View Full Version : Goal: 30,000 New Licensees in 2008
NN4RH
07-28-2007, 11:58 AM
From the ARRL Letter July 27 (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/07/0727/) article about the Board of Directors meeting:
Quote[/b] ]Recognizing the significance of recent FCC actions that included the removal of the Morse testing requirement, the Board set a goal of attaining 30,000 new licensees in 2008, increasing in the following years. With approximately 6,000 licensees disappearing from the ranks of amateurs each year through attrition and non-renewal, the Board recognized the importance of striving to create real growth in the service. The new licensing regime along with the approaching increase in sunspots can provide the motivation and inspiration for all hams to use to increase the numbers of licensees as well as the interest level of all.
Apparently they're hoping that the spike in licensing following the Element 1 removal isn't just a spike, but the start of a long-term trend
Frankly, I don't see it happening that way. Sure, the entry threshold has changed but the underlying nature and underlying appeal (or lack thereof) of Amateur Radio has not.
And even if there were 30,000 new licensees next year, there's also the issue of how many of them actually would ever get on the air and be active. There have been surges in licensees following major changes before, that did not result in any sustained growth in the number of active hams. What is different this time?
at one time it took roughly 2,000 new licensees each month to replace those who drop of the rolls. In the end the total number of licensees seems to stay in a very narrow margin over the course of a year. What we are seeing is the Novice and Advanced licenses declining at large rates and the Technician class numbers declining as they move up and do not seem to be replaced. The General class is adding numbers at good percentage rates as is the Extra a smaller rate.
In theory, 30,000 new licensees over the next 12 months should increase the numbers by about 0.75%.
73
George
K3UD
W3MIV
07-28-2007, 12:58 PM
I believe the totals on the ULS are not indicative of the real number of active licensees, and a part of the continuing drop in Techs is because they are long gone and not renewing. I have felt this way for a long time; the pitiful state of repeater use in many major metropolitan areas, in my view, is a clear indication of the lower number of active Techs that extended over a period that began well before the decisions that removed the Morse requirement utterly.
Though there seems to be no way to really tell, I believe the actual number of active hams is probably around 500k, perhaps even less.
Albert
Unfortunately there is no way to determine how many licensees in the ULS database are "active" and there seems to be no definition of what active really means. I am sure that there are many silent keys in the database as well as the Technicians that you mentioned. I also sense that most of those who hold a Novice license are not active as the rate of Novice licensee decline has been increasing every time I do the numbers. It would be tough to quantify overall activity and I have seen guesses that put the actual number of active hams (choose you own definition) at below 200,000.
One thing I do know is that we had a net loss of a bit over 31,000 licensees (4.5%) since April 2003 and continue to see quarterly net losses on a smaller scale. While these are not big percentages, they tell the story of stagnation at best. I hope the ARRL initiative for 30,000 new licensees works out. This would more than offset the loss and perhaps contribute to a positive upswing in the numbers. However, 30,000 new licensees in 2008 will not translate into a 30,000 increase in the numbers.
73
George
K3UD
N8CPA
07-28-2007, 01:28 PM
Getting licensees is easy. Getting hams is another story.
kn4ds
07-28-2007, 02:46 PM
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 28 2007,09:26)]I am sure that there are many silent keys in the database
I am aware of one SK that's still in the database...
I also know some licensees that aren't active, mainly children and spouses of active hams.
I think we have to be careful of trying to add numbers just for the sake of adding the numbers, too, no matter what the "entrance requirements" may be.
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 28 2007,05:31)]at one time it took roughly 2,000 new licensees each month to replace those who drop of the rolls. In the end the total number of licensees seems to stay in a very narrow margin over the course of a year. What we are seeing is the Novice and Advanced licenses declining at large rates and the Technician class numbers declining as they move up and do not seem to be replaced. The General class is adding numbers at good percentage rates as is the Extra a smaller rate.
In theory, 30,000 new licensees over the next 12 months should increase the numbers by about 0.75%.
73
George
K3UD
George,
Have not seen your full numbers lately. I really enjoyed reading them. Personally I believe it's good for the League to set goals, and my only concern it the feeling that we need warm bodies to save AR. If you put too much salt in the soup, you don't fix it by putting more salt in. Our problem today is with bad operators, inexperienced operators, hot heads, chips on their shoulders, know-it-alls, etc.
What I would like to see from the ARRL is a program to educate people on the bandplan, good operating practices,
proper contesting, suggestions for each of the popular modes for "working in crowded bands", and more activity from their OO program. What I'd like to see from the FCC is less "can't we all just get along" talks at Dayton, and more getting off their butts and enforcing the rules. Adding 30,000 more people will only make it worse if we don't do something about what we already have.
Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ July 28 2007,09:46)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 28 2007,09:26)]I am sure that there are many silent keys in the database
I am aware of one SK that's still in the database...
I also know some licensees that aren't active, mainly children and spouses of active hams.
I think we have to be careful of trying to add numbers just for the sake of adding the numbers, too, no matter what the "entrance requirements" may be.
There are probably hundreds of SK's in the database, if not more.
The FCC considers the call "active" for two years after expiration. It's the two year grace period they give every licensee to renew. Two years and one day after expiration the call becomes eligible for assignment again.
kn4ds
07-28-2007, 03:18 PM
Quote[/b] (AC0H @ July 28 2007,11:10)]There are probably hundreds of SK's in the database, if not more.
The FCC considers the call "active" for two years after expiration. It's the two year grace period they give every licensee to renew. Two years and one day after expiration the call becomes eligible for assignment again.
I agree that there are a lot of SKs in the database... the one I know about has 6 more years to run 'til the callsign becomes available, and 4 more to run on the current license term.
Many spouses aren't aware that they could/should send in the license for cancellation.
The point (in this thread) really isn't about callsign availability, though. It's about not doing a SELECT COUNT(*) FROM DATABASE WHERE STATUS = 'ACTIVE' and taking that number as the gospel of how many hams there are.
kn4ds
07-28-2007, 03:28 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 28 2007,11:04)]What I would like to see from the ARRL is a program to educate people on the bandplan, good operating practices,
proper contesting, suggestions for each of the popular modes for "working in crowded bands", and more activity from their OO program. What I'd like to see from the FCC is less "can't we all just get along" talks at Dayton, and more getting off their butts and enforcing the rules. Adding 30,000 more people will only make it worse if we don't do something about what we already have.
Why do we need the League to do it?
What's wrong with rounding up as many of your local hams as you can, and getting them to club meetings, where we can teach these things? Maybe have a segment on the local 2 meter nets to talk about these things?
Your thoughts are good ones, and I'll use them locally. We're always on the lookout for program ideas, and your are just the ticket.
One club here in Middle Georgia already has done that... they had one of the long time club members do a program on HF Operating Procedures. In August, a local OO is going to do a program on that.
I just don't know that waiting for someone else to do them is the best thing... we need to take the initiative on the local level to teach the folks we know, and learn from other guys we know.
The ARRL has all this information available. It's up to us to help get it in the hands of those who need it.
Joe Speroni, AH0A, has a database which tracks license counts. #Unfortunately, I think the elimination of the code hasn't helped at all. #Basically it took a lot of techs and upgraded them from technician to general. #You may indeed have some new hams coming in (mostly generals now), but the rate of loss still exceeds the gain of new hams.
While May 2007 exhibited a reversed trend - a departure from the downward slope,#June returned to the normal trend - down - and July looks like it will be down to possibly flat.
June-07 654,695
May-07 655,565
April-07 654,940
March-07 655,048
February-07 655,477
January-07 656,266
December-06 656,068
KL7FZ
07-28-2007, 04:57 PM
Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 28 2007,06:28)]Getting licensees is easy. #Getting hams is another story.
Amen Brother, Amen!
Looks like the ARRL is only in for the count. Quality be damned.
KL7FZ
K7JBQ
07-28-2007, 04:58 PM
Of course the numbers are going down, particularly for the tech license. The answer is very simple.
We are still seeing, and will for some time to come, the disappearance of the "autopatch tech," which has been replaced by the oblivious woman yakking on her cell phone while allegedly driving her SUV.
And no flames, please, from the YLs. Yes, male "drivers" do the same thing, but not nearly in the same numbers, based on my observation.
Of course, the ARRL once promoted this "activity" as well, though it had approximately tiddly toot to do with the spirit of amateur radio, or the purposes of same as outlined in Part 97.
To these "disappearing hams," good riddance, I say.
73,
Bill
W3MIV
07-28-2007, 05:09 PM
Quote[/b] (KE4UWL @ July 28 2007,11:28)]Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 28 2007,11:04)]What I would like to see from the ARRL is a program to educate people on the bandplan, good operating practices,
proper contesting, #suggestions for each of the popular modes for "working in crowded bands", and more activity from their OO program. #What I'd like to see from the FCC is less "can't we all just get along" talks at Dayton, and more getting off their butts and enforcing the rules. Adding 30,000 more people will only make it worse if we don't do something about what we already have.
Why do we need the League to do it? #
What's wrong with rounding up as many of your local hams as you can, and getting them to club meetings, where we can teach these things? #Maybe have a segment on the local 2 meter nets to talk about these things?
Your thoughts are good ones, and I'll use them locally. #We're always on the lookout for program ideas, and your are just the ticket.
One club here in Middle Georgia already has done that... they had one of the long time club members do a program on HF Operating Procedures. #In August, a local OO is going to do a program on that.
I just don't know that waiting for someone else to do them is the best thing... we need to take the initiative on the local level to teach the folks we know, and learn from other guys we know.
The ARRL has all this information available. #It's up to us to help get it in the hands of those who need it.
Good post, Dave. We need ALL of us to do it. The club structure is a primary source of elmering, and it is a job for elmering, not for the League, though you and Charlie are both quite correct in that the League needs actively to support a stronger effort. But in the final analysis, the ARRL is a "distant" organization in that it cannot be as up-close-and-personal in managing to lubricate the transition of newbies getting on the air. The club is the line of first contact, in military terms it is our FEBA.
We are planning a new survey that will seek some ideas about clubs and how they are handling issues like this, including the fine points of elmering and recruitment. The goal is to develop some data about the health and well-being of the clubs out there and to solicit some input from those who have successful elmering programs in place.
Alas, I am very busy at present and have not been giving many of these issues a lot of thought. All of you posters could lend a hand by posting some ideas about how YOU would handle the problem at the club level.
W3MIV
07-28-2007, 05:19 PM
On the topic of OOs, it is a tough nut. Many of our OOs are wearing out. It is a thankless job, and it is an all volunteer effort. It worked well when there were only a few issues now and again, and when there was a certifiable fear of an enforcement agent from the FCC paying a visit. In many areas, it seems not to be working as well now as it once did.
