Should the ARRL be allowed to broadcast?

[kc8aot]

Hello all, I observed a very lengthy RTTY transmission from the ARRL on 18.100 MHz today, around 0100 UTC. It contained information about sunspots, field days, and FCC discipline. The transmission was listed as, "TO ALL RADIO AMATEURS", and identifies as being from "FROM ARRL HEADQUARTERS".

Now I'm not one to bitch about following the rules, but isn't it a bit silly for one to broadcast about non-compliant BPL (that's what the FCC disciplinary action was about), in a way that isn't compliant with FCC rules?

To break it down, the transmission isn't from or to any call sign.

And to top it off, the transmission plugs various ad-covered websites such as this one:
http://www.skyreport.com/#Story2

Am I going too far with this, or are they?

[kn4ds]

You might wish to re-familiarize yourself with 97.111(b)(6)

[kc8aot]

Well, ok, so what about plugging websites with advertisements? And what about the lack of proper identification?

[kn4ds]

OK, I'll bite... you're right, we should never mention websites on the air that have any advertisements.

So we won't be mentioning QRZ on the air anymore, either.

Fair enough?

As for the ID issue... if it didn't have any ID, how do you know it was from the ARRL?

[KE5FRF]

Quote[/b] (kc8aot @ June 01 2007,20:58)]Well, ok, so what about plugging websites with advertisements? And what about the lack of proper identification?
Every W1AW transmission I have ever heard begins with QST QST QST de W1AW and Newington is VERY punctual about IDing every 10 minutes.

Do you wish to broadcast? If not, I don't see what the fuss is about. The FCC has made provisions for amateur related informational "broadcasts" and code practice sessions. The ARRL is a club. They can plug their website just as you can give your webpage out over the air or your e-mail. The only thing they can't do is advertise directly, however once you log on to their INTERNET site, they are free to bombard you with every advertising tactic under the sun.

Yes, it does border on a grey line, but they are technically a non-profit club, not a company. They do a lot of good and I appreciate their services to the ham community. I think ARRL is part of what has made ham radio the gentleman's hobby that it is, despite their mistakes and shortcomings.

[KB1KIX]

Agreed here!

If that's the case - my club would have to stop it's code practice sessions on the club repeaters for the same thing.

We also take various snips of articles and such to send out as code practice.

It's a way to get people used to recognizing letters at first - before all the numbers and such that throw some newbies off in the beginning.

FRF and UWL pretty much summed it up - it goes both ways.

Jonathan

[ka5piu]

Hello.

Can you or I transmit one-way without any ID legally?
Sure, Telecommand is one example.
Transmitting bulletins to the Amateur community at large is not only legal but a good idea.
Retransmissions of space shuttle communications falls in that realm.
Beacons are another example of a one way transmission.
So, the issue is one of how far can one go.
If you want new rules that limit Amateur radio even further you could take up the cause.
Right now, Class C CB can be used for both paging and telecommand, 4 watts of AM or 12 watts pep.
Class D CB can also be used for paging as well as voice, same power levels.
No callsigns required at any time.

[N5PVL]

You can transmit "information of interest to amateurs", as long as you don't get carried away or start causing problems.

[K6UEY]

After reading this latest bitch,I am curious if the complaintant is a member in good standing with the only Organization that represents Amateur Radio the ARRL ??

Why else would he object to the members being advised as to what actions are being taken by the ARRL !! # #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[AG3Y]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ June 01 2007,23:33)]Just when I thought I have seen the ultimate in posts complaining about something that is legal per Part 97, like frequency measurement tests, now there is a post complaining about a QST from W1AW.

Sometimes I wonder if the amateurs (?) that post these questions even bother to look up the answer in Part 97, or if they even HAVE a copy in their shack!

No, some people would rather bitch and moan about something they don't LIKE instead of seeing if what they don't LIKE violates FCC rules and the various gentlemen's agreements.

The more bitch posts I see here, the more I think we should be represented by the American Kennel Club than the American Radio Relay League.
Glad you said it. Saved me the trouble !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I haven't ceased being amazed by those who are brand new to the avocation, who charge in like a bull in the china shop, seemingly with little or no knowledge or experience, and bombast the League, operators, SWLs, etc. etc. not to mention OTs and organizations that have been carrying on in the best tradition of Amateur Radio for YEARS, perhaps even before they were born, in some cases.

Just incredible! I am NOT amused ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[KB1KIX]

Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ June 01 2007,23:22)][quote=N5PVL,June 01 2007,21:16]Then they could have unimpeded access to tell their friends and the amateur world at large about their recent prostate operation.
Ahhh....., the medical nets.

