Travis, KB1ZPP, sent the following to me and about 40 others yesterday. I’m posting it here with his permission:
I’ve been quietly sitting in the shadows for the past few years watching the ARRL and trying to decide what, if any good, they do with the membership dues they collect each year. With the recent loss of the 3.5 GHz band I feel like it’s time for me to now say my piece and ask what, exactly, does the $6.77 million in dues and $1.7 million in donations from 2019 do to benefit the hobby? And what the hell kind of assets does the ARRL possess that total nearly $37 million? Did the ARRL open a banking division I don’t know about?
“Of these totals, cash and investments totaled approximately $33.1 million at year end” -2019 ARRL annual report.
After doing some research in preparing to go to battle with the ARRL, I now find myself wondering if they are at all suited to provide spectrum defense for the amateur community. I feel that they have become just another political ruse to line the pockets of board members and lobbyists / politicians. They no longer care about what their member base is concerned with and refuse to grow with the times. The world is changing rapidly with new technology every day. The ARRL is still stuck in the 60’s trying to get everyone to talk on 40 or 80 meters CW or sideband. There is a time and a place for ‘old reliable,’ but to continue to gain membership and be successful, the League has, needs to upgrade their ways. We’re coming up on 2021, guys. Get with it.
That being said I want to ask you all a couple questions.
Do you think it’s worth the effort to try and steer the ARRL in the directions we as amateurs find important or do we start a whole new organization with the sole purpose of protecting our bands? And, if you think it is possible to get the League back on track, what would be your first step?
What good is the ARRL to the amateur radio community as a whole? Jerry (KG6HQD) asked this on one of Jason’s (KC5HWB) YouTuber’s Bunch videos, and I present the same question here. Can anyone tell me one time the ARRL was successful in regards to political battles, such as the 3.5 GHz sale and subsequent call for amateur radio ops to “sunset?” When was the last time the league stood up for us, an amateur radio community?
I encourage all of you to voice your opinions, whether you agree with me or not, I want to know what you have to say. Thank you, 73 -KB1ZPP
First off, let me say that I DON’T THINK the ARRL board or staff are lining their pockets with the membership dues. There’s really not enough money there to make it worthwhile. :)
I think that if you go back in time, there have been issues on which the ARRL has prevailed, but certainly their efforts lately have not been all that successful. I think that the problem may be two-fold:
- The FCC is seeing amateur radio as less relevant in the total scheme of things.
- The ARRL is becoming less relevant to the amateur radio community as a whole. Membership is declining, not only as a percentage of licensed amateurs, but in actual numbers. Unless the ARRL can do something to boost membership, it’s going to continue to be less and less relevant, and it’s going to continue to lose influence with the FCC.
Having said that, the question about the best course going forward is a good one. The problem with trying to “steer the ARRL” is that in order to do so, you have to get organized politically. First, you have to find candidates who are passionate enough to run for the board of directors and have time to do so. A start was made two years ago with the election of N2RJ and W7VO, but the opposition seemed to fizzle out after that. I might be wrong because I got a little weary of the politics, but I don’t think that there were any candidates in this year’s election that were calling for widespread change.
There is a MyARRLVoice Facebook page where ARRL issues are discussed. I don’t really do Facebook myself, but I just took a peek, and it seems to still be fairly active.
Once you have the candidates, you have to convince the members to vote for them. Unfortunately, I think that many hams who have become disenchanted with the way the ARRL has been doing things are no longer members. So, even if you find the candidates, there may not be enough like-minded hams out there to vote for them.
Even so, my gut reaction is that working within the ARRL is the best way to go. Starting a new organization is a huge endeavor. I’m not saying that it’s impossible, or shouldn’t be done, but it’s probably more work than trying to get more progressive candidates elected to the ARRL board.
What say all of you? Should be be looking for and promoting more “progressive” candidates? How would we go about that?
Jason says
Hey Dan, thanks for your insights on this email chain, which I was also copied on, but I didn’t reply to due to being unaware of my own feelings, at least enough to reply and start a long discussion.
