[BC] SBE Focus

[DANA PUOPOLO]

Mario is right on point here. I joined the SBE in 1974 as a student while
still in college. My membership number was 2868. I was an SBE member for 28
years. I quit for the exact reasons Mario states. As an example, at one point
I found myself unemployed and found the SBE's services (or lack thereof) to be
totally USELESS! The only things they offer are a resume database and the job
listings. The job listings are supposed to come out every Thursday. They
hardly ever do. Sometimes they don't come out for weeks at a time. But I'll
bet all the FCC coordination filings are all filed right on time!
SBE, get out of the "helping the stations' " business and BACK INTO the
"helping the MEMBERS' " business. Then you might get me back!

-D 

------ Original Message ------
Received: Tue, 17 May 2005 09:26:17 AM PDT
From: Mario Hieb <reader at oldradio.com>
To: broadcast at radiolists.net
Subject: [BC] SBE Focus

My beef (again) is that SBE is chartered as a professional organization 
(with a responsibility to the membership) and not a 
representative/lobbyist/activist/apologist of the broadcast licensee, the 
NFL, NAB, etc.

These organizations can afford high-priced attorneys, lobbyists and 
consultants to look out for their interests. SBE should focus exclusively 
on the needs of the individual engineer, and there are many.

SBE's focus should be on three things:

1. SBE members.
2. SBE members.
3. SBE members.

After this, the focus should be on:

4. Professional development of SBE members.
5. Engineering education.
6. Salary issues.
7. Professional ethics.
8. Safety, life and property issues.

Yeah, it's cool to hang out with the big boys, but they don't pay the dues 
and many SBE members are getting perturbed.


Mario








At 11:06 PM 5/11/2005, you wrote:

>Message: 26
>Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 23:09:04 -0400
>From: "Mike McCarthy" <mre at ais.net>
>Subject: Re: [BC] SBE
>To: Broadcast Radio Mailing List <broadcast at radiolists.net>
>Message-ID: <200505120309.j4C394CB095329 at mail1.mx.voyager.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
>I'm on the FCC committee. We don't comment on all matters which come
>before us.  We also don't expend much of the society's resources
>either. Most of the work is done by e-mail and electronic means...which
>are virtually zero cost. I fail to see your argument about mis-using
>society resources.
>
>We do file comments on matters of technical substance which apply
>universally to all licensees in either of the services or modes and/or
>where a precedent could set a very BAD example. We don't enter into
>standards debates other than to possibly concur with the proposed
>stndard if we feel it's the right thing.
>
>It has been the long standing hallmark of the society to address
>matters of interference and coorination so as to prevent such.  SBE
>collaberates with the NAB, MSTV, and other industry groups on comments
>where a universal voice is appropriate. Case in point, SBE fought the
>proposed on-channel warning system by pointing out alternative channels
>and modes which already exist for that application and to point out the
>falicy onin their system.
>
>We joined with MSTV on fighting MSS and getting all of the MSS
>proponents, then Nextel to pay for relocation expenses to all incumbant
>uses of 2 Ghz ENG cahnnels.
>
>The FCC approached us on assisting them in cleaning up Part 74
>issues.  And except for the Part 101 coordination and video assisted
>cameras for making movies, the SBE's industry comments and suggestions
>prevailed in that effort.
>
>So Mario...what's your beef with SBE this week?  Long time readers know
>you are not their biggest supporter.  But I'm sure Ray Benedict would
>like to know since you are a member.
>
>MM

- 


_______________________________________________
This is the BROADCAST mailing list
To send to the list, email: broadcast at radiolists.net
For sub changes, archives and info on this other lists:
http://www.radiolists.net/