The UN and the ARRL

[N5PVL]

To understand the point of this topic, you should read This Article on the United Nations (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061906D) first, all the while keeping the ARRL in mind.

There are many differences in detail, but the overall problem with the U.N. described in the article - and it's cure - are remarkably similar to the reality we face with the ARRL.

I understand that this will whizz right over the heads of some, and that others will understand perfectly but not care enough to make the matter seriously. Others will utilize it as still another opportunity to troll. - But I am confident that not only the best of those who read but also the great majority of those who do so will immediately see the parallels that I am talking about.

The ignorance/arrogance, the junk science, the difficulty in reforming a monopoly, the top-down incompetence are all there in this article about the United Nations, just as it is in the ARRL.

Even more amazing is the parallel in how these problems can best be cured, or at least reduced to less destructive levels.

I highly recommend this article to all amateurs who would like to see the ARRL returned to its former relevance and utility for the amateur radio community.

Is this ARRL bashing? #- Is it "bashing" to point out problems and indicate a possible solution? - No, of course not. The worst thing that could possibly be done to the ARRL is to let it continue its present destructive course unremarked, as if it really didn't matter to any of us as hams.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 19 2006,08:28)]I got the title wrong...
Among other things...


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

[N5PVL]

I knew we would get an ARRL basher in here, determined to keep that organization on it's present down-spiral at any cost. #

[wa4brl]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 19 2006,07:26)]Is this ARRL bashing? #- Is it "bashing" to point out problems and indicate a possible solution? - No, of course not. The worst thing that could possibly be done to the ARRL is to let it continue its present destructive course unremarked, as if it really didn't matter to any of us as hams.
Ok, That part I can agree with. #

But will you please point out those things you believe to be problems with the ARRL? #Perhaps you could better define what you consider to be a "destructive course"? #The allegory of the UN article was perhaps a bit too obtuse with regard to it's significance to the ARRL. #I apologize if that is my shortcoming.

I've been an ARRL member for over 30 years. #And no, I don't agree with every decision that they have made over that period. #But when I have disagreed, I have made my voice heard through my section manager. #In those cases I have felt that my voice did make a difference.

I still believe the ARRL is working for the general good of amateur radio, ARRL members, and amateur radio operators at large.

My best friend and I do not agree on everything, but that does not lead me to declare that he has problems or is on a destructive course. If everyone always agreed on everything, what an intensly boring and completely unproductive world this would be.

[n9lya]

Quote[/b] (wa4brl @ June 19 2006,05:02)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 19 2006,07:26)]Is this ARRL bashing? #- Is it "bashing" to point out problems and indicate a possible solution? - No, of course not. The worst thing that could possibly be done to the ARRL is to let it continue its present destructive course unremarked, as if it really didn't matter to any of us as hams.
Ok, That part I can agree with. #

But will you please point out those things you believe to be problems with the ARRL? #Perhaps you could better define what you consider to be a "destructive course"? #The allegory of the UN article was perhaps a bit too obtuse with regard to it's significance to the ARRL. #I apologize if that is my shortcoming.

I've been an ARRL member for over 30 years. #And no, I don't agree with every decision that they have made over that period. #But when I have disagreed, I have made my voice heard through my section manager. #In those cases I have felt that my voice did make a difference.

I still believe the ARRL is working for the general good of amateur radio, ARRL members, and amateur radio operators at large.

My best friend and I do not agree on everything, but that does not lead me to declare that he has problems or is on a destructive course. #If everyone always agreed on everything, what an intensly boring and completely unproductive world this would be.
I can input some of that for you...

The engagement of Ham radio and the Internet to a point where the internet is "preferred over Radio" Even when the Radio side is robust and abundant... I realize during bad band conditions and such ok.. But whne the RF side of things is working it sould be the primary method...

I am sick and tired of Hams aying it costs too much to do it with RF... DuH .. Yes it costs more.. if you cannot aford to play with RF then at least do not try and kill the rest of Ham Radio by OVER utilizing the internet...

The internet is fine to augment Radio.. Just quit replacing Radio... With the Internet... Fair enough???


Examples... Winlink 2000 , echolink, irlp... etc..
Not saying they do not have their place... But why link two repeaters using Internet when you can link them via RF.. Now I undertsand that is difficult to link San Diego with NY over RF... But where feasable one should use RF FIRST... That is all I ask... be a Ham RADIO Operator first...


73 my friend.. Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 19 2006,11:45)]I knew we would get an ARRL basher in here, determined to keep that organization on it's present down-spiral at any cost. #
Poor Charles. He is so confused he cannot tell the bashers from the boosters.

[ky5u]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ June 19 2006,13:23)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 19 2006,11:45)]I knew we would get an ARRL basher in here, determined to keep that organization on it's present down-spiral at any cost.
Poor Charles. He is so confused he cannot tell the bashers from the boosters.
Or a shill?

[wa4brl]

OK, this is not my usual bailiwick, but I'll bite...

If there is a genuine communications need that you have managed to fill in via a SSB, CW, or digital RF link, how can anyone replace you with the internet?

If there is internet available, where is the genuine need for ARES?

If there is NO internet available, how can it replace ARES (RF)?

Geez, I going in circles here with no way out. #What am I missing here?

No doubt there has been an incident that pushed the wrong buttons on someone. #But it seems to me that ARES and RACES are by definition (and their very names) Amateur RADIO services. #It would seem to be a simple correction to make informing anyone who has misunderstood this.

[K2WH]

Quote[/b] (n9lya @ June 19 2006,07:13)]Quote[/b] (wa4brl @ June 19 2006,05:02)]Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 19 2006,07:26)]Is this ARRL bashing? #- Is it "bashing" to point out problems and indicate a possible solution? - No, of course not. The worst thing that could possibly be done to the ARRL is to let it continue its present destructive course unremarked, as if it really didn't matter to any of us as hams.
Ok, That part I can agree with. #

But will you please point out those things you believe to be problems with the ARRL? #Perhaps you could better define what you consider to be a "destructive course"? #The allegory of the UN article was perhaps a bit too obtuse with regard to it's significance to the ARRL. #I apologize if that is my shortcoming.

I've been an ARRL member for over 30 years. #And no, I don't agree with every decision that they have made over that period. #But when I have disagreed, I have made my voice heard through my section manager. #In those cases I have felt that my voice did make a difference.

I still believe the ARRL is working for the general good of amateur radio, ARRL members, and amateur radio operators at large.

My best friend and I do not agree on everything, but that does not lead me to declare that he has problems or is on a destructive course. #If everyone always agreed on everything, what an intensly boring and completely unproductive world this would be.
I can input some of that for you...

The engagement of Ham radio and the Internet to a point where the internet is "preferred over Radio" Even when the Radio side is robust and abundant... I realize during bad band conditions and such ok.. But whne the RF side of things is working it sould be the primary method...

I am #sick and tired of Hams aying it costs too much to do it with RF... DuH .. Yes it costs more.. if you cannot aford to play with RF then at least do not try and kill the rest of Ham Radio by OVER utilizing the internet...

The internet is fine to augment Radio.. Just quit replacing Radio... With the Internet... Fair enough???


Examples... Winlink 2000 , echolink, irlp... etc..
Not saying they do not have their place... But why link two repeaters using Internet when you can link them via RF.. Now I undertsand that is difficult to link San Diego with NY over RF... But where feasable one should use RF FIRST... That is all I ask... be a Ham RADIO Operator first...


73 my friend.. Jerry N9LYA
ARRL Net Manager Indiana Section
Uh, in case I am mistaken, ARRL did not invent IRLP, WinLink or Echolink. These were developed by others. ARRL adopted them as we all did. So, where is the connection?

BTW, go to the ARRL website and look at the "Attention all Amateurs". Read the article and read the FCC letters to the BPL providers. ARRL did this and a few hams in the affected area. ARRL is there for all of us. Maybe after BPL is gone for good, you bashers can give them the credit. Wisdom is in their motives. Slow and easy.

K2WH

[kr4d]

I am a new ham so bear with me.
If the ARRL is like the UN than amateur radio is in BIG trouble.
I hope it is not true!

I am all for broadband internet.
BPL sounds like a great idea, BUT if it causes the kind of radio interference I've heard about in Manassas, it won't work gor me.
Sounds to me it is a money issues.
The BPL equipment is too cheaply made and designed and is a problem.
Let the FCC shut Manassas down and enforce the law as it should.
If the ARRL was involved in getting this done, great.

regards,
Doug

[N5PVL]

I'd like to thank Tom, one of the QRZ moderators for fixing the title to this topic, which I had messed up.

[N5PVL]

K2WH says:
Quote[/b] ]
ARRL is there for all of us. #Maybe after BPL is gone for good, you bashers can give them the credit.

Actually the ARRL has no intention of working so that BPL will be "gone for good". #- They have worked with Motorola and other outfits who have developed BPL systems that do not pose an interference problem to amateurs and other entities who utilize VHF/HF. There was a rather nice presentation at Ham-Com that touched on this matter, from what I understand. ( I didn't make it this year due to sickness in the family. )

I thought every amateur would have heard about this by now but apparently not. The news item about the Motorola system is at least a year old, now.

If anything totally wipes out BPL, it will be competition from fiber-optic systems that perform much better and provide services that BPL cannot.

The idea of the ARRL being "there for all of us" is laughable in light of the last year's spate of junk-science proposals to the FCC that would serve the interests of a truly submicroscopic minority of amateurs at the expense of all others. - 99% of us or more.

The scandalous corruption associated with the "Let's turn the bands over to WinLink" bandwidth-segmentation proposal and the aborted proposal that protective content restrictions be eliminated are two other cases where the ARRL was obviously working directly against the best interests of the amateur radio community. - All in the last year or so.

The last one that they presented to the FCC ( The truly thoughtless spread-spectrum proposal RM-11325 ) is a fine example of junk science that has brought embarassment down upon the entire amateur radio community.

Comment all you like but let's stick with factual, reasonably well-informed comments as much as possible. - They are much more interesting and do not waste anybody's time.

[W5HTW]

A lot of things have gone sour with ham radio, but I am not sure how many of them can be laid at the ARRL's feet. Some, certainly. Some, certainly not.

Like a few others, I do not wish to have the internet replace ham radio. I think radio should be the primary objective of ham "radio" (that's why that 'r' word is in there) unless we change the name to "ham internet."

But part of that is simply technology. The internet "IS" therefore it is available. It should not take the place of in person Elmering, and that is one of the major faults of the internet. It has removed the social contact of radio clubs, and the follow-up to a new ham once he or she has received that license.

I am definitely against wide spread use of ham radio, in fact ANY-spread use of ham radio as an ISP. Ham radio should be an end, not a means to another end. Turning ham radio into nothing more than a utility make the computer the hobby and the ham radio the tool. That is indeed highly destructive. But I can't say it is the ARRL's goal.

I do think there were some very bad promotion ideas in the early 1990s. Promoting ham radio as the salvation of the world, was one of them. Promoting it as the new cell phone was another. But in the ARRL brochures I read, they still largely point out ham radio is a hobby. They do, I think, over-emphasize the public service aspects, which may result in recruiting too many people who have no interest in ham radio itself, but only in being emergency ommunicators, for whatever personal reasons they may have. That, too, is damaging to amateur radio, in my opinon.

There have been many failures. Some have been attributed to the ARRL's pressures on the FCC, but I don't know for a fact that is true. Almost anything concerning the Enhanced Novice ticket was a mistake. Who pushed for that?

Incentive Licensing was a mistake in how it was done, but the idea was excellent. However, taking away privileges as an incentive is not the proper approach. I guess it was the only way it could be done back then, as we did not have the WARC bands to dangle for prospective Extras. Now, though, continuing Incentive Licensing is again a mistake, as it offers no real incentive other than political and emotional segregation of hams by class.

So many mistakes, so little time. But I have no idea how many are due to ARRL leadership or lack of that. The FCC makes the rules, not the ARRL, though certainly the ARRL has had an influence in many situations.

I remain a member. It's a personal choice. I find QST usually at least interesting for a short time each month, and I enjoy the ARRL website as a shortcut to news, Field Day rules, and other things. But I could live without it.

An accurate history of the directions the ARRL has taken on each and all of the many issues confronting amateur radio over the history of the hobby could probably be compiled from back issues of QSTs, if someone wanted to take a few years to put it all together. Not likely anyone is in a great hurry to do that, so in the meantime, we simply have to live by our opinions.

Ed

[kb2vxa]

"If the ARRL is like the UN than amateur radio is in BOG trouble."

The UN Building is anchored in the bedrock of Manhattan Island, I'm not so sure of the soil conditions under Newington. The UN censures Israel, Israel thumbs it's nose at the UN. The League sensures the FCC, the FCC sensures ComTek which thumbs it's nose at the both of them. Sumpins gotta give, now my money has been transferred from a bank in Israel to one in Washington, le' see wha hoppin Lucy. All ears to Newington, stand by for the crowing (I hear a faint cackle already) while Washington sits back smiling in quiet satisfaction.

[N5PVL]

Actually the Internet is a powerful tool that can and does do amateur radio a lot of good. Like all powerful tools though, if you misuse it or grab it by the wrong end, it will injure you just as readily as it can magnify your capability if used properly.

Using the Internet the same way that people involved in other hobbies do is almost certainly going to be to our benefit. - This website being a prime example of that.

Mis-using the Internet as a replacement, extension or so-called "improvement" over radio is a dangerous mistake though. - One that undermines amateur radio at its most basic level and stifles any advancement of the radio art.

Most dangerous to human lives and property ( not to mention our reputation as amateur radio operators ) is the foolish and short-sighted practice of substituting Internet links for amateur radio resources to be used for emergency communications.

No rational ecomm setup uses any system to back itself up, as is the case when ham radio ecomms utilize Internet links to back up ( duh! ) Internet links that typically go offline or become overloaded during emergencies. - To do so undermines the most obvious benefit provided by amateur radio, which is independent communications that is there when in-place infrastructure fails.

The fact that the ARRL has associated itself with this dirt-poundingly stupid misuse of Internet resources in recent years, literally undermining the single best thing that amateur radio has to offer is most damnning of all. It points out not only a loss of mission, but a loss of knowlege of what that mission might be.

Recent statements by EchoLink enthusiasts to the effect that utilizing HF radio resources for ecomms is "irresponsible" points out just how severe that loss of a sense of mission has become within our hobby.

The parallel here with some of the United Nations' actions in recent decades is quite obvious. - The loss of a sesnse of mission, combined with a self-undermining misuse of unique resources the U.N. was originally designed and intended to offer is mirrored almost exactly by the ARRL.

Once again I will urge all readers here to be sure that they have read This Article on the United Nations (http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=061906D) in order to see the parallels between the two organizations that are being discussed here.

[N5PVL]

W5HTW says:
Quote[/b] ]
I do think there were some very bad promotion ideas in the early 1990s. #Promoting ham radio as the salvation of the world, was one of them. #Promoting it as the new cell phone was another.

It's worse than you think, OM... The present drive by the ARRL to convert most of our HF spectrum over to a ground for mobile email service is part of a process that has been going on for over twenty years - A process that is progressively undermining the hobby.

Here's how:

This process has been going on for longer than twenty years, but that's how long I have been observing it , so I will only show what I personally know.

Twenty years or so ago, you may remember that the Internet was not generally available except at military and academic institutions. You may also remember this as the era where the ARRL relentlessly pushed Amateur Packet Radio, to the point where you couldn't pick up an issue of QST without being asked when YOUR Packet station would be on the air !

I remember at that time being asked by old-timers for help with getting on Packet because the hype had gotten to the point where the ARRL publications were inferring that if you did not have a Packet setup, well then you just were not a full-fledged Ham. Many of those old-timers didn't know what Packet was, but they knew they wanted to have it. Thousands of new amateurs were brought into the hobby specifically for Packet Radio access. You may also remember the meteoric growth of the US Packet network that occurred at that time. -

Just in time for everyday dialup Internet access to become generally available, which in just a few short years had undermined the ARRL hype concerning Packet Radio and left the hobby with a new, large group of Amateurs who were disgusted to find that thier entire reason for joining the hobby ( digital communication ) had been superceded by non-ham technology.

Then the ARRL hype went over to how Hams should be 'communicators" rather than Radio enthusiasts ( remember the 'communicator' hype? ) and how Amateur Radio was to be a training ground not for Radio experts, but for those who wanted to get in on the Internet revolution and be Ham Radio ISP's. ( Internet Service Providers ) Thousands more people who had no interest in Radio were brought into the hobby on this basis -

Just in time for the whole idea to be made moot by the fact that kids down to grade-school level were being taught the basics of TCPIP, not to mention at just about every school, university and large corporation. This burdened Amateur Radio with another large group of persons who didn't really care about Radio, and were now disappointed and disgusted at being buffaloed into studying for a Ham ticket that no longer was useful for the purpose they got it for.

In the ARRL hype about being a 'communicator', they kinda forgot to mention the legal restrictions of PART97 that make it impossible to actually use Amateur Radio as vehicle for a regular Internet Service Provider. Because of this, now we had a large group within the hobby who had an adversarial attitude about the FCC regs, besides being disappointed in the hobby in a general sense. - They had been lied to, conned into getting a federal license for something they didn't care about. ( Radio )

Then the ARRL developed the 'communicator' concept even further by hyping Amateur Radio as a family communication system where Mom and Pop could keep in touch with the kids, and on his way home from work, Dad could be contacted by Mom to be sure he brought home a gallon of milk and some toilet paper. To bring in more of these people, the 'dumbing down' process we all know about and cannot figure out the source of - started to become really prevalent...

This brought thousands more people into the hobby who didn't specifically care about Radio, but wanted the 'free communications service' the ARRL promised in thier hype -

Just in time for cellphone service to become generally available, making the 'communicator' campaigne moot and simultaneously turning most of our repeaters into a deserted - desert.

I guess you can see the pattern now... The ARRL quit being an advocate for Radio afficianados and had instead become a shill for "free services" instead, attracting greater and greater numbers of people into the hobby who looked for service, not the ability to learn about Radio.

In each case, after being hornswoggled into going for the entry-level Ham ticket that the ARRL progressively 'dumbed down' to accomodate these people who really had no interest in Radio, they would have the promised 'service' jerked out from beneath them by the progress of non-ham technology.

In each cycle of this, another large group of persons who had no particular interest in Radio were brought into the hobby - dumbing down the entry-level ticket in order to bring in more of them, and then they were let down when non-ham technology made thier reason for being brought into the hobby a sham.

Now it is mobile Email access, and it's the general ticket, not the entry-level ticket with VHF/UHF access that must be 'dumbed down' to acommodate even larger numbers of people who don't have any partcular interest in Radio, but have been promised 'free services' by the ARRL.

Guess what large group of new Amateurs are going to be utterly disappointed and disgusted with the hobby in just a few short years, right after the ARRL has succeeded in converting HF over into an Email service area and totally disrupted its use for what they refer to in thier hype as "legacy modes"? They'll do that -

Just in time for commercial communications outfits to develop and offer cheap mobile Email service.

DUH ! #

To recap: The ARRL looks ahead at upcoming technology, comes up with a bogus Ham Radio version of what's coming up, dumbs down the license testing so they can bring in thousands of "warm bodies" who do not particularly care about Radio but have been promised "free services", then leaves that group high and dry, disgusted with Ham Radio while the ARRL works the upcoming scam to bring in another group of unsuspecting suckers, soon to be disgruntled "Amateurs" in thier turn.

At each repetition of this cycle, more unhappy, disgruntled Amateurs are created, respect for and understanding of the PART97 regulations goes downhill, and the testing criteria is progressively dumbed down to acommodate the next group of people who don't particularly care about Radio...

Great system, eh? #

This is the slippery slope that began with the step of removing "upgrade or move on" from the entry-level ticket. - The removal of that requirement, coupled with shortsighted promotion technique on the ARRL's part has led us to this repeating cycle of self-destruction and loss of mission.

Those of us who knew the ARRL in better times and would like to see it return to its former relevance and utility should get together now to save this fine organization from itself. - And what is known as 'tough love' is just about the only viable tool at our disposal due to the ARRL's monopolistic nature. - Just as is presently the case with the U.N..

[KG4RUL]

To the best of my knowledge, the ARRL does not trade food for sex.

[N5PVL]

KG4RUL says:
Quote[/b] ]
To the best of my knowledge, the ARRL does not trade food for sex.

What part of:
Quote[/b] ]
There are many differences in detail, but the overall problem with the U.N. described in the article - and it's cure - are remarkably similar to the reality we face with the ARRL.

- did you have trouble comprehending?

Comment all you like but let's stick with factual, reasonably well-informed comments as much as possible. - They are much more interesting and do not waste anybody's time.

[ab0wr]

N5PVL:
Quote[/b] ]This is the slippery slope that began with the step of removing "upgrade or move on" from the entry-level ticket. - The removal of that requirement, coupled with shortsighted promotion technique on the ARRL's part has led us to this repeating cycle of self-destruction and loss of mission.

