ARRL

Discussion in 'Ham Radio Discussions' started by KF6UEB, Nov 9, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: Left-2
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Subscribe
  1. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    Ed:

    I definitely am not criticizing those who wrote for QST during the many years for which they were not paid for the articles. There were some very good authors who wrote some very good articles. Of course that is also not to say that there are not some very good articles published in QST today (or that there were also some real "dogs" as well!). QST also had some excellent people on staff who were very good at writing, especially those few who really knew what they were writing about yet could bring themselves down to the level of the begining amateur without being condensending. That takes a very particular skill. It is way too easy to either write above the technical level of the begining amateur or to write in such a manner as to demean the beginner. People like Doug DeMaw, Ed Tilton, and several others really did a great job.

    I was tending to get the idea that you were being critical of those who wrote for money back in the 60s and 70s rather than writing just for QST, but I don't think that is what you were actually implying, at least I hope that is correct!

    As far as the ARRL doing what the majority of the membership wants may definitely be true now days. But, when incentive licensing was brought forth in its final form, the majority of the membership was against how it was implemented. Unfortunately, the headquarter's staff was apparently in favor of how it was implemented, at least that is the impression that I got. Also, when the FCC not only stopped the second level of privilege loss, but also intended to recind most of what had already taken place, the ARRL staff definitely lobbied not to have this happen. This is mentioned in one small entry in the back of QST in the very small print. I came across it a month or two ago while reading through some of my old issues. Of course, I didn't make a note of which issue and I have been looking for the one paragraph notation ever since! That is one item of history that I had no previous knowlege of!

    The restoration of privileges to those who were licensed prior to 22 November 1967 is, unfortunately, of no interest to the vast majority of persons now licensed. It doesn't apply to them, so why bother. Also, since they were never affected, they simply say "forget it", or are of the impression that restoration would somehow "hurt" them and are thus opposed to it. Yet, many of these same persons are definitely wanting more privileges for themselves, privileges which they have not previously earned. Those persons who were affected by incentive licensing lost privileges which they had earned previously. That is the difference.

    Myself and the majority of amateur radio operators were in favor of some sort of incentive licensing. But, virtually everyone thought of this in a positive manner, not the negative manner in which it was implemented. That is one reason that the ARRL can say that the vast majority of the membership at the time was in favor of incentive licensing. That is very true. Unfortunately, the manner in which incentive licensing came about was not favored by the majority of ARRL members or by even a significant minority of the amateur radio operator population as a whole.

    As for the staff knowing that I was capable of writing articles (and so were numerous others) they certainly did know it. Roy Albright was a friend of mine and he was the only person affiliated with the ARRL who ever asked me to write any articles and did this to try to get QST on board with the "latest and greatest" in the VHF FM world. Another factor is that by the time the ARRL had "discovered" FM, I was affiliated with CQ as the first FM Editor of that publication. Thus, it would have been a conflict of interest for me to write for QST. Before the ARRL "discovered" FM, Roy was told by the ARRL staff that anything worthwhile about FM had been published in QST. When he was asked for a list of articles, he was given a total of three! One was actually written by Edwin Armstrong before he committed suicide and the other two were about using NBFM on 75 and 10 meters! Roy actually got a "charge" out of this since he had met with so much resistance from the staff to start promoting FM. Frankly, he couldn't believe that the staff actually thought that the three articles listed represented "everything that there was to need to know about FM". But, that is definitely what happened!

    You have to remember that the SSB / AM wars hadn't been really over for very long when the idea of FM really came about. I don't have any real knowledge of this, but I think that this may have played some part in the reluctance of the ARRL staff to endorse a "new" mode (not really "new", but "new" to the vast majority of amateurs). They just were not prepared to "take on" what could have become another battle of the modes. Fortunately, this really did not happen. Granted that the AM operation on especially 2 meters did suffer, but the number of amateurs who started operating on the VHF bands using FM grew exponentially over the next decade and did much to garner new operators for the service. SSB operation was not affected by any degree that I have ever been able to tell.

    As for those who post on QRZ.com and who post on other Internet sites instead of writing for QST, I can only say that it happens! If you look at either of my websites ( http://home.attbi.com/~zcomco and http://home.attbi.com/~k9sth ) you will see that I have posted a number of articles. Some of them have been published previously in 73, Electric Radio, etc. Others are a synopsis of the presentations that I do on lightning protection and grounding. Still others are just up there because I wanted to put them there! All are copyrighted (under the copyright law of the United States persuant to the Berne Convention everything is copyrighted when conceived) and just because I have put them up for the benefit of others does not release any of them into public domain.

    I am not "bragging" when I say that I can turn out an article in an evening. Virtually all experienced authors can do this without any problems at all. It is just that some people have a gift of being able to write. There are others who have great ideas, but just can't put together a comprehensive sentence when attempting to write their ideas on paper. Over the decades I have been the editor and/or publisher of a number of publications including some by national and international organizations. I have always encouraged people to write articles even if they "can't write". I have re-written numerous articles to get them in a form that could be published. However, I never take any credit for the re-write. Many times the original author really couldn't tell that his/her article had been completely redone since they had actually forgotten what they had really written, they only remembered the subject matter. Hey, getting material in a form in which it can be published was part of my job. Taking credit for the re-write was, at least to me, completely immaterial. It was the getting of the article published that was the main objective.

    Money is a factor,and when someone is making money from what I write, I want a piece of the pie. But, when some local organization asks permission to reprint one of my articles I have always allowed them to do so provided that they meet the following criteria: The article must be printed in its entirity with no editing at all. I must be given full and absolute credit as being the author. The notation that the material is copyrighted (even though this is automatic under the copyright law of the United States) must be indicated as well as the notation that it was reprinted with my permission. The publication in which the article is published must not be for sale (the only money that can change hands is for things like club dues, etc.). Finally, a "hard copy" of the complete final publication must be sent to me. Now, for things that are on my websites, most of the "hard stuff" is taken care of. All that the publication editor has to do is to add that it was reproduced with my permission. The sending of the complete final publication is a courtesy that should be given to all persons who's material is contained therein. If someone wants to sell the publication, then I insist on getting paid. That is only fair. So far, I have had a few requests to use my material in a publication that is for sale and when I inform them that I need to be paid for the material, they seem to lose interest! The people want to use what I have created but not pay for it.

    Anyway, if you got the idea that I look down on someone for contributing material for nothing to the ARRL that is certainly wrong. Many organizations, especially the smaller ones, depend totally on volunteer writers for their publications. They just can't afford to pay anything. But, those organizations that have large publications that are supported by advertising, most of them do pay for articles. By the way, back when I was a Novice class licensee I did have something published in QST! It was a letter to the editor in 1959 (don't remember just what month's issue).

    Glen, K9STH
     
  2. W1RFI

    W1RFI Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ Dec. 21 2002,15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I was tending to get the idea that you were being critical of those who wrote for money back in the 60s and 70s rather than writing just for QST, but I don't think that is what you were actually implying, at least I hope that is correct![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Of course I don't begrudge those that make a buck from writing articles. I would do the same if it were not a conflict of interest. :) I will cap that one off, though, by saying that it appears to me that the experiment of paying authors a month's salary to write ham articles was a failure -- the magazines no longer do it and I believe that CQ has a smaller circulation now than it had then. I am glad that ARRL used the money for other things. :) But the fact that ARRL was not willing to pay you a month's salary to write articles about FM is a far cry from their opposing the introduction of FM. I am curious -- just what years are we talking here? I want to go into the ARRL Library on Monday and do a bit of research. It will be interesting for me to see all of the advertisements in CQ that did not appear in QST until ARRL made the big changeover. What year would you say that ARRL changed over to supporting FM and repeaters? You can, of course, expect to see a detailed post of my search results. :)

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As far as the ARRL doing what the majority of the membership wants may definitely be true now days.  But, when incentive licensing was brought forth in its final form, the majority of the membership was against how it was implemented. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    From N2EY's analysis, a slim majority favored some form of incentive licensing. I imagine it was kind of like the recent restructuring -- most hams had their own specific idea of how amateur radio should be changed, and they were all different so no solution would have had a majority support.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Unfortunately, the headquarter's staff was apparently in favor of how it was implemented, at least that is the impression that I got.  Also, when the FCC not only stopped the second level of privilege loss, but also intended to recind most of what had already taken place, the ARRL staff definitely lobbied not to have this happen. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I cannot imagine that the role of the HQ staff then was any different than it is now -- staff do not set ARRL policy. Even our President, Jim Haynie, does not set ARRL policy. Policy is set by the ARRL Board of Directors. And trust me, if they do, staff does NOT take it upon themselves to lobby the FCC for anything different.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">This is mentioned in one small entry in the back of QST in the very small print.  I came across it a month or two ago while reading through some of my old issues.  Of course, I didn't make a note of which issue and I have been looking for the one paragraph notation ever since!  That is one item of history that I had no previous knowlege of![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Maybe Jim, N2EY, knows whereof you speak. Are you sure it wasn't in 73 magazine, because what you describe is not in line with employment policy.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The restoration of privileges to those who were licensed prior to 22 November 1967 is, unfortunately, of no interest to the vast majority of persons now licensed.  It doesn't apply to them, so why bother.  Also, since they were never affected, they simply say &quot;forget it&quot;, or are of the impression that restoration would somehow &quot;hurt&quot; them and are thus opposed to it.  Yet, many of these same persons are definitely wanting more privileges for themselves, privileges which they have not previously earned.  Those persons who were affected by incentive licensing lost privileges which they had earned previously.  That is the difference.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    You are preaching to the choir on the lost privileges. As I said, I think that Generals and Advanced should have been grandfathered. But to fix it now, 30 years later? As I said, I think the issue would add to our divisiveness, not resolve it. Perhaps with the code-test changes, many of those Generals and Advanced class ops can more easily upgrade and that may be all the change that was needed. (I do hope you start a new thread to discuss this aspect of our discussion; I think it would be more meaningful starting with someone who doesn't work for ARRL HQ. :) ).

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for the staff knowing that I was capable of writing articles (and so were numerous others) they certainly did know it.  Roy Albright was a friend of mine and he was the only person affiliated with the ARRL who ever asked me to write any articles and did this to try to get QST on board with the &quot;latest and greatest&quot; in the VHF FM world.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    It seems, then, sir, that you were indeed asked. :)

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another factor is that by the time the ARRL had &quot;discovered&quot; FM, I was affiliated with CQ as the first FM Editor of that publication.  Thus, it would have been a conflict of interest for me to write for QST.  Before the ARRL &quot;discovered&quot; FM, Roy was told by the ARRL staff that anything worthwhile about FM had been published in QST.  When he was asked for a list of articles, he was given a total of three!  One was actually written by Edwin Armstrong before he committed suicide and the other two were about using NBFM on 75 and 10 meters!  Roy actually got a &quot;charge&quot; out of this since he had met with so much resistance from the staff to start promoting FM.  Frankly, he couldn't believe that the staff actually thought that the three articles listed represented &quot;everything that there was to need to know about FM&quot;.  But, that is definitely what happened![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    The Armstrong article was in 1920. By 1948, there had been at least 3 definitive FM articles in QST, and by the time SSB started, there had been dozens. That list of 3 was woefully understated.

    If anyone were to say that all that could be written about FM TODAY has already been written, they would be wrong, IMHO. If that really was said, (after all, you are getting it second hand, and I am getting it third hand), that would be a might stupid thing for someone to say. If an ARRL Director had stars in his eyes about something and talked to me and I said something like that, I would still be smarting from the lashing I would get. :)

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for those who post on QRZ.com and who post on other Internet sites instead of writing for QST, I can only say that it happens!  If you look at either of my websites ( http://home.attbi.com/~zcomco and http://home.attbi.com/~k9sth ) you will see that I have posted a number of articles.  Some of them have been published previously in 73, Electric Radio, etc.  Others are a synopsis of the presentations that I do on lightning protection and grounding.  Still others are just up there because I wanted to put them there!  All are copyrighted (under the copyright law of the United States persuant to the Berne Convention everything is copyrighted when conceived) and just because I have put them up for the benefit of others does not release any of them into public domain.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I think that the web had had a major, positive impact on amateur radio and I am pleased as punch to see what hams are doing for their fellow hams. I guess we are lucky that they don't require a month's pay to do it -- as apparently you no longer do, either. :)

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I am not &quot;bragging&quot; when I say that I can turn out an article in an evening.  Virtually all experienced authors can do this without any problems at all. It is just that some people have a gift of being able to write. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Sounds about the same for me. I could actually make almost enough to make it worthwhile at QST rates. It was not a gift for me, though; when I first started writing, the Editors told me I wrote &lt;poorly&gt;. It took a lot of writing to be able to whip out a comprehensible article quickly. This does, of course, mean that there is hope for nearly anyone! :)

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Money is a factor,and when someone is making money from what I write, I want a piece of the pie.  &lt;snip&gt; So far, I have had a few requests to use my material in a publication that is for sale and when I inform them that I need to be paid for the material, they seem to lose interest!  The people want to use what I have created but not pay for it.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    I think that a not-for-profit organization that uses the money the way ARRL does might pose an interesting test of the philosophy. Of course, the Editor always edits the material and ARRL does want to own the copyright so that it can use it as wanted for future projects, so those factors alone will probably keep you away.

    73,
    Ed Hare, W1RFI
     
  3. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    As for the advertisements, etc., I am talking about the 1966 to 1971-2 time frame, probably more in the late 60s. I would also have to dig out my old copes of the magazines. Also, before I became the FM Editor of CQ in 1971, they did not have anywhere near as much advertising of FM equipment as after I started. 73 had the lion's share during that time. In addition, when I stopped writing for them because, frankly, they hadn't paid me for several months, a good number of the full page (as well as the smaller) FM advertisers stopped advertising as their contracts ran out. They could have paid me off with the proceeds from a single full page advertiser! But, Cowan had to learn the hard way.

    As for CQ as opposed to 73: Cowan had a reputation for not paying the bills prior to 1970. Then, for a couple of years they did pay on time. But, by 1973, Cowan was again not paying his bills. That is why I ceased writing for them in the summer of 1973 (they never did pay me what I was due!). 73, during the 1960s and 1970s, paid not only very well, but paid on the acceptance of the article, not when it was published, or at some time after it was published. You didn't get an acceptance letter, you got a cheque with the notation as to what article it was for! Then, before 73 published an article they definitely sent you a copy of the paste-ups so that you could catch any errors. Unfortunatley, CQ usually did not do this and some glaring mistakes crept into some of the articles.

    I don't mind some editing by a national magazine, this is expected. What I object to is some local newsletter editor editing something that has been previously published, etc. Frankly, I am a better editor than the vast majority of local newsletter editors. This is a matter of over 40 years experience! However, I won't give up the copyright for what the ARRL pays! That copyright is often worth a lot more in the long run than what one is paid for the QST article. The fact that the ARRL can get a lot more mileage out of an article by reprinting it in handbooks, etc., shows that the copyright is indeed worth a lot more than what they paid originally. I would not object to some time-limit arrangement (such as 3 years) whereby the ARRL would have exclusive reprint privileges upon payment of further funds, the amount to be agreed upon depending on the actual use of the article. That certainly would be fair. But, to give up the complete ownership of the copyright, that is another matter!

    As far as the incentive licensing subject goes: There have been various threads on QRZ.com in the past. Frankly, most of the old timers are in favor of the reinstatement of privileges and most of the newcomers could care less. There are a few of people who are violently opposed, but most of them were not affected by what happened in 1967. Once-in-a-while someone who was affected is opposed, but they are in the minority.

    Back when the magazines were paying such high prices for good articles, they were riding high in advertising revenue and subscriptions. They were making money and knew that they had to spend money to make even more. But, like all good things, it came to an end. For an article that would have gone for up to $1000 in the 60s and well into the 70s, by the mid 1980s, the magazines weren't even paying a full $200. 73 was no longer paying upon acceptance, CQ had changed hands, Ham Radio was bought out by CQ, etc. Now both 73 and CQ have gotten the reputation of taking forever to pay their authors. I haven't written for CQ since 1973 and it has been well over 2 years since the last time I wrote something for 73.

    The &quot;story&quot; about the 3 FM articles was related directly to me by Roy Albright in the early 1970s (Roy was from San Antonio). He was sitting in my shack in Richardson, Texas, at the time. A. Prose Walker, when he was with the FCC, sat in my shack (along with the executive committee of the Richardson Wireless Klub - K5RWK - he worked for Collins Radio for years and had quite a number of friends who had been transferred to the new Collins corporate HQ in Richardson), and there was a staff member from the ARRL headquarters who's name I cannot remember (and I should be &quot;shot&quot; for forgetting his name!) who came down in late 1973 or ealy 1974 to speak at the RWK meeting who spent a number of hours in my shack meeting with the executive committee as well.

    As I said way back in this particular thread, I am not &quot;anti-ARRL&quot;, I just have my reasons for not belonging. I also would be very dissapointed if you, Ed, did not do your best to try to influence me, and the others who inhabit QRZ.com who are not ARRL members, to rejoin (or join in the first place). I have not been a member for about a quarter-of-a-century and, at least right now, have no inclination of rejoining. If the ARRL were to actively support the reinstatement of privileges lost prior to 1967 I would certainly consider rejoining. But, when I was a member, I was definitely told by the staff that it was not &quot;fair&quot; to those who had gotten the Extra class to reinstate privileges for those who had lost them. That did not sit well with me then, and if it is still the attitude of either the staff or the board, then it would take some real &quot;talking&quot; and changes in other areas (which I won't go into at all) to even get me to consider rejoining.

    Anyway, the discussion keeps going in circles! I have outlined my position several times as have others on both sides of the question. Thus, I think that I will see if this thread will die a natural death! There is certainly no reason to put it out of its misery since virtually everyone has been on his/her best behavior and have commented in a very adult, concise manner. Since certain topics always seem to draw out the worst behavior in certain people, this particular topic has, with a few exceptions, gone on pretty well.

    Glen, K9STH
     
  4. W1RFI

    W1RFI Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (K9STH @ Dec. 21 2002,22:25)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The fact that the ARRL can get a lot more mileage out of an article by reprinting it in handbooks, etc., shows that the copyright is indeed worth a lot more than what they paid originally.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Yes, the mileage that ARRL gets out of reprinting and reusing material is real and tangile -- funding for my RFI work for one and the new signal generator ARRL bought last year to replace our aging HP8640B, just as two examples near and dear to my heart. That is indeed worth a lot more than the League paid for the copyright, and I thank those that contributed.
     
    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would not object to some time-limit arrangement (such as 3 years) whereby the ARRL would have exclusive reprint privileges upon payment of further funds, the amount to be agreed upon depending on the actual use of the article.  That certainly would be fair.  But, to give up the complete ownership of the copyright, that is another matter![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    One less trip to one of the industry committees to work on RFI, perhaps? :) Fortunately, there are quite a number of hams who are willing to make the contribution, and be paid enough to take the other half out to dinner to make up for the time spent pecking at the keyboard. :)

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have not been a member for about a quarter-of-a-century and, at least right now, have no inclination of rejoining.  If the ARRL were to actively support the reinstatement of privileges lost prior to 1967 I would certainly consider rejoining.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    If I got the drift of our earlier discussion, you agreed with me that more than likely, most ARRL members would not support such a move (again, I may be wrong, of course.

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Thus, I think that I will see if this thread will die a natural death!  There is certainly no reason to put it out of its misery since virtually everyone has been on his/her best behavior and have commented in a very adult, concise manner.  Since certain topics always seem to draw out the worst behavior in certain people, this particular topic has, with a few exceptions, gone on pretty well.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

    Well, that is because the moderator does such a fine job at reminding people why we should discuss issues, not peronality, if we want to get things done. :)

    But a couple of important questions have gone unanswered. I have outlined a rather long list of the programs and actions ARRL is taking for amateur radio, from spectrum advocacy to RFI to educational initiatives and a number more. Do you believe that amateur radio would be better of if ARRL were not doing those things? Do you feel that your reasons for not being an ARRL member are important enough that you would be willing to let those things die a natural death, too? Because if the 165,000 current members made that same decision, all of that would come to an abrupt end.

    Thanks for an interesting discussion. The last word is yours -- more than likely -- for now. :)

    73,
    Ed Hare, W1RFI
     
  5. K9STH

    K9STH Platinum Subscriber Volunteer Moderator Platinum Subscriber QRZ Page

    I have never said that some things that the ARRL does are not beneficial to amateur radio, and Ed has pointed out some things that are definitely beneficial. However, over the years there have been things that they have done (in my opinion) that have definitely not been beneficial. It is my personal opinion that the bad outweighs the good. But, for many amateurs who do support the ARRL it is the other way around and I am not one to criticize their involvement unlike a very few persons on both sides of the situation.

    I personally know a number of life members including a former long time ARRL staff member who say that if they weren't already life members that they would drop their membership, that the ARRL is just not worth it. I know people who think the ARRL can do no bad as well as those who think the ARRL can do no good. The actual situation is somewhere in the middle and each individual amateur radio operator has to make his/her own decision as to the status of their membership. I have made mine and I encourage every amateur to look at the entire picture and make their own decision. If the &quot;scales&quot; tip in favor of the ARRL in their mind, then definitely become / remain a member. If the &quot;scales&quot; tip the other way, then do not become a member.

    Ed has presented a viable argument for becoming a member. Several other people have presented arguments against becoming a member. It is for everyone to look at the entire situation and make their own decision. I can't make it for you, Ed can't make it for you, only you can make the decision.

    Glen, K9STH
     
  6. AE4FA

    AE4FA Ham Member QRZ Page

    Ed:

    You wrote quite an epistle in response to my post. I’ll probably get around to most of it in piecemeal fashion.

    Regarding recruiting:

    If I, volunteering my time, wanted to teach a Tech with HF class (there’s no way in hell I’ll teach a No-Code class) using ARRL materials – say for ten students – I’m looking at spending:
    $149 for the video tape and one course book
    $261 for nine additional course books
    $209 for eleven copies of “Now You’re Talking”
    or $619 total, or $61.90 per student. If I fill out a piece of paper to become an “ARRL Registered Volunteer Instructor,” I would get a 25% discount on everything but the videotape – still a total of $501.50, or $50.15 per student.

    Then those ten folks pay another $12 (as of 1 January) in testing fees. So we’re up to a total of either $73.90 or $62.15 per student – just to get licensed. Those folks are then looking at buying equipment to get on the air.

    About that time, they get a letter from ARRL inviting them to join. Maybe they’ll wonder why they should, considering that they’ve already sent a good bit of money to CT. They might wonder, “what service? I paid for everything I got.”

    How much revenue would those ten folks, or eleven including me, provide the ARRL just in membership fees, say over a ten-year period? At today’s rate it would be $4290. Reckon they’d be interested in a Handbook, antenna book, or other resources somewhere along the line?

    Did we just miss a great opportunity?

    Wonder what would happen if we (and I say we because I am a member) offered a special “student membership” at the regular rate of $39, which would give them a year’s worth of QST, a copy of “Now You’re Talking,” a voucher for the exam fee (if taken at an ARRL VE session) and maybe some other goodies.

    Wonder what would happen if, when these “student memberships” are initiated as part of a class, the ARRL would provide a year’s worth of QST, a copy of “Now You’re Talking,” a voucher providing a credit for the exam fee, a manual for the registered instructor, and perhaps a loaner copy of the videotape (with a refundable deposit).

    Maybe I’m just a crazy old coot, but I think a scheme like this would provide a hell of an incentive. Folks tend to view things on the basis of, “what have you done for me lately?” This would give them a real sense that ARRL helped them – provided a valuable service. Besides, its much easier to renew something that has proven valuable than to sign up when the value is unknown.