Such gems of information I get to listen to all that's going to happen to my body over the next 40 years!

Better than webmd research.....

Oh, dayum.... I mentioned a commercial site....

Sorry about that....
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Jonathan

[N2RJ]

TRUST me, W1AW transmissions are well within the rules, even if they made sure the rules were changed to accomodate them. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

(before anyone jumps on me, I didn't mean that the rules were changed so that ARRL could get away with bad behavior. I meant that the rules were changed so that ARRL could do its job representing and promoting the interests of ham radio, just like the rules were amended to accomodate the space program which is doing a great service to ham radio.)

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ June 01 2007,22:31)]Quote[/b] (KI4PEQ @ June 01 2007,23:33)]Just when I thought I have seen the ultimate in posts complaining about something that is legal per Part 97, like frequency measurement tests, now there is a post complaining about a QST from W1AW.

Sometimes I wonder if the amateurs (?) that post these questions even bother to look up the answer in Part 97, or if they even HAVE a copy in their shack!

No, some people would rather bitch and moan about something they don't LIKE instead of seeing if what they don't LIKE violates FCC rules and the various gentlemen's agreements.

The more bitch posts I see here, the more I think we should be represented by the American Kennel Club than the American Radio Relay League.
Glad you said it. Saved me the trouble !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

I haven't ceased being amazed by those who are brand new to the avocation, who charge in like a bull in the china shop, seemingly with little or no knowledge or experience, and bombast the League, operators, SWLs, etc. etc. not to mention OTs and organizations that have been carrying on in the best tradition of Amateur Radio for YEARS, perhaps even before they were born, in some cases.

Just incredible! I am NOT amused ! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif
Jim...

I think the major problem in the original post is a lack of understanding of Part 97... which is, unfortunately, far too common.

The other big problem is that the boy apparently doesn't understand pecuniary interest, as evidenced by his complaint about mentioning a website that's loaded with ads.

I guess it's really all the same, the inability to understand Part 97.

You have to wonder at the ham cops out there, jumping on every perceived violation - especially when the putative violation isn't.

[AG3Y]

Dave, I think the original poster illustrates a problem that is becoming all to prevalent, and that is the "instant authority" syndrome. A guy gets a license, ( we won't talk about the comparative ease he might have experienced in obtaining it ! ) and immediately he becomes the "worlds foremost" authority on every aspect of the avocation, including the Rules and Regulations set forth by the FCC. And rather than sitting back and learning a bit about the avocation, much like a Junior Senator does during his first year in Congress, goes of "half-cocked" and shows us all how little he really understands!

Frankly, I try to hold my patience when I see this kind of thing happen, but once in a while, it just pops my cork. This is one of those times!

73, Jim

[AD5LT]

Yes Sir you are right , and we should get rid of that one station in Colorado for giving the time and solar conditions. Also idid
not do a license check on your call sign to give you a bump on your lookup count.
(AG3Y no Jim I was not refering to you, I respect you more than that.)

[AG3Y]

SAO, if you are referring to me, I could not care less about either my lookup count, OR my post count! I've had way more of both of those for it to be important to me, any more!

[N5PVL]

The original post was in no way a case of "instant authority". The guy asked if the ARRL activity was kosher, thereby indicating that at least he cared.

In light of the rash of scofflaw, anti-ham 'hinternet' proposals we have endured from the ARRL in recent years, I personally find it very refreshing to hear from a fellow amateur who:

Cares about proper, legal operation.

Asks questions when in doubt.

Also, in view of the ARRL assault upon PART97 and thier fellow amateurs over the last few years, it is perfectly reasonable for amateurs to now start to doubt OTHER aspects of ARRL operation besides the obviously illegal and anti-ham WinLink2000 system that the ARRL has joined with in a degenerate 'embrace'.

The original post here was 100% legit, which is more than I can say about some of the responses.

Old curmudgeons attacking the new guy for asking a reasonable question... Gee, some of you guys can really make it embarassing to be an OF. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[N6WK]

Quote[/b] (kc8aot @ June 02 2007,02:43)]Hello all, I observed a very lengthy RTTY transmission from the ARRL on 18.100 MHz today, around 0100 UTC. It contained information about sunspots, field days, and FCC discipline. The transmission was listed as, "TO ALL RADIO AMATEURS", and identifies as being from "FROM ARRL HEADQUARTERS".

