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

Thankx Dave.
Good article and I agree completely about the things you talked about. I have not paid any attention
to The RATPAK and don't really know what it was all about. ARRL who I support completely complains
about anyu of us starting anything with amateur sdhould stay out of it . They are ot a govening body.
Going to just stop there for now. Thank you for your intense interest in our hobby.
Dr Robert Kearbey DDS K6DDS

 

Thanks Dr. Kearby! Sending many toothy smiles your way . . . Dave

 

Dave:

Read your recent article, as I do all of them. I will openly admit that as a relative newbie to this hobby (first licensed Sept. 2020), I am not as fully versed on the history of the ARRL and all that they have done for, continue to do, and plan to do for our hobby...whether good OR bad. Not having a lot of knowledge on the subject, I feel that I shouldn't weigh any judgements or heap praise/criticism one way or another, as I most likely don't know what I'm talking about.

That being said...reading your article reminded me of another prominent organization that has seen a similar shift in ideology or mission statement. That organization is the National Rifle Association.

The NRA was founded in 1871 with the original intent to advance rifle marksmanship...that was all. Later they became involved in promoting safe firearms handling, education of marksmanship skills to the youth, and promoting/holding marksmanship competitions. Up until the 1970's, their primary focus was on sportsmen, hunters, and target shooters...all the while downplaying gun control issues.

Look at them now. An extremely prominent political advocacy group, endorsing and lobbying for gun-rights and the 2nd Amendment. The NRA now holds tremendous sway over politicians and our political discourse; influencing legislation as it pertains to firearms rights and ownership. It makes no difference if you agree or disagree with their current political posture, the NRA is now a major player in firearms laws and legislation in this country, to the point where (IMHO) there are politicians that dare not go against them in fear of the retaliation that could be brought to bear, ending their political career. This is a FAR cry from the original tenants of the organization as it was founded 152 years ago.

I'm not saying this is an exact parallel comparison, but there are some similarities in the shift in priorities; less member-centric and more politically focused. Again, my observation...yours may differ. 73

 

QSO Today Academy is a quality product that has great potential. This first round I would rate good to excellent, based on the powerpoints alone. The pricing is modest and well within any ham's budget.

I don't see why QSO Today Academy needs any affiliation with ARRL. You would have to be hiding under a rock not to know about it. Furthermore, I would bet that ARRL would accept advertising of QSO today Academy on IT's web page--if some exposure to the few troglydytes who are ARRL only , were needed.

Eric-- did the ARRL say you couldn't --advertise--in ARRL media? That's very different from an affiliation...

 

W7DGJ--

You quote that the ARRL "squash(es) innovation".

What evidence do we have for that?

I have worked and or been a member of the ARRL since 1967 and never ever saw or see any evidence that the ARRL has in any way 'squashed innovation' from radio amateurs. Quite the contrary, the ARRL publishes QEX, and co sponsors the DCC TAPR conference, both directly focused on innovation.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that ARRL has 'squash(ed)' innovation by other radio amateur groups nor entities.

The QSO Today Academy was in no way impeded in its event of late. Those who had an interest, including me, self selected and made our own decision to participate, either in real time or post.

Awareness of the QSO Academy event was high and the ARRL did not prevent the event from being promulgated in any way.

73
Chip W1YW

 

To me, the question is whether the ARRL is actively suppressing other competing organizations, or are they simply not supporting them?
A secondary question to me is why were you asked to take down the picture of the teens gathered around the ARRL booth? And why did you comply? If you took the photo in a public space, you are perfectly entitled to post any photo you want to post.

 

Hi Chip, I'll let Eric jump in if he'd like about advertising . . . it's a cost item, and for a small business, probably not real feasible. The QSO Today efforts had previously been supplied promotion as a courtesy, and Eric provided them with access at the event level. I think that it's when the QSO Today event dropped corporate exhibits from their virtual events that the ARRL reevaluated. Dave, W7DGJ

 

Chip, as an inventor and engineer, you are thinking of the term "innovation" as if its only meaning is new technologies. That's not what I meant. "Business innovation" is innovation as well. New models to bring material to a broader audience -- THOSE are what I'm referring to here, as QSO Today (in all its forms, Podcast, Conferences, Academy) or RATPAC and so on, these INNOVATE. I don't think it's a big enough issue to edit the article, but I would if you think that a broad range of other readers are mistaking this for squashing new antenna designs or some such technology. Let me know Chip, and I'll dive into the text and edit . . . Dave, W7DGJ

 

Hi Brady -- Thanks for jumping in. Good question. From the sidelines where you sit or where I sit, it could be seen as more of a simple lack of support. (Yes, they stopped allowing cross-promotions and so on, access to email databases, mention in newsletters or PR releases, etc.) But to the people I have spoken to who have been on the receiving end of the calls or emails, they are "suppressing." It is clearly a viewpoint issue. As a person concerned about all sides and not just one, I want them to work it out. There's someone making these contacts, NOT from the top of ARRL, whose name comes up all the time from people who feel it is suppression. It could simply be that this person is acting on their own and not in lockstep with orders from above. I am not privy to that detail. Dave, W7DGJ (PS - It wasn't my photo. I grabbed it from the Nashua Radio Society and asked for their permission because I wanted to show the ARRL and their work with kids. They would not give it to me, something I considered a bit odd because in my past experience, Radio Clubs generally have a very open and friendly attitude about sharing resources.)

 

Hi Brando! Great analogy. As non-profits grow, they start to gain a foothold in areas that they weren't necessarily intending to go. They also develop a self-serving need to grow their staff and salaries and so on, and with guns the clear direction to pay for all that is to become political. We need to have the ARRL continue their focus on spectrum defense, the core of our need. From there, it's education, publishing, PR with the world for ham radio, and so on. I don't know enough about the profit centers to forecast why, suddenly, "competition" is so important to them. Dave

 

Nope.

You are incorrect. I understand that invention is a subset of 'innovation' and am disapppointed that you made such an assumption.

Please see : Christensen--The Innovator's Dilemma. Good introduction to innovation in a modern context.

With due respect, these above mentioned are not ham radio innovations, They are examples of an innovation set--long since known-- that is being applied as a distance learning mechanism in ham radio. Nothing wrong with that. But it's not innovative. Its a target audience applied.

The fact is that your asserting about 'ARRL squashing innovation' really has no basis. The only hint of impediment is that 4Z1UG, apparently, could not use an ARRL mailing list.

DO we know if 4Z1UG offered to pay? Mailing lists are often pay for use.

We should look at QSO Academy for what it is and see how it appeals. It certainly has great potential, if Eric can get enough interesting speakers, willing to put in the time.

And yes, I think it a polished and interesting package Eric has pulled together.

Much like FT8, if the ham audience sees the value, QSO Academy will be crack for the (ham) masses: a gravitational draw of interest. No ARRL needed, and frankly, pretty irrelevant to pose ARRL as a villain. MO.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Chip, not innovative? I beg to differ on that point. While there were tons of pretty-iffy YouTube videos out there for the ham community, most of that was far below the grade of material that QSO Today or RATPAC brought to the world. I don't think we'll get past this point, Chip, and I think it will have to end with mutual respect for each other's opinions. (I'll go into the text and soften/explain a bit more to ease up on the impression that I'm painting ARRL as a villain, because if you got it than others may have as well). Can a good organization do some wrong-headed things? Sure they can! And as I clearly am a supporter, hopefully I can point this blunder out without painting the organization, as you say, into a villain. Dave

 

Yes.

NOT innovative. But so what? The points are: are they USEFUL?; Do they fill a NEED? Is there an AUDIENCE? Is there VALUE?

The ARRL has a mindset which you are either not recognizing or possibly nor aware. That mindset, until fairly recenbtly, is to primarily support activities that DIRECTLY contribute to being on the air with a Part 97 license.

Only in the last few years has the ARRL slowly come around to the SECONDARY value of having (including non-ARRL examples): an interactive website (example: QRZ); an online magazine ( a late to the table digital QST); distance based learning; etc. These are very valuable, but don't directly enable getting OTA. I appreciate some may disagree; I am only illustrating the POV that has prevailed,IMO, in Newington.

Can a good organization do some WRONG things? Of Course! But the ARRL's recent decisions are , apparently based on late-to-the table recognition that secondary values need to be bootstrapped and or improved, for ARRL members to have access to the value they bring. So what's WRONG is the tardiness manifest by being late to the table, not some 'ethical' or 'moral' wrong. MO.

The ARRL has missed the boat many times. A few of obvious ones are making their own QRZed style website, which should have been done 15-20 years ago; setting up remote stations for members to access to alleviate the HOA and noise problems; a digital magazine back 15 -20 years ago ; an online propagation in real time package (such as RBN), and so on. They could have even BOUGHT these tools and integrated them into membership value, and captured new members, as examples. That is...s l o w l y ... happening (maybe), reminds me of the the sloth motor vehicles scene for Zootopia..


Eric has an opportunity and the runway to seize it. No need to even think about any ARRL offering that may or may not compete sometime in the future. If its not there, then, it may lose out, and possibly never get traction.

73
Chip W1YW

 

As with most discussions regarding ARRL, I highly doubt anyone's mind will be changed by any exchange here. Those who defend ARRL will defend it regardless of its actions and what it demands, and those who do not find it a compelling or worthwhile representation of amateur radio interests will find it difficult to muster enthusiasm for any alternatives. I think this due much to apathy as I don't really think ARRL advocates really care that much about what ARRL actually does (at least enough to verify its claims of what it does), and those who don't like ARRL don't have a sufficiently burning desire to organize with their own priorities. As long as ARRL doesn't ask for very much money, most members don't care if it doesn't actually do very much. All I can say is that if you really want to know what ARRL is doing, find out what it's spending its the money on, and determine if the priorities for these limited resources are consistent with an organization advocating for amateur radio. As with any organization, openness and transparency should be demanded, but again this would require active diligence on the part of members who really don't care that much. I predict that the status quo will remain, which is ARRL to slowly lose its membership as aging members die off and the younger generation not joining as they can communicate between themselves and engage in advocacy without an out-of-touch ARRL. ARRL is not likely to disappear soon, just become increasingly irrelevant.

It's baffling to see so much verbiage regarding ARRL because in the end nothing will change. The best we can hope for is that ARRL comes to its senses and stops the litigation, but again this probably will not be affected by what is said here. The only thing that might actually affect ARRL is bad press that might occur due to its actions, and W7DGJ's editorial is mostly what will be read, because few read what is written here.

 

Daniel, Let's meet one year from today and see if you're right. Personally, I just write my thoughts and opinions. Hopefully, my commentary never comes out sounding like a rant. I'm also not out to get any one result. YES - I would like to see the entire Amateur Radio Service operate from a place of mutual cooperation. But that's it. Will the ARRL change? Aging members are surely going to die out, you're right there. But if in the next year or two the ARRL were to bring them back, and succeed in getting more newcomers lined up, it would surely thrive and be the representative we need. Dave