Who Does The ARRL Represent Adequately?

Observation: Confidence in the ARRL seems to be at an all time low.

It is evident in examining the messages posted concerning the ARRL on QRZ (and elsewhere) that there are many who support the League, there are many who are members but are not happy and are willing to stay in and change things, there are some folks who are former members and have quit based on the actions of the League, and there are a few hard core League haters. The additive numbers of Amateurs in the last three of the four groups seems to be growing.

Common complaints are that the League does not represent all amateurs, the League did not get a vote on the subject, the ARRL is out of touch, League officers are not responsive to real needs, the issues they propose have no consistent purpose, they are on the wrong track, they are only interested in making money, etc.


Discussion

While the League says to Amateurs that "times change" there may be little that has been done in the way the League conducts its business over the years to reflect any internal change. People today are more used to voting on issues that affect them and becoming active in the things they oppose. Yet, the ARRL still conducts business without any formal process to collect member input.

Another cause for general unrest with the ARRL could be the amount of issues they are presently addressing (whether successfully or not). Perhaps it is as simple as having so many irons in the fire (knowing you can't please everyone), that the number of unhappy members is enhanced by volume.

Many proposed League actions are seemingly in contradiction to their past positions and fail to take notice of recent failures where they have been a party to change. Others actions seem to abandon the older experienced Amateurs in favor of potential revenue from new members.

How do these issues combine to result in such recent unrest?

Answers?

First, attempting to split Amateur Radio users and potential users into "parts" for possible analysis might yield an answer to the question, "Who does the ARRL represent?"

Review by Classification:

1. Older Amateurs - Most of these amateurs rarely use email or the Internet and get most of their amateur news via on the air, CW or QST. They favor SSB, AM or CW. They spend time on the air discussing many issues as they have in the past. If they use a computer it is for logging.

Represented by the ARRL? - Most older Amateurs are very surprised when told of pending League action or ramifications. They generally believe what they read in QST and if they agree or don't agree with League action, you probably would not know unless you ask them. Many feel they are not being "protected" by the League.

2. Self proclaimed "progressive" amateurs - Most of these amateurs favor changes that would bring about more members and believe that change is inevitable. They use email and the Internet and generally believe that the ARRL is right with their action on restructuring. Their views differ widely on BPL and Bandwidth Band plans.

Represented by the ARRL? - This group comes closest to representation. The one caveat is that they are used to being able to vote and voice their opinion and seem to resent not being asked their opinion by the League.

3. Self proclaimed "old school" amateurs - These amateurs value tradition above other issues and preservation of the overall flavor of Amateur Radio over the years. They resent "dumbing down" of testing and removal of telegraphy. Most are tolerant of new modes and products as long as they don't change Amateur Radio drastically or interfere with legacy modes. Most have and use email and the Internet.

Represented by the ARRL? - This group feels least represented by the ARRL. They believe beginning with incentive licensing and continuing with reduction of license requirements in 2000 that the hobby/service suffered grave damage.

4. Young potential amateurs - This group is made up of subgroups. One subgroup is the young person interested in radio and history, or with a relative who is an amateur. Another group is the "internet generation" interested in MP3 loads, video, pictures, and chat rooms.

Represented by the ARRL? - The first subgroup of young people interested in radio is what the ARRL envisions as the "younger generation". This is a throwback to the 1950's and early 60's when radio was seen as a progressive engineering phenom. Although restructuring would appeal to this group, the numbers of potential Amateurs from this group is miniscule compared to past years. The ARRL misses the mark widely in representing the views of the "internet generation" where most young people fit.

5. Amateur Digital users - This group is a growing segment of Amateurs who use digital modes mostly on HF. A subgroup is involved with wider band applications on 6m and above.

Represented by the ARRL? HF digital users have a disproportionate influence on the ARRL based on the relative age of League officers. These Amateurs see HF digital applications as the future while ignoring the reality of what is happening in the digital world. If this group of digital users is unhappy, it is because they feel they are not given adequate mode and bandwidth attention. The subgroup interested in wideband applications on 6m and above (where spectrum allows) are unhappy that the League does not show more support for growing this segment.

