ARRL Membership Rises for 2007

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Things are looking up for the ARRL.

Membership for 2005 - 148,887
Membership for 2006 - 148,641

ARRL Letter, dated June 22, 2007:
With now close to 152,000 members, the ARRL is going, and growing, strong. ARRL Customer Service Manager Amy Hurtado, KB1NXO, says the "ARRL is a viable, up-to-date organization that every ham should be a part of."
 
Hurtado credits the rise in membership in part to the FCC rule changes earlier this year that eliminated Morse code testing for the General and Amateur Extra license classes. "Since more people were upgrading their licenses as a result of there being no Morse code requirement, we were successfully able to show them the benefits of being an ARRL member," she said.
 
One of the many benefits of ARRL membership, Hurtado said, is the monthly subscription to QST, the official journal of the ARRL. Other benefits of ARRL membership include a QST/QEX/NCJ index search on the ARRL Web site; operating awards; outgoing QSL service; access to the Technical Information Service; available ham radio equipment insurance program and more. Members can also get an arrl.net e-mail address through the ARRL e-mail forwarding service.
 
Hurtado went on to say that new, renewing and lapsed members can join the ARRL in many ways. "About 40-50 percent of membership enrollment is online. We also have people join after taking a licensing exam, by calling us on the phone, by answering a direct mail package or by joining up at their local hamfest."
 
If you are interested in joining the ARRL or renewing your present membership, please see the ARRL Web site <http:/www.arrl.org/join>.

[k4kyv]

Now if they would just throw in a subscription to QEX with membership, or better still, re-combine it with QST...

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Now if they would just throw in a subscription to QEX with membership, or better still, re-combine it with QST...

QEX is far too technical for QST. Remember not all hams are "technical" nor do they want or claim to be.
From the QEX Page, http://www.arrl.org/qex/
The mission of QEX is to:
1. provide a medium for the exchange of ideas and information among Amateur Radio experimenters,
2. document advanced technical work in the Amateur Radio field, and
3. support efforts to advance the state of the Amateur Radio art.

Each issue delivers up to four times the technical material found in each QST. Our 64 pages usually accommodate seven to ten articles, plus letters and other interesting items. We strive to maintain a balance between theoretical and practical content. Articles range from simple construction projects to progress in radio theory.


To add these 64 pages to QEX probably would cost of good chunk of expense. If I remember correctly, because of the way the Journal is assembled, for every one page you want to add, you have to add 7 more.

QEX is better suited as it is and helps to generate revenue as an additional bimonthly publication.

[k4kyv]

QEX is far too technical for QST. Remember not all hams are "technical" nor do they want or claim to be.
From the QEX Page, http://www.arrl.org/qex/
The mission of QEX is to:
1. provide a medium for the exchange of ideas and information among Amateur Radio experimenters,
2. document advanced technical work in the Amateur Radio field, and
3. support efforts to advance the state of the Amateur Radio art.

But doesn't that describe exactly a major aspect of the basis and purpose of amateur radio, as defined in Part 97.1?

Each issue delivers up to four times the technical material found in each QST. Our 64 pages usually accommodate seven to ten articles, plus letters and other interesting items. We strive to maintain a balance between theoretical and practical content. Articles range from simple construction projects to progress in radio theory.

To add these 64 pages to QEX probably would cost of good chunk of expense. If I remember correctly, because of the way the Journal is assembled, for every one page you want to add, you have to add 7 more.

QEX is better suited as it is

So 9 extra pages would add a block of 63 more to the total - almost exactly one bi-monthly issue. If spread out evenly, it would amount to 32 extra pages per month in QST.  That would add twice again the technical content of each issue as compared to the present. The fraction of the magazine devoted to technical issues would still be much smaller than it was prior to the 1970's. To cut down the total page count, some of the stuff that now appears in QST could just as effectively be moved to the ARRL's members-only website.  Nearly all the ham radio "news" in QST is stale by the time members receive it in the magazine, having long ago been disseminated to the amateur community via the internet and over the air.

True, a lot of hams may not be interested in the technical aspects of radio, but many others are equally uninterested in the nauseating human interest drivel that regularly fills QST.

Remember, the ARRL almost did itself in over the incentive licensing debacle, in the name of promoting the technical aspects of amateur radio.  If the League endorses your argument, then that is a blatant admission that incentive licensing was a dismal failure in terms of its intended purpose.  If that's the case, why hasn't the League petitioned the FCC to do away with the last remnants of incentive licensing and eliminate the exclusive Extra/Advanced subbands on both the phone and cw/digital portions of the HF bands?

Every month QST is looking more and more like the beginner's publication that Ham Radio magazine tried publishing for a short period before they went belly-up.  Remember that magazine called Ham Radio Horizons?

I look back at my collection of 1920's-1960's QST magazines, as well as early 73's, and even CQ from 1945 until sometime in the 60's, not to mention the now defunct west coast RADIO and R/9 magazines.  They all contained plenty of in-depth articles on technical and experimentation topics.  If that could have been done then, why not now?

and helps to generate revenue as an additional bimonthly publication.

I'm afraid that has all too much to do with it.


No wonder the technical side of ham radio is rapidly going down the toilet, if newcomers are being led by the major ham radio publications and "establishment" to believe that amateur radio is all about appliance operating and that technical experimentation is limited to the status of an obscure, esoteric speciality.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

QEX is far too technical for QST. Remember not all hams are "technical" nor do they want or claim to be.
From the QEX Page, http://www.arrl.org/qex/
The mission of QEX is to:
1. provide a medium for the exchange of ideas and information among Amateur Radio experimenters,
2. document advanced technical work in the Amateur Radio field, and
3. support efforts to advance the state of the Amateur Radio art.

But doesn't that describe exactly a major aspect of the basis and purpose of amateur radio, as defined in Part 97.1?

So what does Part 97.1 have to do with the publication of the member's Journal, QST?

So 9 extra pages would add a block of 63 more to the total - almost exactly one bi-monthly issue. If spread out evenly, it would amount to 32 extra pages per month in QST.  That would add twice again the technical content of each issue as compared to the present. The fraction of the magazine devoted to technical issues would still be much smaller than it was prior to the 1970's. To cut down the total page count, some of the stuff that now appears in QST could just as effectively be moved to the ARRL's members-only website.  Nearly all the ham radio "news" in QST is stale by the time members receive it in the magazine, having long ago been disseminated to the amateur community via the internet and over the air.

I'm sure adding 32 or 24 pages per month would add substantial cost to the Journal and membership fees. Not all amateurs get their "ham news" via the internet or over the air bulletins.

True, a lot of hams may not be interested in the technical aspects of radio, but many others are equally uninterested in the nauseating human interest drivel that regularly fills QST.

Remember, you join the ARRL to help support all their activities. You're not buying a subscription to QST. They're not demanding that you need to read it. If it has no use to you, donate it to your local school library each month. Maybe some young kid might find it fascinating to read and maybe get the ham bug. Lining the bottom of a bird cage with it also works for some people.

Remember, the ARRL almost did itself in over the incentive licensing debacle, in the name of promoting the technical aspects of amateur radio.  If the League endorses your argument, then that is a blatant admission that incentive licensing was a dismal failure in terms of its intended purpose.  If that's the case, why hasn't the League petitioned the FCC to do away with the last remnants of incentive licensing and eliminate the exclusive Extra/Advanced subbands on both the phone and cw/digital portions of the HF bands?

Every month QST is looking more and more like the beginner's publication that Ham Radio magazine tried publishing for a short period before they went belly-up.  Remember that magazine called Ham Radio Horizons?

I look back at my collection of 1920's-1960's QST magazines, as well as early 73's, and even CQ from 1945 until sometime in the 60's, not to mention the now defunct west coast RADIO and R/9 magazines.  They all contained plenty of in-depth articles on technical and experimentation topics.  If that could have been done then, why not now?

I believe, several years ago in an ARRL editorial it was said, that in hindsight, incentive licensing probably was not a good thing. But almost 40 years later, it's water over the dam. ARRL tried several years ago to petition the FCC to roll all the Advanced into Extras and the FCC turned them down. Requesting to remove the subbands probably would get them the same response. QST has to have a little of everything for all the amateur radio skill set. It's not a technical publication; it's the member's journal. If you want a technical publication, get a subscription to QEX. 1920's to the 60's, 70's, etc. are history. Time and interests change, and move on.
You also said, "If that could have been done then, why not now?" You answered this in your last paragraph below.

and helps to generate revenue as an additional bimonthly publication.

I'm afraid that has all too much to do with it.
No wonder the technical side of ham radio is rapidly going down the toilet, if newcomers are being led by the major ham radio publications and "establishment" to believe that amateur radio is all about appliance operating and that technical experimentation is limited to the status of an obscure, esoteric specialty.

[W1DAN]

Gee...

I've heard this discussion before ;-)

And I will not buy QEX for the reason Don states. It should be a part of my membership (and yes I am smart enough for it).

To paraphrase an old fiction book...Some hams are more equal than others..........

73
Dan
W1DAN

[Pete, WA2CWA]

If QEX was owned and published by CQ Publications or some other publisher, would you buy it?

And yep, the same QEX discussion comes up every several months with the same pros and cons. The real plus is that membership is up.

[W1DAN]

Pete:

Yes I would buy it if it were not owned by the ARRL. Who pays the salary of these writers and editors? Me and you. So I should have the benefit of their work.

And yes, I am very happy membership is up.

Looking forward to more elmering opportunities!

73,
dan
W1DAN

[W3SLK]

Pete quoted:

With now close to 152,000 members

That should read , "......with the ARRgghhL conning close to 152,000 members......"

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete:
Yes I would buy it if it were not owned by the ARRL. Who pays the salary of these writers and editors? Me and you. So I should have the benefit of their work.

And yes, I am very happy membership is up.

Looking forward to more elmering opportunities!
73,
dan
W1DAN

Weak argument Dan. Who pays the writers and editors for the Handbook, Antenna Book, Microwave Handbook, etc? Maybe they should be distributed for free too. Who pays for the paper that the printer prints on, who pays for the collating, binding, and distribution for all these publications including QST, QEX, and Contest Journal? The real point I see trying to be made here is that because “I’m a member”, publications like QEX should be distributed for free because "I’m a technical guy” and only want to read that stuff. Technically oriented members shouldn't have to pay for it because it was in QST in the last century when QST sold for $.35 a copy.  Of course, they probably could give some of this stuff away if they raised the membership fees to say $75 a year or cut away some of the current or on-going services expenses.

Business models change over time, and it could be that the “50/60’s technical poster ham” in all its forms, is no longer the “top dog” in the arena of amateur radio.

But, what do I know; my main rig doesn't even have knobs.

[W1DAN]

Pete:

It is not a weak argument to me.

Dan

[AG4YO]

I think the technical Amateur is in the minority now. The last QST had two "projects" consisting of a diode, two resistors and a capacitor.  Everyone has to start somewhere I know, but it struck me as funny. The last QST and CQ also had articles trying to get DXers to behave in pile-ups.   QRZ.COM has been rife with threads about how hard it is to tune a SSB signal, someone noticing static on 75M, alternate phonetics, how do you ground a dipole, nobody answering someone's CQ, why do people want to be on 75M anyway, tube rigs are too hard to tune, etc.

Maybe I am adding 2+2 and getting 5, but although I can see these people as "new" ARRL members I would guess that reading QEX would not be high on their list.  I'd love to get it for free as a member but I can see where it would be a big waste of dollars to send it to everyone.

 

[k4kyv]

...The last QST had two "projects" consisting of a diode, two resistors and a capacitor... QRZ.COM has been rife with threads about how hard it is to tune a SSB signal, someone noticing static on 75M, alternate phonetics, how do you ground a dipole, nobody answering someone's CQ, why do people want to be on 75M anyway, tube rigs are too hard to tune, etc...

These are also the same people (or perhaps people with the same perspective on ham radio) who, in years past, have petitioned to have AM eliminated because it is "takes up 20 kHz of spectrum", has a "3.5 kHz wide carrier", is "the same thing as CB", is "outdated", etc.

A few years ago I had a run-in with a group of right-off-CB SSB'ers on 160, who had not yet even shed the CB lingo.  They were griping about my AM carrier causing a squeal on their conversation, even though I had been in QSO on that frequency for over an hour at the time they chose to start up just 2 kHz above  my carrier frequency.  I listened as they ran the gamut of the tired old arguments about why AM ought to be outlawed.  Then one of them made the brilliant statement that the station in GA (with whom I was in QSO, who was using a DX-100) was running regular AM, but that I "was running AM and sideband at the same time" with my homebrew HF-300 rig.  He went on to say he didn't know how I was doing it, but he was "pretty sure it's illegal."

Shortly thereafter, the vanity callsign program went into effect.  Within a matter of days, nearly every member of that group magically appeared with a W4 prefix two-letter call.  That extinguished once and for all any thoughts I had been entertaining about opting for a re-issued 1X2, verifying that a W callsign with a two-letter suffix, along with the extra class licence, had lost virtually all its significance. 

I chose to retain my long-held original callsign.

[W1DAN]

Don:

Gee, when the vanity call system came out I changed my call from KA5DNH to W1DAN.

(I used to listen to you ALL the time in New Orleans;-).

I've been having problems eliminating my carrier in my AM rig......

To comment on AG4YO's post, welcome to this thread. I do see that QSI has some simple articles and "intro to ham operating" style articles too. I think the ARRL is hitting the mark for the new hams and am glad they are doing it.

I also see that people like me (techies) are a minority, and I buy some of their tech books.

However I fruitlessly hope that they include me (a techie) in their main organ of the League. I feel they discriminate against people like me simply because they can make more $$.

Thanks and have a great 4th!

73,
Dan
W1DAN