|
New to Ham Radio?
My Profile
Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question
Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation
Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers
Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net
|
We Need a PAC!
Do not contact (N4ZOU)
on
October 31, 2004
View comments about this article!
The time has come to admit that the ARRL as presently operated as a non-profit and non-political origination can no longer have the desired effect on the FCC or our political representatives. We amateurs MUST form a PAC (political action committee) with no ties to the ARRL. Leave the ARRL to the business it does well like printing books and shuffling QSL cards (paper and electronic) around and running it's contests and certificates. We must have real help in dealing with not only the FCC but also the politician's in Washington D.C. Otherwise; we will see more failures like the BPL debacle that has just ended with it being approved. Even pushing hard to change CC&R rules to allow antennas was a total failure. I personally can't do it having just gone through major brain surgery and have major disabilities from it. Simply put; someone who is already an amateur radio operator and a politician will need to step up to the plate and start swinging PAC money at the politician's. I know; it's sounds terrible but in this day and age just being Mr. Nice Guy taking a Senator out to lunch just will not take care of the amateur radio society any longer.
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W4CBL on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
While I am in agreement with the need for a Amateur Radio related PAC, I just don't see it happening.
The average Ham is too cheap to join the ARRL (regardless of its political power) let alone contribute enough money to a PAC to make it worthwhile.
I am sure there are wealthy Hams out there; if they saw the value of a AR-PAC, there would already be one.
If one does get started, I would contribute.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N2LJD on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting idea.
To make it worthwhile, with roughly 900,000 hams in the US, would require average contributions of $10/ham in order to fund offices, professional staff, and have enough money to make noticeable contributions to election campaigns.
If we start now (2004) we might have some effect in the 2006 elections.
Will it happen? Stay tuned! (pun intended)
73
Joe
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W4TYU on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Federal Communications Commission is appointed by the President. And the individuals working for the FCC are simply government employees. None of these hold an elective office and do not have campaign funds.
I fail to see what a PAC could accomplish that the present governmental contacts maintained by the ARRL could not do.
Join ARRL and contribute to their various fund drives.
Ole man JEAN
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KB1IKD on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Appointed officials like Michael Powell are appointed to enact and implement the policies of their administration. Michael Powell does not enact any controversial regulation provisions without prior consultation with the appointing authority (White House) and their concurrence.
Hams should remember that while BPL is one issue amoung many to consider, their opportunity to do what they choose about these issues happens next Tuesday.
Regardless of ones position on their issues, special interest organizations like the NRA can only influence the outcome of elections (even presidential elections) because of their large organized voting membership supporting the organization. The influence is also exerted on congressional elections.
Remember that elected official's aides track voting patterns and correspondence on issues. Elected officials will adopt issues to pickup votes and avoid issues that will significantly cost them votes. There is no reason for them to pay attension to any issue that has no impact on elections.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AC5E on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We have a PAC. Contribute genererously to the ARRL!
AND before the election, go to the various candidates web site and see what THEY say about issues of importance to Amateur Radio.
I did - and I W-ill vote accordingly.
73 Pete Allen AC5E
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by SFD301 on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chew on this. As a professional firefigter in a city of 60,000 or so and a fire dept. of 117 taking cuts everyday we decided we had to take a stronger stand than just making statements that it is not safe.
A move was made to take over the Indepent Party by doing the leg work and getting friends and family to enroll in the patry. Within months of the beginning we controled the party. After the first election we moved up a line on the voting machines over the Conservative Party. By the second year the local politicians noticed our influence and the number of votes we pulled ON THE PARTY LINE. The dealing started and the two major parties that wanted their candidates endorsed by us started showing their loyality after the elections. County money has flowed into the FD's budget by hundred's of thousands each year. State officials have helped secure grants for equiptment, a fallen FF memorial and staffing.
A true turn around from having doors shut in our face to them knocking on ours! My point is that all the PAC money and lobby efforts that you can make can not compare to being able to say we can secure you this many votes, showing so, and then making them accountable to the party.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by WIRELESS on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yea, keep supporting the ARRL and watch them sit there and do nothing. They have wasted $100M's over the years and they couldn't influence a drunk to have another shot. At this point, hams are too late. HF is now shared with BPL and if anyone thinks BPL is going away before the ham bands, then have another shot. You need another one.
|
| |
|
Presidential vote based on BPL ?
|
|
|
by WB4M on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Jeez, of all the things going on in the world today.. jobs lost, wars, terrorism.. and you guys want to base your vote on how Bush or Kerry views the BPL issue?? Me thinks you have your priorities skewed severely. BPL is small potatos. I bet if you get an arm blown off in a terrorist attack, your first thought would be, gee, I can't climb my tower anymore.. duh...
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC! PAC vs. Votes
|
|
|
by KA1DWX on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
A tip 'o the hat to the firefighters!
Nothing speaks to politicians more than voting blocks. During the 60's a group of us in NYC used the identical strategy you firefighters used. The NY State political parties were Democrat; Republican and Liberal. We started the Conservative Party and within a few years the Conservative Party replaced the Liberal Party. With this voting block we were able to not only 'ammend' New York State politics, but also rebuild a loosely affiliated national party!
Count me in! Don Durk, ka1dwx
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC! PAC vs. Votes
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'll never re-join the ARRL. They're too incompetent.
Hams need to get a realistic perspective. Ham radio is not important, in the overall scheme of things. We're never going to have an impact on politics, no matter what we do. Nobody cares about ham radio.
I can't believe anybody would vote against Bush because of BPL! Just unbelievable! Wake up and smell the coffee! We are engaged in a war against terrorism!
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N4VOX on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1IKD said on October 31, 2004, Appointed officials like Michael Powell are appointed to enact and implement the policies of their administration"
Michael Powell was appointed by Bill Clinton. He was sworn in on 11-3-97. At this time his father did not hold any federal office, he was a retired military officer.
Not only are the FCC commisioners appointed by the president, they must be confirmed by the senate. Of the 5 commmisioners, no more than 3 can be of the same political party. In other words, there are democrat slots as well as republican.
Following KB1IKD statement, I guess that Michael Powell is just pursuing the Clinton agenda, since that is who appointed him to the commission.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KT0DD on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We could never raise enough money, because too many hams are cheapskates. Just try to get a real value price out of a piece of gear you want to sell, and all someone wants to do is jew you down. I'd almost rather sell to freebanders. They have no trouble coming up with money.
BPL will be a minor nuisance for a short while until Wi-Max and cell phone access get fully deployed. Then they will blow BPL to the grave. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC! PAC vs. Votes
|
|
|
by K0BG on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are just over 733,000 licensed amateur radio operators in the United States. Approximately one fourth belong to the ARRL, whose interface with Washington's political pundits echos that of a PAC. While you may not canter along with all of their policies, they are nonetheless our established voice of amateur radio in Washington. I don't believe we need another one to dilute the formula.
Alan, KØBG
www.k0bg.com
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by WJ2L on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
An interesting idea. The PAC ideas does have potential for some things to be voted on. I will not say that the idea has merit, as in virtue. It just has
clout. Could anyone elmer Mr. Gates into this hobby?
I dont believe this half baked idea, referring to BPL, could have beem defeated.
A politician that can say, 'I brought you low cost broad band' isnt going to be swayed because of a handful of Ham Radio-Ops.
As to PACs, well the political process does seem to run on money. I am sorry the founders of the constitution did not have Ham Radio at their disposal because we might have greater protections if they had written that into the constitution, like the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS AND RADIOs!
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KC0SHZ on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The NRA is composed of people who aren't rich, but they know that their sport/hobby will be taken away if the wrong candidates win. They don't beg the BATF for rulings. They don't try to pursuade their engineers, or their number crunchers. They go after Congress because that is where the money is.
