RadioBanter - Why You Don't Like The ARRL

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Policy (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/)

- - Why You Don't Like The ARRL (https://www.radiobanter.com/policy/27149-why-you-dont-like-arrl.html)

I need to find a can of 'Thread Be Gone'...

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote:

"JEP" wrote in message
om...

"JEP" snipped the headers - I said the stuff below that's prefaced with "
"

I've declined the AARP (for now at least - they started sending me
membership
solicitations on my 50th birthday - maybe some day I'll see a benefit)

The NRA would be of interest if I was still a hunter, but alas, the XYL
is a
biologist and state-licensed wildlife rehabilitator, so for the sake of
marital
harmony, I've given up that hobby. (I have so many other things going
on,
I don't know when I'd have the time for it anyway ...)

The AAA has never appealed to me ... I get good towing coverage for much
less through my car insurance and my new Ford Explorer also comes with
roadside assistance.

Skinheads ... well 'nuff said, I guess.

However, WRT the ARRL - as much as I've had some policy differences
with them over the years, they DO do a LOT of good things for ham radio,
and their member services and publications are also valuable.

All together, I made the value judgment to support the ARRL by
maintaining
membership for the past 25+ years (I should have become a life member
years
ago - I'd have really saved money over the years - but I resisted
because of
my
policy differences with the ARRL leadership in a couple of areas.)

However, with BPL, CC&Rs (don't affect me, but affect a lot of hams),
and
the good work that the ARRL/IARU did at the WRC on 40m expansion, I
finally decided to become a life member and to work my policy
differences
from the inside as well as from the outside. If I live an average life
span
from
now, I'll just about break even on the $975.00 life membership. I also
sent
them $100.00 earmarked to support Ed Hare's work against the BPL threat.

I think that ARRL membership (with QST included) is a good value at the
current
dues rates and find it hard to understand how anyone who's REALLY
interested
in ham radio and its future could justify NOT joining and supporting the
good things
that the ARRL does - you don't have to agree with EVERYTHING they do or
every position they take (I don't ...), but on balance they do much more
right than
wrong, so I support them for that and joust with them on the things I
disagree with.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c
------------------------------------------------------
NCI-1052
Executive Director, No Code International
Fellow, The Radio Club of America
Senior Member, IEEE
Member, IEEE Standards Association
Chair, IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group
Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Regulatory Committee
Co-Chair, Wi-Fi Alliance Legislative Committee
Member, QCWA (31424)
Life Member, ARRL
Member, TAPR
------------------------------------------------------
Join No Code International! Hams for the 21st Century.
Help assure the survival and prosperity of ham radio.
http://www.nocode.org

Your SIG says it all. An EXTRA in NO CODE INTERNATIONAL?

Most of the NCI Directors are extras, of their national equivalent thereof.
One has DXCC CW only. What's your point?

I see you are a joiner. The more you belong to the better it is.

I am ACTIVE in the things I've listed, except for TAPR. I am into
digital communications but have not been active in TAPR projects
for a number of reasons. However, I am VERY active in all of the
others. (I didn't list my local club/RACES/ARES ...) So, it's not a
"the more you belong to the better it is" thing. What's your point?

Help insure the survival and prosperity of ham radio? I think not.
Insure the life of the ARRL and manufacturers? YES! No code is killing
ham radio.

Were it not for the no-code tech license since 1990, I'd bet we'd have
about 1/2 the number of licensed hams in the US that we have now.
(and commercial interests would be better positioned to take some of
our prime spectrum for lack of use)
So, how is no code "killing ham radio" ???

See you on channel 22 good buddy.

Sorry, you'll have to find someone else to talk to on your favorite
frequency.
I don't have any equipment that will transmit there. (But I do have 3 rigs
that cover all of the amateur bands (except the 5 channels at 5 MHz) from
160m-70cm, all modes, and can be run without AC mains power - main station
rig, mobile (I'm in the process of installing that rig in a new vehicle),
and a QRP
station I use for backpack/travel use.)

How many (ham band) rigs do you have? Can you run for extended periods
(weeks or more, if need be) without commercial power? How active and
well-prepared are you?

Oh, you're just trolling? That's become abundantly clear ... why not try
another stream? I think the bites are about to dry up here.

Carl - wk3c

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for
granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL.

None of them, I'd say.

Yes, ham radio was shut down during WW1 and there was a strong contingent that
did not want to allow hams back on the air after the Armistice. But there were
several other severe threats. Here's just a few:

- in the 1920s there were at least three radio international conferences where
the very existence of amateur radio hung in the balance. At that time there was
a strong opinion outside of the USA and a few other countries that the airwaves
whould be reserved for government and commercial use *only*. Some countries
with significant amateur populations (like Great Britain) proposed restrictions
that would have essentially killed amateur radio (ten watts and dummy antennas
only, for example).

The very concept of allowing "regular people" to simply set up their own
stations and communicate was alien to the mindset of many government officials.
ARRL folks like Maxim, Warner and Stewart had the unenviable job of changing
their minds. (Mrs. Maxim played a very important role as translator at the
Paris conferences, btw). Indeed, amateur radio did not gain international
treaty recognition as a separate radio service until 1927.

- The WW2 shutdown and reactivation went much more smoothly than the WW1
experience, in part because of ARRL leadership in dealing with FCC.

- Interference to radio broadcasting was a serious problem before WW2, due in
part to lack of BC receiver selectivity. It reached the point where hams in
many areas had to observe "quiet hours" and were not allowed to transmit during
much of the evening and weekend. This situation reoccurred with TV in the 1950s
to the point that a "traveling TVI roadshow" was put on by ARRL Hq. W1ICP and
others traversed the country with cars full of equipment to demonstrate that
TV and amateur radio could coexist without interference.