Now I'm not one to bitch about following the rules, but isn't it a bit silly for one to broadcast about non-compliant BPL (that's what the FCC disciplinary action was about), in a way that isn't compliant with FCC rules?

To break it down, the transmission isn't from or to any call sign.

And to top it off, the transmission plugs various ad-covered websites such as this one:
http://www.skyreport.com/#Story2

Am I going too far with this, or are they?
That is a legitimate Question. It appears that the ARRL does have the blessing of the FCC to do their "Broadcasting".
I don't mind as they ALWAYS have asked me to QSY before trying to transmit over me if I happen to be on one of THEIR" frequencies.
I can't say the same for a recent event involving a small Elitest group supporting FMT tests.
They must perform the tests weekly because their Equipment must suffer from extreme drifting problems.
But, That is a different thread.

Gordon

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (AG3Y @ June 01 2007,22:43)]Dave, I think the original poster illustrates a problem that is becoming all to prevalent, and that is the "instant authority" syndrome. A guy gets a license, ( we won't talk about the comparative ease he might have experienced in obtaining it ! ) and immediately he becomes the "worlds foremost" authority on every aspect of the avocation, including the Rules and Regulations set forth by the FCC. And rather than sitting back and learning a bit about the avocation, much like a Junior Senator does during his first year in Congress, goes of "half-cocked" and shows us all how little he really understands!

Frankly, I try to hold my patience when I see this kind of thing happen, but once in a while, it just pops my cork. This is one of those times!

73, Jim
Jim...

You've pretty much hit it on the head... I've done my share of 3am transmitter site calls to fix commercial transmitters, and I still don't know beans...

I will say I think I have a fair grasp of Part 97, though. That doesn't mean I feel the need to play ham cop and call everything I hear on the air into question... I actually did finally hear roger beeps on 10m last night while the band was pretty open, but you didn't see a post from me bitchin' about it.

I listen a LOT more than I talk, especially to the radio...

The original poster apparently wasn't familiar with the bulletin rules, and he may be a new ham (I've not looked into his license dates) who's had drilled into him that anything commercial on the bands is automatically illegal... <shrug> I don't know.

I do know that we could do with a lot less of this "ham cop" mentality... online and on the air.

I respect your opinions (thanks for the tip on MMSSTV! Great program)... you seem pretty well grounded, and I agree that this is one of those "hey... you need to listen first, transmit later" situations.

[k7mh]

Quote[/b] ]Asks questions when in doubt.

Seems many people find it easier to ask someone else what the answer is than to figure it out themselves.

Be all you can be...read!
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[kn4ds]

Quote[/b] (N6WK @ June 01 2007,23:37)]That is a legitimate Question. It appears that the ARRL does have the blessing of the FCC to do their "Broadcasting".
We *all* have the blessing of the FCC to do our "broadcasting" so long as it's within the scope of 97.111(b)(6)...

So long as we have information of interest to the general amateur radio community, or realistically, any segment thereof, any of us may "broadcast" that information...

Riley had it dead on when he said we need to live and let live... there's gettin' to be way too many "ham cops" around.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ June 02 2007,01:48)]You might wish to re-familiarize yourself with 97.111(b)(6)
Remember K1MAN? He was not cited for "broadcasting" but for operating his automated station without a control operator present, and for soliciting for money over the air during his transmissions.

As long as the content of the "broadcast" in nominally directed at the amateur radio community, it falls within the letter of the FCC regulations.

WAØRCR has broadcast his "Gateway Amateur Radio Newsletter" on 1860 kHz for over 25 years with absolutely no problems with the FCC, and with few complaints from the amateur radio community.

In decades past, many amateurs used to transmit ARRL bulletins. There was an ARRL appointment called "OBS" (Official Broadcast Station - later renamed Official Bulletin Station) to re-transmit W1AW bulletins.

In recent years, with the advent of the internet, the need for over-the-air bulletins has decreased. I don't think ARRL issues OBS appointments any more.

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ June 01 2007,17:44)]Quote[/b] (N6WK @ June 01 2007,23:37)]That is a legitimate Question. It appears that the ARRL does have the blessing of the FCC to do their "Broadcasting".
We *all* have the blessing of the FCC to do our "broadcasting" so long as it's within the scope of 97.111(b)(6)...

So long as we have information of interest to the general amateur radio community, or realistically, any segment thereof, any of us may "broadcast" that information...

