ARRL: Good, Bad or Inbetween?

[Jimru]

Greetings Fellow Lodge Members!

I have been an active ham since 2003 and I joined the League not long after I got my ticket. In addition I have been an active member of ARES in NYC for very nearly as long. I now live in Cape Cod and plan to contribute to ARES when I can.

I have felt the ARRL is really the only association that represents me in any coherent way and that has any clout at all with both local, state and the FCC, regarding my hobby.

Do they do everything right? No.

Can they improve? I reckon so, but all things being equal, I am proud to be a continuing member of the League and I plan to do so for as long as I am a ham.

Now, why is that? Specifically, when it comes to representing hams in the USA regarding spectrum defense, no other organization comes close. Further, the League goes a long way towards attracting new and younger people with the various outreach programs and teacher initiatives.

In addition to the above, how about their support of contesting and helping hams maintain their technical skills by promoting the radio sciences by publishing articles and awarding prizes to those hams that keep the hobby on the cutting edge?

All in all, I feel like I get a lot of bang for the buck with my ARRL membership. As well, I contribute yearly what I can afford to various programs, such as the Spectrum Defense Fund and to the Teacher's Institute workshops around the country.

Please chime in with your thoughts. If you are a member, please state as clearly as you can why you are a member and what you like/dislike about the League.

If you aren't a member, why not?

If possible, simply stating something like "they are thieves and they won't get a dime from me!" (yes, I have seen that here on RR!) isn't really a discussion. Neither is "I love them they are great!"

I am really interested to know why you feel the way you do about the ARRL one way or the other.

Thanks & 73,
Jim, KC2LMH

[bearcat012]

Originally Posted by Jimru

Greetings Fellow Lodge Members!........
I am really interested to know why you feel the way you do about the ARRL one way or the other.

Thanks & 73,
Jim, KC2LMH

The ARRL Sucks !!!!!


Nah, just kidding. I've been an off and on member since 2000. Currently a member, but it would not kill me if I let my membership expire. QST is a bore, Jeez..how many tuna can transmitters can you really stomach? And those Emcomm reports....Yawn.

[gewecke]

The ARRL is not necessarily needed, but only wanted to stick around by some.
I have no need for them and will not be a member.

73,
n9zas

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by gewecke

The ARRL is not necessarily needed, but only wanted to stick around by some.
I have no need for them and will not be a member.

73,
n9zas

Hi.

Let me ask you this then; do you feel that we, as a group, do not need any kind of representation?

Do you feel that we can protect and further our interests just as individuals, or in some other fashion?

In other words, if they are not needed, is there a viable alternative for we hams on a national scale to have our voices heard?

Or does it even matter?

I am not attacking your beliefs in any way, I am really just curious.

Thanks for your input!

[n5ims]

The ARRL may not be important to many in the hobby, but if they were not around it's quite likely that what we now take for granted may not last. Our VHF & UHF bands would at least shrink, if not be totally eliminated to be auctioned off to the highest bidder. The HF bands are a bit more protected due to global treaties and are generally not in near as much demand (can be read as "would auction for minimal amounts"). It's also likely that our current exception to the growing number of scanner laws would start to be removed as well since the ARRL is quite active in this area.

Do I care about their contests? No. Do I read QST? No. Do we still need them? Yes, especially when 1 good lobby, which the ARRL is, has more influence with our government than a million individuals.

[newsphotog]

I was a holdout on the ARRL for a couple years until I joined up. I joined mainly because they defend our spectrum for us. Our bands would be worth $$$ in an FCC spectrum auction and the private sector salivates over the thought of owning it. There are other benefits to the ARRL, like inexpensive equipment insurance, but lobbying for our interests is my main reason for supporting the ARRL.

[Jimru]

I agree that the main reason I continue to renew my membership is because of the fact that they are the only entity that represents us to regulators and, to a large extent, the general population.

If I only thought of the ARRL as QST (as many appear to do), then I would just stick with my subscription to CQ and leave it at that. CQ is a much more readable publication, that is for sure!

[robertmac]

I hear the same thing in Canada with RAC. Or for that matter any Organization. Every one that complains about these organizations really never offers an alternative that is better or more viable. Hear a lot whine about too political. Well, offer alternatives. As I say, this happens in all different Organizations whether radio related or not. But a lot of people benefit from these Organizations without 1 cent of support. Again, what are the alternatives. Or do we just allow everything to go down the tubes?

[Jimru]

Well, I certainly don't want to disparage anyone else's opinion. It's your right to think anything you want.

I do want to ask those of you that don't think the ARRL is needed, why you believe that.

Please elaborate!

Those that believe they are necessary have stated why they feel that way.

I'm not suggesting that anyone join an organization they don't want to join, just because I feel it's important, but I am interested to find out what it is that makes you think that they aren't an important association for hams.

Besides the fact that you don't like QST!

;-)

[LtDoc]

The ARRL is certainly not 'perfect'. But they do serve a purpose. I'm a non-member, again. I feel like the ARRL has 'let me down', again! Are they going to miss my membership fee? I really doubt it! But I do have certain expectations that they haven't met (not the first time that's happened). I'll leave it at that. Those expectations are not 'small' things to me (or others involved in them). I honestly don't expect perfection. I do think they should at -least- follow their stated 'rules'.
- 'Doc

[W9BU]

One basic conundrum that needs to be considered is exactly who should the ARRL represent.

Should they be representing the interests of all U.S.-licensed amateur radio operators?

Or, should they only represent the interests of their members?

Keep in mind that there are over 700,000 U.S.-licensed amateur radio operators, but only about 160,000 ARRL members. While the entire 700,000 can be affected by the actions the ARRL takes, it's only the 160,000 who really have a say in what the ARRL does.

That said, I agree with the basic concept presented here that while the ARRL isn't perfect, they are the only organization representing U.S.-licensed amateur radio operators that has any kind of clout with the FCC.

FWIW, I'm an ARRL Life Member.

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by LtDoc

The ARRL is certainly not 'perfect'. But they do serve a purpose. I'm a non-member, again. I feel like the ARRL has 'let me down', again! Are they going to miss my membership fee? I really doubt it! But I do have certain expectations that they haven't met (not the first time that's happened). I'll leave it at that. Those expectations are not 'small' things to me (or others involved in them). I honestly don't expect perfection. I do think they should at -least- follow their stated 'rules'.
- 'Doc

Hi LtDoc,

If you don't mind sharing how they let you down, I would really like to know!

So far, I know WHY folks want to be a member, even if they (ARRL) aren't perfect, but I've never really heard anyone explain exactly why NOT.

If it's something you really don't want to discuss, I understand, but if you could give more detail, perhaps in a way that won't reveal anything too personal, I would find it really helpful in my understanding.

This isn't the first time I have heard someone say something like you have; not only here in RR but elsewhere online. The thing is, not in any detail as to why they felt that way!

Thanks & 73,
Jim

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by W9RXR

One basic conundrum that needs to be considered is exactly who should the ARRL represent.

Should they be representing the interests of all U.S.-licensed amateur radio operators?

Or, should they only represent the interests of their members?

Keep in mind that there are over 700,000 U.S.-licensed amateur radio operators, but only about 160,000 ARRL members. While the entire 700,000 can be affected by the actions the ARRL takes, it's only the 160,000 who really have a say in what the ARRL does.

That said, I agree with the basic concept presented here that while the ARRL isn't perfect, they are the only organization representing U.S.-licensed amateur radio operators that has any kind of clout with the FCC.

FWIW, I'm an ARRL Life Member.

I agree that it's possible that the League tends to represent their members more than non-members, but not sure how that manifests. After all, it's the 160,000 dues paying members that keep the organization alive in the first place. If there are a lot of members that aren't happy with the way things are run, then I would suggest that they change things; it's within our charter to do so, in any number of ways.

Having said that, like any group, there will always be a minority that do things like; write to their representatives in their section, or that even bother to vote in the first place! Running for office is a possibility, but few of us have the desire, or even the time, to do so. Again, this is true of any group. I belonged to a union for thirty plus years, I know how that cookie crumbles!

