[AMRadio] "My ARRL, Right or Wrong...!!!"


Todd, KA1KAQ ka1kaq at gmail.com
Thu Apr 24 14:23:52 EDT 2008


On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Peter Markavage <manualman at juno.com> wrote:
> And, after all these years, he's still the Director. Majority of the
>  voting members in your Division must still like his representation.

Which brings us back to the 20% membership of US licensed hams vs. 80%
not members +/-. Less a case of so many liking him as so few left to
vote for him.

>  The in depth technical minutia was all moved over to QEX back in the
>  80's. No reason to keep it in QST.

Could also be looked at as an additional expense which makes little
sense in a world of declining hams. If the ARRL is truly concerned
about being thrifty with the membership's dollars, wouldn't it make
sense to cut maybe half the junk out of QST and add some technical
content back into the publication that really started it all for them?

>  Ads generate revenue to keep the business in the
>  black. Books sales generate revenue to keep the business in the black.
>  They have very few other options to generate revenue. Membership dues
>  helps, but it's noise in comparison to the other revenue generators.

I don't think anyone ever minded the ads so much as the overall lack
of content since the 80s, or '75'76 when they went to the larger
format.

>  Personally, I believe they've demonstrated support for all modes and
>  interests as best as one can given all the modes and interests that
>  prevail within the amateur radio fraternity.

Pick up any QST Pete, and compare the pages on, say....AM, or CW to
the pages of contest results. In reality, the ARRL doesn't openly
condemn other modes. More the 'benign neglect' approach mentioned a
while back by Don, K4KYV.

>  Backing away, i.e. let some
>  other member put the "fire of enlightenment" upon them, and then I might
>  return, is not the answer.

Approximately 80% of the licensed amateur population appears to
disagree with that statement, Pete. That doesn't say a lot for the
organization that claims to represent the interests of US Amateurs.
It's not a matter of enlightening them, for the most part they've made
it clear that their minds are made up as to the path we all must
follow.

Don't get me wrong - I'd like nothing more than to have the ARRL
become a representative organization for us and see the contesters in
Newington replaced by more well-rounded hams. It shouldn't conflict
with their publishing business and could only help the overall picture
with increased revenues not only from dues, but additional book sales
and an overall vibrant organization (what a concept!). There's just no
way I can give my money to a group who's approach involves saying
'join if you want a voice, give me your money, so I can tell you how
wrong you are'.

I'm not looking for an organization or publication to cater
specifically to my particular interest. Electric Radio does an
incredible job there. All I expect is equal and fair treatment, not
being ignored in favor of a segment that many see as creating
intentional interference and behavior that goes against the amateur
creed, sanctioned by the ARRL and rewarded through multiple pages of
'results'.

>From the ARRL, 'back in the day':

"Considerate...never knowingly uses the air in such a way to lessen
the pleasure of others."

Sounds like any contesters you know?

I know you enjoy stirring the pot on this subject Pete, but it's
pretty clear that the ARRL lost its way some time ago and has been
going downhill since. Dismissing low membership as somehow being a
small piece of the pie doesn't excuse the behavior or downward spiral.
Particularly since they're supposed to serve at the pleasure of the
membership. All 20%. But I guess when you're running a contest
club....

Good luck in the corntest!

~ Todd,  KA1KAQ  (o:


More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 21 Oct 2017.