Corporate annual reports can be real snoozers to read. Unless you have a specific interest in the contents. A high school teacher once used a similar analogy as I tried to stay awake in her class which was just before basketball practice. History is boring. Unless it touches your life! If you’re a licensed ham operator, this story possibly does touch your life. For non-profits, annual reports, if issued, are most often a fiduciary document, not just something dashed out for informal consumption. In short, you should be able to trust what financial information is reported.

That’s actually a legal aspect of being a non-profit, especially if it receives tax relief on income and donations under the IRS Code 501(c)(3). (Not all non-profits have status under this part of the tax code.) This commitment to trust is part of the determination that the IRS makes when it issues a Ruling on a non-profit corporation petition for federal tax relief. Seriously. That ruling for the ARRL came back in 1931.

The formal non-profit requirements are not as clear when it comes to non-financial statements such as factual claims made in an annual report. But the IRS makes it clear that non-profits receiving tax relief under the tax code should be publicly transparent: “By making full and accurate information about its mission, activities, finance, and governance publicly available, a charity encourages transparency and accountability to its constituents.” I was President of a small non-profit for several years, fortunate enough to have a fellow ham attorney who handled these matters weekly as my Secretary-Treasurer. We recently closed the corporation since it had fulfilled its stated mission. We never issued an annual report. Thus, I have personally been through the process. Non-profits are not required to do so but they must file Form 990 with the IRS annually, in a timely matter. For the ARRL, many such filings are available here via a name search. The ARRL Foundation’s Form 990 filings can be found there, too.

Best practices in the non-profit world, however, do suggest the following if a non-profit issues an annual report document, transparency is vital. This complements the IRS quotation on best practices in the previous paragraph:

Transparency is important for a nonprofit. People want to know how trustworthy a nonprofit organization is and see the impact of the work they’re doing. A nonprofit annual report can highlight the good you’ve done, your profits, your losses, and your expenses. This can keep volunteers and investors satisfied with what they’ve helped to create. (Mosey, a compliance assistance company for non-profits).

Especially for a non-profit like the ARRL, which is a corporation with a separate Foundation that allows donors to receive some tax benefits through those solicitations, the transparency criterion is very important.

The trust that what is said in an annual report is akin to key non-required acts that the reader experiences every day. I come from three generations of bankers (my brother was the banker, I became a news journalist then college professor). There is no requirement for a bank teller to count back cash in front of the customer. None. Their bank rating by Sheshunoff & Company will not change one whit. Why do they do it, each and every time? To certify the trust that the transaction is accurate and complete. There are many other examples available but the reader gets the point: trust and veracity are paramount for a membership-based non-profit corporation that solicits donations.

This preface is useful for what I’m about to show. When I read the 2023 Annual Report, I was looking for membership numbers. But when I read the President’s Foreword, a paragraph jumped out at me.

Wow! Let’s ponder this number. Some 75 percent of Technicians just do not participate in amateur radio as soon as one year after receiving their FCC license. Before the reader fires up a spreadsheet to copy and past the simple license numbers from the ARRL FCC Licenses page, consider what this data means. Rick K5UR was referring to 75 percent of NEW licenses, not of ALL licenses. The full Technician license count is comprised of multiple elements: Total = (Existing Licenses + New Licenses) – Expired Licenses. There is no public data readily available that will identify this equation (i.e., give unique estimates consistent with the known total).*

*Moreover, the FCC mainframe ULS database is not efficiently updated to remove expired licenses when the expiration dates pass. It's an erratic thing based upon IT workload so on any given day, the ULS database for amateur radio licenses will undoubtedly contain what "should" be expired licenses but they just haven't been purged. Joe Speroni AH0A and I have downloaded the "end of year" full set of ARS licenses on or about January 1st each year to capture the EOY dataset. Joe used to maintain a snazzy website with a database backend allowing the user to generate custom tables and graphics with filters. He sunsetted that a few years ago but I got 2000-2012 from him before that occurred. I've continued to download the data each January 1st so I have a continuing series from 2000-present. They represent a consistent dataset for EOY numbers. 

But a thought experiment might be, say, 30,000 NEW Tech licenses per year. This would suggest that 22,500 would get licensed but become wholly “inactive” not later than 12 months afterwards. Imagine an active local club who works hard to get 50 new Techs into the hobby through their training and VE Testing Program in a year’s time. This would mean that only 12-13 would still be participating in the hobby a year later. Demoralizing, no?

This is a truly significant finding reported in the 2023 ARRL Annual Report so surely it was something carefully determined by people skilled in data analysis, right?. That’s what I would have assumed. It is critical to better understand this study so I needed to read it for the details.

Just knowing how being “active” in the hobby was defined and measured would be illuminating. We don’t have anything like a consensus on what this means, yet it’s used in any discussion of the state of the hobby. What were the source(s) of the data used? How large were they and how was the sample drawn? Did ARRL conduct a large random sample survey that has not been released to the public? (This is kind of a joke since they hardly ever release survey data to the membership, unlike RAC.) Will the sample generalize to some large population versus just being, say, hams in the Newington, CT area or something? So many questions that are important on this surprising result.

Yet, as the reader will see, CEO David Minster says there was not a study per se!

I sent Rick K5UR an email requesting a copy of the study cited here. So there’s no misunderstanding, I’ve reproduced the email chain below for reference. No he-said, she-said here.

Let’s see if I can summarize. The ARRL President needed some data on the state of amateur radio to frame the theme of the upcoming Annual Report which was on volunteers. The President was told something, either in person or in a presentation (he says he honestly does not recall), by the CEO David Minster concerning a surprising statistic from the Strategic Working Committee about Technician License retention. Rick K5UR publishes his Foreward in the Report as a clarion call for greater volunteerism toward new Technician licensees. Routine. Next on the to-do list, right?

