Merz Donald S wrote: > The ARRL is the only organized and funded voice that we have. All the > arguments below sound just like this one: "I don't vote because all > politicians are bad." Well if you don't vote--or in this case, if you choose > not to support the ARRL, then you are assuredly getting what you deserve. > > The management of spectrum and the technologies that use that spectrum are > continuously changing. For better or worse is a judgment call--change is the > only certainly. > > If we want to protect what we have--if ham radio is to survive--then we MUST > have the ARRL or something like it. Example: All TV broadcast stations have > to go digital by 2007. Why not all ham stations? Are we next? If so, you can > forget AM--and sideband too! > > If you believe in and love democracy, then by heaven please vote. If you > believe in and love ham radio, then for heaven's sake please support the > ARRL. To paraphrase Mr. Churchill, the ARRL is the worst form of a ham > organization--except that we have no other. > > 73, Don Merz, N3RHT
Nah, I don't buy it, Don - The difference is this: with politics, you have some choice in party, candidate, write-in, etc. With the Amateur Radio Retail Lobby, you have no voice but theirs and a deck stacked against you by their changes to the rules in the last 15 or so years. It's more akin to an unpopular dictatorship, really. Our democracy supports minority rights, even to the extreme. The ARRL versions supports what best suits their needs as they see it, regardless of whoever else in overlooked or excluded as a result. What you basically seem to be saying is that we should support a corrupt dictatorship because we have no choice - it's either that or nothing. I disagree. I have a choice, and I've exercised it. Don't you find it just a bit interesting how things like AM, CW, and 220 have somehow not gotten the same protection or 'representation' as SSB and the 2 meter CB band? Why do you suppose that is? Also, maybe you can explain how the once-useful QST magazine went from being full of useful information like construction projects to being made up of mostly ads and contest results? This is one of the main reasons I dropped my ARRL membership in the early 90s after 'giving them another try' or 'the benefit of the doubt' etc. Aside from the lack of representation and bad attitude of the ARRL representatives I'd talked to, getting QST each month and having to dig through it hoping to find something of substance in it besides the classified was pointless. I've heard this same argument from ARRL reps themselves "We're the ones who represent amateur radio, you need to support us". Why? They don't represent me and when I try to point out issues of importance to me, they roll their eyes and act like I'm not up with the times or in their clique. Don't get me wrong - one of these times I'd really like to be wrong and see that the ARRL really HAS changed - for the history of the organization and amateur radio, if nothing else. I don't see it happening as long as they continue to have administrators and reps whose main concern is selling subscriptions and Yaecomwood radios for their advertisers and claiming it's 'what is best for the future of ham radio'. One thing being neglected here in the defense of this so-called 'democracy' is that you have to pay to be a member. So, apparently if you're a licensed ham it's your duty to pay up for the priviledge of being ignored and not represented, or dismissed like an unknowledgable child when you try to voice your opinion? Thanks, but no. And if you really want to see the League in action, check into the chunk of money allotted to them after 9/11 last year to help train emergency communications operators. The federal gov't saw fit to put them in charge of it, but from all I've seen the only way groups eligible for any of this public funding are ARRL-affiliates. Some democracy. I agree with this much - amateur radio needs representation. I do not agree that the ARRL is currently the best option, simply the only option. With so many hams out there who don't participate because of the biased leadership, it would seem another organization would indeed be in order. Vote? Sure, I suspect many have voted by not renewing. I know I have, twice. What's more, the ARRL may not have been too successful in supporting AM, CW, 220 or other 'less than popular' issues, but they've seemed to do quite well at supporting rule changes and other approaches that have let more people join - the majority of which don't have the background or necessarily even the interest in radio (probably why the no-code tech deal swelled the ranks temporarily then died when cell phones became cheap), but support the league's view of plug-n-play, throw it away, buy a new one next year. Yes - I had an ARRL representative tell me how important it is to support the Yaecomewood advertisers so 'they'll keep making radios for us'. Sounded like a threat really, and just reinforced their already-sullied image. I'm sure not all ARRL representatives are like this, just the ones back east perhaps. I supported the ARRL, I even gave them another chance after I swore I wouldn.t I don't support them anymore, for the above-mentioned reasons. I think we need a new organization that is oriented more towards RADIO and less towards sales and business. Perhaps the thing to do is for those of us who are unhappy to actually do something besides complaining. Seems almost impossible to think of taking on a $10M + publishing firm, but when you think of the network AMI has established across the country, you can see we are indeed capable. Organization in all areas across the country is the only way to overcome this. The one thing in favor of change is the number of those unhappy with the current lack of representation. It would be nice to see an organization where *all* groups of amateur radio interests are included and treated equally and the ranks aren't loaded in favor of the leadership's views. Comments? Suggestions? 73 de Todd/'Boomer' KA1KAQ
