AF6AY wrote:

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. :-(

Perhaps. The point is that even if 75 percent of Amateurs are not
members of the ARRL, they should be in a different organization if they
are inclined to be in any organization at all.

We can speculate on the reasons, but it is educated guesses.


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.

Just personal experience from my area. The active hams "round here" are
almost all members, and the inactive ones aren't.


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.

More personal experience here. Everyone else's mileage may vary.



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?

As I wrote to another, if he is irritated enough, he might think of
doing something about it.

That's what I do. Seems to work too.


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."

Let me ask the question a different way, one in which I'm not the
discussion stompin' bad guy.


Given that 75 percent of Amateurs are not members of the ARRL, why is
there not another organization that represents this majority of Hams?


I have my opinion, and it is that with the exception of a small
percentage, those Hams don't care to be part of any group.

But my advice is the same as when an amateur wants to build an antenna
that obviously won't work. "Give it a try, and tell us how it works
out". 8^)


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

AF6AY wrote:


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.


It is also a great example of how giving something away is never ever a
good idea. There has been more anger generated over the years by free
offers that probably anything else. 8^(


- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Jun 25, 1:05?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
AF6AY wrote:
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.

It is also a great example of how giving something away is never ever a
good idea. There has been more anger generated over the years by free
offers that probably anything else. 8^(

That was NOT my irritant. Here were three separate office groups
at Newington (VEC, Fulfillment, Membership) NOT in apparent
communications with one another. Membership was the slowest;
based on a five-day worst-case surface mailing diagonally across
the contiguous USA, they were still lagging the VEC section by a
week. Here I was, a new member, joining of my own volition, and
they don't seem to appreciate that.

If the office staff can make such mistakes with one member, what
could they do to 152 thousand others? What of bigger issues such
as "Regulation by Bandwidth" proposal? [which was withdrawn]

AF6AY

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In .com RDWeaver writes:

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

Note that this is Glenn Baxter's (K1MAN) organization, as I noted in my
original article in this thread.

Before anyone sends Mr. Baxter any money, joins any organization he
runs, or even seeks technical or operating advice from him, they may
wish to check out the following site:

http://www.ve7kfm.com/baxter/

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFGgDFM6Pj0az779o4RAtApAKC0CaBSPWi+VLR6bQ1UVO MXP4g4oACbBFZc
4kchg6H5EReu9LQsK0hUpM8=
=O/NH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Jun 25, 1:04?pm, Michael Coslo wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

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."

Let me ask the question a different way, one in which I'm not the
discussion stompin' bad guy.

Given that 75 percent of Amateurs are not members of the ARRL, why is
there not another organization that represents this majority of Hams?

The have tried in the past. It is difficult to compete in anything
which
has a Monopoly on US amateur radio news and opinion.

The ARRL was NOT the first radio club in the USA. They were
incorporated 5 years after the first one, RCA. The Radio Club of
America still exists, by the way, it doesn't bother much with
amateurism now.

ARRL leaders saw early-on that its survival meant some kind of
amateur-radio-related business needed to be done to enable
monies for growth as well as sustenance. Publishing was a
natural since a periodical would be a regular members' information
source. Texts followed. Publishing grew until it sustained ARRL
and QEX and the contest journal; QST manages to support itself
on advertising space sales.

Think about this: Any publisher has Total Control over what is
printed. Absolute power. Now, from what source does all the
US amateur radio news flow? CQ and Pop Comm reprint news
from the ARRL. Both are independents of lesser financial backing.

Profit from publications supports all of the 'free-to-members'
services, the legal counsel billings in DC, the expense vouchers
for executives traveling to Switzerland, lots of things. Even with
170 thousand paying members, annual dues would NOT be
enough to cover much more than the heating bills of Newington
offices in wintertime.

A larger membership number and the more the ARRL can charge
for advertising space in their publications. More profit. But, it is
also a capability to reach More US amateurs to influence their
thinking, their decision-making. Power.