Those of us who knew the ARRL in better times and would like to see it return to its former relevance and utility should get together now to save this fine organization from itself. - And what is known as 'tough love' is just about the only viable tool at our disposal due to the ARRL's monopolistic nature. - Just as is presently the case with the U.N..


Nice analysis!!

And very much on target!

My guess is, however, that the ARRL is going to have to sink even further into the abyss before the current crop of people coming up with these junk-science proposals are pushed overboard so the ship can right itself.

tim ab0wr

[KD5SHW]

Can someone speak specifically about what is being referred to by the phrase 'junk science proposals'? #And what is wrong with packet radio? When I read what the ARRL had to say about what amateur radio could do for me I found it very accurate. I read a few sections of the ARRL handbook and it described all the things I could do with radio communications. I never remember the ARRL trying to sell it as a cell phone or an alternative to internet.

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]Can someone speak specifically about what is being referred to by the phrase 'junk science proposals'? And what is wrong with packet radio?
The ARRL petitions to the FCC on:

1. Band planning by bandwidth which in effect opens all of the "wide" segments of the HF bands to Winlink2K/PactorIII semi-automatic operations. These are store and forward email systems which may have some utility at UHF and above for Ecomms but aren't any better than Pactor I at HF while using much more bandwidth and it's attendant QRM. Once one of these semi-auto stations starts up on top of your ongoing QSO forget about it. There's no way currently for these stations to tell whether the frequency is in use before transmitting and no way for the ops being QRM'd to ask the offending station to QSY (the hardware is proprietary to SCS).

2. Elimination of spread spectrum power limitations in the weak signal sections of VHF and up. Guess who uses spread spectrum at the GHz range, wireless computer networking. Right now the power limit is 1W with auto negotiation of needed power to complete the circuit. If that goes away you'll be seing hopped up wireless routers running 100W of spread spectrum trash all over the weak signal areas of VHF and up.

Have you caught onto the trend here?
Nearly every proposal put forth by the ARRL for the last 10 years has been about increasing the body count and trying to morph Ham Radio into some pathetic approximation of the internet. Guess what, it's already been done, better, cheaper, faster, and 20 years ago.

[KD5SHW]

Both of those seem like bad proposals. Has the FCC rejected them? Why would the ARRL propose that second one. It doesn't seem to having anything to do with amateur radio and more to do with letting other services use our spectrum.

[KG4RUL]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 20 2006,05:43)]KG4RUL says:
Quote[/b] ]
To the best of my knowledge, the ARRL does not trade food for sex.

What part of:
Quote[/b] ]
There are many differences in detail, but the overall problem with the U.N. described in the article - and it's cure - are remarkably similar to the reality we face with the ARRL.

- did you have trouble comprehending?

Comment all you like but let's stick with factual, reasonably well-informed comments as much as possible. - They are much more interesting and do not waste anybody's time.
I agree, you all stop ARRL bashing and I will stop UN bashing.

[KI4NGN]

Charles, I think you presented a very fine analysis. I'll reserve comment until I have given it more thought, but I do have one question for you: Are you a member of ARRL?

Mike, Raleigh NC

[AC0H]

Quote[/b] ]It doesn't seem to having anything to do with amateur radio and more to do with letting other services use our spectrum.

I don't think it's about letting other services use our spectrum. It's about telling the world "see, we're just like the internet".

In conressional testimony after Katrina FEMA officials admitted they were snowed under with e-mail and would have preffered to use live person to person RF links. So what does the ARRL propose? Gutting the existing ARES and amateur system and converting it over to WinLink2K HF email.

Ridiculous.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (AC0H @ June 21 2006,05:00)]Quote[/b] ]It doesn't seem to having anything to do with amateur radio and more to do with letting other services use our spectrum.

I don't think it's about letting other services use our spectrum. It's about telling the world "see, we're just like the internet".

In conressional testimony after Katrina FEMA officials admitted they were snowed under with e-mail and would have preffered to use live person to person RF links. So what does the ARRL propose? Gutting the existing ARES and amateur system and converting it over to WinLink2K HF email.

Ridiculous.
Yeah, makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

One other junk-science proposal was the ARRL proposal to do away with rules against encrypted traffic on the ham bands. Thankfully the ARRL got enough bad mail about this that even they could see handwriting on the wall and killed it before it got sent to the FCC.

BTW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with packet radio. What was wrong was the ARRL pushing it as a "savior" for ham radio and recruiting a lot of people based on this "gospel" who were disappointed when other, cheaper alternatives were put in place by commercial services.

Amateur radio will *never* be able to compete on a daily basis with commercial offerings, not unless we make significant changes in how our ham bands are utilized. Sadly, that *is* what the Winlink2000/ARRL/TAPR people are wanting to do. They want to fundamentally change the ham bands into internet access spectrum for a small minority of the amateur population that is interested in that happening. It is based on junk-science (there isn't enough HF and VHF amateur spectrum to provide reliable, fast high-speed access).

As Charles has pointed out, the ARRL focus has changed over the years from making Amateur Radio an attractive service for the brightest and the best interested in the science and application of the art of radio into making Amateur Radio an attractive service for "free" communications for the masses. Their focus has changed from being "Amateur" focused to being "revenue" focused. The more people they can recruit the more revenue they make through magazine subscriptions and book sales - and whether those people they recruit become enamored with amateur radio or become disgusted with it doesn't really seem to matter to the ARRL. Face it, older established hams are NOT their main revenue stream. Young, new hams are the ones that buy the magazines and books - and once the bookshelf is stocked even they are no longer a big source of revenue - thus even *more* new, young hams must be recruited using the carrot-of-the-day philosophy being marketed at the time.

That is why the ARRL is so susceptible today to being hijacked by "free internet access" crowd. It plays right into the ARRL philosophy of recruiting new, young hams -whether it is good for Amateur Radio or not.

tim ab0wr

[KI4NGN]

Well, Charles never responded as to whether or not he is an ARRL member.

Tim, are you an ARRL member?

Mike, Raleigh NC

[W3MIV]

I believe the proper, historical way to phrase the question is:

"Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the American Radio Relay League?"

[N5PVL]

Like it was the communist party or something.

An interesting comment in itself, as it is the "fuzzy logic" behind socialism that also appears to drive much of the corruption, loss of mission and indulgence in junk science that is reflected by many of the ARRL's recent actions.

As it happens, I am currently a member of the ARRL but it was through no action of my own. I received the letter with the membership card a few weeks ago. It appears that it was worth thirty bucks to somebody that I be a member.

My personal feeling is that supporting the ARRL as it stands now is to act as an enabler, encouraging the organization to continue policies that are destructive both to itself and to the hobbyists it is there to serve. It is especially important to withold financial support from the organization these days, as it is the pursuit of money that appears to be feeding a good part of the corruption there.

Also, the ARRL habitually represents membership as amounting to tacit approval of anything and everything that they do, no matter how stupid, right or wrong. Because of this, if an amateur does not want to have the ARRL going around saying that he or she blindly supports everything the ARRL says or does, the only recourse is to withold those membership dues and use the money for something more productive.

So yes I am a member, but not through any action of my own.

Having said that, I'll go on to say that the question of whether somebody is a member or not is irrelevant. Membership or lack thereof says absolutely nothing about one's qualification or right to speak up about problems with the ARRL and it is also none of your damn business.

I've seen that question used as a troll much more often than anything else, and this case is most certainly no exception. Because of this, it has come to be a question that deserves no answer.

[nq3x]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ June 20 2006,16:50)]N5PVL:
Quote[/b] ]This is the slippery slope that began with the step of removing "upgrade or move on" from the entry-level ticket. - The removal of that requirement, coupled with shortsighted promotion technique on the ARRL's part has led us to this repeating cycle of self-destruction and loss of mission.

Those of us who knew the ARRL in better times and would like to see it return to its former relevance and utility should get together now to save this fine organization from itself. - And what is known as 'tough love' is just about the only viable tool at our disposal due to the ARRL's monopolistic nature. - Just as is presently the case with the U.N..


Nice analysis!!

And very much on target!

My guess is, however, that the ARRL is going to have to sink even further into the abyss before the current crop of people coming up with these junk-science proposals are pushed overboard so the ship can right itself.

tim ab0wr
The part of this that shocks me is that someone can think this is analysis.

It's not analysis; it's a conspiracy theory. It's like a ham radio Grassy Knoll.

I've not been an amateur so long as some (most?) of you. I came in about when packet and TCP/IP was huge. I don't remember either a mass influx of new amateurs or a mass exodus of amateurs which could be laid specifically at the feet of packet. Perhaps it was the area(s) in which I lived, but I just don't see it.

Regardless, my information is anecdotal, and until I see some sort of documentation which supports the theory, so is N5PVL's.

In another post, AC0H makes mention of the bandwidth method of spectrum allocation, and the possibility of resulting interference. He also makes mention of stations running excessive power. These examples are meant to illustrate the "junk science".

While I have no inside information as to the League's agenda, I can say this: According to the FCC regulations, both of these examples are against regs. It's not the mode, or the League, or the place it's being used on the spectrum. It's LIDS operating amateur stations.

Moreover, I see in AC0H's examples no direct correlation between them and that "[n]early every proposal put forth by the ARRL for the last 10 years has been about increasing the body count and trying to morph Ham Radio into some pathetic approximation of the internet."

For the life of me, I can't see it.

Later on, AB0WR makes a well-reasoned argument regarding spectrum utilization. Then, a paragraph later, it goes wonky.

He writes, "Their focus has changed from being "Amateur" focused to being "revenue" focused. The more people they can recruit the more revenue they make through magazine subscriptions and book sales - and whether those people they recruit become enamored with amateur radio or become disgusted with it doesn't really seem to matter to the ARRL. Face it, older established hams are NOT their main revenue stream. Young, new hams are the ones that buy the magazines and books - and once the bookshelf is stocked even they are no longer a big source of revenue - thus even *more* new, young hams must be recruited using the carrot-of-the-day philosophy being marketed at the time."

Allow me to point something out to you: One-time customers aren't worth beans. Any fool can plainly see that, and the people in CT aren't fools. (If they were, how could they hatch such a clever conspiracy?) In order to make pots of money, you need satisfied customers who come back to purchase again and again. There is no growth in "in-and-out" sales. Besides, repeat customers are the type to recommend your products and services to new prospects, the which referral is worth ten times the money spent advertising and costs nothing. This is Sales 101.

That is, unless AB0WR has some supporting documentation which refutes this (especially the statement "Face it, older established hams are NOT their main revenue stream"). Maybe the ARRL has the sort of focus he states. I dunno; I'm not a member. But when you're going to make statements like the above, you need to have documentation before a reasonable person should buy into it.