In addition, when the stuff hits the fan, they get on planes and go help. There was a serial killer in Gainesville, Fla. The response to this was the sale of 5000 handguns in a week. The local gun dealers called the national office and we had 3 instructors (in addition to the local instuctors) on the ground, 12 more with tickets, and two attorneys to grease the city to allow the use of the police firearms training area for instruction so that all could be trained quickly. This was quite a feat for a group of people who are described as mindless gun nuts by the media.
We need a two prong approach. We need to be able to haunt the telecom committees and the committees in charge of emergency response agencies like FEMA and DHS. We need a PAC and lobbyist. Those cost money, but bring results. We also need to be more visible during emergencies and during regular civil support activities (like bike races).
The NRA made huge points in Gainesville (not a very conservative place) with their effort. We make these kind of eforts all the time, but never get anywhere because we don't get the people to connect these four realities:
1. Bike races are fun and make money for charities.
2. Cell phones just aren't reliable for multi-point communications and in many rural areas.
3. When I am in a bike race, my PERSONAL safety is enhanced by having the HAM radio guys around.
4. Therefore, I should care what happens to them and oppose what prevents them from keeping me and my charity safe.
|
| |
|
RE: Presidential vote based on BPL ?
|
|
|
by AD5SA on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yeah, but someone needs to tell Bush that the terrorists aren't from Iraq.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by GHOSTRIDERHF on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yeah -- let me check the logic on that --
not sure what function this PAC would serve .. but
last year the Cable industry made 64,000,000,000 (64B) dollars and the utility companies nationwide made 217,000,000,000 (217B) and they hire over 337 lobby firms with a total of 14,500 employees -- they also have the largest PAC themselves in the world ...
yeah I can see our little Ham Radio PAC going up against a giant like that and winning...
Rule number one of a gunfight -- bring a gun....
meaning -- if you are going to take on these giants you better have them outnumbered, outgunned, or outsmarted -- and looking around -- I just dont see that happening...
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N4ZOU on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We need a new origination. Say we call it Civilian Communication Emergency Service (CCES). This way Amateur radio could be enveloped into a national origination like the Red Cross. This would protect amateur radio from efforts like the BPL industry. This would also put more money and political effort behind the origination.
This origination should not be setup just for FCC license holders or amateur radio operators but for the population at large. Cell phones are radios! This is a prime example of a service that needs to be changed slightly during times of disaster when the Cell Phone system would normally crash from overuse. Take 9-11-01 for example. What should have happened is several people should have setup a post where they would have called a family member or friend for a person needing to get that information to them. This would have only a few Cell phones operating at a time in a specific Cell area and not thousands at one time. CCES sites can be pre established at locations where the public can drop by and post a phone number and short message that there ok. This could be a standard form where only the phone number is written down. Large cities like New York could use the lobby of a large office building as an example. This area would be marked like the old Civil Defense shelters. This way someone could drop by and leave there short message knowing the CCES volunteer would use a regular phone, Cell phone, or Volunteer (amateur) radio to pass your information along. Volunteer (amateur) radio operators using there home could setup to help in their local area or at an EMA or shelter area. What this means for the Ham radio operator is your neighbors no longer look at your antennas as blight on the neighborhood. You’re the person that’s going to help them when they need it! So join the new origination (if it happens) and post your CCES Volunteer sign out front. Live in a condo or have CC&R rules? The local CC&R enforcers might want your antennas now!
I just started a new Yahoo group as a first step. The link is.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n4zou/
It's open to all.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KE2EB on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
We Don't need a PAC...amatuer Radio is a Hobby! Vote for your elected Officials,Our National Right of being American citizen. Keep Politics out of our Hobby! Money/power=can tend to corrupt! as well as mend!eg, Only money can correct/change things...right!-73-ghc ke2eb.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC! PAC vs. Votes
|
|
|
by KA1DWX on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well said Alan and I do agree that The League should remain "the established voice of amateur radio in Washington". I did not suggest, nor was I trying to suggest, any activity dilutive to The League. That said, my experience and that of the firefighter who previously commented are similar and actually worked! Politics tends to be practical, not intellectual. Perhaps The League or an association of hams could in the future show a DELIVERABLE block of voters of let's say 200,000 - 250,000 out of the 733,000 licensed hams who would vote more or less in lock step. Or....better yet, a loose affiliation of several parties threatened by re - allocation and interference issues? Perhaps a union or two!
While still marginal, I believe this would provide sufficient uncertainty to legislators ( particularly to those in close races) to favorably impact issues of concern to us. What are your thoughts? Don Durk, ka1dwx
p.s. I stress 'DELIVERABLE'
|
| |
|
I WILL START PAC
|
|
|
by KB7LYM on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As a token of goodwill I will start PAC.
I myself started without the FCC to collect enough
money from all Hamradio Operators. A minimum of $ 10.00 will get you the brass version. Silver is $ 25.00 and the ultimate Platinum for only $ 150.00
You will get a printed certificate being a proud member of PAC.
MAIL YOUR DONATION TO
Frank Faber KB7LYM
ATT: PAC
380 E.POLE RD # 20
LYNDEN, WA 98264
USA
Please no coins
E-Mail dragonflies329@juno.com
Our motto : PAC FOREVER !!!
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W4TYU on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK Some of the commenters do not agree with the ARRL in any shape,form or fashion. Gentlemen,the Board of Directors of the ARRL is elected by the vote of the members. If you are a member you can influence the decisions simply by exercising your right to vote and by making your opinions known to the Directors.
If you do not belong to the ARRL,do you still reap the benefits such as operating awards (DXCC,WAS etc.)the free incoming QSL bureaus, bulletins ?
Ole man JEAN
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you are a member you can influence the decisions simply by exercising your right to vote and by making your opinions known to the Directors."
Don't want to. The ARRL is a bunch of losers.
"If you do not belong to the ARRL, do you still reap the benefits such as operating awards (DXCC,WAS etc.)the free incoming QSL bureaus, bulletins?"
Nope, but I don't care. The ARRL has absolutely nothing to offer me, and they don't interest me in the slightest.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W6PMR3 on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We, as Hams, need to do SOMETHING other than use the ARRL to stand up for us!
Clearly the "nice-guy-lets-play-by-the-rules" method
isn't working. It's time to organize SOMETHING along the lines of the NRA.
It's time to get down and dirty and throw some punches back and I'm afraid that the boy's at the ARRL are not the right guy's to do it.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KA3RFE on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On any level, there are too few hams to be a voting bloc of any consequence in an election, even if every single licensed ham were to join such a group and vote the party line.
There are millions of gun owners. Multiple millions. The NRA represents a huge special interest group and it does have clout. Not so for us.
73, Pete KA3RFE
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC! PAC vs. Votes
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am already a member of a massive PAC, I vote. I have voted in every election since turning 18.
The fact that the ARRL treats outsiders as "freeloaders" makes them unlike the NRA, who treats all gun owners as peers. That inclusiveness gives them unique power & cohesion, unlike ARRLwebinc. Until the ~100,000 "members" changes their collective attitude & vision, there will continue to be a long, hard fall for all believe they are our "vanguard". 620,000 don't see it.
They protect no one but their "own stable" interests like donation pools galore, Icom, Yaesu, Kenwood & now SCS!
All for the love of money & being "professional amateurs", it is not about our future but all about theirs....
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC! PAC vs. Votes
|
|
|
by KX8N on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Judging from the most recent statement from the FCC on BPL, they now see us as being purely recreational and nothing to worry about. They suggest that we move our antennas if we experience interference!