I do agree overall that the supporting the ARRL is the way to go. It would be an interesting situation to see what they could actually do if membership were to represent closer to 75% of higher of all Hams in the USA, instead of the common 20-22%. I find it odd that oft times, the loudest voices against the ARRL are the ones who aren’t members. You can’t get them to change anything if you aren’t a member, especially in the direction you desire yourself.
Money makes the world go around. Whether that is good, bad, ugly – right or wrong – is irrelevant to this discussion. It is true. With that truth, the low numbers of ARRL members who actually contribute financially each year makes it hard for The League to do as much as they would like to.
Also I find that the Facebook Group you mention is little more than a shout box for those who either really love or really hate The League. I find little useful information posted there, most days.
73
de KC5HWB
Tristan N7TWM says
I don’t recognize the ARRL as painted – from inside or outside. Certainly not the ‘stuck in the 1960s’ aspect. I do recognize that portion of hams, but honestly I haven’t seen them in the ARRL (in fact, I see the complaints from such hams that the ARRL is pandering to computers and FT8 and should get back to ‘real radio’)
There are issues to be sure, but a lot of the movement has been in a good direction. Lifelong learning is a priority (and lack of delivery on that was part of why we have a new CEO I belive). We have On The Air, and access to NCJ and QEX online. I would like to see more engagement on YouTube (even the RSGB seems to be doing better there), and probably other social media.
With the FCC – frankly we’re lucky to have such a good relationship, approaching the ARRL to set up the volunteer monitoring program is a sign of that.
Unfortunately, Amateur Radio is seen as increasingly irrelevant across the world as we don’t make money – its very very difficult to oppose the commercial interests which are clamoring for spectrum (and are willing to pay a lot to governments for usage), or in the case of HOA’s a lobby group with far more resources and lobbying money. The current variant of capitalism is not good for small groups with limited commercial backing.
I do support more candidates along the lines of N2RJ and W7VO, and increased openness. I really hope we can turn the tide to get increased membership, and I am very very skeptical that we can successfully start an alternative – it would need a number of very very dedicated people, and good support from a sizable membership to be effective. If any traction is gained, it could push the ARRL from outside, but it could also cause the less progressive members to double down and end up weakening the position of the community further.
I will leave you with my suspicion that, just like claims that the hobby is dying date back to the 1930s (at least), complaints about the ARRL have existed for as long as its been an entity ;)
Jeff, KE9V says
With regards to the loss of spectrum, how exactly would more progressive Board members have prevented this? Verizon alone is a $250 billion dollar company. Add ATT & Sprint to that and you see the size of the beast coming to take your spectrum.
Americans have been busy voting for more business friendly, fiscally conservative politicians for decades and seem constantly amazed when their government becomes too business friendly or too cost averse. The result is $50 ham radio license fees and spectrum lost to 5G network development for big corporations.
Voters are like Alzheimer’s patients in a whorehouse. Constantly surprised that they’re getting screwed, and they don’t want to pay for it.
A more cogent argument might be to petition the ARRL to give up all spectrum defense efforts. The effort is futile and they might actually save a few bucks doing that…
K4RGN Chuck says
Hams just don’t get it. KE9V is right. Companies are spending tens of billions (literally) for UHF spectrum. Do you really believe a $33 million warchest at ARRL would make any difference, even if they spent the whole thing on spectrum defense? Hey, it wouldn’t matter if the ARRL had $333 million. David and Goliath, but there’s no slingshot.
We could get lucky if we had a ham in a powerful position in Congress, like W7UGA was. Otherwise, the spectrum wars ain’t over. 5 GHz will be next and I wouldn’t bet on retaining much of 10 GHz, either.
Use it or lose it. More true now than ever.
Dave New, N8SBE says
I heard something last night that struck me: “Voters vote on the issues that affect them, and not against the candidates that disgust them.”
In other words, in one famous president’s voice: “It’s the economy, stupid!”.
This is how we get the continuing status quo. As long as things seem to keep running along, why upset the apple cart, especially if it’s your apple cart?
I agree that ARRL doesn’t stand a chance against entrenched commercial interests. The only saving throw is the ‘national park’ concept, where the amateur radio frequencies are protected by the federal government, like our national park system, for the enjoyment of the people.
Oh wait, I guess the national park system is not doing very well these days, either….