Why I won't subscribe

[WA3VJB]

From: Breen,Katie, W1KRB <kbreen@arrl.org>   
To: membership <membership@arrl.org>
Date: Sep 22, 2006 2:32 PM
Subject: ARRL: Invitation from Katie W1KRB

Hello Fellow Ham !!
 
My name is Katie, W1KRB and I am a new ham! I am also one of the newest staff members at ARRL--the national association for Amateur Radio.
 
When I came to ARRL 6 months ago as the new Membership Manager, I honestly didn’t know anything about Amateur Radio. I came here with a background in non-profit and government management.
--edit--
PS. If you choose not to re-join the ARRL, would you be so kind as to take a moment and share your story with me? Please don’t hold back – share!!! Write to me directly at w1krb@arrl.org


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Paul Courson
Date: Sep 22, 2006 3:11 PM
Subject: Why I won't subscribe
To: --w1krb@arrl.org


Katie Breen, W1KRB
Membership Manager

Dear Katie,

Thanks for soliciting my membership, and your records are correct that
I chose to discontinue my subscription.

Sumner and Hobart were both aware several years ago that I had placed
the ARRL on probation when I decided to again join your group after I
had previously discontinued subscribing for a period of more than 20
years. I subsequently "renewed" your probationary status four times,
each time enclosing a note documenting progress and deficits toward
the terms of my subscription.

My conditions of rejoining were simple, but ultimately they were not
met. They included regular inclusion by ARRL staff of the mode and
specialty of AM, and a request that the League treat our activity on
an equal basis with other specialties favorably represented in ARRL
publications, its regulatory deliberations, and its flagship magazine,
QST.

A halfhearted attempt on your group's part began with articles from
freelancers that have been published (see the ARRL's web page), but
inexplicably, there has been no matching presence recorded in license
manuals, the ARRL Handbook, and in training materials for the Official
Observer program.

http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/am.html

There has been no material on AM developed and published by ARRL
staff, and Sumner has declined, through your Station Manager, Joe
Carcia, to adhere to the League's Considerate Operator's Guide by
using AM for W1AW voice transmissions on the AM gathering point of
7290Kc. Instead the station continues to use an incompatible mode in
violation of this suggested guideline and in conflict with accepted
voluntary practice.

But the most recent insult to the thousands of active, enthusiastic
participants in our part of the hobby comes with wording in your
latest edition of the Technican Class license manual. Please review it
for yourself.  We consider these licensees strong candidates to
transition to a facet of HF activity they can understand and can
become excited about. Your characterization is contrary to that, and
we resent it.

Please find ways to recover my subscription support, and feel free to
distribute this response to your query in case anyone in a position of
power has suddenly become receptive and eager to implement what it
will take to represent our part of the hobby.

73,

Paul/VJB

[Pete, WA2CWA]

VJB said-But the most recent insult to the thousands of active, enthusiastic
participants in our part of the hobby comes with wording in your
latest edition of the Technican Class license manual. Please review it
for yourself. 

Not having the Tech Q&A, I have no idea what is printed, but, even if they said AM sucks and is lower than dirt, your next two lines have me really scratching my head

We consider these licensees strong candidates to transition to a facet of HF activity they can understand and can become excited about. Your characterization is contrary to that, and we resent it.

Who is this "We consider" ......"we resent it"
It seems to me, IMO, that you are trying to speak for all AM operators ("We" or maybe "We" is some other group; need to clarify) who enjoy this facet of amateur radio, or did you accidentally put on your Sparky hat when you wrote this paragraph.

[Joe Long]

Why would you want to spend all that money for a Japanese radio catalog?

[k4kyv]

VJB said-But the most recent insult to the thousands of active, enthusiastic
participants in our part of the hobby comes with wording in your
latest edition of the Technican Class license manual. Please review it
for yourself. 

Not having the Tech Q&A, I have no idea what is printed...

Neither do I, but I am curious.

Paul, for the rest of us, could you excerpt from that manual the sentences or pargraphs in question?  You  have piqued  my curiosity.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The ARRL sucks. I hate it. They are idiots. QST sucks too. I wouldn't line the bottom of my bird's cage with it (if I had one, been thinking of getting one just so I can do it). Their manuals suck too. Not worthy of starting a fire (if I had a fireplace.. wait I do, never mind). They're all evil. The world is soon going to end. Boo!

