League as regulatory "expert" ???

[wa3vjb]

From the latest ARRL Annual Report:
"...our advocacy efforts in Washington are focused on grooming a new relationship with the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as well as each of the Commissioners. When it comes to Part 97 regulatory matters in the Amateur Radio Service, it is imperative that we assert that the League IS the expert in Amateur Radio regulatory matters."

It strikes me this effort is a day late and a dollar short.
As far as being an "expert" at anything, we (the 80 percent who don't subscribe to the ARRL) should continue efforts to curb their bad behavior and inept lobbying of politicians, regional officials, federal regulators, and commercial industry reps.

The League's internal brain trust has, of late, been making a lot of missteps, like filing a lawsuit against the FCC in the aftermath of the ARRL's misguided approach trying to fight BPL. I predict the litigation will compound the humiliation their group has already suffered, and further erode their club's credibility in the eyes of those listed above.

There have also been poorly conceived "proposals" from Newington, including the failed threat to segregate our activities based on bandwidth, and an inadequate idea to right-size the amount of space allocated to popular activities that use voice modes on HF.

The FCC stepped around the stunted HF reapportionment idea from the ARRL, and instead granted a more appropriate amount of space for phone being enjoyed right now on 75 and 40 meters. The Agency did not even consider the threatened "bandwidth" proposal, withdrawn by the League's volunteer management who admitted the Opposition was overwhelming.

Postings such as this usually prompt a boilerplate "but they do so many good things," and "who else represents us." Don't bother trying to detour valid criticism. The point is to challenge the League's assertion of being an expert at representing us.

There are many problems with the group in Newington that claims to be "the national association" for our hobby. They first must sort out why people have turned so negative toward their activities (myself included), and then look toward recovering our support (available to the extent they shape up), on the way to being seen as any kind of "expert" by both the hobby's licensees and those outside the Amateur Service.

Paul/VJB

[W5HTW]

The ARRL appears rather narrowly focused. I don't think that was always true. And, as you say, there are those who will claim the ARRL does a lot of good. I am probably one of them, but the problem I see is they should be more diverse in representing amateur radio in general.

Instead, their primary thrust appears to be pressuring amateur radio into the digital age. That in itself may not be so bad, provided legacy modes are still considered. But in my own opinion, I think that digital thrust is motivated more by grant money, pushing Winlink and "hinternet", to go where the money is. That is, becoming too heavily involved in EMCOM. If the grant money went away (and I wish it would!) I think we could get back to the real amateur radio, and the ARRL might actually would be effective in representing a more diverse spread of amateurs.

Secondly, they focus on BPL. BPL is not going to fail because of the ARRL. It simply isn't viable in rural areas, where it is touted to bring the internet to the country. BPL can't handle the competition from quality ISPs, and will be replaced rather quickly by better technology. It is true the ARRL is a small thorn in the flesh of the BPL providers, but the ARRL can never have enough money to fight it very effectively.

EMCOM money has badly corrupted amateur radio. That really needs to be addressed throughout the amateur radio service. I blame the ARRL for promoting amateur radio's EMCOM role back in the early 1990s, as a recruitment technique, sort of "if you love America you will become a ham and protect it." Amateurs have always been ready to serve in natural disasters, and should be, but before that pitch to enlist the masses, we did it when called upon, and then we went quietly back to chasing DX. We did not have a faction that joined the hobby solely to be a hero. And that came about because of ... money.

We need to get the money out of amateur radio. If we could do that, the ARRL would be an effective organization, I believe. But it doesn't seem likely to happen.

Ed

[ky5u]

Yes, at the present time the ARRL is politically driven by a small group of Amateurs with self serving agendas. They do many good thing s too.

[W3MIV]

Who else is there?

[WA9SVD]

Quote W5HTW:

Instead, their primary thrust appears to be pressuring amateur radio into the digital age. That in itself may not be so bad, provided legacy modes are still considered. But in my own opinion, I think that digital thrust is motivated more by grant money, pushing Winlink and "hinternet", to go where the money is.
=========

I have to agree with Ed. Rather than pressuring everyone into use of digital techniques, the ARRL should be LEADING us into the Digital age. BIG difference. Neither digital nor analog is the "be all, end all" of Amateur Radio, and the pressure to go digital at the expense or elimination of traditional analog modes does result in resistance and resentment. In all, it's really counterproductive.

And the ARRL's push to emphasize EMCOMM has had a definite, and delitrious effect on Amateur Radio and the quality of operators. We are getting more and more new operators in our club that are only interested in Amateur Radio beause it was recommended to them as part of their CERT participation, or they are only interested in emergency communications, yet have NO interest in the technical aspects of Amateur Radio, to the point they aren't interested in club meetings if the monthly presentation is about a technical subject, and not EMCOMM related. THAT is not what Amateur Radio is about, but that is what the ARRL has sold, and continues to sell.

As Ed states, Amateurs have always been ready, willing, and able to provide assistance in the event of an emergency. But not as the sole reason for our existance. Even 40 years ago (I have the logs and certificates to refresh my memory) we DID have "Civil Defense" Nets, and exercises, but it was never an all-consuming reason for anyone to have an Amateur license; it was an additional activity of Public Service we were willing to provide for the common good. The current emphasis on EMCOMM as the "be all, end all" reason for a license seems to be backwards; a case of "the tail wagging the dog."

However, the ARRL is, for all purposes, the only game in town. Any alternative groups that have tried to spring up, or gather support to oppose the ARRL have been invariably distasteful at best, and driven by hidden agendas and money as much as, or more than, the ARRL. And the ARRL DOES have many good programs, and it does provide benefits to Amateur Radio. But they do need to refocus on the true purpose of Amateur Radio and get rid of the hidden agendas.
The paradox there (if it is a paradox) is that the only way to actually CHANGE the ARRL is from the inside. Non-members do not, and never will, have a voice in the manner in which the ARRL is run, so non-members do not really have an excuse to complain how the ARRL is (or is not) performing. (It's sort of like people who complain about how the government is run, yet don't bother to get out and vote.)

[N5PVL]

I would support a movement to eliminate the ECOMM grant money.

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] ]From the latest ARRL Annual Report:

"...our advocacy efforts in Washington are focused on grooming a new relationship with the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as well as each of the Commissioners. When it comes to Part 97 regulatory matters in the Amateur Radio Service, it is imperative that we assert that the League IS the expert in Amateur Radio regulatory matters."

It strikes me this effort is a day late and a dollar short.

My guess what this is about is the ARRL reacting to the so-called "misunderstandings" over the so-called "regulation by bandwidth".

My guess is they're thinking that they can convince the FCC that it should listen ONLY to the ARRL, and ignore the huge numbers of individual hams who file opposition comments.

This signals that the ARRL is going to wine-and-dine individual FCC commissioners and "assert" that the ARRL is THE expert, that the voices of individual hams who oppose them should not be listened to because they are not "experts".

Anyway, that's how I'm reading it.

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] ]grant money

Their Annual Report reveals that federal grant money is in fact only a tiny portion of their revenues, and is decreasing. In 2006, only $122,397 in government grants out of a total revenue of $13,646,189. That's less than 1%. And it's about half of what it was in 2005.

I don't think grant money is driving this.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 04 2007,09:11)]The paradox there (if it is a paradox) is that the only way to actually CHANGE the ARRL is from the inside. #Non-members do not, and never will, have a voice in the manner in which the ARRL is run, so non-members do not really have an excuse to complain how the ARRL is (or is not) performing. #(It's sort of like people who complain about how the government is run, yet don't bother to get out and vote.)
This is exactly correct. It's not really a paradox at all. It is a simple fact of life, and (as you correctly point out) is no different from the management of our government, or the management of a club or other organization: It takes good people to step up and speak up.

Revolutions are always led by the few, but they cannot succeed without the assistance of the many. Remaining apart and sitting back whining about how bad things are only makes things worse, and it is a really shabby bit of self-indulgence that lets the whiner off the hook when things don't exactly work out as hoped.

It takes more balls to get involved and DO SOMETHING than it does to sit back and snipe.

Get involved and you CAN make a difference.

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]...the only way to actually CHANGE the ARRL is from the inside

This has not been true for quite a while now, and their "imperative" clearly shows the effect of outside pressure. Why else would they fear competition for the FCC's ear regarding regulatory matters in the Amateur Service?

In May, I went up and introduced myself to Joel Harrison at the ARRL booth during the Dayton hamfest. I waited until he had finished a chat with another person, so I could have his attention. We both were pleasant, and it was clear that he was familiar with me.

I am only one person, and regardless of how strident, critical and combative I happen to be regarding the League's activities, I appreciated his acknowledgment of my point that he must, as their group's leader, reach out to people such as myself to let them feel more included in their internal process.

Right now we "outsiders" vastly outnumber those who subscribe to the ARRL. That's an important condition, and it serves as incentive for any good management team to explore the reasons why. I came away from my conversation with Harrison believing he may actually take relevant steps, perhaps as soon as during their closed-door Board meeting this month.

Yet. we continue to see disjointed, illogical claims of success in League newsletters. I am puzzled, for example, at how the ARRL's recent rise in membership can be attributed to the LEAGUE's role in the FCC's decision to remove the Morse Code license test. Not only was there no linkage in Newington's own writeup of this increase, but the recent history of the regulatory process shows no effort to promote the prospect of additional members as part of the incentive to drop CW testing.

But, that's a side issue. We can get behind the ARRL if they reform the way they are handling their self-proclaimed role representing us. Outside pressure is having an effect, and it will continue because of the accumulation of mistakes the ARRL has made, which creates the vulnerability they lately are struggling to address.

Paul/VJB

[WA2ZDY]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 04 2007,10:11)]We are getting more and more new operators in our club that are only interested in Amateur Radio beause it was recommended to them as part of their CERT participation, or they are only interested in emergency communications, yet have NO interest in the technical aspects of Amateur Radio, to the point they aren't interested in club meetings if the monthly presentation is about a technical subject, and not EMCOMM related. #THAT is not what Amateur Radio is about, but that is what the ARRL has sold, and continues to sell.
ARRL sells this because it increases the licensee count. ARRL members or not, many of these folks buy radios and that means more advertising money from the manufacturers and dealers. So selling EMCOMM is very self-serving. ARRL will not stop doing this.


Quote[/b] ]Right now we "outsiders" vastly outnumber those who subscribe to the ARRL. That's an important condition, and it serves as incentive for any good management team to explore the reasons why. Paul. I'm not a member for much the same reason you're not. But imagine if a fair percentage of we protesting non-members DID join. That could indeed result in a successful revolution. If such a movement got up some steam, I too would join. And join ARRL as well.

Something to think about anyway.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ July 04 2007,10:16)]...imagine if a fair percentage of we protesting non-members DID join. # That could indeed result in a successful revolution. # #If such a movement got up some steam, I too would join. #And join ARRL as well.

Something to think about anyway.
The whole trouble with your theory is that each of you continues to sit on your lily pad watching what the others will do.

Why not take the leap and maybe some would follow?

Or is that too daring for you?

[kb5wbh]

Whats stopping any of you from forming your own group to handle such matters?

I don't agree with everything the ARRL does but they are the voice we have for Amateur Radio..

73
mike

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,10:01)]We can get behind the ARRL if they reform the way they are handling their self-proclaimed role representing us. #Outside pressure is having an effect, and it will continue because of the accumulation of mistakes the ARRL has made, which creates the vulnerability they lately are struggling to address.
This is just more self-indulgent BS. The real work is on the inside, not the outside, and it never will be. Most outside pressure simply results in greater inertia and more feet being dug in as a response.

You guys crack me up with all of this "oh-so-special" criticsim offered from on high. The work is in the trenches, and if you don't have the stomach for it, at least have the honesty to admit it.

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

[wa3vjb]

I don't know whether you're shooting the "self-indulgent" barb at me along with the "oh-so-special" line,

Albert, but if anything, I approach this as crediting Harrison with listening to someone League supporters would reluctantly want in the tent.

Too disruptive, you know?

There's nothing in it for me, truth be known, except to try to address concerns I have with the League's stewardship of the hobby that they've frittered away in recent years.

But enough about me.

Their work must target the passive, disinterested non-joiners, not the active, concerned licensees. We outsiders either will be convinced by proof of League reform, or we will continue to cause them to feel an imperative to assert themselves.

(And watch them be spanked and defeated if they lack credentials as experts.)

--Paul/VJB

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,10:48)]There's nothing in it for me, truth be known, except to try to address concerns I have with the League's stewardship of the hobby that they've frittered away in recent years.

But enough about me.

Their work must target the passive, disinterested non-joiners, not the active, concerned licensees. We outsiders either will be convinced by proof of League reform, or we will continue to cause them to feel an imperative to assert themselves.

(And watch them be spanked and defeated if they lack credentials as experts.)

--Paul/VJB
You've put your finger unerringly on the great paradox, Paul. Without agitators like you working from the INSIDE, the work of changing the ARRL's institutional mindset is made all the more difficult, and without the worst critics stepping up to the bole to make a new notch, the thing will never fall and a lot of the new blood that's needed will continue to stand by.

This is NOT a case where "they also serve who only stand and wait."

73

[N5PVL]

My feeling is that if the ARRL folks are too stupid to observe and learn from anything that goes on beyond the board room, then they deserve to fail.

[wa3vjb]

Agitation can take place to good effect from inside or outside, Albert, it looks like we agree on that.

The work itself, the heavy lifting, the actual change, must take place on the inside, and I agree with you on that.

However, those who do that inside work must be receptive to the change identified -- regardless of the source of that identification.

Having been a member of the ARRL for a number of years in the recent past, I had to weigh whether that receptiveness matched my level of urging change to take place.

It has not.

My brief chat with Harrison, who took notes during our conversation, provides me with food for thought to reconsider.

Paul/VJB

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,11:25)]My brief chat with Harrison, who took notes during our conversation, provides me with food for thought to reconsider.

Paul/VJB
I sincerely do hope you reconsider, Paul. You are exactly the kind of voice (loud, but often worth wincing to) that is needed on the inside.

Change cannot come without being pushed, and the pushing is made all the easier when many hands are on the butt that needs shoving.

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

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,06:37)]Who else is there?
That is right too. We need to fix the ARRL or we have nothing.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 04 2007,09:33)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,06:37)]Who else is there?
That is right too. We need to fix the ARRL or we have nothing.
As the recent debacle with RM11306 shows, it is not obvious to me that we need *anyone* when it comes to representing the Amateur Radio Service to the FCC.

More filings are entered with the FCC by individuals than by the ARRL. *WAY* more constructive ideas are provided to the FCC in comments by individuals than by the ARRL. Many of the non-ARRL filings are more rigorous by an order of magnitude that the platitude filled filngs the ARRL has been putting forth.

The cry that the ARRL is all we have and that we need them to represent the ARS to the FCC may have been the case even a decade ago when the ECFS system accessible from the internet didn't exist. It's not obvious to me that such is still the case.

All the smoozing and lobbying the ARRL did on RM11306 couldn't overcome the problems pointed out by so many individual in the ECFS comments. Where is the evidence that this smoozing and lobbying will do any good in the future? It has certainly done nothing with regards to BPL and very little when it comes to antenna restrictions.

It is the content of the filings and how rigorously the subject of the filing is studied and presented that is the final determining factor. If the ARRL had done a rigorous job of studying spectrum usage, spectrum efficiency, and interference mitigation and then presented a well-thought out proposal based on and consistent with those studies, we wouldn't be here arguing today.

If their future proposals remain as nothing more than platitude filled (i.e. digital is coming) pieces of propaganda pushing special interest agendas, they will remain useless and irrelevant to the Amateur Radio Service. We will NOT need them and they will NOT be the only game in town, at least as far as the FCC is concerned.

Saying that they are the only game in town and that they are needed today is nothing more than repeating old preconceptions. Think about it!

tim ab0wr

[N5PVL]

I've thought about it, and I think you are right, Tim.

[wa6itf]

Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 04 2007,08:30)]Whats stopping any of you from forming your own group to handle such matters?
Lets see the list of attempts and failures in my lifetime.

1960: Institute of Amateur Radio funded by W2NSD / 73 Magazine.

1985: National Amateur Radio Association by the late W6TNS

1991: American Amateur Radio Association started by K1MAN

I'm sure there were others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

de
WA6ITF

[wa3vjb]

I find it a pointless distraction when leveling valid criticism at the League to dare someone to form such a group on their own.

Clearly the heritage and stewardship that the ARRL has embodied can never be replicated elsewhere.

Instead spend time weighing the sense of concern out here, about the negative impact caused by a series of hack administrators and issue lobbyists within the ARRL.

Do not confuse criticism of those individuals with available support for the institution.

--Paul/VJB

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 04 2007,12:41)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 04 2007,08:30)]Whats stopping any of you from forming your own group to handle such matters?
Lets see the list of attempts and failures in my lifetime.

1960: #Institute of Amateur Radio funded by W2NSD / 73 Magazine.

1985: National Amateur Radio Association by the late W6TNS

1991: American Amateur Radio Association started by K1MAN

I'm sure there were others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

de
WA6ITF
I believe that some of those organization attempts probably failed because of a few different reasons -

1 - ARRL was much stronger in those days and had many more members.
2 - Those organizations may have had a tough time getting people to understand what they were attempting to do.
3 - They may have had their own inside agenda which was found out and we already had ARRL with it's inside agendas and didn't want another one to do the same thing.

I have to say that there were many good posts in this thread - for once. I would also consider going back to ARRL if I could see something that would make it beneficial to me to rejoin. I was a member for 3 years and in that three years I wrote to many officials with concerns about one thing or another - and not a single one of them ever responded to a single email. This didn't exactly show me they were representing me or were concerned about my questions or comments anymore than they are right now as a non-member.

The ARRL only wanted my money.

As for EMCOMM - this is a joke that they are allowed to get grant money for this. All amateurs will be more then willing to get involved if a real disaster happens. I do at every change I can and I attend almost every drill possible here. I am a proud member of RACES and ARES on the local level.

The ARRL has let money get in their way of actually helping members as well as new hams. This is not a good thing either if they want to prove they are there for the ham radio community. They are there for ONLY that 20% who has seen fit to spend the membership fee to join their little "club".

I has asked the membership director in an email exactly what kind of benefits I could expect to gain by joining the ARRL - apparently there are none because the email went completely unanswered. That was 2 months ago so there is no "they are too busy" excuses here.

I do, however, belong to two local radio clubs because I think that clubs do good things for their memberships. I don't think the ARRL does anymore. They are completely self-serving. This doesn't actually help the membership.

Just my opinion.

Now, if anyone wishes to attempt to start a new national organization - let me know, I may be interested in helping out and joining yours until I see miss-handled agendas.

Steve

[wb6mmj]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,05:48)]From the latest ARRL Annual Report:
"...our advocacy efforts in Washington are focused on grooming a new relationship with the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as well as each of the Commissioners. When it comes to Part 97 regulatory matters in the Amateur Radio Service, it is imperative that we assert that the League IS the expert in Amateur Radio regulatory matters."

It strikes me this effort is a day late and a dollar short.
As far as being an "expert" at anything, we (the 80 percent who don't subscribe to the ARRL) should continue efforts to curb their bad behavior and inept lobbying of politicians, regional officials, federal regulators, and commercial industry reps.

The League's internal brain trust has, of late, been making a lot of missteps, like filing a lawsuit against the FCC in the aftermath of the ARRL's misguided approach trying to fight BPL. I predict the litigation will compound the humiliation their group has already suffered, and further erode their club's credibility in the eyes of those listed above.

There have also been poorly conceived "proposals" from Newington, including the failed threat to segregate our activities based on bandwidth, and an inadequate idea to right-size the amount of space allocated to popular activities that use voice modes on HF.

The FCC stepped around the stunted HF reapportionment idea from the ARRL, and instead granted a more appropriate amount of space for phone being enjoyed right now on 75 and 40 meters. The Agency did not even consider the threatened "bandwidth" proposal, withdrawn by the League's volunteer management who admitted the Opposition was overwhelming.

Postings such as this usually prompt a boilerplate "but they do so many good things," and "who else represents us." #Don't bother trying to detour valid criticism. The point is to challenge the League's assertion of being an expert at representing us.

There are many problems with the group in Newington that claims to be "the national association" for our hobby. They first must sort out why people have turned so negative toward their activities (myself included), and then look toward recovering our support (available to the extent they shape up), on the way to being seen as any kind of "expert" by both the hobby's licensees and those outside the Amateur Service.

Paul/VJB
Until there is another large group / club that represents Amateur Radio, like the A.R.R.L. claims to be doing, I believe we will keep seeing Amateur Radio go down hill. I think that if there were two groups / clubs, the A.R.R.L. and the "other" group, fighting for our "business" there would be a more honest approach by both when it comes to our interests and when filing petitions with the F.C.C. We need a checks and balances type of system. Two groups would help provide that.
Lets face it, the A.R.R.L. has a monopoly on what it does in Amateur radio. They arn`t a true business but the A.R.R.L. is run just like a real business accept they can not make a profit.
I have been in Amateur Radio for over 30 years and I have seen what the A.R.R.L. has done over those 30 plus years. Not all they have done is bad but allot they have done has hurt the spirit and tradition of Amateur Radio.
As I have said before, The A.R.R.L. has a conflict of interest. Business comes first with them. Keep the business in business. They want your money. Then comes Amateur Radio. I believe they will say and do whatever it takes to get more members/money to keep the business in business.
Selling Amateur Radio`s sole, it`s tradition and spirit, for members is not my idea of preserving Amateur Radio for generations to come.
If you all want to see Amateur Radio turn into another C.B. band, so be it. I sure don`t want that to happen but we are headed that way more and more as time goes on. What is the A.R.R.L. doing to stop this from happening? Really, what are they doing to stop it?
The A.R.R.L.`s membership is up as of the last report.
Why is their membership up? Well, they sold a little more of our sole for members. The license changes.

