Hams here in the U.S. complain about the ARRL all the time. If you’ve read my blog for any length of time you know that I’ve certainly had my criticisms. When confronted by these criticisms, ARRL supporters will often say something like, “The ARRL isn’t perfect, but it’s the only organization we have.”
This begs the question of why we don’t have more than one amateur radio organization in this country. In the early days of amateur radio, there was indeed more than one national organization, and it’s been documented that the ARRL considered these groups to be competition and managed to quash them. The government shutdown of amateur radio when the U.S. entered WWI certainly played a part as well.
This certainly doesn’t mean that we can’t have a second ham radio organization today. In Australia, there are now two organizations for radio amateurs—the Wireless Institute of Australia (WIA) and the Radio Amateur Society of Australia (RASA). WIA is the older group, while RASA is the upstart.
On their website, RASA makes a good case for having a second national organization. They write:
Effective and inclusive representation is an important component of any group that represents its members; especially where government regulation is involved. Sometimes, when there is only one representative group (a monopoly) there is no real accountability or motivation to deliver the best possible outcomes for members. When considering what effective representation means, we should all think about things like:
- What actual results are being achieved for members?
- How are members engaged? Are members being heard?
- How often does it communicate and is the communication meaningful?
- Does it address the needs and concerns of its members?
- When you send comments, complaints or questions, does your representative body respond in a timely and helpful manner?
I might re-phrase those questions just a little to be more inclusive. I’d ask:
- What actual results are being achieved for radio amateurs?
- How are radio amateurs being engaged? Are radio amateurs being heard?
- How often does it communicate and is the communication meaningful?
- Does it address the needs and concerns of radio amateurs in the U.S. and around the world?
- When you send comments, complaints or questions, does your national organization respond in a timely and helpful manner?
The way that I’ve tried to word these questions takes into account that a national association should work for all radio amateur and not just its members.
In the early days of amateur radio, it was beneficial to have a single organization for radio amateurs because its main purpose back then was to—as the ARRL’s name implies—was to form networks to relay messages. Today, however, there’s no compelling reason to have a single organization for amateur radio, and it could be argued that having just a single organization is impeding progress.
There’s nothing magic about having a single “national association” for amateur radio, and it might be time to start thinking about starting a second. They’ve done this in Australia, so why not here? Let me know what you think.
The notion of having a second amateur radio organisation is quite common around the world. Quite a few have arisen out of conflict within the primary organisation (e.g. CARF/CRRL), some have taken a more cooperative approach with the primary organisation, centred around technical developments rather than regulatory representation. Some even work together. The trouble with using non-USA cases to justify a new body within the USA is that the conditions that gave rise to the secondary organisations are unlikely to apply in the USA. The history, conflict, geography, and personalities are different. If you want to create a new organisation, go ahead, but justify the move on its own merits. The grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence.
Just one final comment. Remember that what national organisations have managed to achieve or protect in terms of spectrum access and other operating conditions have been very hard won. Traditionally, these gains were achieved since the regulatory authority has been to some extent benevolent to the amateur community (although, it might not have seemed like it at the time!). These days, protecting the spectrum for amateurs is really hard, and we have little to negotiate with but good will. Having several organisations in a country representing a community that is perceived as waning in popularity tends to reduce our ability to sue for greater access, or even maintain it. That’s not an argument intended to promote “one and only one” organisation, but a reminder that decimating support over several organisations has to be done with considerable care.
Yes. I think it would be a good thing. I think ARRL has gotten fat and stupid and is now more focused on self-preservation of high-salaried jobs over actually serving the members.
People aren’t “joiners” these days. Many groups and clubs I belong to have fewer members. Some have even folded.
If there’s a market and need for another national radio club, it will get started. I don’t think the numbers are there, though
Everything I would get from joining is out there on the internet now. I have a year left on my ARRL membership, but probably won’t renew it.
I agree with your perspective Dan. The biggest lack I see in the ARRL of this era is that it seems focused on the past rather than the future and the current generation.. In various articles (thought experiments) in my newsletter Zero Retries, I’ve imagined that a new organization could arise that would be entirely virtual, more inclusive, publishes open content (including videos), promotes experimentation, engages via Amateur Radio adjacent (like Meshtastic), etc. I would actively support such a new organization.
I’m curious what the second largest amateur radio group in the US (after ARRL) is. Whether it’s an advocacy organization, state club, looser online club, interest group, etc.
I wonder what kind of work the #2 group is doing. Would it be worth joining them?