There is little doubt that there is a growing number of problem children, and they are not all newbies that are causing trouble. While I applaud Mr Hollingsworth's efforts to try to dissuade the worst of the dissonant doers with the milk of human kindness and soft words of suasion, I long for a "big stick" to whack a few just to add a bit of punctuation.
W5HTW
07-28-2007, 05:57 PM
Quote[/b] (K7JBQ @ July 28 2007,09:58)]Of course the numbers are going down, particularly for the tech license. The answer is very simple.
We are still seeing, and will for some time to come, the disappearance of the "autopatch tech," which has been replaced by the oblivious woman yakking on her cell phone while allegedly driving her SUV.
And no flames, please, from the YLs. Yes, male "drivers" do the same thing, but not nearly in the same numbers, based on my observation.
Of course, the ARRL once promoted this "activity" as well, though it had approximately tiddly toot to do with the spirit of amateur radio, or the purposes of same as outlined in Part 97.
To these "disappearing hams," good riddance, I say.
73,
Bill
Exactly. I called them 'cell phone hams' and they were in huge evidence throughout the late 1990s and the very early 2000s. The ARRL has enlisted them as "you can keep in touch with family" (free) which was really the baliwick of CB and/or FRS. I, too, am glad to see them go away. And the reason they went away is they had zero interest in ham radio, but wanted free and easy communication. When family plan cheap cell phones became available, with more privacy, they tucked the old VHF ham radio into the drawer in the garage. Most of them don't remember their call signs.
Another factor, as we see the ranks of Generals increase, part of it is the upgrades from Techs. Same for Extras. Increases in Extra class tickets are partly from upgrades from Techs or Generals. So if a Tech upgrades to Extra, it is not only a new Extra, but one less Tech.
Active hams? My own definition is someone who is involved in ham radio by either getting on the air, building, or teaching others about ham radio. I do NOT include the guy who grabs the HT when there is a car accident down the road, and plays cop, and then puts the HT back in the drawer until the next emergency. He may be active; but not a ham.
If someone reads a ham magazine now and then, I do not consider that 'active.'
It is usually believed that well under half the hams who are licensed, or let's rephrase that, half the people who have ham licenses, are active, and maybe 60 percent of the totals are not. Often, too, when a ham dies, the first time the FCC may hear about it is when he doesn't renew his license. That means if he renewed this year, and died, it will be almost ten years before he fails to renew. Sure, another two years before the call sign can be reissued, but that has nothing to do with the license itself.
It would not surprise me to learn there are 2,000 or more SKs still with active ham licenses.
The ARRL is trying to make amateur radio a "masses" hobby. And that means it must compete with a dozen other means of personal communication, including FRS as well as IMing. What we really need is for the ARRL to recognize amateur radio is not, never has been, and *should not be* a mass media outlet. Making it so is very self destructive.
But I am not sure that message will ever reach them.
Ed
KB1KIX
07-28-2007, 06:22 PM
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 28 2007,13:57)]What we really need is for the ARRL to recognize amateur radio is not, never has been, and *should not be* a mass media outlet. Making it so is very self destructive.
Understood.
However.....
If amateur radio isn't perceived to be a masses hobby, it might seem a bit more elitist.
The drawback here, with decreasing numbers of amateurs is the increasing lack of need for vast amounts of spectrum.
When the good 'ol boys in DC start realizing that we just don't need this much spectrum, prepare to see auctions.
When I'm involved in teaching, we have a 5 week program, then the test.
We then have 3 more classes. These three classes we help them build an antenna, often a j-pole, make their first contacts and show them various aspects of amateur radio beyond the repeater.
Satellite comms, emcomm (though often a dirty word here), HF phone/cw, digital comms etc.
We give them enough information to find what they like to stay involved and active.
I see many clubs in the area that give a test, then let them fall by the wayside.
As mentioned above, with varying degrees of definition, staying active is more than a license or renewal every ten years.
Jonathan
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 28 2007,11:57)]The ARRL is trying to make amateur radio a "masses" hobby. #And that means it must compete with a dozen other means of personal communication, including FRS as well as IMing. #What we really need is for the ARRL to recognize amateur radio is not, never has been, and *should not be* a mass media outlet. #Making it so is very self destructive. #
But I am not sure that message will ever reach them.
Not just the ARRL, CQ magazine has been on the bandwagon for a long time and perhaps even more stridently from an editorial standpoint.
I believe that most people today are so inundated with personal communications devices that they can't imagine taking up a "hobby" that is more of the same. #As for the "bedroom" hams, I always thought it a bit sad that they had no interest in participation beyond their family. #That was their perogative I suppose. #Even worse, I lived in a place where a preacher routinely used the club autopatch for his/church business. #Thankfully, he can probably afford a cell phone now. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
I'm not sad if those licensees who were never interested in becoming hams leave the service. #I hope that we can at least get the word about amateur radio out to everyone that would find it interesting and then let them decide to pursue becoming a ham. A technical hobby like ham radio has never had mass appeal. I can't think of any other technical hobbies that do.
As for the number of active hams in the ULS database, I think an accurate picture can be found just by considering local activity. #In any area I've lived, perhaps 15 to 25% of the licensees met some definition of "active". #I would also guess that the mass majority of ARRL membership is active and if we tack on another 10% of that number, I guesstimate that between 150,000 to 200,000 licensees in the ULS database meet a definition of active by getting on the air at least a couple of times per year.
The percentages I've come up with above have seemed to hold true for the past quarter century or so.
wb6mmj
07-29-2007, 03:45 AM
Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 28 2007,04:58)]From the ARRL Letter July 27 (http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter/07/0727/) article about the Board of Directors meeting:
Quote[/b] ]Recognizing the significance of recent FCC actions that included the removal of the Morse testing requirement, the Board set a goal of attaining 30,000 new licensees in 2008, increasing in the following years. With approximately 6,000 licensees disappearing from the ranks of amateurs each year through attrition and non-renewal, the Board recognized the importance of striving to create real growth in the service. The new licensing regime along with the approaching increase in sunspots can provide the motivation and inspiration for all hams to use to increase the numbers of licensees as well as the interest level of all.
Apparently they're hoping that the spike in licensing following the Element 1 removal isn't just a spike, but the start of a long-term trend
Frankly, I don't see it happening that way. Sure, the entry threshold has changed but the underlying nature and underlying appeal (or lack thereof) of Amateur Radio has not.
And even if there were 30,000 new licensees next year, there's also the issue of how many of them actually would ever get on the air and be active. There have been surges in licensees following major changes before, that did not result in any sustained growth in the number of active hams. What is different this time?
I think the A.R.R.L.`s goals should be to attain education for the new no code hams we now have on the H.F. bands. Not all are uneducated but allot are.
#I personally don`t want to see the bands become over crowded as the A.R.R.L. would like to see. I believe they think this is a Gold Rush to get more members/money.
#Remember, they have a business to run. Keep the business in business is rule #1.
kn4ds
07-29-2007, 04:54 AM
Quote[/b] (N0NB @ July 28 2007,14:28)]Not just the ARRL, CQ magazine has been on the bandwagon for a long time and perhaps even more stridently from an editorial standpoint.
It's worth noting that a publication such as CQ is basically trying to convince people that are already hams. Exposure to the general public is effectively very limited.
ARRL has the the resources to generate a campaign... but CQ doesn't have those resources, and I'd suggest that whatever editorial position they may take would be of exceptionally limited impact.
Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 27 2007,23:58)]Quote[/b] ]The new licensing regime along with the approaching increase in sunspots can provide the motivation and inspiration for all hams to use to increase the numbers of licensees as well as the interest level of all.
Sure, the entry threshold has changed but the underlying nature and underlying appeal (or lack thereof) of Amateur Radio has not.
And even if there were 30,000 new licensees next year, there's also the issue of how many of them actually would ever get on the air and be active. There have been surges in licensees following major changes before, that did not result in any sustained growth in the number of active hams. What is different this time?
The difference this time are events like 9/11 and Katrina. Getting the numbers will be the easy part, but the matter of interest level is quite another issue.
Case in point: there is a Correspondence piece in the August edition of QST from a relatively newly licensed #holder who says right up front that he is not interested in the "hobby" aspects of amateur radio. He even says, "Amateur Radio may be a great hobby, but I see it differently."
The author has started a one man campaign that he calls, One Person, One Handheld Radio. The core message of his speeches is, you and a handheld radio can be the lifeline for the entire community. He also states things like amateur radio is, the most important asset in our national security arsenal and that it can, stop rumors and propaganda when times get tough. WOW! What a heavy burden for amateur radio to carry on its shoulders!
There is a thread on eHAM from someone who also says that he also has absolutely no interest in the hobby aspects of amateur radio and actually has no intention of even using the equipment until/unless there is an emergency.
I don't think anyone will dispute the value of amateur radio in an overall plan of disaster/emergency preparedness, but he is spreading a very dangerous message, and one that appears to be fully endorsed by the League. And its not just coming from Newington. I have read many of the newspaper articles that are printed just before Field Day (so the club can get extra points) and they all seem to center around the theme that amateur radio is the last bastion of hope for the survival of mankind (as we know it) in the event of a catastrophic disaster. On the other hand, there is precious little ink devoted to things like training and planning. The message in more than one article was that all you need is an "easy to get" amateur radio license and a $150 handheld radio and you are good to go!
If this is this how the ARRL plans to attract new license holders, I may have to rethink my renewing. I kept my membership throughout the whole Morse code thing, but this message can have potentially fatal results.
Scott NĜIU
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 29 2007,04:28)]Quote[/b] (NN4RH @ July 27 2007,23:58)]Quote[/b] ]The new licensing regime along with the approaching increase in sunspots can provide the motivation and inspiration for all hams to use to increase the numbers of licensees as well as the interest level of all.
Sure, the entry threshold has changed but the underlying nature and underlying appeal (or lack thereof) of Amateur Radio has not.
And even if there were 30,000 new licensees next year, there's also the issue of how many of them actually would ever get on the air and be active. There have been surges in licensees following major changes before, that did not result in any sustained growth in the number of active hams. What is different this time?
The difference this time are events like 9/11 and Katrina. Getting the numbers will be the easy part, but the matter of interest level is quite another issue.
Case in point: there is a Correspondence piece in the August edition of QST from a relatively newly licensed #holder who says right up front that he is not interested in the "hobby" aspects of amateur radio. He even says, "Amateur Radio may be a great hobby, but I see it differently."
The author has started a one man campaign that he calls, One Person, One Handheld Radio. The core message of his speeches is, you and a handheld radio can be the lifeline for the entire community. He also states things like amateur radio is, the most important asset in our national security arsenal and that it can, stop rumors and propaganda when times get tough. WOW! What a heavy burden for amateur radio to carry on its shoulders!
There is a thread on eHAM from someone who also says that he also has absolutely no interest in the hobby aspects of amateur radio and actually has no intention of even using the equipment until/unless there is an emergency.
