NCPRN lawsuit settled.

Status
Not open for further replies.

N4GIX

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 27, 2015
Messages
1,902
Location
Hammond, IN
Good. Hopefully everyone has learned from this very unfortunate incident.
 

MSS-Dave

Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
360
Location
Generally Central Florida
The lawsuit is over. The court issued a gag order, & both parties were told not to discuss the outcome, but the NCPRN was required to post that Ken Bryant's access to the system has been restored.
Important Update on Lawsuit | PRN
Where in that message on the NCPRN website does it say that NCPRN was REQUIRED to post Bryant's access had been restored?

Do you have inside info despite a gag order on both parties? Who's talking?

If restored access was a forced part of the settlement, that STILL leaves the door open for any butthurt ham who is asked / forced / ID blocked from any repeater BY THE OWNER, stand alone or network linked system, to sue claiming any sort of malady or "discrimination".

Curious if you have talked to your friend there in South Florida with the multi-site linked Hytera network about this case and if he has any perceived worries if he denies access or rescinds access to existing users? Based on the way this case played out, he could be faced with a substantial financial liability if somebody sued him for "Denial Of Service" or "Failure To Grant Fair Access" or some other sort of crap.

MODS, there at least 3 threads on this topic, can they be merged into one for clarity?
 

N4KVE

Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2003
Messages
3,041
Location
PALM BEACH, FLORIDA
Curious if you have talked to your friend there in South Florida with the multi-site linked Hytera network about this case and if he has any perceived worries if he denies access or rescinds access to existing users? Based on the way this case played out, he could be faced with a substantial financial liability if somebody sued him for "Denial Of Service" or "Failure To Grant Fair Access" or some other sort of crap.
Rick has never mentioned this case me, & I do not think he is aware of it. You don't have to worry about him denying access to anyone on his system. While he has paid for the Hytera repeaters, the wireless internet links are a constant monthly fee which will never stop. So he relies on donations from users to pay the internet fees. While there are some users with an obnoxious voice, or other users who talk for hours on end, Rick is a kind soul who would never boot anybody, although he has admitted if the repeaters were Motorola, sometimes he feels like turning on Ras. Nobody has tried to sell anything on the repeater, & I have never heard any blatant FCC violations. There was only 1 person who was denied access to the system, only because he threatened the life of one of the system owners years ago, but he has his own excellent system here in South Florida.
 
D

DaveNF2G

Guest
I wonder if this is what prompted DMR-MARC to suddenly throw open its doors to SDR devices and other networks.
 

TheSpaceMann

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,302
So now anyone who is blocked from a repeater can sue? Doesn't surprise me, in a world where everyone gets a trophy today.
 

bill4long

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
761
Location
Earth
I don't care how the judge ruled about "the network", since "the network" is not under Part 95 jurisdiction, however, individual repeater operators are still free to ban anyone they like from using their repeaters. (97.205e) State judges have no jurisdiction over Part 95 matters. On DMR, blocking an individual is easy to achieve, because you can simply block traffic from the offender's radio's DMR ID. If the offender attempts to circumvent this in order to use your repeater, he is in violation, and it's time to send a complaint to the FCC.
 
Last edited:

TheSpaceMann

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,302
Well unfortunately this may encourage individuals who are blocked from repeaters to initiate lawsuits. The resulting legal fees could become an expensive proposition for repeater owners and operators.
 

bill4long

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Aug 6, 2012
Messages
761
Location
Earth
Well unfortunately this may encourage individuals who are blocked from repeaters to initiate lawsuits. The resulting legal fees could become an expensive proposition for repeater owners and operators.
Doubtful. Did you read the original complaint by the plaintiff? It was not primarily about access to a repeater, which falls under federal jurisdiction of Part 95 and the FCC, it was about access to a digital network that links repeaters together, which is not under federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff was miffed that he got banned from using the network, which he believed he was entitled to use for whatever reason. Apparently, the civil court judge agreed with that. The judge has no jurisdiction over the repeater issue. The plaintiff in this case was not merely some repeater user who got kicked off. He is a DMR system owner (and commercial Motorola retailer) who spent money getting his repeater connected to that particular DMR network, believed he was entitled to access it, and believed he got ejected "without due process." Apparently, the judge believed the state laws agreed with him. All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the normal question of repeater operators deciding who gets to use their repeaters. That is entirely a federal matter under the jurisdiction of the FCC and Part 97.

Initiating lawsuits costs money the same as defending yourself against them. Doubtful many hams would want to cough up the money to hire a lawyer to sue a repeater operator, especially since it is widely known, and clearly spelled out in Part 97.205e, that repeater operators can limit who uses their repeaters. This case changes nothing with respect to that.

I wouldn't worry about it.
 
Last edited:

N8OHU

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2012
Messages
620
Doubtful. Did you read the original complaint by the plaintiff? It was not primarily about access to a repeater, which falls under federal jurisdiction of Part 95 and the FCC, it was about access to a digital network that links repeaters together, which is not under federal jurisdiction. The plaintiff was miffed that he got banned from using the network, which he believed he was entitled to use for whatever reason. Apparently, the civil court judge agreed with that. The judge has no jurisdiction over the repeater issue. The plaintiff in this case was not merely some repeater user who got kicked off. He is a DMR system owner (and commercial Motorola retailer) who spent money getting his repeater connected to that particular DMR network, believed he was entitled to access it, and believed he got ejected "without due process." Apparently, the judge believed the state laws agreed with him. All of that has absolutely nothing to do with the normal question of repeater operators deciding who gets to use their repeaters. That is entirely a federal matter under the jurisdiction of the FCC and Part 97.

Initiating lawsuits costs money the same as defending yourself against them. Doubtful many hams would want to cough up the money to hire a lawyer to sue a repeater operator, especially since it is widely known, and clearly spelled out in Part 97.205e, that repeater operators can limit who uses their repeaters. This case changes nothing with respect to that.

I wouldn't worry about it.
My understanding is that he was banned for "pecuniary reasons", meaning that those that run the NCPRN felt his status as a dealer of radio equipment was reason enough (he was not one of their preferred DMR vendors, by the way ;) ). They didn't have proof, by their own admission, that he was actually violating the FCC rules, nor have I seen anything on their site to indicate that they have made it clear that they don't want people selling radio equipment on the system. Take that however you want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top