The AM Forum

In addition to my comment on RM-11306, I posted my feelings in a letter to the ARRL "Chief Development Officer".
The reply was....shall we say "interesting".

Would you consider posting the reply???  Inquiring minds want to know...  ;)

Let me get her permission first, but happy to post my side.

-Bruce

Ms. Hobart,

Recently I have received several solicitations to donate to various causes of the ARRL, of which I have been a member of since 1995. Let me assure you that I would be most delighted to donate, and donate on a regular basis, should I feel that my monies would be put to good use.

Indeed while visiting W1AW a few years back I made careful note of the Maxim club plaque on the station's wall. However, as a businessman, I very carefully examine at the Return on Investment (ROI) of each outgoing dollar in both my professional and personal expenditures. I'm sorry that I must report that I feel that I have received very little of value from the ARRL during the time of my membership. Indeed, Ms. Hobart, I feel that recent League polices and agendas are in direct contrast to the very things which I hold dear to the amateur service. In a democracy, change can be effected by voting, with the current League structure, I choose to make my change by withholding additional funds and donations. While I will still pay my dues and offer my services as both an ARRL VE and OO, I will not contribute one additional dime until I see the League change tack to an agenda which strengths the amateur service.

Specifically I refer to the League's past support for, and now current proposal of, the reduction of CW proficiency. I am quite certain that I do not need remind you that the art and skill of CW is time-tested and honored hallmark of the amateur radio service. I won't take the time in this email to put forth an argument over this matter, suffice to say that I am most concerned about the League’s support for no-code HF privileges. But my concerns over the lowering of standards pale in contrast to the current League proposal for the elimination of the amateur subbands. Specifically I am referring to the continued and accelerated use of automated “robot” stations on the amateur bands. Let me simply state I am deeply troubled and concerned over the chaos which is certain to ensue should this ill-considered scheme go forward.

I am troubled because I believe the proposal to be flawed, but most troubled over the League's abject failure to poll and develop a consensus over its membership on this proposal. Certainly League officers and officials do not dare to rule from "on high" and think that they know better than the membership that which is good for the hobby. I expect and demand my League officials, both regional and state, to keep me, as a League member, informed of any significant changes or proposals.

I am not certain how active you are in the amateur service Ms. Hobart, I assume that your amateur license predates your hiring as Development Director for the League, but I can assure you that such a misguided agenda will do nothing but weaken the amateur community. One does not lower an organizations standard and then expect to improve the quality and proficiency of the organization membership. Indeed, because it is hard, because the path is one of challenge that membership to any organization becomes ever more prized, and members more devoted to the cause.

I suspect should the two proposals which I have mentioned above go through; your job will become increasingly more and more difficult as those who were really devoted to the amateur service tend to drop their League affiliation. Certainly existing members will depart, but I believe you will be dealt the double blow of lowered recruitment numbers. With fewer and fewer new hams entering the amateur service, assuming the fixed costs of League operation remaining static, the need for additional funds will continue to grow. It is my firm and resolute belief that lowering CW proficiency and removal of the amateur subbands will be the death knell of the amateur service.

Allow me to close by stating that I would wish nothing more than to see the League and its directors stay fast and true to the very principals proposed by our founder, Hiram Percy Maxim. I have read a good deal on this gentleman's life and reasons for forming the League, and I am convinced that he would be most displeased by the current state of affairs today. Indeed I call your attention to his "Rotten QRM" letter and his tongue-in-cheek call for an "Anti-QRM Organization". Well Ms. Hobart, it was my belief that the ARRL was to be precisely that.

Perhaps the mission of the League has changed and I have simply escaped the notice. After all, we are told each month when the new copy of QST arrives, that ARRL really stands for "The National Organization for Amateur Radio".

I would be most interested to hear back from you or other League personnel in regards to my concerns.
 

73 Bruce J. Howes W1UJR

Mary Hobart?
She's going to get a complex with crackpots like you.

Every year at subscription time SHE is the one I send my "probation letter' to, and invariably she is puzzled and acts like it's the first time she's ever heard from anyone who is discontent.

So what did she write ?

Here's an excerpt from the January 2006 Committee Reports to the ARRL Board of Directors.

"Report of the Administration and Finance Committee
  2006 First Meeting

Ongoing Financial Issues

Membership Concerns
Membership decline continues to be bothersome.  Membership has declined by 2% so far this year.  We must turn this trend around!  The 2006 Plan includes a significant effort in that direction.  I hope you will give it your full support."

See the report in its entirety at:

http://www.arrl.org/announce/reports-2006/january/17-Administration%20and%20Finance%20Committee.doc

.

We may be gaining some clout for directing a regime change.

Cordial and empathic was her tone and she informed that that regional and state officials were polled over the CW and subbands issue and this was to filter to membership – I never heard anything.

If it was not for Gary’s efforts on AM Fone the entire proposal would be unknown to me, and I am a League member, get QST, League bulletins emailed to me, etc. Maybe I overlooked something, but you’d like something like 11306 would stand out. In any case, she’s got a tough job, with the declining enrollment and average age of amateur ops going up each year.

