Issue #27: Building our Radio Future -- Together!

It's called 'DuckDuckGo' (or probably 'Google' for most of you).

I don't agree.

I think of the ARRL's web site as a curated source.

They mostly reference their own content, plus a few other outside areas that may be more specialized. They don't need to link to the content of every other self-appointed expert that begins a YouTube channel. If they reference some YouTube channels and not others, there will be hurt feelings, resentments that are best to not have to deal with.

Searching for content on a normal search engine or in the search box on YouTube or Faceplant is trivial these days; anyone can do it for themselves. No one needs the ARRL to 'portal' to it.

There's a lot of information "junk" out there, and references to it on 'arrl.org' implies something of an endorsement.

The ARRL has limited resources, and they need to do their own basics well.

I believe they already do, although the selection is limited. Including the shipping and handling costs (which are increasingly non-trivial), I think they'll find it difficult to compete with Amazon or other high-volume booksellers.

 

I certainly do not implicitly trust the accuracy 0f ARRL content. While a certain amount of it has been tested throughout the years in the ARRL Handbook, much of it only seems to receive the scrutiny of their own in-house experts which seem to have limited experience. Furthermore, their opinions seem to be colored by their advertiser support. I don't think it's very surprising that amateur radio operators, especially those getting involved in HF, might find it quite confusing to use ARRL information as a guide to getting started. They seem to be quite out of touch as to the challenges new amateur radio operators might face today getting started in the hobby.

Alienating those who are trying to improve the situation is only going to further fracture the community and dissuade others from interest in the hobby. It is disappointing that rather than seeing all of these motivated amateur radio operators willing to help their fellow hams as an opportunity to better the hobby for everyone, they have taken an adversarial approach so that they might be considered the primary authority. Not only will this fail when alternatives to the ARRL for learning and enjoyment are so readily available by the internet and elsewhere; it will also push the ARRL into irrelevance.

I can only imagine the decision process at ARRL that leads to such actions; there must surely be some serious malfunction of governance to make policies like this remotely make sense. I can only presume someone vetted the new leadership and somehow decided that this was a direction ARRL should go. It's been obvious for some time now that Newington is not really responsible to or acting in the interest of its members, and that's the only way I think such a policy might be explained.

73,
Dan
KW4TI

 

Another bit of Newington drama. Surprised? I'm not.

I'm sure that the organization would aspire to, once again, be viewed as the 'authoritative source' for educational information regarding Amateur radio; the 'Encyclopedia Britannica' of ham radio, so to speak. And, I get it: commondifying and packaging 'knowledge' and selling it has been a huge part of ARRL's finances for decades. In fact, it's so integral that it's part of their membership marketing.

However, spending CPU cycles and --perhaps potentially more troubling, membership dollars-- to that end seems to be a rather interesting choice of hills to die upon. They're the ARRL: for much of the Amateur radio community in the US, they're *already* the authoritative source on this matter. Would not those resources better be spent doing the work for their membership, rather than attempting to 'edge-out' competition?

 

Thanks Tom, I totally agree. I just sent them a check for Spectrum Defense a couple of weeks ago. Dave, W7DGJ

 

Thanks Dan for a well-reasoned post that makes a lot of sense, Dave

 

people get what they support...year after year...

 

Unlike most here, it seems, I am *not* a member of ARRL - and have not been since the anniversary of my first year as a licensed operator, nearly a decade and a half ago. I could not --and still cannot -- justify the expense.

Don't get me wrong - I don't have anything *against* ARRL and their activities. Rather, I see them as completely ineffective as an organization. If the organization did what it said on the tin, that would be one matter: but it simply doesn't. The primary function of the ARRL would *seem* to be to advocate to the Federal government on behalf of the Amateur radio community.

When I was initially licensed, for instance, hams were advocating for change to the PRB-1 rules, because legal action was being threatened against hams for putting up antennas on their own property, which happens to fall under covenant restrictions. In a decade and a half,
what's been done?

Another example: when I was in grade school back in the 1980's, my family had an Apple IIe computer. I was gifted a modem for that computer - it had three baud rates: 50, 110, and 300. That was 1983. Today, in 2023 - 40 years later, hams in the US are still running digital data modes that are capped at the same baud rate - 300 baud. This, in spite of the fact that none of the 'sky will fall' predictions of transitioning to regulation by bandwidth (i.e. eliminating symbol rate restrictions) have occurred anywhere else on the planet where such regulations have been implemented, and in spite of the fact that the ARRL petitions the FCC for a **temporary** lifting of these *same* dated restrictions literally every time a major disaster occurs, without a single bit of push-back from the Government.

So, while the organization has not been effective in their core function, what members are treated to is what we've seen in the last number of years - lifetime members being disgusted with the Board, Board in-fighting, and lately this new bit of drama. Not to mention the 'Force of 50' fiasco...

How would my membership, had I continued it for the last decade and a half, have benefitted me as a member of the Amateur radio community in this country? I'm not a believer in throwing money at a problem, thinking that will magically solve the issue. If the investment that hams have already made aren't being used to effectively advocate for our interests, why on earth would I throw my financial support behind that same organization?