I personally have never felt that they (ARRL) have mis-represented my interests. I may not frankly know enough, compared to those of you that have been hams longer than I (ten years).

If someone can direct me to an article that gives an example somewhere on that subject, please let me know.

I get it about an organization tending to represent their members over non-members; I spent over thirty years in the convention and trade show industry in NYC. Believe me, there is an association for everything under the sun and I have witnessed Q & A sessions at the end of seminars where there have been some pretty hotly debated issues between people in the audience vs people on the dais!

Again, thanks for your two cents!

73,
Jim

[n8zcc]

Originally Posted by Jimru

I personally have never felt that they (ARRL) have mis-represented my interests.

Nor mine. The ARRL represents the amateur radio hobby and not individual members. If it wasn't for the ARRL lobbing to maintain what we have in spectrum and the right to erect antenna towers, there would not be much of a hobby left.

[W9BU]

When you ask folks to give reasons why they don't like the ARRL, try to determine if the problem stemmed from something that was decided at the ARRL national level or if it was a decision made at a more local level. The distinction is important because the ARRL Field Organization is all volunteer. This includes the Section Manager and all if his appointees (Section Emergency Coordinator, Section Traffic Manager, Section Official Observer Coordinator, Section Technical Coordinator, Section Governmental Liaison, etc.)

The Division Directors are unpaid (except for some expense reimbursement), elected volunteers who determine ARRL policy at the highest level, i.e. the ARRL Board of Directors. It's then up to the paid staff to implement the Board's policy. One task that certain members of the staff have is managing the Field Organization. Granted, the staff has some lee-way in implementing policy and I wouldn't want the Board micromanaging the staff (I saw that in another organization where I served on the board and it's very unproductive).

Where the rubber really hits the road, though, is at the bottom of the Field Organization. While there are lots of good people in various Field Organization roles, occasionally, some bad decisions are made. Those decisions can sour an individual ham's view of the whole organization.

A ham friend of mine who is now a silent key despised the ARRL. He had been a ham back in the 1960's when "incentive licensing" came into amateur radio. As a result of the new license structure, he lost some operating privileges. He blamed the ARRL for incentive licensing and didn't want anything to do with the organization.

At the other end of the spectrum, I've heard hams say that they talked to such-and-such ARRL official at a hamfest and found the guy clueless, uncaring, or completely wrong-headed (take your pick). Is that opinion ARRL organization problem or just a local mis-understanding?

It's tough to figure out what might be wrong with the ARRL and how you'd go about fixing it. We hams are a very diverse lot with a wide range of interests. Multiply that by the number of people involved in the ARRL organization. The possibilities for conflict a huge. How does an organization be all things to all hams?

[LtDoc]

Jim,
Without getting too specific, the two instances I referred to dealt with an RFI complaint and the VEC system. I think the RFI advice thingy is misrepresented, the ARRL was no help at all, provided no useful information or services. The VEC thingy deals with them NOT having any authority, or maybe inclination, to prevent an abuse that was documented. If you are going to be responsible for something and have rules concerning that 'something', then I think you should enforce those rules. They definitely did not do any 'enforcing' about the screw-up. It's been over six months since that VEC occurrence and nothing has been done, nor do they plan to do anything (I asked). The ones taking the test will have to retest, but how about the ones giving the test? Nothing.
- 'Doc

[Jimru]

Originally Posted by LtDoc

Jim,
Without getting too specific, the two instances I referred to dealt with an RFI complaint and the VEC system. I think the RFI advice thingy is misrepresented, the ARRL was no help at all, provided no useful information or services. The VEC thingy deals with them NOT having any authority, or maybe inclination, to prevent an abuse that was documented. If you are going to be responsible for something and have rules concerning that 'something', then I think you should enforce those rules. They definitely did not do any 'enforcing' about the screw-up. It's been over six months since that VEC occurrence and nothing has been done, nor do they plan to do anything (I asked). The ones taking the test will have to retest, but how about the ones giving the test? Nothing.
- 'Doc

Hi Doc,

Thanks. That was the kind of thing I was looking for. That and W9RXR's explanation.

I completely understand that those that were members and no longer want to be were most likely affected from events at the local level.

In my case, being involved with ARES for nearly ten years has exposed me to that sort of thing, but I chose to stay involved and eventually became an AEC.

Far be it from me to poop on anyone for making the decision to leave ARRL because of what they have encountered personally, but believe it or not, this is the first time anyone has really explained why they no longer wanted to remain a member!

Anyway, thanks again for your input into this discussion.

[MTS2000des]

The ARRL holds themselves out to to be "THE national resource for amateur radio"...yet why is it that only 160K of the over 700K of US hams are members? Could it be that maybe the majority of hams (by numbers at least) don't feel their interests are represented by the League? The numbers would certainly suggest it.

I don't feel I get anything for my money. Here's why: the ARRL is a "top heavy" organization. Too many chiefs, not enough indians. Lots of money in the kitty, but few benefits for members these days. QST is an average magazine, take out the ads, you get a handful of articles. Some of them good, some of them not so. I'd say CQ is a much better ham mag. All the books the league peddles aren't offered at a discount to members.

The whole representation of the amateur service. Hard to say the ARRL does a GOOD job when their isn't much to compare to. I'd say they've done their fair share of lobbying, but they hardly have the budget to do the real lobbying needed to make a dent, when going up against groups like the commercial wireless (CTIA/PCIA) types who spend the entire ARRL yearly budget in a week whining and dining.

One of the thing that doesn't sit well with me is how the League, IMO, took Federal grant money in 2003 to make training available, training that was intended under the terms of the grant, and charges for it. Slimy and sleazy. Those EMCOMM courses should be FREE. After all, WE taxpayers paid for them. But whatever. They got their little gubment grant like everyone else and squandered it.

In the past, we needed such a voice with the FCC. But thanks to the Internet and the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System, everyone has a voice and they are all read into the record. So do we really need "the League" to represent us in this day and age?

IMO, the league does little to promote the amateur radio service and spends more time promoting itself. My experience over close to 30 years has left me with the impression it's a "good old boys" club and nothing else. Lots of meaningless titles handed out to people's buddies but nothing really gets done.

In 1987, when I was a novice- my aunt actually PAID for a membership for me in the ARRL. I never got it. I told her about it, she SHOWED ME the cancelled check. In January 1988, I called (back then long distance was expensive- especially during business hours) and inquired at Newington HQ. The lady acted uninterested, took my information, promised a call back. Never got one. Wrote a letter with a copy of my aunt's cancelled check. Never got a reply, or a membership, or QST. This was in February 1988. So maybe this left a bad taste in my mouth, duping a 12 year old out of $30.

So they don't get a check from me today. Maybe that will change when I feel I actually would benefit from being a member and they act like an organization that cares about the community and the amateur radio service and not just collecting dues. Meantime, the rest of us 540,000 of us non-members can do a fine job representing the amateur radio service on FCC and government issues using the ECFS, thoughtfully of course. No membership check needed to have a voice there.

[trsundstrom]

Wirelessly posted (Moto Droid Bionic: Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 4.0.4; en-us; DROID BIONIC Build/6.7.2-223_DBN_M4-23) AppleWebKit/534.30 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/534.30)

I took up a life membership in 1975 after getting my Novice license. Is the organization and magazine perfect? No, but show me another national organization that doesn't have pimples. But IMHO bottom line is the ARRL is the only voice we have to protect (or slow down) the loss of spectrum space to commercial interests.

[LtDoc]

Spectrum loss? I can think of only portions of two bands that have been 'lost' in the last 50 years. I think that 'loss' has been 'balanced' by spectrum gain in other areas. Then again, I once hung a charm in this house to prevent infestations of elephants. It must have worked, never seen an elephant with in a 100 yards of the place.
The ARRL isn't, and hasn't been totally worthless. But they certainly have not been all that beneficial in the last 20 - 30 years. That '20 - 30 years' is a very rough guess. I can certainly remember the 'attitude' of the organization changing about that long ago.
- 'Doc