Issue #34: Protect our Airwaves - Can YOU help?

An overview of the advantage of having a PAC: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/02/why-corporate-pacs-have-an-advantage/

 

Well, it 'kind of can' lobby, but the amount of lobbying it can do is limited by a formula that is tied to the 501(c)(3)'s revenues over the past several years. As you mentioned.

The rules on 501(c)(3)s are well defined.

 

"Other organizations have a separate political arm, which doesn’t rely on member dues but instead relies on donations. I believe that it may be time to consider this model. A ham radio political action committee (PAC) would be free of many of the IRS restrictions that plague 501c3 organizations such as the ARRL. And if it had enough money, it could get some real lobbying done. My former ARRL board colleague, John Robert Stratton (N5AUS) has tried this idea with some success. John formed the “Texas Ham PAC” and has had some legislative victories for antenna legislation in his home State. By Ria"

The above statement seems to be a step in the right direction. The article is well written. There has been a lot of discussion about ARRL's part in defending amateur radio operators. I get the feeling that Headquarters is in panic mode. Is it because of the missive drop of membership or advertisers pulling back or a combination of both, and they are looking for a way to revive ARRL?

There comes a time when any organization can become too big - whether it is a private business, a corporation, or Government . . . it will collapse in on itself.

I would be ready to donate to a Ham Pac, if their number one priority would be to fight for our use of the airwaves and work with the IARU for international agreements. Also re-think the band plan as we are losing so much bandwidth due to computer-run contests (digital modes need to be controlled much better). Contests have gotten out of hand, so many are using computers to send code for contests. And other digital modes are using up more and more bandwidth, not saying they are not following the band plan (most are) but it seems to me the band plan continues to change in favor of digital modes. I may be totally wrong.

Why? Is it because the ARRL has felt they need to attract more to become Ham radio operators? And they feel times have changed, so to attract more it is in their best interests to cater to people with keyboards? Why do that? Maybe it is all about generating more money?

Did we start down this slippery slope when they dropped the CW requirement?

I have more questions than answers, and my perception may be a bit off track, and maybe some of you will be able to convince me otherwise.

If you have read to this point you are feeling the same as I do mostly or you are stomping mad because you are a keyboard operator and I have angered you. I hope not, each of us enjoy different aspects of this endeavor whether you call it a hobby or a needed skill in case of national emergencies and a necessary part of emergency communication. I tend to believe it is both.

But, maybe using computers to make contacts with other computers would be better served using the internet? And return Ham radio back to using the airways? Just a thought.

 

As much has hundreds of thousands enjoy FT8 and related digital modes, it has created an option not previously considered, that can--and IMO will-- be a driver that takes over HF/MF and will absorb most of the Part 97 allocations in same. Ten years. Fifteen guaranteed.NOT ham radio. Commercial/USG.

Ham radio will be viewed as the demo for the ride. We downsized the ride ourselves and convinced others. Unintentionally.

Want digital? Be careful what you wish for.

73
Chip W1YW

 

Thanks for the very well thought out article, Ria. Lots to think about there for sure (I enjoy your Youtube channel, BTW...)

I thought it was interesting that the ARRL advocated for keeping the code requirement in the Extra class test, and that requirement was changed despite their advocacy. And, to answer the question - was removing the code requirement a good thing? I believe that it was. I think it opens up Amateur radio to a whole group of people that wouldn't do it otherwise. Heck, I'm not sure I would have gotten my license had it been there. I have since learned the code, and very much enjoy it now. But, I learned it because I WANTED to, not because it was required on a test. Before my wife studied for the test, the first thing she said to me was 'I'll study for my license, as long as I don't have to do the beepity-beeps.' So, is Amateur Radio stronger with people like my wife who don't want to do code? Absolutely.

 

Hi Ralph, my wife is studying now for her Technician license, which will be a trick as it's proving very difficult for her. But if you put the code requirement into that class, she never would have started. I think we'll have two hams in our household a year from now, but that would never have happened without the no-code requirement. I think the ARRL was on the right track advocating for the code requirement at Extra Class. That's something I'd be on board about. Thanks for coming in with your input, Dave W7DGJ

 

Comments please on this . . . I'm a writer and editor, and I personally experience a great deal of anguish when reading posts here and seeing basic English errors that ruin the sentence or meaning of what someone is trying to say. I'll follow the audience's recommendation on this, but where there is a very difficult-to-read post due to ONLY English language and spelling/structure issues, do you feel it's OK to step in and correct them to make it easier for all others to read? I edited one post in this forum, only correcting grammar and not in any way affecting content or intent. My question for readers is this: Is that practice intrusive or is it helpful? I'll follow your lead. Dave Jensen, Author/Editor of "Trials and Errors: Ham Life with an Amateur" on QRZ.com.

 

Editing is a blessing. As long as the author is asked if they approve the changes.

Example--James Michener was a terrible writer. His editors basically did more than solecistic corrrection--they did re-writes. My point is that even famous writers need editing;-)

MO...

 

There are a number of credible highly experienced amateur radio operators that are in a position to assist in Spectrum Defense.

They have worked in Telecom all their life, from engineering, legal, Field Services, site design, technology, surveying and monitoring. Those professionals have many connections in the FCC and throughout the Telecommunications world that could help in these manners.

Some have been active in comments, of late on proposed rule changes.

In the past most have been totally shunned away from the ARRL, and have been told they weren't needed.

The high speed Stock Traders assault on HF was a good example, these professionals could assist much better than the League has.

 

Better yet to have them working in collaboration with a cooperative and open ARRL spectrum defense, Dave W7DGJ

 

Absolutely correct.

However--

Don't discount that some of them have already prevented much of these wacky ideas from coming to light.IOW killing them before they even get vetted by the 'moshpit of misery' and other hams, including the ARRL.

And don't declare victory against HST on HF: The objective of the proposal there, IMO, was to collect all the dissing and technical arguments and correct for them in a revised proposal. Most objections went after the low hanging fruit rather than the deep objections that would actually prevent it from happening. One way or another, HST will be a big player in future HF use.

And--

Hams will facilitate it, much as they have already facilitated the extant HST sites. Ham will be 'involved'. Why? Because the future allocations will have no effect on ham radio. Again: there will be a corrected proposal with minor request changes on frequency allocations--staying away from the hams.

 

That's been the problem many have tried over the years.
Maybe things will change League Headquarters now, and they will open their arms to some of these professionals.
Most will do it free gratis.

We all need to work together

Thanks for doing the interview with N2RJ

 

I think we should fix the ARRL, and I’ve been open about my feelings, especially where that means new leadership and restructuring how things are done.

There is a lot they do right, however. And I wouldn’t want to throw that away.

 

Thanks Chip. I checked in with the poster who generally appreciated the edits. Dave

 

Edit my post any time, I appreciate any help I can get.