is to listen and carry out the will of the membership. The
Board conducted surveys of the membership and then does
the complete opposite. It makes me so sick I could just
vomit. HEY ARRL, you want to save money? You can quit
having elections since you won't truthfuly represent
your membership anyway. ARRL will destroy a good thing
if it means more money in their pockets.
(Translation: We dont give a damn about your input, only ours.Quote:>Thanks for your input about the ARRL's licensing
>restructuring and testing proposal adopted by the
>ARRL Board of Directors a couple of weeks ago in
>Connecticut. Let me see if I can shed some light
>on some of the reasons for the proposed changes.
Sorry you wasted time filling out our survey.)
(Translation: We need to make getting licenses easy.)Quote:>I am certain that some hams will find change itself
>to be very disconcerting. It is our nature to like
>things the way they are and the way they were. We're
>generally comfortable with that and not comfortable
>with change. In many instances, we would like to return
>to "the good old days" of ham radio. However, there
>are some very real reasons why amateur radio has to make
>some changes if it is to be around in the 21st century.
(Translation: We couldn't think of any new modern modes thatQuote:>As amateur radio operators, we're slipping farther
>and farther behind on the technology power curve, and
>people take note of that. Take a look at the primary
>modes of communication we use: SSB, FM, CW, etc. Each
>of those modes of operation have been around 50, 60
>or 70 years or more.
would be popular, so we couldn't submit any ideas
with our proposal. Hope No one noticed.)
(Translation: Your dues bought my plane ticket. LeagueQuote:>I was traveling by airplane not long ago and the
>person sitting next to me was a retired electrical
money working hard for you.)
(Translation: Not surprising, they won't use modern modes eihther.Quote:>As we chatted I told him about my involvement with
>amateur radio. He had a ham license about 45 years
>ago. He was amazed hams still use SSB, let alone CW.
>He wondered why the hams didn't use some of the more
>"modern" modes of communications.
We know most Techs haven't and won't try
satellite or even packet!)
(Translation: We can heap Bullshit on the issue and say CWQuote:>This is a typical reaction. We have to change people's
>perception of ham radio being a pursuit involving 70 year
>old communication techniques. One of the ways to help
>change that perception is to modernize our approach to
***d the institution of modern modes, and
CW is blocking technology.)
(Translation: Are we bold enough to propose the totalQuote:>We're not eliminating it, we're simply trying to put it
>in its proper perspective as we move into a new century.
elimination Of CW? No, but our proposed new
easy licenses will still please thousands
Techs, CBer's and other non-hams. We'll gain
their favor, and memberships.)
(Translation: We're losing membership dollars because manyQuote:>CW will be around for a very long time as one of the
>modes of communication for amateurs. However, as
>an examination element, it carries much more weight than it
>should at the present time.
potential members reject learning CW and won't
join us unless they can have HF for free. We
hear their cry.)
(Translation: Hope we can fool our grass roots support, old timers,Quote:>I believe the League proposal will put CW into a more
>proper perspective in the examination context as we try
>to bring amateur radio into the current technological
and pro-code League members with this Anti-CW Bullshit
membership drive technology rhetoric.)
(Translation: Pro-coders are backwards and their argumentsQuote:>I don't think there are many people who see CW as the
>future of amateur radio. If they do, in my opinion they
>are looking backwards, not to the future of ham radio.
interfere with our membership drive.)
(Translation: We want to eliminate CW, but our life membersQuote:>And, as I mentioned, we're not eliminating CW. There
>will be plenty of people operating CW just as they have
would die of shock. We'll call for the total
elimination of CW in our next proposal.
(Translation: Maybe we should mix in some truth with the Bullshit.)Quote:>Most non-hams think of ham radio as a hobby. And as a
>matter of fact, most hams think of amateur radio as a hobby.
>Sure, the League tries to stress the emergency communications
>and the public service aspects of amateur radio to those that
>are unaware of that role and people outside of ham radio do
>have some understanding of that role of amateur radio. It is
>certainly one of the first things I tell people about amateur
>radio if they have no acquaintance with the amateur service.
>However, the bottom line is we're viewed as a hobby.
(Translation: Hope the commerical companies seeking spectrumQuote:>The point is, we have some very valuable spectrum that is
>available to us for hobby purposes, and yes, even for our
>public service activities. It has become more and more
>difficult in recent years to justify retaining our spectrum
>from commercial interests who make some very good arguments
>as to why they should be allowed to use our spectrum for
>endeavors that will generate jobs, used advanced telecommunications
>techniques and put the spectrum to use for commercial purposes,
>not just for hobby purposes.
will believe us when we say ham radio will get
more technological and that we're not just
spreading more bullshit.)
(Translation: If we don't get new hams we're going to have toQuote:>Even considering the perception that what we do is a "hobby,"
>we can counter some of that perception that we're "a dying breed"
>clinging to old technologies when we can show that amateur radio
>is a vital, growing activity. One only has to look at the statistics
>in the last few years to find that to be untrue. In recent years
>the average age of a active ham has crept up to nearly 60 years old.
>The growth rate of new hams coming into the service is at an
>all-time low of less than 2%. That doesn't even keep up with the
>"loss rate" of people who die or simply leave amateur radio for
>various reasons. The argument that we need to retain spectrum for
>the growth of amateur radio in the face of dwindling numbers is an
>unconvincing one to anyone, like the FCC and commercial interests,
>who takes a moment to look at the numbers.
swallow a decrease in our salaries. We can all
have raises when all those CBer's come on board
with the new easier licenses!)
(Translation: Guess improvements in transmitter & receiver designQuote:>Taking these factors into consideration, the perception of ham
>radio is one of an aging group of hobbyists who use "less than
>state-of-the-art" communication techniques. We may not like that
>perception but that is what it is in many circles of the
and DSP don't count as state-of-the-art if the
transceiver is sending CW!)
(Translation: If we must destroy ham radio to save it, then we'llQuote:>The changes proposed by the League are not the total solution to
>the problem. We still have to make an effort to move into more
>advanced communication techniques in the near future. We need to
>take advantage of some of the more cutting edge modes of digital
>communication to allow for more efficient use of the spectrum.
>The Board of Directors is aware that merely restructuring license
>classes and modernizing the CW testing requirements is not the
do it! Our jobs are at stake!)
(Translation: We can't promote technological advances now becauseQuote:>The League is going to have to take the lead in promoting
>technological advances within amateur radio even if it is just
>stressing the idea that amateurs put to use in amateur radio some
>of the techniques used by the commercial services.
that darned CW mode keeps getting in the way.)
(Translation: Hmmm, We still can't figure out how to get hams toQuote:>And it's not just the League that needs a different mindset to get
>us into the next century with a vital amateur radio. For example,
>we might persuade repeater coordinators to give priority to
>sanctioning repeaters that are going to be using advanced digital
>modes rather than the 50 year old narrow band FM mode.
accept the current new modes. We'll just say we're
working on it.)
(Translation: We know a CW signal takes less bandwidth than otherQuote:>We might even persuade radio manufacturers to market HF radios that
>use other modes than CW and SSB as the primary modes of communication
>below 30 MHz. There are digital techniques that can be applied to
>the amateur service that would make more efficient use of the
>spectrum and minimize the interference potential between stations.
modes, but we'll throw out this bullshit that there
might be other modes that are more spectrum efficient
than CW and see if anyone buys it!)
(Translation: If our ham bands sound like CB channel 19, who cares?Quote:>I suppose the bottom line is we in amateur radio have to start
>thinking about the future and where we want amateur radio to be
>in the future.
At least we'll have more members.)
...Quote:>Changes within ham radio have been suggested for quite a
read more »