eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net



[Articles Home]  [Add Article]  

More California UHF Repeater Restrictions:

Eric Struble (W7CSD) on August 16, 2007
View comments about this article!


The latest round of ARRL Communications to 440 UHF Repeater Owners in Northern California.

(All of the letters are a canned message with the exception of the 10th paragraph which includes the specific information pertinent to each repeater. DB Reductions are running from the current winner of -57db to the average of -30db for each repeater. Again, this may be only another shot fired in the eventual elimination of the 440 UHF band in Northern California.)

In re: x6xxx 440.xxx MHz Repeater

Dear John:

First, thank you for your continued cooperation as we work together to
address the interference issue asserted by the Department of Defense
(DoD) affecting the PAVE PAWS radar (PPR) system operating in the
70-cm band.

To bring you up to date on the current situation, let us share that
the ARRL Lab has devoted considerable time in the past several months
learning as much as possible about the operation of the PPR
notwithstanding that little is subject to public disclosure due to
national security classification of much of the characteristics of the
system. During that time, we were able nevertheless to confirm
reliably that the claims of interference are indeed real and based on
solid data and good engineering practice.

On Monday July 16, 2007 a teleconference was held among ARRL
representatives, staff of the US Air Force Space Command, civilian
contractors from the DoD and operators of the radar sites. This
conference was called to discuss the current status of the problem.
During the teleconference, DoD representatives confirmed that specific
signal strengths were measured on a number of frequencies calibrated
antenna and receivers at both PPR sites during the month of August,
2006. The signal levels were measured both at the top of the radar
antenna and at the input of the radar receivers. The Air Force's
concerns about interference are based on actual measurements, so
factors such as tower shielding or other antenna patterns and the like
have been fully taken into account.

After the frequencies of the sources of interference were determined,
the DoD contractor attempted to identify the specific repeaters on
those frequencies. They admitted that their data source was dated
(which explains why some callsigns were inaccurately identified). In
order to make certain that the list of identified repeaters is as
accurate as possible, the ARRL provided DoD officials with an updated
database of callsigns and frequencies. Their contractor is working to
verify the correct identity of approximately 25 repeaters that may
have been misidentified during their initial work.

We have been asked by several sources why, after years of apparent
cooperative spectrum sharing the Amateur repeaters have become an
interference source. Again, without revealing any specific details,
the DoD confirmed that the system had been upgraded and there had been
a re-tasking of its mission. This means that interference that they
could previously tolerate was now unacceptable. This is a
determination that the primary user of a frequency band is entitled to
make. This fundamental change in the PAVE PAWS mission is what has
caused the interference issue to be raised now. As secondary user of
this spectrum, Amateurs must fully accept the responsibility to
resolve any harmful interference caused to the primary user.

The DoD officials indicated to use that there could sources of
interference identified in the future in addition to FM voice
repeaters, including other amateur operations in the 70cm band.
However, they (and we) are working only with the original list of
identified repeaters provided in March.

DoD is aware that many of these repeaters are part of ongoing,
important public and emergency communications networks. However being
an "ARES" repeater or one owned by a public service organization does
not alter the fact that as primary user, the PPR system is entitled to
operate without interference. Alternative bands will have to be
utilized in cases where repeaters may have to cease operation on 70-cm
to meet interference mitigation requirement.

The ARRL Lab spent considerable time in developing Longley-Rice (LR)
propagation plots for each identified repeater. These plots permitted
the ARRL to verify with some certainty the identification of specific
repeaters. They also provided the lab with a reasonable method of
verifying that the DoD required signal reduction was in line with
expected signal strength at the PPR sites.

The Air Force consultants used their measurements and the observed
effect of different repeaters on the PPR system to develop a table
showing the amount of power reduction (or antenna pattern change in
the direction of the PPR systems) that will be needed for each
repeater. ARRL has carefully checked those requirements against its
own calculations, the frequencies involved and the known call signs
and locations of nearby repeaters on the frequencies measured. The
League is continuing to work with the Air Force on specific questions
of identification. When it is determined that a repeater causing
harmful interference has been correctly identified, ARRL is contacting
that repeater operator and providing them with the requirements the
Air Force has put on the table.

