From: sorgatz@avatar.tti.com (sorgatz)
Subject: Re: AARL vs ARRL
Organization: Transaction Technology Inc.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:32:08 GMT

In article <382@arrl.org> ehare@arrl.org (Ed Hare KA1CV) writes:
>In rec.radio.amateur.misc, usenet@ttinews.tti.com (Usenet Admin) writes:
>>the FCC *still* takes it's marching orders from this glorified Publisher-of- 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>sometimes-dated-full-of-contest-results monthly magazine and outdated books.
>
>Ah, if only it were true. (I assume that you mean us -- I recognize the
>contest-results flame.) Actually, I am interested in what factual 
>information you have used to reach this conclusion. I am certain that a
>well-reasoned individual like yourself must have some basis for making
>this otherwise-inflammatory statement.

OK Mr. Hare, I'll clarify this for you. The FCC had proposed the institution
of a codeless Technician Class license back in the 1970's...I'm sure you do
remember that, right? Do you also remember the outcome? The ARRL was at it's
antique-finest in managing to shout-down the proposal; supposedly "the voice
of the membership" was against it. Right. As it now sits, the codeless Tech
is almost considered a bastard step-child by a large percentage of the OF's
and that's *exactly* why HQ's got you writing those cute little stories.

Face it OM, the status-quo is what they know. The ARRL as an organization has
a long history of selective innovation, guided always by the New England'ish
minimalism mentality...you can't get there from here...not yet..etc. The truth
is that this approach is not always the best. A really good example would be 
the 6 meter band plan:

 ARRL being a Conn. based operation, has tended to follow the local setting 
in arranging the 6 meter band plan to resemble local-usage. There are many
repeaters for this band and no commercial television channel 2. Therefore,
the top half of the band is setup for repeaters, with the relativly harmless,
and fairly low-power RC slice being relocated to 50.1-50.9 FROM 53.1-53.9;
a place where higher power operations (SUCH AS REPEATERS) can easily cause
TVI in areas where commercial television channel 2 is in use. It would make
a lot more sense to move repeater operation down below 53MHz. A quick look 
at the Texas Six Meter Club's plan, the SMIRK Plan or even the one that the
Souther California Six Meter Club has been proposing since 1983 would seem 
to be a lot more workable for most areas of the US than the one the ARRL keeps
insisting on. Sure, band plans are local-option - but the ARRL has completly
IGNORED the facts about typical six meter operations OUTSIDE of HQ's little
area of the country!
>>'Nerds-from-Newington' with my letters that ask embarrasing questions! Like:
>  ^^^^^
>Oops. Now, Mr. Sorgatz, you can't really believe that you are going to
>sway me to your way of thinking by insulting me, do you? I will, of course,
>assume that you just forgot the smiley.                          :-)

 Yes, I did forget the :-), and that was meant in a dishing sort of way...we're
all radio-nerds...sort of like a conversation between members of some minority
group using a familiar-derogatory term...all in fun..but you have to admit that
the minimalistic approach to things is kinda square.

>Just as soon as the FCC actually takes its marching orders from us. Ah, 
>persuasion by contradiction. :-).
>
>> Would just one of you guys at HQ ask his honorable K1ZZ that question? 
>>PLEASE!
>
>Actually, you could ask him directly. His mailing address is the same
>as our Headquarters address. We have posted a list of HQ email addresses
>from time to time. I will email you a copy.

Oh I've already killed a few trees trying to attract the attention of K1ZZ
amongst others about the 10m issues...ask OM Price or Phineas...or ask our
local OO's about the letters..I'm about scribbled-out on this one!
>
>Now, I would like to make a few points. Right after he took office, our
>League President George Wilson paid the FCC head honchos a visit -- among
>the many things he talked about was enforcement. I would like to think
>that his talks with the FCC played some role in the recent spate of
>enforcement actions we have seen coming from the FCC. Of course, I don't
>want to imply that they take their marching orders only from us! They
>are responding to a need -- one that has been pointed out to them by
>many different sources.


Uhuh..like I said...the problem is that the recent actions have been taking 
place in areas where the FCC Field Engineer is suffering from 'Maytag Repair
Man's Syndrome'. In So. Calif. the priorities have been layed out to me by
our local OO Chief as follows:

 1) Presidential Communications (for), Air Force 1, and 2. The motorcades for
same and the various visiting international groups that the SS, FBI, CIA, etal
must survey and protect. These frequencies are the FCC's local top drawer. Any
kind of irregularities are run to task in real-time and without fail!

 2) Air and Marine traffic frequencies (where) safety of passengers is at stake.

 3) Police, Fire and emergency response frequencies.

 4) Commercial broadcast and business related to broadcasting.

 5) Common-carrier commercial interests.

 6) ISM and manufacturing interests.

 7) Amateur Service, but only in extreme cases.

 8) CB, but only where such operations impact Priorities 1-6.


(Well, great! At least we beat the CBers by one notch...or did we?)
 
>
>The other dead horse I will beat again is that K1ZZ (Dave Sumner) is not
>the one who will make the policy decisions about this type of thing. Policy
>is set by the ARRL Board of Directors. If you are unhappy with League
>policy in any matter, make your views known to your Division Director. I

K1ZZ has been the nominal spokesman and secretary for ARRL at most industry
interfaces, he has been the one doing the frontspiece articles in QST since
being given the job...I (wrongly, it seems) thought that PERHAPS he would
be able to focus some energy on the issue and cut thru the red-tape..it seems
that's not actually possible with a real issue.

>have seen too many ARRL Forums at conventions that are attended by less
>than 1% of the convention attendees! (These are mainly the OFs who are 
>too enfeebled to walk around the booth area looking for bargains :-) :-) ).
>Letters or phone calls work fine, too. Don't let these folks work in a
>vacuum and then complain if they don't get all of their decisions right.
>In spite of all one could say about the Board, I have met most of them --
>they are dedicated, hard-working volunteers who give up over half of their
>weekends to attend hamfests, club meetings, conventions, etc., to make
>themselves available to you. If they can do this, can you (collective)
>spare as much of your time as you spend writing flames and posts to writing
>a well-reasoned letter to your Director?
>
>Just some food for thought.
>
Yep, I know...being a volunteer is a thankless task. Just like putting up
antennas, running nightly nets, teaching kids about radio and whole host of
other noble things. The point being these individuals have ASKED to do the
job...I would like to think that given a sense of direction and the existing
situation or situations, they could more easily accomplish their objectives.
..which I would *hope* include fostering healthy discussion about what we do
and why we do it. So far not one of the ARRL staffers have offered a real
reason *why* the League insists on code proficiency beyond the ITU regs
requirement of 5 WPM...can you answer that for me and this assembly? Please.
..the FCC claims they would be willing to DROP the 13 and 20 WPM tests from
the incentive scheme but that the ARRL insists on keeping them.

'73 from Sunny So. Cal.!


-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY           +-------------------------+
Citicorp(+)TTI                          *----------> panic trap; type = N+1 *
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA  90405     +-------------------------+
{rutgers}!ttidca!sorgatz <- until 8/15/92 after-> (sorgatz@soldev.TTI.COM)