    73, Bob
     
  7. N0PU

    N0PU QRZ Member QRZ Page

    FA:

    That makes sense to me...
    In either case, the first contact with the Group allows the group to show it's true colors... money grubbin' gold diggers or benevolent ole grandfathers wanting to help...

    Let me think now...which picture are they gettin' now?
     
  8. N3XPF

    N3XPF Ham Member QRZ Page

    FA. I like that idea as well. Plus (I mean this in the most positive sense) there is still ample time to plug (continued) League membership in the class. It won't seem so &quot;out there&quot; if they're getting some stuff for free.

    The real estate classes I took did sort of the same thing. They had a bundle package which included the textbook, text specific to the class and PA law, and two sets of audiotapes for a combined savings of $165 or so versus buying everything seperately. The implication was something &quot;if we're this good to you NOW, just wait 'til you need your continuing education credits!&quot;

    What is the going rate for ARRL membership nowadays? It's been quite a while since I was a member and I don't think I qualify for the youth rate anymore [​IMG]

    And here's a question for RFI. I might be putting you on the spot here, so don't feel pressured to answer. Does the major $ difference between regular and blind membership really all go to the magazine? I'd be happy to be a member without QST just to get into the members only parts of the website. Don't get me wrong--I like QST--but I don't have the time to read a magazine usually. Heck, I have Newsweeks unread from September sitting here. I'd rather save some trees and a few $$$ and join without QST if it's all the same to the League.
     
  9. WB0WAO

    WB0WAO Ham Member QRZ Page

    Well, I wrote an article for CQ on satellite operating around 1989 and they paid for that time a &quot;reasonable&quot; amount, but no where near the 3 months take home!  CQ approached me to write it, and that itself was an honor.  I also used to write the DX column in Oscar Satellite Report for a while, and payment was in the form of a free subscription to it.  So, I guess I can be called a &quot;published author&quot; [​IMG]
      IMHO, most of the hams that write and submit articles are doing it because they enjoy it.  They want to share their knowledge and/or experience with others.  The payment, if any, is just an added bonus and should not be the reason for writing the article.  Would I submit an article to QST?  Yes, if there was something on a subject that I thought would be of interest.  Would I mind if I gave up the copyright to the ARRL?  No, not really.  Would I mind if they reprinted it in other publications?  No, I would be honored that they did.  Would I submit that article even if they did not pay me?  Sure, why not?  Remember folks, we do this ham radio stuff for FUN, not to make a buck.  Hey, if I do send in an article, and they send me a $65 check, that is great - you won't hear me complain.  $65 will buy a fair amount of components for me to let the smoke out of!
      Just my thoughts on this.


    72/73

    Dennis - WB0WAO
     
  10. W1RFI

    W1RFI Ham Member QRZ Page

    </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N3XPF @ Dec. 24 2002,01:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">And here's a question for RFI.  I might be putting you on the spot here, so don't feel pressured to answer.  Does the major $ difference between regular and blind membership really all go to the magazine?  I'd be happy to be a member without QST just to get into the members only parts of the website.  Don't get me wrong--I like QST--but I don't have the time to read a magazine usually.  Heck, I have Newsweeks unread from September sitting here.  I'd rather save some trees and a few $$$ and join without QST if it's all the same to the League.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
    Actually, QST magazine doesn't cost as much as it pays. ARRL's revenues are divided between dues, advertising, sales of publications, contributions and a smattering of fees (reprint costs, awards, etc.)

    Although there are indeed costs associated with QST, the dues dollars are supplemented by the revenue that advertsing brings in. Without QST and the advertisers, if ARRL were to continue to do all of what it does, membership would have to be more than the $39 per year current rate. My IEEE membership runs me over $120 per year.

    I figure that if advertisers are willing to pay for some of the benefit I receive from being an ARRL member, I am willing to flip past the pages for ads I have already seen to get more bang for my membership buck.

    73,
    Ed Hare, W1RFI
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page