Based on proper identification of the x6xxx 440.xxx MHz machine
located at “Sacramento”, the DoD has determined that it is necessary to
see a reduction in signal strength of 47 db from this repeater. It is
going to be very difficult to achieve this level of reduction, based
upon the data (original repeater power, antenna gain, and system
losses) you provided for your repeater (or that we received from the
repeater coordinating group).

To work towards resolving this with your repeater, the ARRL Lab
recommends that you take the following steps:

* In some cases, it may be possible to reduce power. The reduction
in power from 50 watts to 5 watts, for example, is a reduction of 10
dB. In some cases, however, where tens of dB of power reduction is
required, it simply is not practical to do that much power reduction
to that extent.
* Power reduction can also be combined with a change in antenna
pattern. If the antenna used on your repeater is omnidirectional,
installing a directional antenna with a null in the direction of the
PPR site should further reduce the signal transmitted in the direction
of the radar system.
* In cases where significant attenuation by use of nulls is
required (more than 10 to 15 dB, for example), it will be necessary to
"aim" that null carefully. One way to do this could be to listen to
the radar signal, using a receiver with an S meter, and adjust the
orientation of the antenna until the received radar signal is at its
minimum value. If would be best, however, if an actual comparison of
the pre-aiming and post-aiming values is made, so ensure that your
signal in the direction of the radar has been reduced by at least the
required amount.
* You may be able to relocate the repeater, either significantly
farther away, or perhaps lower in elevation, if you can take advantage
of terrain shielding in the direction of the PPR and still get
reasonable coverage for the repeater. Terrain shielding can help, but
that, too, has its limits. While the LR studies have limitations in
terms of absolute values of field strength, the model is generally
reliable in terms of relative values. If you can relocate a repeater
and want to know how much change that may make, contact Ed Hare at the
ARRL Lab. His contact information is below.
* In addition, if you believe there are other mitigation
techniques that would help you achieve the necessary reduction, they
should be implemented.

There is a practical limit to how much mitigation can be accomplished,
however. While there is no limit to how far power can be reduced, at
some point the repeater becomes unusable. Nulls in the antenna
pattern can be used, but beyond 10 or 15 dB, it becomes increasingly
difficult to know for certain whether sufficient antenna-pattern
reduction has been accomplished. Deep nulls can sometimes be oriented
toward the radar system, but if that adjustment is tricky, it is
likely that any minor change in the environment near the antenna could
affect the null, and it may not be possible to maintain it in practice.

In some cases, especially those where significant mitigation is being
required, the only practical solution may be to shut the repeater
down, or locate it significantly farther away, or in a location where
significant terrain shielding can further reduce the signal at the PPR
site.

The DoD has agreed to an initial deadline of August 31, 2007 for
mitigation techniques to be put into place by those repeater operators
that have been positively identified as being the source of
interference. When mitigation has been completed on the stations the
Air Force has identified, they will do another round of testing to
assess the impact of the changes on their system. At that time they
will make a further determination regarding necessary additional
interference mitigation.

Please be aware that unless you are able to reduce the signal strength
at the PPR site sufficiently, the DoD may well ask the FCC prohibit
the operation of your repeater in the 70-cm band. Any such
determination will be made solely FCC.

In order to keep our information on mitigation status current, please
contact me at n1nd@arrl.org as you implement various mitigation
techniques. This will allow the ARRL to continue to work with the most
current and accurate information, enabling us to be in the best
position possible to keep as many of these repeaters on the air.

