Ham banned from DMR network, sues in state court to regain access

[KC4RAF]

It appears that a member of NCPRN is an

attorney and he posted in their forum about this case. He does bring up some interesting point of views. If any one cares to read this discussion, it's located at:

Forum | PRN

last post as of today.
(but then again, that post can be taken with a grain of salt!)

 

[TheSpaceMann]

That will never ever happen

That's exactly what a friend told me a few days ago about a law allowing transgendered males to go into women's rest rooms!!

 

[gewecke]

That's exactly what a friend told me a few days ago about a law allowing transgendered males to go into women's rest rooms!!

That's going to be a slippery issue in some states. Here if a "He/She" did that, the women would put that mutant in the hospital! :wink: 73, n9zas

 

[Blackswan73]

That's exactly what a friend told me a few days ago about a law allowing transgendered males to go into women's rest rooms!!

It hasn't. It is not a law, just a presidential directive. It has no legal standing.

 

[SARCommCoord]

NC PRN screwed up their defense when they decided to take to the internet to discuss this case.

 

[Voyager]

but I wonder why they didn't extend the courtesy of asking for his side of the story, which is what I would do in a similar case.

How do you know they didn't? From what I've read, this has been going on for over a year.

And same-coverage or not, there is no basis for granting someone access to a repeater just because it's the only one that has it's specific coverage.

 

[N8OHU]

How do you know they didn't? From what I've read, this has been going on for over a year.

We don't know the whole story, only bits and pieces, so who knows for sure beyond the parties involved in the case.

And same-coverage or not, there is no basis for granting someone access to a repeater just because it's the only one that has it's specific coverage.

So you would be okay with loosing contact with friends in an area that only had one accessible DMR repeater if you got banned from using the network that repeater is on, since being banned seems to prevent the use of an outside repeater on a timeslot and talkgroup that is common to both the system you're banned from and the system you can use? That was partly the point I was making with that comment.

 

[Voyager]

If I violated FCC rules, I would man up and be OK with it (not saying this guy definitely did although it appears he may have). BTW, the friend and I would simply use another repeater or another means of communication. There are lots of other repeaters and there are lots of other modes that cover the same areas. If there were no other repeaters, I would consider putting one up.

I've been asked not to use remotely controlled stations on one group's repeaters. Such operation is perfectly legal, but it is their system and I have not used any remotely controlled stations on their repeaters since. That was about 15-20 years ago.

I don't know why they have issues with such stations, but it really doesn't matter. It's their policy and it applies to anyone. People seem to forget whose license it is on the repeater.

Now, turning this around, do you think I should sue them to allow my legal remotely controlled station on their repeaters?
(or defamation due to the ban)

 

[1234567890]

Not unless he had a repeater in every locality in North Carolina where the NCPRN has one, or had access to one owned by another group in that state in those same areas. Did they have the right to ban him? I agree that the rules say they do, but I wonder why they didn't extend the courtesy of asking for his side of the story, which is what I would do in a similar case.

Exactly how are you arriving at the conclusion that "they didn't extend the courtesy of asking for his side of the story?" Because Ken Bryant alleged as much in his lawsuit?

 

[TheSpaceMann]

It hasn't. It is not a law, just a presidential directive. It has no legal standing.

Maybe not yet, but you can be sure that the parties behind it are going to do everything in their power to make sure that it becomes one.

 

[AK9R]

Folks, the topic is about a licensed amateur radio operator being banned from a repeater network. Please stay on topic.

 

[N8OHU]

Folks, the topic is about a licensed amateur radio operator being banned from a repeater network. Please stay on topic.

Agreed, the off-topic comments really belong in a thread in another section of the forum.

Getting back on topic, I think there. is a greater issue here that people aren't seeing. Ken isn't just banned from using his radio on any repeater in their network, but they have said thst his voice cannot be heard on their network when he is talking on any other repeater on a timeslot that their network shares with other networks, in effect saying that him.doing so is the same as using their network.

 

[QDP2012]

Getting back on topic, I think there. is a greater issue here that people aren't seeing. Ken isn't just banned from using his radio on any repeater in their network, but they have said thst his voice cannot be heard on their network when he is talking on any other repeater on a timeslot that their network shares with other networks, in effect saying that him.doing so is the same as using their network.

I'm not an expert on these types of networks, and have not used the one being discussed, so I wonder is the above claim even possible, if the attempted-repeater is not part of the network from which the user is banned? Or, is this an attempt at misdirection in some legal sense?

If the attempted-repeater is part of the network, then it would seem to me that his ban would/should apply.

