Hi Paul!
I think you misunderstood me. I don't disagree with anything you say
below. My comment was in reply to the one advocating burying the FCC in
heckler complanits. I was advocating restraint (except for the most
extreme or recurring cases) because of the potential for unforeseen
adverse consequences.
I wasn't even thinking about the ARRL at the time.
73,
-Larry/NE1S
VJB wrote:
-snip-
Larry, on your point of dissent within the ranks of
ham radio. Much of the argument we see on various
points is fomented by the closed door political
philosophy by the group in Newington, which once upon
a time was the representative lobbying group for the
hobby.
The knee-jerk reaction to criticism against the ARRL
typically focuses on a call to elect different
volunteer leadership if there needs to be a cure. But
those "directors" individually are not the problem. It
is a systemic issue of how the place is run, which
perpetuates the lack of interaction with active,
law-abiding licensed Amateurs.
Their bandwidth scheme is a product of that
closed-door approach, and Comments in the FCC database
are running heavily opposed. Many of the Comments cite
a feeling of having been left out of the process --
and I'll bet the League's lawyer will be hard-pressed
to defend against that criticism during the Reply
Comment phase upcoming.
So, with most of us on the outside of that system, the
responsibility for effecting change comes from out
here toward their group. The FCC has already spanked
them a few times on earlier issues, and they've
certainly been slapped around in public by the greater
Amateur community, the electric industry, and other
government agencies besides the FCC.
It's not a matter of electing different volunteer
leaders. The problem is the need to reform their way
of doing business advancing our interests. I predict
the ARRL will continue to shrink into merely a
publishing and subscription group as more of us will
realize their lobbying and representation is a farce,
as things stand.