Riley had it dead on when he said we need to live and let live... there's gettin' to be way too many "ham cops" around.
Hmmm live and let live, does that mean just letting all the illegals continue to do what they want? does it mean to let the Winlinkers continue to do what they want? does it mean that if someone just walks all over your QSO in progress you should just suck it up and move then do or say nothing?

I can tell you - if an old Extra or Advanced op got walked on by a new version of those classes - there would be hell to pay both on the air and here in the forums! I wonder why this double standard? maybe because that's the way it is? We should live and let live - right? it's doubtful that Riley said it just like that and I'm sure he didn't mean it like that.

And if the original poster HAD read part 97 - OR ARRL handbook (as many of you are members of that trashy organization), then he would have read that we are self-policing. now, if this is the case, then I suppose ham-cops ARE sanctioned by at least the ARRL. I don't call them "ham-cops", I call them responsible hams. If they don't understand something - they ask about it.

If this person was new, then he possibly had never heard an ARRL bulletin before and was surprised by this activity. Some are rather lengthly. What are AR Newsline? What's he going to think when he hears that for the first time? Here's another organization that skoffs at ham radio on a regular basis.

Technically - both are considered broadcasters by most who have a dictionary to look up the meaning of broadcaster.

As for the STUPID comment relating this to WWV - WWV is not a ham station and is licensed to do exactly what they do. Don't try to justify one thing by twisting something else.

This slamming new hams really needs to stop. It is stupid and make all who do it look really horrible in general.

Steve

[kf6rdn]

Alot of nets (2 meter) transmit "AR Newsline".

[wb6mmj]

Quote[/b] (kc8aot @ June 01 2007,18:43)]Hello all, I observed a very lengthy RTTY transmission from the ARRL on 18.100 MHz today, around 0100 UTC. It contained information about sunspots, field days, and FCC discipline. The transmission was listed as, "TO ALL RADIO AMATEURS", and identifies as being from "FROM ARRL HEADQUARTERS".

Now I'm not one to bitch about following the rules, but isn't it a bit silly for one to broadcast about non-compliant BPL (that's what the FCC disciplinary action was about), in a way that isn't compliant with FCC rules?

To break it down, the transmission isn't from or to any call sign.

And to top it off, the transmission plugs various ad-covered websites such as this one:
http://www.skyreport.com/#Story2

Am I going too far with this, or are they?
They are allowed to transmit one way transmissions as long as they identify their transmission as a QST. And as long as they don`t jam other transmissions that were on the frequency first. No one owns a frequency, not even the all mighty ARRL.

[w8znx]

its come to this

new age ops

know less about what the hell is happening on HF
than non licensed SWLs did 40 years ago

Mac dit dit

[ka5piu]

Quote[/b] (w8znx @ June 02 2007,02:46)]its come to this

new age ops

know less about what the hell is happening on HF
than non licensed SWLs did 40 years ago

Mac dit dit
Hello.

Yes, it would seem that very few actually listen anymore.
The modern rig is the all in one wonder, flip it on and it is ready to transmit.
Autotuners and pre-tuned antennas make everything else easy.
This is like the modern automobile.
One reason there are such a large number of accidents, DWI and cellphone use adding to the numbers, is the fact that an automobile is so easy to use.
By this I mean things like automatic transmission, power steering, power brakes, auto choke, the works.
One just jumps in and goes.
A person can be totally drunk, to the point that they could not walk, and operate an automobile.
Everything is that way now, even Amateur Radio.

[kc8aot]

Wow!

I didn't mean to start so much fuss!

I was honestly curious, as I've never received such a lengthy RTTY transmission before. My copy wasn't so great, and I didn't catch it from the beginning, so perhaps there was an identification in there somewhere. I did a search on the internet, found a copy of the message with an email address, and also discovered the relationship to the ARRL. So that's all I knew, so I thought I'd ask. I know the spirit of ham radio isn't about advertising (which, as many have point out isn't the purpose of the message at all), and I know it's generally not about one-way transmissions either.

So I just thought I'd ask. I haven't read all the FCC rules, and even if I had, I'm sure they change now and then, and there are probably accepted deviations too.

In case anyone's wondering, I've had my ticket since I was 12 years old, learning from my dad and some books from the library (the FCC lookup lists the date when my license lapsed because I didn't realize it was up for renewal). I don't own an automatic antenna tuner -- I made my own from parts on ebay. My antennas are all self-made dipoles and J-poles. I always make sure frequencies are not in-use before I key up. On the bands where my antennas don't resonate, I do tune up. I don't drink on the air, in the car, or in general either :-) .

I've been a ham for most of my life now, and I've never liked those people that get on repeaters and demand to know who key'd it up (especially when it's just intermod), or those guys that jam each other out of spite, etc.

So that's about it, please don't take offence. I understand I may have come off a little harsh, but my intention was just to understand what I had received. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

[AG3Y]

I didn't mean to jump all over you like that, either. I just saw your post count, read the rather harsh comments in your post and tried to add 2 + 2 . We have been getting a lot of posts from those that act as if they "know it all" and are trying to impress us OFs with all their knowledge, and sometimes it just comes across wrong.

I'm sorry if I offended you. As I said, very seldom does a poster get under my skin. Your post just happened to hit me the wrong way, and it might not have even been intended that way!

Do get a copy of the rules and regulations, study them and you will have a better understanding of what this avocation is all about. You don't even need a hard copy now days. The FCC posts them in easily downloadable PDF format right on their site!

73, sorry I got off on the wrong foot with you! I'll do better in the future. Jim

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ June 01 2007,18:30)]Alot of nets (2 meter) transmit "AR Newsline".
Guilty as charged.

However, your honor, I would like to add that one-way communications of interest primarily to the amateur radio community are not considered to be broadcasts.

One way transmissions and broadcasting are not synonymous.

If you don't believe me check snopes.com.

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] ]No one owns a frequency, not even the all mighty ARRL.

But they do rent a few on a periodic and repeating basis! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[K8MHZ]

Quote[/b] ]A person can be totally drunk, to the point that they could not walk, and operate an automobile.


In Michigan that is frowned upon. I heard three counties were considering making it outright illegal. That's on the east side though so I got nothing to worry about.

[wb6mmj]

Quote[/b] (kc8aot @ June 02 2007,13:11)]Wow!

I didn't mean to start so much fuss!

I was honestly curious, as I've never received such a lengthy RTTY transmission before. My copy wasn't so great, and I didn't catch it from the beginning, so perhaps there was an identification in there somewhere. I did a search on the internet, found a copy of the message with an email address, and also discovered the relationship to the ARRL. So that's all I knew, so I thought I'd ask. I know the spirit of ham radio isn't about advertising (which, as many have point out isn't the purpose of the message at all), and I know it's generally not about one-way transmissions either.

So I just thought I'd ask. I haven't read all the FCC rules, and even if I had, I'm sure they change now and then, and there are probably accepted deviations too.

In case anyone's wondering, I've had my ticket since I was 12 years old, learning from my dad and some books from the library (the FCC lookup lists the date when my license lapsed because I didn't realize it was up for renewal). I don't own an automatic antenna tuner -- I made my own from parts on ebay. My antennas are all self-made dipoles and J-poles. I always make sure frequencies are not in-use before I key up. On the bands where my antennas don't resonate, I do tune up. I don't drink on the air, in the car, or in general either #:-) .

I've been a ham for most of my life now, and I've never liked those people that get on repeaters and demand to know who key'd it up (especially when it's just intermod), or those guys that jam each other out of spite, etc.

So that's about it, please don't take offence. I understand I may have come off a little harsh, but my intention was just to understand what I had received. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Remember guys, The only dumb question is the one not asked. Why do people get so mean in here?

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ June 02 2007,16:00)][
Remember guys, The only dumb question is the one not asked. Why do people get so mean in here?
I don't think most of us really mean to be mean (if you get what I mean.)

It's just that it IS a bit frustrating when the question asked is something any and every ham should know. We ARE all supposed to be familiar witn 47CFR97, the FCC rules governing Amateur Radio. (Plus a few sections of the Communications Act of 1934 as amended, that are referenced in §Part 97.) The FCC rules specify that we are to have access to either a printed, or electronic copy of the rules in our station records for reference. That does little good unles we at least READ the rules once or twice, to become familiar with the rules. (And hopefully understand the rules.) If that happened, there would be a lot less questions and heated "discussions" about what is and isn't legal on Amateur Radio.
And to be honest, that IS one area where newly licensed Amateurs can take guidance from the more experienced Amateurs, whether they are OF's, OT's, or YFs.
We ARE willing to help anyone who asks an honest question and shows a willingness to at least consider our replies, even if they are not the answer desired.
But what will really get us frustrated (and often quite upset) is for a new operator to come here, and decide that THEY have a new, different interpretation of the rules, and proclaim hams have been doing everything "wrong" or "illegally" all these years.

EDIT: "OUT, DA**ed typos."