I will be most interested when and if I hear from K1ZZ.
I still intend to retain my ARRL membership, but that’s it.

-Bruce 1UJR

Hi Bruce:

Very good letter!

I hope this causes some notice at the League.

I feel they have done an awful lot in the past and continue to do so, but also feel they are now travling in their own direction.

This bothers me. Reminds me of the current mode of operations in the beltway.

They should be able to do the right thing without extra money. I guess if they do not poll the members, they will not have members to poll later.

Good to hear ya on the air too...

73
Dan
'1DAN

Bruce,

Read this whole QSO topic, 2 pages - "9 Days Left to File.....".  I posted some research on the evolution of the petition.  We need to keep a better eye on the ARRL by reading our QSTs and reading their board minutes postd on the web.

http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=6865.0

Great job researching that OM, I am League member, guess I overlooked that in the flood of meaningless communicaiton from Newington.

Still, I think, esp. in this age of electronic voting and communication, the League should have done a much better job polling members and making them aware of this. This is one of the most signifigant changes in the amateur service in the last 50 years, I think a bit more member consideration is in order.

Not sure how to do that, but if I overlooked it, chances are most other members did too. In fact the comments posted un the topic you mentioned seem to indicate just that.

I'll still be interested to see what I hear back from the League officals, that will go a long way toward my future transactions with the League.

Tnx for taking the time to reply!

-Bruce

Bruce,
They would have you believe they DID poll the members through that blind email box.
There was little interaction as this got going. In fact, the fatal flaw is that they polled AFTER they had internally determined they would use the regulatory structure to promote digital. As you've seen in the Comments, the poll most correctly rests one step earlier, with the premise itself, but that's not what Sumner is likely to acknowledge.
Paul

Bruce said:
This is exactly what they count on. Bury important issues with insignificant crap so that it will be overlooked. That way they can exclaim, "We had it in the minutes.."

Mikey you probably recall that the concept of "regulation by bandwidth" dates back to Minutes 63 and 64 of a meeting of the tribal leaders a few years ago. Innocuous little mention of finding a way to promote digital. We started a few emails to question what they were talking about, and they backpedalled as fast as they could to deny they were building up to a bandwidth proposal of some kind.  Had we not spotted those two little mentions, we would have lost some time to mobiliize.

Their "art" of writing those Minutes is, in itself, an excellent test of deceptiveness. A former board member with whom I've had lengthy conversations about the Inner Workings says there is a tremendous amount of pressure to put on the appearance of disclosure, while not really saying anything publicly.  The result, vague shorthand references as to what was REALLY discussed that only make sense to the inside members of the Mystical Order ARRL Brain Trust.

I think the proposal on here to establish a watchdog function on their activities makes sense. I just, myself, could not stomach having to go through all that bullszht to find cause for alarm.

The thing that gets me Paul, and think about this, is what mode do the majority of ARRL members use?
The simple answer is, ding, Fone.

So I ask, why the push to the digital modes when that makes up a small fraction of membership interest?

The next question is who really benefits from pushing a digital mode agenda?
I suspect once we understand that, we will know why this is ill-thoughtout proposal is being pushed.

Tom:
I didn't see your question on the thread you referenced above.
"I wonder if our resident ARRL watchdog Pete WA2CWA is reading the monthly minutes?"

I'm not sure what monthly minutes you're refering to. BoD generally has two major meetings each year. There are also Executive Committee meetings.
But to answer your question, Yes I do read the BoD minutes and the Committee Reports from each session. As a member I also get the weekly ARRL Letter, bulletins, and also read the "Amateur Radio News" on the ARRL Home Page and the Annual Report when it comes out.
Further, our Division Director also sends out a monthly email news letter that sometimes helps fill the news gaps from a Director's perspective.

It's unfortunate that we had a Forum burp around the end of 2004, since now all the archives prior to December 2004, are no longer there. We started talking about the bandwidth proposal right after the Draft Proposal came out in August 2004.

Here is the original announcement on the ARRL Site:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html

It seems to me the ARRL did its job in getting the word out. The members could either read about it in QST and/or electronically by the ARRL Letters, the Amateur Radio News on the ARRL home page, meeting minutes, bulletins. Sending out hard copy mail to all their members requesting their input would have been costly (150,000 members X First Class Mail = ~ $55,500) and if they included a paid return response envelope, you would have to double the $55K. There’s no $$ return on this type of expense. Requesting donations by this method however, can provide a $$ return.

And as you mentioned in your thread, from the time the Draft Proposal was announced, there was approximately 15 months to provide feedback back to the ARRL and the Directors. The Directors were important since they were going to be the ones to vote on the submission of the proposal to the FCC.

.

They need to bring Pete and the other 2 remaining supporters in for advanced training.

I recently resigned my OO appointment (and VE) with the ARRL...I also informed them
that I would no longer be a member of the "League".
THis brought response from several at "HQ" but the letters of most interest was from K8JE, Jim Weaver.
My points made were very similar to Bruces...1UJR.
The bandwidth, cw, etc..and how does ARRL really represent me...
8JE replied with denial. He claims that the ARRL supports cw, that all of the cw minimization was does solely by the FCC. The bandwidth issue is to "facillitate" experimentation by those who desire, so they will not have to wait months for FCC approval to get permission...if they want to experiment on the air with a "non-traditional " mode...
it is easy to deny, much harder to admit you are wrong...
73 steve
8tow

Even the FCC admits that it's current Part 97 Rules stifle experimentation of new modes or "non-traditional modes". Developing, experimenting, and usage in a particular amateur band with modes that are not currently covered under the rules has been a big problem with many digital experimenters. Case in point, digital voice: You talk into a microphone and it comes out at the receiver end through a speaker but the entire transmitted signal is a data stream. Where do they operate, in the current phone or CW band? You want to send video on 40 meters; where do they transmit, phone or CW band? Traditional analog phone and CW aren't the only modes anymore that amateurs are interested in experimenting with.

In my opinion, leaving the ARRL membership is always an option but it will not stop the evolving Amateur Radio Service. Collectively, members have a voice; non-members have P&M.
One lost membership $$ equates to selling one more Handbook to make up the difference in $$.

Pete said:

So we should send our money to an organization that doesn't give a rat's ass about what we want or operate? Give me a break Pete. You need to take off your rose colored glasses and look at a society of amateurs that have been scortched your (not mine anymore) (be)Leagued(d). I have better things to do with my money than support a gaggle of good ol' backroom boys. There is rapidly coming a time when the ARRgghhL will no longer be the sole voice of amateur radio.

Don't forget to turn the light out Pete.

Creative answer to RM-11306, an actual posting!
Seems the author just subed in "Digital Mode" for "QRM", amazing how well it worked.
Don't ask, I know nothing!  8)


http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_document=6518325033

Great stuff. Too bad the TOM thing will likely be lost on the FCC.

Rotten DIGITAL MODE   

This DIGITAL MODE business is getting my Nanny. Here it is midnight, and this msg. from a fellow whose girl has not had a letter from him for a full twenty-four hours, is still stalled. I have smoked myself into a state of funk, the floor is covered with burnt matches, I am losing a perfectly good temper, and there is no sign that this will not continue all night long. How long do these radio bugs sit up at night any way? Right now, as I write, there is that old gink 2AGJ up in New York State fluttering along with that bird –in-the-cage spark of his, 8YO is yelling his darned head off for somebody over on the Pacific Coast, apparently, 8NH is still trying her best to be ladylike in spite of a full hour of trouble, old 8AEZ is booming out QSA but DIGITAL MODE bad CUL, 9PC is trying to do something to 5BV, I distinctly heard 4DI say a bad word, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, no one has got anywhere.   

What are we going to do about this business? It used to be that we were perfectly satisfied to listen to SLI and once in a while on Saturday night when we could stay up late, we would listen to Arlington send time. When heard some commercial say DIGITAL MODE, we had to look it up on the chart to see what it meant. Later, we began talking to the fellow over on the other side of town and then was born amateur DIGITAL MODE. Sometimes, the “little boy with the spark coil,” (the latter is all right, but dog gone the hide of the former) would try to call us at the same time, and we used to think we were in trouble. Still later we used to think we were bothered when we were in the middle of a “conversation” with a fellow in the next town, and some whop would butt in. It about this era that we began to organize Radio Clubs, with high faluting ambitions about “promoting radio communications and controlling interference.”   

But when we have a fellow who has not written to his girl for a full twenty-four hours, and who positively must get the msg. to her over in Illinois, it becomes a serious matter to have some one else getting gay with the ether, especially when the later had no conception of the existence of the word “brevity.” One thing I will say, and that is that good old 8AEZ is brief. His spark may drown out everybody in the western hemisphere when he sends, but he is brief. He says what he has to say in a few words in a few signals and he stops. He also does not go in for the long technical discussions about gap speed and condenser construction while forty or fifty others of us are waiting with five or six messages each, many of which have been stuck on the pin a week. Far be it from even me, a real blown-in-the-bottle radio grouch, to find any fault or mention any names, but some of the young gentleman who burn up my valuable time every night and thereby multiply this DIGITAL MODE business, ought to look up in the dictionary the definition of that particular combination of letter indicated by B-R-I-E-F. I could call off a dozen of them right now, and I would if I thought that Editor down east would print them.   

The trouble is, the young squirts don’t stop to think. They start out and call somebody somewhere every three minutes. Everybody they hear, they immediately call. If they don’t hear anybody, they send a QST something like this: -- QST QST QST QST QST QST QST de 1NUT 1NUT 1NUT 1NUT 1NUT 1NUT 1NUT 1NUT 1NUT. Any station more than fifty miles distant hearing these sigs. please send postal to Willie le Nut, Nutville. Willie repeats each of this msg. three times. Each letter is sent so slowly it puts you to sleep. He uses up just exactly twelve valuable minutes sending out this hogwash, and drives an old timer to the point where he radiates brush discharge from every hair on his head. These fellows ought to be limited to hours between supper time and 8:30, and any one of them slopping over ought to get a letter from every respectable amateur within his range threatening to spank him if he ever transgresses again. I know a certain some one who will put in his bid for election to the office of Chairman of the Committee on Chastisement.   Here is a sample coming in right now. Listen to this slop:-- Columbus co 2pp 18co all sigs charles 9vy u no hf a motor little heavier than the racine sorry sorry om Digital Mode Digital Mode pse qta k fish smell rotten yes yes wyd boston how do you get me gap bum bum rubber band qta pwf about motors. (Bad squeaks here. Sick spark coil near at hand. Wheezes terribly.) Want to hear tone like commercial? ark r r r yes ark r r r listen nw.   

Here begins ten minutes of the darndest scratching, screeching, groaning, blowing off steam, blubbering that ever mortal ear heard. At its worst it goes on into -- -- fine fine how do u do it? ark r r r rubber band on  vibrator—BANG. My friend with the one k.w. over on the other side of town explodes. He calls an 8 station. When finishes, the scratching reduces. Then we get the long distance DIGITAL MODE again. Cul om sk spfscity bunk allemo bish mela hash breakfast wunkey wunkey lala lala 2asj arm bad qsl 3zw must go to bed now hw hw hw abt abt abt msg msg msg pse pse pse k k k. This is the way my log book this evening looks. It’s enough to raise a blister on a wooden leg.   

Here is another sample of Digital Mode slush:--v v v v v v v v v v---------------- (Somebody sitting on his key.) v v v v v v v v v linneg se with the wlce sore feet commercial wirlih. Now what in Heaven’s name would you make out this? Is it to the effect that somebody has a line a commercial who is on the warpath for some amateur with sore feet? One cannot be sure of these matters. It might be that it is the commercial who has the sore feet, chasing down some poor amateur around town probably.   

Listen to this:-- Yes yes jst wyd glucky wait a mt muddy wouff hong bliftsfy monkey motor. We assume from this msg that Glucky is being asked to wait a minute while Blifsky seeks a wouff hong with which to wallop a monkey the next time the latter faces toward the motor. I do not think I know just exactly what a wouff hong is. Probably some piece of apparatus used in the southern states to beat monkeys with.   It is this form of uninteresting “conversation” which clutters up the air with DIGITAL MODE. Of what moment is it to the rest of the world that this fellow Blifsky is going to smear somebody’s monkey with.

It is this form of uninteresting “conversation” which clutters up the air with DIGITAL MODE. Of what moment is it to the rest of the world that this fellow Blifsky is going to smear somebody’s monkey with a wouff hong? When anybody relapses into such mental slop as to want to operate with a thing named a “wouff hong”, he ought to keep his trouble to himself and not compel all of us respectable amateurs to listen to his drool.  To slaves and slobber a lot of foolish twaddle like this when that poor girl out in Illinois has not had a letter since yesterday, is plain wicked.   

Sorry om Digital Mode Digital Mode 9vy few words schlipsh nuzzle his mucket faded undershirt cfrish reptg pain in neck sus gup om cul ark. This is a real relay, evidently. 9VY over in Fort Wayne is mixed up in it in some way. Whose undershirt they are talking about and what schlipshing one over is, I do not know exactly, although I have a rough idea. Whether the signals faded or the undershirt faded, or what was the matter with the sus gup of the neck of the undershirt, I be darned if I know.   

Just cast a lingering look at this:-- Biirgrmp bru rotary ge ge ugerumf om with my set rettysnitch spitty tone hit in potimus? Now what do you suppose the poor gink was trying to say when unreeled that? You have to guess a lot in wireless, and how would you guess this? Something is wrong with this fellow’s biirgrmph, his rotary also has a bad case of ugerumf and somebody around the place must have spit on his rettysnitch, because his tone was so rotten it hit him on his potimus. Sound bad to me. Why will some people send such personal matter by wireless when the whole country can overhear it. It isn’t decent, and it makes the DIGITAL MODE more rotten than ever, and just think of the way it makes a perfectly good log book appear.   

I spent the better part of an hour trying to make out what ailed the poor fellow’s biirgrmpg, but had to give it up while I listened to a child with a spark coil scratch out this at a rate of around three words a minute:-- how do s........e.......? how be .....? how do I cowp ....... cw ....v v v v v v --------------------come in ? ? ?ark After a long wait another trouble maker with a bad cold in his head stumbled back with:-- r r r r r r r r r r r r ok ok please ? ? ? ark Another pause followed by the first little demon with:-- r r r r r r r r r r qta qta qta pse rat . . . . . . . ve . . . . . . . .? pse ttt . . . . . . . . . . .qta pse repeat ark. These brats kept this up for twenty minutes and they ended up just where they began.   

