"He" with backing of about two thirds of the Board of Directors, and the Directors are elected by us. . You're exaggerating. The ARRL needs both memberships and donors to survive, as many non-profits do. Members and donors change with time. One of the biggest problems right now is the predominent membership (and donor) demographic are aging out, approaching life expectancy, so that membership is decreasing anyway due to Boomer Die-Off. Faster than is sustainable in the long term. They need to "divest" into other demographics. They're doing that. Or trying to, against resistance. It will take major change to move ARRL out of the 1970s and into the 21st century. "Private country club" ? I have idea what you mean by that. The ARRL has to follow its Articles of Incorporation, the Bylaws, the Connecticut state law for non-stock corporations, and the IRS rules for non-profit organizations. They are doing that. Yes. But will take years before we know what the results will be. Sure, there will be a transient drop in membership due to non-renewals. That is not the "result". Stopping the print QST was not the key thing here - most visible yes - but it's what happens next that really matters. The ARRL isn't going to be like it was 50 years ago. Can't survive like that. Too bad. Support it or don't. Vote for different Directors or don't.
There is demographic buldge as a result of the Space Race involving Sputnik and Oscar 1. Unfortunately for the League, there wasn't a similar bulge from the CB boom in the mid 70s.
I haven't read any posts that argued ARRL should "stay in the past". What I have read, expresses concern about ARRL's future. On the "exaggerating" comment, seems like I'm in good company. Other "exaggerators" include former employees, former board members as well as ARRL members, both past and present have spoken up (Read all the post). There are lots of opinions about what Mr. Minster is doing. This forum is one of many, including on-the-air, that echo the same questions and concerns. BTW, I've heard the expression "private country club" from two sources no longer on the board. Recently many important decisions were tabled, so it's only a matter of time before we know which direction the ARRL will be taken.
The direction is recruiting through clubs, and digital. FT8, specifically, is a real draw for new hams. Friendly, forward looking clubs are another. Take a look at the initiatives with AB1OC and others. WE took the direction to digital (including but not limited to FT8). We just did not fathom the consequences--which is dramatic losses of spectrum at HF/MF in the coming decades. It would be fatuous to look at 'digital' as the enemy (considering it is by far the favorite mode in terms of QSO's at MF/HF) but we sure didn't look to see the downside of its rapid adoption (that downside is fallow use of spectrum). These days 'digital' is really a 'machine to machine' mode rather than a person to person one. The real issue is --can we revisit the past and make digital a viable voice based mode to replace analog legacy modes? Remember: there was the ability to do digital voice on the HF bands 40 years ago...we abandoned it. Abandoning the future is a real American 'thing'. Then we go back to it after decades, Think: the Moon -- for example. Think: the Solar Electric Research Institute circa 1980... Many others, It's not a coincidence that PRC is the leader in both categories in 2024. Can we make the best of both (analog and digital)? Will we? Will the ARRL embrace new innovative approaches to digital voice for hams? Do they even know that is the path to the future? Nope; not yet.MO. But better late than never. 73 Chip W1YW
Why digital voice on HF? Maybe folks just need good information on how to get on analog voice. Maybe a good book or interactive web site where folks can ask questions and get quality answers. How much is this really going to cost?
Unfortunately we do not see ham radio as ham radio is seen by some others. That view is 'behind the times', and an inefficient user of spectrum. Some outsiders view the transition to FT8--and believe me, they know about it-- as a 'first step towards redefining Part 97 as a frequency agile, efficient spectrum partner in the reallocation of HF spectrum'. They thus view a transition to DV as the follow thru engraved by FT8. Less spectrum use. Use on less overall spectrum. Channelized, AI driven cognitive radio. Not my view. 73 Chip W1YW
ARRL HQ posted a job opening for a digital RF engineer but I doubt they offered enough money for anyone to seriously consider it. I assume they withdrew the offer without hiring someone. As I recall Dick Norton said there were only two staffers in the ARRL lab at the time of his talk that was recently posted. Presumably the RFI guy and the Test Engineer.
Chip, I'm in your camp on this one. Although, I haven't entered in the realm of digital modes, I believe they play an important role. You've raised a good question about how it's promoted and utilized. I'm new to the universe of amateur radio. I've really enjoyed the challenge of operating on 10m @ 10 watts. (IC 705). I have confirmed contacts with 43 countries and logged contacts with another 10. However, I plan to eventually learn to use Dstar, DMR and FT8 in the future, however, they will not be my primary focus.
Digital is here to stay. How it replaces/absorbs/emulates legacy modes is key to justifying our spectrum allocations, especially ay MF/HF. This is not a problem in the next few years but will in about a decade. ARDC has the will and the resources to take this in certain directions. That's fine, But all camps, including the ARRL, need to see where its heading and plan on contributing. IOW we either re-invent ourselves and justify the band allocations or some smarmy channelized nerds, with laywer wordsmithing, do it for us. The HFT HF proposal was a harbinger of requests to come. IMO there will be a big push to channelize the whole dang spectrum from 1-30 megs. Digital. AI/ Machine driven cognitive radio or fixed channels. Not my preference, by a logshot. 73 Chip W1YW
I have been a ham since 1972 and belonged to ARRL until 1987. ARRL has been corrupt for as long as I can remember and does not represent any ham. They represent themselves in Newington, CT, and care less of the wants or needs of its members. I have done very well not belonging nor supporting ARRL and I have NO plans to rejoin ever. I am not surprised by this proposal and I see it as more of the same. My question is what reason is there for ARRL to have secrets? Hams send money to Newington, CT to join this corrupt association and many assume that there money they send to ARRL is in the best interests of everybody but it is in the best interests of the top management of ARRL. Why would anyone in their right mind send money to an organization like this to be used in any way they want and to control the organization in any way they desire? It seems transparency has disappeared in many world governments, public corporations, and now nonprofit organizations. When ARRL was formed many years ago, it was a good thing and formed the ham radio fraternity but after the 1970s, the ARRL went sour and was making me sick because of the way it was run by David Summer and others. I look back now and see the foundation that David Summer laid for this kind of dishonest governing of ARRL. I feel vindicated for being so hard on ARRL and now I see they deserved my bad opinion of them. I can honestly see the Directors voting for this trash and weasel words. My boycott of ARRL continues into the future from me. I don't need their fish wrapper, QST.
AGREED..... I dropped from the ranks of membership in October of 2023. But other factors in addition to this contributed to my leaving
Disappointing to see the many folks that are leaving or who have left already and no longer support the ARRL. What is more disappointing are the few sycophants who continue defend the ARRL. I currently choose to be a member, not because I am happy, but because I refuse to associate the bad apples with the entire organization and what it is supposed to represent. For those of you that have left, I can't blame you and only hope one day things will change for the better and you will come back.
Now Tony-- Not everyone sees the ARRL as a punching bag Or a punching bagel for that matter... , Its hard to escape the insinuation (as above), given the alleged 'support', that I am sycophantic. OK, let's go there. Assuming your alleged 'obsequious' assertion, please detail exactly what 'advantage' I am expecting here. For example, I have zero interest in being involved with ARRL leadership. So, what did you have in mind ? If you think that things aren't as they seem, then confront myself and others with your speculation on 'hidden motivations'(?) 73 Chip W1YW
