So I was able to attend an actual Hamfest today. How sweet it was!! The number one question asked at my ARRL table was "What are WE doing to confront the proposed charges from the FCC?" The "WE" was the collective we, clearly meaning all of us as League members. I was able to say that the Board and HQ staff are working on developing a suitable and effective response and then came the second question, (from all, by the way) was "How can I help?" Truly, all around here want to lend a hand in any way they can, be it letter writing, e-mails or phone calls. Interestingly, in their eyes, the Commission has further lost credibility, as not one person had anything complimentary to say about the FCC. Most are pretty steamed about "...the FCC's pursuit of the almighty dollar while letting the cost-free contributions that Amateur Radio provides to the wold all fall by the wayside..." 73, back to net..........OH await, the second-most-asked question was "What are WE doing to confront the proposed removal of the 3.0 to 3.5 GHz band?" -- Same answer, same commentary. We really need to get loud about what we are doing. It is past time. This needs to be in headlines and lead articles. Again, 73 -- Dale WA8EFK On 9/11/2020 10:31 PM, rjairam@gmail.com wrote:
I would take the K6UDA video with a large grain of salt. He is a "shock jock" who routinely bashes the ARRL for clicks and views and you literally cannot please him. He isn't even an ARRL member even more.
However, I do agree that the appearance of our response has been less than spectacular. There is the impression that the ARRL doesn't seem to be pursuing this diligently or enthusiastically, or at all (in some cases). We aren't presenting an actual position, nor any force, nor any real concern. We have to show all of the above.
Ria N2RJ
On Fri, Sep 11, 2020 at 8:41 PM Mickey Baker <fishflorida@gmail.com> wrote:
If you go to youtube.com and search for ARRL Fee, you'll find a dozen videos that vary, but are fairly negative about the fees and the ARRL's lack of clear, strong opposition.
A popular vlogger, K6UDA, says at https://youtu.be/AQJwNDSip30?t=170
"One thing that I did notice about the article here, (re: our August 28 web posting) is, this is, it really looks like a straight news article. which, you know what, as far as the news. that's what you'll want you just report the news. I get it, but the ARRL is an advocacy group. To be perfectly honest, from this article, I can't even tell what the ARRL's position is on this new rule making, if they even have a position.
Right now, (Friday, September 11, 8:30EDT), there are 11,221 views of this video and 375 comments, some very negative about ARRL.
I believe that we have agreement among the Directors that we are asking our Washington counsel to draft opposing comments to all facets of this proposal for our review and subsequent filing.
Can we please substitute an article which states this and replaces the current article? I'm getting many emails and phone calls about this.
In these times (and forward) we must do better with timely changes to online media.
Mickey Baker, N4MB Palm Beach Gardens, FL “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead." Robert K. Greenleaf
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 9:29 PM Mickey Baker <fishflorida@gmail.com> wrote:
Agree with Dale, Jim, John and Ria and many prior comments. I’ve had a number of members write in opposition.
The consensus is, yes, $50 every 10 years won’t hurt most of us but it will provide an economic barrier to entry to those considering amateur radio - particularly young and economically disadvantaged.
It will definitely have a dampening effect on the growth of amateur radio.
We should charge our counsel to compose a full throated, broad oppositional response to this proposal on our behalf, and perhaps provide a template for member opposition filings.
73,
Mickey N4MB
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:56 PM rjairam@gmail.com <rjairam@gmail.com> wrote:
John,
Full agreement here.
73 Ria, N2RJ
On Thu, Sep 3, 2020 at 8:25 PM John Robert Stratton <N5AUS@n5aus.com> wrote:
All
I posted this to the EC reflector, but forgot to cross post
it.
If we are to preserve the support of our Members, our donors,
the respect of the perennial naysayers and the FCC, I believe we
must oppose the planned assessment of fees against Amateur
licensees.
Even, if based on David Siddal's advice and opinion, we may
face an uphill battle or even no chance of prevailing, we should
use the opportunity to take a public stand — with a well
articulated and published position and campaign— against the
implementation of the proposed fees. One of our most damaging
failings — and it has been for many years — is that we do not
communicate well to the public or with our Members that the League
is always standing for the rights of Amateur Radio and our
Members; that failing cries out to be corrected. Our current town
criers do not serve us well.
Who knows? By entering the lists, we might just take the day.
_______________________________________
John Robert Stratton
N5AUS
Director
West
Gulf Division
Office: 512-445-6262
Cell: 512-426-2028
P.O. Box
2232
Austin,
Texas 78768-2232
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
-- “Ends and beginnings—there are no such things. There are only middles.” Robert Frost
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv
arrl-odv mailing list arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org https://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv