| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Ideas needed for a new organization
The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was
inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. Its web site suggests that it has no vision of any future beyond the preservation of the status quo. In short, it is so mired in the past that it has no future. That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? -- ---- A recent, no-code Amateur Extra |
Ideas needed for a new organization
"Klystron" wrote
The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. Morse is obsolete? Hmmm..... N7SO |
Ideas needed for a new organization
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 In Klystron writes: The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. Its web site suggests that it has no vision of any future beyond the preservation of the status quo. In short, it is so mired in the past that it has no future. That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? -- ---- A recent, no-code Amateur Extra This is a quite well-trodden subject. I refer you to many, many threads on the subject in the past in the newsgroups archives. Go to Google Groups at http://groups.google.com and search for: ARRL "new organization" for a start. Many past efforts at a replacement organization have been tried, and failed. Most notably was an organization led by "73" Magazine Editor Wayne Green, W2NSD (the "Institute of Amateur Radio"). Sometimes the leadership was just too controversial or confrontational. In the case of Glenn Baxter, K1MAN (American Amateur Radio Association, International Amateur Radio Network), it's hard to set a good example, and encourage those to follow you, when you're constantly in trouble with the FCC and hiding behind the alleged endorsements of many people who want nothing to do with you, and repeatedly disavow such endorsement (e.g., Walter Cronkite KB2GSD and Leo Meyerson W0GFQ). Some organizations are very worthwhile, such as QCWA, AMSAT, TAPR, etc., but are too specialized to have very large membership rolls. Some organizations are for the purpose of seeking specific changes or political reforms, and lose traction once those reforms have been achieved (e.g., NCI). It's been pointed out that many ARRL Director and Section Manager elections run unopposed. Why go to the trouble to build a new organization from the ground up, if getting involved with the ARRL and changing from within might be a better strategy? It might also be reasonable to assume that those who find fault with the ARRL would find as much, or worse, fault with a new organization. Such an organization can never be perfect, and will not be able to avoid disagreeing with someone on some point of view. Practical administration of such an organization, particularly if it encompasses a large cross-section of amateurs, will likely involve some negotiation and compromises. Organizations also have to be for things, in addition to just being against things. Are the complainers and non-joiners up to the task? Part of taking the lead in any new effort, whether it be a new newsgroup, a new local club, or a new national organization, is to step up, introduce yourself, and try to build others' trust, such that they would want to follow you. One good first step for such a leader or leaders would be to step out of the shadows of anonymity and identify themselves, IMHO. - -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS) iD8DBQFGfwDy6Pj0az779o4RAt8SAKCgNHG/oV6xK09bIzcnnBCPN7026ACgh5Hm 2owUCBl4QkLRb+cgGQdU00o= =E+Ia -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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. |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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. Respectfully, I would suggest that you start the new organization, Klystron. If the present situation is unacceptable, then go out and change it. 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. 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) That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? I would suggest that you start the process of forming a new organization. I would respectfully suggest that you might think about omitting statements about the obsolescence of Morse code. Give some consideration to your statement: It was inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. 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. After all is said and done, your task is to organize a group that includes inactive Hams, disinterested Hams, Hams who are content to make use of the ARRL's benefits without getting involved personally, and those who are frugally noncommittal to the whole thing. When you do start this new organization, it might be helpful to provide a monthly post to the newsgroups in the same manner that we have in r.r.a.info and r.r.a.moderated. As a start,an outline statement about what your organization is going to do for us would be helpful. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Ideas needed for a new organization
"Klystron" wrote in message ... That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? Dear "xxx", ARRL is just one of several amateur radio clubs which I am a member of, each for various reasons. (And I think it is important to note that ARRL is just another amateur radio club, although larger than most.) I belong to CADXA to associate with others who work DX. I belong to NCCC to associate with other contesters. I belong to SOC to associate with other hams who don't take themselves too seriously. I belong to ARRL because they once gave me a scholarship, and to associate with others who read QST. If you start a new radio club, maybe I'll find a reason to join it also. The Man in the maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ -- Iitoi |
Ideas needed for a new organization
"Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... 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. Respectfully, I would suggest that you start the new organization, Klystron. If the present situation is unacceptable, then go out and change it. 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. In addition, there are a significant number of people who simply are not joiners regardless of what they may think of an organization. Of those who are active but not members of the ARRL, I'd bet the majority of them simply fall into the "non-joiner" class. Dee, N8UZE |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Jun 24, 7:43 pm, Klystron wrote:
That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? Have you considered AARA, which bills itself as "your alternative to ARRL". Website at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/iarntra.../business.html 73, RDW |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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) |
Ideas needed for a new organization
Paul W. Schleck wrote on 24 June 2007:
It might also be reasonable to assume that those who find fault with the ARRL would find as much, or worse, fault with a new organization. Such an organization can never be perfect, and will not be able to avoid disagreeing with someone on some point of view. Practical administration of such an organization, particularly if it encompasses a large cross-section of amateurs, will likely involve some negotiation and compromises. The ARRL is more Publishing House than a membership organization. That part brings in the majority of a reported income to the IRS of greater than $10 Million US annually. Can one "negotiate" with a business? There is NO competitor for the ARRL to work against. ... Are the complainers and non-joiners up to the task? I am a voting member of the ARRL. I joined via Internet a couple days after my name and callsign appeared on the FCC database. Indeed, at the same time of day as joining, I was in private e-mail with Ed Hare, W1RFI. First problem: Someone at ARRL offices added an "Apartment 33" to my QST address. I live in a single-family residence and have for 44 years. The Fullfillment Office at the ARRL did eventually correct that. They may not be talking to their ARRL VEC side at Newington. Not a big problem but it amused our USPS deliverer. Second problem: Two weeks after receiving my ARRL membership card in the mail, a "Ham Kit" of literature was in my mailbox, offering "my choice of a book 'free' if I were to join." I contacted ARRL by e- and was - essentially - shined off. Since I had already joined by my own volition, TS, the 'free offer' doesn't apply to me. Am I happy with that? No. Can I do anything about it? No. Did I know about this 'free offer' ahead of time? No. Was the ARRL VEC side of ARRL talking to the ARRL Membership people? Apparently not. That's just one small sampling of one very new member of the ONLY national amateur radio membership organization in the USA. It has had many variations of problems with many others. However, it would seem that one should NOT complain about the League, am I correct? "Bad Form," yes? :-( AF6AY |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 - |
Ideas needed for a new organization
AF6AY wrote:
and was - essentially - shined off. Since I had already joined by my own volition, TS, the 'free offer' doesn't apply to me. Am I happy with that? No. Can I do anything about it? No. It is also a great example of how giving something away is never ever a good idea. There has been more anger generated over the years by free offers that probably anything else. 8^( - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Jun 25, 1:05?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
AF6AY wrote: and was - essentially - shined off. Since I had already joined by my own volition, TS, the 'free offer' doesn't apply to me. Am I happy with that? No. Can I do anything about it? No. It is also a great example of how giving something away is never ever a good idea. There has been more anger generated over the years by free offers that probably anything else. 8^( That was NOT my irritant. Here were three separate office groups at Newington (VEC, Fulfillment, Membership) NOT in apparent communications with one another. Membership was the slowest; based on a five-day worst-case surface mailing diagonally across the contiguous USA, they were still lagging the VEC section by a week. Here I was, a new member, joining of my own volition, and they don't seem to appreciate that. If the office staff can make such mistakes with one member, what could they do to 152 thousand others? What of bigger issues such as "Regulation by Bandwidth" proposal? [which was withdrawn] AF6AY |
Ideas needed for a new organization
