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.
). 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.