[wb6mmj]

WA9SVD Said: #The paradox there (if it is a paradox) is that the only way to actually CHANGE the ARRL is from the inside. #Non-members do not, and never will, have a voice in the manner in which the ARRL is run, so non-members do not really have an excuse to complain how the ARRL is (or is not) performing. #(It's sort of like people who complain about how the government is run, yet don't bother to get out and vote.)

I agree with allot of what you said but being a member of the A.R.R.L. is not what I want to do. I just can`t bring myself to give a organization money when, in general, I don`t support what they do and have done.
I see what you are saying about "changing them from the inside" but this country is not based on that idea. We have the Democrats and Republicans and other party's we can decide to vote with or partially with.
I don`t have to be a Democrat to try and change what the Democrats are doing.
We really do need, in Amateur Radio, another organization. This would help Amateur Radio with the problem of just one organization, at times with their own agenda in mind, saying they represent what Amateur Radio needs when it comes to the F.C.C. and rule making.

[N5PVL]

I think a second organization is a great idea.

I do not think that it should be anything like the ARRL though. Perhaps the second organization could concentrate on areas the ARRL handles poorly or not at all.

- With no 'hinternetters'. The hinternetter types are the ones who have basically screwed up the ARRL, so I'd expect the second organization to be more amateur radio oriented.

[wb6mmj]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ July 04 2007,21:08)]I think a second organization is a great idea.

I do not think that it should be anything like the ARRL though. Perhaps the second organization could concentrate on areas the ARRL handles poorly or not at all.

- With no 'hinternetters'. The hinternetter types are the ones who have basically screwed up the ARRL, so I'd expect the second organization to be more amateur radio oriented.
Yes, that would be nice.

[wb6mmj]

Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 04 2007,16:41)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 04 2007,08:30)]Whats stopping any of you from forming your own group to handle such matters?
Lets see the list of attempts and failures in my lifetime.

1960: #Institute of Amateur Radio funded by W2NSD / 73 Magazine.

1985: National Amateur Radio Association by the late W6TNS

1991: American Amateur Radio Association started by K1MAN

I'm sure there were others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

de
WA6ITF
To WA6ITF: So, are you saying that we should just roll over and play dead? Or are you just showing the results of those who tried?

[k5jat]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 04 2007,21:16)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ July 04 2007,21:08)]I think a second organization is a great idea.

I do not think that it should be anything like the ARRL though. Perhaps the second organization could concentrate on areas the ARRL handles poorly or not at all.

- With no 'hinternetters'. The hinternetter types are the ones who have basically screwed up the ARRL, so I'd expect the second organization to be more amateur radio oriented.
Yes, that would be nice.
I'd have to agree with both of you.

I'd also like to add that the new organization should have a line of communications for those who are not members. This would allow for a more balanced representation of all HAMS, not just the paying membership. Of course if they're doing good work, who wouldn't want to be apart of it?

Just my $.02....

73, Jay KE5NRH

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 04 2007,11:10)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 04 2007,09:33)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,06:37)]Who else is there?
That is right too. #We need to fix the ARRL or we have nothing.
As the recent debacle with RM11306 shows, it is not obvious to me that we need *anyone* when it comes to representing the Amateur Radio Service to the FCC.

More filings are entered with the FCC by individuals than by the ARRL. *WAY* more constructive ideas are provided to the #FCC in comments by individuals than by the ARRL. Many of the non-ARRL filings are more rigorous by an order of magnitude that the platitude filled filngs the ARRL has been putting forth.

The cry that the ARRL is all we have and that we need them to represent the ARS to the FCC may have been the case even a decade ago when the ECFS system accessible from the internet didn't exist. It's not obvious to me that such is still the case.

All the smoozing and lobbying the ARRL did on RM11306 couldn't overcome the problems pointed out by so many individual in the ECFS comments. Where is the evidence that this smoozing and lobbying will do any good in the future? It has certainly done nothing with regards to BPL and very little when it comes to antenna restrictions.

It is the content of the filings and how rigorously the subject of the filing is studied and presented that is the final determining factor. If the ARRL had done a rigorous job of studying spectrum usage, spectrum efficiency, and interference mitigation and then presented a well-thought out proposal based on #and consistent with those studies, we wouldn't be here arguing today.

If their future proposals remain as nothing more than platitude filled (i.e. digital is coming) pieces of propaganda pushing special interest agendas, they will remain useless and irrelevant to the Amateur Radio Service. We will NOT need them and they will NOT be the only game in town, at least as far as the FCC is concerned.

Saying that they are the only game in town and that they are needed today is nothing more than repeating old preconceptions. Think about it!

tim ab0wr
I thought about it, and I agree with your perceptions about the contributions of individual amateurs.

However you forget that the ARRL does much more than interact with the FCC. You're forgetting all of the lobbying they do with the state and federal governments on behalf of amateur radio.

North Carolina just signed into law our own version of PRB-1, which in a nutshell says that all government authorities in our state must reasonably accomodate amateur radio when it comes to our antennas. This was the result of lobbying actions by the League.

Lobbying costs money. Travel expenses, if nothing else, are more than most individuals would be willing to spend in looking out for the ARS as a whole. Remember, we're not discussing a single trip, but on-going and continuing efforts.

We do need an organization such as the ARRL for this reason if no other, and from that perspective (at least) they are (currently) the only game in town.

Mike

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 04 2007,21:30)]If you all want to see Amateur Radio turn into another C.B. band, so be it. I sure don`t want that to happen but we are headed that way more and more as time goes on. What is the A.R.R.L. doing to stop this from happening? Really, what are they doing to stop it?
The A.R.R.L.`s membership is up as of the last report.
Why is their membership up? Well, they sold a little more of our sole for members. The license changes.
All of the societal changes that have led to less and less respect for all law is a the root of the problem...

(hell, when was the last time you saw anyone really stop at a stop sign? or follow a speed limit? or come to a stop before turning right on red? or shun a guy who "does dope" the way we did when I was a kid?)

...and it is all the fault of the ARRL? Gimme a break! Some of you guys just crack me up. The League is at the end of every road to hell.

And just for the record, the license changes have been a project of the FCC, not of the ARRL. It was the FCC that sought to slough off the labor-intensive testing system to "private hands." It was the FCC that insisted on moving to a three-tier license structure. It was the FCC that led the charge to do away with Morse as a requirement.

The ARRL has sold no one's sole. Cat's Paw's been out of business for years.

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

[k5jat]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ July 05 2007,02:49)]I thought about it, and I agree with your perceptions about the contributions of individual amateurs.

However you forget that the ARRL does much more than interact with the FCC. You're forgetting all of the lobbying they do with the state and federal governments on behalf of amateur radio.

North Carolina just signed into law our own version of PRB-1, which in a nutshell says that all government authorities in our state must reasonably accomodate amateur radio when it comes to our antennas. This was the result of lobbying actions by the League.

Lobbying costs money. Travel expenses, if nothing else, are more than most individuals would be willing to spend in looking out for the ARS as a whole. Remember, we're not discussing a single trip, but on-going and continuing efforts.

We do need an organization such as the ARRL for this reason if no other, and from that perspective (at least) they are (currently) the only game in town.

Mike
I'm going to interject here.

While I see what you're saying, the ARRL wasn't built overnight either. At $39USD per member, and at even 20% of the total US HAM population, that's a big chunk of change to help with all that lobbying. That's not counting the Life, International, and Diamond members.

If an organization can form around a 5, 10, and 15 year plan of growth, it would be hard for it not to succeed. I mean, it would have to start somewhere, right?

73, Jay KE5NRH

[N5PVL]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,00:45)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 04 2007,16:41)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 04 2007,08:30)]Whats stopping any of you from forming your own group to handle such matters?
Lets see the list of attempts and failures in my lifetime.

1960: #Institute of Amateur Radio funded by W2NSD / 73 Magazine.

1985: National Amateur Radio Association by the late W6TNS

1991: American Amateur Radio Association started by K1MAN

I'm sure there were others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

de
WA6ITF
To WA6ITF: So, are you saying that we should just roll over and play dead? Or are you just showing the results of those who tried?
Yes, that's what he wants, for all of us to roll over and play dead...

That's what he always wants.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (ke5nrh @ July 05 2007,04:09)]Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ July 05 2007,02:49)]I thought about it, and I agree with your perceptions about the contributions of individual amateurs.

However you forget that the ARRL does much more than interact with the FCC. You're forgetting all of the lobbying they do with the state and federal governments on behalf of amateur radio.

North Carolina just signed into law our own version of PRB-1, which in a nutshell says that all government authorities in our state must reasonably accomodate amateur radio when it comes to our antennas. This was the result of lobbying actions by the League.

Lobbying costs money. Travel expenses, if nothing else, are more than most individuals would be willing to spend in looking out for the ARS as a whole. Remember, we're not discussing a single trip, but on-going and continuing efforts.

We do need an organization such as the ARRL for this reason if no other, and from that perspective (at least) they are (currently) the only game in town.

Mike
I'm going to interject here.

While I see what you're saying, the ARRL wasn't built overnight either. At $39USD per member, and at even 20% of the total US HAM population, that's a big chunk of change to help with all that lobbying. That's not counting the Life, International, and Diamond members.

If an organization can form around a 5, 10, and 15 year plan of growth, it would be hard for it not to succeed. I mean, it would have to start somewhere, right?

73, Jay KE5NRH
I agree with you OM. I didn't think I was implying that the ARRL was formed overnight or that another such organization could be founded quickly.

I'm not suggesting anything about the League's budget, how they spend those membership dues, just acknowledging that they do much more than interact with the FCC. Lobbying is a major effort that all should be aware of, and that is a very expensive effort.

I've often suggested to all of those against the ARRL that a simple to conceive, but obviously difficult solution to implement, would be the creation of another organization that could capture a significant percentage of hams as members.

However until that is done, I stand by my assertion that they (ARRL) are needed, and that they are the only game in town.