What we ought to do is organize an Anti DIGITAL MODE Association. Then let us elect for Chairman the worst plug-ugly we can find in these U.S.A. Then let us chip in for a little money and hire a clerk with a bad disposition who will write letters threatening the life of everybody whom the members report as causing needless DIGITAL MODE. If anybody gets balky, we will all join together and swear the gink is sending with a decrement greater than two-tenths, and so report to the local Radio Inspector. If the latter does not within twenty-four hours have the boy arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment, we will all band together and find another job for said Radio Inspector. Let us rise, fellow bugs. Rise and crush this octopus which is engulfing and overwhelming us. Eight hours a day and triple time for overtime is death and starvation to our families. Hash for breakfast, rotten smelling fish, and DIGITAL MODE -- -- -- We will have naught of it. Down with the fellow with the scratchy spark coil, down with the fellow who calls three times three, down with the fellow who calls everybody he hears and down down down with that unspeakable skunk who calls somebody and sends a long relay message repeating each word three times when the station to which he is sending is sending something himself.   

There by heck, I have that off my chest. Now you there in Illinois, get this call. Let everybody else stand back from now on. I’m tired and sleepy and cross, and I don’t care who I DIGITAL MODE until I get that pin cleared off.   

-TOM


(http://www.amwindow.org/misc/jpg/tomam.jpg)

Maybe they might understand Scratchy Hashifisti.

Steve, TOW, where you quoted yer League man as saying  --
The bandwidth issue is to "facillitate" experimentation by those who desire, so they will not have to wait months for FCC approval to get permission...if they want to experiment on the air with a "non-traditional " mode...

Does he realize this could become part of a Comment OPPOSED?  So easy:

"Why should this group in Newington throw out a popular, longstanding method of coordination by mode, just so a very small group of people will not have to wait months for FCC approval to get permission...if they want to experiment on the air with a "non-traditional " mode..

I mean, sweet baby Jesus, why is it such a hardship to make a technical case, apply for, and receive approval to be added to the list of Approved emissions ?  Excellent gatekeeping function, IMHO.

"One lost membership $$ equates to selling one more Handbook to make up the difference in $$"

Great example Pete! The membership at large seems to matter less than Handbooks to the ARRL.

-ap

"why is it such a hardship to make a technical case, apply for, and receive approval to be added to the list of Approved emissions ?"

Maybe cause they're experimenters, and technical/software types, who view the process of FCC approval a long and drawn out procedure just to test their ideas and creations. New digital experimentation is not stagnant in the Amateur Radio Service.

It is not stagnant, nor is it in some sort of compelling rush that such experimenters need a blanket approval regardless of potential impact on existing users. They can make their case, seek approval and public comment, and wait.

Sorry, don't buy it. In my opinion, technology is moving too quickly to go through the long and tedious FCC processes of writing proposals, Comment phase, FCC typical time churn, etc.  each time a new experimental mode wants to be "aired". The "amateur radio grandpa service" is heading to pasture. The new boys are coming into the corral.

This is exactly the arrogant attitude that caused the membership problems for the league in the first place. How many more handbooks are they going to have to sell before they realize this?
Also, I think the income from yearly membership outweighs the value of selling a handbook. Usually a handbook can last an amateur a few years before buying a new one. Membership dues are collected every year.

Mike, 2ZE

Pete do you have reason to think this happens a lot ?
What, maybe once a year?  A dozen times a year?
Don't look now, but even commercial industry develops and submits technical proposals under a system of approval, and they're doing it far more often than any hobbyists you can name or point to.

I think I remember seeing some data about it either in some TAPR Proceedings or maybe in some past Digital Committee Minutes. I'll look around and see if I can drag them up. I think part of the issue is that these digital type experimenters are less visible to us since we don't travel in the same circles.

Pete,
Even if you find the odd experimenter who actually feels constrained by having to present and seek approval for any on-the-air experiments, can you establish that the proportion of such complaints is enough to toss out the popular system of approved modes?  There are already 1300 of them on the list, says the FCC, and even if there were 100 such proposals in the next ten years for digital, that does not seem to be a heavy burden on the experimenter.  After all, it's not that ham radio hobbyists stand a good chance of inventing something ahead of commerical industry with all their resources, or is that in fact what you're suggesting ?

Mike:
The point I was trying to make  here was to compare $$ to $$, not members to $$. Obviously, having a yearly (or 2 year, 3 year) reoccurring membership revenue is ideal. I was also told several years ago that repeat customers each year for Handbooks was quite common.
Also, in any large organization, membership churn is a fact of life since there is no way that the organization can please all the "special interests" all the time. Persaonally, I'm still in limbo whether I want to renew by AARP membership.

"1300 of them on the list" Are these in the Part 97 rules for the Amateur Radio Service? I don't recall seeing all these. Can you point to the particular section in Part 97?

I don't recall seeing all of them either.

But in a Report and Order dated Oct. 24, 1990, Ralph Haller, Chief, Private Radio Bureau, cited the "other 1300 emission types" besides AM.

