HR2.0 - YouTubers Bunch Discusses the ARRL, Part 2

Discussion in 'Amateur Radio News' started by KC5HWB, Dec 18, 2019.

ad: L-HROutlet
ad: l-rl
ad: Left-2
ad: Left-3
ad: L-MFJ
ad: MessiPaoloni-1
ad: Subscribe
  1. KC5HWB

    KC5HWB Ham Member QRZ Page

    In our 6th installment of the YouTubers Bunch Collaboration, we discuss the ARRL once again, including some comments made on our first video by some subscribers. I'd like to thank Rob, Josh, Kyle, Christian and Mike for joining me in this installment.



     
    WOODSIE and WA6QGH like this.
  2. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    1) The ARRL backed off from the last version of the Parity Act because the wording was fatal to ham radio.

    The reversal tied into the changes of directors and counsel, based on membership mandates.

    Put simply---they listened.

    OK:)? Dats the Facts...

    2) BTW, the 'science of antennas' has most definitely changed...

    3) the problem with 'dumbed down ' articles is that the BOOKS already cover that. The suggestions in this podcast are quite good . But they most certainly occur to 'Newington'.

    4) Getting youth interested is a huge push for ALL organizations in ham radio, not just ARRL:)

    ;-)
     
    Last edited: Dec 20, 2019
    HB9AIS likes this.
  3. K4FMH

    K4FMH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    The ARPA CC&R comment by one of your listeners is in error on what happened to the Parity Act in the Senate. (Then) Sen Nelson (R-FL) did not kill the bill. The ARRL negotiators, Chris Imlay (lawyer) and Mike Lisenco (Hudson Division Director) made a concession agreement with the CAI (the "ARRL" of HOAs) to require all HOA-governed hams get PRIOR approval before installing one and this would require existing HOA-bound hams (like me) with attic antennas to take them down and then do a "Mother, May I" request to an HOA.

    The League did NOT get this bill submitted in the Senate. I DID though my Senator, Roger Wicker (R-MS). The ARRL was told by Sen. Wicker's staff (he was the chair of the oversight committee for the FCC in the Senate, the one in which the bill was assigned to). The ARRL negotiators were told directly by Sen Wicker's staff that this was a constituent request (from me) and that they must keep me in the loop on the negotiations. Not only did they not keep me in the loop, Mr. Lisenco called me up one day (don't know how he got my cell number) and told me I could no longer talk with my Senator as HE was in charge of this bill, now. I wished him a nice day but that he or no one at the ARRL would tell me that I could not communicate with members of my Congressional delegation. I met with ARRL President Rick Roderick at the MFJ Enterprises 45th Anniversary (I was serving as EmCee) and relayed this call from Lisenco to him. He looked at me and said bluntly, "Well, it's going to mark-up on Wednesday so that's that!" While I respect Rick Roderick, I could not longer support the last ditch "Mother, May I" agreement by Lisenco and Imlay. Neither lives in an HOA neighborhood. Imlay has TWO towers behind his house and Lisenco lives in a "row house" without any real concern over CC&Rs. (This comes from Google Earth satellite imaging to their license address.) The following Monday, I called Sen Wicker's staff and told them that I could no longer support the current bill's language and that the ARRL negotiators had not only refused to keep me informed but they had told me to not communicate with them. The next day, Tuesday, the bill was pulled from the "mark-up" session of the Sub-Committee, killing the ARPA legislation. And, Sen Wicker is Chair of the Committee that it will almost have to go through. The sad thing is that we had it positioned to become an add-on to the FCC Reauthorization Bill, which no one would stop, IF Lisenco and Imlay had only kept me in the loop. But that horse, as they say, left the stable.

    I've discussed this when I was co-hosting the W5KUB Amateur Radio Roundtable and later as Presenter on the ICQ Podcast.

    The League is now writing a new language for a new bill. Not that they have to consult me but I will not support their bill unless I can do so.
     
    N1KDO likes this.
  4. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    I have a name and a callsign--but I can see your convention here is to not engage. OK. Reciprocated.