Although I should remain your first point of contact, Ed can be
reached here at ARRL HQ:

Ed Hare, W1RFI
ARRL Laboratory Manager

225 Main St

Newington, CT 06111

Email: W1RFI@arrl.org

Tel: 860-594-0318

Please note that not all of the individual mitigation letters are
being sent simultaneously. Rather, they are being sent over the
period of several days once the final verification from the ARRL Lab
is processed. The sequence of when you receive your letter is simply
a function of the Lab's final processing of the information regarding
your repeater.

Again, thanks for your continued cooperation. This is a difficult
problem for many amateurs. If I can provide any additional
information, please contact me at the email address above or by phone
at 860-594-0236.

Sincerely,

Dan Henderson, N1ND

ARRL Regulatory Information Manager

Email: n1nd@arrl.org

Telephone: 860-594-0236

Member Comments:
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
 
ARRL helps in UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by AI2IA on August 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
"When it is determined that a repeater causing
harmful interference has been correctly identified, ARRL is contacting
that repeater operator and providing them with the requirements the
Air Force has put on the table."

Here we see the ARRL helping Amateurs preserve their operating privileges within a shared band. The ARRL is in an excellent position with its lab and staff to help keep the relations between the primary user (DoD), the regulatory body (FCC), and the ham repeater folks as harmonious as possible. This is a good example of why all hams need the ARRL. The ARRL helps all of us to preserve our operating privileges through intervention such as this, through public relations, through education, and through emergency radio implementation. Without the dedicated people at the ARRL staff, and the regional and local officers, American ham radio would be in an isolated and lonely position from which to help solve the problems that always will face the ham community. We all should maintain membership and actively support the ARRL.
 
RE: ARRL helps in UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by K1CJS on August 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Amen to that--and this co-operation concerning the 70 cm repeaters is just the current tip of the ARRL labs iceberg. When you consider the labs are also still providing info concerning BPL, testing of ham gear, resolution or mitigation of problems of members who have requested help and other ongoing and sporadic endeavors, it is plain to see where ham radio operators would be if the ARRL wasn't there.

Too often the members who are going to drop their membership and the former members say "The ARRL isn't there for what I want" instead of first seeing what they are currently involved with. This "me first" attitude of those former members hurts us all.

One of these days those people who have dropped their membership may need the ARRL or its services--but their own blindness and/or their squabbling over petty differences will hurt them, because the ARRL won't be there for them.
 
RE: ARRL helps in UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by W6EM on August 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
The ARRL is neither all good, nor all bad. QST is a good. Lack of listening objectively to what members want is bad. Challenging the BPL FCC order is good. Rolling over and blessing use of 30-50MHz for BPL is bad.

Testifying before Congress was good. What they didn't say was bad.

Working with the AF to solve the interference problem was good. Establishing a goal to have broadband on the HF amateur bands was bad. Regulation by Winlink Autobots everywhere was bad.

So, looks like the ARRL's not half bad........ Or, is it the other way around?

Lee
W6EM/4

 
RE: ARRL helps in UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by W6EM on August 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Oh by the way. Let's do a quicky approximation of this repeater owner's problem to satisfy Ray that ARRL is being practical about the problem.

For simplicity's sake, let's assume that the present ERP of said repeater is 100 Watts. A reduction of 50dB (actually 47, but I'll get there) would drop the ERP to just one milliWatt. Er, are you kidding?

No. 50dB is equivalent to a power reduction of 10 to the 5th power, or 1/100,000th of the original power output. Now, if you add three dB to get back to -47dB, that leaves this poor fellow at a mere 2 milliWatts!!!

Now, who in their right mind would even seek to avoid what such a demand means? Essentially, shut it down. But, no, let's beat around the bush about it.

I'd hazard a guess that a receiver's local oscillator probably radiates well above 2 mW.

So, what about Part 15 devices like garage door openers? I'm sure those transmitters radiate more than 2 mW. Aren't they just above 400MHz?

Well, don't look now, but the garage doors will, by demandment, be manually operated in northern CA. Can't be interfering with that new system that is so much more than the old one was.....

