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

Steve Bonine wrote:
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?

I hear ya Steve! In a former life as a President of a Youth athletic
organization, I had just that situation. Hockey parents are at least as
passionate as Amateurs, and more shrill, since their dealing with their
children.

The association had to carry multiple insurance policies on my person
as well as liability for any decisions made by the BOD and myself. Its a
little disconcerting when the two sides of any argument each threaten
lawsuits if your decision goes against their wishes.

There were times I got to stand and deliver to a room in which at least
half of the people wanted me dead (seriously). I was glad that I am a
fairly formidable physical presence.

Somewhere along the line, compromise became a dirty word.



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.

One of the less pleasant parts of being on a board of directors is that
you occasionally have to make one of those painful decisions that will
really split the troops. But you have to make a decision, so you do it,
and sometimes you take the heat.

Even worse, sometimes you get in a hard place where the BOD makes a
decision that is so out of touch with the desires of most of the members
that you get to a crisis (one of the times I feared a bit for my health)

In that case, I did the right thing in the case, in defiance of the
board, 'fessed up, then offered my resignation. It wasn't accepted -
they were actually glad I got them out of a real jam.

Sorry for digressing - this was just a small example of some of the
issues that people on the other side don't get to see or think about.
All jobs are easy for those who don't have to do them. 8^)


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.

There will be disagreements in any organization. If everyone agrees, we
can get rid of all but one person. 100 percent lockstep in opinion is
just not realistic.

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.

Steve, where is that? It seems really odd that they don't have a Field
Org there.


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.

Not everyone can "lead the charge" so to speak. I would think that this
is a case for gentle persistent pressure by as many people as you can
muster. Then the ARRL might either acquiesce because it is a good idea,
or if that doesn't work, just to get your folks to "go away"

I didn't say that last sentence! ;^)


- 73 d eMike KB3EIA -

Michael Coslo wrote:

Steve, where is that? It seems really odd that they don't have a
Field Org there.

The organization exists in the sense that people are assigned to the
statewide positions. The "latest news" on the state ARES web page is
from September, 2006. The section traffic net summary includes the slow
speed net, which hasn't existed for years. There's no EC for some
important metro areas; in fact, there's a non-ARRL organization that
coordinates ham radio emergency response for that area.

So I suppose I shouldn't have used the phrase "does not exist". Perhaps
"nonfunctional" would have been more accurate.

Steve Bonine wrote on Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:55:21 EDT:

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?

A quandry worthy of Soloman. Natuarally, the organization splits
into two and each organization can then rightly claim to "represent"
its
membership. Every organization meeting night will be equitable as to
opinions. :-)

Everyone in both camps thinks they are "doing things" until they
need assistance from outside of a club group and run into
competition for assistance services from the other club. Then the
"battle" of wills begins anew, just at a different venue.


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 ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization of radio amateurs.
It has no competition...which can lead to a very small minority
directing or strongly influencing what the majority wants. But,
without any national competition for a long time, the ARRL has
gained a reputation with the FCC and has some status of some
representation. It must be blatantly obvious to the FCC that the
ARRL does NOT represent any sort of majority of US amateur
radio licensees, just less than a quarter of those.

But, in trying to discuss the matter of efficacy of the ARRL, we all
run into the League Zeolots to whom the ARRL is perfect, without
flaw, and get denounced for daring to negatively criticize their idol.
That clouds the issue and destroys any possible discussion.

73, Len AF6AY

On Jun 27, 10:02 pm, AF6AY wrote:


The ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization of radio amateurs.


There are many radio amateur organizations in the US with national
scope. AMSAT, TAPR, NCI, and FISTS are a few which immediately come
to mind.

But none of those is the size of ARRL nor has it's financial strength,
and each of them is of narrower focus. So ARRL remains without anyone
to seriously challenge it's tagline of "The national association for
Amateur Radio".

The model of a single dominant national radio club isn't unique to the
US --- in fact it seems to be the worldwide model. Britain has RSGB,
Germany has DARC, Japan has JARL, Australia has WIA, China has CSRA,
France has REF-Union, Russia has SSR, and so on. These are all large
countries with healthy populations of licensees, but each with only
one "substantial" national radio club.

The only example of a country with two "large" radio clubs was Canada
during the period that both CARF and CRRL were in existence. That
period was quite short lived, and the two clubs merged to become RAC,
so now even Canada has just one large national radio club.

It would be an interesting study to determine why this worldwide model
of a single dominant national radio club has so consistently evolved.

73, de Hans, K0HB

On Jun 27, 5:33?pm, RDWeaver wrote:
On Jun 27, 10:02 pm, AF6AY wrote:

The ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization of radio amateurs.

The model of a single dominant national radio club isn't unique to the
US --- in fact it seems to be the worldwide model. Britain has RSGB,
Germany has DARC, Japan has JARL, Australia has WIA, China has CSRA,
France has REF-Union, Russia has SSR, and so on. These are all large
countries with healthy populations of licensees, but each with only
one "substantial" national radio club.

That was not my point. My point was about Who controls the
dissemination of news and information and, most importantly,
the subtle influence of a very very few on the vaster majority of
amateur radio licensees. The major income of the ARRL is from
publishing. RSGB does that to some extent and may someday
pose a real competition for League publications. With the virtual
monopoly on influence comes the clear and present danger of
youknowwhat of a certain fictional year.

The only example of a country with two "large" radio clubs was Canada

The population of the state of California is approximately that
of all Canada. Have you counted the number of licensees just
in California lately? Note that the ARRL's daily tally of licensees
doesn't lump California with Hawaii or other places of the USA
even though all must be in "six land."

It would be an interesting study to determine why this worldwide model
of a single dominant national radio club has so consistently evolved.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Well, "RDW," it is a matter of convenience for a SMALL group
of hobbyists. You stated not too long ago that amateur radio
in the USA was merely a fractional percentage of the population.

The Radio Club of America was incorporated five years before
the ARRL. They are still in existance. While some members
of the RCA are licensed radio amateurs, their prime interest
focus is no longer on amateurism. Neither is RCA in the
publishing business simultaneous with membership doings.

If you have read Thomas H. White's remarkable history of
early radio in the USA, you will find out more about how the
ARRL got their first steps up the ladder.

AF6AY

On Jun 28, 12:14?am, AF6AY wrote:

My point was about Who controls the
dissemination of news and information and, most importantly,
the subtle influence of a very very few on the vaster majority of
amateur radio licensees. The major income of the ARRL is from
publishing. RSGB does that to some extent and may someday
pose a real competition for League publications. With the virtual
monopoly on influence comes the clear and present danger of
youknowwhat of a certain fictional year.

Except that ARRL does not have a monopoly of any kind on publishing to
the amateur radio community. There's CQ, Worldradio, and other non-
ARRL periodicals. There are other publishers such as RSGB as well.

There are also the vast resources of the internet, where ARRL has one
website. (An extensive website, but still just one).

Before the internet there were more US amateur radio publications that
were independent of ARRL, such as 73, ham radio, and the Howard W.
Sams books, yet none of them ever reached the popularity of QST and
ARRL publications.

The population of the state of California is approximately that
of all Canada. Have you counted the number of licensees just
in California lately? Note that the ARRL's daily tally of licensees
doesn't lump California with Hawaii or other places of the USA
even though all must be in "six land."

What's the point? There are a lot of people in California, and a lot
of hams. Does California need its own amateur radio organization?

Well, "RDW," it is a matter of convenience for a SMALL group
of hobbyists. You stated not too long ago that amateur radio
in the USA was merely a fractional percentage of the population.

The Radio Club of America was incorporated five years before
the ARRL. They are still in existance.

How many members does the Radio Club of America have today?

What does that organization do for amateur radio?

While some members
of the RCA are licensed radio amateurs, their prime interest
focus is no longer on amateurism. Neither is RCA in the
publishing business simultaneous with membership doings.

No one has claimed that ARRL is older than the Radio Club of America.

If you have read Thomas H. White's remarkable history of
early radio in the USA, you will find out more about how the
ARRL got their first steps up the ladder.

I've read it, and it goes something like this:

In 1914, ARRL arose out of the Radio Club of Hartford, led by Hiram
Percy Maxim.

There were other amateur radio organizations then, such as Hugo
Gernsback's Radio League of America (RLA). Some were regional, some
were national. All were new, because radio itself was new.

The term "radio amateur" wasn't even well defined back then. To many,
anyone interested in radio that wasn't commercial or government was "a
radio amateur". This included folks with only receivers, folks who
were primarily experimenters, etc.

The coming of mandatory licensing for transmitters in 1912 had a major
effect, but the biggest effect was the 1917 WW1 shutdown of non-
government/commercial radio, including receiving. The shutdown could
have meant the end of amateur radio.

Most of the pre-WW1 radio organizations, including ARRL and RLA,
simply disappeared or continued to exist only on paper, as their
members and officers went to war, antennas were lowered, equipment was
sealed or confiscated, and even listening was banned.

When WW1 ended, some of the prewar radio organizations reappeared.
ARRL did, and sent people to Washington in order to get the bans on
receiving and transmitting lifted. Some other organizations did the
same thing. But in the post-WW1 broadcasting boom, none of the other
organizations remained strictly focused on amateur radio. Gernsback's
RLA focused more on broadcasting, for example, and quickly vanished
from the amateur scene.

What really cemented ARRL's position was what happened at the various
international radio conferences of the 1920s, culminating in the 1927
conference which made amateur radio a separate and distinct radio
service, with amateur bands as part of international treaty, rather
than at the mercy and good graces of national governments.

Did the Radio Club of America send anyone to represent the interests
of amateur radio operators at the Paris conferences of 1924, 1925 and
1927?

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jun 27, 9:33?pm, RDWeaver wrote:

There are many radio amateur organizations in the US with national
scope. AMSAT, TAPR, NCI, and FISTS are a few which immediately come
to mind.

But none of those is the size of ARRL nor has it's financial strength,
and each of them is of narrower focus. So ARRL remains without anyone
to seriously challenge it's tagline of "The national association for
Amateur Radio".

Yep. Other organizations have come and gone, usually centered on a
single issue or a few issues. None since the end of WW1 has ever
really been a contender.

It would be an interesting study to determine why this worldwide model
of a single dominant national radio club has so consistently evolved.

Here's my theory, at least about ARRL:

From at least the WW1 restart, ARRL has aimed to be a "general
purpose" amateur radio organization. ARRL publishes a wide range of
books and periodicals, has the Maxim Memorial station on the air every
day, sponsors a wide variety of contests and operating activities, is
present at most major hamfests, is constantly involved with FCC, has
the QSL bureau, ARRL VEC, and a host of other things, all amateur
radio related.

That doesn't mean ARRL always does the best possible job in every
possible area, or that other organizations don't also do those things.
What it does mean is that ARRL offers something of value to more hams
than any other national organization. And it means ARRL's focus is
amateur radio *only*, which is as it should be.

The result is that more US hams join ARRL than any other amateur radio
organization.

IOW, the real question is "why doesn't a rival organization arise?" I
think the answer is that no other organization wants to take on all
the tasks ARRL does, or even the majority of them. Nor do rival
organizations want to deal with the challenge of balancing all the
various interests and opinions of a general membership organization.
Other organizations focus on a limited number of areas, which
naturally limits the number of hams who will join those organizations.
Narrow focus also avoids having to make the kinds of compromises
needed in a general-purpose organization.

73 de Jim, N2EY

On Jun 28, 12:30?pm, wrote:

ARRL publishes a wide range of books and
periodicals, has the Maxim Memorial station
on the air every day, sponsors a wide variety
of contests and operating activities, is
present at most major hamfests, is constantly
involved with FCC, has the QSL bureau, ARRL
VEC, and a host of other things, all amateur
radio related.

One more thing ARRL does: in-depth, Consumer-Reports-style Product
Reviews.

The ARRL Lab runs Amateur-Radio-related products
through a wide variety of independent lab tests and
on-the-air operating environments, and publishes detailed
reports of the results. They've been that sort of review
for over 25 years, and the Product Reviews from all that time are
available to members free.

Want to know the difference between a TS-950SD
and a TS-950SDX, or compare them to a current-
production rig? Just download the reviews.

In some cases, such as the Elecraft K2, there is an expanded review at
the website.

The way I figure it, if a Product Review from ARRL helps me make
better-informed choices, the whole cost of membership may be recouped
in savings. One Maxcom
Matcher situation can spare a lot of hams a lot of expense
and wasted effort. (A Maxcom Matcher cost about as much
as an ARRL Life Membership at the time).

Yes, there are product reviews on websites like eham.net.
They are valuable because they are owner's opinions and experiences.
But AFAIK, nobody does extensive
independent lab testing of amateur gear except ARRL.

73 de Jim, N2EY