What is the Future of the ARRL?
(DOO-DAH)
on
August 13, 2003
View comments about this article!
I had originally intended only to reply to the thoughtful and well written article by W3ULS entitled "The ARRL Needs More Members"; but some have asked that i submit an actual article on the subject. After having read every comment to this article I have taken the liberty to tabulate each comment made up to 12 July 03 according to whether it is PRO- ARRL or ANTI- ARRL. Here are the results:
PRO-ARRL comments: 13 (32.5%)
ANTI-ARRL comments: 22 (55.0%)
Indeterminate: 5 (12.5%)
Assuming (and to the extent that) the respondents here compromise a "true representation of the ham population", it is clear that that the ARRL directors need to ask themselves some very serious questions about:
(A) The future goals of the hobby.
(B) Whether they themselves are a "true representation of the ham population.
(C) Whether they are capable of continuing to function as assets to its future and thriving.
What did the ARRL and the IARU (a 'woodpile cousin' of the ARRL) actually DO at WARC-03 in Geneva? They abstained on the code issue (Article 25.5). What about the standardization of the 40-meter amateur band? Did they make any vigorous arguments on our (and therefore their own) behalf? How many of the ARRL (and IARU) directors went to Geneva? -- And at what cost? Did the ARRL (or IARU) exert any leadership at all on either of these matters? Or did they stay quiet so as "not to offend" those from whom they may conceivably "borrow political capital"?
The ARRL has had a HUGE membership drive now for years. Yet it is clear that the numbers of licensed hams in the population-at-large continues to decline -- as does the membership of the ARRL itself. Now I want to plainly emphasize that I am NOT against the ARRL. I am a member and am very much in favor of it. The issue is not whether the ARRL is good or bad. Nor is the issue one of whether the directors of it are good or bad. It is all really quite simple: The ARRL and its board of directors are ALL WE HAVE to represent us on any grand scale.
All I am doing is posing the question of whether the ARRL is headed in the right direction under the preponderance of present leadership. Do you think we are benefiting from energetic aggressive effective leadership? It is now time that we commoners who are non-directors ask ourselves the question: "Has the present "good-ole-boy-network" of directors outlived its usefulness?" In the best interest of the ARRL and amateurs alike, perhaps it is time for a change. Think before you vote. I certainly hope it is not too late.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WB6UYG on August 8, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I don't think whether the ARRL is heading in the right direction is the issue. The real question is are "WE" heading in the right direction. From the comments I read on these boards, the sense I get is that many contributers belong to the "glass half empty" group. Picking at whats wrong, longing for the "good ole days" anti change, anti progress, anti everything. Grumpy old men. The revelation here is that the League is more progressive than the ham population. It's hams at large that need to have an attitude change, not the League.
You know, if we were really enthused about our hobby, we would be telling everyone we mee about what a neat hobby we have. Sharing our experiences, joys and successes. We would be encouraging our friends and neighbors to join with us and enjoy this great activity we call ham radio. Don't see to much of that do you? What we are becoming is a reclusive group of older men, who want to raise the standard of entry (as soon as we are in, of course), fight change, fight anyone who has an idea different from ours, and never do anything to promote our hobby.
The test of whether things are being done right is in the results. Are we adding to our numbers? NO. Then we are not doing things right because we are not bearing fruit.If 10 percent of the ham population encouraged one person to become a new ham this year it would add 60,000 new hams to our ranks, this year.
The solution starts at home. Promote the hobby you say you love. Don't expect any one else to do it for you because it is ultimately up to you. Then get involved with the League. You can't innstitue change from the inside, you have to work from within. But first, you need to check YOUR attitude.
The ARRL's future depends whether we care enough about ham radio to do something about it.
WB6UYG
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K0EWS on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You know, judging by the comments I've seen, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. On one hand, some folks bemoan the "dying" of ham radio, thinking we need to beef up our ranks. Then almost in the same breath, we bitch about newcomers, dumbing down standards, and the CB crowd we would let in on 2 meters, and possibly HF, etc., ad nauseum.
It would seem to me we cannot have it both ways. Right now, the ARRL is leading the fight against BPL. They did have 3 people at Geneva, according to my latest QST. They also lobbied and got us a new band in 60 meters. The allocation isn't what they asked for, but it's better than nothing. Just this June, Mr. Haynie testified before Congress regarding the Spectrum Protection Act of 2003, and ham radio's role with the nation's first responders.
As for me, I think they do a pretty good job. For what I pay in dues, it's nice to know that I help them out, and get a decent magazine along with the other services they offer via the web-page. As for the code/no-code issue, they are waiting to hear from their members. I can go along with that, as we are a very, very diverse group. As for the future, I don't see much of one for any of us if we lose this thing regarding BPL, at least on HF.
The ARRL can't go out and recruit new hams. That's for us to do. They can support us, lobby for us, and help make the entry to ham radio as easy as possible for the prospective newcomer. From where I sit, I think they've done that, and then some. 73 to all.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think it is rather safe to assume that the few people posting on this internet site are not an accurate representation of Ham Radio’s population.
It isn’t clear to me why the ARRL should be a cross section of the Ham Radio population. I rather think they should be good at their jobs, which for many, are unpaid.
The place to go to find out specifics about The League’s involvement in WARC-03 would either be WARC-03, or The League. Turning to an internet web site, like this one, is magnitudes worse than looking in a newspaper like USA Today, or The Enquirer.
To me, your article is as clear and meaningful as your call, DOO-DAH.
If your article is indeed a serious one, please rework it so that it makes sense.
Bob
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W5JBP on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quoting Mr. DOODAH
"They abstained on the code issue (Article 25.5). What about the standardization of the 40-meter amateur band? Did they make any vigorous arguments on our (and therefore their own) behalf? How many of the ARRL (and IARU) directors went to Geneva? -- And at what cost? Did the ARRL (or IARU) exert any leadership at all on either of these matters?"
Abstained on the code issue? There was no vote, thus how could one "abstain"?
Forty meters? I think the team did quite well. No change in region II, an extra 100 KHz for region I and III, broadcasters to move up an hundred KHz thus clearing 7.0 to 7.2. We had one officer and two staff from the Washington office at the conference. No director or other officer attended.
It is very clear to me that Mr. DOODAH does not get QST, does not read the ARRL web, OR is just naturally uninformed. If one is to post to these sites, at least do your homework first.
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N3ZKP on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yee gods, another League-bashing article, no matter how it is styled. And from an anonymous poster, yet! Too bad you don't have the courage to actually put your name on this drivel.
Why, Why, Why does eHam continue to publish this kind of article?
Lon
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KB9YUR on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It would be interesting to add up the costs (if that's even possible) of our own
representation (including lawyers fees) to the FCC/Washington. I'll have to agree
with WB6UYG and others that the future of the ARRL and Amateur Radio really
rests with ourselves. It's sad and unfortunate when the label of "Grumpy Old Men"
is seen and heard at local hamfests. How hard is it really to take bath and put on
some clean clothes before attending ?!? After reading our QST's, 73, CQ, etc do
we pass them along to potential new Hams or simply keep them (or worse, toss them
with the weekly garbage pickup) !?! At the last Hamfest (where probably a thousand
plus attended), I saw less then a dozen with name pins or even "Hello, I'm John Smith"
stickers. I think it's nice to meet new people in person after you talk to them,
if you know who they are ! As others have mentioned, maybe it's time we all take
a long hard look at ourselves and see how we as Hams can improve the hobby
before we continue this old retread of ARRL bashing.
George ...
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by ZR6CG on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well, let me put it this way...from this side of the pond I wish our local organisation had the passion of yours. My whole bookshelf is full of ARRL books, I look at the QST with awe - I long for something like QEX.... I think you have a hell of a lot to be thankfull for. Sure there are probably lots of issues I am unaware of, but as an outside observer, I would be a member.
Just one gripe....once you convert to another currency and add rotten postage and fall prey to customs, CD's could be cheaper for us foreign folk :-)
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KE4MOB on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm a newly rejoined member after about a 7 year lapse. I think that 10 years from now, after we digest this last round of rule adjustments, you will see a ham population similar to the 60's and 70's with very high levels of ARRL membership.
You can point to things you think the ARRL dropped the ball on. WE ALL CAN and that's the real beauty of the situation. People say the "ARRL isn't fair" but the fact is no one niche benefits more (or less) from ARRL representation or policies.
If the ARRL tried to "please all of the people all of the time" I'd be worried. But it's not. I think right now, the ARRL is coming to realize that it has the power to drastically affect the future of ham radio right now. I really hope that the board and officers can take the "long view" and not get stuck in an issue-by-issue approach with duelling NPRMs.
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by MY_OPINION on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Do I like everything that the ARRL does? No.
Am I a member? Yes.
Am I a life member? No, I reserve the right to vote with my feet and don't mind paying the premium to renew annually. Consider it an extra donation.
Do I support spectrum defense, BPL response, emcomm and other course offerings, and other ARRL programs? Yes, I make financial and time contributions beyond my membership dues.
Do I support ARES? Yes.
Is the field organization in good shape? Yes & no. It depends upon the particular area. In some places, it is vibrant, in some places, stale. Term limits, especially in appointed positions, would be a healthy addition. It would provide an opportunity for people to rotate through positions, expanding the experience of the participants while giving more people an opportunity to serve. No one is so good that no one else can take over as DEC, PIO, etc. for a time.
Is the future of the ARRL ("amateur radio" can be substituted here) bright? I believe so. It will require vision and leadership on the part of the ARRL. Welcome everyone under the tent flaps.
And it will require the financial and time commitments of the amateur radio community to keep it viable. If you have a complaint, make it known. But don't stop there. WORK, yes, yourself, to make the situation better.
73,
MY_OPINION
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K3UD on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First of all, looking at he pro vs. anti ARRL posts in various forums is hardly a valid way to form an opinion on the state of the ARRL.
Next, We continue to hear that the ARS is losing numbers. The reality is that we are gaining, although at MUCH less of a rate than in the past several decades. Jim, N2EY keeps up with the license numbers and gets info directly from the FCC database and posts them on the rec.radio.amateur.policy newsgroup. I have reposted them below.
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:
As of May 14, 2000:
Novice - 49,329
Tech - 205,394
Tech Plus - 128,860
General - 112,677
Advanced - 99,782
Extra - 78,750
Total - 674,792
As of July 31, 2003:
Novice - 33,409 (decrease of 15,920)
Technician - 257,791 (increase of 52,397)
Technician Plus - 66,704 (decrease of 62,156)
General - 141,381 (increase of 28,704)
Advanced - 83,141 (decrease of 16,641)
Extra - 104,453 (increase of 25,703)
Total - 686,879 (increase of 12,087)
The base period is the time period when the new licensing rules went into effect.