6. Winlink Supporters - This group is removed from the other digital mode users because historically they are focused on the use of one product. They agree with digital users that more spectrum is needed and generally favor a Bandwidth based Band plan.

Represented by the ARRL? - No doubt the ARRL is clearly a Winlink support organization. Winlink is an excellent product with a great potential and a growing number of users. The ARRL does represent this group well which adds to the dissatisfaction of legacy mode users afraid of being drowned by rule changes that favor a proportionally small number of users.

7. Bandwidth Band plan Supporters - These are generally digital supporters but include wide band SSB users and "Technologists" who view legacy "modes" as a "Technology Jail".

Represented by the ARRL? - This group favors a pure bandwidth band plan as opposed to the mixed plan offered by the ARRL thus far. They tend to view the ARRL plan as inadequate and push for an alternate "Canadian Plan".

8. Potential Amateurs from Engineering - This past source of Amateurs views Amateur Radio as old fashioned and not relevant to modern times.

Represented by the ARRL? - Engineers tend to view ARRL action as futile because they view the service as arcane. Use of the Internet and fiber optics, as well as alternate methods of conveying information would better attract these candidates. They are mostly unaware of current no code licensing because the ARRL emphasizes HF activities or legacy modes on frequencies above 50mHz.

9. Potential Amateurs from Computers/IT - They see Amateur Radio as "the past". Very little in Amateur Radio attracts this group who generally see Amateur use as an impediment to using the frequencies for BPL, IEEE 802 devices, and wide band access.

Represented by the ARRL? - There is little or nothing being done by the ARRL to attract this group.

10. BPL Supporters/Opponents - This classification is made to account for those Amateurs who feel the ONLY issue we should be discussing is BPL, or generally favor/hate BPL development. Supporters profess accepting BPL interference while opponents favor activism against the industry.

Represented by the ARRL? - Neither side feels adequately represented. Proponents believe the ARRL action is unwarranted and extreme. Opponents favor only the toughest rebuke of BPL and have some support for League action. The latter group does believe it is too little too late.

11. Non-Classified Amateurs - This group of Amateurs may share views of some or all groups mentioned previously. They do not like classification.

Represented by the ARRL? - Generally they like some things and do not like others. They are most definitely not happy with all aspects of League representation.

Conclusions

Although not inclusive of all Amateurs, the classifications above generally take into account most views. While some groups may feel more represented than others, none are 100% happy. The one conclusion is that perhaps the wide spectrum of Amateur views is not representable to a large scale by present League methods. This is exacerbated by the wide range of positions the ARRL has on many topics and the lack of ARRL effort to get formal member input.

Although many Amateurs disagree with the League, most all Amateurs are aware of democratic processes and respect them. The logical conclusion is that the ARRL must find out what most Amateurs want in order to improve its standing. By direct membership polling and polling of non-members, the League can have a better idea of what it should be doing in the way of representation. Since most Amateurs respect the democratic process, few could argue with the League following the will of members and other Amateurs.

Until the ARRL polls Amateurs on their views, there is enough disagreement within various Amateur factions to ensure that they cannot claim to represent anyone and anything except possibly their own financial interests. Surely it is evident that wide criticism exists because they do not represent any group adequately and lack the moral imperative of the will of the community.

-END-

Disclaimer: There are exceptions to every rule and the groups above offer possible insight into the subject of this message. They are not imagined to be 100% accurate representations of all possible views. My personal view is that we should all be League members and work from within for change. I tried to remain as objective as possible given my view.

I must add that the ARRL has MANY programs that are applauded by most all Amateurs and this article in no way seeks to diminish those efforts. This article attempts to examine one possible cause for the League's diminishing role in representation and causes for general unrest. Charlie Young, AG4YO

 

Why has no one posted a reply to this yet?

I have many things to say in regards to the ARRL, but will not say them

-Steve

 

Based on much the same evidence as is put forth in the above topic it is clear that the ARRL most accurately and adequately represents those who work for the ARRL.

This isn't necessarily always a negative nor is it always a positive as those who do work for the ARRL have their own interests -- in this instance meaning their positions for this agency -- at heart and, thus, will often take steps and measures that represent a fairly large portion of amateurs who both are and are not paying members of ARRL ... when this occurs most amateurs are content and cheer ARRL's efforts, when the reverse is true many decry the ARRL and under its employee.

For those who tend to disfavor ARRL, its objectives and motives most of the time there is the option of not being a member and vice versa, support the ARRL should you generally care for its objectives by making donations and/or become a paying member.

Hope this is a fairly balanced viewpoint and I know, oh how I just know, I'll hear either way.

Chuck, AA1MN

 

I am an ARRL member and have been for about 35 years. With that said, I support the ARRL and its efforts on behalf of its MEMBERS. Notice I said members.

As far as I am concerned if you are not a member of ARRL then your feelings, rants, dislikes or hate of ARRL are meaningless, not warranted and is not in the best interests of amateur radio as a whole. After all, as many have said, it is the only organization in existance that represents all amateurs, members or not. Give them a break.

K2WH

 

Having been an off-again, on again ARRL member for 50 years, I've never felt that ARRL represented any more than a handful of VHF and UHF techies from New England. I prefer the HF bands, but QST seems to give only a token nod to these bands and modes, no more than they must... but hey, did we tell you about the peachy 1296 MHz digital repeater on top of a New Hampshire mountain top? (Spare me!) ARRL has never worked for improving the QUALITY of ham radio, only the QUANTITY. Look at the "dumbing down" of requirements to get into ham radio, all rammed through by ARRL. Easier tests, no code, ham radio is just a glorified CB service... and it shows! (Tuned across 75 meters lately?) But here's a picture of a 700 element UHF beam, so everything is all right. Of course, the more amateurs, the more potential dues-paying members for ARRL. Soon it becomes obvious that ARRL is out only for ARRL, promoting the private interests of a handful of New England hams and for whatever generates membership fees, and lots of them. But, wait until you see this marvelous article for a whiz-bang microwave transmitter that interfaces with your 2 meter handheld. On a good day, you can work Rhode Island. Barf. For my money, CQ has always had a far better feel for the majority of amateur radio operators than has QST or the ARRL. All the really useful articles seem to be in CQ. A sad state of affairs.

 

Just a few observations to add to the mix. I've been an ARRL member since 1972, and since that time have written a lot of articles both in QST and in other ARRL publications. Naturally, I'm not about to "bite the hand that feeds me," but I still think I can be pretty objective.
As with much of society, we've become a collection of special interest groups...much to the detriment of the common good. Since, by and large, our rank and file has failed to come to a consensus as to what our common goals SHOULD be, it's only natural that ARRL has to "guess" for us. It's obvious from just a cursory scroll through all the QRZ discussions that we really don't know who we are...how can we expect ARRL to know any better? In ARRL's favor, ask this....who ELSE publishes a Handbook, or an Antenna Book, or a Compendium, or any number of other journals that, despite not being able to please everyone, at least gives some sense of solidarity. Unless we can come up with something BETTER, it's really hard to fault ARRL for being "out of touch." Undoubtedly, we're ALL in ham radio for different reasons....and this is a very good thing. We can't confuse INTERESTS with basic VALUES, however. I think the values as spelled out in part 97 are still pretty relevant. We are to promote the state of the radio art, provide training, perform public service where necessary, etc. As long as these criteria are met, our hobby has a future...regardless of one's specialty within those parameters.
Unlike in some countries, where membership in a national radio club is mandatory, membership in the ARRL is optional. If you don't like the ARRL, join a BETTER one. Hire your local divorce lawyer to fight BPL. Write, publish, and distribute your own Handbook.

I think I've made my point. I shall step down from my soapbox now.


Eric,
KL7AJ

 

I will venture to say that MOST folks that complain about the league have never sat down and discussed their likes and dislikes with either their section manager or their division director.....if there is something coming up (like the bandwidth hoopla) then tell your section manager or division director how you feel and WHY....don't just say i don't like that....give them a well thought out reason you feel the way you do.....it's like the FCC, telling them you don't like something isn't the way to get their attention....make a well reasoned argument for or against the subject...as for talking to your section manager or division director, try e-mail or just pick up the phone and call them.....they will be glad to hear from you, especially if you have something of value to say, be it pro or con. I personally have never had a problem communicating with my league representatives or with league headquarters itself.....and they have represented my views very well over the years.....they have not always felt the same way i did on all subjects, but that's the problems with large homogenous groups....you can't please all the people all the time. As far as money goes.....when was the last time you ran a business on volunteer money sources....and no matter what you might think, the headquarters opperation is a business and it better be if the league is going to continue to be a living breathing creature that tries to look out for the best interest of all hams, not just the members.

Kevin O'Dell N0IRW

 

The arrl only represents a relatively small portion of we hams. Even if you trust what they claim to be their membership numbers which I do not, (when they boast of a number in the 600k range I wonder if this is a current number of paid up members...?-- (doubt it knowing how non profits often count lapsed members in this number to attempt to prove clout...) the vast majority of operators are not involved with the arrl at all.

The poster of this string has observed correctly--- the arrl is at an all time low in at least image all through the ars and hobby. Why? Well like many organizations they don't do all things wrong. They have preformed on a few things in the last decade or so. But there have been some miserable very high profile failures, just astonishing actually.

Among the dozen or so is the absolute failure of the arrl to effectively lobby on the bpl issue-- they have been asleep at the switch in efficacy since bpl reared its ugly head. This is a complete and fundemental failure not a small point--- bpl is a hobby killer, a service kiler if you will.

Also----the arrl's dumb down policy regarding an essentially continued lowering of license standards only leads to one place; the hf bands will go the way of cb, marine radio vhf and so called ham vhf--- simple as that. One does not need more than these three examples in the last 10-15 years of lowering standard failure on these bands to reach this conclusion. This is such a no brainer that I have to think the arrl's motives for this position are merely to sell more radios and get more support ( read $$$) from radio sellers, get more membership revenue which to a non profit is "unrestricted" money and the most valuable to their revenue model, and essentially keep their careers on track at the arrl.

This is a pathetic situation because of course we all want thwe arrl to suceed and thrive to protect the ars and the hobby we all love. So---- bottom line--- the arrl just does not get it. When the esoteric little history on this time in the hobby is written observers will note that the arrl has had a profound impact on the decline of the ars--- wait and see--- past predicts future, the arrl has a bad 10 year history.....wait and see...

 

Charlie,
It's too bad the ARRL has lost so much equity among regulators, the industry, and its constituents that a posting like yours is credible and necessary.

The main reason your posting carries weight is that there is a chronic lack of interaction between the people running the group in Newington and the "members" the ARRL claims to represent.

There is a mentality, easily seen, that the League's paid and volunteer leadership considers itself this benevolent sort of Mother Protector of wee little licensed hams. Maybe that worked when their group had the standing and a fresh and successful track record to speak with our confidence they would say the right thing. But today, I'm not the only one who gets patronized when I dare to question their politics, procedure, and perspective, so it is fair to call that a systemic problem.

In practice, here's the sort of discrepency you've addressed, restated as I support your point -- For all of the League's recent promotion of "digital" modes, the group has failed to implement the use of today's technology to quickly sample and tally the amateur population on issues (such as digital) that it wishes to represent.

One theory is that those administrators are reluctant to burden themselves by having to be accountable in an open, documented manner. Look at other non-profit groups of comparable small size, and you will see that they have long accepted open policy making and the building of client consensus in advance of such policymaking as the best ways to do business. Instead, we see closed door, back room dealmaking on fundamental policy issues, handed down from appointed specialists who have no special credentials for the job and even less constraint on where they may take their assignment.

The ARRL calls them "ad hoc committees" and there are no standards for how they are empaneled. The result can be a "committee" of people protecting their own interests, and spinning their recommendation accordingly.

You saw it recently with the Winlink controversy. I saw it a few years ago when they created a "160 meter band plan committee" that failed to include anyone from one of the most prominent, regularly active, and identifyable groups on the band -- the AM community. These are my people, and not only were they not invited at the outset, they were DENIED a place at the table after word of the panel's makeup began to get out.

The League got its behind spanked by the FCC when, having gone through a sham process, two members associated with the panel filed their own Petition for Rulemaking that was subsequently denied. Each time like this is where the ARRL loses equity with federal regulators and the people it would claim to represent.

Frankly I have no specific poison for the League as an institution. I have followed it since I was licensed in 1971, discontinued my subscription in 1976 when they failed to represent AM in several regulatory matters, and granted them a probationary subscription a few years ago based on some early progress recognizing our specialty and including it in their maneuvers, publications, and promotions.

They remain on probation, and in my latest payment of subscription fees, I told their membership recruiter, Mary Hobart, that this probation shall continue until several remaining points are resolved to my satisfaction. Immediately she wrote back and suggested there was little she, as Development Officer, was likely to be able to do in direct action on the problems I could point out.

And here we see an example of why the group in Newington is accused regularly of being unresponsive, plodding, and moribund.

The best way to wake them up is to continue to remind them, as you have done, that they must become part of the amateur community, and quit this Mighty-Oracle-On-High crap they've been handing us well past the dawn of the Information Age.

I'm waiting for another nonsensical response from Haynie to prove my point.

Paul/VJB

 

Wow, another anti-ARRL screed from Charlie plastered across the 'News' page of QRZ. Stop the presses! I'm astonished! It's amazing that 10 of the 11 groups he identifies are fed up with the ARRL according to him, and the one group that likes Newington is a group he has repeatedly castigated elsewhere on this site.

I wonder how ARRL's volunteers can continue to operate at all with the constant, withering fire from sites like QRZ.com and 'editorialists' like Charlie. No matter what they do, there's somebody out there firing up a PC to throw out a few hundred words of condemnation. No good deed goes unpunished.

No, ARRL isn't perfect. I call them "A-Double Cross-L" on occasion, too, when I don't like something they do. But I make sure I see my Division Director a couple times a year and I am not shy about writing him. And I find that in the end, I agree with nearly all of their decisions.

 

here we go agian

 

A nonsensical response? When I see stuff about "dumbing down" (just what does that mean?) when the Question Pool Committee writes the questions not the ARRL. Or a comment that "boasting of 600,000 members"? When have we ever said that? This is nonsensical!

N0IRW made a valid point. Let me relate to you something you will find interesting. In 1988 when I was elected to the board, I had my home address and phone number put in QST. I was told that would be a mistake. In reality, I get very few calls and fewer letters. You will note today all the directors list their address and phone numbers. There are darn few hams that can say that they did not have the chance to talk to me directly at conventions or hamfest. I have made 227 from coast to coast.

I would like to thank Charlie for putting this up. Now, let us see if something constructive can be accomplished rather than another series of rants with no basis of fact. Do your homework first! I will respond from time to time as it permits as I want to also address something on the code issue that I have NEVER seen on these BBS's.

Jim, W5JBP

 

I only have one question. Was the ARRL responsible in ANY WAY for the elimination of the Novice Class License? If so, they have no right to exist.

K6BBC

 

Jim,

Now, that is something to stay up for.
ANYTHING new on KC/NC would be fascinating.

73,
Bill

 

"only leads to one place; the hf bands will go the way of cb, marine radio vhf and so called ham vhf--- simple as that"

Say what! As a long time user of marine VHF and HF, I have NEVER heard all the crap that goes on in the ham bands.