 
RE: ARRL helps in UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by ONAIR on August 17, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Let's face it, if the battle is between the DoD and Amateur Radio, the DoD is gonna win. I'm sure they can get the military to just blast the repeater with a laser or a particle beam weapon in an emergency situation, and end the entire issue.
 
RE: ARRL helps in UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by KF6IDO on August 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I believe that most garage door openers run at frequencies just below 400 Mhz.

An interesting thought - amateur bands are being affected, but the GMRS bands (just above the 70cm band) are not.

I am right about 35 miles away from the Pave Paws site at Beale - it faces more away from me than to me. The amount of distance that they are saying is needed for this site (140 miles) will affect almost the entire Central Valley as well as the Bay area and north on the coast of California.

I'm beginning to hope that the amateur radio manufacturers start thinking about 220 Mhz equipment again.
 
RE: ARRL helps in UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by W1RFI on August 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> Too often the members who are going to drop their
> membership and the former members say "The ARRL
> isn't there for what I want" instead of first
> seeing what they are currently involved with.
> This "me first" attitude of those former members
> hurts us all.

Every year, I decide whether I want to pony up my dues dollars for ARRL. (Staff do not get free memberships). As I do, I look to all of what ARRL has done and make my decision. Every year, I see things that make me proud to have NOT cancelled my ARRL membership. I also see things that the League has done that have fallen short of that mark. I see the League doing things that simply mean nothing to me personally and I sometimes see things that I just plain don't like.

But I agree that some of the work done by the ARRL Lab is worth supporting, but so is a lot of it, and every year, I answer my own question about membership by asking one simple question:

If I withold my financial support for ARRL over the issues that I didn't like, will Amateur Radio be better off for it? I fully understand that by not supporting ARRL, I am also not supporting the other things that I think ARE being done well enough to warrant my help. Because I think that many of the things that ARRL does are important enough to ham radio that I don't want to see them go away.

I don't want the work of the Lab to stop. I want ARRL to do more, not less, work with education and bringing ham radio into schools. I don't see it as a failure that ARRL constantly has bills before Congress, because when ARRL or individual hams go to see their Senators or Congressmen, one of the questions often asked by the staff that schedule visits is "What bill do you want to talk to Senator Soandso about?" I want to see the Handbook, Antenna Book, RFI Book and other pubs continue. I want to see Alan Pitts continue to support the hams in the field who volunteer to provide local media contact. (http://www.arrl.org/pio/contact/2007/07/). I want to see ARRL continue to support our ham astronauts and continue to help get them into contact with kids in schools. I want to see ARRL continue to work with supporting and educating educators that are using ham radio as a teaching tool. I want to see continued support for hamfests. ARRL should continue its leadership role in IEEE and other industry committees. (I chair the ANSI asc C63 EMC committees's Subcommittee 5 on immunity and I am the elected Secretary of the IEEE EMC Society's Standards Development Committee, as examples). I want to see the ARRL web page continue to grow and add more features and functions.

My list goes on, but every year, I have to decide if the things that I think are wrong or that need to be done better are so important to me that I would think that Amateur Radio is better off if all the rest stopped, because if hams stop supporting ARRL, all the things I like would either stop, or would have to be done some other way.

Back to the thread, the rest of the weekend, other than my time at the Huntsville event, I am continuing to look at the California and Massachusetts repeaters one by one. Doing so has either confirmed that the mitigation requirements of the Air Force is correct, or that some sort of error has been made. Those that note that Amateur Radio is a secondary user are correct, but Air Force has respect and appreciation for the importance of Amateur Radio. They have said so, and backed that up with a willingness to carefully look at each repeater and to work with ARRL on the situations where it appears that some error in identification has been made. We must be responsible secondary users, but ensuring that what is being asked of each operator is correct is part of a reasonable response.