Cheers,

Bob N3OYA

[W3MIV]

Change is both unpleasant and unwelcome for some, however inevitable.

Though there are myriad forces at work that have been fostering changes in amateur radio, both technological and societal (and the momentum of change has been accelerating and will continue to do so), the ARRL is and will remain the target of convenience for those who view all such changes as signs of a "dark side."

You are quite correct in your analysis of "conspiracy theories." It is venting without purpose or result, hence relatively harmless. Sort of like an internet "Hyde Park Corner."

It is fun, however, to play the occasional picadore and watch the action.

[ab0wr]

n3oya:
Quote[/b] ]Allow me to point something out to you: One-time customers aren't worth beans. #Any fool can plainly see that, and the people in CT aren't fools. #(If they were, how could they hatch such a clever conspiracy?) #In order to make pots of money, you need satisfied customers who come back to purchase again and again. #There is no growth in "in-and-out" sales. #Besides, repeat customers are the type to recommend your products and services to new prospects, the which referral is worth ten times the money spent advertising and costs nothing. #This is Sales 101.

That is, unless AB0WR has some supporting documentation which refutes this (especially the statement "Face it, older established hams are NOT their main revenue stream"). #Maybe the ARRL has the sort of focus he states. #I dunno; I'm not a member. #But when you're going to make statements like the above, you need to have documentation before a reasonable person should buy into it.

Bob,

Your analysis makes the ARRL sound like the local newspaper vendor depending on "repeat" sales every morning to an established base of customers in order to remain viable or perhaps the local "jiffy lube".

I suggest you go talk to the marketing people at Barnes & Nobles to get a different view. They do NOT depend upon a repeating customer base for viability. Most of their customers come in looking for a specific book and most of their sales are not for people buying the same book over and over again - and this is especially true in the technical arena.

Just how many hams do you think have 10 or 12 copies of "The Antenna Handbook" sitting on the bookshelf - i.e. a copy of each version the ARRL has ever published?

How many do you suppose have a copy of each annual "Handbook"?

In this business the only way to operate is to continually offer new merchandise, to continually recruit new customers, or to do a combination of the two.

If you'll think about it you'll discover that this is exactly the paradigm the ARRL is operating under.

The problem is that they very seldom offer "new" merchandise. It is usually only a rehash and repackaging of the old. It is my considered opinion that there has really only been three major versions of the Handbook since 1960 - I suspect you'll find many that agree with me. That's why most established hams don't buy a new Handbook every year.

That leaves recruiting new hams as their major source of revenue. Whether they stay in as part of the hobby is irrelevant to the ARRL under this paradigm.

If you want documentation consider the number of hams that are ARRL members - less than 25% the last time I looked. That's a pitiful percentage of the target population that are apparently satisfied customers.

Why aren't YOU a member?

tim ab0wr

[KI4NGN]

Charles, I asked about membership because you started this thread addressing the similarities between UN problems and resolutions to ARRL problems and resolutions. And as I said earlier, I thought you presented a fine analysis.

One MAJOR difference in your comparison however is that those who see problems with the UN, those who present solutions, are members of the organization.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion; you to yours and me to mine.

Your's reminds me of the time I listened to someone vociferously comment about the problems with government; local, state, federal, and I very often agreed with him. This went on for months, then at one point he told me that he never voted in any elections! Wait a second....I listened and often agreed with his complaints, and then find out that he refused to particpate in the process??

This is what all of this sounds like to me from some people: complaints about an organization that they do not support, do not participate with in any way except to bitch about it. They (the ARRL) do not and never will pay any attention to anything that you have to say, no matter how worthwhile or valid it may be, and that is how it should be! They do NOT represent all amateur radio operators. They do represent their members, and while that membership number may seem pitiful to some compared to the total number, it is still a significant portion of the amateur population. And as long as they represent that significant number of amateurs, they are the only organization that can come close to validly presenting themselves as being representative of amateur radio.

Yes, I am a member. As a matter of fact I recent joined (meant to sooner but just kept forgetting), and Charles, you are the primary reason that I did. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

I am emphatically NOT saying that your analysis was off-target. I am saying that as a non-member it can only fall on deaf ears. I have never said a word critical of ARRL because I was not a member. Now I feel entitled.

Charles, it gets a little old you always accusing someone of trolling just because they don't agree with you.

And it is totally relevant to ask someone complaining about an organization whether or not they are a member.

Think of someone bitching about Ford's, but they've never owned one. Or bitching about NASCAR, but they never watch it. Or complaining about some author they have never read. Or complaining about government but never voting.

It is very relevant whether or not you are a (willing) member.

Mike

[nq3x]

AB0WR wrote:
Quote[/b] ]Your analysis makes the ARRL sound like the local newspaper vendor depending on "repeat" sales every morning to an established base of customers in order to remain viable or perhaps the local "jiffy lube".

I suggest you go talk to the marketing people at Barnes & Nobles to get a different view. They do NOT depend upon a repeating customer base for viability. Most of their customers come in looking for a specific book and most of their sales are not for people buying the same book over and over again - and this is especially true in the technical arena.

I apologize; I did not express my point clearly enough (it happens when one has not yet finished the first cup of morning coffee!)

I did not mean previous customers purchasing the same products again and again. I meant previous customers recommending products to prospects who have not yet purchased from that vendor themselves. In other words, you - or I, for that matter - may not purchase multiple copies of The ARRL Antenna Book, but that is not to say we don't recommend such a purchase to someone else.

Further, I think there is little parallel between the marketing paradigms of entities such as B&N and ARRL. ARRL, you must admit, lacks the storefront in most malls of which B&N is possessed. Thus, they do not have the walk-in traffic of B&N. ARRL has a more specialized, and thus more specific, target demographic than B&N. That's why they sell not only through their own outlets but also through amateur radio retailers.

You are therefore correct that

Quote[/b] ]In this business the only way to operate is to continually offer new merchandise, to continually recruit new customers, or to do a combination of the two.

In every retail sales paradigm there is a marketing effort aimed at targeting new customers. There is also new - and redesigned - product, usually aimed at those new customers. Such a paradigm exists to a greater or lesser extent across the span of sales.

In my own case, it's automobiles. I sell them (Nissan). This year sees the release of redesigns in four models as well as the release of a completely new model. In the release of the new model, Nissan is targeting a completely new demographic (for the company). In three of the redesigns, the products have been completely redesigned, and only superficially resemble the old product. In another, the differences are primarily cosmetic.

I see nothing wrong with this. The salient difference, so far as I can see, between you and I in this instance is that you believe that little of substance has changed in the redesigned product coming from ARRL. I don't necessarily disagree; after all, how long have we as a culture dealt with "NEW! AND IMPROVED!" advertising? We have learnt to disregard such stuff, or at least look at it with a very jaded eye.

It is inarguable that recruiting new hams is a specific aim of ARRL. It should be. IRetention should also be a focus. (Admittedly, I have little knowledge of ARRL's plan for retention, if any.) Frankly, I doubt that ARRL considers retention irrelevant; after all, if they are willing to discard amateurs, they will sooner rather than later come to find that their claims of "representing America's amateurs" rings completely hollow. The more amateurs join ARRL, the more clout they have in their lobbying machine, the more cash flow they generate through sales and memberships, advertising in QST, etc. I should think the organization myopic indeed if they consciously disregard retention.

I am not a member simply because it has never been that important to me. As a new amateur, my available funds were better spent on equipment than ARRL membership dues. Still on the broke side of flush, I prefer to spend my limited funds on equipment and local club dues.

There have been interesting articles in QST over the years, but if I want them I get them from someone I know who gets QST. I also own more than a few ARRL publications of interest to me, like W1FB's Antenna Notebook, the Handbook, and others.

Tangentially, I used to buy QST when it was on the racks in the 1990s. I wonder why they no longer do this...

Cheers,

Bob N3OYA

[k4kro]

Charles,

Thanks for your posts on this subject. You always seem to be able to put into words what I am thinking but just can't write that well. My main complaint with the ARRL is that it takes an eternity to get anything done. We are now waiting (and waiting) for a decree from the demi-gods at the FCC about the no-code proposal. If commercial communications providers had to wait this long for answers they would be out of business. I don't understand why every idea and proposal has to be delayed so long. Yes, I do understand that there is a proscribed process for rule changes. And why should every little detail be "carved in stone" and therefor deemed to be unchangable? I can't imagine that rules concerning amateur radio would need the equivalent of an "act of God" to be changed. It seems to me that the ARRL for whatever reason presents the FCC with a petition for change then sits humbly in the outer office, hat in hands, for years if necessary, just to get a compromised answer. What is wrong with this picture?

I don't want to be an ARRL basher but I believe that there is a lot room for improvement. This along with the promotion of encrypted communications and automated systems that are mainly for the purpose of non-amateur communications will prevent me from becoming an ARRL member until I see some indication that they are returning to the straight and narrow path of representing our RADIO hobby. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/rock.gif

[ab0wr]

n3oya:
Quote[/b] ]It is inarguable that recruiting new hams is a specific aim of ARRL. #It should be. #Retention should also be a focus. #(Admittedly, I have little knowledge of ARRL's plan for retention, if any.) #Frankly, I doubt that ARRL considers retention irrelevant; after all, if they are willing to discard amateurs, they will sooner rather than later come to find that their claims of "representing America's amateurs" rings completely hollow. #The more amateurs join ARRL, the more clout they have in their lobbying machine, the more cash flow they generate through sales and memberships, advertising in QST, etc. #I should think the organization myopic indeed if they consciously disregard retention.

You should ask yourself why ARRL membership, at least as a percentage of the total amateur community, has been steadily dropping over the past 25 years. It is this era that Charles has described in his posting.

It *is* why their claim of "representing America's amateurs" rings completely hollow.

They have moved away from recruiting the best and brightest with a goal of advancing the radio art to recruiting "everyman" with a goal of free communications over whatever the mode-ala-carte is at that time. Ask yourself how the ARRL goal of continual lowering of the entry level test standards fits into this parallel.

Quote[/b] ]I am not a member simply because it has never been that important to me. #As a new amateur, my available funds were better spent on equipment than ARRL membership dues. #Still on the broke side of flush, I prefer to spend my limited funds on equipment and local club dues.

Therefore you are of no use to the ARRL since you do not represent a revenue stream for them. Sadly, this has what the ARRL has come to represent for many - something that is at the bottom of the priority list rather than at the top of the priority list. Primarily because they offer no lasting value to the vast majority of hams.