And now we have BPL.

73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY

..

Dan/W4NTI wrote:

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
JEP wrote:

Thats why I say good riddance to ARRL and QST.

That'll show 'em...

I bet it will Dave....maybe they should cut off their noses also, eh?

Dan, it seems obvious that this fellow believes that his tirade will
have some effect on the ARRL. It won't, but let's not spoil his dream.

Dave K8MN

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote in message
...

"JEP" wrote in message
om...
Thats why I say good riddance to ARRL and QST.
[snip] However, WRT the ARRL - as much as I've had some policy differences
with them over the years, they DO do a LOT of good things for ham radio,
and their member services and publications are also valuable.

All together, I made the value judgment to support the ARRL by maintaining
membership for the past 25+ years (I should have become a life member
years
ago - I'd have really saved money over the years - but I resisted because
of
my
policy differences with the ARRL leadership in a couple of areas.)

However, with BPL, CC&Rs (don't affect me, but affect a lot of hams), and
the good work that the ARRL/IARU did at the WRC on 40m expansion, I
finally decided to become a life member and to work my policy differences
from the inside as well as from the outside. If I live an average life
span
from
now, I'll just about break even on the $975.00 life membership. I also
sent
them $100.00 earmarked to support Ed Hare's work against the BPL threat.

I think that ARRL membership (with QST included) is a good value at the
current
dues rates and find it hard to understand how anyone who's REALLY
interested
in ham radio and its future could justify NOT joining and supporting the
good things
that the ARRL does - you don't have to agree with EVERYTHING they do or
every position they take (I don't ...), but on balance they do much more
right than
wrong, so I support them for that and joust with them on the things I
disagree with.

--
Carl R. Stevenson - wk3c
Grid Square FN20fm
http://home.ptd.net/~wk3c

Exactly. Working from within is generally the most effective way to bring
about real, long-term change. However too many other people just want to be
back seat drivers or focus on a single policy they don't like and "throw out
the baby with the bathwater" so to speak.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave Heil wrote:

I don't know about lucky. Fortunate, maybe, that my experience over
forty years in amateur radio hasn't been the unpleasant one you've
obviously been forced to endure.

Do you think this guy would by any chance be Vipul, Dave? Has that same
sort of pro-ham attitude, eh?

Naw, not a chance, Mike. JEP's use of language doesn't quite have that
flowery lilt to it. To emulate Vipul, he'd have to insert some terms
like "only-morse" and a few whopping tales of radio amateurs' love
affair with food or about how some group traveled to some spot on a
DXpedition and then spent all of their time operating radios.

Dave K8MN

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
JEP wrote:

Check the figures yourself then check how many are really active. Yes
you can but NRA and AARP rags on the stand. AAA no. I quoted no data,
I made an observation. Get you head out the sand and look around. See
all of your old buddies just hanging around the club meeting doing
nothing?

Nope.

Our club members are also quite active. They actively participate in the
business meetings and presentations.

is field day as well attended as it was in the 60's?

Better. I just posted some pix on our website, from FD in 1968. My
guess is we have about three times the number as we did then.

Ours is infinitely better attended than it was in the 1960s. Our club did
not even exist back then.

Are new folks welcomed?

Yup. During the day, I do no operating at all, just control op the GOTA
station and talk to new people when any show up. And we have new people
show up.

Is help provided?

Of course

Absolutely. Break time usually finds the newcomers making a beeline to the
oldtimers and lively discussions about items they need help with. Several
of us are on an "Elmer's phone list", all of us regular talk to new people
over the air and give help, and several of us regularly teach classes with
many others putting in a little help at one or more sessions of a class.

If so then consider yourself lucky.

Yeah, lucky enough. If you want, you can bitch about the ARS. Or you
could do something about it.

Or are you one of those hams you bitch about in a previous message?

- Mike KB3EIA -

Yup, change starts with each individual. Don't complain, do something. Be
an example of what you think a ham ought to be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
...
I wonder how many of the priveliges we enjoy - and many take for
granted - in the ARS, would be around if not for the ARRL.

- Mike KB3EIA -

None as the ARS would have remained closed down after World War I. There
was no intent on the government part to ever re-establish those privileges.
While this is in the distant past, we don't have to look too far back to see
loss of spectrum and proposals from the government for loss of spectrum.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

"Dee D. Flint" wrote:
Be an example of what you think a ham ought to be.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

Should a ham be like N8WWM!?

http://tinyurl.com/q3xp

In article , "Phil Kane"
writes:

On 31 Dec 2003 23:56:47 GMT, N2EY wrote:

Just one example: The government used tax dollars to rescue Chrysler
about 20 years ago. It turned out to be a good gamble because Chrysler
paid back all of the money with interest, and in the end it cost the
taxpayers nothing.

WHAT? Must be a different "government" and "Chrysler" than the one
that I remember, where all the government did was to be the "final"
guarantor of loans that Chrysler was seeking from the private sector
banks, enabling Chrysler to get a much lower interest rate than they
could get without such "bailout". No government money was expended,
nor would any have been expended unless Chrysler defaulted on said
loans, which of course they did not do.

Of course you are correct, sir! My explanation was incomplete and misleading on
the use of taxpayer dollars to bail out Chrysler.

However, the point is still valid. The Feds got involved in saving a major US
corporation. Taxpayer dollars and government resources certainly *were* spent
in studying the problem and setting up the loan guarantees, even if Chrysler
never got a nickel of govt. money directly.

And the question remains - was that bailout a "conservative" or a "liberal"
action?

73 de Jim, N2EY