I don't think anyone will dispute the value of amateur radio in an overall plan of disaster/emergency preparedness, but he is spreading a very dangerous message, and one that appears to be fully endorsed by the League. And its not just coming from Newington. I have read many of the newspaper articles that are printed just before Field Day (so the club can get extra points) and they all seem to center around the theme that amateur radio is the last bastion of hope for the survival of mankind (as we know it) in the event of a catastrophic disaster. On the other hand, there is precious little ink devoted to things like training and planning. The message in more than one article was that all you need is an "easy to get" amateur radio license and a $150 handheld radio and you are good to go!
If this is this how the ARRL plans to attract new license holders, I may have to rethink my renewing. I kept my membership throughout the whole Morse code thing, but this message can have potentially fatal results.
Scott NĜIU
The emcom tards are using ham radio and its frequencies to circumvent the higher cost of commercial gear.
The same thing can be said about the digital freaks and Winlink.
ab0wr
07-29-2007, 01:11 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 28 2007,08:04)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 28 2007,05:31)]at one time it took roughly 2,000 new licensees each month to replace those who drop of the rolls. In the end the total number of licensees seems to stay in a very narrow margin over the course of a year. What we are seeing is the Novice and Advanced licenses declining at large rates and the Technician class numbers declining as they move up and do not seem to be replaced. The General class is adding numbers at good percentage rates as is the Extra a smaller rate.
In theory, 30,000 new licensees over the next 12 months should increase the numbers by about 0.75%.
73
George
K3UD
George,
Have not seen your full numbers lately. I really enjoyed reading them. Personally I believe it's good for the League to set goals, and my only concern it the feeling that we need warm bodies to save AR. If you put too much salt in the soup, you don't fix it by putting more salt in. Our problem today is with bad operators, inexperienced operators, hot heads, chips on their shoulders, know-it-alls, etc.
What I would like to see from the ARRL is a program to educate people on the bandplan, good operating practices,
proper contesting, suggestions for each of the popular modes for "working in crowded bands", and more activity from their OO program. What I'd like to see from the FCC is less "can't we all just get along" talks at Dayton, and more getting off their butts and enforcing the rules. Adding 30,000 more people will only make it worse if we don't do something about what we already have.
Charlie,
I couldn't agree with you more.
tim ab0wr
ab0wr
07-29-2007, 01:16 PM
Quote[/b] (KB1KIX @ July 28 2007,11:22)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 28 2007,13:57)]What we really need is for the ARRL to recognize amateur radio is not, never has been, and *should not be* a mass media outlet. Making it so is very self destructive.
Understood.
However.....
If amateur radio isn't perceived to be a masses hobby, it might seem a bit more elitist.
The drawback here, with decreasing numbers of amateurs is the increasing lack of need for vast amounts of spectrum.
When the good 'ol boys in DC start realizing that we just don't need this much spectrum, prepare to see auctions.
When I'm involved in teaching, we have a 5 week program, then the test.
We then have 3 more classes. These three classes we help them build an antenna, often a j-pole, make their first contacts and show them various aspects of amateur radio beyond the repeater.
Satellite comms, emcomm (though often a dirty word here), HF phone/cw, digital comms etc.
We give them enough information to find what they like to stay involved and active.
I see many clubs in the area that give a test, then let them fall by the wayside.
As mentioned above, with varying degrees of definition, staying active is more than a license or renewal every ten years.
Jonathan
For the HF bands at least, our spectrum allocations are based on international treaty -- the FCC can't just arbitrarily "take" these frequencies and auction them off to the highest bidder.
This is a scare tactic the ARRL started a number of years ago that has been built into an urban legend.
tim ab0wr
ab0wr
07-29-2007, 01:21 PM
Quote[/b] ]The difference this time are events like 9/11 and Katrina. Getting the numbers will be the easy part, but the matter of interest level is quite another issue.
Case in point: there is a Correspondence piece in the August edition of QST from a relatively newly licensed holder who says right up front that he is not interested in the "hobby" aspects of amateur radio. He even says, "Amateur Radio may be a great hobby, but I see it differently."
The author has started a one man campaign that he calls, One Person, One Handheld Radio. The core message of his speeches is, you and a handheld radio can be the lifeline for the entire community. He also states things like amateur radio is, the most important asset in our national security arsenal and that it can, stop rumors and propaganda when times get tough. WOW! What a heavy burden for amateur radio to carry on its shoulders!
There is a thread on eHAM from someone who also says that he also has absolutely no interest in the hobby aspects of amateur radio and actually has no intention of even using the equipment until/unless there is an emergency.
I don't think anyone will dispute the value of amateur radio in an overall plan of disaster/emergency preparedness, but he is spreading a very dangerous message, and one that appears to be fully endorsed by the League. And its not just coming from Newington. I have read many of the newspaper articles that are printed just before Field Day (so the club can get extra points) and they all seem to center around the theme that amateur radio is the last bastion of hope for the survival of mankind (as we know it) in the event of a catastrophic disaster. On the other hand, there is precious little ink devoted to things like training and planning. The message in more than one article was that all you need is an "easy to get" amateur radio license and a $150 handheld radio and you are good to go!
If this is this how the ARRL plans to attract new license holders, I may have to rethink my renewing. I kept my membership throughout the whole Morse code thing, but this message can have potentially fatal results.
The big problem with this is that when they need to use that HT the batteries will be dead, the frequencies they need to use will be unknown, how to program the needed frequencies into the handheld will have been forgotten, net operating procedures will have never been learned, and the whereabouts of where the HT actually *is* will probably have been forgotten.
W5HTW
07-29-2007, 02:14 PM
About CQ, they were on the forefront of the no code ham license back in the early 1960s. Along with the EIA, there was a rather serious push for a Communicator class of license then, when CB was still a very young hobby.
The ARRL, though, pushed hard for the "EMCOMM" approach, and has been quite effective in getting recognition from Homeland Security on that issue. The reason is money. By making amateur radio into an extension of the feceral government and national security, federal grant money flows like honey to a bear's paw. And certainly the other reason, which is linked to the money reason, is numbers. More hams, at any cost TO the hobby, just more hams FOR the hobby.
The ARRL also pushed the "family radio" aspect of ham radio, in its recruitment in the early 1990s. "You can keep in touch with family." That is exactly what FRS is for, and what CB was supposed to be for.
And the ARRL was the organization that pushed amateur radio into the schools, hoping to make career hams out of every kindergartener. Readin' ritin' and radidio.
Yes, there were numerous hands in the rotting pie. The FCC certainly did its share without ARRL impetus, because it wanted to get ham radio out of its ballroom. The FCC is like Radio Shack - you got rules, we got cell phones. They are primarily a cell phone regulation service these days, and, of course, the auctioneer on UHF and up spectrum.
They extended license terms in the early 1980s so they didn't have to exert so much effort it keeping track of ham radio. They eliminated the need for portable/mobile notification, logging of contacts, and they made the Novice permanently renewable. All in the interest of reduced cost to the FCC, not in the interest of amateur radio at all. They stopped FCC testing, and turned it over the the VE program. The eliminated the Novice and the Advanced. They turned club licensing over to the VEs. They totally stopped any enforcement of amateur radio for a decade. They combined the Tech and Tech plus databases. Too much trouble and too expensive to keep them separate.
The FCC has made a major effort to just "get the heck of out town" where amateur radio is concerned. The FCC did not cut Morse testing due to popular demand. They cut it because it was another nail in their workload coffin. Sure, they took comments. But remarks by the FCC, long before the Restructuring of 1999 took place, were that they were willing and ready to remove Morse testing, but international law prohibited it. That was a clear sign that as soon as it was not longer prohibited, they would move to eliminate it, and they did.
Almost certainly they are planning a one class license system for amateur radio, and that's most likely the correct way to go, as the Extra Class is now the Novice class, and I feel certain that within five years the FCC will present us with a "Standard Amateur Radio License." Why? Not for the benefit of amateur radio, but for the benefit of the FCC.
What is next? Well, at some point, reduction in power levels, perhaps to 200 watts. No more "Leenyars." And removal of legacy modes such as AM and CW, except perhaps on 6 meters. Not far behind, channelized HF radios, SSB and digital voice, or built in digital mode data.
Why? For the benefit of amateur radio? No, for the benefit of the FCC. They may actually turn over licensing to the ARRL. Privatized licensing is already a reality in a few places in the world. Expect it here. And the ARRL would love it! Though the W5YI group might be in on the plan as well.
Could we lose 440? Yes, we could. Not likely anyone finds 2 meters and down to 160 worthy of much, but our UHF allocations could actually go away. All we do with them it chat on repeaters. They can be put to much better use, and I am sure that gleam is in the eye of the FCC.
So the ARRL isn't the only problem here. The FCC has gone against ARRL wishes a number of times, as in the early plans for Incentive Licensing back in the 60s. The FCC is looking out for the FCC.
It would not surprise me for them to create (and it is close to happening right now, with the new allocation from 148 to 150 mhz) a new service for the EMCOMMER, getting him out of ham radio entirely and giving him his own playground, where he can be DHS G-man. That is in the works as we speak. And I think that is a great idea, get the pretend cops out of the ham bands.
Changes coming down the pike. "You ain't seen nuttin' yet."
Ed
WA9SVD
07-29-2007, 02:32 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 28 2007,08:04)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 28 2007,05:31)]at one time it took roughly 2,000 new licensees each month to replace those who drop of the rolls. In the end the total number of licensees seems to stay in a very narrow margin over the course of a year. What we are seeing is the Novice and Advanced licenses declining at large rates and the Technician class numbers declining as they move up and do not seem to be replaced. The General class is adding numbers at good percentage rates as is the Extra a smaller rate.
In theory, 30,000 new licensees over the next 12 months should increase the numbers by about 0.75%.
73
George
K3UD
George,
Have not seen your full numbers lately. I really enjoyed reading them. Personally I believe it's good for the League to set goals, and my only concern it the feeling that we need warm bodies to save AR. If you put too much salt in the soup, you don't fix it by putting more salt in. Our problem today is with bad operators, inexperienced operators, hot heads, chips on their shoulders, know-it-alls, etc.
What I would like to see from the ARRL is a program to educate people on the bandplan, good operating practices,
proper contesting, suggestions for each of the popular modes for "working in crowded bands", and more activity from their OO program. What I'd like to see from the FCC is less "can't we all just get along" talks at Dayton, and more getting off their butts and enforcing the rules. Adding 30,000 more people will only make it worse if we don't do something about what we already have.
I have to totally agree with Charlie on this one. For too long, the ARRL has been more interested in quantity, with no concern for quality. The ARRL does NOT push good operating practices; it pushes EMCOMM as the sole reason for licensing by many licensees, yet there's no mention, much less emphasis on operating skills or even rudimentary technical skills. We have less people on repeaters because the "EMCOMM" people think it's frivilous to operate if it's not an EMCOMM related drill or net.
