Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was
inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. Its web site suggests that it has no vision of any future beyond the preservation of the status quo. In short, it is so mired in the past that it has no future. That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? -- ---- A recent, no-code Amateur Extra |
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Klystron" wrote
The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. Morse is obsolete? Hmmm..... N7SO |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1 In Klystron writes: The world of ham radio seems to have left the ARRL behind. It was inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. Its web site suggests that it has no vision of any future beyond the preservation of the status quo. In short, it is so mired in the past that it has no future. That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? -- ---- A recent, no-code Amateur Extra This is a quite well-trodden subject. I refer you to many, many threads on the subject in the past in the newsgroups archives. Go to Google Groups at http://groups.google.com and search for: ARRL "new organization" for a start. Many past efforts at a replacement organization have been tried, and failed. Most notably was an organization led by "73" Magazine Editor Wayne Green, W2NSD (the "Institute of Amateur Radio"). Sometimes the leadership was just too controversial or confrontational. In the case of Glenn Baxter, K1MAN (American Amateur Radio Association, International Amateur Radio Network), it's hard to set a good example, and encourage those to follow you, when you're constantly in trouble with the FCC and hiding behind the alleged endorsements of many people who want nothing to do with you, and repeatedly disavow such endorsement (e.g., Walter Cronkite KB2GSD and Leo Meyerson W0GFQ). Some organizations are very worthwhile, such as QCWA, AMSAT, TAPR, etc., but are too specialized to have very large membership rolls. Some organizations are for the purpose of seeking specific changes or political reforms, and lose traction once those reforms have been achieved (e.g., NCI). It's been pointed out that many ARRL Director and Section Manager elections run unopposed. Why go to the trouble to build a new organization from the ground up, if getting involved with the ARRL and changing from within might be a better strategy? It might also be reasonable to assume that those who find fault with the ARRL would find as much, or worse, fault with a new organization. Such an organization can never be perfect, and will not be able to avoid disagreeing with someone on some point of view. Practical administration of such an organization, particularly if it encompasses a large cross-section of amateurs, will likely involve some negotiation and compromises. Organizations also have to be for things, in addition to just being against things. Are the complainers and non-joiners up to the task? Part of taking the lead in any new effort, whether it be a new newsgroup, a new local club, or a new national organization, is to step up, introduce yourself, and try to build others' trust, such that they would want to follow you. One good first step for such a leader or leaders would be to step out of the shadows of anonymity and identify themselves, IMHO. - -- 73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/ Finger for PGP Public Key -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS) iD8DBQFGfwDy6Pj0az779o4RAt8SAKCgNHG/oV6xK09bIzcnnBCPN7026ACgh5Hm 2owUCBl4QkLRb+cgGQdU00o= =E+Ia -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jim Higgins wrote:
We already have a membership organization so what you must be talking about is a different membership organization that appeals to a different set of members. So... exactly which different set of members would that be? 75% of all hams are NOT members of the ARRL. I'd start with them. |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Klystron wrote:
Jim Higgins wrote: We already have a membership organization so what you must be talking about is a different membership organization that appeals to a different set of members. So... exactly which different set of members would that be? 75% of all hams are NOT members of the ARRL. I'd start with them. Respectfully, I would suggest that you start the new organization, Klystron. If the present situation is unacceptable, then go out and change it. I might caution you that reading that 75 percent figure that a person can get a distorted perspective. Are all those Hams active? Are they from the group of Hams who came in during the so called "honeydo era" when repeaters functioned as a sort of public cell phone for a lot of folks? They started dropping off a few years ago, and will likely continue for several more years. It is just about a sure thing that most members of the ARRL are a group that is actively involved in amateur radio. So they pay their dues, vote, and get something for their money (in their opinion) That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? I would suggest that you start the process of forming a new organization. I would respectfully suggest that you might think about omitting statements about the obsolescence of Morse code. Give some consideration to your statement: It was inexcusably slow to accept the obsolescence of Morse code and, in the process, its curmudgeonly foot dragging alienated most of its potential future members. You are alienating the users of the mode - who are also more likely to be Active Hams, IMO. As well as those of us who are presumably at least somewhat satisfied with the ARRL's performance, witness our continued writing of dues checks. After all is said and done, your task is to organize a group that includes inactive Hams, disinterested Hams, Hams who are content to make use of the ARRL's benefits without getting involved personally, and those who are frugally noncommittal to the whole thing. When you do start this new organization, it might be helpful to provide a monthly post to the newsgroups in the same manner that we have in r.r.a.info and r.r.a.moderated. As a start,an outline statement about what your organization is going to do for us would be helpful. - 73 de Mike KB3EIA - |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Klystron" wrote in message ... That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? Dear "xxx", ARRL is just one of several amateur radio clubs which I am a member of, each for various reasons. (And I think it is important to note that ARRL is just another amateur radio club, although larger than most.) I belong to CADXA to associate with others who work DX. I belong to NCCC to associate with other contesters. I belong to SOC to associate with other hams who don't take themselves too seriously. I belong to ARRL because they once gave me a scholarship, and to associate with others who read QST. If you start a new radio club, maybe I'll find a reason to join it also. The Man in the maze QRV at Baboquivari Peak, AZ -- Iitoi |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Michael Coslo" wrote in message ... Klystron wrote: Jim Higgins wrote: We already have a membership organization so what you must be talking about is a different membership organization that appeals to a different set of members. So... exactly which different set of members would that be? 75% of all hams are NOT members of the ARRL. I'd start with them. Respectfully, I would suggest that you start the new organization, Klystron. If the present situation is unacceptable, then go out and change it. I might caution you that reading that 75 percent figure that a person can get a distorted perspective. Are all those Hams active? Are they from the group of Hams who came in during the so called "honeydo era" when repeaters functioned as a sort of public cell phone for a lot of folks? They started dropping off a few years ago, and will likely continue for several more years. In addition, there are a significant number of people who simply are not joiners regardless of what they may think of an organization. Of those who are active but not members of the ARRL, I'd bet the majority of them simply fall into the "non-joiner" class. Dee, N8UZE |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Jun 24, 7:43 pm, Klystron wrote:
That said, it seems imperative that hams have some sort of functioning and EFFECTIVE membership organization. Is there some existing organization that could serve as the nucleus of a new membership organization or would it make more sense to form a new association from scratch? Have you considered AARA, which bills itself as "your alternative to ARRL". Website at http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/iarntra.../business.html 73, RDW |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Michael Coslo wrote on Mon, 25 Jun 2007 09:20:26 EDT:
Klystron wrote: Jim Higgins wrote: We already have a membership organization so what you must be talking about is a different membership organization that appeals to a different set of members. So... exactly which different set of members would that be? 75% of all hams are NOT members of the ARRL. I'd start with them. I might caution you that reading that 75 percent figure that a person can get a distorted perspective. Are all those Hams active? Are they from the group of Hams who came in during the so called "honeydo era" when repeaters functioned as a sort of public cell phone for a lot of folks? They started dropping off a few years ago, and will likely continue for several more years. I would caution you not to ask unanswerable questions. :-( The Publisher's Sworn Statement, the only document able to yield a direct number of ARRL members to any public individual, has been missing from their website for over a half year. It is available only by surface mail...if they choose to send it to a requestor. From elesewhere in QST one can glean an approximate membership number of 152 thousand...which may or may not be accurate. Assuming it is - As of 23 June 2007 the FCC database contained 711,828 individual amateur radio licensees (i.e., exclusive of Clubs). As a percentage of those, the ARRL membership is 21.4%. The ARRL's US license totals page for 23 June 2007 indicates 654,616 individual licensees NOT in their Grace Period for renewal. Compared to those, the ARRL membership is 23.2%. Grace Period licensees number are apparently 57,212 total for that database date. That is inferred by subtracting non- grace-period individual licensee totals from the grand total of all individual licensees. The use of "active" versus "inactive" licensees is incorrect, disinformative. It should be Non-Grace-Period versus In-Grace-Period. A licensee may or not be active in radio operation during their license Non-Grace- Period; there is no Poll or other data to prove their radio operation activity. Those licensees in their Grace Period may be ill, deceased, on active duty with the military, relocated for work purposes, or somewhere off-planet not on NASA duty. There is no data available to indicate which or what on those. Neither is there any data on the number of "honey-do" licensees. Such remarks are highly subjective, hearsay, or simply specious. It is just about a sure thing that most members of the ARRL are a group that is actively involved in amateur radio. So they pay their dues, vote, and get something for their money (in their opinion) The "sure thing" cannot be proven and is merely subjective. There are many fraternal orders active in the USA with active dues income, voting, and so forth but most members do not really concern themselves with the actions of those fraternal orders. If all your amateur radio news comes from ARRL sources (as their origin), are you getting news in the objective journalistic manner or are you getting subjective news that is slanted to favor the ARRL? Recall that ARRL membership is LESS than a quarter of any 'popular' grouping of US amateur radio licensees. Since the publishing side of the ARRL 'house' has to make most of the operating income for the League, the League wants the most positive picture of US amateur radio possible... and to convince others that League publications are the best to buy. You are alienating the users of the mode - who are also more likely to be Active Hams, IMO. As well as those of us who are presumably at least somewhat satisfied with the ARRL's performance, witness our continued writing of dues checks. "Users of the [CW] mode are the most active hams?!? Just how do you go about proving that? There are still over 300 thousand US amateur radio licensees in the no-code-test Technician Class as of 24 June 2007. Are you not considering that the pro-coders have ALIENATED the no- coders for years? As a start,an outline statement about what your organization is going to do for us would be helpful. Would a Formal Business Plan with Attachments of Monetary Support for initial start-up be sufficient help? Or have you considered that "Klystron's" remarks might be irritation at what the ARRL has NOT done for many or that their 'support' for certain activities of amateur radio is NOT there in the abundance claimed by the League? The ARRL is the *ONLY* national organization for US amateur radio. Only in that sense is it logical to belong. Let me know when the ARRL has any national competition for US amateur radio "representation." AF6AY (dues-paid voting member of the ARRL) |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul W. Schleck wrote on 24 June 2007:
It might also be reasonable to assume that those who find fault with the ARRL would find as much, or worse, fault with a new organization. Such an organization can never be perfect, and will not be able to avoid disagreeing with someone on some point of view. Practical administration of such an organization, particularly if it encompasses a large cross-section of amateurs, will likely involve some negotiation and compromises. The ARRL is more Publishing House than a membership organization. That part brings in the majority of a reported income to the IRS of greater than $10 Million US annually. Can one "negotiate" with a business? There is NO competitor for the ARRL to work against. ... Are the complainers and non-joiners up to the task? I am a voting member of the ARRL. I joined via Internet a couple days after my name and callsign appeared on the FCC database. Indeed, at the same time of day as joining, I was in private e-mail with Ed Hare, W1RFI. First problem: Someone at ARRL offices added an "Apartment 33" to my QST address. I live in a single-family residence and have for 44 years. The Fullfillment Office at the ARRL did eventually correct that. They may not be talking to their ARRL VEC side at Newington. Not a big problem but it amused our USPS deliverer. Second problem: Two weeks after receiving my ARRL membership card in the mail, a "Ham Kit" of literature was in my mailbox, offering "my choice of a book 'free' if I were to join." I contacted ARRL by e- and was - essentially - shined off. Since I had already joined by my own volition, TS, the 'free offer' doesn't apply to me. Am I happy with that? No. Can I do anything about it? No. Did I know about this 'free offer' ahead of time? No. Was the ARRL VEC side of ARRL talking to the ARRL Membership people? Apparently not. That's just one small sampling of one very new member of the ONLY national amateur radio membership organization in the USA. It has had many variations of problems with many others. However, it would seem that one should NOT complain about the League, am I correct? "Bad Form," yes? :-( AF6AY |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Call for Action-CW Advocacy organization | Homebrew | |||
Call for Action-CW Advocacy organization | Swap | |||
Call for Action-CW Advocacy organization | Antenna | |||
Why Keyclowns Fear N8WWM And His AKC Organization | Policy | |||
OT - A newly discovered terrorist organization! | CB |