The AM Forum

In the January edition of QST, the results of several online polls are shown. One asked the following question:

What is your favorite analog voice mode?

The results were as follows.

SSB - 70%
FM - 21%
None (I don't operate voice) - 6%
AM - 3%


These polls are only for ARRL members and are completely unscientific. QuickStats is really a misnomer. The ARRL publishes the following disclaimer.

Please Note: QuickStat polls are informal and for entertainment purposes only. They are not scientifically valid; they reflect the opinions of only those ARRL Members who have chosen to participate. The ARRL does not promote or endorse the use of this information for any factual purposes and can not be deemed responsible for any inaccuracies in the results.

I wonder how many responses to that poll were received.   Interesting thing about the ARRL polls--you never see any data to give them a frame of reference, or in some cases any results from a poll at all.   I wonder how many of us here ever even heard of the QuickStats?  I am a life member of the ARRL and I never even heard of these polls until now.

<<they reflect the opinions of only those ARRL Members>>

I assume this means you have to be a member to enter the poll.  That skews the results right there.

I wonder what the poll would show if we took it near the chili dog and apple crisp stands at Hosstraders?    ;)

This says it all, right here:


To be taken with equal seriousness as one of the polls you see on QRZ.com.

There are three types of lies,

Lies,
Damn Lies,
and statistics...

I bet if it's convenient for them to do so ARRL will quote one of these polls in a future FCC petition, but then it will be taken as a serious and accurate representative cross-section of U.S. hams.  Just watch.   I see that 3% AM stat. having a future life.  Probably 25 hams responded to the poll.

  ;DMY MODE OF CHOICE IS AM ;D 99% OF THE TIME 1%  SSB BAND CRUISING

As a subscriber, I've been watching the magazine's "QuickStat" column. The publisher never quotes how many respondents, for one thing, let alone a margin of error, etc.

A few years ago there was a statistically significant survey asking types of operating among ARRL subscribers.

The poll, self-reported, was taken by volunteer "directors" and their staff among three of the regional ARRL administrative areas, Atlantic, Great Lakes, and Delta, and the questions included a query on types of operating.

Out of the several thousand respondents, nearly 20 percent listed AM among their HF operating activities.

That's one of the strongest showings in modern times for AM in any League documentation.  This statistic is the most compelling basis to support a dramatically higher level of visibility for AM in various League activities. Yet, we still have not seen a commensurate rise in coverage of our part of the hobby.

Many of the things they do cover have far less support among active licensees, go figure.

The poll was developed and the results compiled by an assistant director in the Atlantic Division, Albert Schramm  W3MIV, and the original purpose was to provide the Directors with a sense of constituent guidance.  The Directors could then utilize this sentiment at what was an upcoming Board Meeting as part of their responsibility to direct the programs and policies carried out by paid administrative staff.

The poll was very broadbased, and had multiple questions on topics as a way to boost the reliability of the responses. The reference to AM was but one facet, but the strong showing for obvious reasons would be among the most interesting here.

So why isn't this survey very well-known ?

You may already know that there are several layers of insulation between the volunteer, elected Board members, and the paid staff they supposedly govern in various ways.  For this reason, Schramm told me, the survey results were never a formal part of the Board of Directors meeting, and is why they do not appear in the official Minutes.

This separation is also why the results have never been published in any ARRL publications or outlets run by paid staff.  The results have been distributed to some extent by the regional Directors who conducted the poll in their areas.

The most meaningful "poll" comes from the appliance manufacturers.  Nearly all rigs have AM mode these days, unlike in earlier times when the transceiver was first becoming mainstream. The major companies wouldn't spend the extra money and substantially drive up the cost of their product thus making it less competitive in the world-wide market if they weren't thoroughly convinced that there is a solid customer demand for the AM feature.  As we all know, manufacturers won't even spend the few additional pennies per unit it would take to make their consumer junk less prone to rfi problems, since they know they can get away with it and that the majority of their customers couldn't care less.

"several thousand respondents" >> what is it 2000, 3000 5000, etc.??
"nearly 20 percent" >> what is it 15%, 18%, 19.2%, etc.?
"among their HF operating activities"  >> hams listen to short wave and medium wave AM broadcasts on their receivers so does that count?
How many members in these three divisions at the time of survey?


So, after several years of digesting all these "statistically significant" survey statistics, what have these three Directors and their staff done to promote and support the AM mode for their members at least in their Divisions.

I suspect, like many surveys, and as the ARRL has pointed out even with their polls, "polls are informal and for entertainment purposes only. They are not scientifically valid; they reflect the opinions of only those ARRL Members who have chosen to participate"

Pete echoed:
Who, the ARRgghhL??? I knew that!  8)

Wait. Pete ?
You want ME to tell YOU something about the internal workings of the ARRL ?

This must be a trick.

Sorry, ask your regional volunteer director. Oh, that's right, your region did not participate.
You're out of luck then, it's a secret.

Didn't ask about internal workings.


I already have a copy of the survey, but since you touted this "statistically significant survey" I would have hoped you would have shared accurate and precise information with the rest of the members here rather then the broad brush strokes you painted for it.

