully it will not degrade too much.

 

The bottom line is interpretation is not relevant. Facts are.

A decision was made to make this public from the side of the defendants. If you (generic, not specific) are not going to present the facts, just an interpretation of them, then it hardly seems appropriate,IMO, for anyone to draw us to a web site that asks for money for defense.

Where's the recording, where's the transcipt(s)?

Surely you( definition, see above) and I are welcome to our opinions, but the facts are key here, and 97.11.(A)(3)(ii) is the heart of the matter.

If law was broken, then the FCC is involved. If the FCC was not asked to be involved, then taking the law into one's own hand is,IMO, a serious matter, and the outcome is , at best, uncertain on the part of the defendants.

The 'personal gain' issue is key. I have mentioned, on occasion, ham equipment I own,for sale. It very much was to be sold for "personal gain". There is nothing proscriptive in Part 97 on 'personal gain'.

My life, in general, is focused via 'personal gain', that then translates to the 'public good'. Because I focus on 'personal gain', my family, my stakeholders, and my communities, benefit. No one loses via my attempt at gain. Furthermore, I am not a 'public burden' as a result of said efforts.

Free market enterprises are driven by 'personal gain'.

You can limit access to your repeater for any reason, sure. If the stated reason is injurious and not based on facts, then you have your reason, and an injured party to boot. This complaint is apparently about the latter.

Again, all the above are my opinions.

IMO it would have been wiser to keep the defendants' issues private and not on a world wide forum such as QRZ.

Your opinion may differ.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Ed,

Everyone is grateful to repeater owners and their efforts. They are unsung and need to be recognized and applauded. What you are , IMO, not seeing is that decisions on exclusion can have, in some cases, injurious consequences to the user(s)-if those reasons for the decision are not accurate.

If the repeater owners had chosen to exclude K1DMR without providing a reason then we would not be having this discussion.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Are you saying that its' better if he didn't know? I find it impossible for him to not know why he was "excluded". That' really makes no sense, to me at least.

Again, you miss the entire point. Repeater operators/control operators have no obligation what-so-ever to any users. Not even if users donate to it's up keep. Really? File lawsuit over something like this? Over a ham radio repeater dispute? Really? Is it April 1 again? HOLY CRAP! GROW UP! First Bernie Sanders and now this? The world really is falling apart!

Now if he operates outside the CONTROL OPERATORS requests (even if determined legal) then they have the right as the owners and OBLIGATION to exclude him. I really can't believe you actually typed that. Are you his lawyer? I hope so!

Thanks,

Ed

 

Somebody needs to let the FCC know they don't have any jurisdiction over the "linking equipment" (As if the linking equipment type has anything to do with accessing the repeaters). This type of legal inaccurate (okay a lie, but we don't use that word in the legal world. It's just an "oversight" or an "error"!) Just because that lawyer says that the FCC doesn't have jurisdiction doesn't mean that is true. That's what that statement says. It doesn't question it. I states it as fact.

https://www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/what-we-do

Now, I don't know what exact technology they are using to link these repeaters. But having considerable experience doing communications for the federal government, I'm gonna go with the FCC probably does have "authority" over whatever technology they are using. It's BS statements like this that get poor cases past some of these ignorant judges. That's why lawyers do them! They don't really care if the case is a loser down the road. Somebody is gonna pay him.

There are a bunch of "legal factual errors" in the document. I started to write them all down, but figured it wasn't worth the time. But most humorous is number 48. Where the Plaintiff admits to having a "commercial side" to his radio business. Really? That alone has me leaning towards the determination that he did do what he was accused of. Even if not, I can picture other repeater users tired of hearing it, then complaining about it. After that mental picture I couldn't stop laughing, then got bored.

My bottom line on this is that there are no damages and he should have accepted the offer. Is your life really ruined by not being able to use repeaters. Heck, I haven't been on one in over twenty years and my life is now probably better for it!

I'm sure it sucks to have something you value so much get taken away. But it was never yours.

I've never heard of any body getting banded for life on one person's "hearsay" and a first offense. Since I love a good debate, I'll be following this.

OBTW, what class of "discrimination" does the plaintiff belong too. Minority, gender, sexual preference, transgender, disabled? What type of "unlawful discrimination" took place? Are there any witnesses to this "discrimination"?

Even K1dmr's QRZ page has spam for his "commercial" radio side!

Thanks,

Ed

 

Don't the repeaters use discriminators?

 

Most do.

If they are not adjusted properly they can have unlawful discrimination.