Repeater Group Lawsuit

As a disinterested party, IMO there is nothing that K1DMR said on the repeater, based on the info provided, that is at odds with Part 97.

Furthermore, I have reviewed K1DMR's web page and see nothing that is immoral, illegal, or unethical, nor (based on my understanding) contrary to the terms and conditions for use on QRZ.com.

K1DMR, based on this information, seems to be running a small American business which, IMO, is at the least being maligned by some.

I wish him well and luck in resolving the complaint.

73
Chip W1YW

 

He should let other hams advertise for him and not be doing it himself over the air.

There was a ham store in Houston years ago that got shutdown because of over the air advertising.

Maybe the rules have changed, But common sense still rules.

 

What evidence is there for him advertising over the air?

 

I think it is hear say and internet made up stuff.

I just follow internet forum protocol, and pass the message.

 

It seems this is getting blown way out of proportion.
If the gentleman was activly selling radio equipt from his business, then the fcc
Says they are responsible, and have right to terminate his communications. I think this most likely goes beyond that. This will be an interesting case. Someone really ticked the guy off, got him to go this far.

 

The great thing about the Zed is you need not practice law to participate in the "court of public opinion" so long as you keep in mind it is only that.

 

It is not unusual for internet comments to be used in these civil cases. It is all public.

 

I too wish K1DMR well in his pursuit of justice. I don't see evidence of reasonable cause to exclude him. Just apologize, settle the lawsuit, without silly conditions from either party, and move on. Let other authorities do their jobs if ever necessary.

This sentiment comes as someone else who years ago also experienced being bullied and blacklisted, denied access via EchoLink to a Minneapolis area FM repeater, simply because their management thought conversations with old friends while mobile on their daily commutes contained content and operating style which in an explanatory email were described as being in a (regulatory) "gray area" because of their personal nature, performed in a fast break manner "similar to using a (commercial) telephone ..."

WTH? The repeater owner had the reputation as a "control freak" op. Now SK, hopefully he found some peace.

73 de John - WØPV

PS - Note the following FCC decision from 2009,

6 See 47 C.F.R. § 97.105(a). Questions concerning the impact of the operational decisions of a repeater control operator, licensee, or trustee, such as limiting the repeater’s use to certain stations, should be addressed to the local frequency coordinator so that repeater problem can be expeditiously dealt with at the local level by people with first-hand knowledge of the facts.

https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-2559A1.pdf

 

While being a repeater owner myself, This paragraph bothers me somewhat. It "appears" the PRN is a bit twisted because this guy is using their repeater system to profit from and in turn not offering to helping out on the PRN's need for contributions. This comes off as "because he will not provide monetary assistance he can not use the system for his monetary gain."

While that may not have been the intended meaning, it sure comes off that way. I am in full agreement, that any privately owned repeater is at the mercy of the FCC to abide by Part 97, but that is where the absolute rules stop. It becomes the repeater owner or control operator's responsibility to ensure the repeater is operating within the law. If it falls out of that area, then the Control Op (presumably the owner) must, as soon as they are aware of it, cease all transmission of same. It clearly states that a Control Op is responsible for all transmissions that repeater makes and is definitely a question in the current Extra Class question pool.

I also am in agreement with if he wishes to continue the practice of "drumming up" possible sales opportunities, that is not the place to be doing it. And if he wishes to continue trolling for business contacts, he should put his own repeater up and use it however he so chooses. If PRN has stated, in writing, no use for personal gain in any form is authorized in their usage agreement then, and because, the privately owned repeaters can dictate usage and policy as thy so deem so long as reference to and inclusion of Part 97 is included in said agreement then each owner may dictate the rules of their individual repeater as they so choose.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it...

 

You seem to be presuming him guilty based on hearsay... no?

 

Ouch. That sure reads like the PRN expects "pay for play". And a bit greedy with their demands.

The PRN web site FAQ staes, "These repeater owners have linked together to help create a network because they believe in the same idea: that having a wide-area linked digital radio system can be fun and beneficial." (for whom?)

With that in mind and withholding judgement on any compliance to FCC regs issues, what I can't understand is why the PRN would then hassle a user who's activities could ultimately be supportive to the group, ie, enabling its growth by helping expand the number of DMR users, who some day may choose to contribute to it monetarily.

Sure seems like rivals in regionally competitive businesses, DMR radio shops, not playing well with others.

Sigh.

 

Whether open, closed, or private, repeaters are still legally private property. The FCC has upheld the right of a repeater owner to "ban" an individual for improper (most repeaters have a list of etiquette) or illegal use. Clearly, use of the repeater for pecuniary interest (i.e., retail selling) is illegal; only occasional use between amateurs is permissible, subject to the repeater owner's decision. This came up when the "pizza box" ruling was that ordering a pizza over the air was allowed, but the FCC ruled that a repeater owner COULD prohibit such a practice.

 

Again, you are presuming guilty vis a vis Part 97.113.

Why don't many of you get this---

Do you think K1DMR's attorney would file a formal complaint in which his client admitted to an illegal infraction? Hardly.

The complaint filed with the court makes it clear that K1DMR's position is that he operated LEGALLY under Part 97.113, and that this was not a hand waving interpretation of the legal meaning of Part 97.113.

LOOK AT 97.113 (A)(3) (ii). That defines the legal basis under which, IMO, K1DMR contends that there was NO illegal use of the repeaters by him.

Do you UNDERSTAND that?

IF there was improper/illegal use then WHY WASN'T the FCC alerted??????

Why can no one answer that question?

 

Point that keeps being ignored: Since the beginning of the repeater era in the 1960's, the FCC has upheld 1. Closed repeaters 2. membership only repeaters 3. fee for access repeaters and finally 4. the right of repeater owners to chose who may use their repeaters.

The PRN owners may refuse access to the ham for any or no reason. He has no "right" to use their repeaters. He has no right of due process.


Jeez, stop pretend reality doesn't exist.

 

The complaint is about the reason, not the right.

73
Chip W1YW