Is W1AW going broke?

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (N5PVL @ Feb. 14 2006,03:07)]W8JI says:

Quote[/b] ]
Those comments are out of line. Jim isn't being even 10% as uncivil and nasty as you are Charles! #

Give me a break.

I don't know where you are coming from, but here on planet Earth the documented fact is that Jim Haynie took a large part in scamming the U.S. amateur radio community, stacking an ARRL committee so as to benefit the WinLink group and to screw the other 98% of ham radio operators here in the U.S..

Then before he left ARRL HQ, he set things up for a proposal to introduce encryption on the ham bands.

Please point me to the factual documentation you refer to Charles.

Understand I don't think the ARRL is "in touch" with or does a good job communicating with most Hams, but I always like to be fair.

I'd like to learn more, but I don't take anyone's word for anything.....

73 Tom

Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ Feb. 13 2006,20:21)]It is fact - and published on the ARRL site who Jim appointed to the committee. #

It is fact that Peter Martinez resigned the committee in protest.

It is fact that Skip Teller filed a minority report.

It is fact that the ARRL refused to publish Skip's minoiry report.

And it is fact that the remaining three committee members - two members of the Winlink development team (W5SMM & W4CJX) and Stan Horzepa (WA1LOU) produced the ridiculous 'bandwidth' plan ultimately approved - with very minor adjustments - by the ARRL BoD and filed as a petition (RM-11306).

And it is fact that the committee exceeded its charge - as documented along with the appointments on the ARRL website.

We're waiting, Jim, but I doubt you'll respond.

Now, who's all hat and no cattle?

Yes, I set up the committee, also employed staff and Chief Technical Officer to review the data.

The committee report was just that, a report. The board recieved the report for consideration. For over two years it was reviewed and revised.

Yes, Peter did quit, but not for the reasons you think. I had a number of communications with him before and after. The Brits are more civil than some on the committee.

Yes, Skip did submit a disenting report. We did not agree with it however.

Any committee can submit what ever they feel is related to the subject. The board may or may not take action however. I would also point out at that point in time, there were a number of sitting directors who not only held PHds, were also employed in the military arena with extensive experience in the transfer of digital communications.

To the subject at hand. Back in 2001 we set up a method wherein one could support a specific program at the League. W1AW was one of those programs. Roughly it is $150,000 per year for the total overhead.

Back in 2000 I had the gutters, windows and some outside trim replaced. The bill was in the area of $8,000. So, the idea was establish an endowment that if large enough, the interest would support W1AW.

We have a number of programs like this. Another is the Education and Technology program. If you feel that our efforts in the schools (186 at last count) is worthy, contribute to it. If not, don't. I am happy to say that the amateur community does feel it is worthy and has fully supported the program. W1AW is part of amateur radio history and deserves to be supported.

I have given many tours at headquarters, and W1AW is always the highlight of the tour.

[W8JI]

Quote[/b] (w5jbp @ Feb. 15 2006,04:48)]

Quote[/b] (ae4fa @ Feb. 13 2006,20:21)]It is fact - and published on the ARRL site who Jim appointed to the committee. #

It is fact that Peter Martinez resigned the committee in protest.

It is fact that Skip Teller filed a minority report.

It is fact that the ARRL refused to publish Skip's minoiry report.

And it is fact that the remaining three committee members - two members of the Winlink development team (W5SMM & W4CJX) and Stan Horzepa (WA1LOU) produced the ridiculous 'bandwidth' plan ultimately approved - with very minor adjustments - by the ARRL BoD and filed as a petition (RM-11306).

And it is fact that the committee exceeded its charge - as documented along with the appointments on the ARRL website.

We're waiting, Jim, but I doubt you'll respond.

Now, who's all hat and no cattle?

Yes, I set up the committee, also employed staff and Chief Technical Officer to review the data.

The committee report was just that, a report. The board recieved the report for consideration. For over two years it was reviewed and revised.

Yes, Peter did quit, but not for the reasons you think. I had a number of communications with him before and after. The Brits are more civil than some on the committee.

Yes, Skip did submit a disenting report. We did not agree with it however.

