ARRL membership, with or without a printed magazine is just one of many things I can no longer afford. ARRL has done many good things for Amateur Radio in the past and I very much appreciate LOTW. But if you are retired, disabled and very low income, you would understand that you have control spending on non-essentials. My membership expires the end of May.
It will phase them when they run out of money. They have already been whining about cash flow. Hence the elimination of Physical QST unless you pay more.
While I would like to see a more responsive and representative ARRL, I owe it much for helping me get my 'ticket'. I get the digital QST now, and print any pages that interest specially. Could I afford the $25 a year for paper? Even as a retiree on a fixed income, I do not budget monthly to within $2 and less than a dime, IMHO unbeatable value for a monthly special interest magazine, particularly for a small circulation. However, I wonder at the $59 a year, or $4.92 a month; is this real hardship for Membership? If so, should special dispensation be given to those in special need? I can't help noticing phases like "with their ridiculousness..." and "them when they....". These folks are hams and so are we. We'll probably achieve rather more if we keep this in mind, whatever our differences of opinion. So it seems that we need to engage with those who who have Bylaw 46 under consideration. Engagement should consist of persuasion, encouragement, even exercising the power of a vote. Posting to social media appears the main way ARRL invites comment. I'd like a direct "Contact Us" on the ARRL website. It's hard to appear responsive without one? Engagement surely comes from activity inside the ARRL, rather than largely unsubstantiated insult and negativity from outside. Vote? yes, and make it count. If we think we are represented poorly, then it's up to us to choose those who might do better? -And reward those who effectively labor long and hard on our behalf. Perhaps if we don't vote, we haven't much to say on the Bylaw 46 topic. 73, John KX4QC
I appreciate you heartfelt thoughts, and I 'd say I support them 100%. However, to a growing number of current and former members who track the happenings around the ARRL's leadership, it appears that if they (the top-level leadership) think they are represented poorly (among the voting directors) , then it's up to them to choose those who might do better. A growing number of "dissident" directors and many attempted nominees have been attacked and, in some cases, thrown out by mechanisms designed and executed by the leadership. When doubts are formed about the ability of members to hold the leadership accountable through elections, the organization can lose its legitimacy and respect. I see and feel that happening as more hams become engaged in what it means to be an ARRL member today.
Tempting topic, of course. When hams aren't being hams, they practice on becoming "debate champions" who have never met a topic they wouldn't argue with. That said... I agree about the overall problem created by the ARRL in their proposed ByLaw 46. The thing is... the league is late in facing some huge business problems. Here's some additional context as I see it... I remember back in the late 1990's, my wife and I were walking out of a major retailer and someone at a temporary desk said, "Could we interest you in the Indianapolis Star?" Even at that point, I'm thinking... do people STILL read the newspaper?? But no thanks... I can get my news read to me 24 hrs a day in 30 minute segments on "headline news" cable channels. Heck, we got to watch AJ Cowlings drive OJ Simpson around in a Ford Bronco in real-time. There's no way the newspaper could provide better coverage. (As a result of having the news read to people, people don't read as much anymore; like CW, a vanishing skill). The league has almost based its entire businses on selling a magazine (QST, of course). And now, while my buddy Josh (KI6NAZ) has 328,000 subscribers on his popular Ham Radio Crash Course channel on YouTube... the ARRL is left holding the baggage created by an addiction to magazine sales. They really want... and NEED to unload the magazine in some way. But how? Option #1 - eliminate the magazine and reduce the annual membership costs. Make it an optional add-on. This, of course, would result in lower top-line revenue. But it might enable them to be more profitable. In this case, you likely need to honor the contract made with life members and the current annual members. So it would phase in. Option #2 - increase the membership cost for those who opt-in to receiving the magazine. This would actually increase top-line revenue and pays for the magazine expenses, but lots of unhappy people who purchased life memberships who want their contract honored ("12 issues of QST via First-Class