    No one said the bill was killed...its dying its own death. The point is the ARRL abandoned support of the bill as written.

    We are not talking fine points. The failure to support has been a conscious effort by the board.

    Don't confuse a 'new' bill with an abandonment of the old.

    If you wish to dispute that then go talk to the directors. Not the OUSTED directors.

    In case you didn't notice, Mr. Lisenco was not 'renewed' by the members of his division.

    You can 'consult' with the director(s) the same way anyone else can: call them up.

    Don't correct me when there is no error.

    Thanks.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2019
  5. NN4RH

    NN4RH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    There were two versions of ARPA. The first version was ARRL's language only, and was patterned after the Federal Preemption (i.e., the "reasonable accommodation" of state & local government).

    If I am not mistaken, that first version is the version that K4FMH initially communicated to Senator Wicker.

    However, there was strong resistance to that version from the Community Association Institute (CAI). According to a source at the ARRL, it was understood that bill had ZERO chance of going anywhere, so the House committee told the ARRL to reach a compromise with the CAI and try again.

    Again, according to the ARRL source, both sides refused to talk to each other and no compromise was reached.

    So, the House committee had a staffer write a new version of the bill, mixing together parts of the ARRL language with CAI language. As it turned out, the new bill's preamble was more or less the ARRL language, except "reasonable accommodation" went away and "effective outdoor antenna" showed up; but the operative parts of it gave CAI everything they wanted and would have been a disaster for hams.

    My understanding was that the ARRL accepted that version, on the theory that something was better than nothing, with the hope they could fiddle with it later in the FCC proceeding. That so-called "compromise" bill is what died with the last Congress.

    Just before the new Board of Directors took office last January, the ARPA bill, i.e.exact same ARPA that had died with the CAI language, was reintroduced in the current Congress. It is not clear whether someone in the Congress recycled it on their own initiative, whether CAI had asked to reintroduce it, or if someone in the ARRL asked them to resubmit it.

    Then as soon as the new Board took office, one of the first things they did was ask the ARRL contacts in the Congress to not move that bill; while ARRL came up with a whole new approach and a whole new bill. Also new lobbying firm was contracted and of course new Board and new Counsel. An ARRL committee has been at work on this since then.

    The last I heard about it, from October this year, was that the ARRL is again in discussions with Congress, discussing an entirely new bill. I assume it will be unveiled at the January Board meeting.

    But as of now, as far as I know, a "new" ARPA has not yet been introduced. The "old" one, the first one, the "reasonable accommodation" bill, went away altogether several years ago. The "new old" one, the so-called compromise ARPA "effective outdoor antenna" bill, is still in the queue with a new bill number (HR 466), but no action taken or expected to be taken.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2019
  6. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    There is no confusion:

    There is an extant bill that is not being supported by the ARRL. It will die. Soon.

    The ARRL is not supporting a fatally worded ARPA bill and hasn't since the change of the board, almost a year ago.

    Congress has not, in this session, pushed for passage, in no small part because that support evaporated.

    We may presume that a NEW bill with revised wording may be profferred later. Like the many ARPA bills (none approved) over a dozen years, it too will be an 'ARPA Bill'.

    There is no Director Lisenco nor ARRL Counsel Imlay.

    The problem with --some-- folks is that they portray the ARRL as some autocratic, non-changing slug or shades of the same. If some want to maintain that 'opinion', at least look at the calendar and the --present-- and incoming leadership. They talk. They are approachable. Your move.

    Whether past leadership and execution was good or bad is immaterial. The fact is that is==past==and not now.

    Discussions of the ARRL from the past do not map the ARRL of 2020 and beyond. Both the ARRL and Part 97 as a service have big fish to fry in the coming years, and past history won't work as a guide to the future. Grumbling about it can be positive if you have suggestions, some posed on this video podcast, to make known.

    Otherwise its not a critique, its a whine with cheese. Yep. IMO.

    Just wait a bit and watch.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2019
  7. ND6M

    ND6M Ham Member QRZ Page


    Well, You got that part correct Just about anything the arrl does, gets your unrequited approval.