A volunteer for the League (me) asks for a copy of the study since it’s really important for understanding recruitment and retention of new ham operators. And the IRS says this tax-exempt non-profit corporation should be publicly transparent in its activities as well as it being “best practices” to do so. President Roderick refers it to the CEO, who runs the show in Newington. Mr. Minster then corrects the language in the official 2023 Annual Report that there really is no study per se, only a bunch of data amassed to reach some conclusions. But, on the other hand, yes, they did put the results in many tables. OK? But the CEO doesn’t have the “non-study” set of tables or is unwilling to release them. He didn’t say. Mr. Minster points to the recently unelected Division Director Fred Kemmerer AB1OC to fork over answers to my basic questions noted in the email chain. (I get that Fred might not be in the mood for this.) As the source of this “massive set of data put into tables,” Fred AB1OC finally replies that he has nothing to add to what CEO Minster already sent me: which was nothing! So ARRL executives have acknowledged that there is not a study in any real sense but they also refuse to disclose whatever they did to reach this surprising conclusion about Technician loss to inactivity.

The result that I illustrated above should make rational donors question why they would willingly support an education or training project just to have three-fourths of the Technicians being produced take a hike from the hobby inside of a year. Put another way, how would the reader feel if their bank just said, we don’t have to count out your cash withdrawal to you…and we don’t have to explain why.

Is the reader shocked? I'm reminded of the George Bundy character in the old television show, Married With Children, who would say in this situation: Ah geez!

Many questions of suspicion come to the surface here. Did Mr. Kemmerer lose the materials? Did he or his group just not know how to conduct a quality analysis of “a bunch of data” so they’re afraid of releasing it for critique by those who have professional credentials? (Among professional researchers, this is called peer-review and is expected for every study of any significance.) Is it being angry over not being re-elected? Is it a belief that the public simply has no right to know anything cited in an Annual Report? I honestly do not know but one is forced to guess to fill in the blanks since he refused to communicate as CEO Minster told him to do.

I get that Rick K5UR got caught short with this, trusting his CEO to get him key data for the Foreward of the Annual Report which focuses on volunteers in the hobby. I’ve put together many technical documents like this and you have to rely on others for accurate information. The CEO is compensated $303,246 plus another $45,475 in additional monies (or $348,721) according to the latest IRS Filing. This should be the kind of thing that he does for the President in preparation for a fiduciary Annual Report just like getting an official auditor to verify the financial books. But you must get these things right in such a public document, according to those who proffer best-practices for non-profit filings of annual reports. Rick knows this better than I as he is a practicing labor attorney. You must present accurate statements to the court and must face questions by the judge or opposing counsel. This time, it’s the court of public opinion. Since the CEO pushed it off on a former Division Director, it’s confusing. Or perhaps not. The reader can make their own determination here.

The CEO is compensated $303,246 plus another $45,475 in additional monies (or $348,721) according to the latest IRS Filing. This should be the kind of thing that he does for the President in preparation for a fiduciary Annual Report just like getting an official auditor to verify the financial books. 

I’ve been involved with some key issues like this myself. My university research center years ago worked with the Congressional Management Foundation (CMF) on the alternative year survey of the U.S. Senate and the House staff. When the Blue Book report, as it was called, was released, it was said that everything on the Hill ceased for 15 minutes. Why? Congressional staffers wanted to see where they ranked in compensation among their peers. When Time Magazine was doing an investigative piece on the glass ceiling in Congressional staffing compensation for women, the CEO of CMF was on one telephone line with the Time reporter and me on another. When Time would ask thus and so, CMF would tell me the question and I’d quickly run the survey data on my Sun workstation, verbally giving the CMF CEO the results for his response to the reporter on the other line. The CMF CEO was speaking to the public, in the form of Time Magazine’s readership. He had to get what he said right so he called on a scientist involved with the data collection and analysis of congressional staff salary data. That’s a fairly pressured environment to get it as accurate as possible but that’s the deal, no? And, while Time is a for-profit magazine, the principle is the same for the ARRL especially since they solicit contributions from donors.

With the CEO washing his hands of it and the expert on the ARRL Strategic Working Committee just clamming up totally, we are left to conclude precisely what the CEO’s response to me said. There was no study per se. For whatever reason, when they publish something that is unfounded, trust tends to go out the window.

Now, should the reader trust the ARRL when they publish a statement about amateur radio in the U.S.? Should donors question the veracity of what good their money does for the hobby, especially if the solicitation is based on a publicly undocumented study? (Especially since IRS guidance suggests they must be transparent on their activities.) What other statements have not actually had studies behind them even though presented as such? I don’t know. If the ARRL does not have anyone who can conduct a formal study on a topic so it produces a self-standing document, then stop saying they’ve done one. But the transparency issue is still the underlying problem. It precedes the current CEO’s tenure in Newington.

Some years ago, I requested the survey data the ARRL pays for by Readex Research to better understand publication subscribers and readership. CEO Howard Michel denied that request (even though I am technically a volunteer staff “flunky” who is a professional survey researcher) stating that the “League would lose its competitive advantage.” Who is the ARRL competing with such that they desire an advantage?

General Manager at the time Harold Kramer told me that the Readex survey was “proprietary” to Readex. That’s contrary to my experience as a survey researcher who both had clients as well as hired large survey research companies like Gallup to collect data for my research program. I called Editor Rich Moseson at CQ Magazine, whose company also purchased a survey of their readers from Readex to see if the latter’s work for them was indeed the proprietary property of Readex Research. He told me no, it was not. I then called Readex as a prospective customer and asked them the same question. Their response was the survey data was the property of the client. So the League could have easily sent the data to me, as RAC recently did for a survey they collected, so I could provide expert additional analysis to assist “my” national organization.

But why tell a volunteer who is offering to donate about $10,000 of consulting time to help the League meet its mission statement of “to promote and protect the art, science, and enjoyment of amateur radio, and to develop the next generation of radio amateurs” something that is demonstrably untrue? The five pillars are Public Service, Advocacy, Education, Technology, and Membership. Clearly, such results from a national survey would significantly contribute to education, technology, and advocacy, if not the other two. It is the League’s mission. Is it to have complete control over any and all research findings? This way, the League can make whatever claims they wish without independent challenge.

The League’s record on corporate transparency is lacking in my mind from these events. It falls far short of the “best practices” for non-profit corporations as noted above: Transparency is important for a nonprofit. People want to know how trustworthy a nonprofit organization is and see the impact of the work they’re doing. It appears to be at variance with the IRS guidelines for transparency, too. The reader will have to evaluate accordingly. A statement that is often used in data science is: In God we trust. All others bring data.

Many “emergency frequency lists” showing up on the internet are a hodgepodge of frequencies scraped from various sources and assembled into what looks like a credible list. Some of these frequencies are useful, but too many are misleading and perhaps even dangerous. These lists gloss over training and licensing issues, as described here: The Talisman Radio.

Many of these lists are generated by copying other prepper lists or scanning various sources for “emergency frequencies.” Even this Wikipedia page about international distress frequencies includes some of this misinformation.

Important Disclaimer: People often point out that in many jurisdictions, a citizen without a radio license for a specific frequency can still make a call in case of a true emergency (usually defined as potential loss of life or property). This may be true, but it is generally not a good emergency communications strategy: See The Talisman Radio. Most of these lists do not address the issue of radio licensing at all, which is very misleading.

Here is a recent FCC action to consider: The FCC has ruled that a ham radio operator in Idaho must pay a record $34,000 penalty for interfering with wildfire communications on 151.145 MHz. This is a US Forest Service frequency not authorized for amateur radio licensees. So don’t be transmitting on unauthorized frequencies.

Misleading Frequency Lists

One of the worst frequency lists is shown here by Stryker Radios. This “Ham Radio Emergency Frequencies” list shows 29 frequencies, but only two are in the ham bands. The rest are a collection of airband, marine, FEMA, search and rescue, National Guard, US Air Force, etc. Most of these frequencies are not legal for the general public to use. An FCC amateur radio license permits operation on the two ham radio frequencies listed but nothing else. The 4Patriots has a similar list, leaving out the ham radio frequencies and calling the list “other emergency radio frequencies.” The Save Net Radio website also has a poorly thought-out frequency list. But they compound their errors with this statement:

It’s important to note that these frequencies aren’t just for professional rescuers and emergency workers; they can also be used by ordinary citizens who are equipped with the appropriate radio equipment.

This is incorrect and potentially dangerous.

Some Specific Frequencies

These emergency frequencies have three main uses: situational awareness (listening to learn what is happening in your environment), distress calls (calling out to anyone for help), and coordination with friends (communicating with friends and associates about supplies, health and welfare, transportation, weather, etc.)

We must consider our radio’s capabilities, specifically the frequency range (for transmit and receive, which may differ) and modulation type (AM, FM, SSB, etc.). The typical low-cost VHF/UHF radio that is so common (Baofeng UV-5R or similar) has a frequency range of 136 to 174 MHz (VHF) and 400 to 520 MHz (UHF). Many of these radios are shipped with their transmit frequency limited to the amateur (ham) radio bands: 144 to 148 MHz and 420 to 450 MHz. However, there may be a method to enable (or unlock) the entire frequency range for transmitting. Check the specifications of your radio model. These radios are almost always FM only, so no AM or SSB. Some radios can receive AM in the aircraft band but won’t transmit AM.

Listening to radio activity around you can be very helpful in understanding situational awareness. A good example is listening to your local fire or law enforcement channels. You can hear some of these frequencies using a low-cost VHF/UHF radio but a scanner that receives digital signals will be a lot more useful.

Let’s examine some of the frequencies in the Stryker list. I will skip the frequencies outside the typical VHF and UHF tuning ranges listed above, as your radio most likely won’t be able to tune them.

138.225 MHz: Primary FEMA channel for disaster relief operations.
This frequency is in the federal VHF band, but I could not confirm a specific usage.
To transmit on this frequency, you need federal authorization.

146.52 MHz: Ham radio frequency for non-repeater communications on the two-meter band.
This is the 2m FM calling frequency, which is generally lightly used. You may hear interesting traffic on this frequency but need a ham radio license to transmit on it.

151.625 MHz: Utilized by mobile businesses such as circuses, exhibitions, trade shows, and sports teams. Other channels in use are 154.57 and 154.60 MHz.
This is an itinerant business band frequency known as the Red Dot channel. The other two frequencies listed are MURS Channels 4 and 5. They may be useful to program in.

154.28 MHz: Local fire department emergency communication channel. Additional frequencies include 154.265 and 154.295 MHz.
These are Fire Mutual Aid channels (VFIRE21, VFIRE22, VFIRE23) set aside for when multiple fire districts need to communicate. Typically, each district has their own radio frequencies and only uses these when a large incident occurs with multiple agencies responding. An FCC license for these specific frequencies is required to transmit on them.

155.160 MHz: Local and state agency channel for search and rescue operations.
This is the most common VHF frequency for Search and Rescue. To transmit on it, you need an FCC license for this specific frequency.

155.475 MHz: Local and state police emergency communication channel.
This is a Law Enforcement Mutual Aid channel (VLAW31) set aside for when multiple law enforcement agencies need to communicate. An FCC license for this frequency is required to transmit on it.

156.75 MHz: International maritime weather alerts channel.
This is marine channel 15, receive only, reserved for listening to emergency locator beacons. This is not a normal communication channel and is probably not useful in an emergency.

156.80 MHz: International maritime distress, calling, and safety channel.
This is marine channel 16, the calling and distress channel, which may be useful in coastal areas, lakes, and waterways that have significant marine radio activity. This frequency is for marine / boating use using a certified VHF marine transceiver.

162.40 MHz to 162.55 MHz: Series of channels used for NOAA weather broadcasts and bulletins. Also 163.275 MHz.
These well-known weather broadcast stations cover a large portion of the US and are very useful to have programmed in your radio. Do not transmit on these frequencies.

163.4875 MHz: Nationwide emergency channel for the National Guard.
163.5125 MHz: National disaster preparedness frequency for the armed forces.
164.50 MHz: National communication channel for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
These are federal frequencies requiring federal authorization to transmit on them.