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Why would you want to spend all that money for a Japanese radio catalog?

QST, November 2006, cover to cover 164 pages: 
Japanese radio Ads, full, half, or 1/4 page - total 13; Ads from American Companies selling same along with a lot of American-made accessories - full, half, or 1/4 page - total 10

Hardly a Japanese radio catalog.

Membership dues is $39 per year; Roughly $17.55 of that goes for QST or about $1.46 per month or about 5 cents per day.

Membership is not about a subscription to a magazine; there are a number of other benefits:
http://www.arrl.org/services.html
or
http://www.arrl.org/2003-Mem-Brochure.pdf

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

This subscription angle is old and tired. I've read in 1930's ham rags where people were ineffectually making the same point. Some things never change.


Wonder how many of the anti-Japanese radio types drive Japanese cars?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

This subscription angle is old and tired. I've read in 1930's ham rags where people were ineffectually making the same point. Some things never change.

Wonder how many of the anti-Japanese radio types drive Japanese cars?

Even worse, how do you even define Japanese cars - made in Japan, made in U. S. by Japanese owned Companies, or both. The world is getting smaller and it's all the ARRL's fault.

[W1RKW]

Quality is a number 1 priority. 

Where?

If "plastic" is quality I quit.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Explain why plastic cannot equate to quality.

[K1JJ]

Explain why plastic cannot equate to quality.

A plastic tuxedo?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

This statement:

If "plastic" is quality I quit.

fits in the same catagory as the original poster's statement including the word "We":

We consider these licensees strong candidates to transition to a facet of HF activity they can understand and can become excited about. Your characterization is contrary to that, and we resent it.

What are you guys talking about?
I must be missing something here.

[W1RKW]

Explain why plastic cannot equate to quality.

I equate quality with longevity and plastic doesn't cut the mustard.  I go and buy a garden hose and the couplings are plastic.  Try to pull the hose and the plastic fractures after a few years of service.  If the couplings were made out of good ole metal ie. brass like they used to be, no problem.  Every where you turn the things that you want to buy and remember as being good ole metal are made of cheap ass plastic.
And come to think of it is seems like plastic parts are not cheap.

Troubleshoot something under the hood of your car because it doesn't run right and chances are that the stupid little vacuum tee that broke is made of some sort of plastic.  If it were made of metal what are the chances of it breaking?

Plastic does not last.  It becomes brittle over time.  The plasticisers leech out of the material causing the plastic itself to become less flexible and brittle.  Metal does not do that. 

Don't get me wrong. Plastic does have it's places but it has infiltrated places where it does not belong.

And in case of the ARRL.  I think the ARRL is plastic and has been plastic long before the invention of plastic.

[k4kyv]

Membership dues is $39 per year; Roughly $17.55 of that goes for QST or about $1.46 per month or about 5 cents per day.

Membership only for $21.45 would be a better deal.

Or better still, keep it at $39 a year, with a choice between QST and QEX, since they can't seem to find room amongst the drivel in QST to include in-depth technical articles. 

The membership news is stale by the time it arrives in the mail in QST anyway; the same information always appeared on the internet weeks earlier.

Why not move QST completely online, as they did a few years ago with ARRL Letter, and make QEX the standard membership paper publication?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Membership dues is $39 per year; Roughly $17.55 of that goes for QST or about $1.46 per month or about 5 cents per day.

Membership only for $21.45 would be a better deal.

Or better still, keep it at $39 a year, with a choice between QST and QEX, since they can't seem to find room amongst the drivel in QST to include in-depth technical articles. 

The membership news is stale by the time it arrives in the mail in QST anyway; the same information always appeared on the internet weeks earlier.

Why not move QST completely online, as they did a few years ago with ARRL Letter, and make QEX the standard membership paper publication?

I’m willing to bet there are still lots of QST readers out there that don’t have a computer, or if they do, probably are on a dial-up or crank-up line. Maybe in ten years or so, this might be a better consideration. If they made QEX the membership paper publication, then for sure, you’ll have lots of P & M from the non-techie types who have no interest in in-depth technical articles or elaborate technical construction articles. Further, in order to make QEX as the standard, and still collect monthly advertiser revenue, which are big bucks (even a 1/12 size ad can make you gasp), QEX would have to page expand to include all the types of ads you presently see in each month of QST. Some time back, it seems to me, that ARRL ran an on line survey on QST content. I seem to remember that QST Workbench, Product Reviews, and a number of the monthly Departments (How’s DX, World above 50 MHz,  Contest Corral, Old Radio, etc.) got high marks.

I still get my AAA and AARP monthly magazines as part of my membership. A lot of the content is also on their respective web sites but their corporate world is not going to give up the ad revenue and put it all on line anytime soon.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Plastic is cheap. Tell that to people with metal cars that rusted out. Tell that to the Class E boys and their plastic cased transistors. Tell that to all the people with maintenance free vinyl siding on their houses. Take all the plastic insulation off the wires in your station, go ahead, I dare ya. Get rid of the carpet in your house or car, cause they have plastic in it. Remove your water and sewage pipes too. Take most of the food out of your refrigerator and cupboard, since they are in plastic containers. Take away plastic and your life would end. You wouldn't even have a computer to type your message on. Plastics have been around for over 100 years. Come on fella, plastic ain't the problem. Neither are Japanese radios. Let's get real here.

[KB2WIG]

     "I just want to say one word to you - just one word.
      Are you listening?"








"plastics"

[Tom WA3KLR]

Bakelite is a plastic, isn't it?

[Pete, WA2CWA]

Bakelite is a plastic, isn't it?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Bakelite is a brand named material based on the thermosetting phenol formaldehyde resin polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride, developed in 1907–1909 by Dr. Leo Baekeland. Formed by the reaction under heat and pressure of phenol and formaldehyde, generally with a wood flour filler, it was the first plastic made from synthetic polymers."

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the "Why I won't subscribe" initial post". I'm still waiting for a memorable answer to who are the "we".

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the "Why I won't subscribe" initial post".

Kinda my point Pete. Not to mention, commenting on someone's signature/tagline is considered bad form.

[k4kyv]

I still get my AAA and AARP monthly magazines as part of my membership. A lot of the content is also on their respective web sites but their corporate world is not going to give up the ad revenue and put it all on line anytime soon.

AARP sends out TWO publications to its members.  One is a monthly slick paper magazine, and the other is a tabloid.  Not sure what intervals the tabloid goes out.

If AARP can do it, so  can ARRL.  If they can't fit everything into QST, then they should send BOTH publications to paid members for the price of the dues.

It really pisses me off that the League is sucking up to the appliance op community to the point that as a paid member I don't have access to what is oriented to MY interests in ham radio that include indepth technical articles, without paying extra.  Why don't the contesters or other interest groups within the amateur community have to pay extra for THEIR drivel?

Taking the technical stuff out of QST is a slap in the face to what ham radio is supposed to be all about.

Remember the "Experimenter's Section" in QST?  If they were able to include everything under one cover in 1966, why can't they do it in 2006?

Maybe the name of the magazine should be changed from "QST" to "S9."

[W3DBB]

.

[Pete, WA2CWA]

I still get my AAA and AARP monthly magazines as part of my membership. A lot of the content is also on their respective web sites but their corporate world is not going to give up the ad revenue and put it all on line anytime soon.

AARP sends out TWO publications to its members.  One is a monthly slick paper magazine, and the other is a tabloid.  Not sure what intervals the tabloid goes out.

The tabloid is monthly and printed on smooth news print type paper. Probably a half-step up from cheap raw news print type paper. Most of the info is also on their web site and you can't turn a page without running into a half or full page ad. The AARP paper magazine is printed every two months. It comes with  saddle stitch binding which means it nevers lays flat and can catch easy on every mechanical postal sorter. I periodically get mine in Postal ("I'm Sorry") type plastic bag.

If AARP can do it, so  can ARRL.  If they can't fit everything into QST, then they should send BOTH publications to paid members for the price of the dues.

The current Oct. QST has about 160 pages; the current AARP mag Sep/Oct 2006 also has about 160 pages. Counting all the AARP Ad pages, with mostly full page Ads, numbers 99. So 99 out of 160 pages are nothing but Ads.That can generate a lot of revenue but dwarfs the number of Ads run typically each month in QST.  I'm sure QST would love to get 99 pages of Ad revenue each month but that sure wouldn't make members happy.

The current QEX evolved from the remnants of Ham Radio Magazine and Communications Quarterly. If you had a paid subscription to either or both of those magazines, why do you believe you’re entitled to get it free now?

It really pisses me off that the League is sucking up to the appliance op community to the point that as a paid member I don't have access to what is oriented to MY interests in ham radio that include indepth technical articles, without paying extra.  Why don't the contesters or other interest groups within the amateur community have to pay extra for THEIR drivel?

Taking the technical stuff out of QST is a slap in the face to what ham radio is supposed to be all about.

Remember the "Experimenter's Section" in QST?  If they were able to include everything under one cover in 1966, why can't they do it in 2006?

Maybe the name of the magazine should be changed from "QST" to "S9."

Well, the 50's, 60's, 70's, are over and gone. Times change, ham's interests change or evolve, manufacturer’s, on the market, equipment has become very sophisticated and specialized as new modes and activities become popular, and ARRL and its Journal are trying to keep up with all these changes. QST still has a Technical Section, a QST Workbench Section which is very similar to the old Experimenter's Section, and a great Department Section. Doesn't cover your interests; maybe you're just not evolving fast enough. Time is moving forward and so is amateur radio.

You bring up this every several months, last time was June 30, 2006. More of my comments are there:
http://amfone.net/Amforum/index.php?topic=7867.0

Now, where and who are those "We" people

[W1DAN]

Hi All:

I feel the ARRL is the best lobbying organization we have for better or worse. Unfortunately no one else is really set up to do better.

I do see they are somewhat distant from what the average ham wants and does not seem that interested to try and find out what everyone wants (I have first hand experience with the managers to say this).

However, I also feel my membership should include ALL periodical publications. My membership includes QST. This was true many years ago before the other periodicals were started. It SHOULD also include QEX and NCJ as well.

This is why I do not spend even MORE money to get QEX. It ain't right.

Why do they not support and promote ALL sections of the hobby with your membership in THE national ham radio organization which claims to represent ALL of us?

Have a great day!

73
Dan
W1DAN

[Pete, WA2CWA]

However, I also feel my membership should include ALL periodical publications. My membership includes QST. This was true many years ago before the other periodicals were started. It SHOULD also include QEX and NCJ as well.

This is why I do not spend even MORE money to get QEX. It ain't right.

QEX was started in 1981 and the NCJ was started in 1973. They were never free so why in the world would you expect them to be free now. And where is all the flack over the last 25 years that they should be free. Is this the ham version of the “gimme-gimme” generation??

Why do they not support and promote ALL sections of the hobby with your membership in THE national ham radio organization which claims to represent ALL of us?
Have a great day!

73
Dan
W1DAN

The ARRL, and through it publications, in my opinion, supports all facets of modes (phone, CW, RTTY, and digital type modes) and radio interests. You might want to point out the SSB web page on the ARRL web site; I can’t find it but I do find an AM web page. You might want to point out SSB calling frequencies on the ARRL band plans; I can’t find them, but I do find AM calling frequencies listed. Through the efforts of Paul, Mark, and myself back in 2003, the ARRL WAS award was changed to now include an AM endorsement and the removal of “SSB” and replaced with the word “phone”.  We have a vintage AM station set up at W1AW that’s available for any ham to operate when they come to visit.

Although I would agree, that there are not consistent AM only related articles in QST from month to month, I would question who’s fault really is it. If “you” (or collectively AM’ers) feel that AM articles are too scarce in QST, why don’t you (collectively AM’ers) write an abstract or outline about an AM related article(s) “you” feel would benefit the majority of the ARRL membership. Contact the QST editor and present your abstract or outline to him to get his feedback. This is not a rocket science activity, unless the real intent is just to sit around, bitch, and do nothing.


Now, where and who are those "We" people