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 In .com RDWeaver writes: On Jun 24, 7:43 pm, Klystron wrote: That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? Have you considered AARA, which bills itself as "your alternative to ARRL". Website at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/iarntra.../business.html 73, RDW Note that this is Glenn Baxter's (K1MAN) organization, as I noted in my original article in this thread. Before anyone sends Mr. Baxter any money, joins any organization he runs, or even seeks technical or operating advice from him, they may wish to check out the following site: http://www.ve7kfm.com/baxter/ - -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS) iD8DBQFGgDFM6Pj0az779o4RAtApAKC0CaBSPWi+VLR6bQ1UVO MXP4g4oACbBFZc 4kchg6H5EReu9LQsK0hUpM8= =O/NH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Jun 25, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo 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 have no idea what the "honeydo era" refers to, but the notion that active hams are (or aren't) members of ARRL is not proven here. I became licensed about 35 years ago as a teen, and joined ARRL the same day I got their "welcome to ham radio" letter and membership solicitation. There was some discount because I was a teenager. For the rest of my teen years, through college, I was barely off-and-on active as a ham, mostly as a visiting operator at contest stations. Out of college I went completely QRT until just a few months ago, the intervening years being spent in a career with frequent moves and little free time for hobby activities. Recently a career change made it possible for me to look at ham radio again. Over all that time, out of habit, I kept the license current and my ARRL membership intact. So much for "ARRL members are active hams". On the inverse side of the coin, I don't think that non-membership in ARRL correlates in any meaningful manner with "non-active ham". To some, being a ham is an individual experience with no corresponding "membership in a fraternal group" motivation or inclination. I drive a Corvette, but don't belong to a Corvette club. I'm a military veteran but I don't belong to any vets organizations. Couldn't I be a very active ham without belonging to ARRL? Personally, I think that is the case with many licensees, but that belief is just as unfounded as your unfounded presumption that ARRL non-members are "dropping off and will likely continue". 73, RDW |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
Michael Coslo wrote:
Klystron wrote: [...] I would suggest that you start the process of forming a new organization. I would respectfully suggest that you might think about omitting statements about the obsolescence of Morse code. Give some consideration to your statement: It was inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. 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. After all is said and done, your task is to organize a group that includes inactive Hams, disinterested Hams, Hams who are content to make use of the ARRL's benefits without getting involved personally, and those who are frugally noncommittal to the whole thing. [...] I do not mind offending the old-timers who are living in the past and struggling to hold ham radio captive (they have never minded offending new or future hams). The future of ham radio is likely to include digital (possibly D-star, possibly others). It is likely to make extensive use of computers and the Internet. It is just not likely to include much along the lines of Morse. The Morse zealots have already lost the fight for the issue that means the most to them - code testing. The reduction of the dedicated CW segments is probably a harbinger of things to come. My guess is that they know (and have always known) that anything that Morse can do, digital can do better. For that reason, they have fought to stop digital (I remember when it was dismissed and disparaged as wideband "pulse"). Do this simple calculation: multiply what you consider to be a good sending rate in words per minute by the number of letters in a word by 7 (there are 7 bits to an ASCII character). The result will be bits per minute. Divide that by 60 to get bits per second. The result will be quite laughable. I have seen people throw in the garbage old modems that were capable of 1,000 times that speed. As far as starting a new organization by myself is concerned, I have started a small business, a political action committee and an Internet users group. Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it. My guess is that a new group could be started in a single region and then bootstrapped into a national organization, within five to ten years. The obvious constituency would be people who would, more or less, agree with my (admittedly inflammatory) comments above. I would make no attempt to capture the telegraph key cohort of the ARRL, but the more progressive members might change sides. Nevertheless, people who are dissatisfied with an existing organization are always the greatest asset of a new or rival organization. The prospect of offending the core loyalists of the old group is just not an issue. |
Ideas needed for a new organization
RDWeaver wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo 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 have no idea what the "honeydo era" refers to, but the notion that active hams are (or aren't) members of ARRL is not proven here. At one point a lot of husband and wife teams got their licenses and used local repeaters to call each other at lunchtime or on the way home from work in order to exchange info on say stopping off at the grocery store to pick up something for dinner, or at the hardware store to pick up something. Hence the name "Honey, do this, Honey, do that. 8^) Many people in that group kind of dropped out of the picture as cell phones became ascendent. out of habit, I kept the license current and my ARRL membership intact. So much for "ARRL members are active hams". That is a sample of one. is the case with many licensees, but that belief is just as unfounded as your unfounded presumption that ARRL non-members are "dropping off and will likely continue". RDW (Can't we all get some names here? If a person wants to be anonymous, fine, but it seems a little odd to be seriously discussing anything with "Klystron" "illitoi" and RDW) I most emphatically did not say that non members are dropping off and likely to continue. You should quote the whole statement if you mean to take something from the words. I did say that those hams in the group that I referred to as "Honeydo" hams were dropping off and would probably continue to do so. I'm not sure how we can have a meaningful discussion if you try to debunk my points first with a sample of one, and then try to debunk another point by quoting out of context, then extrapolating it to an entire group. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Ideas needed for a new organization