    Just take a good look at the arrl "powers that be" and compare them to the people in the linked video.
    I would guess that the average age difference is about 35 to 40 years.

    ... and thats not the only difference, they can see right thru people who really do nothing except to maintain the status quo with the same old same old comments about the "new" arrl, vertical groups, and yadda, yada, yadda.

    Face it, the Amateurs in the video are the people that will determine the future of Amateur radio, not the (old school) people currently repeating the same old buzz words and supporting the same failing issues.

    Even the arrl's own survey showed that less than 10% of (arrl member) Amateurs replied that HOA's/CC&R's were an issue.

    I give the arrl less than 10 years to either lead, follow, or get out of the way or it will become another organization that only exists because of it's "life membership" roster.

    80% of all U.S. Amateurs DON'T belong to the arrl.
    QED
     
  8. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    If 'young ' people want to lead, then let them show leadership experience, and become directors...hey...WAIT a NEW YORK MINUTE....didn't we just see that HAPPEN this year??

    H mmmm.

    ...and note: zero percent of other hams put a paper bag over their cat's head.

    See the connection?

    If you want to draw an age difference here---thereby showing AGE DISCRIMINATION-- then show that the 'old' people are NOT fact driven.

    I dare yez....to put the wool over meoow's eyes.

    [​IMG]
     
  9. W1YW

    W1YW Ham Member QRZ Page

    The 'people who will determine the future of Amateur Radio' have to be people who understand the Part 97 mission (in the US)--first, last, always. Otherwise the 'future of Amateur Radio' will be determined by non-hams, who have compelling facts about departures from that mission, in a limited allocation resource whose privilege is granted by US citizens. Opinions without facts are playing into that, when we see that occur.As I said, this video is pretty good, and not an example. But IMO they can understand the mission better--as can we all.

    To lead you have to understand, fall on vast experience and personal knowledge, and enable others. I don't see that in this video, but have no doubt that they have the capability to do so.

    How you see that as extant from a 10 minute video is beyond me...heck, even the politician debates don't show it.

    Frankly, an organization that is driven by opinion would be fatal to Part 97 as being incapable of facilitating and demonstrating the Part 97 mission. Facts...its facts. F-A-C-T-S.

    Ham radio is not a buncha 'feelings' relating to a hobby. The word 'hobby' to politicians is like saying the word 'poo'. The FCC and the people of the US are far more interested, one presumes, in what we think and what we do, relative to the Part 97 mission,than how we feel.

    73
    Chip W1YW
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2019
  10. K4FMH

    K4FMH Premium Subscriber QRZ Page

    Chip,

    I've been on the road at a hamfest and ARRL Section Convention in Minden LA and just got back off the road. If you're speaking to me as to "not engaging," you are just mistaken. I did not get your call sign or name become the podcast host said it quickly and I missed it. He ALSO excerpted your comments, as I recall from my listening. So if he misquoted you, take it up with him, not throwing stones at me, ok?

    The Board DID NOT ABANDON the bill. The President was (overly) confident of it getting through the Committee "mark-up" WITH the Imlay-Lisenco accession to the CAI "mother, may I" provision of prior approval. One of the Board members was standing in the conversation between ARRL President Roderick and me and offered that it may not be what we wanted but it was going through and become law. That does not sound like Board abandonment, sir. I was there. You were not. I then called Sen Wicker's office and got the bill removed from the mark-up agenda. That is what happened. Because I was directly involved in the action. Not any Board Member but my Division Director and President Roderick. Lisenco and Imlay were still in their respective positions. The ARRL myVoice group got Lisenco replaced. The Boade got tired of Imlay's heavy-handedness as a League Counsel. That's why his services were no longer needed. Mr. Sidall has done a fine job thus far replacing him.

    I don't need to talk to other Directors about this (although I did speak with my Director today while in Minden on the new plan). I know what happened. I was there. You're getting 2nd or 3rd hand information on the key actions in the matter.

    73,

    Frank
    K4FMH

     

Share This Page

ad: AlphaRF-1