Ed Hare, W1RFI




 
RE: ARRL helps in UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by W1RFI on August 18, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> For simplicity's sake, let's assume that the
> present ERP of said repeater is 100 Watts. A
> reduction of 50dB (actually 47, but I'll get there)
> would drop the ERP to just one milliWatt. Er, are
> you kidding? No. 50dB is equivalent to a power
> reduction of 10 to the 5th power, or 1/100,000th of
> the original power output. Now, if you add three dB
> to get back to -47dB, that leaves this poor fellow
> at a mere 2 milliWatts!!! Now, who in their right
> mind would even seek to avoid what such a demand
> means? Essentially, shut it down. But, no, let's
> beat around the bush about it.

The math for the powers involved is right, although the 47 dB in the example you chose can also be accomplished in part through antenna-pattern changes. But some of these repeaters are relatively close to the radar, with virtual line of sight propagation, and the radar system, albeit with some pretty serious EIRP, is looking to detect a VW-bus sized object located in space 3000 km away. That's about 155 dB of path loss on the round-trip, with additional losses caused by the poor radar cross section of a typical missile, which could well be designed to be somewhat transparent to radar. Your analysis seems to imply that the mitigation requirements are inappropriate. Can you explain how you determined that vis a vis the sub-nanowatt level of the return echo signals?

> I'd hazard a guess that a receiver's local
> oscillator probably radiates well above 2 mW.

Your guess would be wrong by about 49 dB, or almost 5 orders of magnitude.

> So, what about Part 15 devices like garage door
> openers? I'm sure those transmitters radiate more
> than 2 mW. Aren't they just above 400MHz?

Most operate on either 303 MHz or 433.92 MHz, in the 70 cm band. Their legal limit amounts to 0.03 mW EIRP, with a 5-second maximum limit on transmission time. The vast majority of them are not located on mountaintops at the top of towers. ]

I strongly disagree that the fact that receiver LOs operate at -50 dBm EIRP and that because garage door openers operate for very short time periods at levels at least 20 dB below the mitigation being asked for repeaters that operate for hours on end at least some of the time from ideal locations in most cases that the mitigation required by the Air Force is somehow correct.

I have spent hours of time looking at what can be learned about the radar system and comparing that to estimated field strength from Amateur stations. Comparing a generalized speculation about the radar system to a wildly inaccurate guess about Part 15 levels is not at all helpful, Lee. Shooting from the hip like that may have its uses, but in this important relationship as secondary users of this spectrum, we simply have to do better than wild-assed guesses and grossly inaccurate speculation.

I have little doubt that some of the repeaters will have to do what you have concluded and simply shut down, although a combination of power reduction, antenna pattern change and change of location could get us into the ballpark of what is needed. ARRL is not going to tell any repeater owner that it must shut down, but will instead help in any way it can, including running propagation studies of other possible locations, etc. I have faith in the repeater operators to act resonsibily and in the coordinators to help guide them as needed. Those that cannot do what appears to be needed will be making their own determinations, and if after all of the help, there are any who are unable or unwilling to come to terms with that is required, it will be the FCC, not the ARRL, that will have to take action.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
 
More California UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by KG4RRN on August 19, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Sounds to me like 47db is a lot of reduction/elimination for any repeater owner to stomach,so I will pose this question to Ed Hare, and if you give no answer in this forum, don't worry Ed, I will email you.
What about Digital emissions in the 70cm band which were not mentioned and particularly DStar Digital Voice emissions, if they are currently propogating through a <non>-repeater(the term the ARRL likens to DSTAR repeaters). Do they have the same restrictions, and if not, then I am sure the ARRL will come up with a nice db figure on them too. Since DSTAR equipment is
generally low-power to mid-power wattage (10-40 watts
erp to the antenna, height of the antenna makes all of the difference in ERP readings.
This emerging technology has a lot of support, and I am sure since 2 meter bandwidth is saturated in California, and maybe 70cm's too, there is really no where else for repeater owners to go as far as replacing bandwith except up to the 1.2 Ghz range and above, or 50mhz snd below, with 222 Mhz still in the middle.
I am hoping that the ARRL is sincere about helping repeater owners move their antennas so that they null away from the PAVE PAWS sites, or we may just have a mass exodus of one of our bands in the two states affected.
It would be nice if the ARRL published this letter in its' report to the FCC, so that it becomes public domain, and not for a select group of "members" who get a magazine each month for the $39.00 yearly
subscription dues.
Thanks eHam for republishing this, it is both historic
and currently signifigant to the amateur community at large.
Bob Rice, KG4RRN
Co-Moderator: Yahoo V82/U82 Users group
 
