I see bits and pieces of good sense on all sides of this discussion. A few
things that occur to me.
I actually think that the ARRL lab is increasingly responsive to the
amateur community and is listening to some of our issues about their
procedures. Mike Tracy, in particular, has responded to a number of
critical threads on this and other reflectors, and revised some test
procedures accordingly. He may not have gone as far as we'd like, or even
gotten some things right, from our perspective, but he's clearly not
closed-minded.
My cynical remark had more to do with the publisher level, where I suspect
Tom's being over-optimistic. Manufacturers can and do punish publications
for critical reviews. The ham advertising market is so thin that any
publisher has to be concerned. If MFJ has a firm policy of not retaliating
for bad reviews, good for them, but I don't think you can extend that to
the manufacturers as a group.
73, Pete N4ZR
|