It’s confession time: I’ve not been a member of the ARRL for most of the time I’ve been licensed. This wasn’t due to any fundamental disagreement with the organization, policies or its people. Rather, I simply didn’t have amateur radio as my main hobby for the first ten years or so that I was licensed due to school, work and other commitments. (I had a lot of sporting clays to shoot, or as W4GA and I call it, “turning a lot of money into noise.”) Eventually, I did join the organization and have been pleased with the services and benefits that are conferred upon those with membership. However, no organization is perfect; but the great thing about the ARRL is that any member is able to have things changed as a result of petitioning the elected leaders of the organization, many of whom I’ve often found to be willing to listen to proposals brought to them, not that I’ve had to do so. Until now.
In middle to late last year, I attempted to have my views on what seems to me to be a pretty big problem within the VHF community at large- in relation to the ARRL in particular- published as an Op-Ed within the organization’s membership magazine, QST. It was rejected. This was disheartening, as no one enjoys rejection. As is standard in the publishing industry, no reason was given as to why the piece was rejected. At this point, I could have chosen one of two ways to handle this:
1) File the letter away and figure, oh well, I tried.
Or,
2) I could send the piece to a competing publication for dissemination. I could then mail it to the individuals who needed to be solicited the most- the elected ARRL officials who have culpability in the matter- and then publish it on my own page. You can guess which I picked.
*******
I’ve read enough vacuous op-ed pieces in QST to wonder why they even publish them in the first place, as they are so boring and milquetoast as to be of no use whatsoever. They’d be better off selling another page to the advertisers; and in fact, the editorial leadership of QST are already shortening two of my favorite columns, “The World Above 50 MHz,” and “Microwavelengths,” in order to accommodate more advert filler for the magazine. I’m sure other columns have taken their lumps, too.
Before I continue, I’d like to point out that I don’t have an axe to grind with the editorial staff- it took nearly two months from submission to rejection- which I hope indicates that there was some discussion and thought put into rejecting my submission. I respect that not every piece can be published for any number of reasons and that the rejection itself isn’t personal. I’ve nothing but respect for the ARRL staff, volunteers and leadership. It’s a pretty thankless job, I imagine, and I’m sure many of the folks in Newington are laboring not to become wealthy, but are instead pursuing something that they are passionate about. I’d love to work for the ARRL myself. I believe it to be a great organization.
None of this, however, changes the fact that my views are still worth considering and should have been published, if only to bring to light the difficulties that the VHF segment of the membership has recently undergone without notice to the membership at large. I’ve taken the rejection more as a sign of apathy to the subject matter than as a sign of some resentment or unwillingness to work to improve matters for everyone. There is a great and growing chasm among VHF operators as a body and these fights are especially visceral among the EME ops. The ARRL has it in its power to ameliorate some of these difficulties and keep the catfight from continuing (or maybe directing the catfight to happen in another way); but for some reason, does not appear to wish to do so. Part of me can’t say I blame them; but the other part of me believes the ARRL Board of Directors should reexamine dissolving the VUAC (VHF/UHF Activity Committee) committee, revising VHF contest rules and perhaps reevaluate the VUCC award, as well. One thing is for sure, out of the three, one item is most important: the VUAC needs to be reinstated.
Below the fold, please find a copy of the submitted op-ed. I’ve sent a paper copy to each Director and Vice Director as well. I like to be thorough. As someone interested in VHF and above operating and contesting, I find it utterly deplorable that the VUAC was disbanded and that continued calls for rule changes in VHF contests- or at least the consideration of them- continue to fall on deaf ears. Considering VHF operator demographics, it is really no wonder why this is the case- there are too few operators to compete for what must be too few resources. But even so, if VHF ops can’t come to a consensus about what to do, how can we really hold those in Newington responsible? We have to have a direction that the leaders in Newington can be presented with and be shown to fulfill the desires of a large majority of those same people who often complain on the various reflectors but never seem to write anyone who actually can change things about it. We can get things changed. Maybe my efforts here will provoke more debate. But what I am really hopeful for is that my thoughts actually gets debated by the people who can actually help to change things. We have to start somewhere, and this is just as good a place as any.
There is an ongoing debate within the VHF community that recently resurfaced during this VHF contest season. Indeed, it seems to resurface every contest season. The argument centers on the amount of recognition one should feel entitled to if one achieves some recognized accomplishment, such as VUCC, using VHF and above frequencies by mode. The crux of the issue rests on the fact that achieving these accomplishments can be “easier” (a relative term, to be sure) depending on which mode- CW, Phone, Data or Mixed- is used; as VUCC makes no distinction about any specific mode required for the award, many try to evangelize their particular view on what counts as credit for an award or contest and what, and by extension, who, does not.
You can see where this is going, right? It’s another form of the “code vs. no-code” debate. There is a natural appeal to it- doesn’t everyone enjoy talking about how things were in “their day,” which usually includes some form of climbing hills of snow both ways to and from school? No matter what side you favor or from what position you begin, this argument ultimately leads to protracted and useless discussion that poisons the pool, or maybe more accurately, leads to the same place fishing with dynamite does- lots of effort for too little result.
Of course, there is no question that there are technical differences between the various modes. In this case, however, it isn’t necessarily the transmission of a particular mode that is at issue; rather, at issue is the reception. With the advent of computers and sound cards, the ability to detect signals beyond human faculties is now both possible and routine. And that’s the rub.
There are some operators, we will call them traditionalists, who believe that only human faculties should be used to detect and decode signals. Specifically, they believe only human decoding and deciphering of signals without any other machinery (read: computers, but somehow not radios themselves) should be used to complete a QSO. Any other object used to detect and decipher these signals, in the mind of the traditionalist, does not make for a complete, honest to goodness contact. Favorite modes: CW and Phone.
In the other camp, we have what we will call the modernists. Like the traditionalists, they believe that a legitimate QSO can be made by using human faculties; where the two differ, however, is that the modernist also believes the digital modes are a valid method by which to make contacts in a contest or for any award. In addition to CW and Voice, these operators are happy to include the many different modes in the suite of WSJT software to generate legitimate contacts for any contest or award.
Why can’t the two camps get along? The main reason is because there is no agreement on how to delineate between which mode should be considered the most difficult or easiest- or whether mode should matter at all. Second, there have been many public and private fights that, in such a small community within amateur radio, have been the source of much acrimony that has chilled many from operating their stations at all. Lastly, as the result of being such a small population within amateur radio, it has been difficult to settle these issues among the various disparate groups at the national level simply because there is not enough volume to overcome other groups and their concerns. This last bit is easy enough to demonstrate, as the ARRL board recently disbanded the VUAC. Who will speak for us now?
I’m not sure what the answer is to many of these questions. I believe that mode should be recognized in some way generally and I believe that VHF and above contests need a serious rules review; if the log submission rates continue to decline, there won’t be anymore contests, and no more contests means even less use of spectrum and we all know where that leads. How to go about this reformation is an exercise left to the reader. I know that my Division Director will at least listen to any serious proposal brought to his attention and without doubt other Directors will as well. There needs to be a healthy dialogue- devoid of bitterness- and maybe more like politics used to be: we will all be miserable because we didn’t get quite what we wanted, but what we get instead is good enough to please most of us some of the time. Without some sort of new approach to increasing activity and harmony, I fear that an already small population will dwindle further. That isn’t good for any of us.