ARRL losing their bite?

[W6GQ]

http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/12/19/101/?nc=1

Are they losing there bite? They entered a few requests and the FCC turned them down.

[w9gb]

Quote[/b] ]Are they losing there bite? They entered a few requests and the FCC turned them down.
William -
IF I had seen this posting on a Usenet newsgroup -- you would have been labeled a "troll". #This is QRZ Q&A ... and your comment is probably more appropriate in another QRZ forum area.

I can only guess that you are either not reading the ARRL Bulletins, not looking on theri web iste, do not read QST or are not an ARRL member.

The ARRL is taking the FCC to court on the BPL issue. #
The legal docuents have been filed in federal court.
Whether this is creating unfavorable or partial/politically based decisions -- I will let individual amateurs judge for themselves.
The FCC still has not made a decision concerning the AT&T and Bell South merger -- due to a 2:2 deadlock -- and one FCC member is abstaining due to federal conflict of interest regulations (previous lobbying on this issue for telecom group against this merger)
Nice article in Wall Street Journal this week about that problem -- and how many legal opinions have been received about that -- read the WSJ article for more details!!

In the end, IF the ARRL loses this battle with the FCC - #then you have no protection (Part 15 interference) from BPL interference -- as it would be redefined. #In the end it may make this Morse proficiency R&O -- a bit comical.

Yes, you can buy an HF radio -- but the HF bands are not usable for communication -- too bad -- you have nothing.

w9gb

[n7ssb]

WOWWWW
boy do you have the bpl problem misunderstood, but close i will admit, however i will agree with the original post totally and it is about time for the arrl to finally be told they do not run f.c.c. .

i am under the opinion that arrl is going to be losing some membership from a previous posting because they did not want the code dropped for extra as well as wanting a different class of operators also.

that was refused as well.

[KI4QFY]

Quote[/b] (N4MQY @ Dec. 19 2006,17:58)]....it is about time for the arrl to finally be told they do not run f.c.c. .
True that. ARRL is like a big club who on behalf of there members REQUEST things of the governing body (FCC).

REQUEST. CLUB. GOVERNING BODY.

Frank Charlie Charlie has always been in charge, maybe some thought the ARRL issued operator licences, dohno... but it dont work that way. :-)

[K9STH]

Topic moved to the more appropriate forum.

Glen, K9STH
One of the QRZ.com moderators

[KL7FZ]

The ARRL lost it in the early 60's when they backed incentive licensing. They lost all respect and a lot of members then. They have never been the same since. Basically sellouts looking to hold on to their jobs.

KL7FZ

[w9gb]

I rarely come over to these open forums on QRZ, why use Internet when you have radio :-)

Quote[/b] ]Boy do you have the BPL problem misunderstood, but close I will admit
No, I do not this problem misunderstood. #I work as for an independent consulting organization, and have clients on ALL sides of this issue - that includes government bodies - let's just say that the issue is multi-dimensional. #
It has legal, economic, market competition, universal access and technical viewpoints. #
In the end, this issue may be decided by the viewpoint(s) of the group(s) or parties that have the most persistence (years) and resources (talent, $$, etc.).

I invite anyone who is really passionate about the BPL issue, to read the trials and tribulations of Edwin H Armstrong with both David Sarnoff (chairman of RCA after WW2) and the FCC concerning Frequency Modulation (FM). #
Then ask yourself this question:
Who won this battle over patents, FM and technical / engineering excellence? #The answer is not black and white OR won versus lost -- in fact -- history (as time passes) has even changed some of the criteria.

.. now back to Q&A.

w9gb

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W6GQ @ Dec. 19 2006,16:19)]http://www.arrl.org/news/stories/2006/12/19/101/?nc=1

Are they losing there bite? They entered a few requests and the FCC turned them down.
Congratulations dood! You finally started a chain that did not get locked down (albeit moved to a more appropriate area). Are you fulfilled now? ROFLMAO!

On your subject, I have spent the past 4 years fighting most of what the ARRL was trying to petition the FCC for except BPL. They're right about BPL although I question their moves sometimes. But on BPL I am rooting for them in their litigation against the FCC. I predict they will get others to join them. ol boy club" in Newington.

[wa3vjb]

BPL is not the best "betting" issue for the group in Newington.

Come now a story, true story.

--------

So it goes with the ARRLs fight against digital wireless HF trash from certain BPL systems. The League's leadership, here to mean the handful who have wood over digital internet email via ham radio, are saying their digital is cleaner than the power company's.

How hypocritical, and offensive.

[W3MIV]

[[[[[[[ yawn ]]]]]]]

[K0RGR]

Let's see- in the space of a little over 2 months, FCC has given their approval to two major restructurings that were at least in part supported by ARRL. The Omnibus rule change and the granting of Tech + priveleges to Techs were directly proposed by ARRL.

ARRL lost on a couple points. They wanted code testing for Extras, just like me and a lot of the whiners on here. The tone of the FCC's decision says to me that it was all they could do to keep from rolling on the floor laughing at the idea of keeping the code test. You must remember that these are 'civilians' with generally no ham radio experience. They deal daily with matters involving near state-of-the-art communications. Morse Code must seem as 'quaint' to them as lace doilies at tea time.

A couple years ago, FCC turned down the ARRL proposal to create a new 'Novice' license. Lots of us agreed with the idea, and I think the comments were generally in its favor, but the Commission decided to save money and say no.

The BPL issue is a different cup of tea. I doubt that the FCC staffers - at least the technically competent ones - agree with their bosses. The BPL issue is wired politically at many levels.

On the local level, you have snake-oil BPL peddlers selling the idea that they can replace their cable TV systems with BPL over the power lines. Cities generally hate cable companies, and take the heat for outrageous cable rates, so they'd love to have BPL.

BPL is wired and greased at the White House level. The commissioners will not say no to the hand that feeds them.

Nonetheless, BPL may die of its' own shortcomings, but I suspect not. The original investors have been replaced by some of the heavy-hitters in the industry like IBM. They keep coming up with new reasons to deploy it. If there's a way to make it profitable, somebody will.

ARRL is not trying to stop BPL, only the forms of it that cause RFI on HF. They hope to do this by getting FCC to honestly interpret the data that's been provided showing that current permitted levels are much too high. FCC has chosen to arbitrarily ignore this data, and to make rules that favor unlicensed over licensed users, which violates FCC's own charter. The only recourse now is a review by the courts.

[N7RJD]

Simple answer: No, they still bite. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KI4PEQ]

Quote[/b] (KE7DLG @ Dec. 23 2006,22:33)]Simple answer: No, they still bite. #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
But they say the nicest things about you! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[WA7KKP]

The ARRL has done a @#$%-poor job of representing the majority of ham radio operators.

Some of their disasters:

Incentive licencing -- 1968

Repeater licencing -- with all that HAAT stuff, ERP, etc.

Ignorance of the FM craze that dominated the VHF/UHF bands. More like an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Loss of 1215-1240 MHz

Loss of 220-222 MHz to UPS, which still isn't used.

Fighting for Morse testing --



The ARRL is operated by hams in their 60's and above, and reflects THEIR ideas of what we think and do.

Great books, and mag, but . . .

I'll never be a member -- they simply don't represent what I am and do.

Gary WA7KKP

[wa3vjb]

It's not their age Gary, it's their lack of leadership skills.

The group in Newington, as it sits, is a closed-door fraternity that happens to make money with publishing ventures. When people don't subscribe, it causes no direct pain to the volunteer and paid staff, because "the company" keeps going along.

We, out here in the hobby, were conditioned to look to the League as some sort of representative advocacy group, asking us for our input, and then making a case on our behalf.

It hasn't worked that way for years, and a harsh light is shining on their problem now that we can keep track of what they're doing in front of federal regulators. We see that their schemes are often way into "special agenda" territory.

Not only do the volunteer and paid administrators at the ARRL overlook potential areas for growth, they shoot themselves in the foot trying to defend misguided schemes, despite strong oppostion expressed by the broader Amateur community.

For example, the decision by the FCC to drop the code test element for licensing becomes an excellent opportunity to recruit from a demographic group whose members are aware of the historic value of radio, enjoy communicating in old-fashion ways, and have available income to buy equipment.

That group consists of the pensioners.

Last year I wrote a few articles about ham radio for the American Association of Retired Persons (now just AARP) website, and got some good replies from people in the 60+ age group, with spare time on their hands. One reply noted that the retirement home had a "community center" where a ham radio station could be located. It used to have a CB radio and a ground plane antenna.

But, the Morse code licensing element was a tough factor to get past, since, as we know from the professionals, it gets more difficult for older people to learn a new language.

Yet, stories of war-time communications, WW2 and Korea, each came through as themes as to why these people were familiar with the "magic" of radio, and why they today remain a strong potential recruitment destination for what I happen to think the League ought to be spending their time on.

ARRL officials, meantime, have spent a lot of subscriber resources and now Homeland Security money on recruiting just two distinct factions: Young people, and a handful of digital buffs for what the League's people envision as an "emergency communications" system.

It's a tough sell to young people. The category of "digital" is a very tiny specialty to play to, and already is causing controversy with Newington's embrace of using the shortwave ham bands to carry email from the internet. v!agr@ indeed.

SO, in the months ahead, I plan to directly get in touch with AARP officials, tell them about the "no code" regulatory decision, and re-state a proposal to have the AARP get into the promotion of ham radio with the power of all its membership and financial resources.

If the ruling party in Newington allows itself to be led in that direction, perhaps we can poke them in the hind end so they will stand up and, uh, volunteer to move the idea forward.

Is there something to lose ?

Paul/VJB

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (WA7KKP @ Dec. 26 2006,19:14)]The ARRL is operated by hams in their 60's and above, and reflects THEIR ideas of what we think and do.
But isn't that representative of the majority of the US amateur population?

Quote[/b] ]Great books, and mag, but . . .
If you're talking about QST, it used to be a good magazine, until they took most of the technical stuff out, to be put in a separate publication QEX, that full members must pay extra for. What remains in QST is largely boring "human interest" drivel and, of course, the ads. It usually takes me less time to scan through a new issue of QST than it takes me to look over the morning newspaper every day.