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

Peter Markavage manualman at juno.com
Thu Apr 24 16:10:47 EDT 2008

** My comments

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 14:23:52 -0400 "Todd, KA1KAQ" <ka1kaq at gmail.com>
> 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.

**Not my problem. You're the one that dropped your membership. I can
still vote when the time comes to elect a Director.

> >  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?

** I'm not sure what junk you're talking about. Or is "junk" things that
you're not interested in reading? QEX is a viable magazine for people who
want in depth technical articles and it is generating additional revenue
for them. Makes no sense to bring those types of technical articles back
into QST.

> >  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.

**I became a member to support an organization; I didn't become a member
because I wanted a magazine subscription. I would have become a member
even if they didn't have a monthly magazine.

> >  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.

** You're behind the times. Full contest results haven't been in QST for
years. They're in the members only part of the web site. In May 2008
issue, a total of 7 pages devoted to some type of contest activity
including one for contest calendar and one for upcoming Field Day. That's
7 pages out of 168 pages. You do the math.
> >  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'.

** Maybe you just haven't given them a convincing argument as a member to
make some specific changes.

> 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?

** II think they only sponsor about 12 or 13 contests (phone and/or CW
and/or RTTY) in a year. Lots of amateur interest in contests based on the
number of participants. Some bad apples are bound to pop up. What's that
have to do with ARRL membership?

> 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!

** Membership is up; you should read the BoD meeting minutes. Actually, I
don't think the ARRL has lost their way. I think there are some amateurs
who resist change, like it the way it was "back in the good old days",
and believe they are being "short-sheeted" because their interest doesn't
command a high visibility as it once did.

** Pete, wa2cwa

More information about the AMRadio mailing list

This page last updated 21 Jan 2018.