Mail® for a current Life Member"). So the league is trying to solve these problems. They want to have these conversations with their Directors. But word "gets out" and they find themselves trying to defend themselves from speculation, rather than decisions. In the end, they're legally bound to "the Sunshine Law" and they should conduct business with full transparency. I just think that we... particularly those of us who are members... need to be more patient and wait until they make a proposal to members. Well, finally... the tone at the league has changed considerably since the appointment of their current CEO. He's a bright guy (as all CIOs are). But I don't think it's a style that works well for a non-profit entity. Just my opinion... Mike, WA9PIE
So it has been said, but it is just about the only ham radio publication that is available for new member recruitment. It has moved on from the '20s and now we need ham radio members to reflect USA today. There's not a lot to pass around to show what we do. 700k hams, 160k ARRL members -that's a big recruitment gap, both for Ham radio and particularly ARRL. Until we tell the public what we are doing at Clubs, Field Days, Fests, Tailgates, POA... nobody will ever know, or think of joining us. Ham radio is like a language. Unless the speakers actively pass it on, it is just a generation away from gone for ever. We can't let that happen. There's a lot of fun to pass on, education, public service, usefulness too. While it might be fun to snipe at ARRL, even from a safe distance outside it, I suspect in the end it comes down to us. We grow Amateur Radio, and its representative organizations, and that needs more effort than most are currently willing to give? I do so hope that I'm wrong about that last bit!
I dropped out of the ARRL when they lied to the FCC about a survey of ham's thoughts on keeping CW or not. They lied. CW was dropped and we now have much lower quality in our ranks.
I apologize if I am of lower quality, but be assured I too am trying my little bit to get this fine thing called Amateur Radio to be good for all of us, and most important, for the next generation of hams. Yes, like many modern hams I use CW, even though it wasn't required in the exam. Like many, I learned it after. Terrible? (Yes, I too am aghast at the appalling quality of my fist.) There are many hams writing this thread who take the trouble to say that they have dropped out of ARRL and condemn this or that aspect of ARRL mostly from outside it, and sometimes from far into the past. How did leaving ARRL improve these irritating shortcomings? While it may be fashionable to note that in general we seem to be going somewhere downwards (and why are we in this handbasket?), we enjoy the future that was built (imperfectly) by those who came before us; the obligation is now passed to us to make a better job of ARRL if we can? I have doubts about Bylaw 46, and much else. Despite these misgivings, I have no intention of leaving ARRL, as I believe remaining in it is likely more effective and constructive to getting it better. I could always save my sub, but it is the bad things as well as the good things that make me stay. Would ARRL be better if more than the current just 160k of the 700k hams were members? It could certainly claim to be more representative. Would hams in general then be happier, or maybe we are just an incurably curmudgeonly lot! I rather hope not. 73, John KX4QC https://NoEyeDeer.org
Better to stay in and help vote them out there is strength in larger numbers, rather than abandoning ship and let them do the destruction.
There's really no way for this to happen. If you believe this is possible you need to review the actions of the board regarding director elections and the E&E committee for the last 25 years or so. Your only actual vote is with your feet. The path they're taking has been chosen and is going to happen. If it were a matter of differing opinion I'd stick with it, but I can't support their unethical practice. Mark K5LXP Albuquerque, NM
I suspect that we get the representatives that we choose. If most choose not to choose, then elections are won by the active few -who might not be a fair representation of most. Then those who didn't vote complain.... It seems there is rare agreement here that representation at ARRL is not ideal. The options proposed are vote to improve the representation, or chuck the towel in. I'd give the last option more serious thought if only the supporters of it suggested a viable alternative to the ARRL. Did I miss a considered suggestion? So, the ARRL might be ugly and not behaving as we wish, but for now it is unavoidably our "baby", for better or worse. I hope and argue for better.
vasily blokhin is the model of enforcement most loved by tyrants but Bill Gates , Klaus Schwab and Noah Harari have easier methods.
