[Boatanchors] I agree

Chuck wcmoore at verizon.net
Mon Nov 30 08:08:16 EST 2015

   I am getting old (64) and over the years have developed
   increasing hostility to the league. Today I view it
   as nothing more than a caretaker of a couple of
   overpriced paper rags called QST and QEX. If you
   examine 1950's editions of QST they included
   technical articles. Each month there was a
   plethora of one and two tube designs for antenna
   switches etc and usually a full tilt rig design such as
   transceivers, superhets etc.. Initially  it appeared
   QEX was going to fill that void but even now QEX
   carries few technically challenging articles on rf.
   The last change was it. I will not renew my subscription
   for QEX with the switch to cheap news print. Enough
   The day of an amateur license carrying any prestige
   relative to the technical competency of the operator
   was tossed with the FCC divesting the examination
   responsibility as well as the watering down of the
   Q&A pools.
   Why would I want to contribute to a group who
   maintained watched during the evolution of this mess?
   I am not saying to stay in the past but at least
   move into the future with a viable construct.
   Chuck WD4HXG

   On 11/29/15, Wilson<infomet at embarqmail.com> wrote:

   I think we should all belong to and support ARRL.
   Agree with everything or not, they are far and away our best lifeline
   Dropping out over an issue is petty. They can't please everyone all the
   Pactor may have some EMCOMM use, but I consider its boater use a
   scourge and
   antithetical to "real" ham operation.
   Routine use on boats (or anywhere) is contrary to all stated ham
   There's no techie involvement and no goodwill generation.
   The exam is a joke and everyone on the boat will likely use it, ham or
   Just buy it, pay someone to install it, and use "our" spectrum.
   Sure, it can be another digi mode for hams, but pushing it out to
   is nuts.
   So let's get some cards and letters going to the right places.
   Also getting old
   -----Original Message-----
   From: Glen Zook via Boatanchors
   Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2015 9:14 PM
   To: [1]bcarling at cfl.rr.com
   Cc: [2]boatanchors at puck.nether.net ; [3]tetrode at googlegroups.com ;
   [4]Novice-Rigs at mailman.qth.net
   Subject: Re: [Boatanchors] [Glowbugs] I agree
   The ARRL has been, seemingly, pushing for more WINLINK / PACTOR
   for some time. One speculation is that they hope to increase membership
   through more boat, and yacht, owners getting licenses specifically for
   operating using those modes because they do not want to have to pay for
   Internet access using considerably more expensive commercial links. Of
   course, being able to afford, and to operate, such watercraft usually
   requires a substantial investment and yet those same people don't want
   spend any money to be able to use the Internet while on the water.
   again, amateur radio operators also have a reputation as to being
   and, I suppose, boat / yacht owners are no different where money is
   Although the ARRL does not normally make the actual number of members
   public, if one takes a look at the mailing notice that has to be
   periodically, that is in small print in the back of QST, it is pretty
   to get a pretty good idea as to the number of members.
   For some time, the ARRL has "pushed" EMCOMM to get new members to
   other members who have abandoned the ARRL and, it seems, that they are
   the same thing with boat owners.
   I abandoned the ARRL some time back because they have long stopped
   supporting what I believe the direction that amateur radio should take.
   Since I am not an ARRL member, I do not comment on the internal
   workings of
   that organization. However, when the ARRL submits petitions to the FCC,
   even when they are proposing such, that affects the entire amateur
   population then I definitely do have the right to comment!
   Several years ago, the ARRL submitted a request for an NPRM that
   WINLINK / PACTOR operations that they retracted after quite an uprising
   within the membership. It appears that they might be trying it again.
   I realize that thing are changing and have been changing for some time
   during the over 56-years that I have been licensed and some of those
   have been for the good of amateur radio and some have not been good for
   amateur radio. However, I definitely believe in doing everything
   to stop changes that are definitely not in the best interests of the
   Radio Service.
   Glen, K9STH
   Website: [5]http://k9sth.net
   Boatanchors mailing list
   [6]Boatanchors at puck.nether.net


   1. mailto:bcarling at cfl.rr.com
   2. mailto:boatanchors at puck.nether.net
   3. mailto:tetrode at googlegroups.com
   4. mailto:Novice-Rigs at mailman.qth.net
   5. http://k9sth.net/
   6. mailto:Boatanchors at puck.nether.net
   7. https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/boatanchors

More information about the Boatanchors mailing list