eham rip off

[AC7RI]

Technically, what eHam did by allowing non-subscribers to submit reviews and then blocking access to reviews to subscribers only was legal; I'm sure the TOS covers them, effectively allowing eHam to do whatever they want to your reviews - charge for them, give them away, delete them, etc. However, that's certainly not the way to engender support from the amateur community. When you have a non-subscriber that's improved the quality of eHam by submitting reviews and then you block the reviewer's access to the site - even their own reviews! - well, that's not going to win you any brownie points. I wouldn't particularly care if it was done to me (I'm extremely lenient in letting others use whatever I write however they want; if I ever accidentally wrote anything of substance, maybe I'd change my mind ), but I can certainly and easily see where the problem is.

eHam is a great service to the amateur community, and bandwidth isn't cheap. Getting funds to run the site is important, obviously, but it's worthwhile to take steps to judge reaction to the changes that you are proposing. A situation like what just happened can only hurt your users, and if you hurt your users, you reduce the value of your website. You've effectively shot your own foot.

[W8KT]

Well, I can tell you that you cannot post the truth at Eham! I placed a "comment" in the area provided for comments on the new yearly access fee and my membership was promptly cancelled. You see most people did not do their research before jumping in on the I'll subscribe! bandwagon.

You see, Bill Fisher, owner of Eham is a well to do man. Not only that but he has quite a scheme going for Eham. If you will look here:

http://www.contesting.com/managers/

You will see that Bill is the VP of Concentric Systems, a computer manufacturer. A comment from the VAR news says:

CSI's focus on servicing the customer has taken it from $21 million in revenue in 1996 to $43 million in 1998. During that time, the company's employee roster has grown from 53 to 92. CSI finds itself with loyal customers who order 3,000 systems per month, made with components from leading manufacturers such as Acer America Corp., Intel Corp. and Western Digital.

So, Bills "rising" computer costs for Eham are actually costs from his own company!

Second, Bill says that the hosting costs of the site are getting too expensive. Well, the site is hosted by Akorn Access, one of the largest, non-telephone company affiliated ISP's in the Atlanta area. If you look at the whois information for Akorn Access here:

http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/index.jhtml

Guess who owns it? Bill Fisher W4AN!

So Bills rising hosting costs are from another company Bill owns!

Third, in a similar manner to most ham sites, all of the content is donated free to Eham. Equipment reviews, news articles and other items cost Eham nothing.

Fourth, again in a similar manner, all of the editors and moderators of Eham donate their time and services! They cost Eham nothing.

As I stated on Eham before my account was disabled, I don't have anything against making a buck. I don't have anything against Bill. I don't have anything against Eham. What I do have something against is misleading the ham community on how much time and money are spent on a web site that is purchsed from yourself.

If you operate a site or business it is your right to charge what you think is fair for your service. It is not your right to mislead people to try and get money from them without being honest. The fact that Bill has specifically mentioned the rising equipment and hosting cost as his reason for now wanting to charge to be a member is wrong in my book. Bill is buying hardware and hosting from himself. His information is all provided free. I don't think it is ethical to tell average people they need to contribute because Bill has decided to charge himself more for the items he is buying from himself.

I hope Eham comes out of this OK. As a ham I realize we need all of the exposure we can get. I volunteer my time here at QRZ and provide free access to several repeaters in my home town that I pay all costs for. I know the time and money involved in providing free services. But if I found it necessary to charge my fellow hams, I would certainly try to present an honest picture of the situation.

73

[ak3u]

As far as e ham goes dont use it any more ,dont add reviews, let it dry up

[KF3EG]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (W8KT @ Mar. 14 2004,09:09)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well, I can tell you that you cannot post the truth at Eham&#33; I placed a &quot;comment&quot; in the area provided for comments on the new yearly access fee and my membership was promptly cancelled. You see most people did not do their research before jumping in on the I&#39;ll subscribe&#33; bandwagon.

You see, Bill Fisher, owner of Eham is a well to do man. Not only that but he has quite a scheme going for Eham. If you will look here:

http://www.contesting.com/managers/

You will see that Bill is the VP of Concentric Systems, a computer manufacturer. A comment from the VAR news says:

CSI&#39;s focus on servicing the customer has taken it from &#036;21 million in revenue in 1996 to &#036;43 million in 1998. During that time, the company&#39;s employee roster has grown from 53 to 92. CSI finds itself with loyal customers who order 3,000 systems per month, made with components from leading manufacturers such as Acer America Corp., Intel Corp. and Western Digital.

So, Bills &quot;rising&quot; computer costs for Eham are actually costs from his own company&#33;

Second, Bill says that the hosting costs of the site are getting too expensive. Well, the site is hosted by Akorn Access, one of the largest, non-telephone company affiliated ISP&#39;s in the Atlanta area. If you look at the whois information for Akorn Access here:

http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/index.jhtml

Guess who owns it? Bill Fisher W4AN&#33;

So Bills rising hosting costs are from another company Bill owns&#33;

Third, in a similar manner to most ham sites, all of the content is donated free to Eham. Equipment reviews, news articles and other items cost Eham nothing.

