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)

AF6AY wrote:

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. :-(

Perhaps. The point is that even if 75 percent of Amateurs are not
members of the ARRL, they should be in a different organization if they
are inclined to be in any organization at all.

We can speculate on the reasons, but it is educated guesses.


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.

Just personal experience from my area. The active hams "round here" are
almost all members, and the inactive ones aren't.


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.

More personal experience here. Everyone else's mileage may vary.



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?

As I wrote to another, if he is irritated enough, he might think of
doing something about it.

That's what I do. Seems to work too.


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."

Let me ask the question a different way, one in which I'm not the
discussion stompin' bad guy.


Given that 75 percent of Amateurs are not members of the ARRL, why is
there not another organization that represents this majority of Hams?


I have my opinion, and it is that with the exception of a small
percentage, those Hams don't care to be part of any group.

But my advice is the same as when an amateur wants to build an antenna
that obviously won't work. "Give it a try, and tell us how it works
out". 8^)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jun 25, 1:04?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

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."

Let me ask the question a different way, one in which I'm not the
discussion stompin' bad guy.

Given that 75 percent of Amateurs are not members of the ARRL, why is
there not another organization that represents this majority of Hams?

The have tried in the past. It is difficult to compete in anything
which
has a Monopoly on US amateur radio news and opinion.

The ARRL was NOT the first radio club in the USA. They were
incorporated 5 years after the first one, RCA. The Radio Club of
America still exists, by the way, it doesn't bother much with
amateurism now.

ARRL leaders saw early-on that its survival meant some kind of
amateur-radio-related business needed to be done to enable
monies for growth as well as sustenance. Publishing was a
natural since a periodical would be a regular members' information
source. Texts followed. Publishing grew until it sustained ARRL
and QEX and the contest journal; QST manages to support itself
on advertising space sales.

Think about this: Any publisher has Total Control over what is
printed. Absolute power. Now, from what source does all the
US amateur radio news flow? CQ and Pop Comm reprint news
from the ARRL. Both are independents of lesser financial backing.

Profit from publications supports all of the 'free-to-members'
services, the legal counsel billings in DC, the expense vouchers
for executives traveling to Switzerland, lots of things. Even with
170 thousand paying members, annual dues would NOT be
enough to cover much more than the heating bills of Newington
offices in wintertime.

A larger membership number and the more the ARRL can charge
for advertising space in their publications. More profit. But, it is
also a capability to reach More US amateurs to influence their
thinking, their decision-making. Power.

The old "Change It From Within" ploy revisited: It can't be done in
much less than half a lifetime. Not with an established oligarchy,
a virtual monopoly on publications. Case in point is the eventual
FCC 06-178 Report and Order. That was NOT "changed from
within the ARRL" at all. The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate back in
1998. ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03. League hierarchy was adamant
despite members' pleas to go along with change. The "use member
voting power to get elected officials in there who see one's point"
corollary: Twaddle in itself. Most offices have no competition.
Elected office terms are too long to handle immediate problems.
Even if there is SOME change effected, the reporting of such
elections, board meetings, etc., is all provided only by the ARRL
itself.

The League is a juggernaut of an organization that can eat any
start-up competitor as a light snack and never worry about
indigestion. It would take massive amounts of cash to mount any
campaign for a new start-up national membership organization,
more to keep it going.

AF6AY

On Jun 25, 6:52?pm, AF6AY wrote:

The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998.

That's simply untrue. You are mistaken, Len.

Here's what really happened back then:

In its 1998 restructuring proposal to FCC, the ARRL proposed the
following changes to Morse Code testing:

1) The General Class code test rate reduced from 13 wpm to 5 wpm

2) The Advanced Class code test rate reduced from 13 wpm to 12 wpm

3) The Extra Class code test rate reduced from 20 wpm to 12 wpm

That's a significant reduction in code testing for both General and
Extra class licenses. The proposal was in development for more than a
year before it was released in late 1998.

In addition, ARRL proposed in 1998 that all existing Novice and
Technician Plus licensees be given free and automatic upgrades to
General.

ARRL also proposed in 1998 that all Technician licensees have some HF
operating priviliges *without a code test*. This was seen by many as a
first step towards code test elimination for all HF amateur licenses

Those are the facts.

The ARRL hierarchy was *not* dead-set against
reducing the Morse Code test rate back in 1998, because they proposed
doing just that for both General.and Extra class licenses.

ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03.

Incorrect.

In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy of support for S25.5 from
supporting continued code testing to no opinion.

In its proposal to FCC after ITU-R S25.5 was revised, ARRL proposed
that all Morse Code testing for all amateur radio licenses except
Extra be eliminated.

League hierarchy was adamant
despite members' pleas to go along with
change.

The League proposed changes in both cases cited above. They did not
support the status quo. They were not "adamant".

ARRL's proposals, and the comments to them, can be downloaded from the
FCC website.

Do you have any solid evidence that the majority of ARRL members
wanted all Morse Code testing eliminated, Len?

It should be noted that when the comments to the 2000 restructuring
were counted, the majority of those commenting supported at least two
code test speeds. And when the comments to the 2006 restructuring were
counted, the majority of those commenting supported at least some code
testing be retained.

In 1999, reduction of all Morse Code testing to 5 wpm was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.

In 2005, complete elimination of all Morse Code testing was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.
..
In both cases, FCC went *against* what the majority of those who
voiced an opinion wanted.

Should ARRL have ignored what the majority wanted, too?

Jim, N2EY

wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:44:58 EDT:

On Jun 25, 6:52?pm, AF6AY wrote:

The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998.

That's simply untrue. You are mistaken, Len.

I stated an opinion. Opinions aren't "test" answers. There are no
"incorrect" or "correct" lables except from one's own subjective
viewpoints. You subjective viewpoint does not over-rule mine. :-)

I used the "code thing" as illustrative of the ARRL's conservative
attitudes towards code testing. It was not an attempt to revive
some ages-old argument over just code testing. It was an
illustration,
an example.

Here's what really happened back then:

What "really happened back then" is history. It is documented.
By others.

In its 1998 restructuring proposal to FCC, the ARRL proposed the
following changes to Morse Code testing:

The ARRL has never given up on trying to KEEP code testing for at
least Amateur Extras up to and including NPRM 05-235. That is
also documented. At the FCC.


ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03.

Incorrect.

In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy of support for S25.5 from
supporting continued code testing to no opinion.

How is having "no opinion" a "support?" :-)

Incidentally, MOST of ITU-R S25 was rewritten at WRC-03; S25.5
only applied to administrations' license testing requirements in
regards to international morse code.

In its proposal to FCC after ITU-R S25.5 was revised, ARRL proposed
that all Morse Code testing for all amateur radio licenses except
Extra be eliminated.

The ARRL refused to bend on code testing for Amateur Extra...they
HAD to have it in there. :-) That is only natural. The ARRL
represents its membership. The ARRL's core membership is made
up of long-time amateurs favoring morse code skill as the epitome of
US amateur radio skills.

ITU-R S25 does not directly apply to United States radio regulations.
It has no force of law. The United States is obliged to follow the
decisions of this UN body on the basis of Foreign Policy and all
treaties made by the United States to others.

As rewritten, ITU-R Radio Regulation S25.5 removed the requirement
that all adminstrations mandate code testing for all administrations'
licenses yielding amateur operating privileges below 30 MHz to
making it Optional for each administration to do as it wished. There
is no direct relationship between S25 and whatever the ARRL wanted.


In 2005, complete elimination of all Morse Code testing was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.

Comments on Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRMs) are not a
"vote." They never had such a definition. The Commission issues a
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, then invites Comments on same.
The FCC is not, nor has it ever, been "required" to obey any
"majority" opinion of Comments. The Commission will, after the
official end of the Comment period, consider all such Comments
and make a final decision on the NPRM. That final decision then
becomes a Memorandum Report and Order, colloquially known as
an "R&O." Once that R&O is published in the Federal Register, it
become law.

Anyone who wishes to look can go to the FCC's ECFS and Search
under 05-235 and 25 November 2005. On that date I submitted an
EXHIBIT done after the end of official Comment period on 05-235 and
offered solely as an Exhibit. In that I made tallies day-by-day of
each
and every Comment and Replies to Comments totaling 3,795 made
from 15 July 2005 to past the official end of 14 November 2005. I
read
each and every one of the 3,795 documents. Note that nearly half of
the documents were posted before the official start of the Comment
period on 05-235. I commented on that fact in the Exhibit.

That Exhibit has been argued before and I will not reprise it. The
Exhibit document stands on its own and was done over a year and a
half ago. The FCC accepted it enough to post it for public viewing
on their ECFS.

The ARRL is not obliged to publish my views on anything despite my
being a dues-paid voting member. That is as it should be. The ARRL
is a private membership organization and is NOT a part of the
government of the United States. The FCC is a part of the government.
The FCC is obliged to answer to all citizens of the USA. ARRL
membership is less than a quarter of all licensed US radio amateurs.
ARRL members cannot constitute a "majority" of amateur licensees.

AF6AY

On Jun 26, 4:28 pm, AF6AY wrote:
wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 20:44:58 EDT:

On Jun 25, 6:52?pm, AF6AY wrote:

The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998.

That's simply untrue. You are mistaken, Len.

I stated an opinion.

You stated:

"The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998."

How is that an opinion? It sure looks like an attempt to state a fact
- except that it's not true.

Opinions aren't "test" answers. There are no
"incorrect" or "correct" lables except from one's own subjective
viewpoints.

All opinions are not equally valid. A person can have, and state the
opinion that the moon is made of green cheese, or that the sun
rises in the west and sets in the east, but that is clearly not the
case.

You subjective viewpoint does not over-rule mine. :-)

The objective facts prove that your statement about the ARRL
hierarchy in 1998 is false. It is simply not true. Your belief in it
does not make it valid.

I used the "code thing" as illustrative of the ARRL's conservative
attitudes towards code testing.

The facts prove the opposite. In 1998 the ARRL proposed across the
board reductions in Morse Code testing for General, Advanced and
Extra class licenses. Hardly a "conservative attitude". Yet you
stated:

"The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against abolishing the code test or
even reducing the test rate back in 1998."

If they were "dead-set against...reducing the test rate back in
1998.",
then why, in 1998, did ARRL propose those reductions?

It was not an attempt to revive
some ages-old argument over just code testing. It was an
illustration, an example.

Your example was faulty, because it was not based on what
actually happened.

Here's what really happened back then:

What "really happened back then" is history. It is documented.
By others.

And those documents prove that you were mistaken about
the ARRL's position on Morse Code testing in 1998. They prove
that what I wrote is what actually happened.

In its 1998 restructuring proposal to FCC, the ARRL proposed the
following changes to Morse Code testing:

The ARRL has never given up on trying to KEEP code testing for at
least Amateur Extras up to and including NPRM 05-235. That is
also documented. At the FCC.

Not the point, Len.

ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03.

Incorrect.

In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy of support for S25.5 from
supporting continued code testing to no opinion.

How is having "no opinion" a "support?" :-)

You wrote that "ARRL was against it.". But ARRL wasn't against it
at all. The policy changed more than two years before WRC-03.

Incidentally, MOST of ITU-R S25 was rewritten at WRC-03; S25.5
only applied to administrations' license testing requirements in
regards to international morse code.

Not the point, Len.

In its proposal to FCC after ITU-R S25.5 was revised, ARRL proposed
that all Morse Code testing for all amateur radio licenses except
Extra be eliminated.

The ARRL refused to bend on code testing for Amateur Extra...they
HAD to have it in there. :-) That is only natural. The ARRL
represents its membership. The ARRL's core membership is made
up of long-time amateurs favoring morse code skill as the epitome of
US amateur radio skills.

Should a membership organization not do what the membership wants?

In 2005, complete elimination of all Morse Code testing was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.

Comments on Notices of Proposed Rule Making (NPRMs) are not a
"vote."

Nobody says their a vote, Len.

What the comments are is the voice of those who bother to express an
opinion to FCC. And when those comments were counted, the majority
opinion did not support the reductions and elimination of Morse Code
testing that were later enacted by FCC.

The comments are not limited to those with amateur licenses, or even
those who intend to get amateur licenses.

Anyone who wishes to look can go to the FCC's ECFS and Search
under 05-235 and 25 November 2005. On that date I submitted an
EXHIBIT done after the end of official Comment period on 05-235 and
offered solely as an Exhibit. In that I made tallies day-by-day of
each
and every Comment and Replies to Comments totaling 3,795 made
from 15 July 2005 to past the official end of 14 November 2005. I
read
each and every one of the 3,795 documents. Note that nearly half of
the documents were posted before the official start of the Comment
period on 05-235. I commented on that fact in the Exhibit.

That Exhibit has been argued before and I will not reprise it.

You just did.

The
Exhibit document stands on its own and was done over a year and a
half ago. The FCC accepted it enough to post it for public viewing
on their ECFS.

FCC does that with practically all comments or exhibits sent in. That
does not mean the comments or exhibits are valid or correct, or that
FCC agrees with them.

But that's all besides the point.

In 1998, the ARRL hierarchy was not against reductions in Morse Code
testing. That is proved by the ARRL's proposal to reduce the Morse
Code test speeds for General, Advanced and Extra licenses from 13 wpm,
13 wpm and 20 wpm to 5 wpm, 12 wpm, and 12 wpm, respectively.

Fact - not opinion.

Jim, N2EY

wrote:

Should a membership organization not do what the membership wants?

Pardon my taking a single line from your article, but it's the topic I
want to discuss.

The first problem is figuring out "what the membership wants". What do
you do when the membership is split into approximately equal factions
with opposite opinions and both feel passionately that their position is
Right? Do you develop a position that pleases one faction and is
completely unacceptable to the other, or a compromise that no one agrees
with 100% but most folks can accept?

But the second problem is that "what the membership wants" may not be
the best course of action. It is perhaps arrogant of the management of
an organization to think that they are more qualified to set a policy
than the members, but sometimes that's the case. Back in the 1960s the
ARRL lost a lot of support from their membership when they supported
incentive licensing; this seems to be a case of the organization doing
the opposite of "what the membership wants". I suppose we'll be
debating forever whether the ARRL support for incentive licensing was
the Right Thing to do for the hobby, but I'm only trying to use it as an
illustration that there are cases in which a membership organization
does *not* set policy based on membership consensus.

Setting policy for a large national organization is a complex task. I
don't agree with everything that the ARRL does, but I don't expect to.
I suppose I have a mental threshold and as long as I agree with "enough"
of what the organization espouses, I'll continue to be a member.

The other aspect for the ARRL is that there's a Field Organization that
provides support for various aspects of the hobby. At various points in
my ham radio career, I have used that support structure and been a part
of it, adding to my enjoyment of the hobby. I find it a significant
disappointment that this organization does not exist in my current ARRL
section, and this may have more to do with whether I maintain my ARRL
membership than the organization's position on national issues.

Before someone says, "If you're upset that the ARRL Field Organization
is broken, why don't you fix it?", let me explain my position on that.
When I moved here, I did the same sorts of things that I've done on
other occasions in terms of getting involved in the local organizations.
It became quickly apparent that the ARRL officials at the section
level had no interest in actually *doing* anything. (There was one
exception, but with no support from the Section Manager, even that
individual was unable to accomplish much.) So where does this leave me?
I considered the option of trying to "fix" things, but it would
require many hours of work to accomplish anything. Ham radio is a
hobby, and I'm not inclined to invest that amount of effort into it. So
I have contented myself with helping at the local club level. Maybe
there are lots of other hams in this ARRL section who would like to see
an effective Field Organization, and if we all worked together it would
happen, but I have no way of knowing if that's the case.

73, Steve KB9X

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:28:17 EDT, AF6AY wrote:

That final decision then
becomes a Memorandum Report and Order, colloquially known as
an "R&O." Once that R&O is published in the Federal Register, it
become law.

The MO&O is only one type of Order used in both rulemaking and
adjudicative proceedings.
--

73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest
Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon

e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net

On Jun 26, 7:45?pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 16:28:17 EDT, AF6AY wrote:
That final decision then
becomes a Memorandum Report and Order, colloquially known as
an "R&O." Once that R&O is published in the Federal Register, it
become law.

The MO&O is only one type of Order used in both rulemaking and
adjudicative proceedings.

Thank you for the additional information. I was not trying to
write a treatise on law, just making a simple explanation of
how the FCC does its thing for the benefit of those who are
less informed.

Never fear, I shall endeavor to keep quiet on "adjudicative
proceedings" until I have been admitted to the Bar. [when
do they open and close?]

AF6AY