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

[Hans13]

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.

I wonder if they might have been missing the language in the policy which would indicate that anyone could be dropped from the service at any time, for any reason or no reason. That might be how he is claiming, no matter how far of a reach, that he was a member booted without due process.

Sometimes, it seems, it might be better just to rely on part 97 so that someone doesn't come along and say that an agreement was implied.

 

[paulears]

In the UK, you can ban somebody from anything you like, as long as you didn't do it for a small list of reasons - the usual, race, religion, gender etc etc.

Surely, repeaters - being owned and funded by somebody are private, not public - so access is by permission - which can be withdrawn.

Hell - we still have golf clubs that don't accept women members! We also have women only organisations, and plenty of organisations only open to very specific demographics. I must have lost the US perspective here?

 

[bill4long]

I wonder if they might have been missing the language in the policy which would indicate that anyone could be dropped from the service at any time, for any reason or no reason. That might be how he is claiming, no matter how far of a reach, that he was a member booted without due process.

Sometimes, it seems, it might be better just to rely on part 97 so that someone doesn't come along and say that an agreement was implied.

Maybe, maybe not. But any butt-hurt sociopathic jackass can sue anyone for anything in the USA. Take a look at this:

Man sued for $30K over $40 printer he sold on Craigslist

 

[DaveNF2G]

Why should an amateur repeater group be required to post anything on a website? By that logic, all hams should be required to have a web browser in their station so they can click 'I Agree' before doing any hamming.

 

[Hans13]

Maybe, maybe not. But any butt-hurt sociopathic jackass can sue anyone for anything in the USA. Take a look at this:

Man sued for $30K over $40 printer he sold on Craigslist

Yep. I was reading about that just this morning.

 

[Project25_MASTR]

Why should an amateur repeater group be required to post anything on a website? By that logic, all hams should be required to have a web browser in their station so they can click 'I Agree' before doing any hamming.

Also if that is what he is claiming, there wasn't a written agreement between both parties.

 

[TheSpaceMann]

Maybe, maybe not. But any butt-hurt sociopathic jackass can sue anyone for anything in the USA. Take a look at this:

Man sued for $30K over $40 printer he sold on Craigslist

That's the problem! And now with today's "political correctness" movement in full swing, they jump at the chance to challenge anyone who doesn't allow everyone to be included in everything!!

 

[darunimal]

If the Repeater is "private property" maybe the owner can counter sue him for trespassing, destruction of property and harassment and go for the old $5000 claim limit in civil court.

 

[DaveNF2G]

I think you mean Small Claims Court. There is no limit in a court of equity.

This case does not belong in Small Claims Court because, aside from the money damages, each party wants the court to issue an order directing the other party to do something. SCC cannot do that.

 

[KK4JUG]

I think you mean Small Claims Court. There is no limit in a court of equity.

This case does not belong in Small Claims Court because, aside from the money damages, each party wants the court to issue an order directing the other party to do something. SCC cannot do that.

Small claims court is a civil court. They handle no criminal cases but you're right: that's not the place to take it.

 

[beischel]

The irony. Apparently, this guy has the equivalent IQ of a 15 watt light bulb when it comes to the issues at hand.

97.3 (4) Amateur service. A radiocommunication service for the purpose of self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations carried out by amateurs, that is, duly authorized persons interested in radio technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest.

97.113 (a) No amateur station shall transmit: (3) Communications in which the station licensee or control operator has a pecuniary interest... 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.

Plaintiff is in the regular business of selling commercial Motorola radios, which are not primarily directed to the Amateur Radio market:

"North Georgia Communications is a DBA of Bryant Enterprises, LLC."

https://www.ngacomms.com/

Disclaimer: this post does not constitute legal advice

You do not understand the law. This is for amateur casual radio sales. NOT for a ham who has a radio business to profit from amateur radio by using amateur radio to promote his business. The FCC has been very clear about this.

 

[rescue161]

Someone has awakened the Mummy. Quick, lock the thread!

It is still an on-going issue and will be for a while. I say keep it open as the Go Fund Me page for PRN has still not reached the goal.

 

[bill4long]

You do not understand the law. This is for amateur casual radio sales. NOT for a ham who has a radio business to profit from amateur radio by using amateur radio to promote his business. The FCC has been very clear about this.

I don't think you comprehended my post, because I agree with you.

Read it again.

 

[N4GIX]

I don't think you comprehended my post, because I agree with you.

Read it again.

I had no problem understanding what you wrote the first time around. It's ironic that some folks apparently do not understand what irony is...

 

[KC4RAF]

Please do not close this thread!

Unless people start posting stupid stuff here. This thread is covering the amateur radio spectrum and what may or may not be law applied to us. Keep the thread open please.
And Bill and Bill, agree with you guys; ain't it funny (sometimes) how irony can become irony. (oh, I hurt my head with this post...)

 

[Project25_MASTR]

This is one of those threads where I'm kinda sad another forum was shut down recently as it was a little more concise (due to the people apart of it).

Here it's a case of back and forth, back and forth…someone should really add a poll to it kind of thing.

Anyway, I haven't really heard any new developments in it (primarily because I haven't checked into it) but still remain subscribed to it (as it is still an on-going issue) on the forums I still have access to.

 

[AK9R]

I have no intention of closing the thread as long as the conversation stays on-topic and relevant to the issue at hand. If you just want to complain, please take it elsewhere. If you just don't care about the topic of the thread, nobody is forcing you to read it and your comments are probably not necessary.

 

[bill4long]

I had no problem understanding what you wrote the first time around. It's ironic that some folks apparently do not understand what irony is...

Some people pull off irony better than others. Don't quit your day job.

 

[JDLuke]

Lawsuit: Kenneth L Bryant v NCPRN, et al | PRN



I think this action is bad news for ham radio. It's alleged that Ken Bryant K1DMR was engaging in conversations on the NCPRN network in which he had a pecuniary interest. it's alleged that NCPRN asked him to stop it, and he did not comply. So they revoked his access to the network by banning his ID number and now he's suing them.

As you can see from the complaint, Ken Bryant K1DMR seems to be under the impression that use of someone else's ham radio equipment is a socialist construct, and that repeater and network owners have some obligation to provide "due process" when revoking a user's access to their equipment

I believe this flies in the face of Part 97 and the Commission's long established precedent with respect to control operators having control over who uses their equipment.

Does anyone know what ever happened to this lawsuit?

 

[Citywide173]

Does anyone know what ever happened to this lawsuit?

I believe an agreement was reached and neither party is allowed to discuss the agreement