From: Jay.Townsend@f3.n346.z1.spk.wa.us (Jay Townsend)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: ARRL is Ours
Date: 29 Jul 92 00:45:54 GMT


 SW> Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy

 SW> In article<1517e1INNhvq@network.ucsd.edu>, 

 SW> No..that isn't what I wrote.  What I said was that they listen to  
 SW> league members AND the directors listen best to the 
 SW> ones that actually tell
 SW> them what they think!  I haven't met a league official yet who
 SW> could do a reasonable mind-reading act ;-)   

Great point and very true.  I have had no problem in discussing there things
with the last three directors in this region.

 SW> I can't accept your statements about the system being bankrupt, or that
 SW> it is impossible to work within the system because I have personal
 SW> experience where I've succeeded in getting my point presented to the
 SW> board and gotten board action approving same.  I've achieved this
 SW> more than once...mind you the stuff I was pursuing were pretty small
 SW> potatoes when put up against issues like no-code, or the current
 SW> HF STA stuff.  However, I have made the system work....and with nothing
 SW> more than calling my director occassionally and TALKING to him.
 SW> Merely the price of a phone call to make the system work.

Its a HER in our case but again agreed.  But as to the scope of the matter I
think you have really not tackled a bigger issue.  I as a person and later as a
member of a group took on the ARRL and won in the last "great" packet idea for
HF.  Talk about flawed.  This current one is actually a lot closed to what I
think is appropriate.

 SW> Also...sometimes you don't win!  That's what can happen with a 
 SW> democratic system.  So goes the war.

> As it stands, I believe that the ARRL has failed in its duty to ham
> radio.  I don't believe it can change enough to repair that failure, so
> I'm voting against it by not supporting it.  I'd like to see it
> replaced with an organization that is more responsive, and I've
> supported a few of those fledgling attempts.  Unfortunately, they've
> all failed - the ARRL is too deeply entrenched.  But I can hope.
>  - Brian

 SW> I disagree 100% with this.  Mind you I don't always agree with what
 SW> ARRL does...the current STA issue is a good example.  On the other
 SW> hand I know that 1) My director voted against it, 2) He did so
 SW> due to input from myself and others.  The league is like any other
 SW> organization...flawed.  The only way to make it better is to work
 SW> ARRL does...the current STA issue is a good example.  On the other
 SW> hand I know that 1) My director voted against it, 2) He did so
 SW> due to input from myself and others.  The league is like any other
 SW> organization...flawed.  The only way to make it better is to work
 SW> from within to improve it.  Throwing in the towl serves no useful
 SW> purpose.

 SW> Steve KA6S 

I agree but I disagree 300%.  There is nothing wrong with the ARRL that can't
be fixed, changed, or influenced.  I hope my director voted for the proposal
(but haven't checked YET).  She did so do to input from myself and others and a
distinct lack of input from others.  Your point on the league is oh so true its
OUR league and they do just what we tell them to do.  Often times we just
forget to tell them or hide our head in the sand.

What's most important is that we get some sort of concensus on what WE should
do about HF packet and other digital modes.  Saying it all works fine with no
interfenece, etc. is a crock.  Saying Automatic Packet for all on all digital
freq's might work.  Doing anything positive like answering a questionaire that
was in the largest distributed Ham magazine in the U.S. and in the oldest and
finest Digital Magazine seemed easy enough to me.  Finding out the members of
the Digital Committee and talking, writing to them seems easy.

Filing a RM with the FCC with YOUR ideas isn't really all that difficult. 
Finding out the RM that the ARRL may file and sending in all 15 copies is a
easy enough thing.  However, its very interesting that NOBODY BUT the ARRL does
any of this stuff.  Calling your director on the phone is easy.  See the front
of QST for the number.  

But like all policy discussions what I see lacking here is any concrete ideas
on a counter proposal.

Lot's of complaining about a SPECIAL TEMPORARY AUTHORIZATION that all have
known since LAST December was expiring forever on December 31, 1992.  The 52
individual Amateurs that are effected.  And that's ALL.  Not all the 100's that
are running UNAUTHORIZED UNATTENDED Packet on HF.

Steve you are correct.  The system is easy to influence and even though we
might not agree in which direction it needs to be influenced I am glad to see
you are working the system.  This is just politics.  Good old fashioned
back-room influence and hopefully a compromise.

I think that the ARRL has made vast strides toward correcting the lack of
information and the lack of timely study of the problems.  At least this time
we are having a discussion before the actual RM is proposed.  Changes can
certainly be made...

Most of all the ARRL is our organization....the Members....

73, Jay Ws7i


 * Origin: Radio Therapy BBS (1:346/3)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy