PE1HZG
| Joined: | Sat, Apr 4th 1998, 00:00 | Roles: | N/A | Moderates: | N/A |
Latest Topics
| Topic | Created | Posts | Views | Last Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Place to discuss "ARRL dues" issues | May 28th 2023, 12:48 | 1 | 2,386 | on 28/5/23 |
| ARRL's "support young hams" donation requests are getting out of hand | Nov 30th 2022, 13:20 | 1 | 3,265 | on 30/11/22 |
| "bandplan" in July QST issue | Jun 25th 2022, 12:17 | 2 | 4,336 | on 27/6/22 |
| New ARRL website / changes? | Mar 31st 2022, 16:59 | 9 | 5,143 | on 14/6/22 |
| Status ARRL audio news | Aug 21st 2013, 11:03 | 3 | 6,656 | on 22/9/13 |
| JOTA 2012 | Oct 18th 2012, 09:05 | 1 | 6,988 | on 18/10/12 |
Latest Posts
| Topic | Author | Posted On |
|---|---|---|
| Place to discuss "ARRL dues" issues | PE1HZG | on 28/5/23 |
| Hi, I'm not sure if this topic suits this forum but I'm not aware of a better place for it and the ARRL forum sees little traffic, so here goes. As ARRL member, I have seen the various articles on dues as well as the survey. A survey is always problematic because it always biases the answers by the questions being asked. So far, the dues discussion publication has been two-fold: one bit on adjusting annual dues for raised costs, and the second bit, less articulated at this point yet, on reflecting the lifetime members (of which I am one). And it's the second bit I am confused about. An ARRL lifetime member pays 25 times the annual subscription and is then member "for life". Seems to be a good arrangement for me (which is why I took it, and frankly, took it when the dollar exchange rate was favorable), and a good arrangement for ARRL as members don't just cancel their membership, which is an issue with annual renewal schemes. I am not a financial expert, but some friends have more business background and say that the scheme is good for ARRL. For the dues paid, ARRL would need to make 4% income (interest) and then the membership indeed is "free". While interest in today's economy is less than it was a decade ago (I do remember interest rates of more than 10%!), with the certainty that the original dues never need to be paid back (and fall to ARRL on my passing), I think I can see that this can work. It is also cheaper for ARRL, because there is no admin work on sending renewal notices, collecting the money, processing it etc. In addition to "the 4%", income needs to be generated to compensate for higher costs, price indexing. It is clear that a 1960 lifetime membership, based on the 1960 subscription fee, doesn't generate enough income today if one only considers the 4%. At the same time, a house, in 1960, was much cheaper than it was now and I can't but hope that ARRL has done the correct thing here and the 1960 lifetime subscription still generates enough income today. And, again, keep in mind that, assuming ARRL is doing the 4% thing correctly, keep in mind that the original lump sum of the subscription falls to ARRL on my passing. In the discussion I've seen so far, I have not seen anything on how well ARRL is doing in this regard. I have not seen any publication on the matter. And that makes "reflecting on how we do lifetime memberships" a difficult subject for me. And there is more. I am (and have been for decades) a member for the printed, paid version of QEX magazine. "International" doesn't make this cheap either but one does what one can make do so I pay annual fees for the printed QEX magazine. Fairly recently, QEX (and the other additional magazines, line NCJ and OTA) have been made "free download" if you are an ARRL member. There is no life memberships on these magazines, I do pay an annual due (which is not cheap, again, DX subscriptions are more expensive). Publishing a magazine, be it QEX, NCJ, OTA), incurs cost. There is the cost of the editorial process (creating, editing articles, making a magazine), the salary cost of the editor, graphics artists, equipment. On top of that there is the cost of the printing process and of course the postal cost. By making these magazines "free online", there is no more income for the editorial process, what remains is printing and postage and the costs for those go up as the printed/posted volumes go down. In that regard, I'm not sure I understand the steps of making these magazines available online for free, which reduces paid membership ("I'll cancel my subscription and just read online") and kills editorial cost income. One DOES increase "circulation" which may affect advertisement incomes but again, I don't have a clue what the net effect is: lower editorial income from subscriptions or higher income from advertisements). A third issue is on "facilities". An ARRL subscription, for domestic members, not only gives the magazine, but also "services". ARRL has a division structure based on geography, an election mechanism to select representation, but for us "DX" there isn't anything, and me mailing any of the "division representatives" never resulted in a response from them, let alone them "representing me". So, the "services thing" applies less so for "us DX members". There are other facilities like the ARRL offices ("visit ARRL") and the facilities for extra recognition, the "diamond club" and the "terrace". I think these might do well (and I hope they do, and I'm not complaining them!) but for me, "DX", there is less value in them. I can't see myself do a transatlantic travel to go visit them. And before people think I'm boo-ing these (I really am not!) I should mention that ARRL staff contacts have been excellent for those cases where contacts made sense. I just don't see much benefit for these additional facilties for "DX" members like myself. This posting has possibility of creating an ARRL firestorm, a flamefest, ARRL bashing etc. I am really hoping my posting won't start that. I am looking, however, for more insights on the questions from David and some reflections with other ARRL members on the issues we now learn are popping up. So I hope we can keep this civilized, insightful and informational and hopefully get some guidance on the questions David is asking us. 73, Geert Jan PE1HZG |
||
| ARRL's "support young hams" donation requests are getting out of hand | PE1HZG | on 30/11/22 |
| Today I received no less than the fourth (4th) email message from ARRL development sollicitating a donation for "ARRL young hams". While this is probably well-intended, receiving four of these, in less than one week, is excessive. I also note that on the ARRL membership portal, my preference to receive solicitations has been switched OFF. I think this is getting out of hand. Am I the only one suffering? 73, Geert Jan |
||
| "bandplan" in July QST issue | PE1HZG | on 25/6/22 |
| Assuming this topic is monitored by ARRL staff, can whoever has worked on the band plan on the July QST issue please contact me? My email address at arrl.net works. | ||
| EMAIL Forwarding NOT working | k2wo | on 21/6/22 |
| Of course, it is two days later than the second posting, but "arrl.net mail forwarding still works for me". Suggesting the obvious - "did you check your spam mailbox". Unfortunately, alias services like this are disliked by some email operators (AT&T being one) and perhaps your issue is there. Geert Jan |
||
| New ARRL website / changes? | PE1HZG | on 31/3/22 |
| After some downtime, the ARRL website is back, and it is "the new ARRL website". Perhaps we can use this place to discuss what has changed, what is good, and what it bad. As ARRL life member the website is now obscured by a big picture "Make the most of your amateur license ...". I consider this a negative, it obscures access to the news section, I now have to scroll past this useless section to see the news. On the new website, the ARRL forum (this forum) is no longer accessible. On the old website I had to find a link; now I had to use the search engine. The forum sees little use (it is a far cry from eham.net, qrz or some of the Dutch and German fora I frequent) and I wonder about an opportunity missed. The website announcement speaks about me having to change my member credentials but not only is that not true, I'm still logged in. Please understand I'm not trying to sound negative, but I am trying to find "what has changed", the question on "why" and whether it is a good idea. So far I have not seen a lot of changes, perhaps I missed something? |
||