As you can see, in a bit over 3 years the growth has been 1.791% or an average of .597% per year. This trend projects to just under 6% growth for the decade. In the 70s, 80s, and 90s the growth average was close to 30%.
There is another set of numbers developed from the FCC database by anothe ham and being posted on the QRZ.com
forum that shows that the 97% of technician class licensees reaching the end of the grace date are not renewing their license. This is based on a 6 month sample as we are just getting into the end of grace dates of the first technician class licensees.
Just something to think about
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
These articles have given me a little more information about the ARRL than I knew about them when my wife and I joined. Out of all the good comments and bad comments there was a lot of useful insight that have affected my opinion of the ARRL and will be a deciding factor in whether we'll (my wife and I) renew our membership. With the BPL issue brought up and I see no way of a small select few stopping it, the ARRL and amateur radio as a whole has shot themselves in the foot by wanting to keep amateur radio the same as it was in WW II. The rest of the world is moving ahead in all areas as technology, manufactoring, engineering and now amateur radio. Most nations have dropped the code requirement and probably numerous other restrictions in order to bring more people into the hobby while we still use filters to restrict people from certain priviledges. How many thousands of people, good or bad, polite or rude, become discouraged with the current US testing requirements and leave the hobby altogether? I know the hard-core types say: "well we don't need people like that", but the truth is we do. Strength is in numbers and the public demand for more and cheaper options for broadband, wireless networks, family radios, etc. is winning. What really makes you think a small select few individuals (compared to the rest of the public) can protect your interests? The reality is they can't. At least not for very much longer. So in my opinion as I've stated above, the ARRL and the die-hard operators have put us behind the rest of the world again in another area.
BTW - I've been donating money to AMSAT and will probably upgrade my wife and I's membership with them next year and give numerous donations the rest of the year as AMSAT doesn't promote a weed out process to the amateur radio cummunity. Our ARRL membership renewal is not looking positive.
73 de Dave
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by CASPER669 on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a current member of the ARRL, I find it (as strange as it sounds) encouraging that there are some who hate it and some who love it. No matter which side of the fence you're on, it is definitely obvious that we care, period!
Is the league doing what we all want, of course not. But, that's par for the course, when dealing with the general public. However, as someone has already mentioned, they are pretty much all we have. I'm not suggesting that I'm unhappy with the output I've seen from the ARRL. They are on-top of the BPL issue, the code issue didn't involve a vote (as someone has already mentioned), Regions 1 and 3 have received the extra 40 meter bandwidth, and we have been blessed with limited use on 60 meters. This has all occured in the last 10 months or so. So, what's the problem? Not everyone realizes that there is no way to please everyone. Not to mention the fact that anyone can wave their arms screaming at the top of their lungs about how they are about to lose something, when they could use that energy to help prevent the loss.
It all comes down to what I've mentioned in previous responses. And that is, think about what you do before you do it. Are you helping the situation, or making it worse? Is your input constructive/productive, or does it make the situation worse?
As mentioned earlier, it all comes down to the individual. The steps you take, the arguments you make, the wheels you turn - or stop turning, all affect us as a community. In the past, before the advent of Fire Houses or Fire Departments, when a home or church caught fire, everyone in the community helped to put it out. This isn't to dissimilar from the HAM community. They didn't fight about who had a bigger water pail, who was at the front or the back of the water line, or even whether or not the house or church was too old to bother saving. They did it because it was within their community and new that they would (in some way) be affected by the loss.
In conclusion, we should consider the possiblity of uniting together on all the issues we face. Of course, we will not all agree on everything. But, we can try to compromise with each other and then make our voice be heard to the ARRL and even government bodies - such as Congress, the Senate, or even higher up! Think about it.
God bless and 73 to all!
Chris KC2KFW
|
| |
|
RE: Can the ARRL change its future?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a former marketing guy for Hewlett-Packard and a long time critic of the ARRL, I think the issues are:
1) WHY are so many hams SO VERY angry at the ARRL?
Answer that question, then figure out:
2) What can be done to repair the damage?
Given the recent ARRL focus on getting NEW hams into the hobby, the ARRL may have decided that the answer to question #2 is "not much". HOWEVER, the ARRL now has a president that comes across as a regular guy who is actually trying to put a new face on the ARRL. IF he can effect a culture change, (not so easy given the intrenched arrogance and nepotism) I think a significant percentage of the ARRL detractors (Including myself) might just join. (gasp!)
I am impressed at how Jim leads by example. Will his lead rub off? I actually hope so. The ARRL has great potential. However, the ARRL culture will NOT change without pressure exerted from within, by its own members. So, to all you members, might I respectfully suggest that you join with your president and push for a culture change.
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by VA3PWH on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello all, and congratualtions on the high quality of the responses to this post.
I am a member of ARRL and frankly have little that I can find to complain about. I am proud to be a member but at the same time I can sympathize with those who feel that their ideas are perhaps not receiving the attention they wish. That's life I suppose.
One small issue with the tabulation of responses is that one notices that, on any given topic, the nay-sayers usually outnumber those who are enthusiatic.
Add to that the rude, sometimes obscene, nature of some of the negative comments and one is forced to conclude that either the ham population (including some with the highest qualifications) is becoming uncivil or that those with negative attitudes tend to reply to posts more often than the courteous, friendly, helpful hams that I encounter on air.
Because of all that, I would have to say that opinions on ARRL found in the posts are generally unrepresentative of the larger ham community (at least, I very much hope so).
73 de Pete
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This article is a new low for E-ham. What's the matter guys, did having W5JBP and W1RFI post to the site give too much credibility to the league, so you had to post this article to continue E-ham's tradition of league bashing? It's "anonymous", it's full of deception, and it's oh-so-funny how Eham pushes this article to the front of their list when other articles DON'T get that priviledge.
I quote:
"PRO-ARRL comments: 13 (32.5%)
ANTI-ARRL comments: 22 (55.0%)
Indeterminate: 5 (12.5%)
Assuming (and to the extent that) the respondents here compromise a "true representation of the ham population"
Total BS. Are you so much of a dips**t that you think the distribution of opinions in postings to an Internet Forum represent opinions of the ham population as a whole? Of course you don't. You're saying this only to BASH THE ARRL again.
"Yet it is clear that the numbers of licensed hams in the population-at-large continues to decline -- as does the membership of the ARRL itself"
More BS. Where do you get your numbers from? Do you pull them out of the sky? (or some other place unmentionable in public, perhaps?)
"Now I want to plainly emphasize that I am NOT against the ARRL"
BS to the nth degree
"In the best interest of the ARRL and amateurs alike, perhaps it is time for a change. Think before you vote. I certainly hope it is not too late. "
Vote for who? You don't mention anyone, and you sure as hell aren't offering any other alternatives. Maybe we should all join Glenn Baxter's group. Is that what you're suggesting?
I really get a kick out of all you League bashers. What the hell do you want? A future of ham radio when the only means we have to communicate is Echolink and Internet forums like this? Because without the league, that's what we'll have. Maybe not even that much, because there may not be the advertising dollars in ham radio to support sites like this. But then again, maybe they'll be enough money from get-rich-quick and Internet Porn sites to pay for ads here.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KB1FLR on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not supporting the ARRL because one does not agree with 100% of their policies is foolish. Without their constant intervention when our spectrum has been encroached upon, commercial interests would have just taken whatever parts of our spectrum they wanted. That would leave up to hams as individuals to rectify the problem. The ARRL is our collective voice.
Do I personally agree with all of their policies? No! I am distressed by their lack of a stance on the code issue (I confess I am for keeping the code requirement), but I also understand that this issue is having such a polarizing effect on us that they would lose no matter what their choice.
That having been said, I will renew my membership.
Rick, KB1FLR
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WB2WIK on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I thought doo-dah was a song that the ladies of Camptown sang...
There has never been a viable alternative to ARRL, but if someone can create an organization that does better work, I'll be happy to support it. In absence of that, what is all this clatter about?
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WB2TQC on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I have been an ARRL member for every year I have been an active Ham. I choose to do it one year at a time. As someone else already wrote they can use the extra money it costs me as a donation. I have just renewed again. From the first day I seriously decided that I would enter this hobby I have been reading ARRL publications. I feel that they have adequately represented my interests and are in the fore front regarding the BPL threat. I am an avid CW op. For all intents and purposes I don't operate SSB. Having said that I am still on the fence regarding the use of CW as a filter. I drive 200 miles a day during my commute. I communicate via 2 meters if someone will answer me. Most times I am on CB. Yes the dreaded "Chicken Band". The experience is frightening. I truly fear that if the flood gates open we will hear the kind of hooting and hollering type of QRM that is the daily substance of 11 meters. I believe, wholeheartedly, that 5 wpm is not too much to ask for. Yet I understand that it is silly to ask someone to take a test as a requirement for something they will never be required to use again. I think The ARRL is probably sitting out there on the same fence as I am. Trying to decide what really is best for the hobby. They still have my vote at least until all the ARRL bashers come up with a better way to represent us. Then perhaps I will jump.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N1RWC on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First and Foremost, This ARRL bashing is getting ridiculous. It seems to me that E-ham is become an "Let's Bash this, let's bash that, Who ar What's Next?!" Website. I say this, that those who have bashed before and still do, and yes, I have joined in the Code No Code bash, and the ARRL Bashing, should maybe consider creating some new subject, like building, or operating, or something PRODUCTIVE TO ENHANCE THE HOBBY.
As for the ARRL, I did receive a personal E-mail from Jim and He did explain alot of which wasn't put forth on other sites in the ARRL Letter. I have not responded to him as of yet, as I want to digest all this info and make POSITIVE FEEDBACK, something that the Pencil Necked Cry Baby E-ham Posters can't seem to fathom. (By the way, that means to do something good and know about and understand it, for all you pencil necked cry babies out there on the site).
As for the ARRL correcting what they have done, they really can't. I took issue when they raised dues back around 1996/1997. Then they created a website for "Members Only". I do respect that but maybe place the info that is recommended in QST in an area where all can view it, not "Member Only Access" or Access Denied because you aren't a member, but you can buy a QST at the Local News Stand, without being a member.
I do have to say that the ARRL has done service in the 1900's, but we're in the 2000's and it's time to look at the future, not the past.
As for the Budget Issue, gee,why not get VOLUNTEERS! They are inexpensive, and look at this, Inexpensive means Little Money to pay out. When I was a member, there were programs set up for Volunteer Council, Volunteer Engineers, Volunteer Examiners, etc. What Happened? Did the Turn of the Century Turn The ARRL into a Corporate Organization. Does that mean that If I participate in a NTS Net, or ARES Net I should receive a paycheck? I don't think so, so why is this an Issue? If you put out on the Air, volunteers needed to assist with XYZ Problem, surprisingly there are several dozen around that area to help, just need to be asked.
I'll get off the soapbox on E-ham and go do something PRODUCTIVE. Maybe think up a newer subject than ARRL Bashing.