Mike

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,11:30)]Quote[/b] (WA2ZDY @ July 04 2007,10:16)]...imagine if a fair percentage of we protesting non-members DID join. # That could indeed result in a successful revolution. # #If such a movement got up some steam, I too would join. #And join ARRL as well.

Something to think about anyway.
The whole trouble with your theory is that each of you continues to sit on your lily pad watching what the others will do.

Why not take the leap and maybe some would follow?

Or is that too daring for you?
It is always easier to sit back as an outsider, critique and criticize without doing anything constructive, and basically play "Monday Morning Quarterback" after the fact to tell someone what they should have done...

than to join up, lend a hand, take part in it, work with the others, and deliver a finished result.

[w3wn]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ July 05 2007,07:58)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,00:45)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 04 2007,16:41)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 04 2007,08:30)]Whats stopping any of you from forming your own group to handle such matters?
Lets see the list of attempts and failures in my lifetime.

1960: #Institute of Amateur Radio funded by W2NSD / 73 Magazine.

1985: National Amateur Radio Association by the late W6TNS

1991: American Amateur Radio Association started by K1MAN

I'm sure there were others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

de
WA6ITF
To WA6ITF: So, are you saying that we should just roll over and play dead? Or are you just showing the results of those who tried?
Yes, that's what he wants, for all of us to roll over and play dead...

That's what he always wants.
No Charles, his point was simply that many have tried and failed.

Do you know why they failed?

Because if you don't, you risk seeing another "new" organization try, and fail yet again, from repeating the same mistakes.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] ](wa6itf @ July 04 2007,16:41)
Lets see the list of attempts and failures in my lifetime.

1960: Institute of Amateur Radio funded by W2NSD / 73 Magazine.

1985: National Amateur Radio Association by the late W6TNS

1991: American Amateur Radio Association started by K1MAN

I'm sure there were others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

de
WA6ITF


I think Bill's point a good one to remind everyone that a lot of organizational talent, effort and money went into the failed attempts noted above.

All of the harrumphing about forming a new organization to represent amateurs overlooks the difficulties, and no less important, dismisses childishly the changes that have beset our hobby since HPM began the League just a couple of years shy of a century ago.

The largest measure of the problem faced by today's amateurs -- and, as a result, by the ARRL -- is the nearly overwhelming attitude of "let George do it."

A few voices on this internet variant of a Hyde-Park Corner won't cut it when push comes to shove, as Wayne Green and all the others found to their dismay.

It is nothing if not foolish to sit here and bray nonsense while not taking part in the work of the ARRL only to criticise them for not doing the kind of work we want them to do.

One thing is certain, and it has not changed since they laid ol' HPM to rest in Hagerstown, Maryland, and that is the only way to get things done is to spit on your own two hands and take up the tools to do the job.

All else is bovine scat and not even worth tossing on the garden.

[n0iu]

I agree wholeheartedly that this emphasis on EMCOMM has been blown waaaaay out of proportion.

Here is a post-Field Day article that appeared in a Canadian newspaper: http://www.langleyadvance.com/issues07/071107/showtime.html

The headline reads Field Day: Radio day prepares real hams

Here is the letter I wrote to the editor:

On July 3, 2007, you published an article with the headline, "Field Day: Radio day prepares real hams" written by Poonam Bains. While the article may be factually correct, the headline is very misleading and does not do justice to the hobby of amateur radio.

I have been a licensed amateur radio operator since 1992. In that time I have contacted every state in the United States, every continent on the globe and as of today, 262 countries. My logbook contains almost 10,000 contacts. I made these contacts using a variety of modes including voice, data and Morse code, but according to your article, I am not a "real ham" because my activities do not include participation in emergency communications.

There are literally dozens of modes and an almost endless variety of operating activities in which amateur radio operators can participate. Whether or not an amateur radio operator chooses any one of them is a personal decision and does not determine if they are a "real ham". Anyone who holds a license from the FCC, Industry Canada or any other country's communication authority is a real ham!

Sincerely,
Scott Schultz - N0IU
n0iu@arrl.net
Wentzville, Missouri USA


We shall see if they respond!

[KA3TGV]

Quote[/b] (wa3vjb @ July 04 2007,05:48)]The League's internal brain trust has, of late, been making a lot of missteps, like filing a lawsuit against the FCC in the aftermath of the ARRL's misguided approach trying to fight BPL. I predict the litigation will compound the humiliation their group has already suffered, and further erode their club's credibility in the eyes of those listed above.
Agreed. Paul, your prediction could turn out to be correct.

A long time ago, probably in Penn State's business school, I was taught that taking the government to court is a last resort only to be deployed when other remedies have proven unsuccessful.

It all comes down to following the money. We *are* the government and our government is financed by tax receipts. It will defend itself in a case brought against it by an individual or group. Paying for litigation on both sides of a dispute is expensive.

The BPL case won't help ARRL in their attempt to improve relations with the FCC. This cynic postulates the League is pursuing this case to cajole further contributions from their members, while knowing their BPL case isn't going anywhere.

As I recall, when Glenn Baxter took the FCC to court over the AM power reduction issue, the Court refused to hear the case, deferring to the 'technical expertise' of the Commission.

In this case, Baxter and the AM group had a valid technical argument. When the regulation for limiting Amateur power changed from 1000 Watts DC input to the final amplifier to 1500 Watts peak envelope power output, the maximum allowed transmitting power for amateur AM was arbitrarily reduced to about 375 Watts carrier output @ 100% modulation. Prior to the regulatory change, a 700 Watt amateur AM signal was about the practical limit, given the efficiency of Class C vacuum tube RF amplifiers. There was no regulatory problem modulating such an amplifier in excess of 100% provided the modulated RF envelope was clean and fell within the guidelines of good amateur and engineering practice.

So the AMers found themselves with their power arbitrarily reduced without justification other than the FCC wanted to measure PEP output power in the Amateur Radio Service.

Why should this case be any different? If I had to predict an outcome, the court will defer to the technical expertise of the regulatory agency one more time.

Decisions made by the FCC in recent years indicate technical expertise is lacking at the Commission and this deficit limits their ability to render sound decisions.

The digital TV rollout, and it's aftermath, should prove interesting.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 04 2007,22:45)]Quote[/b] (wa6itf @ July 04 2007,16:41)]Quote[/b] (kb5wbh @ July 04 2007,08:30)]Whats stopping any of you from forming your own group to handle such matters?
Lets see the list of attempts and failures in my lifetime.

1960: Institute of Amateur Radio funded by W2NSD / 73 Magazine.

1985: National Amateur Radio Association by the late W6TNS

1991: American Amateur Radio Association started by K1MAN

I'm sure there were others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

de
WA6ITF
To WA6ITF: So, are you saying that we should just roll over and play dead? Or are you just showing the results of those who tried?
NO, Bill is saying that the way to change the ARRL is FROM THE INSIDE. All the "bellyaching" in the world won't change the ARRL if it comes from the outside. The only way to change the ARRL's direction is from the inside. (Sorry id that's hard to understand.) And YES, it MAY take a massive effort to change the direction and focus of the ARRL, but that will ONLY happen from within the membership.
Now, on a more emotional level, the reply could be "if you aren't a member, you have no right to complain." That may not be polite, or politically correct, but it IS correct.
I hardly agree with the ARRL on many issues, and violently (well, at least vehemently) disagree on some issues. But I don't feel they have an obligation to put the desires or agendas of non-members above those of members. The only way to change thew ARRL is from within.
Now I will also pose the question: if (as suggested) 80% of Amateurs are NOT ARRL members, and disagree with the ARRL, what would happen if the ARRL were eliminated?
Would those 80% all agree on a single alternative? Or would you have perhaps 20 different groups, with different agendas, all proclaiming that THEIR favored way was the correct direction for Amateur Radio?

In a LOT of ways I disagree witrh the ARRL's current policies, (don't even get me started on the lowering technical quality and content of QST) and I guess that includes the current powers that be. But I can NOT change that by merely withholding dues, I can ONLY change that by being a voting member. If enough disgruntled Amateurs would actually join and vote, we COULD get an administration in the ARRL that is more to the original intent of Amateur Radio. But nothing will ever occur overnight. It requires a long-term commitment. And that means active membership.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,06:09)]Quote[/b] ](wa6itf @ July 04 2007,16:41)
Lets see the list of attempts and failures in my lifetime.

1960: Institute of Amateur Radio funded by W2NSD / 73 Magazine.

1985: National Amateur Radio Association by the late W6TNS

1991: American Amateur Radio Association started by K1MAN

I'm sure there were others, but these are the ones that immediately come to mind.

de
WA6ITF


I think Bill's point a good one to remind everyone that a lot of organizational talent, effort and money went into the failed attempts noted above.

All of the harrumphing about forming a new organization to represent amateurs overlooks the difficulties, and no less important, dismisses childishly the changes that have beset our hobby since HPM began the League just a couple of years shy of a century ago.

The largest measure of the problem faced by today's amateurs -- and, as a result, by the ARRL -- is the nearly overwhelming attitude of "let George do it."

A few voices on this internet variant of a Hyde-Park Corner won't cut it when push comes to shove, as Wayne Green and all the others found to their dismay.

It is nothing if not foolish to sit here and bray nonsense while not taking part in the work of the ARRL only to criticise them for not doing the kind of work we want them to do.

One thing is certain, and it has not changed since they laid ol' HPM to rest in Hagerstown, Maryland, and that is the only way to get things done is to spit on your own two hands and take up the tools to do the job.

All else is bovine scat and not even worth tossing on the garden.
Albert,

You and I disagree on this.

It was a *few* voices on the internet that wound up pointing out the technical and policy flaws with RM11306 to the FCC. It was these "few" voices on the internet conversing with the FCC that finally convinced the ARRL to change its course and withdraw the petition from consideration.

This wasn't a matter of "let George do it". A whole host of amateurs, myself included, was conversing with our ARRL reps as much as two years prior to the filing with the FCC about the problems associated with the proposed filing.

The ARRL chose to *ignore* almost 99.9% of that input and filed the proposal exactly the way the special interest groups in the ARRL wanted them to file it. This was more of a matter of "Ignore George, he doesn't matter" by the ARRL than it was a case of the amateur community not wanting to participate in coming up with a good path for the ARRL to follow.

Botttom line? It doesn't really matter if you are inside the ARRL or outside the ARRL at this point. If your voice doesn't comport with what the Elite Priest-Kings of Ham Radio decree as Truth you will be branded a heretic that either doesn't understand the foundations of faith that lead to the Truth or that you are a heretic that is still clinging to faith in the "Old Gods". In either case you will be ignored.

This isn't nonsense. Nor are we "braying" it. Casting our concerns in such a manner is nothing more than a sly way to slip in an ad hominem -- it is a subtle way of branding us as heretics.

