ARRL - Interactive

Ken,

If this is what the ARRL wanted, then the proposal shouldn't have used SSB and defined it's maximum bandwidth. The way the proposal is written, only JXX emissions are allowed in the "phone" portion and I don't know what exactly is allowed in the 500 kHz portion, but it appears to be some kind of "digital" signal..

My solution is that if they want a complete revision of the regulations and it is to be bandwidth driven, do like the Canadians and simply say from here to here the maximum bandwidth of any mode will be X.XX kHz. Exemptions will be needed but they are exceptions to the rule and should be handled this way. It would simply what the FCC regulates which should make them happy, align us with at least one other North American country, and would probably sail right through.

They should have also said, here is how we want to measure the bandwidth using an adequate measurement technique and been done with it.

Then they could have worked on a band plan and used emission designators if needed.

 

Jim,

Where is the 500Khz bandwidth permitted? The widest bandwidth I'm aware of is on the 10mtr band and 16Khz to permit 16kF3. Do you mean 500Hz?


Ken

 

Scene: Old Western Bar
Setup: A shot rings out
Action: Jim falls slowly to the floor muttering "You got me marshall."

500 Hz

Jim

 

Hi Ken,

Think about this a bit more. Right now we have regulation with penalties for non compliance. The ARRL bandwidth proposal will abandon that to anarchy. If we rely on a "Gentlemen’s Agreement" to manage spectrum, then you will be at the mercy of those who are not "Gentlemen". In this day and age, more and more amateurs are doing their own thing at the expense of their fellow hams even with regulation. Remove the regulation, and what you have is total anarchy. Telling a ham that he can't operate the mode he wants in a sub band regulated by a gentlemen’s agreement quite often will result in the reply, "It is not illegal so I can do it if I want to" or as I have heard many times before, " I did not agree to that!".

Yes, we need to make room for the wideband digital modes, just like we do for other modes of operation. But taking away the regulation and trusting in our fellow ham to follow a Gentlemen’s agreement may work with most hams, but there are still a large number of hams that won't abide or be good neighbors to their fellow hams.

My fear is that we have already seen the mindset of those Robot email stations, and they have shown that they have no regard for who is using the frequency first. Removing any recourse by law will just make it worse, not better.

That we may need to lobby for changes in our rules may be valid. But we should not be supporting a rules change that abandons true spectrum management to anarchy.

73,

Mike – K7OV

 

David:

As a US citizen, do you feel that you have the power of the vote?

The ARRL works much like our US democratic system in that we elect representatives who represent us on the Board of Directors. In a like manor, our Senators and Congressmen are the representatives of the voters in the US Government. ARRL members have the power of the vote by electing your Director.

Quitting the League or encouraging others to do so will only weaken the overall position of Amateur Radio in other issues.

The first thing to do is what you did, write to your Director so he knows how you wish to be represented. If the majority of the Directors decide to submit this proposal against the wishes of a large number of ARRL members, those Directors who did not represent the wishes of their electorate should be replaced. (Fired) The best way to do this is to groom and support an opposing candidate in the next Director’s election.

The concept of starting an opposing organization is a bad one. The result will be two or more weak organizations wasting resources opposing each other and a lack of solidarity that will be apparent to our opponents. Our opponents will spot this weakness and pounce on it like a lion, costing amateur Radio a great deal.

It is becoming clear that a large number of League members are opposed to the bandwidth proposal. Any Director who places a vote in favor of this proposal as it now stands should be removed. As an ARRL member, you have the power of the vote to do that. Withholding support and resources from our not for profit lobbying organization will be harmful to the objectives of Radio Amateurs and will do little to promote change within the ARRL. If change is needed, the members will be the ones to do it.

Vy 73, Walt N9WB

 

I urge all of those who disagree with the ARRL to sit on the sidelines of ARRL membership. There is no downside to this, as far as I have seen, in almost 40 years of hamming. Change comes with need; make the need happen if this is your desire. Join an ARRL that is changed--when and if that happens. My opinion. Yours may differ.

