Dear Fellow Amateur:
I know that some of you, maybe most of you, don't give a flip about some of
us that still operate AM or restore old equipment. It appears from various
writings and communications from ARRL that they don't either. To that end,
the January 2003 issue of QST nicely displays a Collins 75A-1. It seems
that the ARRL officers speak one language and then reacts quite differently.
Like the courthouse clock, it has 4 faces and they often may not all tell
the same time.
I seem to think that the ARRL charter states that its purpose is to
represent the interest of ALL amateur operations, not just a select few.
Yes, I know that those of us that do enjoy and operate AM are a small
minority. But I figure my $39 per year is just as good as the next persons
$39 per year.
After some 40+ years as a licensed amateur, and a member of ARRL for most of
that time, I'll really have to give some serious thought as to if I write
another $39 check to ARRL.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the arrival of my new TenTec ORION,
representing the latest in amateur radio technology. With it, I'll operate
SSB, CW and AM as well as some of the digital modes. I just don't like
being left out in the cold by an organization that is supposed to represent
ALL of my interests.
I suggest that you do the same.
73
Bob, K4TAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "WA3VJB Annapolis" <WA3VJB@amfone.net>
To: "Ray at ER" <ER@OfficeOnWeb.net>
Cc: <k1ki@arrl.net>; <K3ZX@arrl.net>; <n2ff@optonline.net>; <w6xd@arrl.org>;
"N3EFN-Bernie/AtDivDir" <bfuller@gremlan.org>; "W3KD - Chris Imlay"
<W3KD@aol.com>; "W5JBP" <W5JBP@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:31 PM
Subject: Editorial Letter
> Electric Radio Magazine
> Ray Osterwald, N0DMS, Editor
>
> Ray,
> Please consider publishing my letter below as part of your coverage and
> comment on the recent ARRL lack of support in actions regarding AM.
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Paul
>
>
> DEAR ER:
>
> In addition to being disappointed that the League will not offer an AM
> endorsement to its Worked All States Award, I am indignant that the ARRL
> recently failed to see the merits of what could have been a nice, symbolic
> gesture to the AM community to have responded positively to concerns about
the
> W1AW bulletins on SSB on 7290Kc. This frequency is designated for AM
activity
> by the ARRL's Good Operator guide, and the discrepency has not been
resolved.
>
> The contradiction does not boil down to Joe Carcia, although he is the
Station
> Manager of W1AW. His reluctance to either change mode to AM or change
> frequency was backed by Dave Sumner, K1ZZ, the top unelected
administrative
> executive at the ARRL. It is easy to conclude there's a broader problem
> of "attitude," that we've long suspected of the League regarding its view
of
> AM.
>
> I suggest that the incidental W1AW bulletins being mismatched against the
ARRL
> Good Operator's Guide are NOT enough on their own to merit too much
attention,
> even though our questions are appropriate and our criticism is valid. To
limit
> such comments to a fairly low level issue however, allows the perpetrators
to
> ignore a bigger problem.
>
> You can bet, for example, there would be a prompt and apologetic response
if
> AM enjoyed the same status as DXing, and W1AW had decided to set up a
bulletin
> outlet in "their" portion of a band. But, keep in mind, the DX community
> enjoys such stature, and the ARRL would never think of doing so in the
first
> place. I don't mean to hit DXers, either; name any other speciality in ham
> radio, new or old technology, and the point still holds: There is
substantial
> and unjustified bias against AM in the League's administration.
>
> So, do you fix the misguided W1AW schedule, or do you work for a more
> comprehensive solution that could help a variety of issues that undercut
> positive visibility for AM activity within the League?
>
> I firmly believe it is time we initiate a generalized inquiry to establish
in
> an affirmative manner AM's place in League thinking. Such questions can
and
> should be raised by each of us to each of our Division Directors, copying
in
> Sumner, ARRL pres. Jim Haynie, W5JBP, and AM folks. It will take a
substantial
> number of us each making such an inquiry to make much difference. So, I
urge
> you to go for it!
>
> This goes beyond the question of whether someone is an ARRL member. The
> League's regulatory deliberations affect members and non-members alike, as
> witnessed by the AM Power Issue (we lost, circa 1980), the bandwidth
issues
> (we won, circa 1976), and AM on the proposed 60 meter band (not yet
decided).
>
> In my opinion, the ARRL is putting its credibility at risk with the FCC,
if
> their organization can be shown to deliberately exclude any specialties
such
> as ours that could be affected by any position they take on rules and
> regulations.
>
> Paul Courson
> WA3VJB@amfone.net
> Annapolis
>
>
> EXPLORE vintage radio on the shortwave ham bands!
> www.amfone.net
> www.amwindow.org
>
|