The old "Change It From Within" ploy revisited: It can't be done in
much less than half a lifetime. Not with an established oligarchy,
a virtual monopoly on publications. Case in point is the eventual
FCC 06-178 Report and Order. That was NOT "changed from
within the ARRL" at all. The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate back in
1998. ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03. League hierarchy was adamant
despite members' pleas to go along with change. The "use member
voting power to get elected officials in there who see one's point"
corollary: Twaddle in itself. Most offices have no competition.
Elected office terms are too long to handle immediate problems.
Even if there is SOME change effected, the reporting of such
elections, board meetings, etc., is all provided only by the ARRL
itself.

The League is a juggernaut of an organization that can eat any
start-up competitor as a light snack and never worry about
indigestion. It would take massive amounts of cash to mount any
campaign for a new start-up national membership organization,
more to keep it going.

AF6AY

On Jun 25, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:


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 have no idea what the "honeydo era" refers to, but the notion that
active hams are (or aren't) members of ARRL is not proven here.

I became licensed about 35 years ago as a teen, and joined ARRL the
same day I got their "welcome to ham radio" letter and membership
solicitation. There was some discount because I was a teenager. For
the rest of my teen years, through college, I was barely off-and-on
active as a ham, mostly as a visiting operator at contest stations.
Out of college I went completely QRT until just a few months ago, the
intervening years being spent in a career with frequent moves and
little free time for hobby activities. Recently a career change made
it possible for me to look at ham radio again. Over all that time,
out of habit, I kept the license current and my ARRL membership
intact. So much for "ARRL members are active hams".

On the inverse side of the coin, I don't think that non-membership in
ARRL correlates in any meaningful manner with "non-active ham". To
some, being a ham is an individual experience with no corresponding
"membership in a fraternal group" motivation or inclination. I drive
a Corvette, but don't belong to a Corvette club. I'm a military
veteran but I don't belong to any vets organizations. Couldn't I be a
very active ham without belonging to ARRL? Personally, I think that
is the case with many licensees, but that belief is just as unfounded
as your unfounded presumption that ARRL non-members are "dropping off
and will likely continue".

73,

RDW

On Jun 25, 6:52?pm, AF6AY wrote:

The ARRL hierarchy was dead-set against
abolishing the code test or even reducing the test rate
back in 1998.

That's simply untrue. You are mistaken, Len.

Here's what really happened back then:

In its 1998 restructuring proposal to FCC, the ARRL proposed the
following changes to Morse Code testing:

1) The General Class code test rate reduced from 13 wpm to 5 wpm

2) The Advanced Class code test rate reduced from 13 wpm to 12 wpm

3) The Extra Class code test rate reduced from 20 wpm to 12 wpm

That's a significant reduction in code testing for both General and
Extra class licenses. The proposal was in development for more than a
year before it was released in late 1998.

In addition, ARRL proposed in 1998 that all existing Novice and
Technician Plus licensees be given free and automatic upgrades to
General.

ARRL also proposed in 1998 that all Technician licensees have some HF
operating priviliges *without a code test*. This was seen by many as a
first step towards code test elimination for all HF amateur licenses

Those are the facts.

The ARRL hierarchy was *not* dead-set against
reducing the Morse Code test rate back in 1998, because they proposed
doing just that for both General.and Extra class licenses.

ARRL was against it even though the IARU recommended
the changes to S25.5 at WRC-03.

Incorrect.

In early 2001, ARRL changed its policy of support for S25.5 from
supporting continued code testing to no opinion.

In its proposal to FCC after ITU-R S25.5 was revised, ARRL proposed
that all Morse Code testing for all amateur radio licenses except
Extra be eliminated.

League hierarchy was adamant
despite members' pleas to go along with
change.

The League proposed changes in both cases cited above. They did not
support the status quo. They were not "adamant".

ARRL's proposals, and the comments to them, can be downloaded from the
FCC website.

Do you have any solid evidence that the majority of ARRL members
wanted all Morse Code testing eliminated, Len?

It should be noted that when the comments to the 2000 restructuring
were counted, the majority of those commenting supported at least two
code test speeds. And when the comments to the 2006 restructuring were
counted, the majority of those commenting supported at least some code
testing be retained.

