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

[N8OHU]

The FCC has consistently applied the ability to limit the use of repeaters in the broadest terms. FCC owners are free to exclude anyone they like for any reason or no reason at all. Period. (97.205e) Willfully ignoring a ban will be considered willful interference (97.101d) and not practicing good operating practice. (97.101a)

I'm not arguing that point, even though I don't believe my right to ban someone extends to a talk group or other voice channel that originates on another person's property where that person is not banned. What I am referring to is the fact that they believe that a business owner cannot offer products related to ham radio on occasion if he doesn't mention his business in any way over the radio.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[bill4long]

Okay, I see your point. However, let's flip it around hypothetically. Suppose it had been written thusly:

Written this way the FCC would be restricting my absolute pre-existing right to deny access.

As it is written however, the FCC is merely affirming my pre-existing right to deny access.

Yes, but it's a little more complicated than that because nobody in the Amateur Radio Service "owns" frequencies. But as a practical matter, repeater operators exercise a degree of control over frequencies that simplex operators do not. 97.205e simply affirms the FCC's historical attitude and policy toward repeater operators. Moreover, when banned operators continue to try an use the frequencies typically used by a repeater they are banned from, the FCC has consistently taken the position that the banned operator is causing willful malicious interference and not operating with good amateur practice. (97.101a and 97.101d)

 

[bill4long]

I'm not arguing that point, even though I don't believe my right to ban someone extends to a talk group or other voice channel that originates on another person's property where that person is not banned.

I agree. If I'm linked to a talkgroup or IRLP reflector or Allstar hub (etc), just because I ban an operator from my repeater, it doesn't mean I have the right to enforce the ban across the network, and in practice it wouldn't even be possible on the non-digital-radio systems without the co-operation of all the repeater owners on the system. But DMR is different in that local repeaters can selectively block a given operator's unique DMR-MARC assigned ID number, without blocking the operator on other repeaters, because his unique ID number is programmed into the operator's DMR radio. (DMR is a wonderful thing.)

 

[Hans13]

Okay, I see your point. However, let's flip it around hypothetically. Suppose it had been written thusly:

Written this way the FCC would be restricting my absolute pre-existing right to deny access.

As it is written however, the FCC is merely affirming my pre-existing right to deny access.

I think you unintentionally set up a straw man. That change makes all the difference in the world. We would need to have a lengthy discussion that would lead to questioning whether the FCC can legitimately bar anyone from the radio spectrum. I don't have the resources to carry out such a conversation at this time. I would reserve those resources only for such a time as either my own skin was on the BBQ in court or I was part of a team working on a defense case in the higher courts. Other than that, I don't think this is the place for me to engage in that conversation.

 

[Hans13]

But DMR is different in that local repeaters can selectively block a given operator's unique DMR-MARC assigned ID number, without blocking the operator on other repeaters, because his unique ID number is programmed into the operator's DMR radio. (DMR is a wonderful thing.)

That's the part I have been wondering about since I don't use DMR. As one can be blocked from a repeater but the data is passed on through the other systems, I am left scratching my head as to why this is even a case.

Thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I'm not arguing that point, even though I don't believe my right to ban someone extends to a talk group or other voice channel that originates on another person's property where that person is not banned. What I am referring to is the fact that they believe that a business owner cannot offer products related to ham radio on occasion if he doesn't mention his business in any way over the radio.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

I know a ham who owns a business that manufactures and sells antennas. One one local repeater, he was practically not allowed to say his own name (so other hams took great delight in calling him by name on the air because they thought the trustee was a jerk). His solution was not to use that repeater much and to avoid saying anything that could be interpreted as advertising.

In his case, the repeater trustee did not need to exercise his rights to keep this ham from using the repeater because the ham went out of his way to comply with the trustee's expressed wishes. This constitutes the "good amateur practice" that should have been followed in the NCPRN situation.

 

[SCPD]

NCPRN has taken their website down as a result of this suit

 

[bill4long]

NCPRN has taken their website down as a result of this suit

Why the front page is gone

 

[N8OHU]

I know a ham who owns a business that manufactures and sells antennas. One one local repeater, he was practically not allowed to say his own name (so other hams took great delight in calling him by name on the air because they thought the trustee was a jerk). His solution was not to use that repeater much and to avoid saying anything that could be interpreted as advertising.

In his case, the repeater trustee did not need to exercise his rights to keep this ham from using the repeater because the ham went out of his way to comply with the trustee's expressed wishes. This constitutes the "good amateur practice" that should have been followed in the NCPRN situation.

Right, and I suspect that if Ken had known that the NCPRN felt similarly about business owners, this entire situation would never have happened. But since they never even tried to communicate this respectfully to him, it turned into a circus on them.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[SCPD]

Right, and I suspect that if Ken had known that the NCPRN felt similarly about business owners, this entire situation would never have happened. But since they never even tried to communicate this respectfully to him, it turned into a circus on them.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

It has nothing to do with what PRN thinks

§97.113 Prohibited transmissions.

(a) No amateur station shall transmit:



(3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest, including communications on behalf of an employer, with the following exceptions:


(ii) An amateur operator may notify other amateur operators of the availability for sale or trade of apparatus normally used in an amateur station, provided that such activity is not conducted on a regular basis.

Everyone talks about the the right/privilege of repeater owners the keep people off their machines, they have an OBLIGATION:

§97.103 Station licensee responsibilities.

(a) The station licensee is responsible for the proper operation of the station in accordance with the FCC Rules. When the control operator is a different amateur operator than the station licensee, both persons are equally responsible for proper operation of the station

A prudent repeater owner would prefer to err on the side of caution, I would think

 

[TheSpaceMann]

Interesting that the operators of that notorious LA repeater never seem to have any luck getting the jammers and troublemakers off of their repeater! https://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/14747/web

 

[N8OHU]

Interesting that the operators of that notorious LA repeater never seem to have any luck getting the jammers and troublemakers off of their repeater! https://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/14747/web

Maybe they figure letting the rabble have that one is better than having them on other systems.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[N8OHU]

A prudent repeater owner would prefer to err on the side of caution, I would think

To me, especially if a repeater owner or group like NCPRN has a website, having a listing of acceptable usage of the repeater would be prudent, as would having a way to record the use of the system. That way, if a violation does in fact occur, they can prove it.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Voyager]

I'm not arguing that point, even though I don't believe my right to ban someone extends to a talk group or other voice channel that originates on another person's property where that person is not banned.

So you're saying the rules don't apply to someone's private property? You can emit anything you want on your own property? I think the FCC would not agree. A person cannot "unban" themselves just because they want to do that. Suggesting that is a bit ridiculous. The ban would apply to any location that is within range of the banned repeater(s). As was mentioned, doing otherwise is malicious interference and is illegal in and of itself.

You can be banned from ONE repeater. Being banned does not mean you cannot be banned from any other repeaters. Or, as in this case, from a linked set of repeaters.

It all comes down to the fact that the repeater owners agreed to ban him - period. It applies to all repeaters under their respective licenses.

Talkgroups have nothing to do with it, as they all use the private property of the licensee to transmit the TG.

 

[N8OHU]

So you're saying the rules don't apply to someone's private property? You can emit anything you want on your own property? I think the FCC would not agree.

You can be banned from ONE repeater. Being banned does not mean you cannot be banned from any other repeaters. Or, as in this case, from a linked set of repeaters.

It all comes down to the fact that the repeater owners agreed to ban him - period. It applies to all repeaters under their respective licenses.

No, I don't believe that traffic from another source that happens to contain the voice of someone banned from my repeater constitutes said individual "using" my repeater, since I am not required to carry the traffic by anyone; that I do so is entirely voluntary on my part. However, if the individual in question were to try to use something I had direct control over, (like a repeater, Echolink or IRLP node) that would be different.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

 

[Voyager]

No, I don't believe that traffic from another source that happens to contain the voice of someone banned from my repeater constitutes said individual "using" my repeater,

Put that way, I agree with you. If your repeater is linked to a repeater someone is not banned from, you have to decide which is more important to you - not hearing his voice or being linked to the other repeater. Whichever you decide, Part 97 backs you up.

But in this case he was banned from all the linked repeaters, so that case would not exist.

 

[DaveNF2G]

No, I don't believe that traffic from another source that happens to contain the voice of someone banned from my repeater constitutes said individual "using" my repeater, since I am not required to carry the traffic by anyone; that I do so is entirely voluntary on my part. However, if the individual in question were to try to use something I had direct control over, (like a repeater, Echolink or IRLP node) that would be different.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Let us know how you feel after some other ham puts your license at risk by their on-air activities that are carried in any fashion over your repeater.

 

[Citywide173]

Let us know how you feel after some other ham puts your license at risk by their on-air activities that are carried in any fashion over your repeater.

His point is correct. If the banned party transmits using a repeater that he is authorized (or more appropriately, not banned) for and it transmits through your repeater due to connection to a C-Bridge, radio link, IRLP, echolink, etc., it is not the activity of the banned party. The choice to link was made by the repeater owner not the banned party, and as such, anything that comes through that link is the responsibility of the repeater owner. If it is something that places his license at risk, it is his responsibility to remove the link, and notify the owner of the equipment where the signal originated, as that person's license is at risk. It would then be up to that owner to address the person causing the issue.

In this case, he was banned by the association, but if the system was linked to anything outside the association, and access was gained through that route, it is not the banned party's fault.

 

[1234567890]

Right, and I suspect that if Ken had known that the NCPRN felt similarly about business owners, this entire situation would never have happened. But since they never even tried to communicate this respectfully to him, it turned into a circus on them.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Ken was told several times that his behavior was unacceptable. I don't know who is feeding you this information about how this was all some kind of huge surprise and shock. Considering your ongoing and persistent refusal to understand how Part 97 works I have a real good idea who the source may be

 

[bill4long]

To me, especially if a repeater owner or group like NCPRN has a website, having a listing of acceptable usage of the repeater would be prudent, as would having a way to record the use of the system. That way, if a violation does in fact occur, they can prove it.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk

Repeater owners don't have to prove anything. They can ban anyone they like for no reason at all.

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

The FCC has consistently upheld this in the broadest application.

BTW, NC-PRN did have an acceptable use policy on their website, on the same page that instructed new users how to use the system.