RE: More California UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by KF6IDO on August 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
I'm curious if it is more the frequencies, or the mode of transmission, is more important in this issue. I'm also wondering what effect this problem might have with the new digital repeaters in the 70 cm band that use D-Star.
 
RE: W1RFI shovels more B.S.  
by W9WHE-II on August 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W1RFI writes:

"Every year, I decide whether I want to pony up my dues dollars for ARRL".

Ed, you crack me up!
If you, as a member of arrl management, chose to cancell your membership, Summner would be all over your you-know-what in a heartbeat.

Let's be canded here - shall we?
You are NOT about to bite the hand that feeds you. Nobody expects you to. But please, don't feed us this B.S. about how every year you make your decision based upon some ballancing act. B.S.

I cannot understand why Newington Boys Club guys think that you can shovel such pure B.S. and expect people to believe it. Amazing. Simply amazing.


W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership.
 
More California UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by KG4RRN on August 20, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
You think that is bad, the Board makes more money than
you or I both together. And, they get to wear Official ARRL Clothes (nametags like the Mormons do) and walk and talk all over the country. Gee, what a great life that must be.
Proudly Cancelled Member , please no free repeater books anymore, you cannot bribe me !
BR
 
RE: More California UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by W9WHE-II on August 21, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
arrl has BOTH a CEO and a COO, each making WELL over $100,000. A 100 some employee, so-called "non-profit" does NOT need BOTH a CEO and COO.

The $200,000 or so each year it costs arrl to add a COO to its CEO could be BETTER used for spectrum defense, lobbying congress and/or technical issues. But instead, arrl chooses to put that money into redundant management.


And they wonder why more then 70 some percent of hams REFUSE to join. Sheesh!

W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership!
 
RE: W1RFI shovels more B.S.  
by W1RFI on August 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> Let's be canded here - shall we?
>
> You are NOT about to bite the hand that feeds you.
> Nobody expects you to. But please, don't feed us
> this B.S. about how every year you make your
> decision based upon some ballancing act. B.S.

Glad to be candid for you, Jonathan. This year, my contribution to ARRL just exceeded $1000. Sumner had absolutely nothing to do with it.

If I were to decide that ARRL is not accomplishing enough of the good things that I described in my earlier post, it is more than likely I could add about several thousand dollars per year to what I am making now when I got a job somewhere else. My choice to do this work instead of other work is based on the list I provided, so that I can do the part of it that is important to me. To me, the tradeoff is a good one, as I enjoy the part of my life that sits at this desk, or sits at an IEEE meeting somewhere, as much as I enjoy any part of my life.

As we have seen here from a few posters over the years that couldn't accept ARRL's offer after a successful job interview, the ARRL pay scale is somewhat behind the norm for the area.

I may not do my job perfectly, Jonathan, but feel I can be proud of that work and the fact that I am choosing to do it instead of walking away.

Ed Hare, W1RFI




 
RE: More California UHF Repeater Restrictions:  
by W1RFI on August 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> You think that is bad, the Board makes more money
> than you or I both together.

That is 100% incorrect. The ARRL President, Vice Presidents and the ARRL Board of Directors are unpaid volunteers. They receive no more than reimbursement for expenses incurred in their attending ARRL Board meetings and other functions and the expenses incurred within their respective Divisions.

This is all defined pretty clearly in the ARRL Bylaws.