Klystron wrote:
As far as starting a new organization by myself is concerned, I have started a small business, a political action committee and an Internet users group. Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it. My guess is that a new group could be started in a single region and then bootstrapped into a national organization, within five to ten years. Well there ya go! I wish you success. If I could offer a little advice, it would be that it is time to get a name here. I can understand anonymity, but if you are going to be a leader, you'll need to be known. My whole point in this discussion has been that too many Hams spend way too much time complaining, some to the extent that they are unpleasant to be around. Then they don't do anything. Thunder is impressive, but it is lightning that does the work. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Jun 26, 5:46 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
That is a sample of one. I'm only one guy. The sample proves the point, that being an ARRL member does not always correlate to your "sure thing" active ham. RDW (Can't we all get some names here? If a person wants to be anonymous, fine, but............. My friends call me "RDW". (My mom calls me "Danny Boy"). On most newsreaders, a glance at the message header will show my name as R D Weaver. Is that enough "name" for your purposes? 73, RDW |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:19:29 EDT, AF6AY wrote:
Did I know about this 'free offer' ahead of time? No. Was the ARRL VEC side of ARRL talking to the ARRL Membership people? Apparently not. Did you discuss this with your Division Director? The DD is your "Senator" when it comes to dealing with the Newington Mob. Things like this get resolved to your satisfaction many times through that route. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:46:42 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote:
At one point a lot of husband and wife teams got their licenses and used local repeaters to call each other at lunchtime or on the way home from work in order to exchange info on say stopping off at the grocery store to pick up something for dinner, or at the hardware store to pick up something. Hence the name "Honey, do this, Honey, do that. 8^) We used to call that "The Kenny and Michelle Show" in honor of the stars of that on our repeater... g -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Jun 26, 7:44?pm, Phil Kane wrote:
On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:19:29 EDT, AF6AY wrote: Did I know about this 'free offer' ahead of time? No. Was the ARRL VEC side of ARRL talking to the ARRL Membership people? Apparently not. Did you discuss this with your Division Director? No. It was not that big a deal to me. However, it indicates that three separate office groups at Newington have some lack of internal communications. shrug The DD is your "Senator" when it comes to dealing with the Newington Mob. Thank you. I will keep that in mind. Things like this get resolved to your satisfaction many times through that route. How? I found and corrected my address for QST...and it got righted after three issues. I wrote personally to Membership folks. I was only interested in one 'free' item, the Repeater Directory. I found lots of Repeater listings on the web for no cost. I am of the mindset that small problems can be handled personally without resorting to "representative" assistance. If that is the wrong approach, I apologize. AF6AY |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
|
Ideas needed for a new organization
Phil Kane wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:46:42 EDT, Michael Coslo wrote: Hence the name "Honey, do this, Honey, do that. 8^) We used to call that "The Kenny and Michelle Show" in honor of the stars of that on our repeater... g Yeah, we have a few of those yet locally. One is an elderly couple staying in touch with their son as he does his rounds. Its actually great that the old folk can do that. Sometimes it's good for a few chuckles, as when the mother calls the son to ask his location, and he answers "I'm in the driveway, Ma! Bless 'em all. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 - |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Jun 27, 8:55 am, 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. Works for me! 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 say you do the latter. It's called consensus. Since there is no way to give everyone everything they want, you work out a scheme that gives everyone *some* of what they want. And that's pretty much what ARRL has done. But there's a couple of other steps. For one thing, it's important to actively seek out what the membership wants. For another, it's important to publish that information so that the membership and others can see what the actual results are. But the second problem is that "what the membership wants" may not be the best course of action. In whose judgement? 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. If so, then the management has to make their case to the membership. The recent "regulation by bandwidth" fiasco is a clear example of how *not* to do a proposal, IMHO. ARRL did a lot of things right, and the proposal had lots of good points. But the BoD did not do a good job of explaining the proposal, nor of getting widespread membership support *before* submitting it to FCC. The end result was it got overwhelmingly negative comments - mostly because 'phone ops don't want wide data signals all over the 'phone subbands. Particularly robot data signals. 