73 Matt N1RWC
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by VA3PWH on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Just a quickie for Matt,
When one buys a magazine on the newstand, it can't bring all the membership privileges. When an association's magazine refers to things on their website in a members only section it is a clear message that membership has its perks.
Surely the sale of QST on the newstand is a way to attract potential members and therefore the members only section is a good reminder.
Anyway, I just congratulated folks on civility when the name calling began. Wow, maybe there aren't as many gentlemen out there as I had hoped.
73 de Pete
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KB1FLR on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<I'll get off the soapbox on E-ham and go do something
<PRODUCTIVE. Maybe think up a newer subject than ARRL
<Bashing.
Good point. Actually, we could all do our hobby a service by spending a bit more time on the air and bit less time online.
Rick, KB1FLR
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Somebody sent me a reply via email. Although I will respect their wish to be anonymous to the forum, I will respond to their comments publicly.
Said person wrote:
"What you can't seem to figure out is the fact the ARRL officials are
only able to comment publicly in a forum on eham since there is no
forum on the ARRL site. Isn't that curious?"
You look at the cranks and crazies who post to this site, and you wonder why there is no such forum on the ARRL site? Oh yeah, sure, they should open it up to the public so a few cranks can pipe in with their twisted-logic anti-ARRL-rants and create threads that run forever saying nothing? I for one enjoy the fact there there is no such "forum" on the ARRL site.
Said person also said:
"God forbid someone speaks against the ARRL, bad ham? Horse***t!"
Now, now, I'm not talking about people who jst criticize the ARRL on various issues. What I'm talking about is people who out and out bash the ARRL, or worse yet do so but try to pretend they're just "offering suggestions for change" (the way this article is doing). And as far as I'm concerned, people who out and out bash the ARRL are NOT doing amateur radio any favors. Because without the ARRL, the code vs no code, the 60m vs 70m, the rag-chewer vs contester, the spark vs CW, the AM vs SSB, the old exams vs new exam, the FCC exam vs VEC exam, every one of those arguments are useless. Because without the ARRL, there would be no ham radio today.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Probably the best way to sum this all up are these questions:
Do you think that the ARRL is trying to advance the cause of ham radio in most respects?
Do you think anyone else is doing as much as the ARRL for ham radio?
I'm not even going to offer my answers to the three questions, and I'm not going to offer my views either.
If you answer yes to the first and no to the second, send in your money to the ARRL.
If you answer no to the first and yes to the second, send your money to whichever organization or person you think is doing more.
No arguments, direct and simple, AND it cuts through all the bulls**t.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I've read the rants on QRZ.com and here...
I've sifted thru tons of code/no-code verbage...
I've waded thru the BPL issue that threatens the institution(hobby, service, whatever you choose to call it) of Amateur Radio. I was first licensed in the early 70's, re-entered the hobby in the early 90's.
Joined the ARRL for the first time last week. Why? 1)Because I'm convinced that they have the best interests of Amateur Radio in mind. 2) They back-up what they say with facts and evidence, versus shallow and groundless opinions such as those that precipitated this thread.
And they'll keep getting $39/year as long as the representatives that have the guts(and class!) to defend the ARRL in this and similar threads on the Web.
73
new ARRL member
don
KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Matt the arrl is no longer backing the nts from what i hear. They say all the cbers have cell phones now. Thats more modern than trying to pass traffic on hf freq's. Just wanted you to know.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guys...eham isnt the one typing these paragraphs. We the ham community are the ones with these opinions. Some seem to want to blame eham for anti arrl crap. Well you're seeing opinions of folks all over the country and even other parts of the world... eham is just the avenue for us to express our individual thoughts. Like it or not there's thousands of us that feel the arrl has betrayed the ham community. The future of arrl ...well...it looks pretty bleak to me. They have made their bed...sold out to the highest bid. Now let them sleep in it.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W5JBP on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote:
They have made their bed...sold out to the highest bid. Now let them sleep in it. UNQUOTE
John, let us get to the brass tacks. Who have we sold out to? Give me the facts, not a half baked opinion. I deal in facts and truth. Lets have it.
Jim Haynie, W5JBP
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote: "by WR8D on August 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Guys...eham isnt the one typing these paragraphs. We the ham community are the ones with these opinions. Some seem to want to blame eham for anti arrl crap. Well you're seeing opinions of folks all over the country and even other parts of the world... eham is just the avenue for us to express our individual thoughts. Like it or not there's thousands of us that feel the arrl has betrayed the ham community."
How? How has the ARRL "betrayed the ham community"
Quote" They have made their bed...sold out to the highest bid. Now let them sleep in it. "
Sold-out to who?
Do you have any facts? Do you have an example?
Do you really have a position?
Or is your position similar to the DOO-DAH's?
just curious..
73
don
KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
And where are these "thousands of hams"?
They sure aren't posting here...
"Thousands of hams" could surely constitute a substantial "voice" in Ham Radio properly organized.
Or is this just a little bit of "fictional license"?
73
don
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Guys...eham isnt the one typing these paragraphs"
Yeah, but Eham is the ones that decide which articles move up to the top of the list, and how long they stay there. They have A LOT of control of the tone of this site.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W5JBP on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My apology to everyone. I should have not posted my last post. It has been a long day. BPL has been time intensive today. Thanks to all.
Jim
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well Don membership is dropping like crazy so how clear a picture do you need painted? Everything negative thats happened to the hobby arrl has been in support of. Waivers-nocode-lowering the requirement of cw...pretty soon they'll support doing away with cw completely. If you could pull your head out just a little until you could see something other than arrl "brown" you could see the facts and outcomes of their "inactions". You guys are a piece of work...most folks that are fed up with the league are afraid to get in here and express their opinion because they know several of you "brown nose arrl sucks" will jump on every word they say ...like you have me. Hi Hi...i just tell it like i see it. I've been a ham for over 20 years and i dont like the way arrl has taken care of our business. Thats why i express my opinion. The proof is simply...listen to the bands...listen to 2 meters...the league has supported each and every one of these changes. Now some of them are out on these message boards trying to drum up more membership.
Have a nice day!
Hi Hi
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote:"by WR8D on August 13, 2003 Mail this to a friend!
Well Don membership is dropping like crazy so how clear a picture do you need painted? Everything negative thats happened to the hobby arrl has been in support of. Waivers-nocode-lowering the requirement of cw..."
This has "hurt" Amateur Radio?
Quote:" pretty soon they'll support doing away with cw completely."
I think this is "speculation"... Or, am I wrong?
Quote:" If you could pull your head out just a little until you could see something other than arrl "brown" you could see the facts and outcomes of their "inactions". You guys are a piece of work...most folks that are fed up with the league are afraid to get in here and express their opinion because they know several of you "brown nose arrl sucks" will jump on every word they say ...like you have me. Hi Hi...i just tell it like i see it. I've been a ham for over 20 years and i dont like the way arrl has taken care of our business. Thats why i express my opinion. The proof is simply...listen to the bands...listen to 2 meters...the league has supported each and every one of these changes. Now some of them are out on these message boards trying to drum up more membership.
Have a nice day!
Hi Hi
73
John WR8D "
Count 'em up... 1972 to date. I've been more-or-less involved with Amateur Radio for 31 years. Yes, there are problems. How many of them can you lay on the doorsteps of the ARRL? Is this really realistic?
I don't have any problem with a person expressing an opinion. That's what makes this a great country. However, I don't qualify as an ARRL "brown noser" as you suggest. I'm a casual bystander that made a decision(based on facts) on what I observed...
Have a Super Day!
73
don
KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
No hard feelings...as for your observations over the years...well it looks like you really cant see.
73
WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Said person wrote:
>
> "What you can't seem to figure out is the fact the
> ARRL officials are only able to comment publicly in
> a forum on eham since there is no forum on the ARRL
> site. Isn't that curious?"
And I don't find it curious at all. I personally see no reason for ARRL to reinvent this particular wheel. The forums on eham, QRZ and other places serve their function well. If they were to be done on the ARRL site, they would have to be moderated and ARRL would have to do the moderating and every time someone got shut off for being abusive, the accusations of "censorship" would be begin.
I believe that amateur radio is better served having the discussion formums NOT be on the ARRL site. Of course, this does mean that someone who wants to communicate with ARRL has to actually communicate, rather than just jump on the soapbox on a forum. Jim and I post here, and a few directors read here, but as active as I am, I don't see every post.
If ARRL were to set up a discussion board, would not some folks think they were trying to steal eham's thunder?
And speaking of which, it is clearly overdue for me to support eham with a donation. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: Can the ARRL change its future?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> So, to all you members, might I respectfully suggest
> that you join with your president and push for a
> culture change.
And might I respectfully ask if this "join with the president" will include you?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KS1F on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have trouble understanding why anyone would give credibility to articles written by anonymous posters who write about subjects that they obviously don't have a clue about. The ARRL only has an obligation to serve those of us who support them with membership dues and vote for our leadership. It is everyone's right to join or not, but as far as I'm concerned, it is the membership who have a say as to if they are being properly represented or not.
I agree with a previous poster. We need more activity on the air and less BS on the internet.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Plucking-out contact lenses... shedding readers.
Adjusting to bi-focals.
OK, what did I miss?
I really hate to be "un-informed"...
don
KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> There has never been a viable alternative to ARRL,
> but if someone can create an organization that does
> better work, I'll be happy to support it. In absence
> of that, what is all this clatter about?
There are a number of ham organizations that do better work than the ARRL -- in their respective areas. AMSAT does more for satellite communications than ARRL, although the League made a major contribution to them and offers ongoing support. TAPR does more in the area of digital communications, although ARRL and TAPR sponsor a number of projects jointly, and ARRL has been quite active in promoting digital radio. QRP ARCI does more for QRP than ARRL -- the list goes on. Eham.net and QRZ.com do more to foster discussion about amateur radio than ARRL does, and you find a few well-known ARRL types hanging out here. I support a number of amateur organizations, being a proud member of a number of the ones I cited above, and just having subscribed to eham.
Not all good things in amateur radio come from Newington, CT, and in many cases, ARRL's best role is to support and promote the good work being done by others. The ARRL web page is full of such support and links to the best of our best.
But there are many things that only ARRL can do. When non-ham industry wants a point of contact with amateur radio, they turn to the League. The result? HomePlug, the Home Phone Networking Alliance and the VDSL committees all dropped the level of their signals by 30 dB in the ham bands over and above what is required by Part 15 as just a few quick examples.
We need it all, and every single thing the League does comes as a direct result of a ham being willing to support it, as a volunteer and financially. ARRL needs the financial and political support of its members to do what it does, and if that stopped, most of what the League is and does would stop tomorrow. QST, the ARRL web pages, the spectrum advocacy before the FCC and internationally, the BPL work, what ARRL just accomplished getting hams a new HF band and, working with other IARU societies, getting 100 kHz of spectrum on 7 MHz that will someday be clear of broadcasters -- these are important things and without those that are the ones that really make it happen, it would stop tomorrow.
I have to wonder how many hams who are not members can do so secure in the knowledge that all of what I described above (and the parts I didn't describe) WILL continue to happen. I received a private email today that gave a high-ground reason for the person not being a member, but he then went on to say that he read QST in his doctor's office. You tell me. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< As for the Budget Issue, gee,why not get VOLUNTEERS! They are inexpensive, and look at this, Inexpensive means Little Money to pay out. When I was a member, there were programs set up for Volunteer Council, Volunteer Engineers, Volunteer Examiners, etc. What Happened? Did the Turn of the Century Turn The ARRL into a Corporate Organization? >
ARRL has a large number of volunteers. All of the programs you mention above still exist. Most volunteers put in a few hours a month, I would imagine.
The work done in the Lab couldn't be done by volunteers. At a few hours a month, how many qualified test engineers would we need to do the testing for Product Review? It takes me a year to break in a new engineer, and the value we receive in the Lab by having two former Product Review test engineers in the lab goes beyond words. We could never get the consistency out of having a large group of volunteers do the testing. What about the RFI program? How many EMC engineers would it take, and would they be available at the drop of a hat to go out and do field testing of BPL systems? The editors and production dep't staff turn out a consistent QST every month. Could that be done with 100 or so page-layout volunteers?
IMHO, the League has a good balance of what can be done by volunteers and what requires the full-time presence of a paid staff.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KB9KHF on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I agree that other organizations due a better job at certain things than the league does. No other organization has the background to do the necessary political work though. The BPL nonsense, and the other assaults on the bandwidth we now ENJOY are going to be fought out in the politcal arena. The recent events in the country has given us a reprieve to gather our political support. The industries that want to gobble up spectrum, for their commerical uses all have lawyers and lobbyists working for them.
The league provides a crucial political face for us. Call your local congressman, or the FCC office and look at the reception you get. Let the league do it, and see their reception. Members equal votes, votes equal political power.
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by OBSERVER9 on August 13, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You may DELETE all the "anti-ARRL" that are not members... they just do not count. period.
The ARRL is member driven, even if they are in the slow lane, so to change direction, you must be a passenger.
Doubt what I say? Ask anyone that has been a member of the NRA and ask them about Neal Knox and the Cincinnati Convention.
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W7WIK on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the ARRL is doing a great job with the resources it has. As long as there is ham radio in America, there will be the ARRL. If it weren't for the League I don't think we would have amateur radio.
People gripe about ARRL this - or ARRL that, or it just doesn't agree with their little pet peeve way of thinking. I really think these people don't see the big picture.
I support the ARRL any way I can because the plain fact is: without it, I would probably have to take up fishing.
Marco, W7WIK
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N3ZKP on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John,
<< Matt the arrl is no longer backing the nts from what i hear. They say all the cbers have cell phones now. Thats more modern than trying to pass traffic on hf freq's. Just wanted you to know.
>>
And just where did you hear/read this line of BS? It bears no resemblence to the facts.
More illiterate BS from people who have no idea what they are talking about!
Lon
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by G3RZP on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
DOODAH said:
>What did the ARRL and the IARU (a 'woodpile cousin' of the ARRL) actually DO at WARC-03 in Geneva? They abstained on the code issue (Article 25.5). What about the standardization of the 40-meter amateur band? Did they make any vigorous arguments on our (and therefore their own) behalf? How many of the ARRL (and IARU) directors went to Geneva? -- And at what cost? Did the ARRL (or IARU) exert any leadership at all on either of these matters? Or did they stay quiet so as "not to offend" those from whom they may conceivably "borrow political capital"?<
I don't understand what is meant by 'abstained' on the code issue. ARRL were present only insofar as they provided one representative to the US delegation. The US delegation voted: the ARRL representative does not get to say what the vote will be, he can only advise (usually at a delegation meeting held at about 7am each morning!)
As far as the 40m band is concerned, the IARU have been lobbying administrations for years. IARU don't get a vote at ITU, by the way, so they can only lobby. Personally, I think that although IARU didn't get all it wanted, it was very successful, and all credit goes to W4RA and his team.
I do think DOODAH should research the topic a little more thoroughly than he appears to have done.
ARRL's major fight now is BPL: they need all the support they can get on this one. If they really were only concerned with "staying quiet so as "not to offend" those from whom they may conceivably "borrow political capital"", they wouldn't be coming out fighting on this subject.
73
Peter G3RZP
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< ARRL's major fight now is BPL: they need all the support they can get on this one. If they really were only concerned with "staying quiet so as "not to offend" those from whom they may conceivably "borrow political capital"", they wouldn't be coming out fighting on this subject. >
ARRL isn't concerned with "staying quiet" on the code testing issue, either. They have been quite vocal in asking members to give input to their ARRL division directors so that the policies they set in the mid 1990s can be either changed or affirmed. Once they get that input, a specific ARRL position wrt code testing in the US will be almost certainly be set.
How anyone can spin that into something nefarious is truly beyond my ability to explain.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KR1ST on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<quote W1RFI>
I have to wonder how many hams who are not members can do so secure in the knowledge that all of what I described above (and the parts I didn't describe) WILL continue to happen.
</quote W1RFI>
As long as you keep approaching non-members as non-contributers, you will not convince those particular non-members to become members. In fact, I think you will achieve the opposite. You are not showing any respect to your fellow non-member hams, neither will you gain respect, by slapping them in the face with a "someone else is picking up the tab for you"-type approach. Perhaps that is what angers some folks.
There are plenty of good hams out there who contribute to ham radio in their very own big way, while they are not ARRL members. Most often they're not very visible, as they do their work in silence and choose not to toot their own horns. Great people, who encourage young folks to pick up radio as a hobby, or perhaps are taking care of us in the board rooms of companies where decisions are made that affect hamradio. Telling these folks that someone else is picking up the tab for them does great disservice to these folks. Yes, you may think that there are more effective ways for them to contribute, but please, respect them anyway without asking them if they can do so from the comfort of the knowledge that ARRL will take care of them.
Indeed "not all good comes from Newington". Without people like Jan Verduijn, who is not even a ham, we wouldn't get an additional 100kHz broadcast free on 40 meters.
<quote W1RFI>
I received a private email today that gave a high-ground reason for the person not being a member, but he then went on to say that he read QST in his doctor's office. You tell me. :-)
</quote W1RFI>
Did you ask this person why he is his doctor's office so much? I'd hope it's just to read QST.
73,
--Alex KR1ST
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KG4YJR on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KR1ST,
You hit the nail on the head when you stated: >>There are plenty of good hams out there who contribute to ham radio in their very own big way<<
We also do it with OUR OWN MONEY out of pocket.
My wife and I have donated finances to a retirement community to help residents there get their feared, despised and worthless no-code tech licenses and we've bought used HT's for individuals with financial or physical hardships. AMSAT and my local club will be getting the lions share of my quarterly monetary contributions the rest of the year.
73 de Dave
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K3UD on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Since there is not an active BPL forum at this time I am posting this here.
From the Academy Of Model Aviation website
"Power Line Service (BPL)
(Added 8/08/03)
The Federal Communications Commission has launched an inquiry into the provision of broadband services over power lines. This service would provide users with the ability to connect to broadband services (such as the Internet) by simply plugging a BPL device into an electrical outlet.
While AMA realizes the potential for such a system we are concerned that there may be an interference issue for users of radio control systems. BPL would utilize frequencies in the 1.8 MHz to 80 MHz range. AMA is currently studying this issue to determine the affect this could have on our membership, and will be filing a reply comment with the FCC shortly. Depending on the outcome of this study further action by the AMA membership may be requested.
For more information Contact AMA Technical Director: Steve Kaluf at 765-287-1256 ext 230 or skaluf@modelaircraft.org."
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, when you revealed that Jim (THE PRESIDENT OF THE ARRL) doesn't vote on major poloicy issues like code no-code, I was STUNNED! Can this really be true?
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Has anyone listened to an HF FM signal in a BPL test area? Would an HF FM signal be largely unefected?
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W4VR on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Eham should not post anything in this forum unless the author has a legitimate name and callsign. As many have already stated, including the well-respected President of ARRL, doo-dah has no idea what he is talking about.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Guess you're not as informed as you think you are. Do the homework yourself.
WR8D:
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KK7UE on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jim,
Do not apologize for taking an ignorant troll to task. Rather, keep it up and rest assured you and the ARRL have my complete support. I for one am glad the ignoranuses preach their drivel on the internet and not on the air. Doo this, doo dah.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K7VO on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL is focusing most of it's energy right now on fighting BPL. That energy is properly focused, IMHO. Fighting to preserve our bands and being the voice of ham radio in Washington and at WRC conferences is PRECISELY what the ARRL should do and does do, very well in fact.
Right now we should ALL be focused on BPL. Code vs. no code is moot if BPL comes to pass. HF FM? You are kidding, right? FM requires strong signals. Do you really think 10m FM (the only HF band where FM happens) will survive? Not with S9+30 interference.
I see the ham community which should be uniting behind the ARRL to fight BPL instead doing the usual bickering and squabbling amongst ourselves. Meanwhile Israel and Japan follow the U.S. lead and go ahead with new BPL trials. Look, either we unite and pull in every last resource we have or we can kiss amateur radio below 144MHz goodbye.
I sincerely hope the ARRL is spending a small amount of effort for a contingency plan: how to keep hams as hams if all they have is 2m and above. Articles on how great satellite communication, Echolink, and weak signal VHF/UHF contesting and operating are will have to be prepared. After all, if the ham community continues to tear itself apart the BPL proponents will certainly prevail.
72/73,
Caity
K7VO
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K0ZN on August 14, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am an ARRL member, and one of the "very unhappy campers". The reason being that the ARRL "powers that be" made a cognizant decision to pursue a course of quantity over quality. This is NOT the course that allowed Amateur Radio to grow into a RESPECTED hobby, world wide.
To wit:
If you take a barrel of sewage and pour a glass of fine wine in it, you still have a barrel of sewage.
If you take a barrel of fine wine and pour a glass of sewage in it, you now have TWO barrels of sewage.
It is totally lost on the ARRL that fine wine has a much higher value (e.g. ability to keep spectrum) than sewage.
I am not arguing against new hams. ALL of us started at some point as "the new guy". There is nothing wrong with being new; it is one of the most exciting times for most of us, a period of discovery. There IS, however, something very wrong when a "new guy" starts disrespecting, trashing and VANDALIZING a high quality organization he just joined.
Someone posted that 97% of the Tech's let their license expire. I can't proove it, but I would bet a substantial sum of money, that if these Tech's had had to work hard to obtain a license it would not be something they would let expire! Yeah, there likely would be less new hams, but more of them would be retained in the hobby. Easy come...easy go. You have NEVER seen anyone throwing silver dollars in a fountain...but you see people throwing a lot of pennies. The point is exactly the same. (But lost on the ARRL.)
I suspect the "cancer" that ham radio now has will at some point consume it and be terminal. Simple common sense tells you that the FCC and the MARKET PLACE will not allow C.B. type operation to take up 9 prime HF spectrum locations. My guess is it WOULD allow a well disciplined and respectable Amateur Radio service, even if smaller in size and number, to continue to occupy some prime spectrum locations.
To those who say this is "just a hobby". Wrong: Amateur Radio is a SERVICE that (at present) is ALLOWED to exist by the FCC. "Radio" is a hobby.
The reason us Grumpy Old Men bitch and whine so much is because we had to work our butts off to get here...so, yeah, we ARE protective of it! If someone hands me a 50 cent soft drink it wouldn't bother me too much if I dropped or lost it... I would not feel that way about a glass of $50 a bottle wine! ....and THAT is why many of us are quite unhappy with the ARRL.
73 or "See ya on the flip".... (that covers everybody.)
K0ZN
(FYI: I am not "that" old, but I am old enough to have had to spend hours and hours practicing so I could finally pass the 20 wpm test)
P.S. ... I understand the new ARRL Operating Manual now contains a cross reference table between "Q" signals and "10 codes". Hmmm? I guess that makes sense now based on the direction the ARRL chose to go.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N9NRW on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote:
"I've been a ham for over 20 years and i dont like the way arrl has taken care of our business. Thats why i express my opinion. The proof is simply...listen to the bands...listen to 2 meters...the league has supported each and every one of these changes. Now some of them are out on these message boards trying to drum up more membership"
John,
What the hell are you talking about?
"listen to 2 meters" !
If the ARRL is responsible for the activity on 2m then tell me who's fault the crap on 75m is?
It's been that way for the 10 years I have been around. Can you give me an answer? No one ever does!
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KD7KGX on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I can credit the ARRL with getting me involved in amateur radio at the age of 38. I stumbled across the March '00 QST at the local Barnes & Noble while browsing, bought it on a whim since I had always been interested in electronics, read the Elecraft K2 review, and started wondering.
Six months later I had passed my General (including 5 wpm code). Five months after that I had built my own K2. Three years later I have a lot more radios and test gear, thoroughly enjoy ham radio, and intend to stay a ham until I die. I have gotten VHF/UHF mobiles and HTs, checked in to my local ARES nets, taken the ARRL's ECC 1 course, and am taking the antenna class. And, my code speed is above 15 wpm now.
I owe in large part my status as a ham to the ARRL and its publications. The only issue I have had with ARRL is their apparent decision to discontinue offering QST at newstands... a decision I disagree with. It got me into the hobby!
One thing I did even before I received my license was to join the ARRL. It was perhaps the best investment I've made in ham radio. I'm currently paid up for the next three years, and will convert to a life membership soon. In my opinion, the ARRL is a GREAT organization that provides a great service to amateurs, and I frankly don't understand why some people are so vehemently angry with ARRL over apparently trivial matters. Again, in my opinion, the 2000 changes to the licensing requirements were PERFECT... still have to earn HF privileges, but it's fairly easily within reach of everyone.
So... I think the future of the ARRL is good. The number of hams is increasing, and ARRL has some good programs in place, e.g., The Big Project, to get more people into the hobby at a young age. QRP and kit-building are the fastest-growing aspects of ham radio, which shows how people are still interested in learning about electronics. BPL is the big cloud on the horizon... and the only way we can beat it is if ARRL reflects ALL of us.
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N3DRK on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you really want to know the inside workings of the ARRL you must read this very interesting article. This will enlighten you on the politics of the League and makes you wonder why the ARRL took the position of the CW issue and only 5 wpm.Do yourselves all a favor and read this one!
http://www.vcnet.com/measures/Background.html
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W9WHE on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K0ZN says:
"To those who say this is "just a hobby". Wrong"
I respectfully disagree.
Its a "service" in NAME ONLY.
Don't believe it? Ask yourself 1 question: What % of hams have ACTUALLY provided ANY REAL public service (exclude their OWN EGO trips now) in the past year? ANSWER: 1-2%, IF that. IF you are intellectually honest (and I'm sure you are) I think you will agree. OK, I conceede, ham radio is 1-2 % "service" and 98-99% hobby. You are 1-2% correct.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K3UD on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.vcnet.com/measures/Background.html
(worth reading for the TS-830s mods alone)
Very interesting but predictible and not unexpected.
The first rule of publishing seems to be..
DO NOT TICK OFF YOUR ADVERTISERS!
I work in the industry and can tell some of the same horror stories. For better or worse, revenue is certainly king and most of the revenue generated by published products comes from the advertisers. In the case of newspapers and magazines circulation revenue is a very small percentage of overall revenue, and the advertisers know they have "The Power".
73
George
K3UD
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N2MG on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AC0X wrote:
<<
"Guys...eham isnt the one typing these paragraphs"
Yeah, but Eham is the ones that decide which articles move up to the top of the list, and how long they stay there. They have A LOT of control of the tone of this site.
>>
True enough. But if we "buried" a new article (by not featuring it on the homepage) why would we publish it at all?
If we tossed out every anti-ARRL article we got, or pushed them all to the bottom, then we'd be accused of under-representing whatever view was expressed in those articles.
It sure is easy to criticize from the outside, isn't it guys? I'm sure the ARRL feels this as well.
We have no desire to trash the ARRL. Apparently a few of our members do. Most folks eventually figure out who the "cranks" are and deal with it.
Mike N2MG
webmaster, ARRL Life Member
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KK7QI on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hey all:
I admit I had been standing on the sidelines for BPL (although I did
contribute a decent amount of money to the ARRL Spectrum Defense
Fund), however, it wasn't until I saw the ARRL's Video depicting the
actual interference that BPL generates that really made my blood boil
and got me to file my comments to the FCC.
Here is a link to the shocking video (PLEASE WATCH IT):
http://216.167.96.120/BPL_Trial-web.mpg
Here is an EASY link to let you file your comments about BPL:
http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/ecfs/Upload/
Tick the top Docket: BPL 03-014
Then Click the Continue Button at the bottom of the page.
Then fill in the form with your comments and hit submit.
If BPL really goes through, I'll be putting almost all of my Ham
Equipment up for Sale -- although it'll probably be worthless except
for scrap metal and silicon.
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W8FAX on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Well Mr. DOO DAH (your first name is DOO????) your article makes no sense and your data is faulty as pointed out. Try again............
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< We have no desire to trash the ARRL. Apparently a few of our members do. Most folks eventually figure out who the "cranks" are and deal with it.
Mike N2MG
webmaster, ARRL Life Member >
I see no problem at all with discussion about ARRL; in fact, I would encourage it. What I see come out of this is that most hams who think about the issue come to the same general conclusion I do -- that ARRL is not perfect, but it is doing some important things and supporting it helps accomplish those things and puts one in a better position to to something about improving the League.
The ensuing discussion also helps people shape their thoughts about what those imperfections are and how they can best present them to ARRL to try to make the organization better.
ARRL is neither godlike nor the Devil incarnate. It is a mixture of dedicated volunteer and HQ staff doing their best to do what is right for ham radio. You can question their accomplishments, but I do not doubt their intentions.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W8FAX on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
...and at this particular point in history, are in a VERY difficult position. There IS no "clear path".........
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K9UWP on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm afraid ARRL's main, and perhaps only, agenda is to acquire more dues-paying members. How do they intend to do that? Simple! Support dumbing-down of amateur radio licensing requirements. I guess we all know what codeless licensing did to our hobby. ARRL sold us down the road when they so enthusiastically supported no-code licenses. Well, I guess it worked. They got a few new memberships from the no-code crowd. The rest of us got an unwanted introduction to CB.
When I listen to ARRL's new, codeless, witless rabble on 2 meters I want to throw up.
ARRL isn't much more than a collection of a couple dozen highly overpaid east coast liberals who have most amateur radio operators suckered into believeing they stand for something good.
Remember when the cover of QST said, "Of, by, and for the Radio Amateur"? Those days are long gone.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed, one cannot reason with unreasonable people.
It is pointless to try and prove you are not doing something, you aren’t doing.
As soon as muck dreckers find out you are trying to clear away their mess, they will throw more dreck.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 15, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To K0ZN:
Wonderfully well spoken sir, I agree with you completely.
73
John WR8D:
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This one is to N9NRW
Well lets see...10 years back thats about the time the first bunch of weirdo's got turned loose on the bands through the waivers. At that time...any cber that could get his doctor to sign a waiver stating he had a handicap and could not "stand" to take the code test got a waiver. Which the arrl was completely in favor of because they knew it would help the big three in radio sell more rigs and further the commercial interests of the arrl. As for 2 meters its just about become the new "freeband". Because of the arrl helping to open the floodgates. Now dont get me wrong there have been some fine folks come out of the cb band and make good hams...Problem is most of them are just cbers. The bad ones that dont want to follow rules. That want to carry on with the same types of attitudes and operating practices that they did on cb...only now its on a bigger scale. Hf is full of them and they have ruined the 2 meter band.
Just wanted you to know the facts.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To K9UWP:
You know most these guys must not have a 2 meter rig. Or else they've got their heads in the sand. What you have said about 2 meters is right on the nail head and is happening now on all hf freq's. But watch now we'll both get jumped on for our observations.
Keep telling just the plain ole truth. Sooner or later folks will take a look and listen for themselves.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not to spoil a perfectly good rant, but...
> ARRL sold us down the road when they so
> enthusiastically supported no-code licenses.
If my memory serves, when the NCT license was on the plate, ARRL recommended a low-power, VHF-only license for 220 MHz and up.
You don't look so "right" when you have to rewrite history to make your point. . .
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< Ed, when you revealed that Jim (THE PRESIDENT OF THE ARRL) doesn't vote on major poloicy issues like code no-code, I was STUNNED! Can this really be true? >
Under ARRL bylaws, the ARRL officers and HQ staff do not vote on ANY issue. major or minor. The 15-elected members of the ARRL Board of Directors are the only ones who vote on ARRL policy matters.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> There are plenty of good hams out there who
> contribute to ham radio in their very own big way,
> while they are not ARRL members. Most often they're
> not very visible, as they do their work in silence
> and choose not to toot their own horns. Great
> people, who encourage young folks to pick up radio
> as a hobby, or perhaps are taking care of us in the
> board rooms of companies where decisions are made
> that affect hamradio.
Yes, and I meet them often in my travels, and have great respect for their work. When I talk with the ham in industry who has made just such a contribution to the cause, the subject of his membership rarely comes up.
> As long as you keep approaching non-members as non-
> contributers, you will not convince those particular
> non-members to become members. In fact, I think you
> will achieve the opposite. You are not showing any
> respect to your fellow non-member hams, neither will
> you gain respect, by slapping them in the face with
> a "someone else is picking up the tab for you"-type
> approach. Perhaps that is what angers some folks.
But when someone who has not made such a contribution posts inaccurate information on a newsgroup board and I respond, I am "slapping them in the face?" I hardly think so, Alex. Those that proudly boast that they are not members, and then start telling the world what additional things ARRL should do SHOULD expect to be told that someone else is picking up the tab for them.
There are many opportunities for you to repeat your lecture on the need for respect, Alex; some of the disrespect I have seen here is blatant. Yet you seem to direct it toward the ARRL folks, and not those whose conduct is very much worse than any example you could pull from my posts. Are you sure it is the "direspect" you are trying to address?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Some of you guys who have issues with the ARRL present your arguments like a teenage conducting a tatrum. All noise and no facts. Its quite entertaining.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N9NRW:
"If the ARRL is responsible for the activity on 2m then tell me who's fault the crap on 75m is?
It's been that way for the 10 years I have been around. Can you give me an answer? No one ever does!"
Bob, that started way back when the licensing fee for amateur radio was dropped, and increased drastically when the FCC made it 'way too easy for everyone who wanted to get an amateur license to get one.
Many of the people who post here think the ARRL is responsible because they supported those moves. What a load of horses*it! The FCC is responsible, not the ARRL. The ARRL cannot change the regulations any more than they can create another allocation for amateur radio use.
The fact of the matter is the 2 meter band is local and transgressors can be easily tracked down. The HF bands, used for longer distance communication are not as easily policed. 2 meter operators keep that band cleaner than 75 meter operators can ever hope to--if they were interested in doing so at all.
Also, just because some of the language is unliked by the older operators doesn't make it wrong to be used. If you want to use 10 codes, why not? Q codes are used in phone and ssb HF operation. Whats wrong with saying something like 'I'll be on the side' instead of 'listening' or 'standing by'? Just because someone doesn't like it doesn't make it wrong.
Most of the problems on the ham radio bands today are between the operators who have been on the bands for years and years and the newbies. The older operators had gotten used to having things their way so that now they believe they "own" the bands. The newer operators who come along and advance their skills, and then try to bring a breath of fresh air to the bands are chastized and lambasted by the old timers, who are too set in their ways to allow for anything new and fresh.
One example comes directly to mind--the bull that a trained human ear can pick CW out of the noise while a computerized program can't do as well with digital modes or CW. Baloney!!! But still being stated as gospel by the old timers, no matter how much they are proved wrong!
I suspect that the type of language that the older operators object to, as I indicated above, is really objected to because it reminds them of their roots as well as the place where the newer operators are coming from. Think about it, a ham radio tech class license is an 'upgrade' from using CB radio. A general class license is an upgrade from a tech license, and so on. And these older operators who are 'up there' in more ways than one object to upgrading in any way or form unless its done in 'their' way, on 'their' terms.
Is it any wonder that this hobby is called an anachronism, that it is losing operators, and that it will probably be dead in fifty years? I think not.
As a matter of fact, I am tempted to say let BPL come to pass along with raising the permissible noise levels. I'm no longer interested in the HF bands or anything to do with them. The future of ham radio would then be the VHF/UHF bands, and the people who so badly want the HF bands for their own will end up with nothing but 160 meters. It'll serve them right. But, I consider myself a ham operator, not a technician class ham operator but a HAM OPERATOR who will fight any threat to the entirety of the ham bands.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N8AUC on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KR4XH Said:
"The proof is simply...listen to the bands...listen to 2 meters..."
If you are having a problem on 2 meters, it's probably due to a lack of elmering the newcomers. That shiny new tech license doesn't mean you know anything, except how to operate a rather simple radio without hurting yourself. Things like operating technique and proper protocol are only taught and acquired through the time honored activity of elmering.
It is extremely pointless to bash the ARRL over this (yeah - like failing to elmer the newbies is their fault), when the root cause of the problem is a little closer to home than Newington, CT.
If folks took as much time welcoming and elmering the newcomers on the local repeater, as they spend bashing the ARRL on internet message boards, the problem with 2 meters wouldn't exist.
Someone else made a comment about intellectual honesty. Let's test that. Please, take a long hard look in the mirror and tell me just how wrong I am.
Now go show the newbies how to do it right, and quitcherbitchin about how they sound like CB'ers.
73 de N8AUC
Eric
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by TECH2003 on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Thanks to the ARRL, W5YI, and NCVEC for supporting no code license, easier exams, and elimination of the CW portions of the band. They are doing a fine job in my book and I recently became a member.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KR4XH on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KR4XH did not say that...
might want to double-check that.
don, KR4XH
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by G3SEA on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
United we stand,Divided we fall :)
It's that simple ! All hams need to get behind their
respective organizations ARRL,RSGB etc.
What looms down the road is ominous if you couple factors like a declining solar cycle,inactive hams,BPL etc.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K9UWP on August 16, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
To Ed, W1RFI
Sorry, Ed, but apparently you think "half-truths" will bowl us midwestern hayseeds over. No dice. Tell us the rest of the story, Ed. Tell us about how, after the FCC rejected ARRL's glorious proposal for low power UHF priviledges for no-code'ers the League's gurus folded up like a house of cards and did nothing but console themselves at having put up a valiant fight.
It will be a cold day in Hell when I pay $30-plus per year to be a member of a group of wimps like that.
Crap like they shovel out should be packaged as fertilizer.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N8AUC on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KR4XH - you're right. It was WR8D who said it.
My apologies for incorrectly attributing that to you.
But the point still stands......
If the newbies on 2m get elmered, the problem on 2m isn't a problem. I've never found a newbie yet that didn't want to "do it right". And once they are taught, it tends to stick if presented in the proper manner.
That problem is a local one and simply cannot be attributed to the ARRL.
73 de N8AUC
Eric
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N8AUC on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3UD said:
>The first rule of publishing seems to be..
>DO NOT TICK OFF YOUR ADVERTISERS!
>I work in the industry and can tell some of the same horror stories. For better or worse, revenue is certainly king and
>most of the revenue generated by published products comes from the advertisers. In the case of newspapers and
>magazines circulation revenue is a very small percentage of overall revenue, and the advertisers know they have "The Power".
========
I totally agree with that. QST is a good magazine, and I enjoy reading it, but the product reviews are quite obviously biased towards advertisers. When Ken-Ya-Com produces a clunker, it still gets rave reviews in QST. And there is some really good gear built by folks who don't advertise in QST. Their reviews read like a reluctant after thought, if they ever appear at all.
This is where sites like eHam really shine. Read the QST reviews for the lab tests, then read the real world experiences of users who actually bought and used the stuff. When the end users start raving about how good something is, then you've found something worthy of your hard earned dollars.
Now for the caveat - you have to be careful with what you read on eHam, too. Some folks post reviews just to see their name on the screen.
It's always "let the buyer beware".....
Still a League member though. There are bigger fish to fry.....
73 de N8AUC
Eric
|
| |
|
RE: Where are the facts and logic?
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If the ARRL is responsible for the activity on 2m then tell me who's fault the crap on 75m is?
It's been that way for the 10 years I have been around. Can you give me an answer? No one ever does!"
“Bob, that started way back when the licensing fee for amateur radio was dropped, and increased drastically when the FCC made it 'way too easy for everyone who wanted to get an amateur license to get one.”
PROOF? When was the fee dropped? When was it increased drastically? Show us how 75 metes had a higher percentage of ops creating interference, or swearing when the FCC made it too easy to get a ticket for 75 meters. If made it too easy refers to 5wpm instead of 10wpm, there are quite a few people who would love to see your research and what you’ve based your conclusion upon. To the best of my knowledge no one has any meaningful proof about the impact of the last license changes.
“If you want to use 10 codes, why not?”
If it has to be explained to you, you will never understand it?
“Most of the problems on the ham radio bands today are between the operators who have been on the bands for years and years and the newbies.”
PROOF?
From what I’ve experienced, most of the problems on the bands today are from normal summer doldrums combined with reduced sun spot activity. It is hard to tell about the willful interference, since the jammers don’t ID.
“The newer operators who come along and advance their skills, and then try to bring a breath of fresh air to the bands are chastised and lambasted by the old timers, who are too set in their ways to allow for anything new and fresh.”
What does trying to breath fresh air in, mean? Does this mean NOT following established norms? Like, “Make way for me! I’m here now and we do things my way!” “The time honored traditions are in my way!”
That fellow is calling CQ DX. I’m not DX but I’ll give him a breath of fresh air by calling him. I’ll give him more fresh air by calling him a little of his frequency, repeating my call sign about 8 times, and on CW since he is upper sideband.
Lets see. Instead of calling CQ DX, I'm going to call "I'd like a radio check from some station over seas." Or, I'll send "RST NoUSA over" That will be a nice breath of fresh air for everybody.
“One example comes directly to mind--the bull that a trained human ear can pick CW out of the noise while a computerized program can't do as well with digital modes or CW. Baloney!!! But still being stated as gospel by the old timers, no matter how much they are proved wrong!”
Got PROOF?
I think you are confusing digital modes, other than CW, with CW. So far NO computer program for copying CW can come close to matching the human ear, especially under marginal conditions! If you’ve got a CW program that will do it, many of us would like to play with it.
“I suspect that the type of language that the older operators object to, as I indicated above, is really objected to because it reminds them of their roots as well as the place where the newer operators are coming from.”
If you are referring to 10 codes, you’ll be surprised that old timers precede CB. As a result, it doesn’t remind them of anything other than a CB operator on a ham band.
“Think about it, a ham radio tech class license is an 'upgrade' from using CB radio.”
Well, NO. This is like saying an emergency dispatcher upgrades from that when they get their first ham radio ticket.
And these older operators who are 'up there' in more ways than one object to upgrading in any way or form unless its done in 'their' way, on 'their' terms
And exactly what “older” operator(s) told you they object to anyone upgrading unless they did it “their-way”? And what exactly was their way and their terms? How is it anyone could upgrade their way vrs taking the normal tests for upgrading?
I hear K9FAM on 20 meters quite a lot. He's an OT. Happens to run commercial BC stations. Currently running a stereo AM station, and got a BC award for innovation. Ask him if he objects to hams upgrading!
Come to think of it, until he put the new TenTech on the air, he was running about $20K of eq and compression equipment into his ham rigs. Great sounding clean, punchy, non-wideband audio with no hollow or echo base. Yup, a perfect example of an OT who is resistant to change. Same with Marty Lane; that fellow never has done anything new—stuck in his ways.
“Is it any wonder that this hobby is called an anachronism,..”
It is no wonder that someone somewhere called it that. Remember, some people call using leaches anachronistic, same with mailing a letter. Who cares?
How about this? Ham Radio is a Space Ship! Kinda makes one shudder. No wonder it looses people. It will crash in 50 years.
“…that it is losing operators.” For some strange reason, I believe that Ham radio lost operators during the 30s.
I even believe some marriages end in divorce.
You seem to have good prose, but get facts mixed up, or don’t bother with them.
73
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<If folks took as much time welcoming and elmering the newcomers on the local repeater, as they spend bashing the ARRL on internet message boards, the problem with 2 meters wouldn't exist.>
Unfortunately, many of those same folks spend as much time bashing newcomers on the local repeater.
Why some think that taking a crowbar to situations to widen the gap of the differences between us is somehow for the good of amateur radio will forever escape me.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<ARRL isn't much more than a collection of a couple dozen highly overpaid east coast liberals who have most amateur radio operators suckered into believeing they stand for something good. >
Let's look at this one more closely. The ARRL President, Vice Presidents and the entire Board of Directors serve without pay at all. I think it hardly likely that we can overpay them. Their reason for wanting to give the many many hours that their positions demand is that they want to give of themselves to amateur radio. Most people appreciate the hard work they put into it. When time comes for them to want to step down, most people don't want the job.
There are more than a couple of dozen ARRL HQ employees, althogh he may be saying that only a couple of dozen are overpaid.
I wonder if he would be willing to give us a bit more than the vague allegation he offered and discuss what jobs those 24 individuals do, what their salary levels actually are and how they stack up against the prevailaing wages in the area for the same work.
Speaking only for myself, my salary is quite a bit less than I could earn in industry doing the management and spectrum work I do. There is a bit of love for amateur radio in MY choice of career, for sure. :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The beauty of our government is that we all have a voice. I see my government do things differently than I would all the time. But when the dust settles, we are a nation governed by law, and sometimes we have to accept the outcome of that law and move on with our lives.
When I look at the results of the NCT regulations, a significant increase in the number of new hams, most of whom upgraded if they became active, an increase in upgrades and an increase in VHF use, I think that the sour grapes being exhibited by some more than 10 years after the change were inappropriate then, as now.
If you are angry at ARRL because it will not join people who want to continue to make hams who are licensed under the present rules feel unwelcome in amatuer radio, there is nothing I can do to help, nor anything I can say to change your mind.
73, Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<I totally agree with that. QST is a good magazine, and I enjoy reading it, but the product reviews are quite obviously biased towards advertisers. When Ken-Ya-Com produces a clunker, it still gets rave reviews in QST. And there is some really good gear built by folks who don't advertise in QST. Their reviews read like a reluctant after thought, if they ever appear at all. >
Can you provide enough examples to justify that statement? I am involved directly in the technical aspects of reviews and can attest personally that I don't give a rat's butt about what the advertisers think of what we say, as long as we have treated them fairly and appropriately discussed the merits and demerits of a rig.
Ask the advertisers what they think of the review process and get back to us. ;-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
What is the ARRLs stance on the elimination of CW as a testing requirement?
|
| |
|
RE: Where are the facts and logic?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Bob, X-WB1AUX:
It doesn't take a genius to realize that when the testing was turned over to VEs it was easier for anyone to get a ham license. As far as the license fee being dropped, I believe that happened around or before the time VEs took over testing.
The fee everyone one pays today is NOT a license fee. It is a testing fee, for paperwork and the submission of that paperwork to the FCC.
As far as "proof", there is none to be had unless you have a time machine. There is only the known worsening of operating habits that started way before 5 WPM was made the standardized code speed.
_________
"“If you want to use 10 codes, why not?”
If it has to be explained to you, you will never understand it?"
Are you asking a question here or saying you can't explain it either? In any event, if two operators want to use 10 codes--or Q codes for that matter--between them, there is no LAW that says they cannot.
Just because you don't like it because it reminds you of "CB" is just too bad. You're limited to your complaints about it. Remember Will Rogers famous saying, "You're right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins." Same idea applies here.
__________
"What does trying to breath fresh air in, mean? Does this mean NOT following established norms? Like, “Make way for me! I’m here now and we do things my way!” “The time honored traditions are in my way!”"
Not at all. It means newer operators getting on the radio and using it alongside the present operators. And if two of the newer operators are talking between themselves, not having another operator butting in because he doesn't like the terminology or language the newer ones are using between themselves.
As far as your next paragraph, you're saying you're going to act like a lid because you think he is. Yep, thats good operating alright! You're no better than those you despise. And, sure! The old timers hearing 10 codes remind them of THEIR ROOTS!!!
__________
"“Think about it, a ham radio tech class license is an 'upgrade' from using CB radio.”
Well, NO. This is like saying an emergency dispatcher upgrades from that when they get their first ham radio ticket."
I'll stick to my original statement. I was comparing one hobby to another--apples to apples--while you think that a public safety officer or user getting a hobby license is the same. Apples to oranges??
__________
"And exactly what “older” operator(s) told you they object to anyone upgrading unless they did it “their-way”?"
YOU are asking THAT? How about CW and the insistance of present CW operators that it not be dropped? In other words they are saying 'DO IT MY WAY BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO CHANGE'.
__________
"“…that it is losing operators.” For some strange reason, I believe that Ham radio lost operators during the 30s."
I'll spell it out for you:
Jack is thinking about getting a ham radio license, he is interested in talking to foreign stations. He goes to a local club or contacts a local ham and asks about getting licensed, and what the requirements are. He is told the entry level license is easy to get, but he realizes that morse code would be required for the level of license he is interested in. So he leaves. A potential operator is lost.
So what if he wasn't an actual operator? He is still gone. You would probably say good riddance, but the fact is a person who would have gotten a license has now gone and most likely won't be back. How can you say ham radio isn't losing operators.
For the argument (not listed by you there) that there are more ham licensees now than there has ever been, that is right--but the growth of ham radio licensees has not kept pace with the growth of the population. Also, how about INACTIVE operators whose licenses will lapse when up for renewal. You can't say the ranks of ham radio operators aren't diminishing--they are.
I admit sometimes I do get my facts mixed up. Sometimes, however, you must remember that facts are like some opinions--it just depends how you look at them and interpret them--they mean different things to different people.
73, Chris
|
| |
|
RE: Where are the facts and logic?
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K1CJS wrote: "In any event, if two operators want to use 10 codes between them, there is no LAW that says they cannot.
Just because you don't like it because it reminds you of "CB" is just too bad."
Chris, this clears it all up for me now. The fact is that you are a CBer. Your previous posts show that you WON'T learn the code and that you are just looking for a free ticket. You and your CB buddies just want to get on HF without earning it.
We don't need new operators on HF just to have more on there. You want quantity and I want quality. 10-4 gud buddy?
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed its not about emlers. You're just not listening. Take the example of about 4 guys here where i live. These folks had cb'ed for 25 years. They took a class from some of the best older extra class op's in my part of the state. During the class they said they were going to turn my 2 meter machine into the next 11 meters. Its been 2 years of pure hell here. We tried to as you say to elmer these fools. They would not listen. Infact they said they were going to change the hambands...change us! Most of these new people getting into the hobby are just like this. Most only want a ham ticket so they can show off to their fellow cbers. One used my autopatch to call his cb buddy up and tell him to get on a certain cb channel...just so he could show off. The reason there's tons of us pissed at arrl is simply everytime some drastic change comes uppon us. It looks to all of us that you guys are for it . Now you can pick at this comment and quote it untill hell freezes over but that wont change a thing about the way most of us feel toward the majority of these new cb braindead folks. Sorry but thats where most of us stand. There's hundreds of folks reading these threads but dont want to express their opinion and get picked apart. As for breathing new life into the hobby. Go to radio shack and buy a cb and listen...then get on some hf freq's or 2 meters just about anywhere except evidently where you live and you'll hear the same idiot crap. Here where i live i can even listen to the same "idiot" operators. They stay on cb and only come to the hambands to piss the hams off. They enjoy this...thats what they live for...they never grew up i guess.
Sorry but this is taking place all across our country.
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WR8D on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry hillbillys cant spell "Elmer" hi hi
73
John WR8D
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N8AUC on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Oh come on Ed, you mean you've never noticed the connection between QST reviews of their advertisers products and advertising revenue?
Before I plunk down my hard earned money on a rig, I want to be sure it's going to perform well, and last. I read the reviews in QST, and I read the reviews here on eHam. Now I don't investigate rigs I am not considering buying, but I do research rigs that I am considering. Based on that, I can provide examples based upon my personal knowledge and experiences, as well as the experiences of people I know.
I am certain that I don't represent everything in its entirety.
So here are the ones I know of...
1) The Icom T-8A. QST gave it a glowing review about how rugged it was. Now it's a good radio feature-wise, but rugged it ain't. I have one. I lived through the problems. Found solutions for the ones that couldn't be fixed. Now it's a keeper. No where in QST was the battery snap flaw mentioned, no where was the mechanical fragility of the recharging jack mentioned, or the mechanical fragility of the VFO tuning knob. Power consumption is ridiculous. This thing eats batteries faster than an over-eaters anonymous candidate having dinner at an all you can eat buffet. All these are weak points of the rig. But you won't find mention of any of them in the QST review. You will here on eham.net, though. This rig was advertised as well as reviewed in QST.
2) The Yaesu FT-7100 dual band mobile: The one with the famous fragile shaft encoders, volume and squelch pots, and crappy soldering throughout the control head. If you got a good one (luck of the draw - what a crap shoot) then it's a decent rig. But why do QST readers have to do Yaesu's quality assurance for them, while reading what a great radio it is in the pages of QST? I know seven separate individuals who purchased this clunker and all had the same problems, caused by the same conditions. One guy returned his 7100 to exchange it, and the replacement had the same problem. He returned the replacement for another replacement, and it second replacement had the same problem. He ended up returning the third for a refund. This rig was advertised as well as reviewed in QST. The review was glowing. Glad I didn't buy one of these.
3) The original release of the Yaesu FT-100. What a stinker!
Fortunately it got fixed, and the D version is a pretty good rig. But the original review in QST told what a great radio it was. And it was well advertised in QST. (as is all Yaesu gear)
4) The Radio Shack HTX-245 dual band HT: I have one of those as well. Nice radio, only major flaw is the 750mW transmitter output, and reduced sensitivity in its extended receive. Uses standard AA cells, and runs a long time on a set of batteries. Pretty much intermod-proof in my experience. Rugged enough that my wife hasn't been able to destroy one (she's hard on cars and gear). QST's review was luke warm at best. I never saw an advertisement in QST for it.
QST is extremely good with the lab work on their reviews. IMHO - that is where the value of a QST review lays. But the rest of the review is understandably subjective. When a rig has a cheap feel to it, or is excessively fragile, you'll never hear about that in QST. Especially when it is made by Kenwood, Yaesu, or Icom. When I mentioned this to my division director, the silence was deafening.
Man, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, odds are it's probably a duck.
73 de N8AUC
Eric
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
For me the future of the ARRL rest on their position on the CW requirement for HF privileges. If they are for the elimination of the CW requirement then I will immediately cancel my membership.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
About QST product reviews:
I agree, their lab reviews are the best around, and without equal. But since they are only lab reviews, they can't really do a good job on judging "ruggedness" and "durability", those things are really only visible after continued, repeated, and "real-world" use. A suggestion (which I know would do better if actually sent to the ARRL instead of posted here, but since they do read this, I'll post it here). Why not something like the Automobile magazines do, something like a "10,000 mile test" (or a "1 year later" test in this case) on a rig? Do some of those in QST. See how a mobile rig goes through a years worth of commuting, an HT after a year on some ham's belt, or an HF rig after a contest season.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by AC0X on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
to OLD Fart
The ARRL's CW position has to do with the position it's members voice to them. So if you want it to have a position one way or the other, I recommend you write to your ARRL rep and tell them how you feel. Simply posting here isn't going to make a difference, although it might make you feel good. And if, ultimately, the ARRL position is different than your own, it might just mean that the position of the majority of hams in the ARRL is different than your own. If that difference on that one issue is enough to make you stop supporting the one organization that does more to support amateur radio than any other, than that's your decision, in my opinion a decision not well thought out on your part.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by K9JDK on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I believe amateur radio needs a unified voice to represent its interests. At present, that voice is the ARRL.
Is the ARRL perfect? Probably not. When I looked in the mirror this morning I didn't see perfect either.
I sense, at times, the ARRL being a yesterday organization. At other times, I see it trying to keep up.
A name change would help change the face of the organization, especially to the much needed next generation of operators. I've seen some notes on that subject here and I think its a good idea.
Perhaps the ARRL should consider putting together a committee of interested parties to review this issue and make recommendations to the BoD.
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W2RXB on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am an ARRL member and I believe the ARRL is toooo slow in responding to the opportunity we have to eliminate Code as a requirement. Mind you I don't favor dumping the code only eliminating it as a requirement.
It's time for the ARRL to take a position and elimiate the no comment position they currently have.
Unfortunately ARRL is unable to make a decision and will probably wait for the FCC to act. In the interum more ARRL members become silentkeys and our membership continues to drop like a rock.
|
| |
|
RE: Where are the facts and logic?
|
|
|
by K1CJS on August 17, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Chris, this clears it all up for me now. The fact is that you are a CBer........We don't need new operators on HF just to have more on there. You want quantity and I want quality. 10-4 gud buddy?"
Yes, I sure am. I admit it. I drive tractor trailer for a living. I use CB most every day, for getting delivery and pickup door assignments at warehouses and other sites I go to. At any other time, it is switched off.
On another article a while ago I said I sometimes slip and throw in CB jargon on the ham bands I use. The person who I am talking to usually takes it in stride, I apologise and we continue. If two operators want to use it between themselves and it isn't involving or bothering another ham, what's the big deal??? You aren't around, you would probably be on your beloved CW bands, IF you're licensed at all.
As far as wanting quality on the HF bands, you realize that if you're there, the band has already lost the quality you're so badly looking for.
|
| |
|
RE: Where are the facts and logic?
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Good prose.
"As far as wanting quality on the HF bands, you realize that if you're there, the band has already lost the quality you're so badly looking for."
No substance though.
Like soap bubbles.
Interesting to look at as they float in the air.
When they pop, one sees they have no substance.
Got PROOF?
POP!
Bob
CL
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KR1ST on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<quote W1RFI>
There are many opportunities for you to repeat your lecture on the need for respect, Alex; some of the disrespect I have seen here is blatant. Yet you seem to direct it toward the ARRL folks, and not those whose conduct is very much worse than any example you could pull from my posts. Are you sure it is the "direspect" you are trying to address?
</quote W1RFI>
Absolutely, Ed. This sounds incredibly arrogant, but I do hold certain folks to higher standards than others, fully realizing that I'm just as much a nobody as anyone else. That's not because I see it as an opportunity to bash them (the ARRL folks you're talking about), but because I respect them. If I wouldn't respect you, I wouldn't give a ratt's butt (to borrow a phrase) about what you said and wouldn't even respond.
As a Dutch saying goes, tall trees catch a lot of wind. :-)
73,
--Alex KR1ST
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by OLDFART13 on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>by AC0X on August 17, 2003
"to OLD Fart
The ARRL's CW position has to do with the position it's members voice to them. So if you want it to have a position one way or the other, I recommend you write to your ARRL rep and tell them how you feel. Simply posting here isn't going to make a difference, although it might make you feel good. And if, ultimately, the ARRL position is different than your own, it might just mean that the position of the majority of hams in the ARRL is different than your own. If that difference on that one issue is enough to make you stop supporting the one organization that does more to support amateur radio than any other, than that's your decision, in my opinion a decision not well thought out on your part."<<<
Thanks you for you comments. For the most part I agree with you. I have sent email to my section manager and the ARRL president and three vice presidents. Not sure who else I should send emails to. Perhaps written letters and phone calls will help also.
At one time I was a democrat and a NRA member. After the Clinton administration raped out constitutional rights I decided to never vote or support a Democrat again. I understand that there are many issues but this was my issue. So it is with the ARRL. I am a member of the ARRL and have sent money to them to defend BPL but when they don't support my issue then I will no longer support them. You can say I'm narrow minded but I prefer to think that I will stick by my convictions.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N8AUC on August 18, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AC0X wrote:
" Why not something like the Automobile magazines do, something like a "10,000 mile test" (or a "1 year later" test in this case) on a rig? Do some of those in QST. See how a mobile rig goes through a years worth of commuting, an HT after a year on some ham's belt, or an HF rig after a contest season. "
=====
Now that's a great idea!
Especially since it's usually not a good idea to purchase version 1.uh-oh of anything.
73 de N8AUC
Eric
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by OP1IUM on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
tHE FUTURE OF THE ARRL..............NONE...YIPPI CAHYO CAHYO CAHYEA! MOTHER TRUCKER!
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I must again congradulate EHAM on their journelistic standards.
EHAM gets everything from bright people to the lunitic fringe.
I am not as open minded. I do have a sense of humor!
Some how, I just can't respond to a thread started by a MR DOO-DAH. Is it MR DOO. Or how about just the DAH man. Nothing personel MR DAH.
I just cannot get into the subject or the scope.
I am just laughing too hard that here is a MR DOO-DAH
commenting on something serious.
Maybe I am just not open minded enough! Maybe it is my fault! Maybe if MR potato head wrote this thread, I would comment. Maybe I just do not want to comment, and is using MR doo's screen name as a pathetic excuse!
If I knew the future, I certainly would have a 30 ro0m estate in Greenwich Conn.
Perhaps a handle of MR DIT-DAH, might ameleorate my apprehension.
Perhaps today I could CARE LESS ABOUT ANYTHING!
nothing personal MR DAH, its just business
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
This is a simple one to answer. After the FCC makes it even easier to get a ticket, the league will become flush with thousands of new members to fatten up its coffer with more cashflow. Is this so tough to figure out? Love em or hate em, its all about $$$$.
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by W1RFI on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
< This is a simple one to answer. After the FCC makes it even easier to get a ticket, the league will become flush with thousands of new members to fatten up its coffer with more cashflow. Is this so tough to figure out? Love em or hate em, its all about $$$$. >
In one sense, it is all about the $$$$, because most of the things that ARRL does uses up some of that resource. I have worked at ARRL HQ for about 17 years now, and have prowled the halls in the late hours of the evening and I can tell you that I have yet to find this coffer allegdly full of money. Perhaps you can tell me where it is, though others have tried and failed.
In running the ARRL Lab, every year, I have to think in terms of the resources I have available -- or don't have available -- to do the work hams want to see done. Every department at HQ does the same. Every single dollar taken in gets back to ham radio, in one of the many projects and programs ARRL has put together. These range from the spectrum work to the educational work to the web page to QST to the work of the ARRL Lab staff. That is exactly what is all about, to the staff that work at HQ and to the Board of Directors who create all those programs without being given one dime for their wages.
Speaking entirely for me, I work at HQ for tens of thousands of dollars less than I am sure I could make in industry. I do it by choice, and couldn't imagine myself doing anything else with my professional life, but reading how "the ARRL" is only in it for the money just doesn't cut it for the volunteers who set its policy or for those on staff who are willing to make a lot less money to do the work we love.
Can I get you to reconsider? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by N8AUC on August 19, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ed,
It's just like in "industry" where the following definitely applies:
"We the willing, led by the unknowing, have been doing so much with so little for so long that we are now qualified to absolutely everything with absolutely nothing."
Keep up the valiant effort, Ed!
73 de N8AUC
Eric
|
| |
|
What is the Future of the ARRL?
|
|
|
by NJ0E on August 20, 2003
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i have been an arrl member since about 1976, and a
life member since about 1980.
and i think the arrl does pretty well, overall.
when i bought my hf rig, there were 6 bands on the
mw/sw spectrum; 160, 80, 40, 20, 15, and 10.
now we have 30, 17, and 12. and now 60, too.
someday perhaps i will get a new rig so i can enjoy
them all!
i was formerly an arrl volunteer examiner, and am
happy to testify that i considered it a well run
program, and i know first hand we served a large
number of examinees with what i hope they regarded
as a quality test-taking experience. we were polite
and supportive but "no nonsense".
i remember fondly the qst articles by doug demaw.
and the more recent ones by dave benson, wes hayward,
and others (yes i am a qrper).
i support the cw requirement, sent my opinion to my
division director, and am satisfied that he will
attempt to represent the majority opinion among
the arrl membership in his division. and no, i don't
think he should consider the opinions of non members
in his decision.
my opinion is that the "old boy network" from which
the arrl leadership is drawn is effectively the same
as the field organization; the emergency coordinators,
nts net control operators, transcontinental corps
traffic handlers, and so forth. the folks who make
the public service honor roll and brass pounder's
league.
and i think that's absolutely the *correct* place
from which to draw league leadership.
just my 2c.
scott nj0e
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Related News & Articles
ARRL Alleges Misrepresentation by BPL Operator, Inaction by FCC:
Group Says BPL Pollutes Spectrum:
ARRL Faces FCC in Federal Court Over BPL Issues:
ARRL Comments on Broadband Provisions in Recovery Act:
Future Bright Enough to Wear Shades?
Other Opinion Articles
How Social Networking Can Help Ham Radio
Don't Knock It!
Knobs and SDRs (Software Defined Radios)
EMP a Real Threat to Hams and the USA
High Speed Packet?
|