If not, we can just mentally tag it: "polls are informal and for entertainment purposes only. They are not scientifically valid; they reflect the opinions of only those ARRL Members who have chosen to participate"


FYI Here's something, in case you didn't know, that your Director did in 2008:
January 2008 ARRL BoD Meeting: 34. Proceeding to Directors' motions, on motion of Mr. Edgar, seconded by Mr. Leggette, it was VOTED that the ARRL Board of Directors affirms its support for the retention of double sideband AM as a permitted emission in the Amateur Radio Service.

I fail to see what is gained by excluding non-ARRL members from participating in these polls.  Since the questions seem to be of a general nature pertaining to the entire ham population, I would think they'd be more useful and interesting if they were open to all hams.

If the poll had to do with some question specific to ARRL membership such as QST content, then I might understand closing off the poll participation, but I find the preferred analog voice operating mode of ARRL members much less interesting than that of hams in general.

I thought that was decided by the ITU and FCC.

Only members receive the monthly ARRL Journal (QST). Non members generally aren't in my membership radar unless they trip over a big pot and make a lot of noise. And, again, ARRL's disclaimer: "Please Note: QuickStat polls are informal and for entertainment purposes only. They are not scientifically valid; they reflect the opinions of only those ARRL Members who have chosen to participate. The ARRL does not promote or endorse the use of this information for any factual purposes and can not be deemed responsible for any inaccuracies in the results."

"affirms its support" holds a lot less weight against the big boys calling the shots. Of course, the bigger the membership, the more clout you can have.

The more responsive the organization, the more members said organization can expect.

Regulation by bandwidth was the last straw for me.

At least, that means it is less likely that ARRL would actively lobby against AM, as they seemed to do back in the 60's, or maintain a policy of "benign neglect" (let it die a natural death) as a League spokeswoman speaking at an ARRL convention in Boston explained about the time that Docket 20777 first appeared.  I think both ARRL and FCC first took notice of the "new" emerging AM community in reaction to the unexpected response to the proposal to eliminate AM below 28 mc/s contained in that docket. Some of the FCC officials were totally taken by surprise: "some of the comments we have received even want to keep AM". Of course, now, AM has been "coming back" for many more years than it was ever supposed to be "dead".

We have to give the ARRL credit in that they did lobby on behalf of the AM community regarding the power issue, petitioning to make the grandfather clause permanent, but Johnston and his henchmen at the FCC had already made up their minds on that, even before the original docket was released. I can't think of his name and callsign, but the well-known guy (now SK, not Doug DeMaw) who used to write a lot of the League's technical articles, affirmed so in a conversation I had with him at Dayton while the original proposal was still pending. (If someone can mention his name I'll  recall who it was).

I think now, with the overall general dearth of interest in amateur radio, particularly regarding the technical aspects, they are happy to see the thriving enthusiasm within the AM community along with our interest in homebrewing and experimentation, but they don't dare to push the issue too hard, fearing a backlash from the anti-AM element that still exists within the mainstream amateur community.

And they did withdraw that bandwidth petition once they read the comments flowing in to the FCC.  Ain't the internet wonderful?

Therein lies a discrepancy.

The ARRL must represent ALL U.S. licensees at the IARU, including non-subscribers. The IARU, a volunteer group, in turn represents the interests of radio hobbyists at the ITU, which works through the United Nations.  The segregation-by-bandwidth concept is part of the IARU's voluntary band plan, which in turn is advocated, by IARU rules, to be adopted by the governmental regulatory bodies in countries represented by member-societies.  So, there's a time bomb there,  and their "affirmation" means nothing if DSB AM is to be constrained by their bandwidth advocacy.

Or relegated to a few narrow segments located in some of our bands (even excluding 160m!), as indicated in the present Region 2 Band Plan.

<<<If someone can mention his name I'll  recall who it was>>>

Lew (or was it Lou) McCoy?

The bigger question is why would anyone need to affirm their support for any currently legal mode?

The directors probably still get a lot of mail from No Balls, Prechtl and N1AAR types requesting them to petition the FCC to outlaw AM.  Or maybe some personalities within the ARRL. Same old crap has been going on since the late 50's.

Good point. Lots of whiners and complainers out there.

Since the ARRL "knows" what is best for the hobby there is no real need to scientifically survey the membership and be bothered with input.  Just smile and remember that we are just uneducated children and big wise daddy knows what is best for us.  Our little minds just cannot comprehend the truths so evident to the anointed ones in Newington.

On the other hand, most companies conducting market research are at least as interested in  non-purchasers (i.e. potential customers) as they are in current customers.  But if you are really conceited then you don't listen to either group.

Now I am going to load my old QST on CD-ROM and  pretend it is 1947 for the next few hours.

One of the surveys I remember the ARRL did, was this one back in 2001 with 4744 respondents : NOVICE SPECTRUM SURVEY DRAWS HEAVY RESPONSE, see ARRL Letter July 2001: http://www.arrl.org/arrlletter%3Fissue%3D2001-07-20

Of course, if one is interested in the number of varied surveys the ARRL has done over the years (excluding the QuickStat stuff), you only need to go to the ARRL web site and put the word "survey" in the Website Search Field.