16 Comments

Commenting has been turned off for this post
James's avatar

I read the letter N2AA wrote and that you posted just now, and I saw a few days ago that Ria had stepped down. I wasn't sure why, and to be honest I still haven't investigated it, but I'll give you my take on the ARRL and some of its motives.

Their standpoint on "radio active hams" seems to be predicated on whether or not they are ARRL members, by using the math that most active hams are members of the ARRL. How could the ARRL determine how many "radio active hams" there really are? This is a non-starter for me, and I can see where this is going. This is about memberships and money. Because it seems to me, what David is really saying is, 'We helped make licensing easier, to obtain more licenses/memberships, but they get their license and we never hear from them again; evidenced by the number of licenses having increased, but the number of ARRL memberships hasn't increased along with them.' He's disguising his language "active" = member.

I've been a member since getting my license a few years ago, but I only donate for the advocacy of spectrum and the magazine. The ARRL is akin to the NRA and other lobbyist groups and organizations. Most importantly, the ARRL is a business, and makes decisions based on what businesses are about. Money. This idea that DEI is some path to more money is a disillusion that seems to be sweeping across the corporate landscape. "Go woke, go broke" is a common catchphrase that has some merit. The fact is, manipulating somethings natural course to effect the outcome leads to unintended consequences. The matter of diversity in ham radio is a complex system, just as the diversity issue in general. As a matter of course, the "problem" would eventually self-correct, as it's been doing for decades, and getting in there and turning knobs and pushing buttons isn't going to help.

Old white men making up the majority of ham radio is not a problem that needs fixed, and is not a result of some mechanism of oppression. As I see it, there is complete freedom and inclusion in who can obtain a license, and the rest is up to them. Yes, it would appear that there are "gatekeepers" that think they're the true essence of ham radio. But these folks need to be ignored, and for the most part they are. I've had to deal with them starting out, but I quickly realized that I need not worry about their opinions. It's not a fraternity, a guild, or a club. No one is hand-picked and there is no interview process. We're free to do what we want after getting licensed, with in the law of course.

To sum it up, the ARRL is looking for ways to pull people in, not for amateur radio's sake, but for their own. Looking to project inclusiveness as a rallying cry is the wrong route in my opinion. It's not genuine and it shows. They need to slow their roll when it comes to their outreach efforts and focus on lobbying. They continue to interject themselves into matters they have no business getting into and it's having a negative effect on the hobby. Just my opinion.

Expand full comment
Nate Bargmann's avatar

I looked into JNOS earlier this year and was curious why it was not packaged for Debian. It seems that even though the source code is available gratis, the licensing hearkens back to such statements as "for amateur radio use only" which is incompatible with the Debian Free Software Guidelines. No one has apparently opted to package it and add it to the "non-free" repository.

I do know that the history of NOS goes back quite a ways. I'm not sure how much of its predecessor NET became a part of NOS. Back in the '90s I was able to make the acquaintance of Joe Buswell who held K5JB at that time who told me some of the history of NET but that I've sadly forgotten.

Expand full comment

No posts