But as I've said before, I'd rather have one or two good, dedicated operators on the books than a dozen "licensees" who are hams in name only.
Quote[/b] (NN3W @ July 28 2007,08:36)]Unfortunately, I think the elimination of the code hasn't helped at all. Basically it took a lot of techs and upgraded them from technician to general. You may indeed have some new hams coming in (mostly generals now), but the rate of loss still exceeds the gain of new hams.
Exactly what I said would happen. I was truly hoping I was wrong. What I said was that we'd convert alot of NCTs and gain a handfull that the code was keeping out as new amateurs then we'd be back in decline.
WA2ZDY
07-29-2007, 02:56 PM
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 29 2007,09:21)]The big problem with this is that when they need to use that HT the batteries will be dead, the frequencies they need to use will be unknown, how to program the needed frequencies into the handheld will have been forgotten, net operating procedures will have never been learned, and the whereabouts of where the HT actually *is* will probably have been forgotten.
If the emergency is that serious, the repeaters will probably be down anyway and the emcomm-only ham will be totally lost radio or not.
Thank you ARRL.
Quote[/b] (K7JBQ @ July 28 2007,11:58)]Of course the numbers are going down, particularly for the tech license. The answer is very simple.
We are still seeing, and will for some time to come, the disappearance of the "autopatch tech," which has been replaced by the oblivious woman yakking on her cell phone while allegedly driving her SUV.
And no flames, please, from the YLs. Yes, male "drivers" do the same thing, but not nearly in the same numbers, based on my observation.
Of course, the ARRL once promoted this "activity" as well, though it had approximately tiddly toot to do with the spirit of amateur radio, or the purposes of same as outlined in Part 97.
To these "disappearing hams," good riddance, I say.
73,
Bill
I remember the ARRL touting the availability of auto patches as a huge benefit that came along with earning a Technician license. As someone else mentioned this all but ended around 2000-2001 when the costs of cell phone service came way down.
Ironically, the ARRL has been promoting WL2K as an HF email alternative for RVers and Boaters who do not want to use commercial services. Same pitch....get a license and have free email via Amateur Radio.
I also think that there were some great expectations concerning growth in the ARS when the code requirement was dropped. Based on the numbers I am seeing it does not look like large numbers of new hams are being licensed as a result of dropping the code. Contrary to what was predicted by some, there was little no pent up demand for easy entry in Amateur Radio.
In the end, we will attract the same people we always have. Those who still feel the magic of radio and who want to learn more about it. Amateur Radio attracts a very small percentage of the population and even if we gave away licenses for free with no testing required, we probably would not see sustainable gains of hams who are actually active and using the license.
For years we heard that it was the code that kept people out. Now there is no code requirement and the floodgates did not open, at least up until this point.
73
George
K3UD
Quote[/b] (KL7FZ @ July 28 2007,12:57)]Quote[/b] (N8CPA @ July 28 2007,06:28)]Getting licensees is easy. #Getting hams is another story.
Amen Brother, Amen!
Looks like the ARRL is only in for the count. Quality be damned.
KL7FZ
So, once again, no good deed goes unpunished.
The ARRL Board has set a goal to encourage recruitment and testing of 30K hams a year, in part to offset our declining numbers... and this is a bad thing?
Now I will agree completely that we need "quality" not "quantity," and by "quality" I mean new hams that are trained and mentored not just in passing the test but in on air procedures.
And who does that? Us, the guys in the field.
Strikes me that it looks like the Board wants the Hq. staff to help us do the hard work of encouraging interest and getting new blood in. But it also means that it's up to us to make sure they get active, stay active, and learn the proper procedurs for doing things.
So what's the problem?
KD6NIG
07-29-2007, 06:32 PM
30,000 new licensees. Ok.
One year with the ARRL, ok.
I bet they lose 90% of those after the first year though.
W5HTW
07-29-2007, 09:50 PM
The ARRL is taking the wrong recruitment approach. What they should do is position drop boxes just inside the entrances to McDonald's and Walmart. Stop, fill out a form, win a free Coke, and a week later, receive a ham license in the mail.
Ed
edit: Suddenly I am thinking, maybe I should not have revealed such a plan. I hope no one at Newington reads this.
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 29 2007,14:50)]and a week later, receive a ham license in the mail.
A week!!!!!!!!!!!
That's too long!!!
I want it NOW!!!! NOW!!!! NOW!!!!
They should let wally world give them away every Saturday morning
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 12:02 AM
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 29 2007,10:14)]The ARRL, though, pushed hard for the "EMCOMM" approach, and has been quite effective in getting recognition from Homeland Security on that issue. #The reason is money. #By making amateur radio into an extension of the feceral government and national security, federal grant money flows like honey to a bear's paw.
I sure would like to find all this grant money that everyone cites as being the lure of all that is unholy at the ARRL. I have been looking for it high and low, and I have been unable to find anything much more than a grant to underwrite rebates for training.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
kn4ds
07-30-2007, 01:16 AM
Yeah, you guys are right... it's up to the ARRL to educate hams, and it is the role of the rest of us to get online and bitch about how nobody teaches proper operating procedures.
W5HTW
07-30-2007, 01:52 AM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 29 2007,17:02)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 29 2007,10:14)]The ARRL, though, pushed hard for the "EMCOMM" approach, and has been quite effective in getting recognition from Homeland Security on that issue. The reason is money. By making amateur radio into an extension of the feceral government and national security, federal grant money flows like honey to a bear's paw.
I sure would like to find all this grant money that everyone cites as being the lure of all that is unholy at the ARRL. I have been looking for it high and low, and I have been unable to find anything much more than a grant to underwrite rebates for training.
???
It's there. Our county EM office received grants to buy three TS-2000s, three Icom 2720s, six TF90As, a mobile trailer, two generators, and some antennas. Unfortunately the money was never actually spent before the grant expired, so we didn't get the trailer or the TS-2000s, but we did get the rest of it.
The following fiscal year more DHS money was sought and allocated. I think it was $60,000. But the EM quit for a better job and that approved grant languished in his computer, until his computer was zero'ed out, and nothing remained. NONE of that money was spent.
Our state made a 500,000 dollar grant to provide data repeaters for ARES, and for other mobile and portable radio equipment. The grant was approved but it came from our state's Dept of Public Safety, not from DHS. The money was available July 1, 2006. So far I haven't heard of anyting coming to my county. I think it went to the most poplous counties with the most 'pull.'
Plenty of money out there, Albert. But it doesn't appear in front of the average ham. It appears to those EMCOMM types who are closely linked to ARES and their local and state Emergency Managers.
Now we have a non-ham EM in this county, and there is no contact with him from ARES. No idea what he is doing, though a fair amount of his job is to find and administer grants. I do know the previous acting EM (after the other one quit) did manage to locate money for several new repeaters. But there are technical problems with them, though they are installed. Is our EM seeking FEMA grants? Presumably so. But I haven't seen any results of it except the miscreant repeaters. Is he seeking DHS grants? I have no idea.
What I do know is the original EM managed to flub up by not submitting copies of the grants to the state OEM. So for many of them, the county request was there, and approved, but the state never got the paperwork, and the money is disbursed through the state OEM. So a lot of the money never reached its planned destination. But it was approved.
We even had grants to provide helicopter service to the repeater sites, and to build back up generator systems in the mountains. And at least two of those were for amateur repeaters, not public safety ones. Ones that were to be used for ARES.
In addition we had from the state grant (and a grant is a grant is a grant, yes? Whether it comes from DHS, FEMA or state DPS) money to install public safety radios in my and a couple other ARES vehicles, and to install HF and VHF/UHF antennas at all the county fire departments, to install amateur radio dual band antennas on fire, medical and some police vehicles, to purchase laptop computers for APRS use for ARES. But the ball was dropped here, at the county level, not at FEMA or DHS levels.
Your question is a good one. I would imagine there are others on here who can tell stories about grant money, and I am sure some of them received more than we did.
Good luck on pursuing it.
Ed
K0RGR
07-30-2007, 02:21 AM
I think the encouraging thing is the large number of Techs upgrading to General. These are the people who are likely to be active after a few years' time. They are investing the time in getting real HF priveleges.
KC5SAS
07-30-2007, 03:39 AM
I wonder if there is a way to filter out of the database the number of people who got ham tickets for no other reason than to be able to have a scanner in their car.
kn4ds
07-30-2007, 03:50 AM
Quote[/b] (KC5SAS @ July 29 2007,23:39)]I wonder if there is a way to filter out of the database the number of people who got ham tickets for no other reason than to be able to have a scanner in their car.
Sure... just do:
SELECT CALLSIGN FROM DATABASE WHERE CODE_PROFICIENCY < 5
SQL is your friend http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif
Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ July 29 2007,14:32)]30,000 new licensees. Ok.
Maybe. Unfortunately, I'm betting a large portion of those are going to be ECOMM Whackers. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/sad.gif
Quote[/b] ]One year with the ARRL, ok.
I bet they lose 90% of those after the first year though.
Almost guaranteed. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
No more EMCOM Tards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We have enough idiots running around looking like rent-a-cops with flashing lights, badges and SWAT uniforms!!!
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 12:14 PM
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 29 2007,21:52)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 29 2007,17:02)]Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 29 2007,10:14)]The ARRL, though, pushed hard for the "EMCOMM" approach, and has been quite effective in getting recognition from Homeland Security on that issue. #The reason is money. #By making amateur radio into an extension of the feceral government and national security, federal grant money flows like honey to a bear's paw.
I sure would like to find all this grant money that everyone cites as being the lure of all that is unholy at the ARRL. I have been looking for it high and low, and I have been unable to find anything much more than a grant to underwrite rebates for training.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
It's there. #Our county EM office received grants to buy three TS-2000s, three Icom 2720s, six TF90As, a mobile trailer, two generators, and some antennas. #Unfortunately the money was never actually spent before the grant expired, so we didn't get the trailer or the TS-2000s, but we did get the rest of it.
The following fiscal year more DHS money was sought and allocated. #I think it was $60,000. #But the EM quit for a better job and that approved grant languished in his computer, until his computer was zero'ed out, and nothing remained. NONE of that money was spent. #
Our state made a 500,000 dollar grant to provide data repeaters for ARES, and for other mobile and portable radio equipment. #The grant was approved but it came from our state's Dept of Public Safety, not from DHS. #The money was available July 1, 2006. #So far I haven't heard of anyting coming to my county. #I think it went to the most poplous counties with the most 'pull.' #
Plenty of money out there, Albert. #But it doesn't appear in front of the average ham. #It appears to those EMCOMM types who are closely linked to ARES and their local and state Emergency Managers. #
Now we have a non-ham EM in this county, and there is no contact with him from ARES. #No idea what he is doing, though a fair amount of his job is to find and administer grants. #I do know the previous acting EM (after the other one quit) did manage to locate money for several new repeaters. #But there are technical problems with them, though they are installed. #Is our EM seeking FEMA grants? #Presumably so. #But I haven't seen any results of it except the miscreant repeaters. # Is he seeking DHS grants? #I have no idea. #
What I do know is the original EM managed to flub up by not submitting copies of the grants to the state OEM. #So for many of them, the county request was there, and approved, but the state never got the paperwork, and the money is disbursed through the state OEM. #So a lot of the money never reached its planned destination. #But it was approved. #
We even had grants to provide helicopter service to the repeater sites, and to build back up generator systems in the mountains. #And at least two of those were for amateur repeaters, not public safety ones. #Ones that were to be used for ARES.
In addition we had from the state grant (and a grant is a grant is a grant, yes? #Whether it comes from DHS, FEMA or state DPS) money to install public safety radios in my and a couple other ARES vehicles, and to install HF and VHF/UHF antennas at all the county fire departments, to install amateur radio dual band antennas on fire, medical and some police vehicles, to purchase laptop computers for APRS use for ARES. #But the ball was dropped here, at the county level, not at FEMA or DHS levels.
Your question is a good one. #I would imagine there are others on here who can tell stories about grant money, and I am sure some of them received more than we did.
Good luck on pursuing it. #
Ed
Ed:
All of which you cite is public money being applied to public projects. That ARRL members are participating in the programs being supported by those monies at the community level is not the same as the ARRL profiting by the grants. The public in those supported communities is profiting by those grants. That ARES are the focus of the activities, and that ARES is a function of the ARRL is ancillary.
If you cannot see a difference, I believe it is because you do not want to see a difference, and that is rooted in your own prejudicial view of the current state of EmComm -- a situation with which you have disagreed on these forums time and again.
In the final appraisal, it must be admitted that none of these monies went into any ARRL coffers, which is the insinuation that is continually bruited on these threads.
To date, the only grant money I have found that went to the ARRL was a grant to support EmComm certification courses in the form of rebates to be paid out to successful "graduates" of those courses. That program ended when the grant ran out.
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 12:17 PM
Quote[/b] (aa9ya @ July 30 2007,06:00)]No more EMCOM Tards!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We have enough idiots running around looking like rent-a-cops with flashing lights, badges and SWAT uniforms!!!
That is absolutely true.
But we also have a lot of dedicated hams who are devoting a lot of their personal time and energies to supporting their communities in time of need.
All of them are not whackoes and wannabe cops, and to insinuate that they are is a reprehensible injustice to them.
ab0wr
07-30-2007, 02:59 PM
w3miv:Quote[/b] ]All of which you cite is public money being applied to public projects. That ARRL members are participating in the programs being supported by those monies at the community level is not the same as the ARRL profiting by the grants. The public in those supported communities is profiting by those grants. That ARES are the focus of the activities, and that ARES is a function of the ARRL is ancillary.
Ancillary? You've got to be kidding.
From the ARRL web page:
"There are four levels of ARES organization--national, section, district and local."
"National emergency coordination at ARRL Headquarters is under the supervision of the ARRL Field and Educational Services Manager, ...."
"At the section level, the Section Emergency Coordinator is appointed by the Section Manager (who is elected by the ARRL members in his or her section) ..."
"The local EC is therefore the key contact in the ARES. The EC is appointed by the SEC, usually on the recommendation of the DEC."
"SECs have the option of grouping their EC jurisdictions into logical units or "districts" and appointing a District EC ..."
"While it is general policy that no ARES member must belong to any particular club or organization to participate in the program, local practical considerations may be such that you cannot be used. This is a matter that has to be decided by your EC. In some cases, even personality conflicts can cause difficulties; for example, the EC may decide that he cannot work with a particular person, and that the local ARES would be better served by excluding that person. This is a judgment that the EC would have to make; while personality conflicts should be avoided, they do arise, more often than we would prefer. The EC on the job must take the responsibility for making such subjective evaluations, just as the SEC and DEC must evaluate the effectiveness of the job being done by the EC."
I especially like the last one. If the ARRL heirarchy doesn't "like" you then you can be excluded from participation, at the very least, in ARES.
If you think the ARRL is *ancillary* to ARES you and I have totally different views of how ARES is structured and controlled.
tim ab0wr
KB1NIV
07-30-2007, 03:43 PM
Back in the middle of June, the radio club I belong to - Framingham Amateur Radio Association - held a Saturday morning class on HF operation which was well attended. The session was put on by two OT's with, as noted on the session flyer, well over 100 years of ham radio experience between them. They put together a very good booklet which they handed out at the class that goes over the basics of HF operation. I thoroughly enjoyed the class and benefitted from it. The class was open to both club members and non-members. The class ended with an attempt at a QSO on 20 meters at the club station with a former club member now living in California but propagation at the time wouldn't support that.
If every radio club did the same it would certainly help. Not all hams are members of a club but it would certainly put a dent in the problem of inexperienced ops committing faux pas on the HF bands.
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 04:10 PM
Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 30 2007,10:59)]w3miv:Quote[/b] ]All of which you cite is public money being applied to public projects. That ARRL members are participating in the programs being supported by those monies at the community level is not the same as the ARRL profiting by the grants. The public in those supported communities is profiting by those grants. That ARES are the focus of the activities, and that ARES is a function of the ARRL is ancillary.
Ancillary? You've got to be kidding.
From the ARRL web page:
"There are four levels of ARES organization--national, section, district and local."
"National emergency coordination at ARRL Headquarters is under the supervision of the ARRL Field and Educational Services Manager, ...."
"At the section level, the Section Emergency Coordinator is appointed by the Section Manager (who is elected by the ARRL members in his or her section) ..."
"The local EC is therefore the key contact in the ARES. The EC is appointed by the SEC, usually on the recommendation of the DEC."
"SECs have the option of grouping their EC jurisdictions into logical units or "districts" and appointing a District EC ..."
"While it is general policy that no ARES member must belong to any particular club or organization to participate in the program, local practical considerations may be such that you cannot be used. This is a matter that has to be decided by your EC. In some cases, even personality conflicts can cause difficulties; for example, the EC may decide that he cannot work with a particular person, and that the local ARES would be better served by excluding that person. This is a judgment that the EC would have to make; while personality conflicts should be avoided, they do arise, more often than we would prefer. The EC on the job must take the responsibility for making such subjective evaluations, just as the SEC and DEC must evaluate the effectiveness of the job being done by the EC."
I especially like the last one. If the ARRL heirarchy doesn't "like" you then you can be excluded from participation, at the very least, in ARES.
If you think the ARRL is *ancillary* to ARES you and I have totally different views of how ARES is structured and controlled.
tim ab0wr
I never thought I would live to see the day, but I am beginning to see what Larry finds so frustrating in your posts, Tim. The "ancillary" adjective applied to the fact that the money is going to the agencies, not to the League or to the EmComm operations of the Sections. It is "ancillary" to the ARRL's EmComm operations, not fundamental. ARES would continue to exist and to serve even were the grants not made to those agencies, though the service may not be as effective.
You have again given us a half-page of diatribe that is wholly inappropriate to the original comment.
You are growing so eager to stick your thumb in the ARRL's eye you no longer read to comprehend, only to find something to quote for another riposte.
I think you need to take a break.
Albert,
I have to say I feel some of Tim's frustration at issues related to the ARRL. I am having to read and reread posts before I respond to them because I find my posting glasses are tinted with my distaste for the ARRL's methods. If HPM were alive today, he'd be going through the Newington Office like Christ through the temple.
I have no problem with 30K new Amateurs. I just wish they would have said 30,000 well trained Amateurs. Well trained includes training on the bandplan, operating technique, anti-CB jargon training, etc.
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 04:58 PM
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 30 2007,12:40)]Albert,
I have to say I feel some of Tim's frustration at issues related to the ARRL. #I am having to read and reread posts before I respond to them because I find my posting glasses are tinted with my distaste for the ARRL's methods. #If HPM were alive today, he'd be going through the Newington Office like Christ through the temple.
I have no problem with 30K new Amateurs. #I just wish they would have said 30,000 well trained Amateurs. #Well trained includes training on the bandplan, operating technique, anti-CB jargon training, etc.
Don't disagree at all, Charlie, except, perhaps, about HPM. I think many of the problems with Newington are the result of his legacy in some ways. Nobody on any of these forums can lay claim to more frustration with the ways of the ARRL than I. That frustration was a prime mover in my decision to volunteer to do what I might to foster change. I may fail, but I will have tried.
As I have said on more than one occasion, we cannot rely on the League (or anyone else at that distance) to train (housebreak?) the newly baptized, though I would agree that some adaptable programs and support materials from on high would help. It is up to us, up to the clubs and up to the repeater-clusterers to actively seek to engage newbies and introduce them to the traditions and ways of amateur radio, regardless of their prior lives in other "services" (when, in fact, they participated in such benighted activities http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif ).
I am sensing in my travels (travails?) that it is not only the repeater plant that is suffering underuse and under-representation today, but also it would seem that lots of our clubs are stagnating for lack of interest and a want of new bodies to fill the seats.
That is where the traction must come, for nothing so distant as the League (even at the Section level) can substitute for the shrinking elmer.
Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
73
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 30 2007,12:40)]Albert,
I have to say I feel some of Tim's frustration at issues related to the ARRL. #I am having to read and reread posts before I respond to them because I find my posting glasses are tinted with my distaste for the ARRL's methods. #If HPM were alive today, he'd be going through the Newington Office like Christ through the temple.
I have no problem with 30K new Amateurs. #I just wish they would have said 30,000 well trained Amateurs. #Well trained includes training on the bandplan, operating technique, anti-CB jargon training, etc.
But who actually teaches and trains the potential new amateurs, Charlie?
The Newington staff?
The Board?
Nope. Us. Individually or through our clubs and other local/regional amateur radio organizations..
Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but back in the day, when I was teaching Amateur Radio classes (and getting paid for it, thanks to the Continuing Education Department of the local Community College -- a pittance, but it was still nice to get something!) I made a point of not just teaching code, theory, rules & regulations; but of operating techniques & procedures, on-air etiquitte (sp?), and so forth.
I did what Elmering I could, too. If I ever get back all of the old receivers I "loaned" out over the years, I could have a heck of a flea market table, let me tell you! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
So if you want quality new amateurs -- and I do too! -- then it is up to us to teach them. We can't wait until after they've stumbled on the air with their newly printed still-wet-ink licenses... we've got to start with them at the beginning.
"Well-trained" falls on us. Not Newington.