168.55 MHz: Federal civilian agency channel for emergencies and disasters.
This frequency is assigned exclusively to smoke jumpers working on wildfire suppression.
Do not transmit on this frequency.

409.20 MHz: National communication channel for the Interstate Commerce Commission.
409.625 MHz: National communication channel for the Department of State.
These are federal frequencies requiring federal authorization to transmit on them.

462.675 MHz: General Mobile Radio Service channel for emergency communication and traveler assistance.
This is Channel 20 on GMRS and FRS radios. This frequency is probably useful, but it is subject to the GMRS and FRS rules.

Some of these frequencies may be useful to monitor in an emergency (situational awareness), but very few are available for distress calling or communicating with friends.

RadioMaster Reports Frequency List

This list originated on the Radiomaster Reports website and has spread around the web in various forms (see below). It is one of the better prepper frequency lists, but it still has some issues.

The FRS and GMRS frequencies are useful to have available. The PMR UHF frequency (446.03125 MHz) listed is actually in the 70 cm ham band in the US and is a non-standard frequency, so it should not be used at all in the US. (PMR is a European standard.) The CB frequencies listed are not available on your typical low-cost VHF/UHF handheld but are useful if you have a CB radio. The so-called CB Freeband frequencies are never legal for use and your standard CB won’t tune them.

The low-band VHF frequency of 33.4 MHz will also not work with your typical handheld radio. The FCC license database shows many businesses are licensed to operate on this frequency, including many fast food restaurants. I suppose if you want to order a hamburger in an emergency, it might work.

If you have the appropriate amateur radio license, the Ham VHF and HF frequencies listed are usable in the US. On the 2-meter band, 146.52 MHz is indeed the nationwide calling frequency and was discussed earlier. However, the frequencies of 146.42 and 146.55 MHz do not always conform to local band plans, depending on the area of the country you are in. So you may or may not find activity there. The Search and Rescue frequency (155.16 MHz) was discussed earlier. The two marine frequencies listed do not require a license but should only be used for boating and similar communications.

Summary

We could continue to examine the specifics of all these frequencies and discuss their equipment requirements, licensing requirements, and proper usage. However, the main message is that these frequency lists are just a collection of random stuff compiled and propagated around the web.  None of them are well-considered and most will likely not do you much good in an emergency.  And they might lead uninformed citizens into using a frequency that can get them into a heap of trouble.

I have been looking for a list to recommend but have not found one. Let me know if you come across one that is truly useful.

That’s what I found. Let me know what you think.

73 Bob K0NR

References

National Field Operations Guide (NFOG)
https://www.cisa.gov/safecom/field-operations-guides

NTIA Redbook
https://www.ntia.doc.gov/publications/redbook-manual

RadioMaster Reports Frequency List
https://radiofreeq.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/shtf_survivalist_radio_frequency_list.pdf

The post Erroneous Prepper Frequency Lists appeared first on The KØNR Radio Site.

Ham College episode 120 is now available for download.

Technician Exam Questions Part 7.
T2A – Station operation: choosing an operating frequency, calling another station, test transmissions; Band plans: calling frequencies, repeater offsets.

Download
YouTube

 Beginning the year with a little plate of DX. On Friday while I was practicing with a CW contesting program I also had running in the background DX Heat. I saw E29TGW from Thailand spotted on 20m from a U.S. station. A lot of the time when I see and check out these spots I am met with static. I turned on the radio and spun the VFO to his frequency. He was there but weak and now and then he popped up to an S3. The best thing was he was calling CQ and no one was there to answer him. I dropped my call a few times and he came back to me and I was in the log. 

Next I saw 7Q2T from Malawi Africa who was spotted on 10m and so I dialed him up and this signal was strong and operating simplex. He was in the log in no time and so within 15 minutes I had 2 ATNO's  in the log. It was now time to get back to CW contest practicing.

Come gather 'round hams
Wherever you roam
And admit that the League
Has far from grown
And accept it that soon
It will be skin and bones

If the League to you is worth savin'
You'd better start engagin'
Or it will sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'

(adapted from Bob Dylan, The Times They Are A-changin')

With the publication of the 2023 Annual Report by the ARRL, we now have two more years of membership and amateur license data since I published my Social Circuits column entitled, “Elvis has left the building.” Indeed, the recent kerfuffle over the membership dues increase and subscription benefits reduction by the League is really Calling Elvis. However, Bob Dylan’s famous ballad that the times are a-changin‘ is the tune being sung by amateurs in the U.S. As a Life Member, I wish it weren’t so but the statistician in me says that engagement, rather than abandonment, will be required to keep the ARRL’s membership from further sinking like a stone in these turbulent waters. Here’s why.

Foundational Ideas

To place the results from the data into a meaningful context, I need to note a few ideas that serve as a foundation for this article. We can think of any social movement organized as a volunteer hobby as incorporating at least two elements. One is the market of adherents who practice elements of the hobby. Another is one or more organizing groups who bring hobbyists together through various means by promoting “best practices,” new innovations, and recruiting newcomers. These are hobby associations, most often legally organized as non-profit corporations with or without associated foundations.

Such is the American Radio Relay League as per the IRS Ruling in 1931 and as incorporated in the State of Connecticut. (Note that there are two legal organizations, the ARRL Inc. [EIN: 06-6000004] and the ARRL Foundation [EIN: 23-7325472]). There are other associations, of course, but the ARRL has promoted itself as The National Association for Amteur Radio so it is the dominant organizer in amateur radio in the United States.

I make this simple distinction because it is imperative to not fall victim to the public relations slights-of-hand that are often practiced by some hobby associations. This is done to enhance the image of the association and to diminish their public failings to the dues-paying and donating membership as well as independent donors. The ARRL itself is NOT amateur radio. Licensed amateurs who practice the craft are the factual embodiment of the hobby as a whole. Don’t get that horse and cart reversed.