 

Hey Joe, thanks for jumping in. I think you've put a lot of thought into this. You're right, they haven't been nearly as effective at that "core" promise to amateurs. Non-profits are sometimes only focused on their growth, their employees, other side issues, and so on, when in reality the reason that people sign up for the affiliation is to get represented in Washington DC. They're the best shot we've got, Joe. I'm here to support them as long as I can have some influence over their direction via my investments in them and in those times when I get to vote, etc. Dave

 

Thanks for the kind words, Dave. I found the op-ed to be rather thoughtful. Also, what you're saying, above, is probably more true than the folks in Newington would like to admit. --and that's fine: if ARRL wants to be that sort of organization, focused primarily on self-preservation, etc; then, sure. But it's important, I think, to have the marketing match the mission - and it's dishonest to market the organization as having a core mission be advocacy, when they're not putting runs on the board in that area...ever.

 

If the ARRL has decided that going to war with their members is the only way they can survive, they are doomed. I think ARRL presumes that its membership is as compulsory as getting a license from the FCC to be an amateur radio operator. All that is preserving them right now is the residual good will of aging hams who were members for the years when ARRL had decent leadership. Their window is rapidly closing to preserve themselves, and they will discover that private citizens have agency and can decide from themselves whom to support to further their interests. There are few actions that ARRL could be taking that would be more detrimental to the future of the ARRL than the actions being taken right now, as prospective members may not want to provide dues to an organization that may in turn sue them for engaging in their own advocacy. ARRL has been a basket case for so long I think its staff is apathetic and simply wants to be able to continue until retirement and ARRL just seems to be lurching from one slate of poor leaders to the next. A talented administrator would have to be either very altruistic or very exploitative to take the helm of ARRL, and I do not know if there is anyone left that is altruistic enough to want to deal with ARRL and their bureaucracy, so we end up with the exploitative leaders.

The only solution is probably to dislodge the entrenched bureaucracy that is there, but that is nigh impossible, and so the organization ARRL is basically being exploited for its name and residual reputation, like a brand name that has been purchased to market inferior goods. I think they realize that litigation may be one of the few ways that they can deter competition since they don't seem to be able to maintain a compelling product of their own. Cease-and-desist letters and lawsuits seem like actions that belie extreme weakness.

 

Hi Dan, love the guinea pigs on your QRZ profile. My early ham days saw my Guinea next to my station regularly, old Squeaky.
Your post is well considered and you make your point. Personally, I'd like to see the present ARRL organization "fixed" in some way. I feel that it's tottering right now, and needs either support or the collective to push it over the edge. I don't know which way it's going to go but I'm putting my support into the "keep it and build on it" idea. Dave

 

OK, fine. Hold that thought...

Why not both? Sell through Amazon and through their own site - which is what they're doing. I suspect that eventually Amazon and similar sales will dominate.

Once upon a time, the least-expensive way to buy ARRL publications was by-mail direct from ARRL HQ. But then mailing rates rose to the point where they had to start charging for shipping.

And consider this:

Earlier, you wrote: "I'm one of those people who has no loyalty when it comes to price. If HRO has something $10 less than DXE or Gigaparts, I"m buying from HRO."

But now you write: "they dig into their pockets and find a way to not be so darn greedy on the price of their items and to provide free shipping!

See the problem?

73 de Jim, N2EY

 

Hi Jim, I followed your post up until the end, where you pointed out two of my earlier statements. I've re-read both, and they jive. Don't get what you are pointing to . . . I am a cheap guy, like so many hams. I want cheap. My budgets REQUIRE cheap. So, I'll buy books or anything else from the cheapest source. Both these statements say the same thing! Dave, W7DGJ

 

I'm not advocating for replacing ARRL or letting it fail, but its governance is such that it seems to be impossible to reform the deeply rooted bureaucracy that has been the common problem that has frustrated many leaders' attempts at reform. No one votes for them and they can not be held accountable by anyone. They maintain their positions because there are no organizational methods of holding them accountable. This is why over time ARRL is organized around preserving their positions rather than serving the members.

You might want to take a look at ARRL's 2022 Annual Report ( https://www.arrl.org/files/file/About ARRL/Annual Reports/2022 Annual Report ARRL AR2022 072023C.pdf ) . I would reproduce the part of it I will talk about it, but I am sure that would probably garner a letter from their attorney despite fair use considerations.

Examining page 32, salaries, compensation, and benefits are $4.01M of the total $8.62M of expenditures. In 2022, it seems that ARRL had significant unrealized losses probably because they were invested into a down market as most everyone else was. They receive $17.2M of revenues and contributions without donor restrictions, $6.75M of which is membership dues, and a further $3.09M from publication sales. Of the $15.7M of expenditures the largest item is $8.65M is "programs and services" which are defined nowhere in the annual report. I don't think it would be unreasonable for members to demand a breakdown of what these programs and services are and how much money is spent on each. If they are not willing to do this, I think it is fair to say that they have little commitment to transparency and may not be responsible custodians of the organization.

I would like to be wrong and believe that we will find the present leadership open and transparent, but given their sense of entitlement because they suppose themselves as amateur radio's only viable hobbyist organization, they will probably ignore or deflect such requests.

 

My point is that you criticize ARRL for doing the same thing you would do: extract the most value per dollar.

Full disclosure: I do the same thing. Heck, have you seen the description of my setup?

73 de Jim, N2EY