[KA4DPO]

Bitching about the ARRL transmitting bulletins on the air is like complaining about WWV sending time signals. While the original post could be viewed as a ligitimate question I have to wonder WHY? Why do you care? The ARRL puts out a lot of good information not to mention code practice. I'm frankly tired of, as Jim said the instant experts poll vaulting over mouse turds insted of doing some research before they hit the mike.

[AG3Y]

I just answered another "newbie" that was asking about if he could use voice on 10 meters. He certainly should know where to get that information without having to show his ignorance here on the "zed"! For his, and any other's information, I told him to go to this URL:

http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus....r97.pdf (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/cfr/1998/47cfr97.pdf)

No preaching, no bitching, just a straight-forward answer. I hope that I don't "pop a gasket" again, any time soon!

73, Jim

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] ]As for the STUPID comment relating this to WWV - WWV is not a ham station and is licensed to do exactly what they do.
I agree the comparison was invalid. Not sure I'd have exclaimed "stupid" in caps about it though. And WWV actually isn't "licensed" in the sense of the word we normally use. (Don't believe me? Go run WWV in the ULS database and let me know what you find.)

It's a government station, authorised by NTIA, not licensed by FCC.

[N8UZE]

Quote[/b] (kc8aot @ June 02 2007,16:11)]So I just thought I'd ask. I haven't read all the FCC rules, and even if I had, I'm sure they change now and then, and there are probably accepted deviations too.
I do suggest you get a copy of the rules and read them through. #We are responsible for knowing and abiding by those rules. #If you are cited for a violation, the FCC will take a dim view of the ignorance excuse. #Yes rules do change now and then and again it is considered the ham's responsibility to keep up with that. #Thankfully with today's resources, that's not hard to do. #For example, if there is a proposed, pending or implemented rule change, the ARRL site is sure to have a news item on it.

[KA4DPO]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ June 02 2007,21:58)]Quote[/b] ]As for the STUPID comment relating this to WWV - WWV is not a ham station and is licensed to do exactly what they do.
I agree the comparison was invalid. #Not sure I'd have exclaimed "stupid" in caps about it though. #And WWV actually isn't "licensed" in the sense of the word we normally use. (Don't believe me? #Go run WWV in the ULS database and let me know what you find.)

It's a government station, authorised by NTIA, not licensed by FCC.
Thanks for pointing that out ZDY, a lot of people don't know that.

As for stupid, I was using WWV as an analogy to " you might as well complain about a sunny day" as complain about ARRL bulletins.

Stupid? Hmm, what was it Mac Beth said? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (kc8aot @ June 02 2007,13:11)]Wow!

I didn't mean to start so much fuss!

I was honestly curious, as I've never received such a lengthy RTTY transmission before.
I guess we can expect these "baby discovers his belly-button" posts with the new crop of codeless licensees, but in this case, you were a Technician for at least 10 years before you got your no code social promotion. Where were you hiding when all this was discussed for the past 10 years? Just learn to read?

[KB2SFH]

I have no problem with them broadcasting. After all, they do represent us, it is ham related and they do identify with their callsign. Unfortunately I am unable to listen not having a receiver.

[VO1GXG]

ARRL should only be able to do it on VHF/UHF no HF. I don't wanna hear ARRL news when i live in Canada and most of it doesn't really apply to me .

[AG3Y]

Maybe YOU don't want to hear the ARRL news, but how about those U.S. citizens that are located in other parts of the world that just MIGHT be interested to hear it ? The league isn't just beaming the RF in YOUR direction ! ! !

73, Jim

[K0RGR]

OK, I can forgive the original post. He's apparently someone who's bought into the anti-ARRL diatribe on this website and was truly alarmed that the evil empire was pulling a fast one.

I can assure you that ARRL Bulletins have been on air daily since somewhere around 1917 (other than a brief hiatus in WWII). I often listen to the bulletin in CW while I'm doing other things. They're very handy for aligning receivers and testing the directionality of antennas.

In the dark days before Al Gore funded the Internet, W1AW was always the first place to look for news of FCC rule changes and other things of interest to hams, primarily in the U.S., but they also carry IARU news. I'm not sure how much Canadian news they carry these days, but they also used to carry news for our friends in the Great White North.

I remember copying W1AW daily for news of the WARC bands in 1979.

I think it could be argued that it's news value has been replaced largely by the Internet, but those who value self-sufficiency can probably understand why ARRL would be unlikely to cease their bulletins anytime soon.

There have also been complaints about the ARRL bulletins since roughly WWI.