Underdeveloped ARRL

[Art]

"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

[Pete, WA2CWA]

"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.

"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.

[WA3VJB]

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.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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.

[2ZE]

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

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

[WA3VJB]

each time a new experimental mode wants to be "aired".

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.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

each time a new experimental mode wants to be "aired".

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.

[WA3VJB]

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 ?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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

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

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.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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 ?

"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?

[WA3VJB]

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.

[W1UJR]

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 $$ equates to selling one more Handbook to make up the difference in $$.

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

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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'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.

[W3SLK]

Pete said:

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.

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.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

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.

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.

[K1MVP]

[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

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Pete said:

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.

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.

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.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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.

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.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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.
                           
                       "happy trails", in the sunset,--K1MVP

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, WA2CWA]

You guys are tiring me out. If I renounce my ARRL support, I probably wouldn’t have to respond so often.

…..but, where would be the fun

[WA3VJB]

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.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

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.

[K1MVP]

You guys are tiring me out. If I renounce my ARRL support, I probably wouldn’t have to respond so often.

…..but, where would be the fun

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. 
   

[Art]

"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