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 was a ham back then, and it was a lot more complicated than that. What happened was that, in 1963, the ARRL BoD proposed a return to the pre-1953 system, which required an Advanced or Extra to operate 'phone on the bands between 3 and 25 MHz. They claimed to have majority support of their membership and the amateur community as a whole. And perhaps they did. But there was a vocal minority who loudly opposed the 1963 proposal. There were also others who supported the *concept* but wanted a different implementation. There were no less than 10 alternative proposals that got RM numbers, comments, etc. After several *years* of comments, arguments, proposals, counterproposals, information and misinformation, FCC changed the rules. The final rules changes bore little resemblance to the 1963 proposal from ARRL. 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. Good example. Even if there was majority support for incentive licensing, there wasn't a 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. Agreed. 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. One of the main problems with the Field Organization is that it's all volunteers. If nobody steps up to those jobs, they go vacant. 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. That's the classic "bell the cat" problem facing any volunteer organization. My suggestion would be to take one small part of the Field Organization and make it your own. Out of curiousity - what is it that needs fixing in your section? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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. |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
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 |
Ideas needed for a new organization
Hi everyone:
"Jim Higgins" wrote in message ... On Mon, 25 Jun 2007 04:55:42 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. Why start with them? First of all most aren't even active. Secondly, which of their primary interests would you cater to that would cause them to join your new organization when they don't join ARRL? What would your new organization offer that ARRL doesn't offer and that would cause them to join other than it isn't the ARRL? Offered as an example, not as a point of debate, I'd offer it as a point of debate Jim (Curiously of course :D). What *would* your new organization offer that ARRL & the many, many other worldwide clubs don't already offer, Klystron & Iitoi? I'm a member of one of the local clubs here in Denver. I'm also one of those hams who IS NOT a member of ARRL itself. It's NOT because I don't want to be. It's just that, with a fixed income, if I were to go pluncking down PRECIOUS $$$ left and right for each and every organization covering each and every interest of mine, I'd not only go insane, but I'd also GO BROKE. As such, I have to ask myself WHERE DOES IT END? I don't *need* QST Magazine to keep me updated on the world of Amateur Radio. Besides...Quite frankly, compared to Newsline and ARRL Audio News & the ARRL Newsletter, ANYTHING in QST Magazine would be DATED INFORMATION by the time I got it anyway. True, ARRL does do some valuable things for the Amateur Radio Service and since I *am* a validly licensed Ham, they *do* represent me in various political and legal capacities (For which I am eternally grateful BTW), I still see a reason to join them if they're going to represent me anyway. They know my position on various issues because much the same sentiment is shared by SCORES of Hams like me. And many of those Hams have made their sentiments public. I don't need to submit what would sound like a broken record in the eyes of ARRL because they've heard it many times before. Well...I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. So I ask again....What *would* your new organization offer that ARRL & the many, many other worldwide clubs don't already offer, Klystron & Iitoi? I'm really curious. Cheers & 73 :D Pat Cook, KB0OXD Denver, Colorado WEBSITE - http://www.qsl.net/kb0oxd/ **NEW VIDEO SECTION - http://www.qsl.net/kb0oxd/cybershacktv/ |
Ideas needed for a new organization
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:33:10 EDT, RDWeaver
wrote: 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. I still hold membership in the Israel Amateur Radio Club, the voluntary-membership national club (I was 4X4UQ in the '60s). It would be an interesting study to determine why this worldwide model of a single dominant national radio club has so consistently evolved. It is interesting to note that in some of those countries, one has to be a member of the club to be licensed, and only the club gave the license exams. When the question of privatizing the license testing came up at the FCC in the 80s, I pointed out this anomaly to the manager who was dealing with it (Elliot Ours, one of the best folks whom I had the opportunity to work with) and questioned whether we were going down that route. I was told to "shut up and deal" to use a common humorous phrase of the time. The agency was hell-bent to privatize as much as it could and "damn the torpedoes". -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane From a Clearing in the Silicon Forest Beaverton (Washington County) Oregon e-mail: k2asp [at] arrl [dot] net |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:27 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com