Michael Coslo wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:20:26 EDT:

Klystron wrote:
Jim Higgins wrote:
We already have a membership organization so what you must be talking
about is a different membership organization that appeals to a
different set of members. So... exactly which different set of
members would that be?

75% of all hams are NOT members of the ARRL. I'd start with them.

I might caution you that reading that 75 percent figure that a person
can get a distorted perspective. Are all those Hams active? Are they
from the group of Hams who came in during the so called "honeydo era"
when repeaters functioned as a sort of public cell phone for a lot of
folks? They started dropping off a few years ago, and will likely
continue for several more years.

I would caution you not to ask unanswerable questions. :-(

The Publisher's Sworn Statement, the only document able to yield a
direct number of ARRL members to any public individual, has been
missing from their website for over a half year. It is available only
by
surface mail...if they choose to send it to a requestor. From
elesewhere in QST one can glean an approximate membership
number of 152 thousand...which may or may not be accurate.
Assuming it is -

As of 23 June 2007 the FCC database contained 711,828 individual
amateur radio licensees (i.e., exclusive of Clubs). As a percentage
of
those, the ARRL membership is 21.4%. The ARRL's US license
totals page for 23 June 2007 indicates 654,616 individual licensees
NOT in their Grace Period for renewal. Compared to those, the ARRL
membership is 23.2%. Grace Period licensees number are apparently
57,212 total for that database date. That is inferred by subtracting
non-
grace-period individual licensee totals from the grand total of all
individual licensees.

The use of "active" versus "inactive" licensees is incorrect,
disinformative.
It should be Non-Grace-Period versus In-Grace-Period. A licensee may
or not be active in radio operation during their license Non-Grace-
Period;
there is no Poll or other data to prove their radio operation
activity. Those
licensees in their Grace Period may be ill, deceased, on active duty
with
the military, relocated for work purposes, or somewhere off-planet not
on
NASA duty. There is no data available to indicate which or what on
those.
Neither is there any data on the number of "honey-do" licensees. Such
remarks are highly subjective, hearsay, or simply specious.

It is just about a sure thing that most members of the ARRL are a group
that is actively involved in amateur radio. So they pay their dues,
vote, and get something for their money (in their opinion)

The "sure thing" cannot be proven and is merely subjective. There are
many fraternal orders active in the USA with active dues income,
voting,
and so forth but most members do not really concern themselves with
the actions of those fraternal orders.

If all your amateur radio news comes from ARRL sources (as their
origin),
are you getting news in the objective journalistic manner or are you
getting subjective news that is slanted to favor the ARRL? Recall
that
ARRL membership is LESS than a quarter of any 'popular' grouping of
US amateur radio licensees. Since the publishing side of the ARRL
'house' has to make most of the operating income for the League, the
League wants the most positive picture of US amateur radio possible...
and to convince others that League publications are the best to buy.


You are alienating the users of the mode - who are also more likely to
be Active Hams, IMO. As well as those of us who are presumably at least
somewhat satisfied with the ARRL's performance, witness our continued
writing of dues checks.

"Users of the [CW] mode are the most active hams?!? Just how do you
go about proving that? There are still over 300 thousand US amateur
radio licensees in the no-code-test Technician Class as of 24 June
2007.
Are you not considering that the pro-coders have ALIENATED the no-
coders for years?


As a start,an outline statement about what your organization is going
to do for us would be helpful.

Would a Formal Business Plan with Attachments of Monetary Support for
initial start-up be sufficient help? Or have you considered that
"Klystron's"
remarks might be irritation at what the ARRL has NOT done for many or
that their 'support' for certain activities of amateur radio is NOT
there in the
abundance claimed by the League?

The ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization for US amateur radio.
Only
in that sense is it logical to belong. Let me know when the ARRL has
any
national competition for US amateur radio "representation."

AF6AY (dues-paid voting member of the ARRL)