But that is generally not how the ARRL presents it’s version of what ham radio is, at least in the U.S. Indeed, in its 1965 50th Anniversary book, the League claimed that until then the history of the ARRL was the history of amateur radio! The appropriate quotation in the Forward by League Secretary Huntoon (1965) is “Since that time [1914] the story of amateur radio has been the history of the League, the chronicle of amateurs working together for the public welfare and for their common good.” Since 1965, the League has made similar claims about the hobby essentially being what officials in Newington say it is. In fact, over lunch, I had a now-retired League staff member haughtily say in my presence that, “In ham radio, if we don’t say it happened, it didn’t. If we say it happened, it did.”

“Since that time [1914] the story of amateur radio has been the history of the League, the chronicle of amateurs working together for the public welfare and for their common good.”

John Huntoon, ARRL Secretary, Forward, 50th Anniversary QST Edition

They have, for instance, changed their written history of the League over the years in several ways. It’s fully documented in QST and other historical documents that the League was co-founded by Clarence Tuska and Maxim. Today, the ARRL just states it was founded by Maxim. But, demonstrably with an apt reading of the independent history of U.S. ham radio as I have done, this is far more corporate PR than legitimate social history. From my reading, little has changed in the League’s public relations stance since the 1965 anniversary. Just read, for instance, the Centennial timeline and related documents for how far this version of ham radio history is at variance with historical documents. Note, for instance, that it was Tuska who taught the “novice” Maxim about the wireless of the time. But who now needs Tuska’s legacy since the Maxim family donated to the League after his untimely passing years ago? Finally, see any mention of Hugo Gernsback, who first organized a national group of hams? No, one doesn’t, for this rendition better serves the ARRL’s public relations interests.

These canards can especially be the case for monthly columns in QST in which statements are made without any empirical basis, whether real or simply held at the League offices as “proprietary.” A good example is: CEO Minster writes in his March 2023 Second Century column (p. 9), “We know, and have known for years, that ARRL members represent the lion’s share of active hams. Moves to grow the hobby…have grown the total number of licensees, but not the number of radio-active hams.” No studies are cited, no facts are on the League’s website, no independent research is offered to support this wanton assertion. It is terribly self-serving for the ARRL to say that the only “active” hams are those who hold membership in the League. As we shall see below, this is a common attempt by hobby associations to move the bar for more favorably evaluating their performance in serving the market for members. I’ll present empirical research in a future column that calls this “siloed knowledge” by the current League CEO into serious question.

“We know, and have known for years, that ARRL members represent the lion’s share of active hams. Moves to grow the hobby…have grown the total number of licensees, but not the number of radio-active hams.”

CEO David Minster NA2AA, QST (March 2023: 9)

This critical distinction leads us to see the clear but diverging paths that the market for U.S. amateur radio and membership in the dominant hobby association have taken. In short, the market is fine. The hobby association incorporated as the American Radio Relay League Inc. is not. Now, let’s turn to the data comparing the market and the organizing hobby association and try to make the best sense of them.

Hobby Market of Licensed Amateurs

How is the market of hobbyists who practice elements of the craft? Holding an FCC license to the Amateur Radio Service is the defining element to be a bona fide hobbyist, as opposed to only having in interest in ham radio. The figure shows that well over a half million licenses have been in force for the past quarter century (1997-2024). Indeed, three-quarters of a million have been held over the past decade (since 2015). If we note the recent drop in total licenses (circa 2021-), compare it to a similar decline back some 20 years ago. In circa 2004, license numbers declined by nearly 30,000 which is about the same as the most recent decline. What then happened? Amateur licensure took off on a bull market for a couple of decades.

But a key question is: what did the National Association for Amateur Radio do to foster that bull market? What is it doing now in similar circumstances? We will see some results shortly in the next section.

Is this market volatile? Do wild, frequent changes in the market prevent the organizing hobbyist association from putting an effective recruitment strategy in place? In this case, not at all! The figure below shows that there has only been a maximum percent and a half change over a six-month period since the late-1990s. Imagine a stock portfolio where the broker shows a client this low level of volatility! It would be a fairly secure position for the investor. Thus, the overall hobbyist market is fairly stable over the past 25 years or so.

But what are the “fundamentals” of the hobbyist market? We know that most hams today enter through the Technician Class license, whereas some years ago it was the Novice ticket. The “career” of the maturing hobbyist is to enter via the Tech license and move upward to the General and, ideally, the Extra classes where a fuller participation on various frequency bands can be experienced. Without individual license data records being linked over time, there is no valid statistical procedure through which we can estimate the progression of licensed hams through this career line. Most all writers about this—including the ARRL staff—make judgements about the fate of the Tech licensee but they are speculative in terms of statistical validity. (This is not a new problem, just ask political scientists who study voting using tabular marginals!)

Note: In future work, I plan to record-link the end-of-year FCC ULS ARS records from 2000-present so as to create observed "career lines" in ham radio licensure in the U.S. This record-linked database is being geocoded so that I can further characterize local geographies where hams reside and the place attributes as well. It is a lot of technical work but something that I've done over my career for many clients and studies, co-founding a peer-reviewed journal on these types of studies. But those data are not available today as this is being written. 

As shown in the graph below, the raw number of Tech licenses has declined since their peak in 2020. But let’s recall some factors that could well be at the root of it. Recognize that these are aggregate numbers. How many Techs moved upward into General or Extra class licenses? We can’t truly tell from these aggregate numbers. But we do know two things from these data. First, General and Extra ticket numbers continue to increase. Second, the obsolete classes of Novice and Advanced continue to decline as their holders do not renew when the license period ends. The fundamentals of the core license-holders of General and Extra appear to be in good shape. They have continued to steadily increase since the beginning of the FCC license restructuring.

This still begs the question of Tech license decline. What has caused it? It is isolated to just this class, ignoring the dormant Advanced and Novice classes. It may have little to do with the League’s actions. Here are my thoughts.

A fee for renewing an amateur radio license was implemented because of some Congressional politics involving “paying for Federal services used” by citizens. I also note that the substantial Homeland Security monies requiring amateur radio to be involved in state emergency management grants has all but gone away. Ten years afterwards, many Techs who acquired a license—such as many I taught in license classes for our state hospital association—no longer see a need for them since they were obtained as a job requirement rather than a hobby activity. Many hospital associations have moved to satellite phones for their emergency communication services to hospitals. In addition, the AT&T First Net funded by Homeland Security has reduced the perceived need by many first responder organizations to having their own in-house licensed amateur radio operators. These are possible drivers of the recent Tech license decline. We cannot fully answer that here but they are logical possibilities to explain this dip in only the Technician class licensees and are independent of League actions or policies.

Since the total number of licenses change over time, one frequent question involves the license class composition and its effect on the hobby market. The graph below is simply the percent that each license class is of the total for each six-month period. The oft-read concern that Techs are dominating the hobby (as if that’s a bad thing) is true, at least, in statistical terms. They have been almost one-half of the total licenses over this century. They are a source of license upgrades but we do not have good data on the probability that any particular Tech will do so (my planned work to record-link licenses will address this). Those with greater access to HF bands, Generals and Extras, have each been about one-fifth for a number of years. General class licensees, in particular, have kept pace with growth in Extra Class holders at very similar rates. We can’t conclude that this is because of the “career line” of upgrading per se but logic suggests that some of it seems to be just that. We just can’t estimate how much.

A conclusion is that the composition of the hobby market has been stable for over 25 years with a diversity of license class holders. I take this as a positive aspect of the hobby market.

We can take a peak at the potential change by license class in the volatility graph below. It’s the percent change in each license class every six months from 1997-2024. First, note the significant spikes or declines in the late 1990s are a result of the FCC license restructuring in 1999. Consequently, the obsolete Novice and Advanced tickets meandered along afterwards with some 5 percent or so biannual shrinkage. This should be expected and reveals little about the fundamentals of the hobbyist market. The key elements here are the relatively small change in the total licenses and the increase in Extra Class holders. While not as noticeable, General tickets tended to keep pace with the change in totals. Honestly, this chart reveals a solid set of fundamentals for the amateur radio hobby market itself.

I’ve now led the reader through a set of simple but reassuring data graphs testifying to the positive status of the marketplace of hobbyists. It would be challenging to use these results to make strong counter-factual statements. The state of the amateur radio hobby market is good.

One caveat is the demographic aging factor. I’ve written about this in several articles, including one involving hams in Canada and the UK who follow similar patterns from limited data (e.g., ARRL membership birth dates) in the U.S. The FCC dropped the birth date from license forms years ago so until the national leadership organization, the ARRL, collects professional survey data on licensed hams that can be statistically generalized to the nation, and makes the data public, we simply do not know how this “secret storm” will affect the market for the hobby. I’ve helped the Radio Amateurs of Canada (RAC) to do this already.

Organizing Association Fundamentals

I now turn from the hobby market to the Amateur Radio Relay League as the dominant organizing association. What are the similar indicators for the ARRL’s fundamentals? How is the National Association for Amateur Radio doing in terms of directly engaging with members?

I shared a quotation above illustrating the perspective of the current CEO David Minster. He feels that it is “known in Newington,” and for a long time, that the vast majority of “active” hams are those holding membership in the League. Mr. Minster does not say what being a “radio-active” ham constitutes. Thus, that leaves it open to serve any purpose chosen by leadership. But shouldn’t the League be concerned with whoever “non-active” hams are? The CEO’s writings do not seem to indicate so, from my reading of all of his monthly columns and many interviews he has given to favorable social media outlets.

To gain some perspective outside the hobby, it is not unusual for a non-profit group to lower the bar in self-serving ways when it comes to setting performance metrics. Over my career, I’ve led evaluations of major national and state programs, such as the 4-H Program as required by Congress, the Smokey Bear media campaign for the U.S. Forest Service, the demand for substance abuse services for a state as required by SAMSHA to allocate many millions of dollars into treatment programs, and how the education reform legislation of the early 1980s reached public schools and the public. These are merely a few high points. I can state that this strategy by program administrators to lower performance expectations happens a lot. But it shouldn’t and program evaluators generally try to set independent standards for reasonable metrics. And, here, there is no public evidence that it is the case that non-members of ARRL are any less “radio-active” than members. Do you know anyone who is “tearing up the pea-patch,” on the air but who is not a League member? I know many. Think of how many you know to make a determination.

The share of licensed amateurs who are members is the bona fide metric for ascertaining how effective the National Association for Amateur Radio is in serving their market (see also Dan KB6NU). With the context of vested interests expressed by ARRL leadership to reduce the market to current members as being “radio-active” having been acknowledged, let’s take a comparative look at how membership trends are doing.”We know, and have known for years, that ARRL members represent the lion’s share of active hams. Moves to grow the hobby…have grown the total number of licensees, but not the number of radio-active hams.”

“The share of licensed amateurs who are members is the bona fide metric for ascertaining how effective the National Association for Amateur Radio is in serving their market (see also Dan KB6NU).“

Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH

Using both data requested from ARRL membership staff as well as the most recent two years of Annual Reports, I’ve put together a couple of graphs below. I’ve annotated the years over the 2000-2023 period (latest) with who served as CEO for the League. This gives the reader some sense who on whose watch membership trends are accountable.

As I wrote in a previous Social Circuits column, the long-serving Dave Sumner K1ZZ is the Elvis of CEO leadership with respect to membership trends. He retired and left the building in 2015. This year was the peak of membership numbers during this period. Under Tom Gallagher NY2RF from 2016-2018, membership began a decline of over 15,000. He came from Wall Street in the decidedly for-profit world of finance. Tom was replaced by Howard Michel WB2ITA, from a technology corporate management background. His three-year term seemed to begin righting the ship as membership numbers increased by a couple of thousand. At least they weren’t rapidly declining as was the case under his predecessor or his successor. The current CEO says he came aboard in 2020 but really appeared on the scene for the 2021 membership year. Membership has dropped like a stone thus far under his tenure, plummeting almost 10,000.

It is disconcerting at how poorly the ARRL forecasts membership or other relevant matters. (See also Dan KB6NU’s column.) In the 2023 Annual Report, for example, this graph (page 15) appears, without comment, on the prior year’s monthly membership trends and the ARRL’s forecast for the 2022 year. The forecast itself is optimistic, projecting to increase League membership by several thousand. The observed data shows a decline by over six thousand! There is no inclusion of the previous year’s membership run-up upon which the forecast was likely based, a serious error in presentation.

How can this forecast be done so poorly by a medium-capitalized non-profit corporation with a $14M budget? I’ve seen similar corporate forecasts before, created to please a Board who wants growth outlook in the market. The complete silence in the Annual Report narrative on the graph suggests this may be what happened. But, almost anyone who passed a course with forecasting trends (covering Exponential Smoothing, Moving Average, Holt-Winters, etc.) could produce a better forecast, certainly with accompanying narrative, and would know better about professional presentation of such a forecast. Here’s some insight as to why this may be so.

A few years ago, I asked Bob Interbitzen NQ1R of ARRL’s HQ Staff at a hamfest in Huntsville AL about my providing some statistical analysis to some of their in-house data, offering my work for free as a volunteer staffer in the Delta Division. His blunt response was “we have our own statisticians!” That was news to me from perusing the staff directory biographies. When I asked my Division Director, David Norris K5UZ, who these people are, his said, “The only statisticians at ARRL are those at Survey Monkey! [the online survey data collection company used by ARRL]” This lack of honesty and transparency in some League operations, coupled with very poorly performed analytical products, only further the wedge between the ARRL and the hobby market. Is it so that HQ can maintain the “tone” of the results so that it does not reflect poorly on the League’s operations? The reader will have to make their own judgment on that.

“Bob Interbitzen NQ1R: we have our own statisticians!

David Norris K5UZ: The only statisticians at ARRL are those at Survey Monkey!“

Comments to Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH at a hamfest

My ICQ Podcast podcast colleague, Dan Romanchik KB6NU, has argued for some years now that a clear market share benchmark should be used by the ARRL Board to evaluate how the League is doing toward what it says it does: being the National Association for Amateur Radio. That means for all licensed hams, whether they turn on a radio or not. Whether they are members or not. Whether they say nice things about HQ or League officials or not. The current CEO entered the building with a Second Century column in QST that preached inclusion. He’s right: that’s the non-profit business thing that so many have to face if they are to be successful: serve the entire market. I think Dan’s argument that 25 percent of all licensed hams would be a good start on which to evaluate performance.

Let’s see below how the League is doing on that score. From my experience in program evaluation, it’s not too large to be infeasible to reach but enough to push program implementation and delivery. Mimicking Smokey Bear: only the ARRL is the National Association for Amateur Radio!

With the growth in amateur licenses—shown above for this century—the League has simply sunk like a stone in garnering market share. The highest market share was at the beginning of this period under Dave Sumner’s tenure as CEO, some 23.6% of the licensed hams at that time. Once he left the building, the market share has plummeted under each successive CEO that has a corporate management background. (I’ll comment on this notation in the conclusions below.) Due to the decline in licenses from 2022-23, the share actually ticked back up but this was based on about 2,000 fewer members.

But is the ARRL alone in this lack of membership? Dan KB6NU’s column comparing the ARRL to, for instance, Germany shows how far the situation has declined in the U.S. The DARC has about 50 percent of all licensed hams as members. Dan noted that the former membership director at ARRL left to take a similar position in an professional academic, membership-focused, non-profit. The Gerontological Society of America is a group of which I’m familiar as a former Professor of Sociology. Out of the 7,500 licensed geriatricians in the U.S., there are over 5,500 members in the GSA. This is at least 73 percent of their market. Their professional members must get licensed and maintain it, not too dissimilar to amateur radio where hams take exams and undergo periodic license renewal. The GSA serves the membership and lobbies to support policies that favor the conditions of their professionals and their clients. Both DARC in amateur radio and the GSA in the field of gerontology are clearly more valued by the market base to which they address.

Do the dramatic declines in market share by the League associated with each successor CEO to the long-term David Sumner K1ZZ suggest that these executives were to blame? Well, the buck does stop on that desk.

But I do not think that the root problem per se lies with the individual residing in that office. All three post-Sumner CEOs were hired from for-profit corporate management candidates. The ARRL is a non-profit, tax-exempt membership-driven corporation. Is this an optimal candidate pool for a Chief Executive Officer position at the ARRL? There is the related organizational structure issue of governance authority lines for the position as it is only answerable to the Board after a contract period is nearing an end (although these actions are not made publicly available). There is an insular barrier around the CEO with regard to the operational staff as Board members are instructed to not give directions to staff members. Moreover, lower level elected representatives like Section Managers have NO authority over HQ staff, as they all report TO the Field Services Manager and CEO. The President of the League is not elected by the membership but the Board of Directors for a specified term, with possible succession. No wonder so many former members took a hike from paying dues to an organization where they have no say in how the services they are supposed to receive from being a dues-paying member are managed!

But let’s leave the organizational chart to a future column for now. It’s already being drafted.

Some Thoughts on the National Association for Amateur Radio

There are few alternate conclusions to draw upon here. From a statistical viewpoint alone, the ARRL is NOT the National Association for Amateur Radio if the hobby market is the focus. As the 2023 Annual Report describes, the League does engage many hams into their activities: 7,000 volunteer staff (I am one); 26,000 Volunteer Examiners; about 200 Volunteer Monitors (I am also one who helped Riley Hollingsworth organized it); and various others totaling some 57,000 volunteers within its membership. Some, like me, are duplicates. But this engagement is very small compared to the hobbyist market to which the League claims to organize, lead and protect. There is no ignoring that fact.

Unfortunately, one of the key leaders, Division Director Fred Kemmerer AB1OC, was recently not re-elected to his Board position. I tried contacting him for some related information for this article, as directed by CEO Minster but he has not replied after two tries. I can’t actually blame Fred AB1OC per se but this is not a good footing for internal operations for the CEO to refuse to answer a question about a factual statement in the Annual Report, a fiduciary document. The extant conditions surrounding the ARRL do not lead me to think that there will be a bull-market turnaround in membership. There is a dire need to rethink how the HQ operates to serve members and the hobby market. The latter is strong, the not very well-known aging problem notwithstanding, but the organizing association is not doing well.

“There is a dire need to rethink how the HQ operates to serve members and the hobby market. … A wonderful drill bit make make the wrong hole if the hole in question requires a different geometry to be a good fit. Ask any homebrewer who builds things. A CEO from a for-profit career line just may not have the membership-focused, non-profit fit to be effective.“

Frank M. Howell, PhD K4FMH

The League’s standing among licensed hams, the current CEO’s attempt to paint only within the lines of an unknown “radio-active” segment to the contrary, is very poor. There is ample online media commentary to elaborate on this as well as an outsider group that provides critique to League actions, largely over governance issues. The Board of Directors has recently assigned a group to develop a strategic plan for the future. It is an insider-driven committee which is a an all-too-frequent and major mistake in program evaluation. Insiders already have vested-interest solutions whereas knowledgeable outsiders can more likely see the forests over the trees. Engaging non-member hams as well as member hams who do not hold office to give insights is key in this situation. But this tends to frighten the extant power structure so there are many fool-hardy reasons to not include this type of free and unfettered input.

My take as a volunteer “flunky” in a single Division under the two previous Directors is that it is not necessarily personal but positional in terms of leadership failure at HQ. A wonderful drill bit make make the wrong hole if the hole in question requires a different geometry to be a good fit. Ask any homebrewer who builds things. A CEO from a for-profit career line just may not have the membership-focused, non-profit fit to be effective. From the management literature (obtained from a simple Google search for “management in corporate versus non-profit organizations”), a brief reminder of the different emphases might be useful. As a side note, I learned much of this information back in the 1990s while in the US Department of Agriculture’s Administration School, the large one in the world. This stuff is far from new.

• Primary Goal: Corporate management aims to maximize profits for shareholders, while non-profit management aims to fulfill the organization’s social mission and serve the community.
• Decision-Making Focus: Corporate decisions are often driven by financial returns and market competition, while non-profit decisions prioritize the impact on beneficiaries and alignment with the mission.
• Funding Sources: Corporations generate revenue through sales and services, while non-profits rely on donations, grants, and fundraising activities.
• Board Composition: Corporate boards typically consist of shareholders and business leaders with a focus on financial performance, whereas non-profit boards often include community members, volunteers, and individuals passionate about the cause.
• Performance Metrics: Corporate performance is measured by profit margins, return on investment, and stock price, while non-profit performance is often assessed based on program impact, beneficiary satisfaction, and fundraising success.
• Resource Allocation: Corporate management may allocate resources more readily to high-profit initiatives, while non-profits may prioritize programs with significant social impact even if they are less financially lucrative.
• Compensation Structure: Corporate executives often receive large salaries and bonuses tied to financial performance, while non-profit leadership may have lower salaries with a greater emphasis on benefits to the community.
• Stakeholder Engagement: Corporations primarily engage with shareholders and customers, while non-profits need to actively engage with donors, volunteers, beneficiaries, and the broader community.

Does the reader see the difference in how a CEO candidate, as currently situated in the non-profit corporation of the ARRL, might operate very differently if s/he comes from a corporate vs a non-profit career background? Does that help us in understanding the membership data? I think so.

These data results show demonstrably that, with a possible token exception of Howard Michel, this for-profit corporate management CEO pool for hiring ARRL top management has not lead to a greater share of the hobbyist market. Indeed, this share has been dropping like a stone under this hiring pool model for CEO leadership.

Would hiring top management from the non-profit sector yield a more effective outcome? Would not having a Chief Executive Officer at all but replacing it with a Chief Operating Officer from a membership-service non-profit background be a better fit for the ARRL? This would remove the unelected “executive” authority element from the position that has been a core element in the clash with Board members, HQ staff, and the membership. How about doing what other membership-service non-profits do and elect the President directly from membership votes?

My conclusion? It’s not a personal failure of each CEO. It’s an organizational failure of hiring from a poorly fitting pool of candidates into an organization formed over a century ago to relay wireless messages across the country. Should part of the pending strategic plan being developed by the National Association for Amateur Radio consider a substantial restructuring of the organizational chart, authority lines, and governance driven through elections of the President, Board, and Section Managers by the membership? For the amateur radio hobbyist, this might seem dire. But from an objective organizational viewpoint, it is also an opportunity emerging from a crisis. That crisis is a pending organization that is heading toward skin-and-bones to quote Bob Dylan.

What would an entrepreneur see and opportunity in a marketplace where the long-time leader is not reaching 80 percent of the known market? Especially with follow-on fringes of potential market growth (i.e., non-licensed but interested persons) that might be reached by new approaches? There is ample room in this market for another hobby organizing group, perhaps one that is driven by online technology that reduces costs, is decentralized to reach the evolving post-Boomer generations, and more grass-roots oriented in terms of authority structure. Would such a group make a credible foray into being a competitive organizing hobby association? What about a competitor to QST that is only in PDF format costing, say, $10 a year to subscribe? One that is not the “Better Homes & Gardenias” style of magazine editorially but one that has technical material many former ARRL members say they miss from the previous editorial style of QST some 13 years ago now? If lobbying were left to the League, a new organizing group could supplant LoTW, QST et al., contest management (think of what POTA has done in five years), emergency communication without tears, and so forth. Is this a possibility? Should it be?

That’s up to the ARRL’s actions to reclaim the market. I am doubtful. But there is a large segment of the hobbyist market that is there not being served by membership services in the American Radio Relay League of today. Hmm. Australia has for years had two organizing associations…

The radio waterfall showed a static snowstorm with a Kp index of 7 and the Bz dipping to -22! While all this was going on this radio operator had his hands on the keyboard home row, headphones on and eyes closed listening for a unique noise that would weave its way among the static ripples. Then there was something that had more intensity than the jagged static...N4 was all that was heard as the invisible static currents dragged the rest into the unknown. Grinding out the static I waited for the next opportunity when the static currents would let go of more Morse code.