Several people have put forth plans that would be very much more palatable to the vast majority of hams than what the Elite Priest-Kings at the ARRL have come up with. These alternatives mostly wind up with a three-piece band split. A narrow-band analog, an all-digital, and an analog voice segment in each each band. Let the narrow-band digital fight it out with the wideband digital (esp the automatic robot wideband digital) and see who wins. The only argument with this plan is how big to make each segment. *THAT* is where a rigorous plan for studying spectrum usage, spectrum efficiency, and interference mitigation would come in and where the ARRL could **SHINE** if they just would.

If you think the ARRL is going to abandon their *faith* at this point, however, I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. Nor are they going to investigate their faith too closely -- for down that road lies perdition (i.e. they might find out what everyone else is saying is RIGHT!).

I have chosen to remain an ARRL member for their technical servcies, not for their policy and regulatory stances. If their technical service side continues to deteriorate then there will remain no reason to be a member any longer. (they won't even accept the advice that they should publish the worst IMD level from a transmitter instead of the best. why do their technical people think this way - they bow to the advertisers and refuse to serve the Amateur Radio Service community is why.)

Using your logic, Martin Luther would have never founded the Protestant line of faith. Everyone would still be trying to fight battles of faith within the Catholic church heirarchy. Sometimes you just have to be willing to fight the battle from outside the heirarchy - because the heirarchy won't recognize anything from inside.

tim ab0wr

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 05 2007,11:27)]Using your logic, Martin Luther would have never founded the Protestant line of faith. Everyone would still be trying to fight battles of faith within the Catholic church heirarchy. Sometimes you just have to be willing to fight the battle from outside the heirarchy - because the heirarchy won't recognize anything from inside.
Excellent!

I guess we'll see if the league listens to members when the results of these "questionaires" are published, if at all.

Exactly how is my or other members "voices" enhanced by membership in the ARRL if they out of hand ignore, and nobody can claim they haven't, any input which they have deemed heretical (not toeing the party line)?

If a majority of members get ignored or patronized on any particular subject, the same as non-members, then my $39 means exactly squat.

I'd like to know the membership breakdown of those who left comments on RM-11306. How many of those who left comments against were members who got ignored or patronized by "father"?

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 05 2007,11:27)]You and I disagree on this.
It's nice that we can agree before we disagree. Again.

Quote[/b] ]It was a *few* voices on the internet that wound up pointing out the technical and policy flaws with RM11306 to the FCC. It was these "few" voices on the internet conversing with the FCC that finally convinced the ARRL to change its course and withdraw the petition from consideration.

This wasn't a matter of "let George do it". A whole host of amateurs, myself included, was conversing with our ARRL reps as much as two years prior to the filing with the FCC about the problems associated with the proposed filing.


You make my point for me, Tim. TU.

There are 600k plus hams on the ULS. Probably at most, about 450K are actually active. Where were they?

There are currently about 150k members of the ARRL. Even taking that roster as being "super-active" in the sense that they are at least interested enough in amateur radio issues to be members, where were they?

RM-11306 drew a total of something just under 2,000 comments, and toward the end many of them were being filed by Waterman/K0QED-pushed websters too lazy to file their own comment.

If all of that doesn't fit into the "Let-George-do-it" Category, nothing does.

Quote[/b] ]Botttom line? It doesn't really matter if you are inside the ARRL or outside the ARRL at this point. If your voice doesn't comport with what the Elite Priest-Kings of Ham Radio decree as Truth you will be branded a heretic that either doesn't understand the foundations of faith that lead to the Truth or that you are a heretic that is still clinging to faith in the "Old Gods". In either case you will be ignored.

By your own engineering standards, you cannot support that thesis as anything but an opinion. It fits some of the data, but not all. What is happening right now may well burst your theory utterly. That remains to be seen, but I had rather light that one little candle than sit in the dark making a religion out of a bad theory.

Quote[/b] ]This isn't nonsense. Nor are we "braying" it. Casting our concerns in such a manner is nothing more than a sly way to slip in an ad hominem -- it is a subtle way of branding us as heretics.


If you really think that is an ad hominem, you are far too sensitive to be posting here; perhaps a dark room and quiet will help.

Quote[/b] ]Several people have put forth plans that would be very much more palatable to the vast majority of hams than what the Elite Priest-Kings at the ARRL have come up with. These alternatives mostly wind up with a three-piece band split. A narrow-band analog The only argument with this plan is how big to make each segment. *THAT* is where a rigorous plan for studying spectrum usage, spectrum efficiency, and interference mitigation would come in and where the ARRL could **SHINE** if they just would.


Sorry, Tim, but I don't think that you speak for "the vast majority of hams."

Your plan for a "narrow-band analog, an all-digital, and an analog voice segment in each each band. Let the narrow-band digital fight it out with the wideband digital (esp the automatic robot wideband digital) and see who wins" speaks far more eloquently to your position than anything else in your post. I am amused that you can put forth that idea while panning the very same concept, only from the other side of the mirror, that marked the bandwidth petition. Say hello to Alice if you see her.

Quote[/b] ]If you think the ARRL is going to abandon their *faith* at this point, however, I'm afraid you are sadly mistaken. Nor are they going to investigate their faith too closely -- for down that road lies perdition (i.e. they might find out what everyone else is saying is RIGHT!).

And I just might find out that you are simply representative of another apostasy. Who is mistaken remains to be seen, and though I may well be in error, at least I will fight to change things.

Quote[/b] ]Using your logic, Martin Luther would have never founded the Protestant line of faith. Everyone would still be trying to fight battles of faith within the Catholic church heirarchy. Sometimes you just have to be willing to fight the battle from outside the heirarchy - because the heirarchy won't recognize anything from inside.

That is a funny metaphor. The simple fact is that there are now more than 30,000 Protestant sects, all disagreeing with each other, and every time they do so, some group or other falls out and declares a new creed to be the only one worth following. Through it all, the Church soldiers on. I'll stick with Rome, thank you just the same.

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

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,11:33)]Through it all, the Church soldiers on. I'll stick with Rome, thank you just the same.
I was with you right up until this statement.

Rome?

Good food, terrible drivers! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,15:01)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,11:33)]Through it all, the Church soldiers on. I'll stick with Rome, thank you just the same.
I was with you right up until this statement.

Rome?

Good food, terrible drivers! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Try Paris. Same traffic, but sexier women with less temper.



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

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,13:07)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,15:01)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,11:33)]Through it all, the Church soldiers on. I'll stick with Rome, thank you just the same.
I was with you right up until this statement.

Rome?

Good food, terrible drivers! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Try Paris. Same traffic, but sexier women with less temper.



http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
La France est très agreeable; je suis sûr que j'irai là-bas encore.

[W3MIV]

Je n'ai pas visité la France pour plus que quarante années. Je me retournerai un jour.

Chaque homme doit voir Paris avant d'il meurt.

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

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,14:35)]Chaque homme doit voir Paris avant d'il meurt.
All men should see Paris before "it" dies? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Je pense que vous signifiez ceci:

Tout le monde doit voir Paris avant qu'il meurt!

73

Etienne WB2WIK/6

[wb6mmj]

W3MIV Said:...and it is all the fault of the ARRL? Gimme a break! Some of you guys just crack me up. The League is at the end of every road to hell.

And just for the record, the license changes have been a project of the FCC, not of the ARRL. It was the FCC that sought to slough off the labor-intensive testing system to "private hands." It was the FCC that insisted on moving to a three-tier license structure. It was the FCC that led the charge to do away with Morse as a requirement.

The ARRL has sold no one's sole. Cat's Paw's been out of business for years.

#If the A.R.R.L. was doing what it is suppose to do, For Amateur Radio, and that would be to help to preserve Amateur Radio, just maybe we wouldn`t have some of the changes the F.C.C. has made to the service. The soul of Amateur Radio has been slowly sucked away for many years. Has the A.R.R.L. been able to see this? Well, they have a business to run. Maybe the "business" of the A.R.R.L. has blinded them so bad that they can`t see what is really going on out there.
#What you have listed as the F.C.C.`s doing proves my point. The A.R.R.L. has not been doing a good job at what they are suppose to be doing.
#If the A.R.R.L. was a employee of mine I would fire them for not doing their job and hire someone who could get the job done. I wouldn`t #pay them for doing a bad job and that`s why I`m not a member of the A.R.R.L.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,14:54)]The sole of Amateur Radio has been slowly sucked away for many years.
Not to mention the soul!

[wb6mmj]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,14:56)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,14:54)]The sole of Amateur Radio has been slowly sucked away for many years.
Not to mention the soul!
My goof. SOUL.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,15:10)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,14:56)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,14:54)]The sole of Amateur Radio has been slowly sucked away for many years.
Not to mention the soul!
My goof. SOUL.
I'm just goofing with you as one of the resident spellcheckers here. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I agree with what you say.

WB2WIK/6

[wb6mmj]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,15:11)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,15:10)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,14:56)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,14:54)]The sole of Amateur Radio has been slowly sucked away for many years.
Not to mention the soul!
My goof. SOUL.
I'm just goofing with you as one of the resident spellcheckers here. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

I agree with what you say.

WB2WIK/6
Spelling and I have had many problems for years. I understand.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,16:47)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,14:35)]Chaque homme doit voir Paris avant d'il meurt.
All men should see Paris before "it" dies? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Je pense que vous signifiez ceci:

Tout le monde doit voir Paris avant qu'il meurt!

73

Etienne WB2WIK/6
Now you know why I never supplanted Charles Boyer!

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

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,16:54)]I wouldn`t #pay them for doing a bad job and that`s why I`m not a member of the A.R.R.L.
I'm sure that must be just what is behind your refusal to throw money away on such a bunch of wastrels and slouchers.

[WB2WIK]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,15:16)]Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,16:47)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 05 2007,14:35)]Chaque homme doit voir Paris avant d'il meurt.
All men should see Paris before "it" dies? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

Je pense que vous signifiez ceci:

Tout le monde doit voir Paris avant qu'il meurt!

73

Etienne WB2WIK/6
Now you know why I never supplanted Charles Boyer!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
At least you're alive, which is more than I can say for Mr. Boyer. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[N5PVL]

Any chance of getting back on topic?

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ July 04 2007,22:49)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 04 2007,11:10)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 04 2007,09:33)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,06:37)]Who else is there?
That is right too. #We need to fix the ARRL or we have nothing.
As the recent debacle with RM11306 shows, it is not obvious to me that we need *anyone* when it comes to representing the Amateur Radio Service to the FCC.

More filings are entered with the FCC by individuals than by the ARRL. *WAY* more constructive ideas are provided to the #FCC in comments by individuals than by the ARRL. Many of the non-ARRL filings are more rigorous by an order of magnitude that the platitude filled filngs the ARRL has been putting forth.