73
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 29 2007,11:05)]Ironically, the ARRL has been promoting WL2K as an HF email alternative for RVers and Boaters who do not want to use commercial services. Same pitch....get a license and have free email via Amateur Radio.
George, I know that the ARRL has been pushing WinLink, and I know that some of the WinLink user base has been pushing for boaters & RV'ers to use it (some of whom are pushing the legal boundaries if not crossing them, which is another matter on another thread already).
But I don't recall ever seeing that ARRL was promoting WinLink directly to boaters & RV'ers.
I'm very curious about this. Can you provide a source for that information?
Quote[/b] (W5HTW @ July 29 2007,10:14)]The ARRL, though, pushed hard for the "EMCOMM" approach, and has been quite effective in getting recognition from Homeland Security on that issue. #The reason is money. #By making amateur radio into an extension of the feceral government and national security, federal grant money flows like honey to a bear's paw. #And certainly the other reason, which is linked to the money reason, is numbers. #More hams, at any cost TO the hobby, just more hams FOR the hobby.
Ed,
Almost all of the EMCOMM related grant money I've seen allocated has been at the state, county, or local level. Outside of the money that was allocated to ARRL to subsidize EMCOMM training, which I believe was a one-time grant (or was it renewed once after that?), I haven't seen a dime go directly into the League's coffers.
From what I've seen, the money is being spent to buy replacement repeaters (one club here, not mine, is in the process of reactivating a 2 meter repeater specifically for the County EOC, rumor is that the ARES/RACES/Public Service Nets will be mandated to switch to this machine once it becomes active), or other mobile or portable equipment at the city and county level.
And believe me, there are strings attached. I didn't get all of the details, but when the committee that financed and built my club's new mobile trailer-mounted 30' tower looked into it, they found the requirements somewhat onerous. So we didn't pursue government grant money for it. Others, though, have pursued the money and willingly accepted the restrictions or requirements therein.
But again... where has this money flowed into ARRL Hq?
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 05:34 PM
Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 30 2007,13:08)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 29 2007,11:05)]Ironically, the ARRL has been promoting WL2K as an HF email alternative for RVers and Boaters who do not want to use commercial services. Same pitch....get a license and have free email via Amateur Radio.
George, I know that the ARRL has been pushing WinLink, and I know that some of the WinLink user base has been pushing for boaters & RV'ers to use it (some of whom are pushing the legal boundaries if not crossing them, which is another matter on another thread already).
But I don't recall ever seeing that ARRL was promoting WinLink directly to boaters & RV'ers. #
I'm very curious about this. #Can you provide a source for that information?
Unfortunately, Ron, there were a series of articles in QST which promoted the use of WinLink as an HF email system. Seems I recall that Vic Poor was the author for some -- not surprising, that. I believe that some of the "agenda" from those times yet lingers in the hallways and cupboards, and I also suspect that the genesis of much of this was innocent naiveté -- not, of course, on Poor's or Waterman's parts -- but on the part of many who saw a bright, new capability and either did not foresee (or refused to see) the potential for growth in contravention of much of §97.113 in the years ahead. Perhaps, I am just reacting to hindsight -- a human failing that brands many of us.
If you do a search of the ARRL website you will likely find some articles. I think most would have appeared back in 2001 or 2002. They probably read a bit like adolescent potboilers now.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,04:58)]Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
So what do you about the guy who wrote the Correspondence piece in QST who freely and openly admits that he is not the least bit interested in any other aspect of amateur radio than emergency communications?
Scott NĜIU
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 05:38 PM
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 30 2007,13:34)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,04:58)]Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
So what do you about the guy who wrote the Correspondence piece in QST who freely and openly admits that he is not the least bit interested in any other aspect of amateur radio than emergency communications?
Scott NĜIU
What do you think you should do about him? I sense a strong, and in my view misplaced, pejorative in your question.
Seems to me if that is his primary area of interest, he should have as much right to pursue that as you have to pursue, say, CW or AM or RTTY using big iron and yeller paper.
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 05:42 PM
I revisit your post, Scott, because I think you are presuming an authority that you do not possess.
The "value judgment" that admits this guy to the confraternity has already been made. It was made by the FCC when it granted him a license.
It is not up to you or to me to pass judgment on the validity of that license or of his right to make use of it as he chooses, so long as he does not stray from the dictates of the Rules.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,05:38)]Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 30 2007,13:34)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,04:58)]Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
So what do you about the guy who wrote the Correspondence piece in QST who freely and openly admits that he is not the least bit interested in any other aspect of amateur radio than emergency communications?
Scott NĜIU
What do you think you should do about him? I sense a strong, and in my view misplaced, pejorative in your question.
Seems to me if that is his primary area of interest, he should have as much right to pursue that as you have to pursue, say, CW or AM or RTTY using big iron and yeller paper.
But emergency communications is not his primary interest, it is his ONLY interest.
He says, "Amateur Radio may be a great hobby, but I see it differently."
You can lead guys like this to water, but damned if you can get them to take a drink!
Scott NĜIU
...and I never said that he did not have a right to pursue any particular aspect of amateur radio.
...and I never did pass any sort of judgement on the validity of his license.
I think you are reading a lot more into my post than is actually there. You think we should Elmer the newcomers and my point is that not everyone who comes into the hobby wants to be on the receiving end.
Scott NĜIU
K7JEM
07-30-2007, 05:58 PM
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 30 2007,10:46)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,05:38)]Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 30 2007,13:34)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,04:58)]Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
So what do you about the guy who wrote the Correspondence piece in QST who freely and openly admits that he is not the least bit interested in any other aspect of amateur radio than emergency communications?
Scott NĜIU
What do you think you should do about him? I sense a strong, and in my view misplaced, pejorative in your question.
Seems to me if that is his primary area of interest, he should have as much right to pursue that as you have to pursue, say, CW or AM or RTTY using big iron and yeller paper.
But emergency communications is not his primary interest, it is his ONLY interest.
He says, "Amateur Radio may be a great hobby, but I see it differently."
You can lead guys like this to water, but damned if you can get them to take a drink!
Scott NĜIU
You are trying to "mold" someone into your vision of HR.
Everyone has a different idea. I think what Albert says is right. If he ONLY wants to be a ham to do emcomm, then who are we to say he can't, or thats wrong.
Many people only want to operate CW or 75M phone. Some never get off 2M repeaters or 20M DX. So what?
HR is a hobby for the ham himself. It is not necessarily a team sport, or even a learning experience. Hams do what they want to do, and when they want to do it. There is tremendous diversity, and HR is better off for it.
Joe
I NEVER said that emergency communications does not fit my mold of amateur radio. As a matter of fact, I never said what my mold or vision of amateur radio is anywhere in my posts. I never said that the author of the QST piece is wrong or that he has no right to pursue it. I never said anything that calls into question the validity of his license.
I am from Missouri. SHOW ME where I said any of those things.
Scott NĜIU
K7JEM
07-30-2007, 06:36 PM
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 30 2007,11:21)]I NEVER said that emergency communications does not fit my mold of amateur radio. As a matter of fact, I never said what my mold or vision of amateur radio is anywhere in my posts. I never said that the author of the QST piece is wrong or that he has no right to pursue it. I never said anything that calls into question the validity of his license.
I am from Missouri. SHOW ME where I said any of those things.
Scott NĜIU
Quote[/b] ]You can lead guys like this to water, but damned if you can get them to take a drink!
Scott NĜIU
What this says to me is that you have a "vision" (the water) and you take this guy to it, and he won't drink.
My interpretation is that you are trying to "mold" this person to your thought patterns. He may have other ideas, or another vision. He might want other "water".
Joe
That quote about the water was in reference to W3MIV's statement that, Quote[/b] ]Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
I used the example of the man who wrote the Correspondence piece in QST as someone who has no desire to learn anything about the traditions of those who went before us.
So you see, it is not my vision that this gentleman is not conforming to, it is W3MIV's! W3MIV thinks we need to Elmer newcomers into the traditions of amateur radio and that is his vision and my point is that one can not make a blanket statement like that since it does not apply to everyone.
Scott NĜIU
K7JEM
07-30-2007, 06:55 PM
Very true. You can't elmer everyone, because some don't want that.
I think Albert is saying the same thing. "Not by the ears" would indicate gentle persuasion and mentoring, not a forceful thing.
You do what you can do, and the new hams will do what they want.
They will still be hams, regardless.
Joe
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 07:08 PM
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 30 2007,14:42)]That quote about the water was in reference to W3MIV's statement that, Quote[/b] ]Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
I used the example of the man who wrote the Correspondence piece in QST as someone who has no desire to learn anything about the traditions of those who went before us.
So you see, it is not my vision that this gentleman is not conforming to, it is W3MIV's! W3MIV thinks we need to Elmer newcomers into the traditions of amateur radio and that is his vision and my point is that one can not make a blanket statement like that since it does not apply to everyone.
Scott NĜIU
I have no idea of what it is you might be smoking there, Scott, but I strongly suspect it is about to burn your fingers. Light another.
When I said it was our responsibility to elmer newcomers and to introduce them to the traditions we value, I did not realize that anyone would put so narrow an interpretation on my comment that it would require some further explication. Obviously, I erred. Maybe it was too simple.
That an individual may have no interest in aspects of amateur radio beyond that of seeking to provide services to his community in time of peril or other exigency would not seem a cause for any alarm or comment beyond the expected "welcome" and "enjoy." If he gets off on the wrong foot in his favored endeavor, I am sure that there will be someone, an elmer by any other name, who will lead him to light.
That he does not particularly wish to learn your secret handshake and mouth the prescribed arcanum about traveling widows or other clandestine signs of recognition that cast luminance on your path will not matter much to me. Or, I aver, to many others of us.
Need a match?
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif
Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 30 2007,10:04)]But who actually teaches and trains the potential new amateurs, Charlie?
The Newington staff?
The Board?
Nope.
Boy you got that right. Or else we'd see articles in QST about operating practices and the other items I mentioned.
Quote[/b] ]Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but back in the day, when I was teaching Amateur Radio classes (and getting paid for it, thanks to the Continuing Education Department of the local Community College -- a pittance, but it was still nice to get something!) I made a point of not just teaching code, theory, rules & regulations; but of operating techniques & procedures, on-air etiquitte (sp?), and so forth.
Interesting distinction. How many new or upgrade Amateurs take a class these days? Maybe 2%? I think that is exactly what we need. Before a person can take a test they must attend an orientation session that covers these topics. Even if the VEs took 1 hour prior to administering the test to cover basic behavioral topics it would be an improvement.
Quote[/b] ]I did what Elmering I could, too. If I ever get back all of the old receivers I "loaned" out over the years, I could have a heck of a flea market table, let me tell you! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
I have three transceivers out now. Why would you assume I wouldn't http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
KE5FRF
07-30-2007, 07:24 PM
Quote[/b] (K7JEM @ July 30 2007,13:55)]Very true. You can't elmer everyone, because some don't want that.
I think Albert is saying the same thing. "Not by the ears" would indicate gentle persuasion and mentoring, not a forceful thing.
You do what you can do, and the new hams will do what they want.
They will still be hams, regardless.
Joe
Joe,
I do agree with you in more ways than you realize about not shoving my approach to the hobby down someone else's throat. The many different things we hams do is one of the reasons I enjoy being a ham. I have yet to run traditional RTTY for example, but I'm all for people doing what they enjoy regardless of my preferences.
Always a but.
I feel that ham radio is more than a hobby in that it is a loose organization as well. (Being a radio service it is organized under part 97) It is also organized locally by clubs, it is organized voluntarily be the ARRL with bandplans and established SOPs, it is organized within interest groups (SSTV for example) by conventions and proticols. Yes, we are individuals and our activities are OUR business, but that comes with the caveat that we do everything legally and gentlemanly. If we didn't have such structure, the bands would be pure chaos. I'd go so far as to say that what REALLY prevents the bands from being a free-for-all is NOT the FCC but rather tradition and SELF-organization...I know you hate mention of other services, but certainly we have examples of how poor the FCC is at keeping things under control. The other service was never able to self-organize for whatever reason (probably nobody cared) and became what it is.
So, the question is, to what extent do we step aside and mind our own business? How appropriate is it to voice your concerns about the state of the hobby and how YOU think things should be done? Its a gray area to be certain. You guys are discussing someone who thinks emcomm is the end-all reason to be a ham. Well, certainly that is his right. I do not believe that Part 97 defines it as such, but it doesn't preclude that use either and certainly encourages it. But we as a community and as a loose organization have the right to voice our concerns when some group "infiltrates" our ranks and tries to redefine the hobby. I believe there SHOULD be a universally accepted definition of what being a ham is, and IMHO traditions should be included in that definition. As ED W5HTW has pointed out, the ARRL seems to want to redefine it with the whim of current public trends...but the ARRL IS NOT Newington,CT...It is US, the membership, and if we feel they are leading us down the wrong path we have no recourse but to make our opinions known.
I do not wish to brow-beat the HT toting emcommer, but I do wish to participate in setting the tone for the basic fundamental premise of what it means to be a ham.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,12:34)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 30 2007,13:08)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 29 2007,11:05)]Ironically, the ARRL has been promoting WL2K as an HF email alternative for RVers and Boaters who do not want to use commercial services. Same pitch....get a license and have free email via Amateur Radio.
George, I know that the ARRL has been pushing WinLink, and I know that some of the WinLink user base has been pushing for boaters & RV'ers to use it (some of whom are pushing the legal boundaries if not crossing them, which is another matter on another thread already).
But I don't recall ever seeing that ARRL was promoting WinLink directly to boaters & RV'ers.
I'm very curious about this. Can you provide a source for that information?
Unfortunately, Ron, there were a series of articles in QST which promoted the use of WinLink as an HF email system. Seems I recall that Vic Poor was the author for some -- not surprising, that. I believe that some of the "agenda" from those times yet lingers in the hallways and cupboards, and I also suspect that the genesis of much of this was innocent naiveté -- not, of course, on Poor's or Waterman's parts -- but on the part of many who saw a bright, new capability and either did not foresee (or refused to see) the potential for growth in contravention of much of §97.113 in the years ahead. Perhaps, I am just reacting to hindsight -- a human failing that brands many of us.
If you do a search of the ARRL website you will likely find some articles. I think most would have appeared back in 2001 or 2002. They probably read a bit like adolescent potboilers now.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
An excerpt from an ARRL website article concerning WL2K.
"WinLink 2000--Internet E-mail from Anywhere!
The Internet has become the e-mail medium of choice for most hams, but there is a sizeable group of amateurs who often travel beyond the reach of the Internet. This group includes hams at sea, travelers in recreational vehicles (RVs), missionaries, scientists and explorers. No doubt the day will come when wireless, affordable Internet e-mail access will be available from any point on the globe. Until that day arrives, however, Amateur Radio HF digital operators have a very capable substitute!"
This approach is almost the same as what was being said when the ARRL was pushing the Technician license in the 90s and touting the benefit of the autopatch in place of expensive cell phones and minute charges. In the end it is a way to get around the cost of commercial services that do the same thing.
Back in the 60s the ARRL touted the utility of the phone patch and I think that initially it violated phone company tariffs and there was some controversey around it, but in the end it was touted as a way to circumvent the high rates of long distance calling.
73
George
K3UD
WA3KYY
07-30-2007, 08:04 PM
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 30 2007,14:42)]That quote about the water was in reference to W3MIV's statement that, Quote[/b] ]Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
I used the example of the man who wrote the Correspondence piece in QST as someone who has no desire to learn anything about the traditions of those who went before us.
So you see, it is not my vision that this gentleman is not conforming to, it is W3MIV's! W3MIV thinks we need to Elmer newcomers into the traditions of amateur radio and that is his vision and my point is that one can not make a blanket statement like that since it does not apply to everyone.
Scott NĜIU
Unless the person who wrote that letter came into amateur radio as an ECOMM professional and only got the amateur license to add to his bag of ECOMM tricks, he will need elmering in the specifics of amateur radio as it applies to ECOMM.
Such thngs as emergency net procedures, message formats, triage of messages, and a whole host of training to fit the ICS model of emergency response that EOCs and others are using.
In a more general sense, Albert's comment could mean that we all take the new amateur who has expressed an interest in the particular aspects of amateur radio that we enjoy and teach them the traditions and specifics of our areas. For some of use we are both OTs and newbies depending upon where we are with particular aspects of amateur radio. We can be both elmer and student.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
kn4ds
07-30-2007, 08:11 PM
Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 30 2007,16:04)]We can be both elmer and student.
I think it's important that we recognize this, and try to remember that throughout our amateur radio "careers" that we should be both, but especially student.
W3MIV
07-30-2007, 09:05 PM
Quote[/b] (WA3KYY @ July 30 2007,16:04)]Unless the person who wrote that letter came into amateur radio as an ECOMM professional and only got the amateur license to add to his bag of ECOMM tricks, he will need elmering in the specifics of amateur radio as it applies to ECOMM. #
Such thngs as emergency net procedures, message formats, triage of messages, and a whole host of training to fit the ICS model of emergency response that EOCs and others are using.
In a more general sense, Albert's comment could mean that we all take the new amateur who has expressed an interest in the particular aspects of amateur radio that we enjoy and teach them the traditions and specifics of our areas. #For some of use we are both OTs and newbies depending upon where we are with particular aspects of amateur radio. #We can be both elmer and student.
73,
Mike WA3KYY
Right on all counts, Mike. Elmers should be available in all sizes, colors and areas of interest, including EmComm only if that is what someone seeks a license to do.
ab0wr
07-31-2007, 12:44 AM
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,09:10)]Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ July 30 2007,10:59)]w3miv:Quote[/b] ]All of which you cite is public money being applied to public projects. That ARRL members are participating in the programs being supported by those monies at the community level is not the same as the ARRL profiting by the grants. The public in those supported communities is profiting by those grants. That ARES are the focus of the activities, and that ARES is a function of the ARRL is ancillary.
Ancillary? You've got to be kidding.
From the ARRL web page:
"There are four levels of ARES organization--national, section, district and local."
"National emergency coordination at ARRL Headquarters is under the supervision of the ARRL Field and Educational Services Manager, ...."
"At the section level, the Section Emergency Coordinator is appointed by the Section Manager (who is elected by the ARRL members in his or her section) ..."
"The local EC is therefore the key contact in the ARES. The EC is appointed by the SEC, usually on the recommendation of the DEC."
"SECs have the option of grouping their EC jurisdictions into logical units or "districts" and appointing a District EC ..."
"While it is general policy that no ARES member must belong to any particular club or organization to participate in the program, local practical considerations may be such that you cannot be used. This is a matter that has to be decided by your EC. In some cases, even personality conflicts can cause difficulties; for example, the EC may decide that he cannot work with a particular person, and that the local ARES would be better served by excluding that person. This is a judgment that the EC would have to make; while personality conflicts should be avoided, they do arise, more often than we would prefer. The EC on the job must take the responsibility for making such subjective evaluations, just as the SEC and DEC must evaluate the effectiveness of the job being done by the EC."
I especially like the last one. If the ARRL heirarchy doesn't "like" you then you can be excluded from participation, at the very least, in ARES.
If you think the ARRL is *ancillary* to ARES you and I have totally different views of how ARES is structured and controlled.
tim ab0wr
I never thought I would live to see the day, but I am beginning to see what Larry finds so frustrating in your posts, Tim. The "ancillary" adjective applied to the fact that the money is going to the agencies, not to the League or to the EmComm operations of the Sections. It is "ancillary" to the ARRL's EmComm operations, not fundamental. ARES would continue to exist and to serve even were the grants not made to those agencies, though the service may not be as effective.
You have again given us a half-page of diatribe that is wholly inappropriate to the original comment.
You are growing so eager to stick your thumb in the ARRL's eye you no longer read to comprehend, only to find something to quote for another riposte.
I think you need to take a break.
Give me a break!!!
How's this for an example:
Quote[/b] ]It's there. Our county EM office received grants to buy three TS-2000s, three Icom 2720s, six TF90As, a mobile trailer, two generators, and some antennas. Unfortunately the money was never actually spent before the grant expired, so we didn't get the trailer or the TS-2000s, but we did get the rest of it.
Yes, the *agency* got the grant.
What was it *for*? Ham equipment for ARES to operate? Or for ham equipment the *agency* is going to operate?
If it's for ARES to operate then it is NOT ancillary to ARES in any way, shape, or form. If it is for ARES to use then it *has* to be fundamental to their operation -- if it wasn't fundamental then did someone lie on the grant perhaps? Why did so much money get allocated to NON-NEEDED equipment when the money would be better spent where it IS NEEDED?
If it is for ARES to use then it is a benefit to the ARRL since ARES is *their* baby, not the EMCOMM agencies baby.
You can call my posts diatribes all you want, Albert, I really don't care. Let the readers decide.
tim ab0wr
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,13:34)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 30 2007,13:08)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 29 2007,11:05)]Ironically, the ARRL has been promoting WL2K as an HF email alternative for RVers and Boaters who do not want to use commercial services. Same pitch....get a license and have free email via Amateur Radio.
George, I know that the ARRL has been pushing WinLink, and I know that some of the WinLink user base has been pushing for boaters & RV'ers to use it (some of whom are pushing the legal boundaries if not crossing them, which is another matter on another thread already).
But I don't recall ever seeing that ARRL was promoting WinLink directly to boaters & RV'ers. #
I'm very curious about this. #Can you provide a source for that information?
