Where Never Is Heard... ARRL Board "Code of Conduct" on HamRadioNow

I just discovered that the ARRL does provide a QST Print Edition Opt Out option.

http://www.arrl.org/qst-print-edition-opt-out-form

Being able to do that online and with the choice to restart receiving the print edition anytime during membership is a nice touch.

But as the Disclaimer explains, "Choosing to opt-out of the print edition of QST is voluntary and will not result in a refund or reduction of ARRL membership dues."

Which would be OK with me, if I had a better say in how, "Any savings will be used to extend the ARRL’s reach in the areas of public service, education, advocacy, technology and membership."

And, that statement seems to acknowledge, any print versus online ad revenue differential notwithstanding, a savings may be realized. It's all just negotiation.

73, John, WØPV

 

Hi Zack!

Interesting comment contained in the link you provided,

Jeff Wignall, Contributing Editor at Popular Photography since 2008 who has been writing for photo magazines for 40 years wrote - “Their (PP) website was very lame, they started it up at one point, and seemed like they had a lot of energy flowing into it for a while but that was several years ago,” he continues. “Then they seemed to have abandoned the website and the only way, ironically, for a print magazine to survive is if it has a good partnership with an online edition of the magazine. Without that there is a sort of breakdown in communication between the print reader and the online person.”

In contrast I think the ARRL web site is very well developed and getting even better.

However, the online edition of QST is a bit clunky, at least when read on a Windows PC. And I really do not understand how ad revenue can be different between the printed and the online reader version.

Not talking about banner ad's on the web site; that's obviously a different advertising rate and structure.

Just the display ad's in the printable copy of QST, which according to the online info seem to be sold simply by the size they occupy on a page.

I can imagine the rate also depends on the size of the potential audience, ie, "distribution numbers" but why isn't that determined largely by total membership? (who all have the option of receiving print editions or only online)

http://www.arrl.org/advertising-opportunities#Rates

73, John, WØPV

 

To his/her honor presiding over this people's court hearing. What is the root cause of this issue? I do not believe that it is truly the Code of Ethics. I'm not trying to stir the pot, I'd just like to see what the real issue is.

Respectfully,

Monte, AF7PQ

 

Fighting with ARRL is like wrestling with a pig, you get dirty, the pig gets dirty; but the pig likes it. Save your energy, vote with your feet.

 

Agreed....and in answer to what they are hiding? I think someone there is taking money from the HOA lobbyists in order to push this bill that actually gives them more power, and in like my instance, with FCC rules to get pre-approval from community association takes away from me 30 years of freedom to put up, take down and modify my antennas at all by imposing a pre-approval required as a matter of FCC rules

 

I don't think they are hiding a thing.

They either do not understand the wording, or are convinced that the words mean something else. This despite the fact that the meaning of the wording was illuminated by professional attorneys, including those in the telecom sector.

My opinion; your may differ.

 

Gary,

I listened with great interest. Very informative!

But the let’s all be against a “burn it down” rhetoric precludes any prospective competition. There are, for instance, alternate EmComm organizations to ARES. I posted n the YouTube comment section to this (or was it a previous episode on a related topic?) about a 75M phone QSO where one or two of the participants joked about launching a “national radio league” to give it a baseball sense of competition. I do not advocate this approach righ now but moving the League’s cheese via competition is one of two logical alternatives IF the ARRL CEO continuesdown this path. The remaining one is for most members to simply quit. Where would that leave amateur radio?

 

Thanks, Gary, for giving this issue some air time. I am going to continue to subscribe to the "Quite Simply Terrible" magazine because it's ham radio. Same as I do for CQ. I hope that the activists will support a "loyal opposition" approach and seek to encourage the principles of democracy that have served the United States so well. It would seem that some issues, such as the Joe Ames, W3JY lawsuit have pushed certain ARRL executives to take extreme action. And the proposed legislation from the ARRL (Hr555) has been revealed to be seriously flawed, another power play from Newington. Let the bright let of democracy shine on these scoundrels and force them into a new line of employment.
73
AF4RK

 

Know you know why I will not pay there ransom.

 

Your dipole example is badly chosen. ARRL has NO lawmaking powers.
But, your point that a minority of the amateur population can determine League policy has a broader application.
Within the general American electorate only about half of the potential voters actually vote. So, our political leaders can be elected by something very close to only 1/4 of the total number of voters. That too is not a good thing.