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

[Project25_MASTR]

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.

But the ban in regarding the current case is system wide, not singular.

Remeber, the C-Bridge acts like a firewall. The plaintiff has been blacklisted, his connection is dropped upon trying to authenticate. If he is outside the network on the larger MARC network, the firewall (C-Bridge) doesn't pass his traffic onto the PRN network.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[DaveNF2G]

Yes, but who defines what "use" is, and who decides what is or is not "circumventing a ban"?

The FCC defines its own regulations, which is why the NC court should dismiss those portions of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

 

[bill4long]

Yes, but who defines what "use" is, and who decides what is or is not "circumventing a ban"?

In practice, "use" means the ability to transmit on a repeater's transmitter, and the ability to control the repeater equipment.

Repeater owners may block someone from transmitting on their transmitters and block them from controlling the repeater equipment.

 

[SCPD]

....

 

[1234567890]

Yes, but who defines what "use" is, and who decides what is or is not "circumventing a ban"?

This question has been asked and answered

Quoth the FCC

"Section 97.205(e) merely enables a repeater licensee or control operator to control the repeater, so that he or she can ensure the repeater is properly operated as required by Section 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."

 

[NavyBOFH]

After reading this whole thing, I can't do anything but laugh. I have been messaged by him SEVERAL times based off Facebook Group posts where I showed interest in any sort of Motorola product or trying to conduct some research. His pricing? Meh. I can get the same pricing from many other Motorola ham-friendly shops. His attitude was that of someone who thinks he is God's gift to amateur radio, and this lawsuit is further proof of it.

As someone who has a vested interest in SCHEART (and thus NC PRN) I hope this gets dismissed since one of the listed defendants can very easily be my employer. We don't need any bad press.

 

[N8OHU]

This question has been asked and answered

Quoth the FCC

"Section 97.205(e) merely enables a repeater licensee or control operator to control the repeater, so that he or she can ensure the repeater is properly operated as required by Section 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."

So basically the FCC said that the rules govern the individual repeaters and anything else is up.to the repeater coordinating bodies in each state or region. And that if a repeater coordination committee says network connections by a banned user are disallowed, that's the end of it?

 

[AK9R]

I'm not sure the frequency coordinators would or should get involved in this. They have no regulation or enforcement powers. Their sole role under Part 97 is to recommend frequencies and operating and technical parameters for repeaters in their area in order to avoid or minimize interference. In the event of interference between repeaters, where one is coordinated and the other is not, Part 97 defers to the coordinated repeater.

 

[N8OHU]

I'm not sure the frequency coordinators would or should get involved in this. They have no regulation or enforcement powers. Their sole role under Part 97 is to recommend frequencies and operating and technical parameters for repeaters in their area in order to avoid or minimize interference. In the event of interference between repeaters, where one is coordinated and the other is not, Part 97 defers to the coordinated repeater.

I agree, but I'm trying to find out if anyone knows for certain if using another repeater that happens to be connected through a link to a neutral party's hardware (an IRLP reflector, Echolink Conference Server or a DMR-MARC c-Bridge) is considered by the FCC to be using a repeater (or network of repeaters) that someone is banned from.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[ElroyJetson]

Cutting straight to the chase, the question at hand is, is it legal to prevent a licensed amateur operating on frequencies he is licensed for, from using a radio that utilizes a legal protocol, on a radio system operating legally within that service?

The implications could be far reaching. If the amateur in question wins in court, it could eliminate the concept of the private repeater entirely, as far as amateur radio is concerned.

 

[N8OHU]

The implications could be far reaching. If the amateur in question wins in court, it could eliminate the concept of the private repeater entirely, as far as amateur radio is concerned.

Not at all, considering that I'm sure most folks would agree that a private repeater system is one that tightly controls who has access to it, and expects those that use it to monetarily support one of the repeater owners. A truly private system will not have ANY external connections that could be used by someone not a member of one of the repeater groups that sponsor one or more of the repeaters. NCPRN uses the term as part of their name, but does not fit the generally accepted definition in other ways, instead being a loosely affiliated group of privately owned repeaters. More to the point, in a recent post on their forum, they admit they cannot prove conclusively that the plaintiff did what they claim he did by providing an audio recording of the conversation in question, which I had suspected since the judge refused to dismiss the case.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[bill4long]

Cutting straight to the chase, the question at hand is, is it legal to prevent a licensed amateur operating on frequencies he is licensed for, from using a radio that utilizes a legal protocol, on a radio system operating legally within that service?

Repeater owners can limit who uses their repeaters. They cannot dictate who uses frequencies. Nobody owns frequencies. A banned ham could still attempt to use the repeaters (by using the input frequency) or causing trouble by transmitting on the output frequency, but historically the FCC considers this against good amateur practice, and worse, they consider it to be willful interference.

The implications could be far reaching. If the amateur in question wins in court, it could eliminate the concept of the private repeater entirely, as far as amateur radio is concerned.

Doubtful. The state civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

There are two issues in play here, A) limiting the use of a repeater, and B) access to the C-Bridge which links a bunch of repeaters together and bridges to the global DMR-MARC network.

The Plaintiff clearly has no grounds for issue A. This is solely under the jurisdiction of the FCC, and historically the FCC supports repeater operators limiting user access, no matter what the reason, full stop.

As for issue B, the Plaintif contends that he "joined" a "club" and thereby is a "member" with right to "due process" regarding access to the repeater system, according to North Carolina statutes that governs clubs and associations. NC-PRN clearly states on the their website that that they are not a "club", they have no "members", no dues were paid, etc. So the North Carolina statute governing Plaintiffs assertion does not govern.

Details were not given in the Plaintiff's Complaint that grounds his assertion that he "joined" a club. Was it simply a matter of getting a DMR-MARC ID and then programming his ID and the local NC-PRN repeaters access info into his radio (Frequency, slot, color code, talkgroups, etc)? If it was nothing more than that, NC-PRN is clearly in the right. Thousands of hams have done the same thing, including myself, with my local DMR repeaters, and the Hoosier DMR network, and I in no way believe that I ever "joined a club" just because I gained access to the DMR system, nor do I have any other grounds to think so, and I'm sure many people would be willing to testify to that in court.

(This post is my opinion only and does not constituent legal advice)

 

[Citywide173]

More to the point, in a recent post on their forum, they admit they cannot prove conclusively that the plaintiff did what they claim he did by providing an audio recording of the conversation in question, which I had suspected since the judge refused to dismiss the case.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

They would be smart to save the archives from the Broadcastify feed in the future.

NCPRN Digital Amateur Network

 

[ElroyJetson]

Most private repeaters limit access by not telling you what PL/DPL tone they use to access it.

It is not illegal for me to transmit on any amateur frequency for which I am licensed (that's all of them, being an Extra....) and if I find your PL or DPL tone on your private repeater your only recourse is to shut down the repeater or attempt to change the tone again and hope I won't be bothered to find it again.

If I get into your private repeater simply by transmitting your access tones, nobody can possibly say with any credibility whatsoever that I broke the law as there was nothing illegal about my transmission.

That is relevant to the case. You can't exclude an amateur from transmitting anything that is not prohibited on the amateur bands he is licensed for. Transmitting access codes to an amateur radio network is not a prohibited transmission as per the FCC.

I don't think that the FCC can compel someone to reveal or publish the access codes or data required to use a private radio network within the amateur bands, and I don't believe that any competent judge or jury would be able to say that it is illegal for me to access your private network operating on amateur frequencies regardless of whether I'm a member of your club or not.


On a personal level, I don't hold with the idea that there should be any exclusivity in amateur radio anyway. But for the purposes of this discussion I would prefer to otherwise avoid interjecting any
personal biases or emotionally based arguments into it. I'm trying to stick to relevant facts and what
the FCC says regarding what transmissions are and what transmissions are not permitted in the amateur bands.

 

[Citywide173]

It is not illegal for me to transmit on any amateur frequency for which I am licensed (that's all of them, being an Extra....) and if I find your PL or DPL tone on your private repeater your only recourse is to shut down the repeater or attempt to change the tone again and hope I won't be bothered to find it again.

If I get into your private repeater simply by transmitting your access tones, nobody can possibly say with any credibility whatsoever that I broke the law as there was nothing illegal about my transmission.

That is relevant to the case. You can't exclude an amateur from transmitting anything that is not prohibited on the amateur bands he is licensed for. Transmitting access codes to an amateur radio network is not a prohibited transmission as per the FCC.

This is absolutely correct, the FIRST time you do it. If you are informed by a repeater owner that he/she does not want you to utilize their repeater, it becomes willful interference the next time you do it. The FCC makes this abundantly clear in the rules, and expects amateurs to comply.

 

[bill4long]

Most private repeaters limit access by not telling you what PL/DPL tone they use to access it. It is not illegal for me to transmit on any amateur frequency for which I am licensed (that's all of them, being an Extra....) and if I find your PL or DPL tone on your private repeater your only recourse is to shut down the repeater or attempt to change the tone again and hope I won't be bothered to find it again. If I get into your private repeater simply by transmitting your access tones, nobody can possibly say with any credibility whatsoever that I broke the law as there was nothing illegal about my transmission. That is relevant to the case. You can't exclude an amateur from transmitting anything that is not prohibited on the amateur bands he is licensed for. Transmitting access codes to an amateur radio network is not a prohibited transmission as per the FCC.

You are seriously misinformed. As one who has been involved with this issue for 36+ years, I can tell you that the FCC has consistently upheld repeater owners' right to limit who uses the repeater for any reason whatsoever, and by mere declaration that someone is not allowed. Secret PL tones or anything like that are not required.

When a repeater owner explicitly bans a particular operator, most repeater operators will send a certified letter to the party as proof of a ban, but this is not required. And while nobody owns a frequency, if after being banned you in any way interfere with the operation of the repeater, by either ignoring the ban, or doing things like transmitting on the input or output of the repeaters frequency, for reasons other than an emergency, the FCC will consider you in violation of "good amateur practice" (97.101a) and, worse, willful or malicious interference. (97.101d)

Bottom line, if you are banned from a repeater, unless it's an emergency, leave the repeater alone and find another frequency to talk on.

 

[ElroyJetson]

I feel rather fortunate in the respect that in my some 25-odd years with my ticket, I've never encountered that rule before or had any occasion to do so.

But then again, it's also good to learn something new and (potentially) useful.

 

[SCPD]

They would be smart to save the archives from the Broadcastify feed in the future.

NCPRN Digital Amateur Network

They don't need to prove anything other than he was told not to use the system, which is what he is complaining about. If even if he had joined a repeater club he still wasn't buying a service, that would be against the rules.

 

[N8OHU]

Repeater owners can limit who uses their repeaters. They cannot dictate who uses frequencies. Nobody owns frequencies. A banned ham could still attempt to use the repeaters (by using the input frequency) or causing trouble by transmitting on the output frequency, but historically the FCC considers this against good amateur practice, and worse, they consider it to be willful interference.



Doubtful. The state civil court has no jurisdiction in the matter.

There are two issues in play here, A) limiting the use of a repeater, and B) access to the C-Bridge which links a bunch of repeaters together and bridges to the global DMR-MARC network.

The Plaintiff clearly has no grounds for issue A. This is solely under the jurisdiction of the FCC, and historically the FCC supports repeater operators limiting user access, no matter what the reason, full stop.

As for issue B, the Plaintif contends that he "joined" a "club" and thereby is a "member" with right to "due process" regarding access to the repeater system, according to North Carolina statutes that governs clubs and associations. NC-PRN clearly states on the their website that that they are not a "club", they have no "members", no dues were paid, etc. So the North Carolina statute governing Plaintiffs assertion does not govern.

Details were not given in the Plaintiff's Complaint that grounds his assertion that he "joined" a club. Was it simply a matter of getting a DMR-MARC ID and then programming his ID and the local NC-PRN repeaters access info into his radio (Frequency, slot, color code, talkgroups, etc)? If it was nothing more than that, NC-PRN is clearly in the right. Thousands of hams have done the same thing, including myself, with my local DMR repeaters, and the Hoosier DMR network, and I in no way believe that I ever "joined a club" just because I gained access to the DMR system, nor do I have any other grounds to think so, and I'm sure many people would be willing to testify to that in court.

(This post is my opinion only and does not constituent legal advice)

There is a third issue as well; remember that they offered to remove the ban if he stopped trying to sell radios and refrained from "promoting" his business on their system. Let's say for grins and giggles that he had done so, and someone heard him on DMR-MARC Worldwide mentioning that he had a radio or two for sale. Could they ban him from their system again, even though he's clearly using someone else's repeater? His reason for wanting the written agreement that they refused is, as I see it, so that his actions on another user's system cannot result in being banned from theirs.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[bill4long]

There is a third issue as well; remember that they offered to remove the ban if he stopped trying to sell radios and refrained from "promoting" his business on their system. Let's say for grins and giggles that he had done so, and someone heard him on DMR-MARC Worldwide mentioning that he had a radio or two for sale. Could they ban him from their system again, even though he's clearly using someone else's repeater? His reason for wanting the written agreement that they refused is, as I see it, so that his actions on another user's system cannot result in being banned from theirs.

He's not just merely "using someone else's repeater" if his voice comes out over NC-PRN repeaters. He's "using" any repeater that is transmitting his signal regardless of how this is accomplished. NC-PRN has every right to keep him off their transmitters by any means that they exercise control over. They don't have to the right to compel anyone else to ban the Plaintiff.

In an analog network, such as IRLP or Allstar, the repeater owner wanting to block a particular station would not be able to selectively block him. This is not technically possible. The owner has a few options: he could asked the IRLP/Allstar hub/reflector owner to block the particular person (which the offender may not comply with, opening himself up to FCC sanctions), or they could simply disconnect from the network when the offender is talking.

In a digital network, and in DMR-MARC and NC-PRN in particular in this situation, all the NC-PRN sub-system owner need to do is block the digital ID of the Plaintiff. Problem solved. Plaintiff can attempt to circumvent, but that opens Plaintiff up to FCC sanctions.

(This post is my opinion and is not legal advice)