Don't equate the ARRL with amateur radio. It's not. It is a minority-of-hams, non-profit that does not have the mandate to speak for US radio amateurs, nor can it claim to do so.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

n9wb:
"The ARRL works much like our US democratic system in that we elect representatives who represent us on the Board of Directors.  In a like manor, our Senators and Congressmen are the representatives of the voters in the US Government.  ARRL members have the power of the vote by electing your Director. "

Actually the ARRL is NOT like governmental agency, it is a COMPANY - even if it is privately owned and not traded on a public exchange.

If the BOD of a company *I* own stock in would begin acting like the BOD of the ARRL the first thing I would do sell my stock. Unless you are rich enough to buy up a significant portion of stock in order to become a player in the selection of candidates for the BOD, selling your stock is the only option you have. If enough small investors become disenchanted with the BOD and sell their stock, sooner or later their stock price will become depressed and changes will occur - or bankruptcy will happen.

That is exactly the situation the ARRL finds itself in today. As more and more people become disenchanted with the ARRL and its high-handed ways, it will continue to lose members - and therefore funding. At some point this becomes a downward spiral from which there is no return - less funding means less service means fewer members means less funding ..........

I'm not sure the ARRL isn't already in the downward spiral from what I am seeing.

n9wb:
"Withholding support and resources from our not for profit lobbying organization will be harmful to the objectives of Radio Amateurs and will do little to promote change within the ARRL."

At some point this becomes an exercise of throwing money down a rathole. What facts and observations do you have to show that this is not already the case?

It is not apparent to me that the ARRL is even interested in hearing the views of the amateur operator universe let alone interested enough to actively solicit them. At least that has been MY experience.

Perhaps it is time for the amateur community to consider formation of a true PAC whose sole purpose is lobbying - and providing funding to the politicians who can actually control what is going on. Directors of a PAC are typically pretty responsive to the membership - since their existence depends solely on being able to raise funds from the membership.

tim ab0wr

 

Hi Walt,

I have had the opportunity to vote for a director, but not for officers such as us, as American Citizens have to elect our President etc.

So what I am proposing right now is that we write our Directors and express our opinion, pro or con and let them know what, if anything, we are prepared to do should they not listen to us.


Per the ARRL site I copy and paste the following:

"ARRL's structure divides the United States into 15 ARRL Divisions. Every three years the ARRL full members in each of these Divisions elect a Director and a Vice Director to represent them on the League's Board of Directors. The Board determines the policies of the League, which are carried out by the Headquarters staff. A Director's function is principally policymaking at the highest level. Each division's Director and Vice Director represent their Division on ARRL policy matters. If you have a question or comment about League policies, contact your representatives at the addresses shown below. "

Also, from the ARRL web site:

"Each year, one-third of the ARRL Board of Directors stands for election by the full members they represent. The day-to-day operation of ARRL HQ is managed by an Executive Vice President. "

This comes down to the following facts:

1. If you are displeased with what the ARRL is doing in your name, then you have a choice of waiting as much as three years to vote out your area Director, which may not be fair to him or her because he or she might actually support your position.

or:

2. Drop membership and hurt them in the pocket book, which I feel is much more effective.

If the ARRL board, which controls the committee’s and officers that make the day to day decisions in that regard were to be at the mercy of the voting membership, as the President of our Country is, then maybe they would be more responsive. But they aren't! They are quite insulated from repercussions from their actions, unless we make a firm and no nonsense stab at their pocketbooks.

Also, the decisions they make are made in our name and with our membership numbers to add credibility to their proposals and initiatives. If I don't have the power to vote out a board officer, then my only option is to remove my name from their membership list and lessen their credibility, not to mention remove the income the ARRL has to budget their cause at my expense. I left the AARP for just that reason. In my eyes, the advantages did not outweigh the benefits and they were making political statements using my membership as credibility that I did not agree with, and ARRL may be in that position in my eyes as well. As a matter of fact, it might be the same with quite a few people from the looks of this thread. And trust me on this; they are more concerned about membership numbers than they are about votes, because the one leads the other.

Also be aware, that even though you have a valid point about removing Directors who don't abide by the wishes of their constituents, we have no way of knowing how many actually wrote to their directors and whether or not the Director followed those wishes. The directors could say anything to support their actions and we would never know the truth.

So, do we stay with an organization that does harm even after we voice our opinions, or do we weaken it from doing further harm? And who says that a rival organization would result in two weak organizations?

You used the example of nations, and specifically our nation. We can vote out a President and his staff if he offends us, but not in the ARRL. Nations rise and nations fall. The same is true of all organizations. If you don't think so, examine how many religions have been formed since the early 1900's just in our country alone.

I have been a supporter of ARRL since my first license in 1958. Never before in my history with them have I felt betrayed by the Board. My writings and feelings are not meant to move people away from ARRL at present, but to put the Board on notice that this could happen if they persist in this madness.

What I do espouse is that we start as I did with letters and emails of displeasure to our Directors. If they persist in pushing this nonsense, then the damage is done, and at that point, all options are open in my mind. And, if quitting the League will weaken them in other issues as you say, then maybe that should be. If they can be swayed into wrong thinking on this major issue, I can't say I want them representing me in other issue either.

There is an old saying that "those faithful in small things will be faithful in large things". The problem is, that the ARRL has been showing signs of weakness already in the way they are handling things for the last several years, and their credibility is also lessening as seen by their effectiveness recently with the FCC.

Most of us have the impression that the ARRL has not been up front and honest about their intentions right from the start with the Bandwidth proposal. They have just changed it a small bit to try to make it palatable to the membership. But the plan has many major flaws and the fact that they can't see it makes me and others wonder if they are qualified to carry on in our name.

And, as I said before, although your contention about the vote may have some merit, the irreparable damage might well be done before we can take our retribution by our vote. We have to stop this now, not retaliate later when it is too late. Obviously, since most of us have 20/20 hindsight, we could have avoided this mess in the first place by not voting these people into office that hired and direct the management, which is pushing this on us. The need now is to stop this before it goes too far, then vote out those who are allowing this to go on, and, if this becomes as unpalatable as it is to me, I and many others will make the decision as to whether or not we want to remain members in an organization that does not truly represent the feelings of it's membership.

And Walt, the ARRL is very little like our form of government. It is more like a homeowners association, where you are at the mercy of the board once they are elected, with the only recourse to be after they have already done their damage.



73,

Mike - K7OV

 

Hi Tim,

Finally, someone who "Gets it"!

73,

Mike - K7OV

 

I have been involved in a set of exchanges with the ARRL leadership for a couple of days now on this subject. I suspect that this is having some impact from the words I've read and the concerns I've expressed.

One thing, those of us who are members and no matter which position we take in this endeavor, we must all participate. One thing is for sure, participation in activities such as this have been very limited over the last several years. Directors run unopposed. It is a small wonder that these people feel that they can ignore the membership, since they do not participate either by voting, running for office, or even writing the director with their concerns.

I have been doing my part. Now, let's get the vote out. These people need to hear from us loud and clear. Those who have left should get on the stick and begin the process of participating again. Send them a message along with you dues. Communicate and then act accordingly!

Ken

 

Participation in ham issues does not require membership in the ARRL.

73,
Chip N!IR

 

I know that Chip. The title of this topic was ARRL Interactive. I just gave an example of my participation in an exchange that indicates that there is some interaction going on.

Ken

 

I have to disagree with the "hurt them in the pocketbook , or the "I wouldn't join the democratic party and try to change them" theories.

In politics we have more than 1 party so yes, obviously you should support the party that closely resembles your political philosophy.

With the ARRL, this is not the case. They are all we have. We have two choices. Create a new version of the ARRL, or join the ARRL and try to change them. It would seem like the latter is the easier to attain.

 

I HEARTILY agree. And the way to change the ARRL is to not be a member at the moment, IMO. This will allow change to grow and come to fruition. Then a viable, new ARRL will sprout it's wings to take us to ham nirvana!

FOR GOODNESS SAKE...TAKE A BREAK

Let temporary attrition help shepherd the answer.

73,
Chip N1IR

 

I don't understand. If you are not a member, you cannot elect the people to the board that resemble your philosophy. The only thing that will happen is that you will allow smaller and smaller numbers of people control the organization. That doesn't sound like a feasible plan to me.