I don't know what it is, but hams are going to have to do something.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by VE3XDB on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As an outsider looking in, I hope that every American voter is focused on much more important issues than BPL. I would hope that the American public is voting based on a considered position with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sudan, and on domestic issues such as homelessness, child poverty and education, the exploding budget deficit and the problems of dealing with terrorism without becoming a terrorist.
Someone in an earlier post made reference to the effectiveness of the NRA. You're right, they're effective. Just imagine the good that could be done if they were actually focused on a cause or on an issue that was actually important.
Vote based on the right issues. BPL isn't one of them.
Best regards,
Doug Behl VE3XDB
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I would hope that the American public is voting based on a considered position with respect to Iraq..."
Yeah, we are. We gotta win it. We're well on our way to doing so.
"Afghanistan..."
Won that one already.
"the Sudan..."
Huh? You forgot to mention Belize.
"and on domestic issues such as homelessness.."
We already have an answer to that problem: get a job!
"child poverty..."
Already have an answer to that problem, too: if you don't have enough money to support children, don't have them until you do. If you already have children you can't afford to support, suck it up and stop complaining.
"and education..."
This one, too: support school vouchers. End the teachers' union monopoly on education.
"the exploding budget deficit.."
You worry about your budget deficit, and we'll worry about ours.
"and the problems of dealing with terrorism without becoming a terrorist..."
That's another easy one: kill the terrorists. That doesn't make you a terrorist. It makes you a defender of freedom.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I would hope that the American public is voting based on a considered position with respect to Iraq..."
Yeah, we are. We gotta win it. We're well on our way to doing so.
"Afghanistan..."
Won that one already.
"the Sudan..."
Huh? You forgot to mention Belize.
"and on domestic issues such as homelessness.."
We already have an answer to that problem: get a job!
"child poverty..."
Already have an answer to that problem, too: if you don't have enough money to support children, don't have them until you do. If you already have children you can't afford to support, suck it up and stop complaining.
"and education..."
This one, too: support school vouchers. End the teachers' union monopoly on education.
"the exploding budget deficit.."
You worry about your budget deficit, and we'll worry about ours.
"and the problems of dealing with terrorism without becoming a terrorist..."
That's another easy one: kill the terrorists. That doesn't make you a terrorist. It makes you a defender of freedom.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by GHOSTRIDERHF on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KE2EB hit it right on the head -- 1000%...
Its a hobby .. every couple of days when I am not travelling I will crank up the system and see who is out there... but I never forget its JUST a HOBBY...
I reliazed, along with most that by me simply having a radio will neither help or hurt the Global War on Terror -- or the bicycle race down the street... that there may be 900,000 ham radio orperators in the US but there are 180,000,000 cellphone users which can usually react to emergencies a litle faster (Lets face it -- if you were in a car accident and needed help immediatly would you really want me to try to call for help on a 2m repeater instead of dailing 911??? -- LOL)..
I have a radio for the fact that at one time it was fun .. and still is for the most part...
But hell -- how can we even think about a PAC when half of our bretheren wants to get on the air without learning CW and the other half doesn't mind talking to some third world foreigner that has a no-code license but will go to war to keep his fellow American no-code off of HF...
Anyway -- its HOBBY -- have fun... leave the politics out of it...
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by X-WB1AUW on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
More complaints.
The League doesn’t do everything the way I want them to.
The League can’t prevent the FCC from doings things I don’t like.
Therefor, WE need a better PAC.
When your better PAC has been up and running for a few years, come back and let us know how they got the FCC to do whatever it is/was you wanted.
Bob
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You can't compare the NRA to amateur radio because
a) The constitution doesn't say anything about amateur radio
and
b) there are far more gun owners than hams in the us
(more than 40 million gun owners, compared to a couple hundred thousand 'active' hams.0
so strategy and tactics that work for the NRA aren't even available to amateurs.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KC0SHZ on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The comments about the ARRL attitude and the fight over CW are valid. They don't however change the fact that the FCC has been able to dump on the HAM's and get away with it. Without making more effort to get the FCC in a squeeze between Congress and the public, we will continue to get dumped on.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> "and on domestic issues such as homelessness.."
> We already have an answer to that problem: get a
> job!
Doesn't solve the problem. Many of the homeless in the San Francisco bay area *have* a job.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by NY7Q on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Our "hobby" is so in-grained with "politics", that it makes me sick. The arrl is a cheap magazine company that plays politics with all of our brains and money. I would support a PAC, but please, no magazines, no begging for money, and no free lunches with politicians. If something doesn't happen soon, ham radio is definately lost to history. It will come.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N9QGU on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Hams are to damn cheap to support a PAC. Besides....what's the ARRL?
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W5GNB on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ya Know!
If you Cry-Babies would have just LISTENED to K1MAN and W2NSD, you wouldn't be in this prediciment that you find yourselves in today!!
The Propthets HAVE SPOKEN and the SHEEP have strayed!
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W6TH on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Do you believe this? Now he tells us.
"Everywhere that freedom arrives, humanity rejoices; and everywhere that freedom stirs, let tyrants fear."
--George W. Bush
These are the words of a Libertarian, so maybe Bush will be moving to New Hampshire a Free State.
Or is he using the New Hampshire free state facts to gain New Hampshire votes?
A tax free state and you can wear your guns, no problem to carry them around.
While Kerry gets his advice from Clinton and the kennedy's, Bush is listening to Mike Badnarik a Libertarian who should be our next president.
Now that is a PAC. 20,000 needed in New Hampshire the free state. Why not check it out folks.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K3NG on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>We Don't need a PAC...amatuer Radio is a Hobby! Vote for your elected Officials,Our National Right of being American citizen. Keep Politics out of our Hobby! Money/power=can tend to corrupt!
Read the FCC R&O - BPL changed all that. They suggested reorienting your antennas when an unlicensed Part 15 device interfers with you, a licensed station.
The FCC is no longer an agency based on reason and engineering principles, it's about politics and money. If we don't change our ways, there will be no ham radio in the future.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The FCC is no longer an agency based on reason and
> engineering principles, it's about politics and
> money.
No longer? We didn't get NTSC as a consequence of reason and engineering.
> If we don't change our ways, there will be no ham
> radio in the future.
yup
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K2WH on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
RE: We Need a PAC! Reply by N6AYJ on October 31, 2004
"I would hope that the American public is voting based on a considered position with respect to Iraq..."
Yeah, we are. We gotta win it. We're well on our way to doing so.
"Afghanistan..."
Won that one already.
"the Sudan..."
Huh? You forgot to mention Belize.
"and on domestic issues such as homelessness.."
We already have an answer to that problem: get a job!
"child poverty..."
Already have an answer to that problem, too: if you don't have enough money to support children, don't have them until you do. If you already have children you can't afford to support, suck it up and stop complaining.
"and education..."
This one, too: support school vouchers. End the teachers' union monopoly on education.
"the exploding budget deficit.."
You worry about your budget deficit, and we'll worry about ours.
"and the problems of dealing with terrorism without becoming a terrorist..."
That's another easy one: kill the terrorists. That doesn't make you a terrorist. It makes you a defender of freedom."
Well, finally I find myself in agreement with N6AYJ. Well said.
K2WH
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by WA3LGG on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
we need a pac....no, we need to pac it in....this hobby, which use to be fun, now sucks....radios that cost as much as a used car, bpl, trouble with deed restrictions and hoa's....just keep jumping through more and more hoops to have "fun"....time to sell the stuff while it still has some value and use the money for another "fun" hobby....
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W6TH on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3NG
The FCC is no longer an agency based on reason and engineering principles, it's about politics and money. If we don't change our ways, there will be no ham radio in the future.
--------------------------------------------------
I told you about the stab in the back; watch your back.---------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------
Who cares today? I had my use out of it, you can have the left overs.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
K3NG "If we don't change our ways, there will be no ham radio in the future."
Is this the very same K3NG, that posted as "RF_engineer" on DSLreports, that he was going to "ride around in my spare time with spectrum analyzer & if the BPL is above Xx level, I will be filing a complaint for each instance"?
Well, thanks "Goody" cause you can claim this clause in the FCC order as your very own:
"If, on the other hand, the Commission uses its resources to investigate an interference complaint that is found to be frivolous, the Commission will impose appropriate sanctions for abuse of its administrative process."
I love guys like you who claim there is a fire to report, when you have set it yourself. Now it is time to watch the fun. Make sure you ID yourself on your complaints Goody because you weren't as smart as you think posting such nonsense "anon".
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KF6JZC on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I don't think a PAC is going to do that much good for the various reasons outlined already. Add to that this thought, the FCC does not want to hamper the spread of BPL due to a bunch of "hobby" radio users, referring to hams. That comment should give you an idea as to where hams stand on this issue. The part that gets me is that I wonder how many computer users use a computer only for hobby reasons as well? I would guess that most business users of computers have probably already connected to broadband by using one of the existing technologies.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by WJ2L on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are far fewer Hams than are needed to affect voting or Public Policy via a PAC. Our hopes are best voiced through the ARRL, although even ther bias applies as has already been cited. Perhaps the League could bring a more diverse voice to Washington, if they gathered a more creative crowd by
moving the Annual Dayton Hamvention to Washington, DC.
If one cannot afford Politcal Action Committees, how about taking our Politcal Problems to them, every year! If others go to the capital to to express their
opinions, why shouldn't ALL AMATEURS-LEAGUE AS WELL AS THOSE WHO DONT AFFILIATE WITH THE LEAGUE, GATHER IN THE NATIONS CAPTAL TO DO THE NATIONAL HAMVENTION THERE INSTEAD? We might get noticed being a large
technically interesting crowd, promoting science and technology.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on October 31, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> "and on domestic issues such as homelessness.."
> We already have an answer to that problem: get a
> job!
Doesn't solve the problem. Many of the homeless in the San Francisco bay area *have* a job.
Yeah, I know. If they had enough brains to move about 80 miles east to Sacramento, they would be able to afford to buy a house. But for some reason they choose to be homeless in S.F. I can't waste my time worrying about people like that.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Yeah, I know. If they had enough brains to move
> about 80 miles east to Sacramento, they would be
> able to afford to buy a house. But for some reason
> they choose to be homeless in S.F. I can't waste my
> time worrying about people like that.
There are employed homeless people in Sacramento, as well.
And we're not talking about 'buy a house'; we're talking about 'pay the rent'.
In CA, at least, unemployment is not well correlated with homelessness.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The part that gets me is that I wonder how many
> computer users use a computer only for hobby reasons
> as well?
Surprisingly few; and a number that the government wishes to see decline.
Electronic commerce is growing pretty rapidly in this country.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The time has come to admit that the ARRL as
> presently operated as a non-profit and non-political
> origination can no longer have the desired effect on
> the FCC or our political representatives. We
> amateurs MUST form a PAC (political action
> committee) with no ties to the ARRL.
Let me know when you form this PAC. I will set aside $25.00 as a contribution when you do.
Let me know if you are not going to form one, as I have seen a lot of people stand on soapboxes preaching that someone should do things that they are not willing to do themselves. I will then contribute the $25.00 to the ARRL fund of your choice. Let me know which one you want my money to go to.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W1RFI on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> The time has come to admit that the ARRL as
> presently operated as a non-profit and non-political
> origination can no longer have the desired effect on
> the FCC or our political representatives. We
> amateurs MUST form a PAC (political action
> committee) with no ties to the ARRL.
Let me know when you form this PAC. I will set aside $25.00 as a contribution when you do.
Let me know if you are not going to form one, as I have seen a lot of people stand on soapboxes preaching that someone should do things that they are not willing to do themselves. I will then contribute the $25.00 to the ARRL fund of your choice. Let me know which one you want my money to go to.
Ed Hare, W1RFI
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC! PAC vs. Votes
|
|
|
by W2DUG on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I can't believe anybody would vote against Bush because of BPL!
Damn straight! Not when there are plenty of other perfectly good reasons to do so.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4ZOU writes:
"Leave the ARRL to the business it does well like printing books and shuffling QSL cards (paper and electronic) around and running it's contests and certificates".
My sentiments EXACTLY!
ARRL's recent failures like BPL, the Antenna Bill, etc., make it clear that ARRL is NOT up to the task. I believe that MANY, if not MOST of the 80% of U.S. hams that REFUSE to join ARRL WILL join a legitimate PAC that is NOT affiliated with ARRL. And so long as they avoid ARRL's arrogance, secrecy, and finincial self interest, I bet that a majority of hams will also STAY members. I know I will!
W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership!
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4TYU writes:
"The Federal Communications Commission is appointed by the President. And the individuals working for the FCC are simply government employees. None of these hold an elective office and do not have campaign funds".
True enough. But the focus of an EFFECTIVE PAC is the legislators, whom DO have influence on the government employees.
W4TYU also writes:
"I fail to see what a PAC could accomplish that the present governmental contacts maintained by the ARRL could not do".
Other than failing to kill BPL, failing to get the Antenna Bill passed, failing to protect 220Mhz, what has ARRL accomplished? Oh, yea, I almost forgot, it did get a FAT GOVERNMENT GRANT TO SUPPORT MORE ARRL STAFF. A real PAC is focused on its membership. ARRL is not.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Right. The PAC gets established with bunch of malcontent egocentric hams that end up fighting each other and squandering donated money on cars, trips and babes. I'll stick with the ARRL who at least has basic corporate governance, an elected board, corporate officers and an annual audited financial statement.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> I can't believe anybody would vote against Bush because of BPL!
Damn straight! Not when there are plenty of other perfectly good reasons to do so.
Such anti-Bush hatred is highly irrational, just like Clinton love. No matter how much rotten stuff Clinton pulled, you still loved him because he "felt your pain". You need to get over your emotional hangups and start thinking for yourself, rather than having the libs spoon-feed your opinions to youu.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Quote. "I would hope that the American public is voting based on a considered position with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, the Sudan, and on domestic issues such as homelessness, child poverty and education, the exploding budget deficit and the problems of dealing with terrorism without becoming a terrorist." You Canadians really are entertaining. You come to a party, drink the liquor, eat the food and then insult the guest. Perhaps its time you guys start handling your own national defense and international threats without any support from us so we can take care of our “domestic issues” a little better.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N6AYJ on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There are employed homeless people in Sacramento, as well.
And we're not talking about 'buy a house'; we're talking about 'pay the rent'.
In CA, at least, unemployment is not well correlated with homelessness
Here is my recommendation: obtain a copy of Clarence "Frogman" Henry's song, "Ain't Got No Home".
Listen.
Repeat until your thought process clarifies.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by WA1SCI on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
In my opinion, the ARRL is doing a fine job on the BPL issue. They have both my moral and financial support.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KF6JZC on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"> I can't believe anybody would vote against Bush because of BPL!
Damn straight! Not when there are plenty of other perfectly good reasons to do so. "
I've got news for those that think that Kerry would do better. Forget it. Neither party is going to due much for any organization that doesn't bring in Megabucks to the treasury and Congress. IMHO, I am going to do what I have always done in a presidential election. Vote for whom I feel is the lesser of two evils.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> The time has come to admit that the ARRL as presently operated as a non-profit and non-political origination can no longer have the desired effect on the FCC or our political representatives.<<
Funny you mention that.