Any committee can submit what ever they feel is related to the subject. The board may or may not take action however. I would also point out at that point in time, there were a number of sitting directors who not only held PHds, were also employed in the military arena with extensive experience in the transfer of digital communications.

Jim,

Do you think the ARRL needs to work on improving public image? Do you think the management is concerned about how they appear to many others?

I understand what you are saying about the digital (Winlink) committee, but let's stand back and look at how the ARRL handles things. Consider this closely, and you will see a parallel.

Dave Sumner and I strongly disagree in how to handle bands like 160. Here's why....

In the late 1960's and early 1970's, LORAN use on 160 was fading fast. The FCC was restoring the band in small chunks. We started having problems in the mid 70's with people just picking random frequencies for wide modes (AM and SSB) or worse yet intentionally causing QRM.

Along with W1BB and W2EQS, I was in direct communication with Prose Walker, W4BW, when he was head of the FCC. Prose wrote letters telling W2EQS and myself that 160 could be fully restored and have mode segments if the ARRL would simply ask. We could never get the ARRL to do anything, they had no interest. At that point I decided the ARRL wasn't an organization I ever wanted to support.

When an INDEPENDENT proposal was submitted to regulate 160 by mode like other bands, the overwhelming majority of 500 responses asked the FCC to grant that request!!! Clearly people who operate 160 WANT segments.

Turn the clock forward through years of intentional and accidental QRM caused by mixing of modes.

Now the ARRL submits a bandplan by bandwidth and somehow someone decided to leave 160 off once again. The claim is a bandplan is "good enough", yet the ARRL felt it necessary to ask the FCC to regulate all other bands by bandwidth.

When you read all the comments against the ARRL's RM-11306, the majority oppose it because the ARRL wants to regulate some things by "bandplan". The ARRL wants to turn automatic modes loose on HF bands (like wide modes are free to go anywhere they like on 160) and simply depend on good human nature to prevent problems.

Look at responses to the Think Tank RM-11305, which basically takes the 160 method of anything anywhere and applies it to all bands. Out of a few hundred comments, fewer than 8% support that idea!!!

It's very clear people want clear regulations with teeth.

If you read comments here on QRZ, you'll see many people only marginally support bandplans by the ARRL and RAC. Look at them objectively without your K1ZZ-tinted glasses and you will see what I say is perfectly correct. PEOPLE FOLLOW LAWS, not agreements by agencies that only represent 1/6th of our population.

When the ARRL decides to do what most people consider a very bad idea for our hobby, the ARRL sets itself up for attacks like those from Charles. People say "gee, why would they do something so illogical?", and the only answer is the ARRL is either out-of-touch with the majority, think the majority of people are stupid, or the ARRL is serving some hidden agenda.

Those really are the only three answers anyone looking at this objectively could have.

Why does the ARRL do this???

Is the ARRL totally out of touch with the community?

Does the ARRL think most hams are stupid and incapable of knowing what is good for the hobby?

Is there a hidden agenda?

It has to be one of the three. It can't be anything else.

Which one is it, or is a there a fourth reason I missed?

73 Tom

[KI4NGN]

I am not a member of ARRL.

I am considering it. I wrote a letter to the ARRL asking about all of the concerns I have read about here, and promptly received a courteous and (I believe) honest reply.

I will give the benefit of the doubt to all posters in this thread about "facts".

However I do have a question for Charles, and don't want to get put down or have my head chewed off for asking it.

You (and others) keep stating that the ARRL is following a path, making proposals, etc, etc, that are contradictory to the desires of 98% of ham operators.

Where does this figure of 98% come from?

Mike, Raleigh, NC

Tom, I hear what you are saying and while I am not a 160 expert, I know quite a few amateurs who regularly frequent 160.

From what I understand the propogation on 160 is such that segmentation is not a real requirement. The number of operators that use 160 is only about 2% of those who are on 20 meters. So we are talking about apples and oranges.

Speaking only for myself, splitting up the spectrum into segments for SIGs is not the answer. Many countries around the world use the KISS method. "Here is the top, here is the botton stay inside." They have not had any problems that I know of, so it does work.

Yes, also all organizations can use image polishing.
The League is no different.

[KI4NGN]

Same question to you Jim that I asked of Charles: where does your figure of 2% come from?

I have no position in this debate, I'm just interested and observing with an open mind. However everyone keeps specifying percentages, which are meaningless numbers without a source.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[N5PVL]

The ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal was written by WinLinkers, for WinLinkers with no consideration for anybody else. A generous accounting of the percentage of US amateurs who are associated with WinLink comes out around 2%.

Digital operators in a general sense are around 10% of the total US HF amateur radio population.

The number of amateurs who are interested in ultra-wide digital modes on HF comes out at some fraction of 1%.

You can find a lot of this kind of information, along with discussions about which numbers are most accurate at SPAR.

The single most accurate and error-free source of polling data associated with amateur radio is HamPoll. - Most Internet polls on ham radio issues have little or no security set up to avoid poll-stuffing or poll-flooding, and so tend to return questionable results.

The recent poll at AR NewsLine on the bandwidth segmentation proposal, for example, could be re-voted upon by the same individual every 24 hours, unless they wanted to erase their ARNewsline "cookie", in which case they could put in as many votes as they cared to. -- And some quite obviuously did, as the AR Newsline poll results were radically skewed in WinLink/ARRL's favor, as compared to more professionally operated polls here at QRZ, at eHam, and at HamPoll.

I guess you've heard about how minimal security only keeps the honest people honest... # #In this light, it is instructive to see which direction an easily manipulated poll ends up being skewed.

[KI4NGN]

Charles, thank you for you courteous reply.

All of the numbers seem to be internet based, and unless there is a poll is conducted so as to minimize or eliminate voting fraud, I will never trust any resultant numbers. #I have other reasons for not trusting the results.

There is also always the problem with how numbers are interpretted. Whether you know it or not, you biased your opinion about the numbers in favor of your position.

"The recent poll at AR NewsLine on the bandwidth segmentation proposal, for example, could be re-voted upon by the same individual every 24 hours, unless they wanted to erase their ARNewsline "cookie", in which case they could put in as many votes as they cared to. -- And some quite obviuously did, as the AR Newsline poll results were radically skewed in WinLink/ARRL's favor, as compared to more professionally operated polls here at QRZ, at eHam, and at HamPoll."

Your assumption is that cheaters skewed the results in WinLink's favor. It could just have easily been cheaters who in fact reduced WinLink numbers from higher than they actually were.

I understand that you base that opinion on other polls, but as I said I also question those.

Also:

"The ARRL bandwidth segmentation proposal was written by WinLinkers, for WinLinkers with no consideration for anybody else. A generous accounting of the percentage of US amateurs who are associated with WinLink comes out around 2%."

There seems to be another assumption that the other 98% are against. Maybe they just don't care? I don't know.

There is some presumption about the number of amateurs who actually use the internet, and of those, how many access ham oriented websites.

When I came into this forum to look for replies to my post, I noted that there have been 1173 views of this thread. That number is certainly larger than the actual number of hams who have viewed this thread, but even if every visit was unique, this is still very far from a significant percentage of licensed operators in the U.S.

Add up all of the 'visits' to the threads in this particular ham forum for the last day. Assume (invalidly) that they are all unique visits, and you still end up with a small percentage of the total number of hams.

Is this indicative of the number of hams who use the internet? Is this indicative of the number of hams who visit ham oriented websites? Is this indicative of the number of hams who actually care about this topic?

I don't know, but the answers are important, and certainly relevant when conducting polls.

Again, I have no position here, I am just trying to evaluate everyone else's before I form my own, and it seems that some members on both sides are taking some numbers as if they are gospel and running with them.

Mike, Raleigh, NC

[N5PVL]

I invite you ( or anyone else ) to attempt to cheat at HamPoll, Mike.

Let us know how it goes!

Most polls on this issue reflect the comments on RM-11306 at FCC.Gov... About 80-85% are against it.

Only the AR Newsline poll, easily cheated upon shows results skewed in favor of WinLink.

Gosh, I wonder who was cheating there, and why?