They can claim to represent everyone but based on the last three junk-science proposals they have made to the FCC, they only represent a small, small minority of hams with a goal of turning the amateur bands into free internet access links. From giving wideband HF digital data free reign in the HF phone bands, to eliminating encryption restrictions from the FCC rules, to eliminating power restrictions on wideband data on 2m and up - all for the benefit of fewer than 1% of the amateur community it should be obvious where the goals of the ARRL lie.

Quote[/b] ]There have been interesting articles in QST over the years, but if I want them I get them from someone I know who gets QST. #I also own more than a few ARRL publications of interest to me, like W1FB's Antenna Notebook, the Handbook, and others.

Do you buy replacements every year? If not, why not? Could it be that the new versions don't offer enough new material to justify the purchase? That is the point I was trying to make - and I think you are a prime example of my argument.

Quote[/b] ]Tangentially, I used to buy QST when it was on the racks in the 1990s. #I wonder why they no longer do this... #

You should consider this in more detail. I think you will find that it fits exactly in the paradigm Charles has described.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ June 22 2006,06:00)]Change is both unpleasant and unwelcome for some, however inevitable.

Though there are myriad forces at work that have been fostering changes in amateur radio, both technological and societal (and the momentum of change has been accelerating and will continue to do so), the ARRL is and will remain the target of convenience for those who view all such changes as signs of a "dark side."

You are quite correct in your analysis of "conspiracy theories." It is venting without purpose or result, hence relatively harmless. Sort of like an internet "Hyde Park Corner."

It is fun, however, to play the occasional picadore and watch the action.
Albert,

Exactly what technological changes in Amateur Radio are you speaking of? Could it be "digital"? Digital isn't new. There aren't very many more people using digital than there were in the 1960's with RTTY. psk31 has been the big "technological change" and it provides little speed increase over RTTY - although it does provide better weak signal operation. Digital voice is still a toy for the well-heeled - and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

Those that want wideband digital data in the phone bands represent much, much less than 1% of the amateur population. How is that a "sociological change"? It is an usurpation of spectrum by a small minority at the expense of the majority.

Yes, change is inevitable. That does NOT mean that any specific change is good. It may be good for a minority and very bad for the vast majority. Speaking out against those changes, as well as against the purveyors of that change, is NOT espousing conspiracy theories.

No one is saying this is a "conspiracy" by the ARRL - because that typically includes the intimation that the result is somehow "evil" by intent. As Charles pointed out in his posting, it is NOT a conspiracy - it *is* a loss of focus by the ARRL and a change in their mission paradigm that is the problem. That is *not* saying it is due to an evil intent - aka a conspiracy. It is merely pointing out a problem area that needs to be addressed.

If anyone wants to question something they should question why you want to paint people pointing out problems with the ARRL mission as espousing conspiracy theories. Could it be that you are trying to use an emotional tag as an argumentative tactic because you have nothing to actually refute the specific examples being given to show the change in the mission?

How would *you* class the still-borne proposal to eliminate the encryption rules on amateur radio communications if it isn't "junk science"?

tim ab0wr

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]KI4NGN/Mike --
I am saying that as a non-member it can only fall on deaf ears. I have never said a word critical of ARRL because I was not a member. Now I feel entitled.

Why did you feel inhibited against expressing yourself? If the group in Newington presumes to represent Amateur radio, then it must include consideration of people who do not subscribe to the ARRL.

If, under your theory, they don't need to listen to outsiders, then they represent only the people who pay them money. And even then, look at the widespread dissatisfaction openly expressed by "members."

I revoked my conditional subscription with them this year after I provided them three years to respond to several concrete requests for representation. I had discontinued my subscription 30 years ago for much the same reason -- lack of inclusion in League policymaking, regulatory deliberations, or even an ongoing presence in their publications for my facet of the hobby.

(look me up, the specifics don't matter to this thread)

By having now paid your subscription money, I urge you to keep track at the end of the year of what you feel you've obtained from them. I also recommend that if that performance falls short, as it did for me and many others, renew if you must, but renew with a note stapled to your cheque that signifies the ARRL is on PROBATION until the group complies with whatever your shortfalls represent.

[KI4NGN]

VJB - I apply my analogy with voting here. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but do you think that any elected offical cares what anyone but registered voters are concerned about?

I vote, therefore I feel entitled to criticize those in office. I contribute in work, work hard, and thus feel entitled to criticize how my company may be doing. I own stock in another company, and therefore I am entitled to be critical of how they operate, decisions that they make.

Now certainly everyone is entitled to an opinion, but when it is critical of some organization or process for which one makes no contribution, one cannot expect their voice to be recognized, not should it be.

I honestly don't know if the ARRL does or doesn't listen to outsiders. I do know that paying members should be concerned if they do. I know this is just a thought, but consider if 75% amateur operators (non-members) had an opinion that was contrary to the opinion of the other 25% of operators (members). As a paying member, who would you want your organization to give its focus to??

Also consider that, as others have said, approximately 20%-25% of all amateur operators are members of the ARRL. I agree, that is far from a majority, but one cannot discount the fact that they do by far represent the single biggest block of all amateurs, and by default, like it or not, they can legitimately say that they represent amateur radio.

Think of local elections where there is often only 10-20% turn-out of voters. Far from a majority of all voters, yet like it or not those elected do become the representatives of all, and you can bet that they are going to pay attention to those who voted!

I have just joined, and I fully intend to keep up with what they do. Before joining I sent emails that were promptly responded to. I expressed some concerns and they were addressed. Time will tell if they were being straight with me. If not, then they will be hearing from me! I won't come on to QRZ and tell everyone that I think the ARRL is doing something wrong....I will communicate it directly to them. And, I suspect, if all of the membership felt as I did and communicated this to them, they would listen! Perhpas I am wrong. I've never read in here about this happening. All I've seen in QRZ is people saying how disappointed or disgusted they are that they let their membership lapse, but I have never seen where someone indicated that they had communicated all of this to the ARRL before leaving. That's not to say it didn't happen because I surely don't know. I'm just saying that I have never read of a large percentage of the membership doing this.

I'm going to give them a chance. I'm going to watch them. And when I disagree with some path they choose, I'm going to let them know! And, perhaps, rather than come on to QRZ and express a lot of negative emotions and degrade poeple who disgree with me, I'll just see if I can get members to also become very boisterous with our organization.

But the bottom line is, my opinion, that I don't believe that people who can vote and choose not to have a right to be critical of the govenment. The same perspective has me thinking that it is not right, again my opinion, for people to criticize an organization that they could easily participate in but choose not to do so.

Mike, Raleigh NC

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (KI4NGN @ June 22 2006,15:57)]But the bottom line is, my opinion, that I don't believe that people who can vote and choose not to have a right to be critical of the govenment. The same perspective has me thinking that it is not right, again my opinion, for people to criticize an organization that they could easily participate in but choose not to do so.
Here I disagree. Folks can opt out and still raise as much hell as they choose about policies that they have no control over nor input into: that is their right, though I would readily admit to the wonder of it all.

Some few folks have become convinced of the merit of their views about the state and future of amateur radio, and of the moral superiority of their positions vis a vis those of the League's BOD, and failing all evidence either in support of their views or to the contrary, they identify their own positions with "what is best for amateur radio" and offer their views as ordained dogma.

Their usual point of validation for their views being that only some 25 percent of all amateurs are members of the League, therefore, the remaining three-quarters are voting against the ARRL and it's decisions by withholding their membership.

Sure the League comes up with some dumb ideas. The bandwidth proposal as written and filed is one of them, but the core of that idea has a lot of merit and will probably become the basis of rule making before too much longer.

Sure the League is driven by a need to earn money to pay for all the programs and for the lobbying effort, but I would not want to face the future WITHOUT the League and its work representing me either in DC or in Newington.

Bottom Line: It is a useless discussion, because a few dozen hams haranguing the assembled hoi polloi on QRZ will influence nothing. It is but intellectual masturbation ---- all feel-good with no result.

Flame away.

[nq3x]

Quote[/b] ]Quote[/b] ]
Tangentially, I used to buy QST when it was on the racks in the 1990s. I wonder why they no longer do this...

You should consider this in more detail. I think you will find that it fits exactly in the paradigm Charles has described.

Seems to me that, were they considering revenue stream alone, they'd want to access as broad a market as possible. If nothing else, they'd be getting their progoganda in front of more faces. I recall they provided many different ways to join in the newsstand copies. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif This is - if I understand you correctly - diametrically opposite to what you're saying. After all, if revenue generation is your prime motivator, why pointedly ignore a prime source of revenue, which pays you hard cash while recruiting new members?

Quote[/b] ]Do you buy replacements every year? If not, why not? Could it be that the new versions don't offer enough new material to justify the purchase? That is the point I was trying to make - and I think you are a prime example of my argument.

I do not purchase new copies every year, for I see no need to do so. I purchased my lone copy of the Handbook very early in my amateur career, and all I can say is, "Well done, thou true and faithful servant." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif It is dog-eared and stained and tattered. Perhaps I'm due... Frankly, I haven't looked even at the idea of purchasing a new one - that is, until now. See what you've done!? You're working for THEM! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

Seriously, I have no intention of defending ARRL or anyone else. I began my participation in this thread by questioning the motives behind Charles's position. Here and elsewhere he has represented these issues as something other than that which I see it to be - ignoring in-place FCC regulations, specifically power output, interference, and encryption. It seems to me that ARRL's participation in these issues is secondary at best, and is being used as an excuse to worry the institution instead of the problem. This is indicative of a deeper issue with the League of which Charles is possessed, about which I know nothing.

Am I wrong? Perhaps. But I've followed the threads assiduously, and can read and comprehend with the best. Sometimes, having read Charles's posts, I want to ask him, "Can you show me on the doll where the nasty League touched you?" - because I for the life of me can't figure out how he sees his way clear to laying everything at the feet of ARRL.

Some people have such a pathological hatred of a thing that they'd do anything to besmirch that thing. And no, I'm not saying that Charles is pathological; at least, not him alone. There are certain people for whom any mention of ARRL is cause to trot out the pitchforks and torches. I cannot conceive of a reason for this, and I find it worrisome. This is a hobby. If it's only getting your blood pressure up, it's time to take up something else to occupy your spare time. After all, we're all so old, we can ill afford the hypertension! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif

Hey! There's the reason ham radio is dying! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (n3oya @ June 22 2006,16:33)]This is a hobby. If it's only getting your blood pressure up, it's time to take up something else to occupy your spare time.
Actually, once you identify the cast, the play is quite a bit of fun. Quite the opposite of raising BP, I find it all refreshing.

[nq3x]

And I liked your statement about "mental masturbation."

Helps to pass the time. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[N5PVL]

As I said in the post that defined this topic:
Quote[/b] ]
I understand that this will whizz right over the heads of some, and that others will understand perfectly but not care enough to make the matter seriously. Others will utilize it as still another opportunity to troll. - But I am confident that not only the best of those who read but also the great majority of those who do so will immediately see the parallels that I am talking about.

Note that the nasty personal attacks appear to be coming solely from the ARRL shill department - and I consider that to be a good indication that I have touched upon what they see as a sore spot. I am also sure that this point is not lost on the great majority of readers here.

It is like telling me that I have indeed hit the nail right on the head with my thought that the ARRL and the United Nations are showing the same kind of symptoms, if not suffering from the same disease.

[KI4NGN]

And as usual Charles, you disregard any opinion that is contrary to yours and label it as personal or as coming from 'shills'. Let's see, if someone is supporting the ARRL, they are a shill. Following that same logic, doesn't that make you a shill for those opposed to that organization?

I said and meant that I believe you presented a fine analysis. I will also say and mean that almost if not every time that someone has directed a comment directly at you, it is in response to some insult or degradation you have made in response to someone with an opposing view. In other words, you ask for it. You continually respond to opposing views on a topic with personal comments about the poster, and then when someone points this out, you call this a personal attack and use it to justify your position.

MIV - I do agree, folks have a right to raise as much hell as they choose about anything. My opinion is that those folks who raise hell about an organization yet are not members have no right to expect that organization to listen to them, and then criticize that organization because they are not listening, using that lack of attention as another 'proof' of their position.

I like the term 'mental masturbation'. I suppose there is some accuracy to that. I have posted in other threads that whatever is posted on this site has very little to no influence on the outside world. However, discussion is often fun just for the sake of discussion, whether it is people in agreement or disagreement. I often learn from such discussions. It is very frustrating when someone reads some text that opposes their position, has no valid response, but must say something so they resort to some sort of personal remark, discarding the opposing perspective as irrelevant or a personal attack. It gets old, and it detracts from the focus of the thread, which gets frustrating.

Mike

[nq3x]

It's called an "ad hominem" argument, attacking the man and not his argument. It has been the resort of people who have no legitimate response since, well, Latin was spoken.

"The sky is purple."

"'Tisn't. Sky is clearly blue, sometimes steely-grey."

"You're a poopiehead!"

It's a shame that I waited so long for an explanation and was instead called a shill for an organization I don't even belong to. Such things certainly don't take the discussion forward.

73,

Bob N3OYA

[N5PVL]

N3OYA apparently has a personal problem. He has been following me around the various ham related wesites, making one personal attack after another on anything associated with my callsign.

Looks like I have my own personal troll. Isn't that special.

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

[wa3vjb]

Mike, to your point --

Quote[/b] ]All I've seen in QRZ is people saying how disappointed or disgusted they are that they let their membership lapse, but I have never seen where someone indicated that they had communicated all of this to the ARRL before leaving. That's not to say it didn't happen because I surely don't know.

Really? Then you weren't paying attention to what I said about my own experience, providing one example right in front of you on this very thread. Maybe reread?

Let's overlook that and address other points you've made.

Your analogy to conventional politics falls short linking the performance of an elected official to their checking whether the source of influence is a registered voter, as you suggest.

The Abramoff scandal illustrates that other factors are at play, and even if we disregard that situation, the routine activities of lobbyists, special interest groups, and constituent activism are at far greater prominence with the astute politician than the simple status of an individual voter's registration.

Dave Sumner, the highest ranking unelected official with the group in Newington, used to open each response to letters and phone calls I would make to him asking whether I had yet re-joined the ARRL.

I doubt if anyone on here can report that their elected politician, or their office, verified the registration status of someone calling or writing for help. Wouldn't that be rather a rude question to ask?

That's how Sumner came across.
Okay, said me, let's call his bluff. I resumed paying subscription fees, and continued my queries for action regarding the representation of my specialty in the hobby in the League's regulatory deliberations, the group's publications, and in the training of their Official Observer corps.

Regardless of my "membership" status, there was no significant change in the basic, reasonable request for specific recognition of my specialty alongside all the others the ARRL has chosen to represent.

My case happens to be clearly documented and I have expressed it to you effectively. How many others are left with an impression the League really does not give a szht about individuals who fall outside the path determined by their closed-door leadership?

Good luck getting your $39 worth. I haven't researched or seen what your operating activities might include, but they'd better match the flavor of the day in Newington if you expect to be included.

Paul/VJB

[nq3x]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 23 2006,07:07)]N3OYA apparently has a personal problem. He has been following me around the various ham related wesites, making one personal attack after another on anything associated with my callsign.

Looks like I have my own personal troll. Isn't that special.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Not so, Charles. I have no personal beef with you, or anyone else, for that matter. It is the merest coincidence that I happened upon a thread of yours on this forum which closely resembled a thread on another. And replying to maybe three threads on two fora hardly makes me a troll who follows you around. Though if you wish to build yourself up by making me your stalker, feel free. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

It bothers me when people make mountains out of molehills, play Chicken Little, and - in order that people pay attention to their cries - make all sorts of statements intended to support their central arguments which are at best peripheral.

To illustrate, allow me to distill an example:

Auto-forwarding systems can interfere with ongoing communications; ARRL supports such systems; ARRL therefore supports deliberate interference and wants to take away our bands.

Huh? That's called "leaping to a conclusion". Without more concrete supporting documentation, I don't buy it, and neither should any reasonable person.

The problem is interference. ARRL's involvement is entirely peripheral, yet you and others make it essential through a circular series of arguments which, taken alone, make logical sense but all together come apart at the seams. This is classic Socratic dialectic.

That's my beef, Charles. On the other board - where I issued a verbal thwap on the nose - I was so sick of reading such stuff that I lashed out. For that lashing, I apologize, for it was not constructive. I still stand by my views, however.

Cheers,

Bob N3OYA

[N5PVL]

Yes that makes sense. N3OYA started his trolling campaigne after reading about interference problems associated with Winlink2000 at another website. Having no facts to back up his alleged position on this, all he has left in his little toolbox were character attacks, WL2K propaganda to parrot and basic trolling technique.

( Yawn )

Moderators take note: Please do not intefere with N3OYA's trolling activity. It is self-defeating and if he keeps it up, it won't be long before nobody bothers to read anything he says anyway.

[ab0wr]

n3oya:
Quote[/b] ]Seems to me that, were they considering revenue stream alone, they'd want to access as broad a market as possible. If nothing else, they'd be getting their progoganda in front of more faces. I recall they provided many different ways to join in the newsstand copies. This is - if I understand you correctly - diametrically opposite to what you're saying. After all, if revenue generation is your prime motivator, why pointedly ignore a prime source of revenue, which pays you hard cash while recruiting new members?

Do you really think newstand sales of QST were a major revenue source for the ARRL?

Trust me, it wasn't.

It *was* a way to get Amateur Radio out in the public eye. It *was* a way for amateurs interested in specific articles to buy only those magazines they were interested in.

*BOTH* were good things for Amateur Radio.

But hardly a net revenue producing process. Probably not enough sales to even cover the shipping costs would be my guess.

Instead of weighing the good against cost, however, the paradigm shift that took over the ARRL forced them to only consider the bottom line.

It *may* have been a good decision - but for entirely the wrong reasons.

tim ab0wr

[ab0wr]

n3oya:
Quote[/b] ]Seriously, I have no intention of defending ARRL or anyone else. I began my participation in this thread by questioning the motives behind Charles's position. Here and elsewhere he has represented these issues as something other than that which I see it to be - ignoring in-place FCC regulations, specifically power output, interference, and encryption. It seems to me that ARRL's participation in these issues is secondary at best, and is being used as an excuse to worry the institution instead of the problem. This is indicative of a deeper issue with the League of which Charles is possessed, about which I know nothing.

The ARRL participation is NOT secondary. They are the group that put forth the proposals to the FCC on these specific items. They *ARE* the group that should be taken to task by those that don't agree with the views they espouse in these proposals.

tim ab0wr

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]It seems to me that ARRL's participation in these issues is secondary at best, and is being used as an excuse to worry the institution instead of the problem.

Secondary to what, Bob, the point you're trying to make?

Interwined in the postings among us are two issues -- the extent and depth to which someone may "legitimately" criticise the group in Newington, and whether that legitimacy is available to people who do not subscribe to their group.

So, to worry the institution is to challenge their regulatory proposals, as we may do with anyone, group or individual.

You should educate yourself, if you haven't already, on the FCC"s Electronic Comment Filing System. I encourage this gently because it has utterly changed the way federal regulators receive input from active interests related to the Amateur Service.

In the pre-Internet days, sort of like the nation's Electoral College, we had to trust a representative body to keep track of and partcipate in matters on our behalf.

Today, it is easy to step around some of the poorly-penned proposals from Newington and come up with alternatives. The ECFS foments a creative process among us, and it puts the ARRL at the same stature as anyone else who might come along with what's believed to be a good idea for the hobby.

Consequently, criticism of a "League" proposal is not necessarily directed at the institution, and stands on its own regardless of any established opinion of how poorly that group has performed in the past.

Paul/VJB

[N5PVL]

WA3VJB observes:
Quote[/b] ]
Interwined in the postings among us are two issues -- the extent and depth to which someone may "legitimately" criticise the group in Newington, and whether that legitimacy is available to people who do not subscribe to their group.

I consider this question be be on a par with the code/nocode debate, in that it always generates a lot of hot air, goes nowhere and is often used as a vehicle for disrupting a topic that a troll-like poster does not want others to discuss.

Note that it almost invariably is introduced by ARRL apologists into discussions about the ARRL.

Every time I see this so-called "question" brought up, my troll-o-meter pegs out.

Forum fascists like it because they can use it to limit other people's ability to discuss topics that they do not want to see discussed. - A guaranteed disruption of and distraction from the topic every time.

That is all it is, and all it ever has been.

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 23 2006,15:38)]Every time I see this so-called "question" brought up, my troll-o-meter pegs out.
How do you avoid self-resonance?

[N5PVL]

W3MIV asks:
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ](N5PVL @ June 23 2006,15:38)
Every time I see this so-called "question" brought up, my troll-o-meter pegs out.

How do you avoid self-resonance?

I never pull the forum-fascist stunt of trying to marginalize my fellow hams by saying that they have no right to speak up about the ARRL, simply because they do not happen to have an active ARRL membership.

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ June 23 2006,13:20)]W3MIV asks:
Quote[/b] ]
Quote[/b] ](N5PVL @ June 23 2006,15:38)
Every time I see this so-called "question" brought up, my troll-o-meter pegs out.

How do you avoid self-resonance?