In 1999, reduction of all Morse Code testing to 5 wpm was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.

In 2005, complete elimination of all Morse Code testing was not the
majority opinion of those who bothered to comment.
..
In both cases, FCC went *against* what the majority of those who
voiced an opinion wanted.

Should ARRL have ignored what the majority wanted, too?

Jim, N2EY

Michael Coslo wrote:
Klystron wrote:

[...]

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.

[...]

I do not mind offending the old-timers who are living in the past
and struggling to hold ham radio captive (they have never minded
offending new or future hams). The future of ham radio is likely to
include digital (possibly D-star, possibly others). It is likely to make
extensive use of computers and the Internet. It is just not likely to
include much along the lines of Morse. The Morse zealots have already
lost the fight for the issue that means the most to them - code testing.
The reduction of the dedicated CW segments is probably a harbinger of
things to come. My guess is that they know (and have always known) that
anything that Morse can do, digital can do better. For that reason, they
have fought to stop digital (I remember when it was dismissed and
disparaged as wideband "pulse").
Do this simple calculation: multiply what you consider to be a good
sending rate in words per minute by the number of letters in a word by 7
(there are 7 bits to an ASCII character). The result will be bits per
minute. Divide that by 60 to get bits per second. The result will be
quite laughable. I have seen people throw in the garbage old modems that
were capable of 1,000 times that speed.

As far as starting a new organization by myself is concerned, I have
started a small business, a political action committee and an Internet
users group. Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it. My
guess is that a new group could be started in a single region and then
bootstrapped into a national organization, within five to ten years.
The obvious constituency would be people who would, more or less,
agree with my (admittedly inflammatory) comments above. I would make no
attempt to capture the telegraph key cohort of the ARRL, but the more
progressive members might change sides. Nevertheless, people who are
dissatisfied with an existing organization are always the greatest asset
of a new or rival organization. The prospect of offending the core
loyalists of the old group is just not an issue.

RDWeaver wrote:
On Jun 25, 1:20 pm, Michael Coslo wrote:

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 have no idea what the "honeydo era" refers to, but the notion that
active hams are (or aren't) members of ARRL is not proven here.

At one point a lot of husband and wife teams got their licenses and
used local repeaters to call each other at lunchtime or on the way home
from work in order to exchange info on say stopping off at the grocery
store to pick up something for dinner, or at the hardware store to pick
up something.

Hence the name "Honey, do this, Honey, do that. 8^)

Many people in that group kind of dropped out of the picture as cell
phones became ascendent.



out of habit, I kept the license current and my ARRL membership
intact. So much for "ARRL members are active hams".

That is a sample of one.


is the case with many licensees, but that belief is just as unfounded
as your unfounded presumption that ARRL non-members are "dropping off
and will likely continue".

RDW (Can't we all get some names here? If a person wants to be
anonymous, fine, but it seems a little odd to be seriously discussing
anything with "Klystron" "illitoi" and RDW)

I most emphatically did not say that non members are dropping off and
likely to continue. You should quote the whole statement if you mean to
take something from the words.

I did say that those hams in the group that I referred to as "Honeydo"
hams were dropping off and would probably continue to do so.

I'm not sure how we can have a meaningful discussion if you try to
debunk my points first with a sample of one, and then try to debunk
another point by quoting out of context, then extrapolating it to an
entire group.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Klystron wrote:

As far as starting a new organization by myself is concerned, I have
started a small business, a political action committee and an Internet
users group. Be careful what you ask for; you just might get it. My
guess is that a new group could be started in a single region and then
bootstrapped into a national organization, within five to ten years.

Well there ya go! I wish you success. If I could offer a little advice,
it would be that it is time to get a name here. I can understand
anonymity, but if you are going to be a leader, you'll need to be known.


My whole point in this discussion has been that too many Hams spend way
too much time complaining, some to the extent that they are unpleasant
to be around. Then they don't do anything.

Thunder is impressive, but it is lightning that does the work.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -