Repeater Group Lawsuit

It doesn't matter why he was denied access to a repeater, or system of repeaters. Repeater owners are free to deny individuals access to their equipment for any reason, per Part 97.

 

Irrelevant to the point I was making Corey.

 

The assumption of it being "up to the courts" or "whose story do we believe" were the points I was referring to.

It's not up to the courts, as the law is clear in the matter. There's no "story to believe", except the owner of the repeater.

 

If it's a court case, then it's up to the courts to decide.

It's not an assumption, it is a fact.

At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter whose story we believe because our opinions don't matter.

You have apparently decided that the NCPRN is the good guy and did the right thing and the plaintiff is the bad guy and did the wrong thing... and that's fine, your opinion.

I don't have all the information, only he said, she said, and I won't form a judgemental opinion based on that.

If you're happy with hearsay, and think it even matters what you think, then fine, be happy.

There's no point arguing and trying to convince me of anything.

I do in fact have an opinion: it is that none of us have enough information to form an opinion.

'nuff said.

 

Their hands are tied. The law states a repeater owner in the amateur service can refuse a user, for any reason.

I've not decided there's any "good guy" or "bad guy". It's been decided for me (By the FCC) that a repeater owner can refuse a user, for any reason. A repeater owner can refuse me access, because I have blue eyes, or am left handed. Because I looked at him/her in an odd way. Or, for no reason at all.

 

Or because you were black, or a woman, or you thpoke with a lithp...
or maybe a black woman that thpeaks with a lithp, triple whammy.

Yeah, I dunno about that, please cite the section of Part 97 where it says this.

Also, I suggest, if you have not done so already, to actually read the court filings that are out there on the net. Understand what the case is REALLY about.

hint: it's not about them denying access to the repeater by itself... there's more to it than that.

 

FCC Part 97.205(e)

(e) Ancillary functions of a repeater that are available to users on the input channel are not considered remotely controlled functions of the station. Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible.

Now, I would assume if it's based on a protected class (Disability, race, religion, veteran status), there might be a case, but it's not because of any of that, or rather there is zero evidence of such.

People can file whatever they like. Doesn't mean the court has free reign to override federal law, without constitutional backing.

The complainant is alleging that NCPRN has caused him monetary damages, due to their limiting his use of a repeater system. Since Part 97.205(e) allows repeater owners to limit usage, and since FCC Part 97.113(a)3 states no communications in which the person has a pecuniary interest is allowed, I'm hard pressed to see how he suffered monetary damages by not being allowed to use an amateur repeater system...

 

I feel as if this is badly written and that it doesn't mean that they can exclude use of a repeater for people with blue eyes, or tattoos.

I believe that it means if they so choose, a repeater can be 'closed', and available only for use by club members, as one example.

I think it's a 'reputation' thing. If I were talking 5h1t about you publicly, tarnishing your reputation, and that caused people to avoid you and a business you run, that would be causing you monetary loss.

I suspect that's where that allegation comes from... but there are other points as well.

 

It can limit it's use to certain people, which might be "Everyone but you".

No reputation harmed that would cause a pecuniary loss in a service that has no pecuniary utility. People might think you're a crappy ham, but then again, suing a group of repeater operators, forcing at least one to shut down their repeater would do the very same thing.

 

Which is why I believe it is poorly worded regulation and that particular case is not the INTENT of the rule.

Like I said, if people were talking 5h1t about you, and you had a business, and you lost business because peoples opinions of you were swayed such that they avoided patronizing your business, that would be pecuniary loss. It doesn't matter if ham radio in and of itself has no "pecuniary utility", if it tarnishes his reputation such that those who may otherwise have patronized his business do NOT, well... there's [part of, because there is still more to it] the case.

I can't disagree with that... and I feel I need to remind you that I am taking no sides. I don't know any of those people and feel that the information that has been presented is far too 'one sided' and 'hearsay' to even form an opinion. I'm keeping an open mind until there is more information (if we ever even learn the outcome).

 

I suppose clarifying the law to state specifically who must not be banned would end everyone's whining about all the dead repeaters.

It would probably make a lot of curmudgeons happy; there wouldn't be anymore repeaters whatsoever.

 

NO NO NO. IMO, ITS ABOUT LIBEL OR SLANDER. Damages allegedly caused by LIBEL OR SLANDER. See, for example, 32) in the formal complaint...

Why don't you GET this?

 

In layman's terms: "... talking 5h1t ..."

Because they haven't actually READ and COMPREHENDED the entirety (if any) of the filing.

 

Di DAH dit

 

Folks, if the court decides something, its immaterial what the law said, the court decision will change it depending on the type of court. A Federal court, if the case goes there, has a wide area, a district, that court can make decisions about the law and enforce it. After that, its immaterial what Part 97 says. That will get changed.