I never pull the forum-fascist stunt of trying to marginalize my fellow hams by saying that they have no right to speak up about the ARRL, simply because they do not happen to have an active ARRL membership.
I'm sorry, but this one I just couldn't let pass. I'll blame it on my own immaturity.

There you go again Charles! I explain in rational, non-emotional, non-personal terms why I question criticizing an organization when one is not a member. My opinion.

And what do you reply? "Forum facist stunt". You absolutely, positively, do not know how to disagree with someone, or have them disagree with you, without insulting that person, do you Charles?! Talk about a forum facist!

Please Charles, learn how to play nicely with others. You are just going to have to accept the fact of life that people who do not agree with you are not evil, are not by definition trolling, and once in a while just might, just might, be saying something that you should pay attention to. You have been on my case ever since I pointed out the invalid foundation of your polls. It wasn't personal, but you took it that way. You have been on my case, but I also noted that you stopped espousing poll numbers that had no valid basis and were therefore meaningless.

I thought you presented a very fine, well reasoned, logical presentation earlier in this thread. I was impressed. And then once again when some disagreed with you, you resorted to personal insults and derogatory comments. They are not called for, and all they do is make people ignore the good stuff that you may have to say. YOUR personal comments are what distract focus from the topic, not the comments of those who disagree.

I KNOW that you could not care less, believe me, but as much as I think that more often than not you do have something legitimate to say, if you can't stop from insulting people who disagree with you, then I'm going to do the same thing that I did with ai4ep, which has worked very well for me and made my forum experience much more rewarding. And if I read an insulting or derogatory response to this, then you will have won because it won't be possible for me to respond to posts that I don't read.

Mike

[w8znx]

every one should know

Charles is on a noble quest
pitted aganst
dark forces of ARRL cabal

to question Charles
shows your ignorance
of the evil in Newington

do not question Charles
lance in hand
astride the mighty steed Rozinante

he rides aganst the giants
we are but ignorant fools
to this noble knight

mac

[N5PVL]

Knight of the iron horse, perhaps!

Har Hawr! #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[N5PVL]

KI4NGN says:
Quote[/b] ]
And if I read an insulting or derogatory response to this, then you will have won because it won't be possible for me to respond to posts that I don't read.


That's what you said a while back and here you are, saying it again. Don't you have a little scorepad or something, to remind you about whose posts you allegedly aren't going to read?

I was actually needling Albert but if the shoe fits, wear it. #

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ] I explain in rational, non-emotional, non-personal terms why I question criticizing an organization when one is not a member

Hey Mike,

Since you and Bob are of the same opinion, and my response is also to your view, above, would you care to reply to it?

Or, are you and Bob leaving it unchallenged?

Paul/VJB

[KI4NGN]

I did miss the reply that you spoke of. Most of the time that I am reading QRZ I am at work waiting for a compile to finish. I get distracted (returning to work), return to the forum some time later, and don't always pick up where I left off.

OK, so you did inform the ARRL of your opinion while you were a member. I think that is great....trully! If you read the rest of my post you'll note the I also said that if a huge number of members did this, then the organization would have to listen. I still say that I have never heard of that happening. Again I'll say that not having read about it or heard of it does not mean that it hasn't happened, but only that I am not aware of it.

By the way.....Of course your vote is secret, but whether or not you vote, which elections that you vote in, what party you affiliate yourself with, etc., all are public record. Anyone may obtain this information, they don't have to ask anyone if they vote.

I am very aware of the influence of lobbyists and PACs, and this has always been a great concern of mine. I was not discussing all of the factors that go into politics and political decisions, just the influence that voters may (and should) have on the government, and my belief that they are not ignored.

The ARRL is very aware of the postings on QRZ. I know that they read them because this was indirectly confirmed to me in one email response that I received from them. It is also true that they notice who are members and who are not, and that the total number of individual posters, members or not, is such a small number compared to the number of members, and certainly compared to the total number of amateurs, as to have no significance to them.

I am of the belief that if a significant number of members communicate to the ARRL that they disagree with some path that they have chosen, then they will listen. I don't mean a dozen people making postings to forums. I don't mean a couple of dozen people posting to the FCC their opposition to an ARRL proposal. I don't mean a dozens members letting their membership lapse. I mean if thousands of members communicate to their organization their objection or concerns, they will listen. That fact that this doesn't happen, at least that I am aware of, leads me to a conclusion that I am certain they would also come to, and that is that the vast majority of their membership has no problem with their path or decisions. I am NOT saying that their decisions are right or wrong, I am saying that I can certainly understand their conclusion that the vast majority of their membership either agrees with or does not care about actions and proposals that they make because the vast majority is silent. And I still stand by my opinion that, from the ARRL perspective, the opinions of non-members are irrelevant, and I believe that's as it should be for reasons that I already stated.

Charles, you're right, I did decide that once before. But unlike ae4ip, I also believed that you do have legitimate discussion and points to make, so I tried again. I don't need a score pad buddy. There is only one poster that I reached a point where I refuse to read his posts, or even open a thread which he has started. If I read one more unprovoked insult or derogatory comment from you just because you are disagreed with, then my list will have a population of two. And as I said, I KNOW you don't care. The point is that I do care enough about what you have to say that I did try to read you again. You made a snide comment about this, but that one was expected.

Mike

[n0iu]

For all of the people in the Central, Hudson, New England, Northwestern and Roanoke divisions, this is your opportunity since all of those Director and Vice Director positions are up for election. Unfortunately (or fortunately), one must have been a League member for four years preceding the nomination. So for those who want to "throw out the bums in Newington" and are not members, you will have to live with whomever is elected since you can't run and can't vote.

Good luck to those who are planning on unseating George Isley, Frank Fallon, Tom Frenaye, Jim Fenstermaker and Dennis Bodson.

Scott NØIU

[ab0wr]

ki4ngn:
Quote[/b] ]I am of the belief that if a significant number of members communicate to the ARRL that they disagree with some path that they have chosen, then they will listen.

How will we ever know? I will guarantee you that they heard from far more than a dozen people on their bandwidth proposal before they actually submitted it. Based on the number of comments at the FCC site, the vast majority would have been against it as written.

Yet the ARRL refused to provide any information on the comments they received - no summaries, no tallys, no counts, no nothing. Like the FCC ECFS system, each and every email and letter could have been posted on their web site (with member-only access if necessary) yet the ARRL did not think enough of their membership to let them know what the membership thought!

Did they have something to hide?

Quote[/b] ]I don't mean a dozen people making postings to forums. I don't mean a couple of dozen people posting to the FCC their opposition to an ARRL proposal.

I suggest you go look at the ECFS site to see how many comments they got on the bandwidth proposal. You are making assumptions that are not backed up by fact.

Quote[/b] ] I don't mean a dozens members letting their membership lapse. I mean if thousands of members communicate to their organization their objection or concerns, they will listen. That fact that this doesn't happen, at least that I am aware of, leads me to a conclusion that I am certain they would also come to, and that is that the vast majority of their membership has no problem with their path or decisions.

Pardon me? As the self-proclaimed representative of Amateur Radio their constituency is entire population of amateur radio operators. Yet 75% of their constituency have never joined or have let their memberships lapse - either because the ARRL doesn't represent them adequately or doesn't offer enough value for the membership fee. That *IS* thousands of people communicating their concerns - through the method of shutting their pocketbooks!

That should be a huge wake-up call about their path and decisions. Yet it hasn't been for over 25 years. We've already discussed exactly why that is. Charles provided some very good rational in his initial post.

I have yet to see any real refutation of the critiques provided by Charles - just claims that he is a conspiracy theorist or "ARRL basher".

Quote[/b] ] I am NOT saying that their decisions are right or wrong, I am saying that I can certainly understand their conclusion that the vast majority of their membership either agrees with or does not care about actions and proposals that they make because the vast majority is silent.

As I said above, if the ARRL thinks the vast majority agrees with them, they aren't LISTENING! If they aren't questioning why their membership is DWINDLING then they are not LISTENING. The silence of a closed pocketbook by 75% of the amateur community should be DEAFENING to the ARRL - yet it isn't.

Quote[/b] ] And I still stand by my opinion that, from the ARRL perspective, the opinions of non-members are irrelevant, and I believe that's as it should be for reasons that I already stated.

Then you should also question why the ARRL bills itself as the representative of all amateurs. If they only listen to their membership while saying they represent non-members also then they are propagating a huge LIE.

This would be like saying that 25% of the members in the House of Representatives would constitute a quorum and could pass any legislation they want.

I don't think that would necessarily result in legislation that would be a benefit to the other 75%. It would give the special interests even more sway in the legislation that would get passed - just like we see with the ARRL today!

tim ab0wr

[wa3vjb]

Quote[/b] ]I am of the belief that if a significant number of members communicate to the ARRL that they disagree with some path that they have chosen, then they will listen.

Mike, you've acknowledged that you have only recently begun subscribing to the ARRL. I hope we have helped you understand there are some long-standing problems that the group in Newington has had years to address, and that many of us feel they have failed to do so, utterly or adequately.

Thanks for responding to the case in point that I proffered you. Additional "proof" is what Tim has pointed out to you regarding the League's now-discredited bandwith proposal.

I would like to associate myself with his remarks because I am in total agreement.

If you don't believe us and really want to see for yourself, please look on the FCC's website at the Reply Comment from the ARRL's lawyer.

You will see that he utterly and completely did not listen to the overwhelmingly negative responses filed by a broad range of licensed, active amateurs who expressing concerns that the League is not representing them.

And matching your premise that it may take more than a dozen or so such messages, this FCC proceeding triggered a total of about 1000 Comments filed, and the ratio was 8:1 favoring those Opposed.

That should be far more convincing than my little example of being ignored, and I hope it persuades you why there is a very strong undercurrent of dismay with how the group in Newington is conducting itself.

Paul/VJB

[W3MIV]

After many months of reading these "anti-League" threads, there is a clear coterie of participants, a sort of coalition of the disgruntled, who will cloak their disparate discontentments in a mantle of loose-jointed hyperbole.

One simple example:

"Yet 75% of their constituency have never joined or have let their memberships lapse - either because the ARRL doesn't represent them adequately or doesn't offer enough value for the membership fee. That *IS* thousands of people communicating their concerns - through the method of shutting their pocketbooks!"

Any reason other than blatant dissatisfaction with the League and its policies is swept aside in a single, breath-taking statement, thereby moving a few hundred thousand amateurs into the disgruntled faction, whether they like it or not. Indeed, whether they would even be aware of it or not.

Dozens of lines from Shakespeare leap to mind, but the argument is fruitless. Nonetheless amusing.

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] (W3MIV @ June 24 2006,06:41)]After many months of reading these "anti-League" threads, there is a clear coterie of participants, a sort of coalition of the disgruntled, who will cloak their disparate discontentments in a mantle of loose-jointed hyperbole.

One simple example:

"Yet 75% of their constituency have never joined or have let their memberships lapse - either because the ARRL doesn't represent them adequately or doesn't offer enough value for the membership fee. That *IS* thousands of people communicating their concerns - through the method of shutting their pocketbooks!"

Any reason other than blatant dissatisfaction with the League and its policies is swept aside in a single, breath-taking statement, thereby moving a few hundred thousand amateurs into the disgruntled faction, whether they like it or not. Indeed, whether they would even be aware of it or not.

Dozens of lines from Shakespeare leap to mind, but the argument is fruitless. Nonetheless amusing.
I notice you have no *other* reason to offer, Albert.

Why is that?

Merely stating that there are other reasons is not adequate. We are required to provide our facts about why we are not happy with the ARRL's path.

Why shouldn't you have to back YOUR claims up as well?

Exactly what reasons do people have for not joining other than:

1. The ARRL doesn't represent them adequately, or
2. They don't offer enough value to justify the membership fee.

Put your mony where your rhetoric is and give us some of the other reasons.

tim ab0wr

[W3MIV]

Tim, I can no more prove my contentions than you can prove yours. You operate from a given set of opinions, which are fundamentally different from my own on these matters.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan was an extremely intelligent man, one of my heroes (though with feet definitely of clay). Though Moynihan often proved the dictum that great intelligence does not always impart great wisdom, he did offer one bit of sage advice I have never forgotten:

"Every man is entitled to his own opinions. But he is not entitled to his own facts."

We differ. Neither of us has "facts" to offer that will refute either point of view. My own position is that I would rather have a defective ARRL rather than none at all. Those who refrain from membership, for whatever reasons, would opt for no ARRL if they cannot have perfection in representation of their individual preferences.

Even Al Gore would have to admit that bad air is better than no air.

[N5PVL]

Albert, you are the only one who is talking about "no ARRL".

The rest of us talking about the ARRL's obviously counterproductive management decisions in recent years, in between your interruptions and distractions. - The stated goal being to get the organization back on a more productive track and retrieve some or all of its lost legitimacy.

Sorry you have a problem with that...

If any of us were interested in "no ARRL", all we would need to do is to sit back and watch the organization continue to cut its own throat with its present management and policy. - There would be no need for discussion at all.

Maybe you would understand better if you spent more time reading and less time posting.

[ab0wr]

w3miv:
Quote[/b] ]Tim, I can no more prove my contentions than you can prove yours.

Really? And which contentions would those be? That 75% of the amateur community either believes that the ARRL doesn't represent them adequately or doesn't see enough value in what the ARRL offers to pay the membership fee?

I'll ask you again what your other reasons might be for 75% of the amateur community not being ARRL members. So far you haven't made *any* contentions other than just saying that there *are* other reasons.

So far all we've seen from you is an attempt to masquerade cliches as discussion.

Quote[/b] ]You operate from a given set of opinions, which are fundamentally different from my own on these matters.

No, I've posted facts. The opposition to all of the ARRL regulatory proposals over the past two years have been overwhelmingly negative from the amateur community. That is a fact, not an opinion. The ARRL membership is *declining* from an already low percentage of the amateur community. That is a fact, not an opinion.

The conclusions I draw from these facts may be different than the conclusions you draw, but I am not just posting opinions.

Perhaps you could explain why your conclusions differ rather than just posting trite cliches.


Quote[/b] ]"Every man is entitled to his own opinions. But he is not entitled to his own facts."

So far you have not posted any facts. You can't claim I have not.

Quote[/b] ]We differ. Neither of us has "facts" to offer that will refute either point of view. My own position is that I would rather have a defective ARRL rather than none at all. Those who refrain from membership, for whatever reasons, would opt for no ARRL if they cannot have perfection in representation of their individual preferences.

No, Albert, I *have* posted facts. So has Charles. So has Paul. The only one here who has posted no facts is you.

My position is that I would rather have an ARRL that is *NOT* defective. That is the goal that I am working toward. You may be right about a few disaffected anarchists wanting the ARRL to disapper. That is NOT the attitude of most people I talk with. The vast majority of those that do not belong to the ARRL are not saying they want the ARRL to go away, they are saying that the ARRL doesn't represent them adequately or that they don't offer enough value to justify the membership fee.

Quote[/b] ]Even Al Gore would have to admit that bad air is better than no air.

Tell that to the next set of miners that get trapped underground in a mine fire.

tim ab0wr

[W3MIV]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ June 24 2006,20:31)]No, I've posted facts. The opposition to all of the ARRL regulatory proposals over the past two years have been overwhelmingly negative from the amateur community. That is a fact, not an opinion. (edited for emphasis)
That is conjecture on your part, Tim. I am surprised that a man with your scientific sense cannot see the difference between your conjecture and a fact that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

How many comments against any of the ARRL petitions has been filed? Contrast this number, multiplied by the numbers of QRZ, eHam and other posters, and you will still fall far short of the 650.000 hams in the US.

Charles, in his initial post, drew an admittedly interesting comparison of League policies with UN policies that he based on his analysis of the League's actions -- again, conjecture on Charles' part with no provable facts. While you may like Charles' analysis and support his suppositions, they are still suppositions. Not facts.

Believe what you will, you are venting opinions that suit your stated positions, not those "stubborn things" that John Adams would have recognized, as indeed any lawyer worth his salt would recognize as "facts."

As Anatole France once commented: "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

[KI4NGN]

Quote[/b] (ab0wr @ June 24 2006,11:27)]Exactly what reasons do people have for not joining other than:

1. The ARRL doesn't represent them adequately, or
2. They don't offer enough value to justify the membership fee.
Tim, I can think of a third: They have no interest, or they just don't care, and I suspect that this is the overwhelming reason.

I'll admit that I only randomly selected a few threads of comment at the FCC site. I wasn't looking by topic, just a random sampling, and obviously I missed a big one.

As far as the ARRL representing all amateurs, I already addressed this, but will do so again. Given that they have a membership of approximately 25% of all operators (numbers that others have posted in this thread), and given that no other organization represents even a significant percentage of the ARRL numbers, then like it or not they can legitimately state that they represent amateur radio. Again, think of an election where only 15% of registered voters turn out, and some representative wins this election with 51% of those voters. Only 7.5% of all registered voters put this person into office, yet he becomes the representive of all.

Regarding the ARRL's declining membership, I can't disagree that one reason is disaffection, but I'm sure this is not the only reason. It has been discussed in many other threads that many believe that there is an overall decline of the number of licensed operators, along with the reasons for this. Surely any or all of those reasons may also be associated with the ARRL's membership decline.

Dissaffection is one of the overwhelming reasons that I have ever heard or read as to why people don't vote. This has always astounded me because this seems like cutting off your hand to punish your arm.

If the League does not publish feedback that it gets from its members, this is relatively easy to resolve, and wake them up if need be. If some site would offer to be an email repository, then everyone who sent an email to the ARRL could CC it to the volunteer email site. This is an imperfect solution because it would depend on people visiting this site to be aware of this monitoring tool. However even if it was not representative of all amateurs or ARRL members, those interested would then have some sort of feedback about the actual correspondence being directed towards the League. I'd caution that one requirement would be that the correspondence must include whether or not the sender is a member. Even the results of this would have to be considered against the perceived integrity of the volunteer....wouldn't want anyone altering emails! All of this is just a spontaneous suggestion.

Mike

[ab0wr]

Quote[/b] ]No, I've posted facts. The opposition to all of the ARRL regulatory proposals over the past two years have been overwhelmingly negative from the amateur community. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Quote[/b] ]That is conjecture on your part, Tim.

No, that is a fact.

Go count the positive comments and the negative comments on each of the proposals. Look at how the ARRL totally failed to address the problems with the proposals, as pointed out in the comments, in their Reply-to-Comments - as Paul pointed out.

You can be in denial all you want, Albert, it won't change the facts.

Quote[/b] ] I am surprised that a man with your scientific sense cannot see the difference between your conjecture and a fact that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I understand the difference between a poll, where opinions are solicited, and an ECFS system like the FCC uses. The comment system is much better at measuring the overall view of a population.

It also allows junk-science proposals to be analyzed and the junk science pointed out. The bandwidth proposal is a prime example of junk science. No spectrum efficiency studies, no interference mitigation studies, no technical efficiency studies - no nothing. Numerous comments pointed this out, did the analyses that the ARRL failed to do, and yet the ARRL would not address the results that uniformly showed how flawed the proposal is.

Quote[/b] ]How many comments against any of the ARRL petitions has been filed? Contrast this number, multiplied by the numbers of QRZ, eHam and other posters, and you will still fall far short of the 650.000 hams in the US.

How many comments? Go look yourself. It would be informative (besides, Paul already gave you the numbers) to you so you can post replies on the next proposal under consideration.

So? Are you saying the Presidential elections don't represent the will of the people? I'm not sure you understand the difference between straight-majority rule and the intricacies of representative-rule.

As I pointed out above, the FCC ECFS system allows a very good picture of the views of a community to be formed - since a positive action is required to post a comment. Remember that the ARRL actively solicited comments on the proposal to the FCC in their prime communication tool with their members - QST. Yet negative comments outweighed positive comments by a factor of 8 to 1.

8 to 1, Albert. That should make the most ardent ARRL supporter sit up and take notice. Yet you seem to be in total denial. Any legislator that put forth legislation that received an 88% negative comment to 12% positive comment result from their constituents would be ducking and running for cover in abject fear.

And the ARRL can't even stand on the platform that what they propose is right and good for the constituents because it was shown in numerous negative comments how it is NOT good for the constituents through studies the commenters did that the ARRL didn't bother with!

Quote[/b] ]Charles, in his initial post, drew an admittedly interesting comparison of League policies with UN policies that he based on his analysis of the League's actions -- again, conjecture on Charles' part with no provable facts. While you may like Charles' analysis and support his suppositions, they are still suppositions. Not facts.

Using this tactic, Albert, you can claim that any conclusions drawn from history are total conjecture with no provable facts. I'm sorry to say it but *that* is the tactic used by those who deny the Holocaust happened.

You would be much better served by actually addressing how the issues in the article Charles found do NOT apply to the ARRL. It is my *opinion* that you will have a very hard time actually doing so.

For instance, the claim in the article:"How do such travesties of regulation arise? Through a kind of "Emperor's New Clothes" process: At UN-sponsored seances, self-interested and often inexpert participants move a flawed proposal step by step through the approval procedures, all the while pretending that it makes sense. A triumph of bureaucratic process over substance ....."

If that do