The cry that the ARRL is all we have and that we need them to represent the ARS to the FCC may have been the case even a decade ago when the ECFS system accessible from the internet didn't exist. It's not obvious to me that such is still the case.

All the smoozing and lobbying the ARRL did on RM11306 couldn't overcome the problems pointed out by so many individual in the ECFS comments. Where is the evidence that this smoozing and lobbying will do any good in the future? It has certainly done nothing with regards to BPL and very little when it comes to antenna restrictions.

It is the content of the filings and how rigorously the subject of the filing is studied and presented that is the final determining factor. If the ARRL had done a rigorous job of studying spectrum usage, spectrum efficiency, and interference mitigation and then presented a well-thought out proposal based on #and consistent with those studies, we wouldn't be here arguing today.

If their future proposals remain as nothing more than platitude filled (i.e. digital is coming) pieces of propaganda pushing special interest agendas, they will remain useless and irrelevant to the Amateur Radio Service. We will NOT need them and they will NOT be the only game in town, at least as far as the FCC is concerned.

Saying that they are the only game in town and that they are needed today is nothing more than repeating old preconceptions. Think about it!

tim ab0wr
I thought about it, and I agree with your perceptions about the contributions of individual amateurs.

However you forget that the ARRL does much more than interact with the FCC. You're forgetting all of the lobbying they do with the state and federal governments on behalf of amateur radio.

North Carolina just signed into law our own version of PRB-1, which in a nutshell says that all government authorities in our state must reasonably accomodate amateur radio when it comes to our antennas. This was the result of lobbying actions by the League.

Lobbying costs money. Travel expenses, if nothing else, are more than most individuals would be willing to spend in looking out for the ARS as a whole. Remember, we're not discussing a single trip, but on-going and continuing efforts.

We do need an organization such as the ARRL for this reason if no other, and from that perspective (at least) they are (currently) the only game in town.

Mike
The FCC has already stated that - there was no reason for your state to pass another law to say the same thing. That wasn't the ARRL doing it - that was the state validating what the Federal Government has already said.

The ARRL is NOT representing ALL hams. This is the problem. they are representing the ones that agree with their agendas and that's it.

With all the grant money they have gotten for EMCOMM, they shouldn't be charging for the EMCOMM radio courses at all. Especially their members. But they do anyway. It's called get the grant to train hams, then charge the hams for the training which our tax money has already paid for.

Again, we need an organization that truely represents all hams. As has been already said - that would include non-members. Of course, if the organization truely was for amateur radio and not amateur internet, then there wouldn't be that many non-members now would there be?

Get rid of pet agendas and start representing all of us, ARRL, and your membership would grow fast and by leaps and bounds. Ignoring non-members and some members who happen to dissagree with you is not the way to increase your numbers.

Steve

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 04 2007,20:02)]WA9SVD Said: The paradox there (if it is a paradox) is that the only way to actually CHANGE the ARRL is from the inside. Non-members do not, and never will, have a voice in the manner in which the ARRL is run, so non-members do not really have an excuse to complain how the ARRL is (or is not) performing. (It's sort of like people who complain about how the government is run, yet don't bother to get out and vote.)

I agree with allot of what you said but being a member of the A.R.R.L. is not what I want to do. I just can`t bring myself to give a organization money when, in general, I don`t support what they do and have done.
I see what you are saying about "changing them from the inside" but this country is not based on that idea. We have the Democrats and Republicans and other party's we can decide to vote with or partially with.
I don`t have to be a Democrat to try and change what the Democrats are doing.
We really do need, in Amateur Radio, another organization. This would help Amateur Radio with the problem of just one organization, at times with their own agenda in mind, saying they represent what Amateur Radio needs when it comes to the F.C.C. and rule making.
I appreciate your opinion and concerns.
But what we REALLY need is not two organizations, but an ARRL that truly represents the best interests of Amateur Radio for the sake of Amateur Radio, not just for a few specific aspects or special interests. One united group is far stronger than two (or more) seperate groups.
Even a perfect ARRL however, will not be able to please every ham, every time, in every way. That is something that has to be realized, understood and accepted. It still has to be for the "common good" and for the majority of hams, even if that offends some individuals. It just seems that the current ARRL often offends "most of the people, most of the time," members and non-members alike.

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,23:59)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 04 2007,21:30)]If you all want to see Amateur Radio turn into another C.B. band, so be it. I sure don`t want that to happen but we are headed that way more and more as time goes on. What is the A.R.R.L. doing to stop this from happening? Really, what are they doing to stop it?
The A.R.R.L.`s membership is up as of the last report.
Why is their membership up? Well, they sold a little more of our sole for members. The license changes.
All of the societal changes that have led to less and less respect for all law is a the root of the problem... #

(hell, when was the last time you saw anyone really stop at a stop sign? or follow a speed limit? or come to a stop before turning right on red? or shun a guy who "does dope" the way we did when I was a kid?)

...and it is all the fault of the ARRL? Gimme a break! Some of you guys just crack me up. The League is at the end of every road to hell.

And just for the record, the license changes have been a project of the FCC, not of the ARRL. It was the FCC that sought to slough off the labor-intensive testing system to "private hands." It was the FCC that insisted on moving to a three-tier license structure. It was the FCC that led the charge to do away with Morse as a requirement.

The ARRL has sold no one's sole. Cat's Paw's been out of business for years.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
MIV - although th eARRL is not responsible for people not being able to drive - the FCC was also not responsible for eliminating CW as a test requirement. #They were following suit of the rest of the world. #We were not the first but we WERE one of the last. #CW wasn't needed to be tested for any longer. #Simple as that.

The ARRL has been trying to eliminate radio from amateur radio for a long time now and it will not stop just because a few new members have joined. #The ARRL has been the forefront of the "digital revolution". #I hope you remember this when the CW subbands have been removed and replaced with internet gateways.

As for "private testing", it really isnt' that way now is it? #It is hams testing hams. #And any that seem suspicious are required to be retested. #And besides that - who's making all th emoney from that move to your "private testing"? #The ARRL - that's who. #WY5I (I think it is) doesn't charge for most testing sessions. #At least they didn't at Dayton this year. #Give me a break - 14.00 for taking a test which doesn't even require CW anymore? #It has gone up and up every year almost. #Don't sit there and defend the ARRL with comments such as those - they don't hold water.

Everything the FCC may have done (in your opinion) to harm amateur radio - the ARRL has been right there to make money off of it. #

With all of the EMCOMM grant money the league is getting - why are we still paying for the courses that OUR tax money has already paid for? #Hell even the members have to pay to take them! #Most of the course is online anyway - it surely doesn't cost that much. #They have been using EMCOMM to entice new members and new hams and then use them to make money after all the courses have already been paid for by tax money!

Those excuses don't work - at least not from my stand point.

OK, I'll accept the flames now.

Steve

[ab8yy]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 05 2007,16:55)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 04 2007,20:02)]WA9SVD Said: #The paradox there (if it is a paradox) is that the only way to actually CHANGE the ARRL is from the inside. #Non-members do not, and never will, have a voice in the manner in which the ARRL is run, so non-members do not really have an excuse to complain how the ARRL is (or is not) performing. #(It's sort of like people who complain about how the government is run, yet don't bother to get out and vote.)

I agree with allot of what you said but being a member of the A.R.R.L. is not what I want to do. I just can`t bring myself to give a organization money when, in general, I don`t support what they do and have done.
I see what you are saying about "changing them from the inside" but this country is not based on that idea. We have the Democrats and Republicans and other party's we can decide to vote with or partially with.
I don`t have to be a Democrat to try and change what the Democrats are doing.
We really do need, in Amateur Radio, another organization. This would help Amateur Radio with the problem of just one organization, at times with their own agenda in mind, saying they represent what Amateur Radio needs when it comes to the F.C.C. and rule making.
I appreciate your opinion and concerns.
# #But what we REALLY need is not two organizations, but an ARRL that truly represents the best interests of Amateur Radio for the sake of Amateur Radio, not just for a few specific aspects or special interests. #One united group is far stronger than two (or more) seperate groups.
# #Even a perfect ARRL however, will not be able to please every ham, every time, in every way. #That is something that has to be realized, understood and accepted. #It still has to be for the "common good" and for the majority of hams, even if that offends some individuals. #It just seems that the current ARRL often offends "most of the people, most of the time," members and non-members alike.
Hmmmm - good points - but maybe we need another organization then to push the ARRL into doing what they started out doing way back when. Until some kind of opposition comes along, it will be business as usual.

The current ARRL is all about looking nice and making money. If there is something in it for them, they will support it - otherwise it isn't important enough to even talk about.

Maybe what is needed isn't really another organization like the ARRL, but one that actually does something beneficial for amateur radio as a whole. Hell if it doens't involved trying to change rules every other month, the FCC might even support and listen to them. So, far there hasn't been a real need to have any drastic rule changes that I can see. The last attempt of the ARRL to do this met complete opposition by the majority of hams who commented on it. This should have been the clue to forget this - but not the league, they are just going to reword it so it "looks" more appealling and resubmit it again. Why? It's their current agenda to show us that amateur radio is and should be moving into the "digital revolution" and the amateur radio SHOULD be the new internet. This is sooo completely wrong it isn't even funny.

We have an internet already and it works just fine. We HAD an amateur radio which worked just fine. Why mix the two together? there isn't any need to is there? What would serve the purpose? Why do we need modes which use more bandwidth than we already have? Digital is supposed to be able to get the message thru with less bandwidth. but the ARRL wants to allocate blocks for extra wide bandwidth modes. There is only one reason for that and it surely isn't for voice comms or CW. It is for high speed internet digital and winlink. Their two big agendas at the moment.

Does this really satisfy the need of the majority of ham radio operators? I don't think so. It serves the purposes of a select few and the ARRL's method of making money.

Steve

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,14:54)]W3MIV Said:...and it is all the fault of the ARRL? Gimme a break! Some of you guys just crack me up. The League is at the end of every road to hell.

And just for the record, the license changes have been a project of the FCC, not of the ARRL. It was the FCC that sought to slough off the labor-intensive testing system to "private hands." It was the FCC that insisted on moving to a three-tier license structure. It was the FCC that led the charge to do away with Morse as a requirement.

The ARRL has sold no one's sole. Cat's Paw's been out of business for years.

If the A.R.R.L. was doing what it is suppose to do, For Amateur Radio, and that would be to help to preserve Amateur Radio, just maybe we wouldn`t have some of the changes the F.C.C. has made to the service. The soul of Amateur Radio has been slowly sucked away for many years. Has the A.R.R.L. been able to see this? Well, they have a business to run. Maybe the "business" of the A.R.R.L. has blinded them so bad that they can`t see what is really going on out there.
What you have listed as the F.C.C.`s doing proves my point. The A.R.R.L. has not been doing a good job at what they are suppose to be doing.
If the A.R.R.L. was a employee of mine I would fire them for not doing their job and hire someone who could get the job done. I wouldn`t pay them for doing a bad job and that`s why I`m not a member of the A.R.R.L.
You are assuming that the FCC is in some way governed by the ARRL!

The ARRL CAN make recommendations to the FCC, and file petitions, etc. but the FCC makes the decisions, NOT the ARRL. If the FCC changes a rule or makes a decision in a way that is different from an ARRL recommendation, it's hardly proof the ARRL isn't doing it's "job." It's much more than even a "David vs. Goliath" situation. If the FCC makes a decision, nothing the ARRL does, or had done, in any way has an effect. Even if the ARRL had DEMANDED that the Morse testing remain for all license classes (instead of just the Amateur Extra Class) the FCC still would have made the same decision. Anything the ARRL said or petitioned has no official bearing on what the FCC actually does. To think the ARRL can actually influence FCC actions is a bit naive. the FCC may well take into consideration any ARRL comments or recommendations, but once it makes a decision, the ARRL is powerless to change that decision. (Save for a court battle, such as the BPL issue.)

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (WB2WIK @ July 05 2007,14:56)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 05 2007,14:54)]The sole of Amateur Radio has been slowly sucked away for many years.
Not to mention the soul!
Yeah, that sounded a bit fishy... http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif

[NN4RH]

Quote[/b] ]With all of the EMCOMM grant money the league is getting

All of what grant money? There's only $122,000 of grant revenue showing on their annual report. That's next to nothing. Less than 1% of the ARRL's revenues.

The idea that ARRL is getting rich off of "EMCOMM grant money" is nonsense. A myth.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ July 05 2007,20:50)][

Again, we need an organization that truely represents all hams. As has been already said - that would include non-members.
Steve,

Therein lies the paradox. You suggest an organization that represents all amateurs, yet you say such an organization should reflect members and non-members alike.
Well, the ARRL IS that "member only" organization; another "membership" organization would be no better; and would it really support the interests of non-members vs. members? You're back to the ARRL, which at least has an established organization. Seems you'd be reinventing the square wheel all over again. At least the ARRL has rounded the edges a little over time.

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (ab8yy @ July 05 2007,20:59)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 04 2007,23:59)]Quote[/b] (wb6mmj @ July 04 2007,21:30)]If you all want to see Amateur Radio turn into another C.B. band, so be it. I sure don`t want that to happen but we are headed that way more and more as time goes on. What is the A.R.R.L. doing to stop this from happening? Really, what are they doing to stop it?
The A.R.R.L.`s membership is up as of the last report.
Why is their membership up? Well, they sold a little more of our sole for members. The license changes.
All of the societal changes that have led to less and less respect for all law is a the root of the problem...

(hell, when was the last time you saw anyone really stop at a stop sign? or follow a speed limit? or come to a stop before turning right on red? or shun a guy who "does dope" the way we did when I was a kid?)

...and it is all the fault of the ARRL? Gimme a break! Some of you guys just crack me up. The League is at the end of every road to hell.

And just for the record, the license changes have been a project of the FCC, not of the ARRL. It was the FCC that sought to slough off the labor-intensive testing system to "private hands." It was the FCC that insisted on moving to a three-tier license structure. It was the FCC that led the charge to do away with Morse as a requirement.

The ARRL has sold no one's sole. Cat's Paw's been out of business for years.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
MIV - although th eARRL is not responsible for people not being able to drive - the FCC was also not responsible for eliminating CW as a test requirement. They were following suit of the rest of the world. We were not the first but we WERE one of the last. CW wasn't needed to be tested for any longer. Simple as that.

The ARRL has been trying to eliminate radio from amateur radio for a long time now and it will not stop just because a few new members have joined. The ARRL has been the forefront of the "digital revolution". I hope you remember this when the CW subbands have been removed and replaced with internet gateways.

As for "private testing", it really isnt' that way now is it? It is hams testing hams. And any that seem suspicious are required to be retested. And besides that - who's making all th emoney from that move to your "private testing"? The ARRL - that's who. WY5I (I think it is) doesn't charge for most testing sessions. At least they didn't at Dayton this year. Give me a break - 14.00 for taking a test which doesn't even require CW anymore? It has gone up and up every year almost. Don't sit there and defend the ARRL with comments such as those - they don't hold water.

Everything the FCC may have done (in your opinion) to harm amateur radio - the ARRL has been right there to make money off of it.

With all of the EMCOMM grant money the league is getting - why are we still paying for the courses that OUR tax money has already paid for? Hell even the members have to pay to take them! Most of the course is online anyway - it surely doesn't cost that much. They have been using EMCOMM to entice new members and new hams and then use them to make money after all the courses have already been paid for by tax money!

Those excuses don't work - at least not from my stand point.

OK, I'll accept the flames now.

Steve
Some misconceptions here, with all due respect.

The "digital revolution" is welcome, as long as it's not at the expense of anyone or everyone else. THAT seems to be the problem with many of the "digitensia." They want everyone else (CW, SSB, RTTY, etc; all analogue modes, but especially SSB) eliminated to make room solely (not soully) for them.
=======
The question of $$$ for testing has been debated and questioned many times. Both the ARRL AND W5YI VEC's REQUIRE the legal maximum be charged every person being tested, at least under normal circumstances. Other VEC's can charge any amount LESS than the minimum, or nothing at all. The VE's that operate under ARRL or W5YI have to send a proscribed $ amount back to ARRL or W5YI for each examinee. But other VEC's and VE teams can and do test for less; I paid around $4.00 in 2000 for one upgrade, and again, about $4.00 for my Extra upgrade Exam at the local ARRL "convention;" but again, the actual testing was under the VEC of the sponsoring organization, not the ARRL itself. If the testing had been under the ARRL's VEC authority, the maximum fee (around $10-$12 at that time) would have been charged.
if the testing at Dayton was without a fee, I'd be glad to wager it was by a local VEC, not ARRL or W5YI. (IMHO, W5YI is even more $$$ hungry than the ARRL is or ever has been. But then again, W5YI IS a BUSINESS, make no mistake about THAT.)

No, not meant to be a flame. Just a disagreement, and IMHO a bit of correction.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 05 2007,23:56)]Some misconceptions here, with all due respect.
I do love a good understatement. TU.

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

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 05 2007,23:22)]Quote[/b] ]With all of the EMCOMM grant money the league is getting

All of what grant money? #There's only $122,000 of grant revenue showing on their annual report. That's next to nothing. Less than 1% of the ARRL's revenues.

The idea that ARRL is getting rich off of "EMCOMM grant money" is nonsense. A myth.
The "grant money" legend is one of the favorite bludgeons of the critics. As you have noticed, it is a phony issue to a very great extent.

That grant was used to underwrite the costs of EmComm courses, particularly a "rebate" program that ran last year. One enrolled in one of the EmComm commo courses, paid for the course, took the tests, passed, and the cost of the course was rebated by the grant money. It was a way of increasing numbers of hams who had taken and passed the courses.

To hear the howls, you would have thought that millions of federal dollars were pouring into Newington. I wish they were; it would surely solve a lot of problems. Bottom line: It costs a lot to run the ARRL. It would cost a lot to run a "competitive" organization, too, and it would not take long before the howls about "money" would dominate discussion about any other such organization from the same old group.

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

[k5jat]

Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 05 2007,21:56)]Some misconceptions here, with all due respect.

The "digital revolution" is welcome, as long as it's not at the expense of anyone or everyone else. THAT seems to be the problem with many of the "digitensia." They want everyone else (CW, SSB, RTTY, etc; all analogue modes, but especially SSB) eliminated to make room solely (not soully) for them.
=======
The question of $$$ for testing has been debated and questioned many times. Both the ARRL AND W5YI VEC's REQUIRE the legal maximum be charged every person being tested, at least under normal circumstances. Other VEC's can charge any amount LESS than the minimum, or nothing at all. The VE's that operate under ARRL or W5YI have to send a proscribed $ amount back to ARRL or W5YI for each examinee. But other VEC's and VE teams can and do test for less; I paid around $4.00 in 2000 for one upgrade, and again, about $4.00 for my Extra upgrade Exam at the local ARRL "convention;" but again, the actual testing was under the VEC of the sponsoring organization, not the ARRL itself. If the testing had been under the ARRL's VEC authority, the maximum fee (around $10-$12 at that time) would have been charged.
if the testing at Dayton was without a fee, I'd be glad to wager it was by a local VEC, not ARRL or W5YI. (IMHO, W5YI is even more $$$ hungry than the ARRL is or ever has been. But then again, W5YI IS a BUSINESS, make no mistake about THAT.)

No, not meant to be a flame. Just a disagreement, and IMHO a bit of correction.
SVD,

Don't take this personal, I'm just pointing out something. YY was pointing out "expense" as in "At the expense of others" not in a monetary kind of way.

That being said, YY has a point. Any new modes that are adopted (voice, digital, or any hybrid there of) should not be done so to the point where everyone else suffers. Currently, and probably the foreseeable future, new modes must fit in with the current Band Plan. Those are the rules. If they don't like it, they may wish to apply for an experimenter's license to take their toys elsewhere, or come up with a better and more technically feasible Band Plan that allows for all modes to coexist and submit it to the FCC.

73, Jay KE5NRH

[kc8ppz]

It's all about money for the League.There are parts of the hobby that one cannot become involved in without joining the League.
I was once a member. After realizing it was all about the money I quit.
I will never support such a(n) organization again.......
In any way.............
Whatsoever...........


Dave

[k5jat]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 06 2007,02:26)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 05 2007,23:22)]Quote[/b] ]With all of the EMCOMM grant money the league is getting

All of what grant money? There's only $122,000 of grant revenue showing on their annual report. That's next to nothing. Less than 1% of the ARRL's revenues.

The idea that ARRL is getting rich off of "EMCOMM grant money" is nonsense. A myth.
The "grant money" legend is one of the favorite bludgeons of the critics. As you have noticed, it is a phony issue to a very great extent.

That grant was used to underwrite the costs of EmComm courses, particularly a "rebate" program that ran last year. One enrolled in one of the EmComm commo courses, paid for the course, took the tests, passed, and the cost of the course was rebated by the grant money. It was a way of increasing numbers of hams who had taken and passed the courses.

To hear the howls, you would have thought that millions of federal dollars were pouring into Newington. I wish they were; it would surely solve a lot of problems. Bottom line: It costs a lot to run the ARRL. It would cost a lot to run a "competitive" organization, too, and it would not take long before the howls about "money" would dominate discussion about any other such organization from the same old group.

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

Quite the company man you are. Pray tell us why did the ARRL try to unleash it's attempt at "Regulation by Bandwidth" without posting it's technical merits and a formal band plan? We have yet to even see or hear anything from Newington except for denial, denial, denial. Oh, and it was "misunderstandings" that killed it.

What gives?

73, Jay KE5NRH

[WA9SVD]

Quote[/b] (ke5nrh @ July 06 2007,02:40)]Quote[/b] (wa9svd @ July 05 2007,21:56)]Some misconceptions here, with all due respect.

The "digital revolution" is welcome, as long as it's not at the expense of anyone or everyone else. THAT seems to be the problem with many of the "digitensia." They want everyone else (CW, SSB, RTTY, etc; all analogue modes, but especially SSB) eliminated to make room solely (not soully) for them.
=======
The question of $$$ for testing has been debated and questioned many times. Both the ARRL AND W5YI VEC's REQUIRE the legal maximum be charged every person being tested, at least under normal circumstances. Other VEC's can charge any amount LESS than the minimum, or nothing at all. The VE's that operate under ARRL or W5YI have to send a proscribed $ amount back to ARRL or W5YI for each examinee. But other VEC's and VE teams can and do test for less; I paid around $4.00 in 2000 for one upgrade, and again, about $4.00 for my Extra upgrade Exam at the local ARRL "convention;" but again, the actual testing was under the VEC of the sponsoring organization, not the ARRL itself. If the testing had been under the ARRL's VEC authority, the maximum fee (around $10-$12 at that time) would have been charged.
if the testing at Dayton was without a fee, I'd be glad to wager it was by a local VEC, not ARRL or W5YI. (IMHO, W5YI is even more $$$ hungry than the ARRL is or ever has been. But then again, W5YI IS a BUSINESS, make no mistake about THAT.)

No, not meant to be a flame. Just a disagreement, and IMHO a bit of correction.
SVD,

Don't take this personal, I'm just pointing out something. YY was pointing out "expense" as in "At the expense of others" not in a monetary kind of way.

That being said, YY has a point. Any new modes that are adopted (voice, digital, or any hybrid there of) should not be done so to the point where everyone else suffers. Currently, and probably the foreseeable future, new modes must fit in with the current Band Plan. Those are the rules. If they don't like it, they may wish to apply for an experimenter's license to take their toys elsewhere, or come up with a better and more technically feasible Band Plan that allows for all modes to coexist and submit it to the FCC.

73, Jay KE5NRH
Jay,

I think we may misunderstand each other, but actually agree more than we disagree. I welcome a "digital" revolution and experimentation. it's just that many of the digital proponents wish to give their use of the bands priority over any and/or all other users, and consider analogue modes unworthy of any bandwidth at all. I'm not against a co-existence world, but that doesn't seem good enough for some of the digital proponents; they want to rid the bands of analog users, NOW.
---------

The rest of my comment was concerning VE testing; my point was thatARRL and W5YI in particular demand the legal maximum fee be charged, while other VEC's get by with considerably less, or even provide testing without a fee at all. It's all perfectly legal, but provides a point to ponder that if some VE teams can charge $0.00, why other groups demand the last penny allowed.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ke5nrh @ July 06 2007,05:06)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 06 2007,02:26)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 05 2007,23:22)]Quote[/b] ]With all of the EMCOMM grant money the league is getting

All of what grant money? #There's only $122,000 of grant revenue showing on their annual report. That's next to nothing. Less than 1% of the ARRL's revenues.

The idea that ARRL is getting rich off of "EMCOMM grant money" is nonsense. A myth.
The "grant money" legend is one of the favorite bludgeons of the critics. As you have noticed, it is a phony issue to a very great extent.

That grant was used to underwrite the costs of EmComm courses, particularly a "rebate" program that ran last year. One enrolled in one of the EmComm commo courses, paid for the course, took the tests, passed, and the cost of the course was rebated by the grant money. It was a way of increasing numbers of hams who had taken and passed the courses.

To hear the howls, you would have thought that millions of federal dollars were pouring into Newington. I wish they were; it would surely solve a lot of problems. Bottom line: It costs a lot to run the ARRL. It would cost a lot to run a "competitive" organization, too, and it would not take long before the howls about "money" would dominate discussion about any other such organization from the same old group.

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

Quite the company man you are. Pray tell us why did the ARRL try to unleash it's attempt at "Regulation by Bandwidth" without posting it's technical merits and a formal band plan? We have yet to even see or hear anything from Newington except for denial, denial, denial. Oh, and it was "misunderstandings" that killed it.

What gives?

73, Jay KE5NRH
I cannot speak for the ARRL. More to the point, I have no explanation for the stupid way they handled the bandwidth petition. I opposed the petition, and was aghast at the cavalier manner in which the whole thing was handled.

So what? One cannot measure the entire worth of the ARRL or its value to amateur radio in the US solely on the basis of recent actions we don't like.

The simple fact of the matter is: The ARRL is all there is. It is easy for the gainsayers to sit back and snipe, knowing all the while that the rest of us are carrying their share of the load.

If you want to have a chance to change the way things have been run in the League, the way to do so is, not to sit back sniping on the internet, but to become involved and work for those changes.

All of this foolishness about "founding a competitive organization" to represent amateurs is just that: foolishness. Earlier in this thread, Bill Pasternak put up a short list of those earlier attempts to do the same thing. All failed miserably. Wayne Green was (is) one of the most popular critics of the League, and he could get no traction whatever.

What in hell do you think all of you guys are going to get?

The hard fact of the matter is: You already have the biggest group to represent your interests. If the work that is now being done does not meet your expectations, get off your butts and get involved and change that work.

Everything else is so much hot air and cyber-masturbation by people with big ideas and nothing to support them beyond complaints and bovine scat.

If that makes me a "company man," it's OK by me.

[n5rfx]

The ARRL is certainly not the U.S Amateur radio regulatory expert; however, neither is the FCC. #Neither organization really understands the jumbled mess that is part 97. #Part 97 has been patched together because of a compromise that began after docket 20777 in 1977. #What I would hope for is a benevolent regulator (similar to a benevolent dictator) that takes a very needlessly complicated part 97 and simplifies it. #If the FCC would codify the opinions of their staffers, part 97 would be very workable and very simple. #What we have to live with now are mixed signals and contradictions. #An example is §97.307(d) and (e). #This regulation sounds nice, but is not enforced or even tested.

Amateur Radio in the U.S. needs leadership that understands that "each station licensee and each control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. No frequency will be assigned for the exclusive use of any station."
We have been a ship adrift. #When the ARRL helmsman grabbed hold of the wheel he turned the ship in a direction that was not acceptable to many Amateurs. #The helmsman got his orders from the captain and his navigator was the Digital Ad Hoc Committee, which was overrepresented by digital zealots. #Extremism in any form is unacceptable.
Quote[/b] ]KE5NRH:If they don't like it, they may wish to apply for an experimenter's license to take their toys elsewhere
We do have an experimenters license in the ARS. #Cooperation is a two way street.

73,
Mark N5RFX

[k5jat]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 06 2007,03:17)]Quote[/b] (ke5nrh @ July 06 2007,05:06)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 06 2007,02:26)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 05 2007,23:22)]Quote[/b] ]With all of the EMCOMM grant money the league is getting

All of what grant money? There's only $122,000 of grant revenue showing on their annual report. That's next to nothing. Less than 1% of the ARRL's revenues.

The idea that ARRL is getting rich off of "EMCOMM grant money" is nonsense. A myth.
The "grant money" legend is one of the favorite bludgeons of the critics. As you have noticed, it is a phony issue to a very great extent.

That grant was used to underwrite the costs of EmComm courses, particularly a "rebate" program that ran last year. One enrolled in one of the EmComm commo courses, paid for the course, took the tests, passed, and the cost of the course was rebated by the grant money. It was a way of increasing numbers of hams who had taken and passed the courses.

To hear the howls, you would have thought that millions of federal dollars were pouring into Newington. I wish they were; it would surely solve a lot of problems. Bottom line: It costs a lot to run the ARRL. It would cost a lot to run a "competitive" organization, too, and it would not take long before the howls about "money" would dominate discussion about any other such organization from the same old group.

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

Quite the company man you are. Pray tell us why did the ARRL try to unleash it's attempt at "Regulation by Bandwidth" without posting it's technical merits and a formal band plan? We have yet to even see or hear anything from Newington except for denial, denial, denial. Oh, and it was "misunderstandings" that killed it.

What gives?

73, Jay KE5NRH
I cannot speak for the ARRL. More to the point, I have no explanation for the stupid way they handled the bandwidth petition. I opposed the petition, and was aghast at the cavalier manner in which the whole thing was handled.

So what? One cannot measure the entire worth of the ARRL or its value to amateur radio in the US solely on the basis of recent actions we don't like.

The simple fact of the matter is: The ARRL is all there is. It is easy for the gainsayers to sit back and snipe, knowing all the while that the rest of us are carrying their share of the load.

If you want to have a chance to change the way things have been run in the League, the way to do so is, not to sit back sniping on the internet, but to become involved and work for those changes.

All of this foolishness about "founding a competitive organization" to represent amateurs is just that: foolishness. Earlier in this thread, Bill Pasternak put up a short list of those earlier attempts to do the same thing. All failed miserably. Wayne Green was (is) one of the most popular critics of the League, and he could get no traction whatever.

What in hell do you think all of you guys are going to get?

The hard fact of the matter is: You already have the biggest group to represent your interests. If the work that is now being done does not meet your expectations, get off your butts and get involved and change that work.

Everything else is so much hot air and cyber-masturbation by people with big ideas and nothing to support them beyond complaints and bovine scat.

If that makes me a "company man," it's OK by me.
Good answers all.

And yes, I am member of the ARRL. When the last RM came out I felt like it did not represent my interests at all. It was something of a betrayal to me. I asked questions that were danced around and I was referred to articles on the ARRL site that basically told me nothing. I then made my comments on the FCC's system against the RM in question.

Really, if there were misunderstandings it was the ARRL's fault for not communicating more effectively with it's membership or the community at large. Posting it a couple of times in QST doesn't amount to much since ~80% of US HAMS actually receive it. Not real effective.

A bit of irony: The ARRL is all about communications, but fails at it spectacularly. It boggles the mind...

73, Jay KE5NRH

[k5jat]

Quote[/b] (n5rfx @ July 06 2007,03:30)]Quote[/b] ]KE5NRH:If they don't like it, they may wish to apply for an experimenter's license to take their toys elsewhere
We do have an experimenters license in the ARS. Cooperation is a two way street.

73,
Mark N5R