Fourth, again in a similar manner, all of the editors and moderators of Eham donate their time and services&#33; They cost Eham nothing.

As I stated on Eham before my account was disabled, I don&#39;t have anything against making a buck. I don&#39;t have anything against Bill. I don&#39;t have anything against Eham. What I do have something against is misleading the ham community on how much time and money are spent on a web site that is purchsed from yourself.

If you operate a site or business it is your right to charge what you think is fair for your service. It is not your right to mislead people to try and get money from them without being honest. The fact that Bill has specifically mentioned the rising equipment and hosting cost as his reason for now wanting to charge to be a member is wrong in my book. Bill is buying hardware and hosting from himself. His information is all provided free. I don&#39;t think it is ethical to tell average people they need to contribute because Bill has decided to charge himself more for the items he is buying from himself.

I hope Eham comes out of this OK. As a ham I realize we need all of the exposure we can get. I volunteer my time here at QRZ and provide free access to several repeaters in my home town that I pay all costs for. I know the time and money involved in providing free services. But if I found it necessary to charge my fellow hams, I would certainly try to present an honest picture of the situation.

73[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
W8KT
WellI did the same as you and posted my opinion on eham and it was kick back, but after a email of the option of a class action law suit I can post.
I hope you don&#39;t mind, I copied your comments here and posted them on eham under my call sign,(hams need to know 5this informantion). I cut the personal things that you have done out of it, since I have not done these things, but it NEEDED POSTED.
Thank you for taking the time to inform Hams so their pockets might not get raked by eham

73

[KB1GYQ]

In fairness, </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> W4AN on March 13, 2004 (see thread at http://www.eham.net/articles/7901 )

I&#39;ve come around and agree that limiting access to the Reviews to only subscribers is a bad idea. My bad. Not because I think the site will some how go away. It wouldn&#39;t. It is because the original reviews were contributed with an expectation that they would be freely available. I agree with this point of view.

I love the idea of making the site more usable to subscribers. Such as making Classifieds available 24 hours ealier for subscribers than non-subscribers. Consider that one done. As for the Reviews, we&#39;ll come up with something that doesn&#39;t limit the reviews 100% to subscribers. However, we will figure out something to entice non-subscribers to change their status.

73 &amp; thanks again for all the feedback. As I&#39;ve said before, I&#39;m not always right... Check with my XYL for references.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[KF3EG]

To W8KT
I posted your article as I said before, you MUST be right.
I am now banned from posting on eham, nothing works, my call and password are dead all I get it verify emails, maybe he wants to know where I am so he can send the radio police LOL.
73
Jim

[KB1GYQ]

The data presented is from 1998...(2000 is the latest date on any of the pages referanced) a lot has changed in the computer industry since that time. W4AN did answer the questions, and indicated that this is indeed the case; perhaps someone should call the real estate agency and verify, if it is of that much concern. He also left both the questioning post and answer publicly viewable.

Rather childish of him to ban those who posted the questions, but it is his site; and he did leave it in the record.

[N9CHZ]

Well eham.com will not let me post this there so I&#39;ll post it here.... Did anybody notice that you can no longer see the list of paid subscribers from the left hand menu anymore (I guess their afraid we will use our calculators).... It was there yesterday.... Someone estimated that there was @2000 paid subscribers, I think the number is much higher than that though.... Now do the math: @2000 subscribers at &#036;15.00 each = &#036;30,000.00 dollars per year.... Broken down monthly for bandwith usage equals &#036;2500.00 per month &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; There is no way the bandwith costs that much money.

Chuck

[KF3EG]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N9CHZ @ Mar. 15 2004,09:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Well eham.com will not let me post this there so I&#39;ll post it here.... #Did anybody notice that you can no longer see the list of paid subscribers from the left hand menu anymore (I guess their afraid we will use our calculators).... It was there yesterday.... Someone estimated that there was @2000 paid subscribers, I think the number is much higher than that though.... Now do the math: @2000 subscribers at &#036;15.00 each = &#036;30,000.00 dollars per year.... Broken down monthly for bandwith usage equals &#036;2500.00 per month &#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; There is no way the bandwith costs that much money.

Chuck[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Read the thread on eham Bill started when he got a grip and realized he screwed up, many of the people posting claim that they have payed in the 4 figure range each year and one posting is from a employee of Ten Tec who seemed pissed since Ten Tec pays eham to advertize as well as many others. I think 30,000 is less than half of the income on a guess. &#036;&#036;&#036; 4 figures thats a thousand and up. Greed is all it is, if you look around eham and the thread on this subject and really read it, eham has payed some of its buddies &#036;50.00 to write some stuff, if eham can afford to do that they are not hurting that bad.
73

[K3UD]

The comment thread has been shut down and taken off the site. The membership listing is also not longer there. Bill started a new article where he is answering the most repeated comments or questions that popped up in the first thread.

This thing has a life of is own, kinda like the ARRL licensing proposal

73
George
K3UD