In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

Carl R. Stevenson wrote:

I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional
written
element should be a requirement. However, I've read Ed Hare's excellent
*personal, not ARRL policy* comments on this from eham, and find that
they make sense to me - a compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to
make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything.

Once upon a time you also wrote:

I do not, and never will support the elimination or watering down
of the written tests. I have stated over and over again that I
personally feel they could be made better (where "better" and
"more difficult" are not necessarily synonymous ...).

Doncha just love Google?

You betchya! Everyone slips up from time to time, and I don't like to
use it to catch people in little mistakes, but this one is right from
Burger King! A Whopper!

(remember to point out that your quote is about the written tests, not
giving around 60 percent of US Hams a free upgrade) Same difference.

It *is* the same difference, because what it does is to remove a whole level of
written testing for a large number of existing hams.

A one time adjustment? That really has to rank as one of the worst
ideas that ever came down the pike!

Not if there's a good reason for it - but so far I haven't seen a good
reason.

If the Technicians/now Generals can even be considered to receive the
same privileges as the present Generals, how *Dare* the ARS or FCC even
*think* of not making it a permanent thing? That isn't even slippery
slope thinking either. The next batch of prospective hams will want to
know why THEY can't get the privileges that the OTHERS got by simply
being in the right place at the right time. What happens then?

A lot of bad feelings, for one thing. To my knowledge there is no precedent
for this sort of thing.

And how! I would not feel any resentment toward hams that came on board

sans Morse code testing. After all they were just taking the tests that
were taken when they upgraded.

But to have the equivalent of a General with just the technician test?
For almost 60 percent of Hams to get the free upgrade?

I make this suggestion in dead seriousness. ARRL needs to consult with
a licensed psychologist stat, if not put one on staff retainer. Perhaps
he or she could explain why this is such a stupid idea.

I'd like to see what W1RFI's argument is. I'm still waiting for a link...

And the primary question - what is the problem without the freebies?

How about this scenario:

ARRL is scared witless about the BPL problem.

K7JEB came up with this some time back. It makes sense.

Their (somewhat
necessary) paranoia about these things caused someone at HQ to muse
"yaknow, if all these Technicians were Generals, we could show up at the
FCC with much more impressive numbers of the Hams that would be
negatively impacted by BPL or other spectrum threats". Right now, they
don't have much HF access, so giving it to them allows us to jack those
numbers up by a lot!" It bounces off the restructuring committee, and
viola! A plan that not only P****s off those who came before, but also
those who will come afterward.

Perhaps. Weigh that against the fact that if BPL is ever deployed at
anything like a large scale, license tests for HF won't matter because
HF will be pretty much unusable for ham communications of the type
we're used to.

It will also make an incredibly good case for - dare I say it?
indisputable running numbing dumbing down of the ARS.

(devil's advocate mode = ON)

Back in the 1960s, we got something called "incentive licensing", which
was the result of concern that US hams weren't keeping up with techo-
change and were turning into "appliance operators", etc., etc.

Did any of those trends really change because of IL?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in 1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General, and
all Advanceds to Extra?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in
1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it
through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at
least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not
only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no
code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

Water over the dam or under the bridge.

Fact is, there has NOT been any
credible survey done of late which would take into account
the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on.
Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and
regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of
already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs
does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for
the FCC to make the rules according to only those already
licensed.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a
license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or
change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless
you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was
probably easier then than now..other than the code test.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to
convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable
for any license class. And that was 5 years ago.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best!
In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and
group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs
alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

What part of it doesn't?

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General,
and
all Advanceds to Extra?

It doesn't bother me at all.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again in
1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it
through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at
least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that not
only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or no
code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

Water over the dam or under the bridge.

Fact is, there has NOT been any
credible survey done of late which would take into account
the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on.

Yes, there has.

Simply look at the comments to the various petitions to the FCC
restructuring.

Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and
regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of
already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs
does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for
the FCC to make the rules according to only those already
licensed.

That's why the comments to the FCC are so revealing. Anyone can comment,
licensed or not. So all it takes is a simple review of the comments to get an
indication of what the amateur community, licensed or not, thinks.

And since FCC requires commenters to give their real identity, "box-stuffing"
and such is avoided, and if one person writes a dozen comments, they still only
count as one person's opinion.

NCI did a count of the comments to 98-143, and the majority wanted at least two
code test speeds. FCC said no. That's their right, but it's important to note
what the majority of commenters wanted.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a
license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or
change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable unless
you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was
probably easier then than now

I disagree! But without the actual tests for comparison, nobody can really say.

..other than the code test.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to
convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable
for any license class. And that was 5 years ago.

Doesn't mean it's what's best for the ARS.

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best!

Would you say that if you had a clear and obvious majority?

Suppose comments to the 98-143 had been 70% "dump the code test" - we'd never
hear the end of it.

In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and
group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs
alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything.

The claim was made in this thread that "a vocal minority complained". Majority
and minority opinion *do* have an effect - just ask John Kerry.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

What part of it doesn't?

Free upgrades, for one.

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to General,
and all Advanceds to Extra?

It doesn't bother me at all.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , Roger Halstead
writes:

When they came out with incentive licensing, there was a vocal
minority complaining.

Were they complaining that it was needed or were they against it?
This isn't a trivial question. Some folks claim the majority were for
it,
while others claim the majority were against it. Some say it was a good
idea, some say it trashed amateur radio.

What say you?

When they came out with the No code tech license
there was a vocal minority complaining.

Which way?

The FCC tried to get a nocodetest license as early as 1975, and again
in
1983,
but clear majorities of hams were against it. They funally pushed it
through in
1990. Some folks claim the majority were for it, while others claim
the
majority were against it. Some say it was a good idea, some say it
trashed
amateur radio.

What say you?

Now they are doing away with
most of the CW requirement and there is a vocal minority complaining.

Which way? And how do you know they're a minority?

Survey after survey shows that there is still majority support for at
least
some code testing. Indeed, the comments to FCC back in 1999 show that
not
only
was there majority support for code testing, but a majority of
commenters
wanted at least two code test speeds. The folks wanting only 5 wpm or
no
code
test were the minority. But that minority got its way.

Water over the dam or under the bridge.

Fact is, there has NOT been any
credible survey done of late which would take into account
the realities of change going on and the change that has gone on.

Yes, there has.

Simply look at the comments to the various petitions to the FCC
restructuring.

Two points:

1. That was 5 years ago and
2. That was NO survey and you know it. Yes, one can
derive statistics of those that DID comment, but the
stats are in no way automatically revealing of what the amateur
community as a whole may think. Anyone that ever
took a statistics class can tell you that.

Additionally, for the umpteenth time, the rules and
regulations of amateur radio are NOT the sole province of
already licensed amateurs. The mere fact that a majority of amateurs
does or doesn't want code testing is NOT sufficient cause for
the FCC to make the rules according to only those already
licensed.

That's why the comments to the FCC are so revealing. Anyone can comment,
licensed or not. So all it takes is a simple review of the comments to get
an
indication of what the amateur community, licensed or not, thinks.

WRONG for the same reasons I just stated above.

And since FCC requires commenters to give their real identity,
"box-stuffing"
and such is avoided, and if one person writes a dozen comments, they still
only
count as one person's opinion.

Again...this isn't done by a vote.

NCI did a count of the comments to 98-143, and the majority wanted at
least two
code test speeds. FCC said no. That's their right, but it's important to
note
what the majority of commenters wanted.

NOTE SPECIFICALLY: NCI never stated anything other than
the results of those that commented. Anything beyond that
would be speculation only.

WAyyyy back there used to be the class separation and then they did
away with it to the point where the General class had full privileges.

Late 1952. Went into effect Feb, 1953.

Then incentive licensing, then the new structure with code free techs
on VHF, then they lowered the CW speed and now they are doing away
with most of the CW requirements which are there due to international
agreements.

"To me" it matters little whether they make the requirements tech
heavy, procedure heavy, or require CW. It has little to do with the
character of those coming into the service.

Each change has brought out the "gloom and doom" element proclaiming
this will be the straw that broke the camel's back and the end of
Amateur Radio.

That's one way to look at it. Here's another: Some look at the trend
since
about 1975 and see a gradual reduction in the qualifications for a
license, and
a gradual reduction in the "quality" of the ARS. YMMV. No one event or
change
sticks out - just a slow, gradual change that is barely noticeable
unless
you
step back and compare over a long period of time.

Fact is that a General in 1957 had all privileges and the test was
probably easier then than now

I disagree! But without the actual tests for comparison, nobody can really
say.

I took the general in 1957/8 timeframe and it was
no big deal for me as a teenager of 16.

..other than the code test.

Maybe in addition to the technology and procedure testing we should
run a test on character traits? :-)) If we had been doing such
there would be a number of current hams who would have failed.

I have gone the whole route and yes, I passed 20 wpm to get my
license, but I don't see that need be a requirement for future
applicants.

I do.

20wpm? Yet neither you nor anyone else was able to
convince the FCC that even 13wpm was justifiable
for any license class. And that was 5 years ago.

Doesn't mean it's what's best for the ARS.

ROTFLMAO... You left out the "IMHO" on that.
As we have often decided...we'll likly forever be at odds
on that one :-) :-)

It really doesn't matter how we test, there is always going to be a
mix of character traits and groups who oppose the way each other
operate. There will also be a small percent who will not be satisfied
no mater what is done.

So it makes sense to please the majority, doesn;t it?

Read my lips...this isn't a vote as to what is best!

Would you say that if you had a clear and obvious majority?

Suppose comments to the 98-143 had been
70% "dump the code test" - we'd never
hear the end of it.

Welcome to the world of political persuasion.

In the end it is the FCC that decides based on individual and
group input from ALL that wish to do so....amateurs and non-amateurs
alike. There is NO decision based on a majority of anything.

The claim was made in this thread that "a vocal minority complained".
Majority
and minority opinion *do* have an effect - just ask John Kerry.

In the end it will come down to the FCC only...regardless
of any vocal minority or majority.

The move proposed by the League is consistent with international
treaty and world policy.

Some of it does.

What part of it doesn't?

Free upgrades, for one.

Free upgrades do NOT specifically go against anything in
the treaty or otherwise in the more broad based "world policy" .
If you think otherwise, please point out the conflicting
treaty text.

But do you support free upgrades of all Techs and Tech Pluses to
General,
and all Advanceds to Extra?

It doesn't bother me at all.

Jim, how'd you let my comment about it not bothering me
pass without a comment from you :-) :-)

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

"KØHB" wrote:

"Carl R. Stevenson" wrote

| 3) free upgrades for Techs and Tech Pluses to General?
|
| I was initially against this idea, thinking that taking the additional
| written element should be a requirement. However, I've read
| Ed Hare's excellent *personal, not ARRL policy* comments
| on this from eham, and find that they make sense to me - a
| compelling case for a "one-shot adjustment" to
| make things clean in a way that nobody loses anything.

I haven't seen Ed Hare's argument, so I can't comment on it. If the
"adjustment" were some minor clean-up to sweep up the remnants of a long
abandoned legacy class and the number of licenses involved was trivial
(under 10,000), then I'd have no problem with it.

But we aren't dealing with some trival number, we are dealing with
almost 2/3rds of existing licensees.

The message ARRL sends with this proposal is "our General (and Extra)
qualifications" are more strenuous than need be. Such a free-pass would
establish that all these hundreds of thousands of licensees have been
qualified for General (or Extra) all along. At that moment it is
established, ipso facto, that the current Technician examination is
sufficient for the 'new General' and that the last Advanced examination
is sufficient for the 'new Extra'.

Up until now I have never raised the cry of "dumbing down", but such a
mass give-away would set a new lower bar for all future qualification
levels in the Amateur Radio service, and your position allegedly in
support of strenuous technical qualification standards rings hollow
indeed.

The latest offering from the League ranks right up there with the idea
of creating the "Diamond Club", the "Animal Farm" of memberships.

Dave K8MN

"KØHB" wrote:

"WA8ULX" wrote

| Because ARRL is a representative democracy, ARRL Directors listened to
members
| in their respective divisions while considering these issues.
Directors heard
| from many amateurs in their divisions, and some directors conducted
their own
| surveys. The final proposal represents the Board's best effort at
changes to
| the Amateur Radio licensing structure needed to carry us through the
next 10 to
| 15 years."

I, for one, suggest that popularity polls and beauty contests are not a
particularly good method for influencing and guiding the evolution of
the Amateur Radio service.

This is particularly true for the National Association for Amateur
Radio, which in my not-so-humble-opinion is abdicating its
responsibility to show leadership and vision, but has cobbled together
an unimaginative proposal lacking both, and copping out by passing it
off as "listened to members"

Ah, but directors do listen to members. Roanoke Division Director
Bodson read my e-mail concerning the removal of "Section News" and
contest line scores from QST. He listened at Jackson's Mill during the
state ARRL convention as I outlined my views and the reasons for them.
Then he himself introduced the motion to bring the changes about.
"Listening to" is not the same as "acting on the views held by"
members.

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

The biggest moneymaker at the ARRL is their Publishing. They break
even with QST but the gold is in the numerous books they have for
sale (shipping charges extra if ordered from Newington but same
prices, no shipping charges if bought over the counter at HRO).

Why is with your shipping charges fetish? There should be some
incentive for folks to buy League publications from dealers, saving
shipping costs (that's if the consumers forget that they are going to
pay sales tax when they buy from dealers). MFJ does the same thing.
Buy direct from MFJ and pay full list price. Almost all MFJ dealers
discount substantially.

Publishing pays nearly all the bills at ARRL, including all the so-called
membership services that are supposed to be so wonderful and
"cost nothing" to members...renting of banquet rooms for the BoD
get-togethers (and probably travel expenses, too?)...maintenance of
W1AW and the museum...and the legal and lobbying fees in DC.

Tell us how that differs from how things work at AARP, NRA, VFW or
American Legion, Len.

Membership fees don't go for much directly. That pays for the
"fulfillment services" (mailing lists, printing, distribution of QST) with
the rest of it spread throughout Hq; membership magazine QST
gets its income from advertising charges...just like the other
independent magazines of interest to amateurs.

The 2002 Federal Tax Returns for ARRL showed an operating
budget of around $12 million. Given only 170 thousand or so
memberships, that multiplied by annual dues isn't going to hit any
$12 million.

ARRL stays alive by BEING a business. Their self-promotion is a
necessary thing. Unfortunately, many members don't see that,
preferring the delusion of some altruistic, noble, kind, and good
organization "solely for members." shrug

What is the deal with you and the ARRL? You aren't a League member and
you aren't a radio amateur. What is any of this to you?

Dave K8MN

Len Over 21 wrote:

In article ,
(William) writes:

73, Leo

Len, another extra credit trivia question: where does the term "wing nut"
come from?

Ahem...that's LEO, Brian... :-)

But, you have to admit that the A.I. message program is a darn
good one! :-)

The term "wing nut" probably came from within the USAF before
Larrah signed off the Form 1 on his desk. [that's what he was
called when trying to "wing it" with rationalizations of how and why
he did what he did]

N2EY: "Besides, here's a simple, plain fact:

No matter what job, educational level, employer, or
government/military service that a radio amateur has, if said radio
amateur opposes Mr. Anderson's views, he/she will be the target of Mr.
Anderson's insults, ridicule, name-calling, factual errors, ethnic
slurs, excessive emoticons and general infantile behavior."

I thought this might refresh your memory while you're preparing for more
civil debate on the elimination of morse testing, Leonard.

Dave K8MN

Dave Heil wrote:
Len Over 21 wrote:


The biggest moneymaker at the ARRL is their Publishing. They break
even with QST but the gold is in the numerous books they have for
sale (shipping charges extra if ordered from Newington but same
prices, no shipping charges if bought over the counter at HRO).


Why is with your shipping charges fetish? There should be some
incentive for folks to buy League publications from dealers, saving
shipping costs (that's if the consumers forget that they are going to
pay sales tax when they buy from dealers). MFJ does the same thing.
Buy direct from MFJ and pay full list price. Almost all MFJ dealers
discount substantially.


Publishing pays nearly all the bills at ARRL, including all the so-called
membership services that are supposed to be so wonderful and
"cost nothing" to members...renting of banquet rooms for the BoD
get-togethers (and probably travel expenses, too?)...maintenance of
W1AW and the museum...and the legal and lobbying fees in DC.


Tell us how that differs from how things work at AARP, NRA, VFW or
American Legion, Len.


Membership fees don't go for much directly. That pays for the
"fulfillment services" (mailing lists, printing, distribution of QST) with
the rest of it spread throughout Hq; membership magazine QST
gets its income from advertising charges...just like the other
independent magazines of interest to amateurs.

The 2002 Federal Tax Returns for ARRL showed an operating
budget of around $12 million. Given only 170 thousand or so
memberships, that multiplied by annual dues isn't going to hit any
$12 million.

ARRL stays alive by BEING a business. Their self-promotion is a
necessary thing. Unfortunately, many members don't see that,
preferring the delusion of some altruistic, noble, kind, and good
organization "solely for members." shrug


What is the deal with you and the ARRL? You aren't a League member and
you aren't a radio amateur. What is any of this to you?

And what is the deal with the publications in general? I enjoy them and
buy them. They gather information that is of interest to Hams, and we
buy them and they make money. They are happy with the arrangement and so
am I and plenty of other people. Sounds like the American way to me!

- Mike KB3EIA -