Ed Hare, W1RFI
 
RE: W1RFI shovels more B.S.  
by W9WHE-II on August 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
Ed, you have, once again, sidestepped my point.
My point was NOT how much you contribute. My point WAS that if you decided to CANCEL your arrl membership (as I and others have) that Sumner would be all over your you-know-what. We both know that you, as a member of arrl management, can't just CANCEL your arrl membership.

W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership!

 
RE: arrl's redundant management  
by W9WHE-II on August 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
W1RFI wrote:

"The ARRL President, Vice Presidents and the ARRL Board of Directors are unpaid volunteers"

All true, HOWEVER, arrl's REDUNDANT CEO and COO together cost about $400,000 per year if you include benifits and support services.

W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my arrl membership!
 
RE: W1RFI shovels more B.S.  
by W1RFI on August 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> My point was NOT how much you contribute. My point
> WAS that if you decided to CANCEL your arrl
> membership (as I and others have) that Sumner would
> be all over your you-know-what. We both know that
> you, as a member of arrl management, can't just
> CANCEL your arrl membership.

You are missing the point, Jonathan. I don't want to cancel my membership. If all I wanted to do was enough to keep Sumner off my you-know-what, I would pay my $39 a year. For that matter, if I didn't think that the work I do was worthwhile, I would go find work that I felt was meaningful. This is America, Jonathan; one can change jobs any time. The premise that I am somehow captive to Sumner forcing me to be an ARRL member is pretty flimsy, when you consider the entire package.

If I felt that ARRL was not worth my support, I would indeed no longer be a member -- or an employee. The mystical power that you think that Sumner holds over me or any other HQ staffer exists only in your flight of fancy.

When I was hired by ARRL, I was not a member. For a while in the late 1980s, my membership had lapsed, and no one called me into a dark office and Wouff Honged me. But the more I looked at the work ARRL does, the more I became convinced that, its flaws notwithstanding, it needs my support. At this point, unless ARRL were to change its mission substantially, I can't envision my not being a League member.

Ed, W1RFI
 
RE: arrl's redundant management  
by W1RFI on August 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> All true, HOWEVER, arrl's REDUNDANT CEO and COO
> together cost about $400,000 per year if you
> include benifits and support services.

I'm not sure what you mean by "support services," Jonathan, but your estimate is off by quite a bit.

I also disagree with your opinion that their services are redundant. In addition to staff responsibilities, Sumner also has considerable responsibilities to interface ARRL with other IARU societies, with ITU and similar international organizations. He has direct reporting responsibilities to the ARRL Board, its committees, ARRL's legislative and legal contact, just to name a few. The number of direct reports is probably typical of most management positions, especially one with such a significant amount of external contact. The COO and other corporate officers report to the CEO. The President and Vice Presidents are elected by the ARRL Board and are responsible to them.

For what they are paid, Sumner and Kramer both get to show up every day and be as accountable as any other employee.

Even if your wild-arsed guess were accurate, that would put the management you described at about 3% of ARRL's revenues. In reality, it is somewhat lower than that. As a member who pays his dues, I believe that to be reasonable. I have seen Sumner's work up close and feel that his work interfacing staff with ARRL policy makers and interfacing ARRL with international organizations is excellent.

Ed, W1RFI

 
RE: arrl's redundant management  
by W7CSD on August 22, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
What does this discussion have to do with Pave Paws?
 
RE: arrl's redundant management  
by W1RFI on August 23, 2007 Mail this to a friend!
> What does this discussion have to do with Pave
> Paws?

You are, of course, correct. Threads do drift, but I apologize for having gotten caught up in the spirit and taken this one too far afield.

73,
Ed, W1RFI
 
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.

Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help

Other News Articles
Amateur Radio: The World's First Internet:
Attleboro Area Gears Up for International 'Ham Radio' Competition:
For These Vets, Amateur Radio Remains Alive:
Ham Radio Fest is Saturday in Austintown:
Ham Radio Operators Compete in Devens in Worldwide Contest: