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

This is the most to the point thing I have seen. It seems their primary function now is to be a publisher. As evident by thats really the only regular thing they are getting done. And as I have said before their magazine content wasn't impressive but at least in a pinch you could wipe your rear with it. But now "emergency function" is ceasing to exist too.

 

They certainly not doing much of anything to spur any innovation. I cannot recall the last time I heard a peep from the technology task force.

The last (5th) pillar was "technology " http://www.arrl.org/news/the-fifth-pillar

"Want to take a fresh look at what's happening in Amateur Radio technology and how it benefits the wider world? Visit www.wedothat-radio.org"

Apparently they gave up on technology and someone else snagged the domain a while back. You know what they still beat the drum about though? Emcomm.
The not only are they ineffective, their priorities are screwed up if you ask me.

If the league president would promise to take a $1 salary until they manage to get some of the FCC regulations changed (pull a Lee Iacocca), then perhaps I'd feel here is a guy willing to put his money where his mouth is. And I'd likely rejoin to support something that they are then serious about doing.

 

If you knew the history of fractal antenna you would know how I feel about 'spurring innovation' and the ARRL.

But I never ever saw evidence that the ARRL 'squash(es)' innovation. It is not part of the corporate culture.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Can we (ham radio in the USA) kindly not act like children with an on-off switch?

I hardly am a supporter of ANY non-profit enterprise under ALL conditions. Placing people into only TWO cubby hole--supporter or hater (that is how many people see it)-- is just not applicable.

The ARRL has problems and is trying to fix them. Much to their credit, the MAGNITUDE of some of their problems is being recognized and addressed. The ARRL is not preventing any other enterprise as it implements its fixes: there is plenty of opportunity for others to seize a niche and run with it , without focusing on the ARRL as a bully who prevents ('squashes') innovation.


The notion of 'sharing', especially 'sharing resources' is a political issue,IMO, and is no longer allowed for discussion on Zed, apparently. So let's recognize the code word for what it is and move on.

73 Chip W1YW

 

The ARRL President doesn't have ANY salary.

Why do you want him to START taking one???

 

I would say that the people on the receiving end of intimidating activities coming from someone at ARRL, should collect a brief summary of their experience and send it to the CEO, asking if he's aware of the activities of that person. I spoke to the CEO at hamvention and he seems like a reasonable guy.

 

Perhaps that was a bit of a rant, but if there's no one lighting a fire under ARRL to change, it won't. At least someone could try to make ARRL justify its existence as an amateur radio organization, by showing it is spending the money effectively that it collects, rather than spending it suing other amateur radio organizations and operators. Or at least someone can show that ARRL is not willing to cooperate with any attempts to hold it responsible for what it does on behalf of its members. Otherwise those in charge of it (and that's not the constantly rotating leadership) have no incentive to do anything differently.

I dropped my membership a couple of years ago when I got fed up with them sending me a constant barrage of junk mail, and I was thinking that I am not a paying member so that they can constantly try to sell stuff to me, and if they put a tenth of the effort into amateur radio advocacy that they put into constantly trying to sell me stuff, amateur radio would be a lot better off. I just don't think my dues were going into efforts that were protecting my interests, only into efforts of just trying to raise more money.

Perhaps if all of the ARRL section managers, many popular and influential amateur radio hobbyists, and perhaps another 500 to 1000 ARRL members signed a letter asking for:

1. A comprehensive list of the programs and services that are specified in their Annual Report.
2. A detailed breakdown of how much is spent on each of the programs on the list, the ARRL personnel engaged in effort towards each of these programs and services, and the number of hours each of the personnel spend yearly on each of these efforts, and any publications of the ARRL that are results of the efforts of these programs and services.
3. A comprehensive list of the efforts that are geared toward amateur radio advocacy, including those oriented toward advocating for amateur radio interests to national and international standards bodies such as IEEE, governmental regulators such as the FCC or FTC, and political lobbying.
4. The amount of money spend on each of these advocacy efforts, including the engagement of any legal services or lobbying firms, the work performed by such services or firms and the billed hours and time paid, and including any other funds spend on "Legal and Professional Fees" as specified in the "Program" part of the Anuual Report.
5. Any correspondence showing that ARRL has attempted to influence government policy, including responses to FCC NPRMs, participation in FCC TACs, amicus curiae briefs for court cases, and other letters or documents submitted to the government to lobby and otherwise attempt to influence public policy at the FCC, Congress, or regulatory bodies. Also list all of the meetings of ARRL representatives with government regulators and participation in government-held panels to determine policy.

Perhaps ARRL will step up and make a good effort to show their members that they are in fact spending their money wisely. Wouldn't it be nice to see ARRL step up and show that they care what their members think of them?

This doesn't really concern me anymore because I am no longer a member because I want my money spent on stuff that helps me, not them. But opinions differ. If you're happy with how your dues are spent, even suing other members of amateur radio groups that are engaging in advocacy, by all means allow them to continue to do it. If you would like to continue to support the organization, however, but don't like how your money is being spent, maybe you should figure out what it is actually being spent on. But if you complain about them, but nothing changes, then writing all of the editorials in the world is probably not going to help.

 

I've been watching various coals ignite under the ARRL since 1967... that doesn't mean that outside folks with pitchforks, who are not members, influence in real time. It never happened and never will.

The point is, you better MAKE SURE your point of view (I am not referring to KW4TI) is valid and in the BEST INTEREST of Part 97. No one gives a damn about your judgement nor mine, let alone a faceless mob. Pushing an agenda against the stick man on the hill may feel exhilarating but will only tear up the entire activity of ham radio, and shatter it at a time when the real issues are Part 97 licensee relevancy versus spectrum allocation. MO.

'Change' under some social agenda (for many folks on Zed) may feel delicious-- but emotions do not produce productivity nor positive results.

Don;t fight the wrong fight.

The right fight is spectrum allocation versus our perceived need of same. We are losing that in a major way and don't even see it, as a whole. Most of the time our spectrum is noise and not signal. Unlike years and years before this.

This is not a sunspot nor ionosphere issue. Its us and our lack of use of allocated spectrum. Record licensee numbers, but also record lack of use of allocations as a whole..

Dave W7DGJ--there's a relevant column topic, don't you think?

73
Chip W1YW

 

Chip, yes . . . thanks. Much appreciated. Have to let it sink in and get a handle on it. I'll send you a direct email soon. Dave, W7DGJ

 

Daniel, you've done a wonderful job in fully fleshing out your views, which I am sure represent a solid chunk of those who have left the ranks of ARRL membership as you have. Let me ask you this, and I'm not trying to draw you into an extended response. You've done that already. My question is, should the ARRL do what you suggest above and become fully transparent, would you rejoin her ranks and become a part of the community to support spectrum defense (in terms of how Chip describes it above)?

 

Chip, I re-wrote that in the article to focus more on what I meant . . . that they have attempted to squash business innovators, folks who are ham entrepreneurs taking on education or some other element of the ARRL core. I appreciate your posts, as they showed me that my words didn't follow my intent properly. (That's the beauty of e-publishing. Instant copy editing). Dave

 

Nice job.

I would be disappointed if anyone felt we had some sort of negative dynamic.

Not the case.

I respect Dave's efforts. That doesn't mean I always agree with them nor he with mine.

But honed thought on both sides leads to betterment. Dave obviously wants to see ham radio move ahead and focus us on a positive vibe.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Prove to me that ARRL is actually doing anything to support Part 97, and I will support them. No one has come forward with any evidence that anything they do has materially affected the FCC's or Congress's policy toward Part 97. Why should I worry about whether or not supporting ARRL is in the best interest of Part 97 when there's no evidence one way or the other that ARRL actually matters? I would love to be proved wrong here, but no one who ever defends ARRL's amateur radio advocacy ever shows evidence in the form of concrete policy changes that were suggested by ARRL, perhaps as documented in the records of the minutes of some official meetings, as a response to a NPRM, etc. If ARRL is adamant about its role in defending Part 97, perhaps it should publicize its efforts better to defend it, including maintaining a member accessible record of its attendance to regulatory meetings, its contributions to NPRMs and other requests for comments, etc. What would be even better is if they actually engaged their members in these efforts, and educated their members in these efforts, but they seem to actively keep members away from involvement in their alleged policy work, whereas helping the membership advocate on their own behalf might show regulators that members actually give a damn about the policies that affect them.

Perhaps I am unreasonable in asking for some kind of proof or evidence that I am getting what I am paying for. We seem to have some definite proof that the ARRL is using some of its money to sue amateur radio operators. Is that protecting Part 97?

 

Supporting is not the same as controlling.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is :"I see no impact (on the FCC) from ARRL's efforts. Prove to me they have the ability to advocate for us effectively."

Well, that said, is an interesting point.

With 800,000 licensees, Part 97 is a sleeping giant for effective, positively demonstrable advocacy.

What would you do differently?

73
Chip W1YW

 

The amount of the membership fee is not really the issue keeping me from being an ARRL member. It's that I feel that by supporting ARRL, I may actually be acting contrary to my own interests as an amateur radio operator, as their organization sucks all of the air out of the room for other possible efforts at amateur radio advocacy. I would love to see an ARRL that is responsive to membership and is transparent so that I could rejoin, become a member, and not feel that I am perhaps actually harming rather than helping the cause of amateur radio. I used to be quite enthusiastic about ARRL. Getting to the point of actively not wanting to be involved with ARRL has required years of ineptitude at ARRL. I haven't even touched on the other issues, such as their resistance to new technologies such as FT8/FT4 that make amateur radio more interesting to newcomers, but moving the needle at ARRL just on the advocacy issue would be enough to get me back in the fold. It would at least show that some kind of reform is possible there after years of decline.