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

[bill4long]

I think his lawyer has done his best to torture many aspects to suit his client's needs.

Right. And the lawyers get paid regardless

 

[bill4long]

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).

Bottom line, the defendant can ban operators using the repeaters on a whim without due process, and there's no reason to use the C Bridge if you're banned from the repeaters, and there's no evidence (that I can tell) that the Plaintiff was "member" of a "club" who has the right to "due process", which is in their Complaint. I haven't seen the defendants Answer to the Complaint. Trying to get a copy. It's public information. Would be interesting to see what's in the Answer.

 

[N8OHU]

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,

NCPRN gets four talk groups on time slot one from an external c-Bridge; At the time K1DMR was banned, these were TG1 DMR-MARC Worldwide, TG3 DMR-MARC North America and two User Activated groups. These groups are available to any repeater group in North America that wants access to them. If he talks on any other repeater on either Worldwide or North America, his voice could be heard on all repeaters connected, buy does it mean he is using the NCPRN system in any way other than incidentally, if they were not blocking his DMR ID from using their system?

 

[QDP2012]

NCPRN gets four talk groups on time slot one from an external c-Bridge; At the time K1DMR was banned, these were TG1 DMR-MARC Worldwide, TG3 DMR-MARC North America and two User Activated groups. These groups are available to any repeater group in North America that wants access to them. If he talks on any other repeater on either Worldwide or North America, his voice could be heard on all repeaters connected, buy does it mean he is using the NCPRN system in any way other than incidentally, if they were not blocking his DMR ID from using their system?

That makes sense, too. So, if I'm understanding correctly, the c-Bridge is the point where NCPRN meets the world, which would explain why NCPRN might want to enact a ban at the c-Bridge layer/level/boundary; otherwise, the banned user would still be accessing NCPRN.

If the user is banned at the c-Bridge, does that prevent the user from using other non-NCPRN systems that also connect to the same c-Bridge, or is NCPRN the only one using that c-Bridge, and therefore its sole authority?

Thanks,

 

[Voyager]

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

I made this point previously.

True, the C-Bridge itself MIGHT not fall under Part 97, but it IS under the FCC's jurisdiction. Remember: The FCC is also in charge of the internet, and I would bet the C-Bridge uses the internet for its linking.

The ramifications of this ruling would be staggering. Could he then sue for access to a Cellular network if he was banned (shut off) for not paying his bill?

 

[1234567890]

NCPRN gets four talk groups on time slot one from an external c-Bridge; At the time K1DMR was banned, these were TG1 DMR-MARC Worldwide, TG3 DMR-MARC North America and two User Activated groups. These groups are available to any repeater group in North America that wants access to them. If he talks on any other repeater on either Worldwide or North America, his voice could be heard on all repeaters connected, buy does it mean he is using the NCPRN system in any way other than incidentally, if they were not blocking his DMR ID from using their system?

You mean other than using their repeater, duplexer, feedline, antenna, electricity, internet, router, switch, site they pay rent, time building & maintaining, the cbridge they paid for etc?

Other than these incidentals I don't think he is using the NCPRN system

Sir, do you own a repeater?

 

[DaveNF2G]

Telecommunications is interstate commerce. I don't believe the State of NC has jurisdiction over any of the technical issues of this case, although the plaintiff could allege various torts under state law.

 

[wb6uqa]

We had a repeater in So. Cal. that got a restraining order in court against a lid operator.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

I made this point previously.

True, the C-Bridge itself MIGHT not fall under Part 97, but it IS under the FCC's jurisdiction. Remember: The FCC is also in charge of the internet, and I would bet the C-Bridge uses the internet for its linking.

The ramifications of this ruling would be staggering. Could he then sue for access to a Cellular network if he was banned (shut off) for not paying his bill?

A C-Bridge is essentially a server (more a VOIP server) that fools the repeaters into thinking they have less than 16 connected together. Motorola put a 15 repeater limit (1 master, 15 slaves) in their firmware for conventional systems.

 

[N8OHU]

You mean other than using their repeater, duplexer, feedline, antenna, electricity, internet, router, switch, site they pay rent, time building & maintaining, the cbridge they paid for etc?

Other than these incidentals I don't think he is using the NCPRN system

Networked systems have not generally permitted the owner of a repeater to forbid the voice of a banned user from appearing on the system if the individual in question was using a repeater owned by some else that just so happened to be connected to the same third party node; DMR is, as far as I am aware, the first mode used in ham radio that permits this to happen. Even D-STAR, as far as I know, only disables access to the repeater or network node (reflectors) owned by the person that banned the user; I am not aware of any feature that allows a repeater that a specific user is banned from using to block the voice signal if the banned individual is on another repeater.

Sir, do you own a repeater?

Yes, and I do not believe the FCC rules give me the authority to do anything more than block the user from using his radio to directly access my repeater, or lock him out of nodes associated with my repeater that are under my direct control.

 

[bill4long]

Networked systems have not generally permitted the owner of a repeater to forbid the voice of a banned user from appearing on the system if the individual in question was using a repeater owned by some else that just so happened to be connected to the same third party node; DMR is, as far as I am aware, the first mode used in ham radio that permits this to happen. Even D-STAR, as far as I know, only disables access to the repeater or network node (reflectors) owned by the person that banned the user; I am not aware of any feature that allows a repeater that a specific user is banned from using to block the voice signal if the banned individual is on another repeater.



Yes, and I do not believe the FCC rules give me the authority to do anything more than block the user from using his radio to directly access my repeater, or lock him out of nodes associated with my repeater that are under my direct control.

In this case, as I understand it, NCPRN owns the C Bridge in question, so they can block whatever DMR ID they want from coming or going. The Plaintiff is not blocked from using DMR in general or the DMR-MARC global network in general. He is free to setup his own system that connects to the global DMR-MARC system or find another DMR system/repeater that links to the DMR-MARC system that has no interest in banning him, that does not go thru the NCPRN system. By the time he's done with his legal fees, I suspect that will have been the more cost effective solution. Esp since he's apparently an authorized Motorola dealer.

(This post does not constitute legal advice)

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

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.

I wonder if an argument can be made that the unique user ID numbers are property of NC-PRN? There are a finite number of ID's. I think this argument may have already been made in some other telecom related dispute.

 

[N8OHU]

He is free to setup his own system that connects to the global DMR-MARC system or find another DMR system/repeater that links to the DMR-MARC system that has no interest in banning him, that does not go thru the NCPRN system. By the time he's done with his legal fees, I suspect that will have been the more cost effective solution. Esp since he's apparently an authorized Motorola dealer.

(This post does not constitute legal advice)

He does in fact own a DMR repeater in North Carolina; whether he had it before he was banned from NCPRN isn't known, nor is it relevant, in my opinion. What is relevant to my question is whether or not the FCC rules give them the authority to completely block his voice from ever appearing on their repeaters when he is operating on someone else's repeater on another c-Bridge on a time slot shared by the other network and NCPRN, since the technology in use permits it.

 

[bill4long]

I wonder if an argument can be made that the unique user ID numbers are property of NC-PRN? There are a finite number of ID's. I think this argument may have already been made in some other telecom related dispute.

Nope. Any DMR subsystem, such as NC-PRN, that is a part of the global DMR-MARC system uses DMR-MARC IDs for any radios that use the system. Each ham operator must request an assigned ID from DMR-MARC and then programs that ID into his DMR radios. This uniquely identifies that particular ham's radios on the system global DMR-MARC system including any affiliate systems like NC-PRN.

Here's the website to get a DMR-MARC ID for yourself if you need one:

DMR-MARC Network

While you're there, check out the main page for information on the global DMR-MARC that NC-PRN is a part of.

Here is the NC-PRN page that tells operators where to go to get their unique ID from DMR-MARC:

http://ncprn.net/?page_id=28

Bottom line, NC-PRN does not "own" the IDs. DMR-MARC does. The IDs are assigned by DMR-MARC and kept in their database.

 

[bill4long]

He does in fact own a DMR repeater in North Carolina; whether he had it before he was banned from NCPRN isn't known, nor is it relevant, in my opinion. What is relevant to my question is whether or not the FCC rules give them the authority to completely block his voice from ever appearing on their repeaters when he is operating on someone else's repeater on another c-Bridge on a time slot shared by the other network and NCPRN, since the technology in use permits it.

The rule is simple and clear:

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

The FCC has always applied this in the broadest way possible. Owners and control operators have the right to limit any operator from using their repeater, regardless of the technical details. Full stop. Operators who have been banned have no right to circumvent the clear intent of that rule. If an operator is banned from using a repeater, and that repeater is on a network, the repeater owner can use measures to keep the banned operator from coming in from the network and using their repeater by transmitting over it.

(This post does not constitute legal advice)

 

[1234567890]

He does in fact own a DMR repeater in North Carolina; whether he had it before he was banned from NCPRN isn't known, nor is it relevant, in my opinion. What is relevant to my question is whether or not the FCC rules give them the authority to completely block his voice from ever appearing on their repeaters when he is operating on someone else's repeater on another c-Bridge on a time slot shared by the other network and NCPRN, since the technology in use permits it.

Hold on guy. Who are you or anyone else to tell NCPRN what traffic (or who it belongs to) that they must carry? You've already acknowledged the FCC rules plainly provide that repeater owners have an absolute right to control who accesses their system..... It makes no difference where his call originates........only where it terminates.......

 

[Hans13]

I have been trying to find the DMR MARC Network terms of service. I wonder if buried in there isn't the requirement that all data be passed through. What about the software licensing terms; do they require that all data be passed?

In shared networks, it is almost always a requirement that data be passed to maintain the integrity of the network. Blocking or manipulating data somewhere along the stream could create big problems in regards to long term network usability and reliability.

 

[1234567890]

delete

 

[N8OHU]

The rule is simple and clear:

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

The FCC has always applied this in the broadest way possible. Owners and control operators have the right to limit any operator from using their repeater, regardless of the technical details. Full stop. Operators who have been banned have no right to circumvent the clear intent of that rule. If an operator is banned from using a repeater, and that repeater is on a network, the repeater owner can use measures to keep the banned operator from coming in from the network and using their repeater by transmitting over it.

(This post does not constitute legal advice)

Yes, but who defines what "use" is, and who decides what is or is not "circumventing a ban"? You and I could, and do, disagree on those two points, so ultimately what the FCC has said in cases where a banned user has been on someone else's repeater and that system is connected to an Echolink Conference Server or IRLP Reflector at the same time as the system he is banned from is would be an indication of what would apply in this case.

 

[TheSpaceMann]

We had a repeater in So. Cal. that got a restraining order in court against a lid operator.

Was that W6NUT, the infamous 435 repeater?