Unfortunately, Ron, there were a series of articles in QST which promoted the use of WinLink as an HF email system. Seems I recall that Vic Poor was the author for some -- not surprising, that. I believe that some of the "agenda" from those times yet lingers in the hallways and cupboards, and I also suspect that the genesis of much of this was innocent naiveté -- not, of course, on Poor's or Waterman's parts -- but on the part of many who saw a bright, new capability and either did not foresee (or refused to see) the potential for growth in contravention of much of §97.113 in the years ahead. Perhaps, I am just reacting to hindsight -- a human failing that brands many of us.
If you do a search of the ARRL website you will likely find some articles. I think most would have appeared back in 2001 or 2002. They probably read a bit like adolescent potboilers now.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
I kinda recall those articles... I no longer have those QST's, unfortunately (I got them a good home when I had to downsize QTH's a few years back due to a work shortage) but I will do some searching.
But it's one thing for the League to promote an email system in general or WinLink in particular. It's another thing for the League to be accused of pushing illegal activity because of subsequent actions of the authors of those articles 6-7 years ago.
Quote[/b] (n0iu @ July 30 2007,14:42)]That quote about the water was in reference to W3MIV's statement that, Quote[/b] ]Each of us needs to make a commitment to grab a newby (NOT by the ears) and bring him along in the traditions of those who went before us. This is, in my view, the only way it will work.
I used the example of the man who wrote the Correspondence piece in QST as someone who has no desire to learn anything about the traditions of those who went before us.
So you see, it is not my vision that this gentleman is not conforming to, it is W3MIV's! W3MIV thinks we need to Elmer newcomers into the traditions of amateur radio and that is his vision and my point is that one can not make a blanket statement like that since it does not apply to everyone.
Scott NĜIU
Maybe it would be better to state that we can offer Elmering and mentoring. Not all will accept the offers.
There are those who are into Amateur Radio for their own single minded purposes. It might be EmComm, it might be R/C control, it might be using the ability to talk to friends on an HT on 2 meters on the way to/from work. They have always been with us, they will always be with us.
It is a shame that they may be missing out on many other aspects of the Amateur Service, and we owe it to them to make the offers. But if they decline the offers, well, at least we tried.
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 30 2007,15:21)]I have three transceivers out now. #Why would you assume I wouldn't #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
Huh? Who said anything about your loaners?
Quote[/b] (AG4YO @ July 30 2007,15:21)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 30 2007,10:04)]But who actually teaches and trains the potential new amateurs, Charlie?
The Newington staff?
The Board?
Nope.
Boy you got that right. Or else we'd see articles in QST about operating practices and the other items I mentioned. #
Have you written an article on the subject, since you feel so strongly about it?
Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 30 2007,15:53)]Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 30 2007,12:34)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 30 2007,13:08)]Quote[/b] (K3UD @ July 29 2007,11:05)]Ironically, the ARRL has been promoting WL2K as an HF email alternative for RVers and Boaters who do not want to use commercial services. Same pitch....get a license and have free email via Amateur Radio.
George, I know that the ARRL has been pushing WinLink, and I know that some of the WinLink user base has been pushing for boaters & RV'ers to use it (some of whom are pushing the legal boundaries if not crossing them, which is another matter on another thread already).
But I don't recall ever seeing that ARRL was promoting WinLink directly to boaters & RV'ers. #
I'm very curious about this. #Can you provide a source for that information?
Unfortunately, Ron, there were a series of articles in QST which promoted the use of WinLink as an HF email system. Seems I recall that Vic Poor was the author for some -- not surprising, that. I believe that some of the "agenda" from those times yet lingers in the hallways and cupboards, and I also suspect that the genesis of much of this was innocent naiveté -- not, of course, on Poor's or Waterman's parts -- but on the part of many who saw a bright, new capability and either did not foresee (or refused to see) the potential for growth in contravention of much of §97.113 in the years ahead. Perhaps, I am just reacting to hindsight -- a human failing that brands many of us.
If you do a search of the ARRL website you will likely find some articles. I think most would have appeared back in 2001 or 2002. They probably read a bit like adolescent potboilers now.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif
An excerpt from an ARRL website article concerning WL2K.
"WinLink 2000--Internet E-mail from Anywhere!
The Internet has become the e-mail medium of choice for most hams, but there is a sizeable group of amateurs who often travel beyond the reach of the Internet. This group includes hams at sea, travelers in recreational vehicles (RVs), missionaries, scientists and explorers. No doubt the day will come when wireless, affordable Internet e-mail access will be available from any point on the globe. Until that day arrives, however, Amateur Radio HF digital operators have a very capable substitute!"
This approach is almost the same as what was being said when the ARRL was pushing the Technician license in the 90s and touting the benefit of the autopatch in place of expensive cell phones and minute charges. In the end it is a way to get around the cost of commercial services that do the same thing.
Back in the 60s the ARRL touted the utility of the phone patch and I think that initially it violated phone company tariffs and there was some controversey around it, but in the end it was touted as a way to circumvent the high rates of long distance calling.
73
George
K3UD
Well George, I don't think we're going to agree on this one. But my interpretation of that quote is that the League is stating that WinLink 2000 makes email access available to hams who happen to be boaters, RV'ers, etc., as one of it's benefits.
That, to me, is not the same as promoting WinLink to boater's and RV'ers as a reason to get the amateur license. And in that context, by "promoting" I'm referring to the hard sell.
Nor do I read that paragraph as promoting illegal use of email via Amateur Radio (be it WinLink or one of the other services) by those who masquerade as amateur licensees solely to use email access, nor do I read that paragraphy as promoting illegal uses of the email systems by Amateurs to receive information that should not normally be sent via amateur radio (such as commercial traffice, like stocks & bonds selling as one example).
W3MIV
07-31-2007, 04:51 PM
Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 31 2007,12:19)]Well George, I don't think we're going to agree on this one. #But my interpretation of that quote is that the League is stating that WinLink 2000 makes email access available to hams who happen to be boaters, RV'ers, etc., as one of it's benefits.
That, to me, is not the same as promoting WinLink to boater's and RV'ers as a reason to get the amateur license. #And in that context, by "promoting" I'm referring to the hard sell.
Nor do I read that paragraph as promoting illegal use of email via Amateur Radio (be it WinLink or one of the other services) by those who masquerade as amateur licensees solely to use email access, nor do I read that paragraphy as promoting illegal uses of the email systems by Amateurs to receive information that should not normally be sent via amateur radio (such as commercial traffice, like stocks & bonds selling as one example).
There seems to be a perspective about WinLink that surpasses reason in some ways.
It is almost as though some who look at WinLink see "666" as its icon. I hasten to add that I do not accuse George of this silliness, but I think it fair to point out that the growing abuse (not just in the US, but internationally) of WinLink as a substitute for other readily available commercial email services is making it harder for many of us to read any article about the program or system without jumping to conclusions that may lie far outside the authors' intentions.
The ARRL has, indeed, fastened onto WinLink as a primary tool of EmComm, and there are justifiable reasons for that in my opinion. Alas, the value is being undercut in the market by the usurpers who have no care or concern about anything other than saving a few bucks and gaining the chance to send attachments that other services restrict.
The "problem" has grown so large and so international in scope that I see no easy regulatory solution beyond the continuation of the sub-bands mandated for all such operations in US jurisdictions.
Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ July 31 2007,12:51)]Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 31 2007,12:19)]Well George, I don't think we're going to agree on this one. #But my interpretation of that quote is that the League is stating that WinLink 2000 makes email access available to hams who happen to be boaters, RV'ers, etc., as one of it's benefits.
That, to me, is not the same as promoting WinLink to boater's and RV'ers as a reason to get the amateur license. #And in that context, by "promoting" I'm referring to the hard sell.
Nor do I read that paragraph as promoting illegal use of email via Amateur Radio (be it WinLink or one of the other services) by those who masquerade as amateur licensees solely to use email access, nor do I read that paragraphy as promoting illegal uses of the email systems by Amateurs to receive information that should not normally be sent via amateur radio (such as commercial traffice, like stocks & bonds selling as one example).
There seems to be a perspective about WinLink that surpasses reason in some ways.
It is almost as though some who look at WinLink see "666" as its icon. I hasten to add that I do not accuse George of this silliness, but I think it fair to point out that the growing abuse (not just in the US, but internationally) of WinLink as a substitute for other readily available commercial email services is making it harder for many of us to read any article about the program or system without jumping to conclusions that may lie far outside the authors' intentions.
The ARRL has, indeed, fastened onto WinLink as a primary tool of EmComm, and there are justifiable reasons for that in my opinion. Alas, the value is being undercut in the market by the usurpers who have no care or concern about anything other than saving a few bucks and gaining the chance to send attachments that other services restrict.
The "problem" has grown so large and so international in scope that I see no easy regulatory solution beyond the continuation of the sub-bands mandated for all such operations in US jurisdictions.
I think the sadest thing in the entire WinLink argument is that there are those who believe that the only way to stop the abuse is to ban the technology.
This sets a dangerous precedent. Ban WinLink... then the other mailbox systems... what next?
If the technology has, for the sake of argument or discussion a flaw in it, it is that it appears, at first glance, that it may be too easy for non-hams to access the system automatically, and for certain license holders (who masquerade as "amateur radio operators" solely in order to do this) to abuse the system to avoid paying commercial email fees.
If this is the case... and again, I say this for the sake of argument/discussion, as I do not factually know if this assertation is actually correct, or if it is correct, how widespread it truly is (is it?)... then the solution is, IMHO, two fold:
(1) Sanction or shut down the abusers
(2) Fix the security holes
Having said that, it now appears that a certain vocal minority has gotten so emotionally wound up in the issue that logic and facts go out the window. Until that changes, the arguments will continue, and continue to go nowhere, and the abusers (if any) will continue to quietly laugh at us for being so involved in tearing each other to shreds that we don't face, and solve, the real issues.
W3MIV
07-31-2007, 09:31 PM
Quote[/b] (w3wn @ July 31 2007,16:31)]...it now appears that a certain vocal minority has gotten so emotionally wound up in the issue that logic and facts go out the window.
I have posted this before, and always to a resounding chorus of denunciations: The issue is one of philosophy, and not truly of technology or regulation.
I posted a few minutes ago a humorous rejoinder to one of Charles's (N5PVL) recurring rants about "luddites." The irony, of course, is that Charles and his cronies in this debate are the true Luddites, who for any who might choose to do a tiny bit of research will find were a group who opposed NEW technology.
In this recurring debate, it is easy to identify the faction who are the true Luddites. In the early years of the nineteenth century it was the loom and the textile industry; today, here in amateur radio, it has been dubbed the "hinternet" (which was a useful term until so abused and confused by the factions who oppose the ideas it subsumes). Otherwise, the tools and the emotions and t