The ARRL has already recognized the issue of "political effectiveness" as an organization long before this PAC proposal.
ARRL President Jim Haynie, W5JBP has already advocated for the idea of creating a new "political machine."
The ARRL said in a recent report:
"There was a time when good technical arguments to the FCC could win the day."
Today, the ARRL is heavily challenged with an increasingly complex political process at many different administrative levels to get the very same things done as in the past.
This is the very reason why they have recently started "grass root" campaign efforts as a way to further protect the Amateur Radio spectrum.
The ARRL proposal includes the addition of Congressional Action Coordinators that will designate and develop a number of Congressional Action Assistant volunteers from each ARRL division to "accomplish the mission of getting the ARRL message to political legislators."
Perhaps you are proposing what the ARRL has already accomplished and planned for?
This clearly demonstrates that my ARRL membership dollars is money well spent.
If you are not an ARRL supporting member yet, so be it. However it does seem rather odd and I can't even begin to imagine why any ham would not support an organization like ARRL that has clearly represented Amateur Radio interests for so many years. ?!
Individuals getting a free ride on behalf of my ARRL membership dollars would be another story for another message thread.
73
Charles - KC8VWM
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KE4ZHN on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We do? This is one of the reasons the hobby has taken a turn for the worse over the years...politics! The folks up in Newington feel that a small minority of the amateur population should dictate what the other 3/4 majority who dont belong to the "club" should or should not do! We dont need anymore one sided politics like this in the hobby.
I believe that at one time the league did in fact look out for the best interests of the amateur population, but now is more intent on self serving agendas and making more money for itself regardless of what hams think or feel.(members and non) Im sure all the league supporters will flame me for saying it, but feel free as I dont really care if you do or not. Nor will I bother to argue the point here as its a waste of time. Facts are facts, the leagues actions speak for themselves. Making more money is their primary goal, not your interests or mine. The last thing amateur radio needs is another ARRL to constantly beg for money and promote contests and generally ignore its own membership in matters affecting us all. Namely, proposals to dumb down testing so they can recruit more members to cough up $39 a year for a magazine.
Contrary to what some of you think, ham radio is unimportant in the real world. Nobody cares about this old fossil hobby anymore! Most equate us to cb`ers simply because they dont know any better. The only way we as amateur radio operaters will have ANY real clout in Washington, would be to build a big money lobby effort to grease palms of those in Washinton with the power to make changes. The ARRL has never been and never will be powerful enough. And frankly, even if every ham in the country ponied up their life savings, we are no match for big fish like the power companies who rammed BPL down our throats whether we liked it or not. Perhaps if we recruited a few oil billionaires to become hams, we would have a fighting chance?
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by WB9NJB on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VE3XDB,
You are right. You are an outsider. Keep it that way. There is nothing in Canada, or in your political system that suggests that you have all, or any of the answers to social inequity. As for poverty, look in your own back yard. Your government's treatment of your native populations is hardly a model of success. Your ecconomy, if you can call it that, is crippled by your socialized medicine, and other socialist programs. If we adopt government sponsored medical care, and it goes the way of every other government program (see the Medicare and VA systems for a hint of what's to come), where will all of your citizens go for treatment when your doctors go on strike, or they have to wait months to recieve services. This country has shouldered more than its share of global responsibility, and done it with grace and compassion. This President has had a full plate, much of which he did not ask for. I don't think we, as a people, have failed in our societal responsibilities, and we certainly do not need advice from a globally irrelevant socialist state. Incidently, many of us feel that the Second Amendment is an important issue. It is a litmus test of individual freedom, something you folks abdicated to a federal government long ago.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by VE3XDB on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Randolph WB9NJB, William N6AJY and others,
Thanks for your comments concerning my post. Obviously, my intent was misunderstood. I apologize for any offense which may have been taken from previous comments.
There was no intent to compare the US and Canadian systems, as each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Neither is perfect, and continuous improvement must be the goal for both our nations. Nor was there any attempt to judge any candidate or issue, only to indicate that any one issue should be considered in the context of a broad range of issues. For example, in Canada we have been going through a process of firearm regulation, and while I have a strong position on that particular issue, my recent vote was cast on the basis of that, along with a number of other issues, relatively more important from my perspective.
The only purpose of my previous post was to respond to the implication that votes should be cast on the perceived position of candidates with respect to BPL. I firmly believe that this too narrow a focus, and that Americans have an important decision to make, based on a vast number of very important issues.
As a Canadian, I admire many aspects of the US system, its economy, its adherence to principles. I agree that the US has, by and large, conducted itself on the world stage with "grace and compassion". Whatever the outcome of the election, our two nations will continue to be allies, strong trading partners and friends.
I also agree with many of the US commentators who have stated that this may be the most important election in 50 years. May the right decision be made, based on the considered wisdom of the electorate. I wish you nothing but the best.
From now on, my posts will stick to radio.
Very best regards,
Doug Behl VE3XDB
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KG6AMW on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Ah come on Doug this is no fun. We thought you would come back with both guns blazing. Pretty soon we're going to start thinking that all you guys up there are as nice as you are.
KG6AMW
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Individuals getting a free ride on behalf of my ARRL membership dollars would be another story for another message thread."
I think the 70 "professional amateurs" are getting the free ride on your membership money!
As a one time member, I rode along in agreement until the league left me & my member opinion behind by forcibly replacing our statewide EOC.
I am not getting a free ride nor do I take kindly to the "freeloader" concept you infer. Frankly, I am tired of walking!
I am licensed for 22 years. I vote & have commented to the FCC for years, on both amateur & commercial issues.
I am a PAC of one...
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> There was no intent to compare the US and Canadian systems, as each has it's strengths and weaknesses.<<
Doug,
I had the opportunity to live on both sides of the fence in both political systems and would like to shed some light on some differences for consideration.
You are correct in your statement.
Either system is a right or wrong way of doing things.
They are both just "different" political structures.
The gentleman suggesting that Canada is somehow a "socialist" country with "socialist" ideals might want to consider what exactly is the "socialist" program we commonly refer to as the Social Security program in our own back yard?
Also, Did you know that Public Education is a socalist program? How about the National Park System?
The very creation of social programs and work programs is itself evidence of a "socialist" system at work.
"The Socialist Party advocated "the eight-hour workday, women's suffrage, unemployment insurance, workmen's compensation, Social Security, legal protect of union's right to organize, a progressive income tax, prohibition of child labor, the legal right to advocate birth control."
Source: Our capitalist economy, our socialist government.
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0703/0703socwon.htm
People often confuse and don't understand the differences between capitalist socialism, democratic socialism and neo-socialism. Most people incorrectly use the term "socialism" in general. Some just end up calling everything that is "socialist," ...communism and/or fascism without understanding the underlying political structure of each system on any individual basis.
The polls open tommorow.
Get out and exercise your right to Vote!!
73
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Individuals getting a free ride on behalf of my ARRL membership dollars would be another story for another message thread."
"I am not getting a free ride nor do I take kindly to the "freeloader" concept you infer."
If you are not one of these individials I am referring to then I suppose there is nothing for you to worry about now is there...
|
| |
|
You Already Have One
|
|
|
by K7LA on November 1, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The Defense of Frequencies Fund supports ARRL advocacy efforts in Washington and worldwide to protect Amateur Radio spectrum and fight BPL.
This is your most effective lobby.
Donate via
https://www.arrl.org/forms/fdefense/fdefense.html
|
| |
|
ARRL PAC DOOMED TO FAILURE
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If ARRL starts a so-called "seperate" PAC (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) it is doomed to failure. Without question, ARRL's PAC will be governed by the same arrogant, self centered, super-elite secretive mentality that ARRL is. Everybody knows this. As a result, the same 80% that shun ARRL now will also SHUN ARRL's PAC.
The only hope for success is a PAC that has ZERO ties to ARRL.
W9WHE
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N9XNJ on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
If you think about BPL, it seems amazing to me that anyone ever doubted that it would turn out the way it did. Money talks, BS walks. Face it, amateurs never have been a sizable enough group in terms of numbers or finances to outweigh the potential financial gain that BPL appeared to present. I think if we wait patiently, the investors will find it so entangled with its own maladies of implementation that it will die a natural death as they all withdraw financial support. I don't think the amateurt radio community will ever have enough clout to successfully fight off onslaughts like BPL, even as ill-conceived as it was. Too many money-hungry people saw a chance to get in on a potential bonanza at the ground level!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL PAC DOOMED TO FAILURE
|
|
|
by K1YDA on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I listened with great interest to reports of the League boy making the rounds of New England radio clubs and telling 'em all that BPL was dead. Yup.
The League failed. Most of the bloviation on here
boils down to "do nothing" or send the failures more money so they can fail again. At least if we start a PAC we will have tried something different which might work. I don't think the NRA example is that far off.
A PAC of any kind brings the promise of unfavorable, uncontrolled publicity to any Pol who fails to at least listen. If you don't think a Pac can work there are a number of examples of small but politically active ham groups doing wonders against anti tower legislation. We can try this or "we" can in typical radio ham fashion come up with a hundred reasons to do the same old same old.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL PAC DOOMED TO FAILURE
|
|
|
by NL7W on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
The League does a respectable job addressing our issues on the Hill. The organization gets my continued support through on-going membership. 73.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W6TH on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From Charle
And frankly, even if every ham in the country ponied up their life savings, we are no match for big fish like the power companies who rammed BPL down our throats whether we liked it or not.
===================================================
I wish they would cram freedom down my throat. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC
|
|
|
by W6TH on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From Charlie
And frankly, even if every ham in the country ponied up their life savings, we are no match for big fish like the power companies who rammed BPL down our throats whether we liked it or not.
===================================================
I wish they would cram freedom down my throat. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W6TH on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From Charlie
And frankly, even if every ham in the country ponied up their life savings, we are no match for big fish like the power companies who rammed BPL down our throats whether we liked it or not.
===================================================
I wish they would cram freedom down my throat. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W6TH on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
From Charlie
And frankly, even if every ham in the country ponied up their life savings, we are no match for big fish like the power companies who rammed BPL down our throats whether we liked it or not.
===================================================
I wish they would cram freedom down my throat. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
.:
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W6TH on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Not my doing, but something said my listing went Kaboom.
So tried two times more and this duplicate is being seen. The final reply.
.:
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K0RGR on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If the ham community has the numbers and the money, I would say, sure, why not? But I would strongly suggest that it be the politcal, non-tax deductible arm of the ARRL, rather than some divisive alternative organization.
This is a time when we must "hang together". We must all work as a team. ARRL is the only organization with the contacts to be able to organize the kind of effort required. There is no time for rogue or renegade endeavors.
BPL is the biggest challenge we have faced since the Commerce Department tried to abolish ham radio after WWI.
Even if the rubes finally see it for the snake oil it truly is, I predict we'll see big rollouts all over the country. Some of it will be permanent.
But, sending a check and expecting Ed to do it all isn't enough. You've got to get INVOLVED. NOW. RIGHT NOW. IMMEDIATELY.
Find your local club. Any local club. Go to the next meeting. Find out what they're doing about BPL. Not doing anything? Join, then make them do something! The club needs to be talking with the local power companies to find out what they plan to do. And if the power company has any plans, the hams need to be involved in testing and evaluating the systems.
I mean YOU! I don't care if the club president used your hat as a spitoon 20 years ago and you haven't been back since. If you care about ham radio, you need to stand up and be counted!
And your club needs to be talking about what it's going to do if BPL comes in and blankets your town, too.
Above all, don't go running to the press - act professionally and responsibly. We will need all the credibility we can muster.
We will need to fight this thing locally now, maybe block by block. And that will take lots of arms and legs, not a PAC.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N1YRK on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I would have liked to think that we were above politics, that ham radio would be seen by both dems and reps as benefiting the public good. But lately it seems as though they're only paying lip service to it. So maybe a PAC is needed.
The past few days have made me so weary of politics. The race right now seems to be going towards the worst outcome. Why do I even bother to vote, to think, to feel, if the american public is so stupid? If I wake up tomorrow to a state map colored red, then maybe, in my mind, America will have passed on overnight.
I voted my heart, knowing that Badnarik had little chance. But I am really not happy at seeing Bush doing so well. I don't toe the Democrat party line (I have voted Republican in several state elections), but it seemed as though they were the last hope to keep this country, and possibly the western world, from plunging head-on into empty rhetoric, bankruptcy, violence, and fear.
In the USofA in my dreams, we would never have backed up Israel, or Saudi Arabia, in the first place. We wouldn't have tried a great game of chess with the Soviet Union (we we won only by their forfeit). We wouldn't trade with nations that had completely broken concepts of human rights, equal justice, and environmental responsibility. Neither would we try to remake the world in our own image. No, my America is a beacon of hope, not a flash grenade of shock and awe. My America had the idea that men could differ on the finer points of philosophy, theology, and art but still obeyed the social contract of the Enlightenment. But that contract was only a verbal one, and those don't count for anything any more.
Maybe all is not lost. I guess I am wandering off the track here. Yea, we'll need a PAC. Lawyers and lobbyists as soldiers. Ham Radio will be controlled by, and live for, the political machinery that it needs to stay alive. Technical achievement will wither. Community spirit will be an anachronism.
But I'll still be around, in the wings, hoping this horrible storm will blow over.
gloomy 73s,
N1YRK
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N9AVY on November 2, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Read somewhere up above that only 1/4 of ham population are ARRL members; if that be true, and there was a PAC then probably only another 1/4 would be members. Looks like we'd need at least 3 PACs to represent all the ham population ... of course there would probably be a few who wouldn't agree with ARRL or any of the 3 PACs; so, they'd have start their own organizations. By the time it's all over we'd have more organizations than ants at a picnic ! Hell, we'd have more organizations than the Feds have agencies !
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on November 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Read somewhere up above that only 1/4 of ham population are ARRL members; if that be true..."
More like ~100,000 of 720,000.
Many admit "joining" just to get QST, since the ARRL refuses to split a subscription from "membership".
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on November 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
We don't need a PAC, we need a reality check.
The FCC has been about money since, at least, the introduction of NTCS, probably much longer.
The way to have 'fought' BPL, was to pit money against money. There were, after all, big money interests that stood to lose from BPL being any kind of success.
There aren't enough hams in the US to influence a county election in a large county, let alone influence the US Congress into changing the enabling legislation for the FCC.
The FCC has thought of amateur radio as a hobby for a long time. At least thirty years, probably more.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on November 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The FCC has thought of amateur radio as a hobby for a long time. At least thirty years, probably more."
What minority organization has defined us down to a hobby, while our rules were titled "Amateur Service"?
"They" have convinced them it is wrong to call us anything else!
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on November 3, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> What minority organization has defined us down to a
> hobby, while our rules were titled "Amateur
> Service"?
Oh yeah, that's a reality check I forgot to mention.
"Service" does *not* mean to the FCC what hams want to believe it means. _All_ of the radio services are titled "<something> Service" by the FCC.
the word "service" in the title of a section of part 97 merely means that the particular section gathers together the rules for using particular fragments of spectrum in a particular way.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on November 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Service" does *not* mean to the FCC what hams want to believe it means. _All_ of the radio services are titled "<something> Service" by the FCC"
Agreed but every service has a purpose & intent. Once that purpose has been minimized or replaced, so is that service & the spectrum is refarmed. Examples that come to mind are:
SMR - replaced by trunking & iDEN (Nextel)
IMTS - replaced by cellphones
LORAN - replaced by DGPS & GPS
Ship-to-Shore CW - replaced by Imarsat
Next to fall: analog TV which will go dark ~2007/8 - replaced by HDTV.
Our stated purpose (paraphrased) is to provide a pool of TRAINED radio operators & experimention.
I see both have become minimized by actively marketing ham radio as just a hobby that offers contests as "training" (try to have a normal QSO during one, it is somewhat of a 'learning' experience indeed) while "experimentation" is writing product reviews on your new store bought HF dipole, G5RV or your new shack appliances.
It won't be long before the reality sets in & much of our space is refarmed for "greater good" like wireless data, telemetry & new broadcast services.
While I don't want to see this happen, nothing that has been done in the past leads me to have faith in our future. Most hams want to live in the past, just look at the CW & packet legacy.
We are all merely bookmarks at this point.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on November 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>> "Service" does *not* mean to the FCC what hams want
>> to believe it means. _All_ of the radio services
>> are titled "<something> Service" by the FCC"
> Agreed but every service has a purpose & intent.
> Once that purpose has been minimized or replaced, so
> is that service & the spectrum is refarmed.
There's another one that doesn't mean to the FCC what hams want to believe it means. "Purpose and Intent" is the name the FCC routinely applies to the introductory paragraph of a section containing the rules for a service that describes what the FCC's purpose was in writing that section, and what the FCC hopes the FCC will accomplish by providing that set of rules.
In most of the services, the 'intent' clause is not bothered with, and the 'purpose' clause merely mimics the name of the service, IE, "the purpose of this section is to provide the regulations for <name> service."
So, 97.1 describes five things that the FCC hopes it will have accomplished by the set of regulations in the rest of 97.
The actual purpose of the users of the service is given in a definition in 97.3, and is very clearly a hobby purpose -- and has been since those definitions were first written.
In many services, 'purpose and intent' also includes 'basis', which is a description of the enabling legislation authorizing the FCC to provide the service. The 'basis' for the ARS isn't mentioned in 97.1, but it is based in an international treaty.
The FCC is not in a position to simply remove and refarm the ARS, since it would require the US to negotiate modifications to an international treaty, to do so.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by K4RAF on November 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The FCC is not in a position to simply remove and refarm the ARS, since it would require the US to negotiate modifications to an international treaty, to do so."
Huh? The FCC can remove as much as they want or refarm what they want.
Just what binding International Treaty requires the US or any other country to maintain any Amateur Radio allocations, domestic or International?
This is news to me...
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KC8VWM on November 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The word "service" is used in many FCC related frequency assignments.
GMRS, FRS, MURS, ARS, etc. etc..
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by WA2JJH on November 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
i AGREE 1000% THE ARRL AINT CUTING THE MUSTARD!
IN 30 YEARS, ALL I HAVE SEEN IS LOSS OF FREQUENCY AND CALIBER OF HAM.
THE ARRL SHINES IN PUBLICATIONS AND RIG REVIEWS....
You can't compare the NRA to amateur radio because
a) The constitution doesn't say anything about amateur radio
Yes Marty you are correct!
However could not the first amendment apply?
Right to free speech. BPL will attenuate that!
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by N2CTZ on November 4, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
i thought thats what my dues for the arrk and all their lawyers are for
|
| |
|
We Need A ListServ For PAC Supporters
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hello!!
THANK YOU, Big Time, to the ham who brought this topic To The Floor!!
I will have more to say on this subject later, but First Things First:
1. I support the idea of a PAC and I'm willing to help with it. PAC supporters can reach me at pioneerpath@hotmail.com OR at 203/757-1790.
2. I agree, strongly, with the recommendation that any potential HAMPAC should be independent of ARRL
-- and ALSO independent of the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM (NAC). The PAC should not have to worry about being consistent with the image and/or style of a different organization.
3. I note that one ham in the Pacific Northwest has already offered, in a posting in this discussion thread, to run HAMPAC and collect contributions to it. I appreciate his enthusiasm, but I think this project needs to be more of a collective effort -- with the work spread over several people (or more) and everyone who's doing the work having a say in the basic decisions.
Example of questions that are best addressed by PAC supporters AS A GROUP:
Do Federal regulations require that a PAC-type organization has to be a PAC in the "official" sense of the term? If not, can we adopt a simpler model with lower costs and less paperwork? If so, what are the legal requirements and what are the startup costs?
In either case:
How much reporting, and related paperwork, will we have to send to the government every year? Can the PAC get by as a 100% volunteer organization, or will the PAC manager(s) have to be paid something? If so, how and how much?
These questions, and others, will have to be answered, but they can't be worked out very effectively in a "general discussion forum" like EHAM. We need to get the people who are going to work on this PAC talking TO EACH OTHER about the "nuts and bolts".
4. To this end, I urge one or more of the interested parties to set up a ListServ for discussions on the "nuts and bolts" of actually doing this. For example: hampac@yahoogroups.com
I would volunteer to set up such a ListServ myself, but I don't know how to do it.
So ...
Will someone who DOES know how to set up a ListServ volunteer to set one up for those who want to organize a PAC? Please?
I understand, BTW, that YAHOO and other Web-based institutions will maintain a ListServ for you at no charge -- once you have set the ListServ up.
73's,
Don Schellhardt
pioneerpath@hotmail.com
203/757-1790
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by AE6IP on November 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> Just what binding International Treaty requires the
> US or any other country to maintain any Amateur
> Radio allocations, domestic or International?
The same one that, until last year, required Morse code proficiency as part of the test for access to amateur HF spectrum.
The FCC is a federal agency. As such, it is bound by federal law, and by relevant treaty. It can not act in an arbitrary manner, it must stay within the rules set for it by enabling legislation.
The United States belongs to the International Telecommunications Union. (ITU) This organization, through a series of World Radio Conferences (WRCs) negotiates international agreements on the use of spectrum.
The most recent WRC was held in Geneva, in 2003. It modified an agreement called the "Radio Regulations." It is this document, in part, that binds the FCC (and other such agencies) to certain limits in what they can and can not do to manage spectrum.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W4YBP on November 5, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Dear Mr. PAC,
You did not read this thread carefully enough to understand that no one is interested in any ARRL affiliation of such a PAC. Since you have now publicly got in bed with Dave Sumner, stay there & get a callsign already.
Jim
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The FCC is a federal agency. As such, it is bound by federal law, and by relevant treaty. It can not act in an arbitrary manner, it must stay within the rules set for it by enabling [Telecommunications Act of 1934]legislation"
True. HOWEVER, FCC could, at any time: 1) stop issuing and renewing HAM licenses; 2)curtail frequency/priveleges in any way it reasonably deemed in the public interest (FN1).
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF ANY TREATY THAT ANY GOVERNMENT "MUST ISSUE" LICENSES TO OPERATE A HAM STATION. RATHER, IF A GOVERNMENT "CHOOSES" TO ISSUE LICENSES, IT MUST DO SO IN A MANNER THAT IS "NOT INCONSISTENT" WITH THE TREATY. IN OTHER WORDS, NO GOVERNMENT "MUST" ISSUE HAM LICENSES.
We Hams do not have a "right" to use the electro-magnetic spectrum. We have a "privelege" to use it. We are granted a REVOKABLE license, with priveleges that are subject to modification at any time. We do not "own" the currently allocated ham spectrum. Keep in mind, what the government gives you, it can take away.
W9WHE
(FN1) You might take note of the fact that 40 meters is "shared" with international broadcasters. FCC could end 40 meter HAM priveleges and re-farm it to international broadcasters. (Let's hope that does not happen)
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on November 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W4YBP writes:
"Dear Mr. PAC,
You did not read this thread carefully enough to understand that no one is interested in any ARRL affiliation of such a PAC. Since you have now publicly got in bed with Dave Sumner, stay there & get a callsign already".
Amen!
Mr. Pac, you need to realize that only about 15% of hams are ARRL members. MOST hams DESPISE ARRL. That's why I say:
W9WHE
Proud to have CANCELLED my ARRL membership.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL, NAC and The PAC
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1. Let me reiterate, as I have said earlier in this thread, that I support forming a PAC which is INDEPENDENT of both ARRL and NAC.
2. Let me add that DAVE SUMNER K1ZZ of ARRL and JERRY AGLIATA W2GA, Executive Director of the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM, have both told me they take the same position.
Dave told me that he encourages individual hams to form a Political Action Committee, but opposes linking it in any way to ARRL. Jerry similarly encourages individual hams to form a PAC, but does not believe the PAC should be affiliated in any way with NAC.
Please remember that both NAC and ARRL are tax-exempt, non-profit organizations. Although there are legally acceptable ways for such organizations to establish PACs, it is simpler and "cleaner" for them to stay out of the PAC game completely. A PAC that truly forms independently is on much more solid ground, legally AND in terms of its credibility.
3. Contrary to the speculation of some, NAC and ARRL have not been married. They are not even dating.
The improved channels of communication between NAC and ARRL, running through the ARRL "Grassroots Lobbying Team" that is chaired by FRANK FALLON N2FF, are:
(A) Designed for communication and coordination, NOT for unification;
And
(B) Limited, at least so far, to the single matter of lobbying efforts for HOA antenna reform legislation.
ARRL has not agreed to comparable communication and coordination on BPL -- or, for that matter, on any other issue besides HOA antenna reform legislation.
4. For more information on NAC's dealings with ARRL:
Please check out the EHAM news article entitled "Elections & Discussions Boost HOA Reform".
Then, in the discussion thread for that article, please read the posting entitled "NAC and ARRL Are Cooperating, NOT Merging!!"
I may have more to say later.
73,
Don Schellhardt
|
| |
|
PS: Some Numbers
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is my understanding of the number of hams, and related sub-groups, in the United States:
TOTAL NUMBER OF LICENSED HAMS: 680,000
** ACTIVE ** HAMS: 300,000 [Estimate]
ARRL MEMBERS: 168,000
If these numbers are accurate, ARRL accounts for only 25% of all licensed American hams -- but 56% of all ** ACTIVE ** American hams.
73,
Don
|
| |
|
RE: PS: Some Numbers
|
|
|
by AE6IP on November 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It's not clear that you should count all ARRL members as *active* -- especially given the poll results reported recently in QST.
|
| |
|
Check Out N4ZOU'S WEB SITE
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 8, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I have just taken a look at a newly established Web Site that N4ZOU has established. I believe most of you will find it is worth a look as well!!
As you may recall, N4ZOU, aka Scott, is the author of the EHAM feature article that led to this discussion thread.
The URL for his new Web Site is as follows:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/n4zou
Surprisingly, N4ZOU does not discuss PACs at all on this Web Site. However, he does announce his formation of a new organization for hams with an emergency communications orientation -- and, indeed, for all Voluntary Emergency Communicators in general, whether they are hams or not.
Those who visit this Web Site can join the new group for free and contribute to the postings. I recommend that you check it out.
73,
Don Schellhardt
|
| |
|
HAMPAC@yahoogroups.com
|
|
|
by CALLSIGNPENDING on November 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
JOANNE LYNN BENJAMIN, a Pennsylvania ham, has just established a ListServ -- for those interested in forming a PAC, independent of ARRL and the NATIONAL ANTENNA CONSORTIUM (NAC).
To sign up, please E-Mail Joanne at garfield25_tg@yahoo.com
Joanne has also set up a Home Page at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HAMPAC
73,
Don Schellhardt
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL, NAC and The PAC
|
|
|
by KG5JJ on November 9, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Great...another thread turned into ARRL bashing, among other things.
I've had my differences (as many have) with the ARRL in years past, but I'm a member again, after realizing, we are better off with their representation than without.
As far as active amateur operators; how many here have done something to interest youngsters (or oldsters) to take-up the hobby?
One I came-up with, was asking how many amateur radio operators also flew 6-meters on an RC website. This simple question, answered by quite a few hams, also interested many to get at least their tech. license, so they may fly their RC aircraft on 6 with the rest of us. Reduces "friendly fire" incidents (rampant on the regular RC frequencies) greatly.
As soon as I'm able (motorcycle accident) I'm going to put a link or website information directly on the ARRL website (Ed, W1RFI, has graciously offered to help make that happen) to promote our hobby to the RC crowd...not because I think it will benefit the ARRL, but because I think it will benefit our hobby. Even if many just want to get the license to fly 6 meters, perhaps some will take an interest in other amateur radio areas.
At any rate, it will tap a resource to get more people interested in what we do.
Oh...hams could do far worse than support the ARRL. As far as our voice in Washington? They're it. They are worthy of support, regardless of how you feel.
73 KG5JJ (Mike)
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL, NAC and The PAC
|
|
|
by NN6EE on November 10, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike,
Very well put about the ARRL. I think all of us caring Ham ops have had various issues with them at one time or another anyway, and that by the way is very healthy. The ARRL is not my favorite organization but it does TRY to represent us in Washington. I'm like you being an "off-again/on-again" member but without some form of "political clout" that the ARRL does offer we'd be really screwed!!!
Jim/nn6ee
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KB3JNR on November 11, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes. It needs to happen and we need to line the pockets of as many Congressmen as possible. Raising $1 million is a good and attainable goal and will make your elected representatives beholden to you.
Watching "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" is also a good thing. ;)
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W3ULS on November 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Yes. We need--everything.
For example, the ARRL needs more members. The latest circulation statement in QST shows a drop of 1,000 over the past year. Not a good omen. And apparently the folks in Newington have no answers to this ongoing decline.
Any political action committee should come under the ARRL umbrella because the existence of a separate entity would sow confusion on Capitol Hill.
Actually, operating within a very limited budget, the ARRL has not done badly in Washington. More can be done, and done more effectively, but not on the precarious financing available to the ARRL's management today.
|
| |
|
RE: We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by W3ULS on November 12, 2004
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
KB3JNR: My favorite "inside Washington" movie is "The Distinguished Gentleman" starring Eddie Murphy. Much more hip, as it were, and very accurate, even down to the far-off office in the Cannon building which he was assigned.
|
| |
|
We Need a PAC!
|
|
|
by KG6PPT on January 13, 2005
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Listen guys currently our best bet is Mr. Nice guy
Take a congressman out to dinner talk with him and then say on behalf of us ham radio opperators here a check to your next campgain.
Money doesnt buy votes it buys time meaning if you donated the senator will be more willing to sit down and talk with you.
PS pick a senator that will win doesnt matter which one (unless he hates our idea)
A pac will flop but then again how much money do you need to start one without donating much all we need is for there to be a pac
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other Editorial Articles
Project 'Take Back 146.52'
|
|
|