His tally was affirmed by an Apr. 5, 1991 letter from Robert H. McNamara, Chief, Special Services Division, sent to our man Ron, WA3WBC.

SO there you go.

I understand your point Pete, but one member leaving represents much more than a handbook sale.
That lost member represents a much larger loss of revenue when you look at the larger picture.
I’m a biz guy and a bit of number nut so let’s look at this from a cost analysis.

Most ARRL members typically belong to the organization for duration of their “ham careers”.
Let’s assume the average League member is 35 and has 30 years of hamming left in him/her.

So that $30 per year is really closer to $900, and that’s assuming that “dues” remain static.
Members often purchase books, coffee cups, CDs, shirts, etc. from the League, so kick in another $150-200 over 30 years and you arrive at a “total member value” of at least $1000.
You have to sell a good number of handbooks to make up that $1000.
Having some knowledge of publishing, I doubt the League makes more than $10-15 per handbook, so the handbook number looks even slimmer.

Also one must consider the “collateral” revenue generated by members.
Existing and satisfied members will be more likely to refer, suggest or encourage other hams to join the League.
I know that I have influenced at least a dozen other amateurs to join the ARRL in the last 5 years.
So the loss of just 1 membership now amounts to not $1000, but $12,000 over the upcoming years.
I’m sure that I am not alone, and when you consider that hundreds others probably feel like W8TOW and me, that’s a pretty big hit on League revenue.
Certainly worthy of an answer from Dave Sumner or other League officials.

-Bruce W1UJR

I agree that having an increasing membership base is important, not so much for the revenue generation, but for the strength it shows to the groups that look to the organization for possible opinions, directions, etc. i.e. "strength in numbers"
Revenues pay for salaries and expenses. Cutbacks in existing revenue generation generally results in staff reduction or a cutback in Services. I don't see that happening anytime soon in either catagory.

I've played  "Let’s assume" scenario many times when I was in the corporate world. Given enough time and ambition, you can extrapolate numbers in just about any direction to show whatever you want. Back in 2003 or 2004, at Dayton over drinks, I was told that approximately 40% of the publishing revenue was generated from non members (amateurs), private individuals, and organizations. So, although the membership base is a revenue generator, and re-occurring revenue is good, it's not the only generator for revenue.

I'm not sure how this helps the current Amateur Radio Service if they're not covered under the current amateur radio rules and regulations. Besides the info being 15 years old, cellphones weight was about 3 pounds, 386 machines were hot, HDTV was still a dream, WiFi technologies non-existent, etc., and analog modes were still in the mainstream. Many digital advances in hardware, but mainly software,  are now measured in months not years.

Pete said:
I got news for you Pete: In 1990 386 machines were eclipsed by the 80486, and the Pentium was just begining to emerge. I remember hearing about HDTV as early as 1984~1985 the quarrel was as it continued to be until recently over format. Cell phones had graduated to less than a pound, (remember that small Shady O'Rack hand held?), Analog might have been the mainstream but the digital wave was actively pursued in the labs. You can figure from drawingboard to retail board about 20 years. And just as a footnote, the front runner of the digital data link, (I coralate it with AMTOR) was being actively used by the USN as early as 1958~1959.

So instead they will go through a long drawn out process to make radical changes to all of amateur radio. If this it is really the case of wanting to experiment, then why not petition the FCC to change the way new emission types/modes are legalized? Seems 11306 is a very round about, extremely disruptive and overly complex way to achieve such. Then again, I just don't see digital experimentation as a major driving force in amateur radio, probably not even a minor one. So, the motive you claim seems suspect at worst, logically inconsistent at best.

[quote author=Pete, WA2CWA link=topic=6984.msg51605#msg51605

Sorry, don't buy it. In my opinion, technology is moving too quickly to go through the long and tedious FCC processes of writing proposals, Comment phase, FCC typical time churn, etc.  each time a new experimental mode wants to be "aired". The "amateur radio grandpa service" is heading to pasture. The new boys are coming into the corral.

Your right Pete,--Technology HAS been moving TOO quickly over the past 20 years,
and the "bean counters" at the ARRL have not had a "clue" about how fast it has'
been moving,IMO.

--They have been too  busy trying to "get the numbers up",--IMO.

 As far as the "new boys" coming into the "corral"--its more like the "boys in
 NEWington that have been in their "private corral" for some time now, and
guess what,--many of these "old cowboys" don`t even know how to ride
or are real rusty, as they have been in the "saloon" too long, and probably
could not even find thier "old horse" if their life depended on it.
                           
                       "happy trails", in the sunset,--K1MVP

Well, since the point of the post was in the first line, I'll just skip to the second paragraph.

My Intel chart shows 386/386SL in 1990, 486/486/SL in 1991, and Pentium in late 92/early 93, into the consumer mainstream.

There were some concept documents written about HDTV in the late 70's at Bell Labs.

My first cellphone was in 96, so I missed the Radio Shack sale.

As far as digital data, from 70 through 76, I was a hardware designer, and then a systems  engineer for the Digital Data System, which provided a synchronous system for full-duplex, end-to-end transmission at speeds up to 64kb/s. Although initially designed for wire-line services, we also designed some additional cards to interface with satellite equipment to do transmission of educational and intructional courses directly to schools and colleges. So, yes, transmission of digital signals without wires has been around for some time.

"You can figure from drawingboard to retail board about 20 years" I'd like to hear your pitch to your management in today's time. When I left the corporate world several years ago, the "window of opportunity"  for getting a product from conception to "first ship" generally was 30 months or less. Case in point: look at the evolution of the digital cellphone over the last 3 to 4 years.

I agree that maybe it would have been easier to just "petition the FCC to change the way new emission types/modes are legalized". I got the impression that they were also concerned with the incompatibilities of analog and digitial signals trying to operate in the same or adjacent space. By providing a "framework with teeth"  within the band edges, narrow, medium, and wide modes will have similar neighbors. Look at it as the Levittown of amateur radio.

Anyway, I read it in eHam and QRZ, so it must be right.

Many Executives and management types have to worry about the bottom line. If they didn't, the organization would crumble. Also executive types generally step back to view the bigger picture and don't get focused on the local issues. In the case of the ARRL, it should be the main job of the Directors to identify, propose, and bring to resolution, the more localized or current amateur radio issues.

"ARRL have not had a "clue" about how fast it has'been moving,IMO."

If they didn't have a clue, then they probably wouldn't have developed a proposal for the future of the Amateur Radio Service.

Pete -- where you said:
If they didn't have a clue, then they probably wouldn't have developed a proposal for the future of the Amateur Radio Service.

They did not develop such a proposal.

What they developed, by their own admission, was a promotional tool for the category of digital communications. There is nothing in their Petition that encompasses the "future" of the hobby, and they specifically limit their focus to digital as an all-eggs-in-one-basket presumption.

Planned ARRL Petition to the FCC to Regulate Subbands by Bandwidth

August 10, 2004
SYNOPSIS OF THE ARRL BANDWIDTH PETITION
In summary, there is a need to permit higher speed digital data communications in the bands between 1.8 and 450 MHz. The simplest means of streamlining the Commission's rules, while at the same time providing maximum flexibility for the incorporation of new digital communications looking forward to the next decade, is to provide for band segmentation by bandwidth rather than by emission mode in the Part 97 Rules.

The complete text:
http://www.arrl.org/announce/bandwidth.html

In my opinion, I believe they view the traditional analog modes have been riding the flat side of their life cycle curve for years and a downward turn is probably going to come over the next 10 to 20 years. On the other hand, the digital evolution into the Amateur Service is just starting its upward movement on the life cycle curve. It's best to develop a plan now on how to accommodate these new modes, and their interaction with traditional analog modes,  to make the transition as smooth as possible.

Pete,

Surely you did not think we am`ers,(being the mavericks we are), were just going
to "sit back" and let these proposals by the ARRL(city slickers) get away with
pushing it down our throats without raising some "ruckus".

Some of us would, try to force a "showdown", and at least attempt to get
the "bad guys" out of town.

                                         73, K1MVP
 
P.S, my horse is also "tired"--again "happy trails" again. 
   

"In my opinion, I believe they view the traditional analog modes have been riding the flat side of their life cycle curve for years and a downward turn is probably going to come over the next 10 to 20 years. On the other hand, the digital evolution into the Amateur Service is just starting its upward movement on the life cycle curve. It's best to develop a plan now on how to accommodate these new modes, and their interaction with traditional analog modes,  to make the transition as smooth as possible."

1. The traditional analog modes have been the predominant operations on amateur radio. Some have, indeed, declined. Others have significantly increased. Therefore, your statement is too broad and not reflective of reality. There are significantly more analog phone operators and increasing as a percentage of active operators.

2. The digital 'evolution' terminology implies that it is inevitable as a significant mode in amateur radio. Since digital radio has been around for nearly 20 years commercially the evolution, or more accurately, transition, to amateur radio operation has been unremarkable. Amateur digital voice is quite literally a statistical non entity (<1% of total operations). That leaves the keyboard digital modes which are great transitions from RTTY. Keyboard digital however, is also a rather small player, albiet huge by comparison to digital phone. Finally, we have email or internet access via amateur radio which has almost no support except from those who would misuse amateur radio to obtain services more appropriately acquired by commercial means.

Will there be digital phone in the future? I would say so. Limiting the actual transition from commercial digital phone to amateur radio digital phone by defining the bandwidth and mask of digital phone is the antithesis of accommodation and fostering of experimentation in those modes.

So, the basis of your opinion and the execution of that opinion in the ARRL proposal is seriously flawed from a technical as well as operational perspective.

In my opinion the ARRL and your statement are pandering to a very limited subset of radio amateurs and the 'digital evolution' cited as the rationale for doing so is highly suspect.

-ap

Pete said:
I don't know the accuracy of your chart but I was working on desk top systems for NASA with 80386 processors in them in late 1987. When I got to my current employer in 1992, they were at the edge of the 80486 capability and in '93~'94 began phasing them out in favor of the Pentium. Hell, microprocessor technology was know as far back as 1972 but the metallurgy wasn't available, (again the military takes the lead).

Pete stated:
Heck I thought all hi tech people had one of those! Cripes I didn't meet a contractor that was without one of those little square jobbers with the rubber duck antenna!

Pete opined:
No argument here. Forget quality, get the product out on the shelves and start getting that return on the capital invested in research. Of course look what it got us. I can use the current Vioxx debacle as one example that is near and dear to my heart, (pun intended) But back in the 70's that was the amount of time. I'll give you a recent example: In 1988, I was returning from Atlanta on an Eastern Airlines Flight. Seated next to me was a biochemist who was telling me at that time the great discovery he had been working on the last five years known as "left-handed" sugar. Diabetics could eat it with out any effects on their blood sugar. Today we know it as Splenda which hit the markets about 2000.

Jan. 1969:
Busicom, a Japanese calculator manufacturer, asks Intel to build a custom-chip set for a new calculator. Ted Hoff suggests that instead of set of chips, they create a general-purpose programmable chip called the 4004 processor.

April 1969:
Computer Terminal Corporation visits Intel, asking them to integrate about 100 TTL components of their Datapoint 2200 terminal's 8-bit CPU into a few chips. Ted Hoff says they could put it all on one chip, so Intel and CTC sign a contract for it. (The resulting chip becomes Intel's 8008 processor.)

April 1971:
Intel renegotiates its contract with Busicom, gaining Intel the right to market the 4004 microprocessor openly in non-calculator applications. Intel returns US$60,000 to Busicom in exchange for product rights to the 4004 processor.

June 1971:
Texas Instruments runs an advertisement in Electronics magazine, showing a "CPU on a Chip" that it developed for Computer Terminal's Datapoint 2200 terminal. Gary Boone, of Texas Instruments, files a patent application relating to a single-chip computer

I think the military was out shooting or playing with their guns during this time. I can't find them on any chart.
I did a design of an experimental data set that used  "flat pack" processors at Bell Labs  during the summer of 71.

FDA approval always takes a long time to get things blessed.

Jan. 1969:
Busicom, a Japanese calculator manufacturer, asks Intel to build a custom-chip set for a new calculator. Ted Hoff suggests that instead of set of chips, they create a general-purpose programmable chip called the 4004 processor.

April 1969:
Computer Terminal Corporation visits Intel, asking them to integrate about 100 TTL components of their Datapoint 2200 terminal's 8-bit CPU into a few chips. Ted Hoff says they could put it all on one chip, so Intel and CTC sign a contract for it. (The resulting chip becomes Intel's 8008 processor.)

April 1971:
Intel renegotiates its contract with Busicom, gaining Intel the right to market the 4004 microprocessor openly in non-calculator applications. Intel returns US$60,000 to Busicom in exchange for product rights to the 4004 processor.

June 1971:
Texas Instruments runs an advertisement in Electronics magazine, showing a "CPU on a Chip" that it developed for Computer Terminal's Datapoint 2200 terminal. Gary Boone, of Texas Instruments, files a patent application relating to a single-chip computer

I think the military was out shooting or playing with their guns during this time. I can't find them on any chart.
I did a design of an experimental data set that used  "flat pack" processors at Bell Labs  during the summer of 71.

Was easy to find the info:
Microprocessor Articles:
QST August 1976, Meeting the Microprocessor, Part 1  (there were several Parts in later issues)
Ham Radio Mag, December 1975 Introduction to Microprocessors

(Don't have the CQ or 73 mag. indexes handy to see when they started)

Prior to 1976, QST also  had some articles on computer aided designs, computer aided calculations for different types of components, etc.

Early on, microprocessors and memory chips were not cheap devices and not readily available at your local electronic store.

Pete said:
In the AN/UYK-20 which I was taught at DS "A" school in Vallejo, CA, they used what was called a microprocessor emulator. In essence it was four 4-bit ROMS that performed all CPU's micro instructions. This was done because they didn't have the means to make a 16-bit microprocessor although it was on the drawing board in 1972 when this computer was constructed for the military by then Sperry Univac (now Unisys). In its basic form upto 1984, it came with 64K of 4-wire traditional core memory, (hence no memory chips). In 1985 a retrofit was issued adding another 64K of core memory to the stack. It had a read time of ~ 42 micro seconds and write time of ~ 20. The reason it took so long is that core memory is non-volitile destructive read. Any read cycle had to re-write the information back to the stack. The only memory chips I can recall were in the RMU-605 AN/UYA-4 refresh memory unit which was built in the late 70's and utilized static ram for distribution of data and to make up for the slow processing speed of the mainframes, Sperry Univac 642-A/B's. All of this stuff was flat packs and dual-in-line chips and was technology of the early 70's.

All of this presupposed the x386 line was cutting edge in the field of microprocessors. They weren't/aren't. :'(