Edit: He either is accessing their network,or he is not. If they can hear him, then he is; and would seem to be eligible to be banned. If they cannot hear him on their network, then the ban seems to be enforced successfully.

Maybe my lack-of-understanding is the problem in my above statements. Sorry if it is.



Just curious,

 

[bill4long]

I'm not an expert on these types of networks, and have not used the one being discussed, so I wonder is the above claim even possible

Before a ham can get on DMR-MARC affiliated systems, he must obtain a unique user code from DMR-MARC and program that code into his DMR radios. If NC-PRN blocks his DMR code, he will be ignored by their system, and won't be transmitted on their repeaters.

 

[QDP2012]

Before a ham can get on DMR-MARC affiliated systems, he must obtain a unique user code from DMR-MARC and program that code into his DMR radios. All NC-PRN has to do is block his DMR code, and he will be ignored by their system, and won't be transmitted on their repeaters. If he tries to use another code, they can just block that one, etc. Of course, if he tries to circumvent their block, it would constitute a violation of at least two Part 97 regulations, IMO.

That makes sense. To prevent going off-topic, I'll hold my other technology-oriented questions since I'm still learning about the system; and try to learn from the experts' comments here.

Thanks,

 

[Project25_MASTR]

That makes sense. To prevent going off-topic, I'll hold my other technology-oriented questions since I'm still learning about the system; and try to learn from the experts' comments here.

Thanks,

My understanding is that he has been banned at the C-Bridge level for the PRN (and at a few others not even associated with PRN). If PRN's network is setup like others I have seen, their C-Bridges are fed from MARC masters.

Think of it as firewalls in part of a large IP network. His traffic can pass through and around the network but the areas of the network where he has been blocked, his traffic can not go and he is not on the "authorized" list to access from behind the firewall.

 

[1234567890]

My understanding is that he has been banned at the C-Bridge level for the PRN (and at a few others not even associated with PRN). If PRN's network is setup like others I have seen, their C-Bridges are fed from MARC masters.

Think of it as firewalls in part of a large IP network. His traffic can pass through and around the network but the areas of the network where he has been blocked, his traffic can not go and he is not on the "authorized" list to access from behind the firewall.

This is also the crux of the plaintiff's arguments with respect to the jurisdiction of the FCC. That the FCC has no jurisdiction over the actual linking of the ham radio equipment, only the ham radio equipment itself. So the Cbridge network is the purview of the NC State Court while the actual RF is the purview of the FCC is what he has apparently pleaded

 

[bill4long]

This is also the crux of the plaintiff's arguments with respect to the jurisdiction of the FCC. That the FCC has no jurisdiction over the actual linking of the ham radio equipment, only the ham radio equipment itself. So the Cbridge network is the purview of the NC State Court while the actual RF is the purview of the FCC is what he has apparently pleaded

However,

97.3(40) Repeater. An amateur station that simultaneously retransmits the transmission of another amateur station on a different channel or channels.

97.205(e) ... Limiting the use of a repeater to only certain user stations is permissible

The C-Bridge issue is secondary to the more general issue of "limiting the use of a repeater." The fact is, he was banned from using any of the system repeaters so it becomes irrelevant that a C Bridge is used to link the repeaters together. Part 97 says you can limit who uses your repeater (transmitters) without due process. What's the value in accessing the C Bridge if you are banned from transmitting over any of the system's repeater transmitters?

At any rate, his entire argument rests of him being a "member" of a "club." He's going to have to demonstrate that by a preponderance of the evidence in order to win, assuming a fair finding of fact and adjudication by the jury. Then there's the appellate court if the defendants appeal a loss. But I doubt the Plaintiff will win. There is no evidence that I know of, from the statements made by both sides, that would constitute grounds for the claim that he was a "member" of a "club" who was "denied due process."

(This post does not constitute legal advice.)

 

[1234567890]

Agreed on all accounts. I think his lawyer has done his best to torture many aspects to suit his client's needs. I find it absolutely laughable that anyone has the chutzpah to claim this action was filed for the greater benefit of the amateur community.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

This is also the crux of the plaintiff's arguments with respect to the jurisdiction of the FCC. That the FCC has no jurisdiction over the actual linking of the ham radio equipment, only the ham radio equipment itself. So the Cbridge network is the purview of the NC State Court while the actual RF is the purview of the FCC is what he has apparently pleaded

Federal Communications Commission

Keyword, communications.

Telecommunications is the term used to describe communication via a cable or wireless route which wouls give the FCC authority. (Which is most likely the argument the defense will make).

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk