Who Is What?
Len Over 21
In the 9 months following US amateur radio restructuring, the
total number of US amateur radio licenses increased by
3,701 (+0.55% of total). Code-tested licensees declined by
9,531 while non-code-tested licensees increased by 13,132.
In the 3 years from January 1998 to December 2000, the
total number of US amateur radio licenses increased by
5,734 (+0.85% of total). Code-tested licensees declined by
33,267 while non-code-tested licensees increased by 39,001.
It should be fairly obvious that the non-code-tested are
continuing to increase in number just enough to offset the
decline in code-tested licensees plus a slight positive
growth in total ARS licensees...but not a significant
growth. The code-tested licensees have continued to
decline despite various rationales on that seeming
"inaccuracy"...an "inaccuracy" claim that will probably
continue until the last code-tested licensee is SK.
As of the end of December 1997, code-tested licensees
were 73.4% of the total, non-code-tested licensees were
26.6% of the total.
By the end of December 2000, code-tested licensees
were 67.9% of the total, non-code-tested licensees were
32.1% of the total.
The balance scales keep tilting in favor of the non-code-
tested license classes.
As far a NEW amateur radio licensees is concerned, it
very obvious that newcomers are favoring the no-code-
test Technician class despite the lack of operating
privileges below 30 MHz. In three one-year periods (Jan
to Dec) from 1998 to 2000, the numbers are -
2000:
Total new licensees: 18,658
Code-tested new: 1,768
Non-code-tested new: 16,800
1999:
Total new licensees: 16,311
Code-tested new: 2,355
Non-code-tested new: 13,946
1998:
Total new licensees: 17,521
Code-tested new: 2,745
Non-code-tested new: 14,776
While some claim that Technician Expirations are just starting
and are supposed to show "signigicant decreases" in that
class, such speculations ignore the continuation of new Tech
licensees that show no indication of slowing down the Tech
growth rate. That supposed "entry level" class is very nearly
one-third of all US licensees.
didit.
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>Code-tested licensees declined by 9,531 while non-code-tested
>licensees increased by 13,132
(Big snip...)
>That supposed "entry level" class is very nearly one-third of all US
>licensees.
Which STILL makes the CODE TESTED licenses 66 2/3 of the total, a
majority (not that it matters) by ANYONE'S definition.
And in as much as the Technician Class is now only one of three
licenses available, what's so significant that it's "one-third of all
US licensees", other than you trolling for another "no cw test"
arguement?
Not that we'd expect anything less.
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
K0HB
> In the 9 months following US amateur radio restructuring, the
> total number of US amateur radio licenses increased by
> 3,701 (+0.55% of total). Code-tested licensees declined by
> 9,531 while non-code-tested licensees increased by 13,132.
We are fellow travelers on a journey between two
eternities, and it's a trip far too brief for me
to be concerned about how fast someone can copy
the Code of Morse."
--K0HB
Len Over 21
<k4...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <20010204002041...@nso-ff.aol.com>,
> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>
>>Code-tested licensees declined by 9,531 while non-code-tested
>>licensees increased by 13,132
>
>(Big snip...)
>
>>That supposed "entry level" class is very nearly one-third of all US
>>licensees.
>
> Which STILL makes the CODE TESTED licenses 66 2/3 of the total, a
>majority (not that it matters) by ANYONE'S definition.
Code-tested licensees are DIMINISHING in number. The
trend is there, visible to all except those who wear blinders
of old-time CW radio.
Non-code-tested licensees are INCREASING in number.
If it weren't for the 1990 creation of the Technician class
license in the USA, the number of USA radio amateurs
would be DECREASING in number.
That trend has been clear to the FCC for over a decade.
That trend hasn't been seen by those who jumped through
old-standard hoops or who think they are "boss" in ham
radio through meeting old standards.
> And in as much as the Technician Class is now only one of three
>licenses available, what's so significant that it's "one-third of all
>US licensees", other than you trolling for another "no cw test"
>arguement?
Wrongo. The restructuring only removed three of six NEW-
license classes. Novice, Technician-Plus, and Advanced
classes are still in the US amateur radio database AND in
the revised Part 97.
For those who have taken an overly-long lunch hour (perhaps
to another planet), the morse code test is STILL PRESENT in
US amateur regulations for General and Extra classes.
The morse code test for any worldwide amateur radio license
is STILL PRESENT in ITU-R standard S25.5.
> Not that we'd expect anything less.
What is your point by that closing crack? Are you going to
launch into the usual personal attack commentary? Try to
avoid such comments since you can't win a single thing by
doing so.
didit
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
> Code-tested licensees are DIMINISHING in number. The
> trend is there, visible to all except those who wear blinders
> of old-time CW radio.
No kidding, Lennie...?!?! You mean that the MOST POPULAR, EASIEST
to get license is GROWING..?!?! Say it isn't so!!!
The only person wearing blinders here is YOU, Chump. You CAN'T
(or worse, WON'T) see that Amatuer Radio is moving along nicely without
you or your opinion. TOO BAD FOR LENNIE!
Must be TERRIBLE to not be wanted!
> If it weren't for the 1990 creation of the Technician class
> license in the USA, the number of USA radio amateurs
> would be DECREASING in number.
Prove it.
> > And in as much as the Technician Class is now only one of three
> >licenses available, what's so significant that it's "one-third of all
> >US licensees", other than you trolling for another "no cw test"
> >arguement?
>
> Wrongo. The restructuring only removed three of six NEW-
> license classes. Novice, Technician-Plus, and Advanced
> classes are still in the US amateur radio database AND in
> the revised Part 97.
And NOT being issued by the FCC. Novice licenses were essentially
zero for years, Tech Plus was just a matter of an administrative
update, making the Advanced Class the only real spoiler for your "no-
code" arguement.
> For those who have taken an overly-long lunch hour (perhaps
> to another planet), the morse code test is STILL PRESENT in
> US amateur regulations for General and Extra classes.
More "no kidding", Lennie. A whopping 5wpm, which will be ZERO
wpm before too long, afterwhich your life will be TOTALLY irrelevant.
> The morse code test for any worldwide amateur radio license
> is STILL PRESENT in ITU-R standard S25.5.
Whoopie doo. After WRC-2003, that's probably going to change. I
KNOW you refuse to acknowledge it, but you just keep jousting at that
windmill, Quixote. Sooner or later it will cry "Uncle".
> > Not that we'd expect anything less.
>
> What is your point by that closing crack? Are you going to
> launch into the usual personal attack commentary? Try to
> avoid such comments since you can't win a single thing by
> doing so.
Lennie, YOU are the last person in this newsgroup who has ANY right
to whine about "personal attack commentary".
First and foremost because YOU are the Preeminent Abuser of the Ad
Hominen Attack. You revel at it. We wouldn't be having THIS exchange
if you weren't. So take your crocadile tears and stuff them.
Secondly, I am not the one trying to "win" anything here,
Anderson. I HAVE a license. I AM an Amateur. I HAVE all those perks
and priviledges that having taken all those tests conveys.
You DON'T have a license because you have neither the guts nor the
character to do it, and I am tiring of your incessant whining and
hatred of Amateur Radio.
Now, run along, loser. Your troll is kaput.
Bill Sohl
<k4...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <20010204002041...@nso-ff.aol.com>,
> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>
>>Code-tested licensees declined by 9,531 while non-code-tested
>>licensees increased by 13,132
>
>(Big snip...)
>
>>That supposed "entry level" class is very nearly one-third of all US
>>licensees.
>
> Which STILL makes the CODE TESTED licenses 66 2/3 of the total, a
>majority (not that it matters) by ANYONE'S definition.
A numerical majority simply because almost all those so licensed
had no alternative. It was either pass a code test or no license
at all. Later it became (and still is) pass a code test or no
HF operation. As such, those that have a code license include
many that would have no support for code requiremments.
> And in as much as the Technician Class is now only one of three
>licenses available, what's so significant that it's "one-third of all
>US licensees", other than you trolling for another "no cw test"
>arguement?
It shows that there is an every increasing number of hams that
don't see any reason to pass a code test.
> Not that we'd expect anything less.
Woudn't want you to be disappointed.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
Jim Kelley
> By the end of December 2000, code-tested licensees
> were 67.9% of the total, non-code-tested licensees were
> 32.1% of the total.
> The balance scales keep tilting in favor of the non-code-
> tested license classes.
That's a funny kinda scale you got there, Len. You either need to have
it calibrated, or you need to try to keep your thumb off of it.
73 de ac6xg
K0HB
Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Len Over 21 wrote:
> > The balance scales keep tilting in favor of the non-code-
> > tested license classes.
>
> That's a funny kinda scale you got there, Len. You either need to
have
> it calibrated, or you need to try to keep your thumb off of it.
>
> 73 de ac6xg
File under "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."
73, Hans, K0HB
--
"We are fellow travelers on a journey between two
eternities, and it's a trip far too brief for me
to be concerned about your speed at the Code of
Morse."
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
K0HB <K0...@arrl.org> wrote:
> File under "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."<
But I thought there weren't any liars here...?!?! Or did I
misunderstand something?
73
Steve, K4YZ
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
Len Over 21
Nice try, Jim, but let me cut and paste from my original post -
As of the end of December 1997, code-tested licensees
were 73.4% of the total, non-code-tested licensees were
26.6% of the total.
By the end of December 2000, code-tested licensees
were 67.9% of the total, non-code-tested licensees were
32.1% of the total.
=============
So...going from 73.4% in '67 to 67.9% in '00 for code-tested
and going from 26.6% to 32.1% for not-code-tested doesn't
indicate the scales are shifting? Amazing non-observation
on your part, Jim. Or do you just want to obliterate any
comments that cast doubt on newcomers not favoring code?
Jim
I believe your thumb is somewhere...and not on any posting.
didit
Len Over 21
<k4...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <20010205132120...@nso-bj.aol.com>,
> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>
>> Code-tested licensees are DIMINISHING in number. The
>> trend is there, visible to all except those who wear blinders
>> of old-time CW radio.
>
> No kidding, Lennie...?!?! You mean that the MOST POPULAR, EASIEST
>to get license is GROWING..?!?! Say it isn't so!!!
I said it was so. I've been saying so for some years.
What is your point...besides trying to start yet-another "battle"
in here on personalities?
> The only person wearing blinders here is YOU, Chump. You CAN'T
>(or worse, WON'T) see that Amatuer Radio is moving along nicely without
>you or your opinion. TOO BAD FOR LENNIE!
"Amatuer?" Is that anything like a Heath lunchbox rig on 2m?
On subtracting the overall gains from new Technician class
licensees over the last 3 years, the remaining five classes
show a DECLINE IN TOTAL NUMBERS. That doesn't mean
that Amatuer (or even amateur) radio in the USA is "moving
along nicely."
> Must be TERRIBLE to not be wanted!
The whole subject is not about "being wanted." It is rather
in pointing out what others have wanted...and that want is not
morse code skill tested and approved with an official
government merit badge.
>> If it weren't for the 1990 creation of the Technician class
>> license in the USA, the number of USA radio amateurs
>> would be DECREASING in number.
>
> Prove it.
The proof is in the tabulation of publicly-available data on the
AH0A website. Simply subtract the number of Technician
class licensees from the total US ARS licensees. The total
of all code-tested licensees is DECREASING.
>> Wrongo. The restructuring only removed three of six NEW-
>> license classes. Novice, Technician-Plus, and Advanced
>> classes are still in the US amateur radio database AND in
>> the revised Part 97.
>
> And NOT being issued by the FCC. Novice licenses were essentially
>zero for years, Tech Plus was just a matter of an administrative
>update, making the Advanced Class the only real spoiler for your "no-
>code" arguement.
Really really lame response. I said that the FCC is NOT issuing
any NEW Novice, Tech-Plus, or Advanced licenses. Quit trying
to prove some point by rewording it.
Have the regulations in Part 97 eliminated the Advanced, Tech-
Plus, or Novice licensees? No. They are still there in current
law. The USA still has 6 classes of amateur radio licenses.
>> For those who have taken an overly-long lunch hour (perhaps
>> to another planet), the morse code test is STILL PRESENT in
>> US amateur regulations for General and Extra classes.
>
> More "no kidding", Lennie. A whopping 5wpm, which will be ZERO
>wpm before too long, afterwhich your life will be TOTALLY irrelevant.
Define "too long," hotshot. WRC-03? How do you "know" that?
There is nothing firm in ITU agendas or study group documents
or FCC International Bureau agenda items that indicates ITU-R
S25.5 will be discussed at all, let alone be voted upon.
According to the FCC International Bureau there will be some
discussion at WRC-03 on S25. S25 is the entire set of amateur
radio standards.
> Whoopie doo. After WRC-2003, that's probably going to change.
You can't know that.
For one thing, the recent ARRL BoD policy position was to NOT
make any statements on what the FCC should do IFF ("if and
only if") S25.5 were deleted. If the ARRL has any clout with the
FCC then that policy position would have the FCC *KEEP* the
code test even if the ITU-R S25.5 were deleted. [do you under-
stand the significance of that or do you only want to fight about
personalities?]
>KNOW you refuse to acknowledge it, but you just keep jousting at that
>windmill, Quixote. Sooner or later it will cry "Uncle".
ALL laws, rules, regulations may appear to be sturdy "windmills"
that refuse to be beaten. However, all those laws, rules, and
regulations were made by man...and can be eliminated by man.
It is not an quixotic undertaking in attempting to change law,
Sancho Panza.
> Lennie, YOU are the last person in this newsgroup who has ANY right
>to whine about "personal attack commentary".
Poor baby. You want to strut around as a Dill Instructor and
issue orders as if you had some USMC rank in here...and then
accuse others of "improper behavior."
Tsk, tsk, tsk...nobody is Obeying the Dill Instructor.
But, big steebie HAS to make this a personal issue with -
> First and foremost because YOU are the Preeminent Abuser of the Ad
>Hominen Attack. You revel at it. We wouldn't be having THIS exchange
>if you weren't. So take your crocadile tears and stuff them.
Poor baby...you want to Issue Orders and then get all bent out
of shape if someone comes on back IN KIND and shoves it
back down your throat. Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk....and tsk.
> Secondly, I am not the one trying to "win" anything here,
>Anderson. I HAVE a license. I AM an Amateur. I HAVE all those perks
>and priviledges that having taken all those tests conveys.
Oh, my, yes. :-)
Poor baby is suffering Lack of Respect Syndrome?
I started this particular thread regarding newcomers opting for
what in USA amateur radio. Based on publicly-available data
as tabulated by Joe Speroni on his website (AH0A is a fan of
morse code). This thread was NOT about big Steebie or his
accomplishments, didn't even name Robeson or even hint at
that noble eminence.
That the US ARS newcomers are NOT opting for morse code
has nothing whatever to do with personal viewpoints of anyone
who is already maximally "upgraded" in licensing.
> You DON'T have a license because you have neither the guts nor the
>character to do it, and I am tiring of your incessant whining and
>hatred of Amateur Radio.
Poor poor little peurile creature still trying to taunt and belittle
newcomers or maybe-comers as if this were the USMC.
It's sad that the maximally-upgraded non-comms of US amateur
radio have sunk to such a level. One could well imagine these
militaristic patronistic self-elevated knowitall jerkoffs demanding
"blood pinning" to prove their amateur radio worth.
Get this through your cartilage-filled cranium, Steebie, I have NO
repeat NO "hatred" of amateur radio. I once had thoughts of
getting an amateur license to round out my commercial license
and have some fun in retirement. Those thoughts have been
repeatedly dashed for around two decades by the self-important,
self-appointed non-comms of US amateur radio who keep
insisting that all newcomers have to de exactly as they did or
be the subject of all kinds of personal abuse.
Now, it is my experience that MOST radio amateurs are not the
self-important, self-appointed non-comm Dill Instructors of some
kind of US Amateur Marine Code Corps...but there are just
enough of YOU around to make it unattractive to many..
> Now, run along, loser. Your troll is kaput.
The original starting message of this thread was not a troll, but
rather a refutation of some statements made by some self-
important, self-appointed non-comm Dill Instructors in other
platoons of the US Amateur Marine Code Corps.
Now put on your campaign hat and run some code cadets
through some close order drill. Try to stay out of discussions
of radio regulation changes and, certainly, radio theory. You
can't handle either.
It's the SUBJECT, not personalities stupid.
didit
PS: "Non-comm" is an individual who cannot communicate
in any reasonable discussion other than to denigrate and
villify those persons who do not share the non-comm's
viewpoints. A "Dill Instructor" is the self-styled non-comm
who struts around shouting Orders To Be Obeyed as if the
amateur radio service were really a Military Service.
Brian
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ <k4...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <95n4n9$hc7$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> K0HB <K0...@arrl.org> wrote:
>
> > File under "Figures don't lie, but liars figure."<
>
> But I thought there weren't any liars here...?!?! Or did I
> misunderstand something?
LIERS?
Jim Kelley
> Nice try, Jim, but let me cut and paste from my original post -
Everybody knows what you said, whether I include it in my post or not
Len. It does not change a thing.
> As of the end of December 1997, code-tested licensees
> were 73.4% of the total, non-code-tested licensees were
> 26.6% of the total.
> By the end of December 2000, code-tested licensees
> were 67.9% of the total, non-code-tested licensees were
> 32.1% of the total.
>
> =============
>
> So...going from 73.4% in '67 to 67.9% in '00 for code-tested
> and going from 26.6% to 32.1% for not-code-tested doesn't
> indicate the scales are shifting? Amazing non-observation
> on your part, Jim. Or do you just want to obliterate any
> comments that cast doubt on newcomers not favoring code?
> Jim
I just know how scales work, Len. The scale gets tipped in the
direction of the heavier side. Your scale was tipped the other way - by
YOU.
73 de ac6xg
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
Entire rambling, self appreciating trash deleted.
Leonard, I tried to read through the post, but it's just more of
the same.....you took a powder from the NG for a while, but now your
spite is built up again and you just can't help yourself.
You are a very sick, tormented and dying man, faced with your
impending mortality. You haven't adjusted. There are/were things you
wanted to do in life but never did for whatever reason, and by-golly
SOMEONE is going to pay for it.
Unfortunately, it is US.
No one gives a damn about the Sperroni numbers, how you single-
handedly built a USN/USA communications net out of an old TV and a pair
of 6146's, or your opinion on Morse Code testing. They don't matter.
You have proven how callous and shallow you are on occassions TOO
NUMEROUS to count. You have insulted and denigrated just about every
subset of society that you can that is "not you" in order to try and
prove YOUR superiority.
I know you think this NG is somehow important or that anyone here
really gives a hoot about you, your opinion, or MY opinion ABOUT you,
but the fact remains that this is just a respository for "actin' a
fool", and you, Lennie the Licenseless, are it's center stage court
jester. (You WERE in second place, but first place got wise and got
lost, so you ascended to first only through attrition)
Meanwhile, those of us with a license (regardless of class) will
be having fun on a radio tonight while you slather over the keyboard to
make some meaningless and ineffectual response to this post.
Good night, Lennie. Your life whittles away................
PS: This was for you..........
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
bill...@mindspring.com wrote:
> It shows that there is an every increasing number of hams that
> don't see any reason to pass a code test.
Meaningless, Bill.
We are now into our 11th year of the "no code" era. And with the
exception of a brief explosion of new licensees in 91-92, the "growth
rate" of Amatuer Radio has hardly been "stellar", and barely above
attrition.
The NCT has NOT been the "growth hormone" it was cast to be at
it's inception. Is it beneficial...?!?! Of course it is. But it's
NOT been the "fix all" that it was forcasted to be at it's onset.
Lennie makes some deal about how this is the "fastest growing
class" of licensee. Well, I'd say that it's NO WHERE close to being
where it COULD be, and it's NOTHING close to being some revoloution
that Lennie claims.
You said that the code tested licensee's were that way because
they had no other choice.
I suggest you go back and research the demographics of the current
TechPlus and above licensees and look at the dates of thier entry to
Ham Radio. More than half of that 66 2/3 HAD a choice.
73
Steve, K4YZ
Brian
Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > Perhaps "the pendulum is swinging,"
>
> Same thing. Ever actually SEE a balance scale, Brian?
Yes, on Miami Vice.
> > or the
> > actuarial tables have been invoked.
>
> Hmmmm, that's profound. How does one "invoke" a table?
By dying on time.
Dave Heil
>
> In article <3A7F4E46...@uci.edu>, Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> writes:
>
> >I just know how scales work, Len. The scale gets tipped in the
> >direction of the heavier side. Your scale was tipped the other way - by
> >YOU.
>
> that they had tipped the other way.
>
> Why do you deny they are tipping?
>
> didit
Scales don't tip until the weight on one side exceeds the weight on the
other side. There are still far greater numbers of code tested hams
than non-code tested hams. If you said that the scales are tipping, you
are wrong. Why couldn't you just say that there is a good growth rate in
the ____ class of license?
Dave Heil K8MN
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
> <k4...@my-deja.com> writes:
> Ah, but you didn't say WHO is doing all your computer-modem
> typing while you are having lotsa fun on ham radio at night.
Myself, Lennie...Don't need the help.
>
> Who does your typing, steebie?
> > Usual tripe dismissed without comment. Nothing but the
> >same "personal attacks" that he claims HE never uses.
>
> Poor baby. Can't take REPLIES IN KIND? Tsk, tsk, tsk.
Didn't say I couldn't Lennie. Just pointing out that you have
been lying AGAIN. You have (recently) stated you don't do that kind of
thing, yet you have been doing it to me for two years now and you
started the "Jelly" comments on Fred. Fred did NOT make any
such "endearments" to you, but you certainly have tried to rip him a
new one.
Of course, I am sure if you keep it up and then start getting it
in return from him, you will, as you have with me, claim "victim"
status and then begin your own rhetorical abuses.
You always do.
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
PLEASE SEND PRIVATE E MAIL COMMENTS TO K4...@AOL.COM. RESPSONSES TO THE
DEJA MAY OR MAY NOT BE RETRIEVED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
Brian <brian...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Would you deny them vanity calls? Why else abandon a spiffy KC call?
Probably because in THIS case, Twitless, the calls are expiring
due to non-renewal.
These were NOT calls vacated due to Vanity options. And NO, I
would not deny anyone, even you, a Vanity call.
Now, run along and catch up to Uncle Lennie. Maybe he'll let you
play with his hand puppet.
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
PLEASE SEND PRIVATE E MAIL COMMENTS TO K4...@AOL.COM. RESPSONSES TO THE
DEJA MAY OR MAY NOT BE RETRIEVED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
> That's AH0A, not "AHoA." That's an Extra's call sign.
No screamin' eagle doodoo, huh?
> qrz.com is an interesting website...but it does not grant US
> amateur radio licenses.
I guess I am wasting my time asking YOU how you came to this
comment? (You never explain anything else...why should I expect any
diffrent now?) The information conveyed in "QRZ" is no more or no less
accurate than Speroni's site.
> Joe Speroni, AH0A, does a fine job on his website and has
> been doing that for over three years with many different
> tabulation presentations. Again, why do you wish to insult
> him by requesting others to abandon looking at his data?
Insult Speroni by suggesting someone use another source of
information...?!?!
You really are stretching for a troll, Lenni. Stretching reeeeal
hard.
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
> > PROVE that there would BE a negative growth rate, Lennie.
>
> Do the following -
The exercise of which would be a theoretical exercise.
PROVE THAT THERE WOULD BE A NEGATIVE NUMBER TODAY.
To show a period of some negative growth and say "See See!" is
foolish. That's like trying to forecast all economy growth based on
the 1930's.
>.....FCC's preferred since they are to only agency ganting amateur
>radio licenses
How do you "gant" an Amamteur license.
And why do you insist on insulting Joe Speroni by abandoning his
database to look at others when it suits you?
> ...there, wasn't that simple? Even purchasing agents can do it.
Yep...sure was...and it still proves nothing. PROVE that the
Technician Class license is the ONLY reason there is any "growth" in
the Amatuer radio service.
PROVE that there was NO other viable option or that NOTHING else
would have occured to spur changes.
We're waiting.
Jim Kelley
> In article <3A80B04C...@uci.edu>,
> Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> > > Perhaps "the pendulum is swinging,"
> > Same thing. Ever actually SEE a balance scale, Brian?
> Yes, on Miami Vice.
Well then, that'd make you quite the expert on such things.
> > > or the
> > > actuarial tables have been invoked.
> > Hmmmm, that's profound. How does one "invoke" a table?
> By dying on time.
The table says that some people die before they're 40, Brian. Would
that be timely enough for you? ;-)
Jim Kelley
> Jim Kelley apparently wants to smokescreen the whole thread
> by concentrating on certain phrases to "prove his point" (which
> was not really explained except in trying to provoke something
> about phrase choices. :-)
It's not a smokescreen to point out that what you said contradicted the
facts you presented. I can't help it if you didn't say what you meant.
jim
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> Code-tested licensees are DIMINISHING in number. The
> trend is there, visible to all except those who wear blinders
> of old-time CW radio.
> Non-code-tested licensees are INCREASING in number.
Tech+ licensees are being renewed as Tech. They are being counted as
"non-coded" in the stats you publish.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
K0HB
> Code-tested licensees declined by 9,531 while non-code-tested
> licensees increased by 13,132
You cannot determine that from the statistics at AH0A.
Some of the "growth" of the Technican class license consists of
code-tested licensees.
Since the April restructuring of last year, all code-tested
Tech Plus who renew are being renewed as simply "Technician". Thus
the "Technician" column now contains roughly 10% (minus attrition
and upgrades) of licensees from the old "Technician Plus" ranks.
73, de Hans, K0HB
--
"We are fellow travelers on a journey between two
eternities, and it's a trip far too brief for me
to be concerned about your speed at the Code of
Morse."
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
>It's not a smokescreen to point out that what you said contradicted the
>facts you presented. I can't help it if you didn't say what you meant.
And we're surprised by this...WHY...?!?!
73
Steve, K4YZ
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
PLEASE SEND PRIVATE E MAIL COMMENTS TO K4...@AOL.COM. RESPSONSES TO THE
DEJA MAY OR MAY NOT BE RETRIEVED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Brian
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ <k4...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <95q4m7$6n2$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Brian <brian...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > Would you deny them vanity calls? Why else abandon a spiffy KC
call?
>
> Probably because in THIS case, Twitless, the calls are expiring
> due to non-renewal.
>
> These were NOT calls vacated due to Vanity options. And NO, I
> would not deny anyone, even you, a Vanity call.
Well, gooooooood. Then you can pick yerself one of those spiffy KC
calls for a vanity call, once you wait the appropriate length of time.
Or you can go for one of Mike Deignan's multiple callsigns. They
were turned in sooner.
Anyhow, its been great hearing from you again.
Brian
Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > In article <3A80B04C...@uci.edu>,
> > Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> > > Brian wrote:
> > > > Perhaps "the pendulum is swinging,"
>
> > > Same thing. Ever actually SEE a balance scale, Brian?
>
> > Yes, on Miami Vice.
>
> Well then, that'd make you quite the expert on such things.
So now one needs to be an expert in scaleology to be able to state that
the numbers of coded hams are dropping and the number of no-coders is
increasing. This must mean that the Postmaster General knows more about
ham radio than you.
> > > > or the
> > > > actuarial tables have been invoked.
>
> > > Hmmmm, that's profound. How does one "invoke" a table?
>
> > By dying on time.
>
> The table says that some people die before they're 40, Brian. Would
> that be timely enough for you? ;-)
Too late Jim.
Brian
<brian...@my-deja.com>
> writes:
>
> >In article <3A8046F3...@uci.edu>,
> > Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Len Over 21 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > In article <3A7F4E46...@uci.edu>, Jim Kelley
> ><jwke...@uci.edu> writes:
> >> >
> >> > >I just know how scales work, Len. The scale gets tipped in the
> >> > >direction of the heavier side. Your scale was tipped the other
way
> >- by
> >> > >YOU.
> >> >
> >> > Noo, noo, noo, Jim. I said the "scales are tipping." I didn't
say
> >> > that they had tipped the other way.
> >> >
> >> > Why do you deny they are tipping?
> >>
better
> >> choice of words for you to use.
> >
> >Not a very good choice. Perhaps "the pendulum is swinging," or the
> >actuarial tables have been invoked.
>
> by concentrating on certain phrases to "prove his point" (which
> was not really explained except in trying to provoke something
> about phrase choices. :-)
>
> licensees are declining and the number of US ARS licensees
> not code-tested are increasing.
>
> Perhaps Jim has an English Major rank in his militia or
> something...?
>
> :-)
>
> didit
Major sumptin.
But nothing suprises me anymore. Why just the other day, Dick admitted
that CW was doomed without the government forced testing. Seems it
isn't worthwhile enough to learn it on its own merits. After all those
years of claiming PEEU.
I just wish these other guys would come clean and quit the smokescreens
and diversions.
73, Brian
Brian
> Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
>
> >It's not a smokescreen to point out that what you said contradicted
the
> >facts you presented. I can't help it if you didn't say what you
meant.
>
> And we're surprised by this...WHY...?!?!
Why do phrase everything in MTV-slang?
> 73
>
> Steve, K4YZ
> --
> "It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
> Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
>
> PLEASE SEND PRIVATE E MAIL COMMENTS TO K4...@AOL.COM. RESPSONSES TO
THE
> DEJA MAY OR MAY NOT BE RETRIEVED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
I really care how often you read your deja-mail.
Brian
I knew what Len meant. What was your excuse again?
Brian
Of course, you assume that all hams, coded and codeless, weigh the same.
Richard McCollum
"K0HB" <K0...@arrl.org> wrote in message
news:95sbij$3ad$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>
> > Code-tested licensees declined by 9,531 while non-code-tested
> > licensees increased by 13,132
>
> You cannot determine that from the statistics at AH0A.
>
> Some of the "growth" of the Technican class license consists of
> code-tested licensees.
>
> Since the April restructuring of last year, all code-tested
> Tech Plus who renew are being renewed as simply "Technician". Thus
> the "Technician" column now contains roughly 10% (minus attrition
> and upgrades) of licensees from the old "Technician Plus" ranks.
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
If it really disturbs you, you can safely assume that any Technician
renewal from April thru January is actually a Tech Plus. This crutch is
about to disappear however.
Dick NØBK
K0HB
"Richard McCollum" <rmc...@radiks.net> wrote:
> If it really disturbs you, you can safely assume ......
Doesn't disturb me, but it ruins Lens lame calculations about
ratios between coded and non-coded hams.
73, Hans, K0HB
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
Brian <brian...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Why do phrase everything in MTV-slang?
I didn't realize that MTV had it's own dictionary.
> I really care how often you read your deja-mail.
Well good....then if I happen to see your name in there, I will
just automatically delete it as an error. Thankfully, you are not the
only person who may have occassion to send e mail.
Of course, I will have a pretty good clue as you would be only one
of three people to send e mail written in crayon.
Steve
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
PLEASE SEND PRIVATE E MAIL COMMENTS TO K4...@AOL.COM. RESPSONSES TO THE
DEJA MAY OR MAY NOT BE RETRIEVED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Jim Kelley
> I knew what Len meant. What was your excuse again?
My excuse for what? Len was trying to make a mountain out of a mole
hill - as usual.
ac6xg
Jim Kelley
> So now one needs to be an expert in scaleology to be able to state that
> the numbers of coded hams are dropping and the number of no-coders is
> increasing.
I don't recall you saying that. And I don't recall having said you
NEEDED to be anything, Brian. Still trying to figure out what, if
anything, you ARE expert at though.
ac6xg
Len Over 21
>In article <3A819251...@uci.edu>,
> Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>>It's not a smokescreen to point out that what you said contradicted the
>>facts you presented. I can't help it if you didn't say what you meant.
>
> And we're surprised by this...WHY...?!?!
I can't read minds. Even a telepath would have trouble trying
to read four brain cells... :-)
didit
Len Over 21
>If it really disturbs you, you can safely assume that any Technician
>renewal from April thru January is actually a Tech Plus. This crutch is
>about to disappear however.
Now, now, Dick, look at the NEW licensees' numbers. Those
aren't "renewals" from any other class. Want to do that in all
the months before April 15, 2000? :-)
didit
Len Over 21
<w1...@arrl.net> writes:
The SAME trend was happening well before April 15, 2000.
If you wish, I can post stats on NEW licensees for the last
three years. Looks even worse for the code-tested numbers.
didit
Len Over 21
Major Kelley, sir, you are just trying to ignite a flame war by
concentration on a trivial phrase of English.
My point was that the non-code-tested US amateur licensees
keep increasing in number while the code-tested US amateur
licensees are decreasing in number.
What is your dispute with that?
didit
Len Over 21
writes:
>> the ____ class of license?
>>
>> Dave Heil K8MN
>
>Of course, you assume that all hams, coded and codeless, weigh the same.
Ever since Uncle retired him he is all at sea and wanting to be
"under weigh" or "under way."
Note that Davey put the Technician class in a "blank" form up
there? Looks like a Freudian slip to me...not counting the
non-code-tested as "real hams."
didit
Len Over 21
>leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>
>> Code-tested licensees declined by 9,531 while non-code-tested
>> licensees increased by 13,132
>
>You cannot determine that from the statistics at AH0A.
>
>Some of the "growth" of the Technican class license consists of
>code-tested licensees.
>
>Since the April restructuring of last year, all code-tested
>Tech Plus who renew are being renewed as simply "Technician". Thus
>the "Technician" column now contains roughly 10% (minus attrition
>and upgrades) of licensees from the old "Technician Plus" ranks.
Spin it any way you want, Hans, but OVER THE LAST
THREE YEARS the code-tested licensees are decreasing
in number while the non-code-tested licensees are increasing.
Ed said the same thing as you did so, if you like I can post
NEW licensees' numbers. Still looks bad for code-tested
licensees' numbers...before April 15, 2000, as well as after.
didit
Len Over 21
writes:
>But nothing suprises me anymore. Why just the other day, Dick admitted
>that CW was doomed without the government forced testing. Seems it
>isn't worthwhile enough to learn it on its own merits. After all those
>years of claiming PEEU.
In Dick's case he must have gotten tired of waiting for that
massive Missouri earthquake he read about in a book. Maybe
his "emergency rig" code key oxidized into uselessness
while waiting for it?
Heck, Dick's statement isn't near as bad a tRoll's wanting to
GIVE AWAY amateur radio spectrum to everyone else
because no one will honor and respect his regency. :-)
>I just wish these other guys would come clean and quit the smokescreens
>and diversions.
Oddly enough, a telemarketer called tonight just after supper.
It was a chimney cleaning service soliciting curstomers. I
told them that this newgroup would be good for cleaning and
smoke eliminations. They replied that they weren't big
enough to handle the task... :-)
didit
Len Over 21
You were looking for an excuse...and nit-picked a single phrase
for a "critique" that was not on the subject.
Apparently you don't want to believe that code-tested US radio
amateurs are decreasing in number while non-code-tested
US radio amateurs are increasing in number. That trend has
been going on for years.
The "molehill" is getting bigger, bigger, bigger. The "mountain"
is eroding faster and faster. Closing one's eyes or mind won't
reverse any trend.
didit
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
Still on the same spin...still wrong.
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
PLEASE SEND PRIVATE E MAIL COMMENTS TO K4...@AOL.COM. RESPSONSES TO THE
DEJA MAY OR MAY NOT BE RETRIEVED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
> If you wish, I can post stats on NEW licensees for the last
> three years. Looks even worse for the code-tested numbers.
If that was ALL you posted, it might. But then again it doesn't
reflect the true CURRENT status of thier licneses, now does it?
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
> Now, now, Dick, look at the NEW licensees' numbers. Those
> aren't "renewals" from any other class. Want to do that in all
> the months before April 15, 2000? :-)
Lennnie again attempts to narrow the scope of the numbers to ONLY
new licensees, and NOT the CURRENT status of those licensees.
Boohoo for Lennie. He's as transparent as glass.
Jim Kelley
> Apparently you don't want to believe that code-tested US radio
> amateurs are decreasing in number while non-code-tested
> US radio amateurs are increasing in number.
I know you're not stupid, Len, so the only thing I can conclude about
why you would say something which is totally inaccurate is because
you're so mad at me that you can't think of anything logical to say. I
never disputed your figures. You did.
Jim Kelley
> My point was that the non-code-tested US amateur licensees
> keep increasing in number while the code-tested US amateur
> licensees are decreasing in number.
I have no problem with the data. I was simply correcting your poor
assessment of the data - as have others, albeit for differing reasons.
n2...@aol.com
>
> In the 9 months following US amateur radio restructuring, the
> total number of US amateur radio licenses increased by
> 3,701 (+0.55% of total). Code-tested licensees declined by
> 9,531 while non-code-tested licensees increased by 13,132.
(Rest snipped for brevity)
The above analysis is not correct.
The period being analyzed is April of 2000 to December of 2000. The
relevant numbers are as follows:
April 2000
Total ARS: 678,539 Technicians: 205,857 All others: 472,682
December 2000
Total ARS: 682,240 Technicians: 218,989 All others: 463,251
This works out to the following changes:
Total ARS: +3,701 Technicians: +13,132 All others: -9,431
However, all is not as simple as it appears. As part of the
restructuring changes, Technician Plus licenses will be renewed as
Technicians. So the above apparent gain of 13,132 is inflated by such
renewals, as is the apparent loss of 9,431 in the other classes.
Let's see how big this error really is. Looking at the renewal data on
the Speroni site, we see that the number of Tech and Tech Plus renewals
over the nine month period was 4,870. Because the FCC will not process
renewals until the license is close to expiring, almost all of these
4,870 are Tech Pluses being renewed as Technicians. A fair estimate
would be that about 4,700 of them were such renewals.
So the above numbers must be adjusted, because "Technicians" includes
both code-tested and non-code-tested licensees. Doing the math, we get:
December 2000
Total ARS: 682,240 "noncodetested": 214,289 "codetested": 467,951
This works out to the following changes:
Total ARS: +3,701 "noncodetested": +8,432 "codetested": -4,731
Quite a difference from the earlier numbers, but it's still clear that
the noncodetested numbers are growing while the codetested are
shrinking. In round numbeers, the "noncodetested" are gaining at the
rate of 937 per month and the "codetested" are shrinking at the rate of
525 per month.
But even THAT's not a complete or correct analysis.
All of the "codetested" licenses are, and have been, experiencing
losses due to expirations - but none of the "noncodetested" licenses
have expired. This situation will change in a week or so, however.
Suppose that the annual rate of expirations of "noncodetested" licenses
is just 5%. Based on 215,000 licensees, that works out to 10,075
expirations per year, or about 840 per month. So the gain of 937 per
month shrinks to just 97 per month IF a 5% annual dropout rate is
correct.
In other words, the trend is not nearly so dramatic as was originally
presented.
More important, however, is the simple fact that it is far too early to
even guess at the long-term impact of the restructuring. It is also
interesting that the January 2001 figures were not included. And it is
to be expected that the easiest-to-get license will have large numbers
of licensees.
73 de Jim, N2EY
--
FISTS #4360
BIT #0001
Brian
Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > So now one needs to be an expert in scaleology to be able to state
that
> > the numbers of coded hams are dropping and the number of no-coders
is
> > increasing.
>
> I don't recall you saying that.
That seemed to be your entire point. If it wasn't then your message was
pointless.
> And I don't recall having said you NEEDED to be anything, Brian.
What exactly are you trying to be, Jim?
> Still trying to figure out what, if
> anything, you ARE expert at though.
The greatest hobby in the world - the one everyone talks about!
Brian
If what you say is true, then most everyone would see that and your
comments would be completely unnecessary. But instead, you chose to
define scaleology as if you worked for the dept of weights and measures.
Brian
Since he cannot readily dispute that, he focuses on balance scales.
Anything to be disagreeable.
Brian
<brian...@my-deja.com>
> writes:
>
> >But nothing suprises me anymore. Why just the other day, Dick
admitted
> >that CW was doomed without the government forced testing. Seems it
> >isn't worthwhile enough to learn it on its own merits. After all
those
> >years of claiming PEEU.
>
> In Dick's case he must have gotten tired of waiting for that
> massive Missouri earthquake he read about in a book. Maybe
> his "emergency rig" code key oxidized into uselessness
> while waiting for it?
While I was in Korea or Guam, I recall hearing on the news that some
egghead predicted the New Madrid fault would jump again.
Meanwhile, Shirley MacClaine held hands with spiritual guides as they
looked to the East and focused on preventing the quake.
Good thing Dick was ready cause I don't have much faith in Shirley.
> Heck, Dick's statement isn't near as bad a tRoll's wanting to
> GIVE AWAY amateur radio spectrum to everyone else
> because no one will honor and respect his regency. :-)
Ditto Bruce/WA8ULX wanting to destroy the ARS because restructuring
didn't go his way.
>
> >I just wish these other guys would come clean and quit the
smokescreens
> >and diversions.
>
> Oddly enough, a telemarketer called tonight just after supper.
> It was a chimney cleaning service soliciting curstomers. I
> told them that this newgroup would be good for cleaning and
> smoke eliminations. They replied that they weren't big
> enough to handle the task... :-)
>
> didit
We've got enough hot air to float the Hindenberg.
Brian
I missed the retirement announcement. Congratulations Dave!
I miss the Air Force. Many of the civilians I've worked around since
leaving the service care about nothing but themselves. Its a wonder
we're even still the USA.
W1RFI
>The "molehill" is getting bigger, bigger, bigger. The "mountain"
>is eroding faster and faster. Closing one's eyes or mind won't
>reverse any trend.
I don't see that the changes in either direction have been anything like
"fast." If we factor out the Tech/Tech+ licencees, the number of General,
Advanced, Extra and Novices have actually increased slightly since 1997. I
don't see any significance to the percentages of increase or decrease of either
the code-tested or non-code-tested hams. To date, the changes have been
relatively minor.
What will tell, IMHO, is the attrition rate of the no-code Techs that come up
for renewal soon. My speculation is that about 60% of them will not renew.
Lobster anyone? :-)
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Brian
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ <k4...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <95spcb$gbp$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,> Birds of a feather.
You knew what Len meant. If you say you didn't, then you're a bigger
fool than even you make yourself on here.
Jim Kelley
Brian wrote:
> If what you say is true, then most everyone would see that and your
> comments would be completely unnecessary. But instead, you chose to
> define scaleology as if you worked for the dept of weights and measures.
I think you're over your head Brian. Best let it drop. The subject -
not your head.
Jim Kelley
> In article <3A82D5F4...@uci.edu>,
> Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> > Brian wrote:
> > > So now one needs to be an expert in scaleology to be able to state
> that
> > > the numbers of coded hams are dropping and the number of no-coders
> is
> > > increasing.
> >
> > I don't recall you saying that.
> That seemed to be your entire point.
I wonder if your head floats. Maybe you should consider only commenting
on things you understand.
> If it wasn't then your message was
> pointless.
I can see how it might seem that way to you.
> > Still trying to figure out what, if
> > anything, you ARE expert at though.
> The greatest hobby in the world - the one everyone talks about!
Excellent choice. Maybe there's a newsgroup you can go pester about
that.
Len Over 21
I didn't see any "correcting of a poor assessment of data." All I saw
was your attempt at trying to make a new issue out of your
"correction" of the phrase "tipping the scales."
didit
Len Over 21
<k4...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <20010208124733...@nso-fy.aol.com>,
> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>
>> Now, now, Dick, look at the NEW licensees' numbers. Those
>> aren't "renewals" from any other class. Want to do that in all
>> the months before April 15, 2000? :-)
>
> Lennnie again attempts to narrow the scope of the numbers to ONLY
>new licensees, and NOT the CURRENT status of those licensees.
No, just giving code-tested versus non-code-tested license
class totals in the US ARS at the end of December of the
years 2000, 1999, and 1998.
I'll ask again, are you saying that already-code-tested license
class amateurs are switching over to the Technician class? :-)
didit
Len Over 21
Please state exactly what was "inaccurate." Do you dispute
my arithmetic on two groups of licensees?
Or aren't you just playing word games with the phrase "tipping
scales?"
Shall we all have fun with word games here? Or would you
rather discuss some issues regarding the code-tested state
of US amateur radio license classes?
didit
Len Over 21
<k4...@my-deja.com> writes:
>In article <20010208124735...@nso-fy.aol.com>,
> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>
>> If you wish, I can post stats on NEW licensees for the last
>> three years. Looks even worse for the code-tested numbers.
>
> If that was ALL you posted, it might. But then again it doesn't
>reflect the true CURRENT status of thier licneses, now does it?
FCC databases are updated daily, weekly, and monthly. How
the various tabulators want to do it is their option. The AH0A
site tabulates at the end of the month.
What I did recently was take the AH0A site tabulations at the
end of December for the years 2000, 1999, and 1998. From
that and from previous years' data given over two years ago, the
trend is quite clear...newcomers are more attracted to no code
tests in US amateur radio.
Even more telling is that the code-tested license class totals
are decreasing while the non-code-tested licensees are
increasing.
What are you saying? That code-tested licensees are opting
to change over to Technician class from a code-tested previous
class not a Technician-Plus? :-)
>From: Steven J Robeson, K4YZ <k4...@my-deja.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
>Subject: Re: Who Is What?
>Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:08:48 GMT <----------!!!
>Organization: Deja.com
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <95uqrn$7hc$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Ah, still doing e-mail from work, ey? :-)
didit
Len Over 21
>In article <20010204002041...@nso-ff.aol.com>,
> leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
>> Firecracker Material (courtesy of AH0A statistics on US ham licenses)-
>>
>> In the 9 months following US amateur radio restructuring, the
>> total number of US amateur radio licenses increased by
>> 3,701 (+0.55% of total). Code-tested licensees declined by
>> 9,531 while non-code-tested licensees increased by 13,132.
>
>(Rest snipped for brevity)
>
>The above analysis is not correct.
Sorry, Jim, but based on the conditions I stated, it is correct.
Since your arithmetic is the same as mine, my analysis
using the stated conditions is very correct. :-)
<snip>
>However, all is not as simple as it appears. As part of the
>restructuring changes, Technician Plus licenses will be renewed as
>Technicians. So the above apparent gain of 13,132 is inflated by such
>renewals, as is the apparent loss of 9,431 in the other classes.
>
>Let's see how big this error really is. Looking at the renewal data on
>the Speroni site, we see that the number of Tech and Tech Plus renewals
>over the nine month period was 4,870. Because the FCC will not process
>renewals until the license is close to expiring, almost all of these
>4,870 are Tech Pluses being renewed as Technicians. A fair estimate
>would be that about 4,700 of them were such renewals.
That is an ESTIMATE. By using personal estimates based only
on "gut feeling" or something, you are yourself in ERROR.
<snip>
>But even THAT's not a complete or correct analysis.
True, using your estimates is not a correct analysis. :-)
<snip>
>Suppose that the annual rate of expirations of "noncodetested" licenses
>is just 5%. Based on 215,000 licensees, that works out to 10,075
>expirations per year, or about 840 per month. So the gain of 937 per
>month shrinks to just 97 per month IF a 5% annual dropout rate is
>correct.
As far as ESTIMATES, you've failed once more. Note the
tabulation of NEW licensees which increased at 1184 per
month for the 27 months between beginning of January 1998
and end of March 2000 for Technician. The renewals for
those will be in the year 2008 to 2010...but the trend is for
NEW Tech licensees still growing after January 2001.
You've made a wish-fulfillment estimate on the "840 per month
Technician class expirations of 5 percent." That assumes that
percentage will expire and you have NO idea if they will do that.
New Technician class licensees are continually being added
and not just from "Tech-Plus renewals."
>In other words, the trend is not nearly so dramatic as was originally
>presented.
Your statement is "true" only in using incomplete and faulty
estimates. The trend is there whether you want to see it or
not. Your take on "drama" is unknown.
>More important, however, is the simple fact that it is far too early to
>even guess at the long-term impact of the restructuring.
Denial will never see any trend of any kind.
> It is also
>interesting that the January 2001 figures were not included.
Why? Is 9 months after restructuring somehow "faulty" but
10 months after restructuring is somehow "more correct?!?"
What about the two years PRIOR to restructuring? Go do
the figures again and see the trends. Here, I'll do it for you.
First three months of 2000: 163/month code-tested NEW
licensees; 1980/month NEW Technicians. Not affected
by April 15, 2000 restructuring.
All of year 1999: 196/month code-tested NEW licensees;
1165/month non-code-tested NEW Technicians. Not
affected by April 15, 2000 restructuring.
All of year 1998: 265/month code-tested NEW licensees;
1231/month non-code-tested NEW Technicians. Not
affected by April 15, 2000 restructuring.
> And it is
>to be expected that the easiest-to-get license will have large numbers
>of licensees.
The "easiest-to-get license" is a Restricted Radiotelephone
License or Permit from the FCC. No test, lifetime. I have no
idea of the number of those licenses or permits. :-)
didit
Jim Kelley
Len Over 21 wrote:
>
> In article <3A82FC9F...@uci.edu>, Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> writes:
>
> >Len Over 21 wrote:
> >> Apparently you don't want to believe that code-tested US radio
> >> amateurs are decreasing in number while non-code-tested
> >> US radio amateurs are increasing in number.
> >
> >I know you're not stupid, Len, so the only thing I can conclude about
> >why you would say something which is totally inaccurate is because
> >you're so mad at me that you can't think of anything logical to say. I
> >never disputed your figures. You did.
> Please state exactly what was "inaccurate."
Here's the statement I was referring to:
"Apparently you don't want to believe that code-tested US radio
amateurs are decreasing in number while non-code-tested
US radio amateurs are increasing in number."
> Shall we all have fun with word games here? Or would you
> rather discuss some issues regarding the code-tested state
> of US amateur radio license classes?
It would go a long way if you would just TRY to make less inflamatory
statements, Len. You seem to feel the need to taunt, or exaggerate, or
belittle, or insult, in every stinkin' one of your posts. That's all
this was about. Geez.
Jim Kelley
> I didn't see any "correcting of a poor assessment of data." All I saw
> was your attempt at trying to make a new issue out of your
> "correction" of the phrase "tipping the scales."
Some people see only what they wish to see.
Len Over 21
>> Shall we all have fun with word games here? Or would you
>> rather discuss some issues regarding the code-tested state
>> of US amateur radio license classes?
>
>It would go a long way if you would just TRY to make less inflamatory
>statements, Len. You seem to feel the need to taunt, or exaggerate, or
>belittle, or insult, in every stinkin' one of your posts. That's all
>this was about. Geez.
The "taunt" seems to be 31,971 NEW no-code-test Technicians
who came into the US ARS in the 27 months from the
beginning of January 1998 and end of March 2000...while only
6009 NEW code-tested US ARS licensees came in during the
same time.
Is it an "exaggeration" that the no-code-test Technician class
has been constantly growing since the beginning while every
other US ARS class (code tested) has not grown nearly as fast?
Is it "belittling" that over 200 thousand no-code-test Techs are
now in the US ARS?
Is it "insulting" that such facts are pointed out to those who
have been code-tested?
I suppose you are right. All this talk about stopping code
testing is sure "stinking," isn't it?
I suppose I should "apologize" for pointing out the obvious, but
what are over 200 thousand Technician licensees expected to
do when they are discounted, demeaned, taunted, belittled by
some souls who feel they are "superior" to "stinking" inferiors?
didit
Brian
Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > In article <3A82D5F4...@uci.edu>,
> > Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
> > > Brian wrote:
> > > > So now one needs to be an expert in scaleology to be able to
state
> > that
> > > > the numbers of coded hams are dropping and the number of
no-coders
> > is
> > > > increasing.
> > >
> > > I don't recall you saying that.
>
> > That seemed to be your entire point.
>
> I wonder if your head floats. Maybe you should consider only
commenting
> on things you understand.
Then show where that wasn't your point. Show where I misunderstood.
Show that your head sinks.
> > If it wasn't then your message was
> > pointless.
>
> I can see how it might seem that way to you.
I don't see how.
> > > Still trying to figure out what, if
> > > anything, you ARE expert at though.
>
> > The greatest hobby in the world - the one everyone talks about!
>
> Excellent choice. Maybe there's a newsgroup you can go pester about
> that.
Even hams talk about it, so I'm comfortable where I'm at. Perhaps you
should meet Dick at alt.metamucel.isntworking
Cecil
> Meanwhile, Shirley MacClaine held hands with spiritual guides as they
> looked to the East and focused on preventing the quake.
Shirley MacClaine was asked who was the most influential person in
her life. She answered, "My own higher self."
--
http://www.mindspring.com/~w6rca
T. L. Bryant
>> Still trying to figure out what, if
>> anything, you ARE expert at though.
>
>The greatest hobby in the world - the one everyone talks about!
>
At the moment, that would be collecting Pokemon cards.
Dick Carroll
W1RFI wrote:
>
t will tell, IMHO, is the attrition rate of the no-code Techs that come
up
> for renewal soon. My speculation is that about 60% of them will not renew.
>
> Lobster anyone? :-)
Shucks, we're together on this one.
Dick Carroll
It's all he has ever done and is the reason most here just ignore him.
He had pretty well dried up for lact of attention when someone engaged
him in a drawnout flamefest, and he was rejuvenated.He is not interested
in ham radio in the least, other than to slam and criticize it and all
who are in it. He lives only to disturb and disrupt and like all such
idiots, when he gets no attention he goes away.
Brian
Brian
Cecil <Cecil....@IEEE.org> wrote:
> Brian wrote:
> > Meanwhile, Shirley MacClaine held hands with spiritual guides as
they
> > looked to the East and focused on preventing the quake.
>
> Shirley MacClaine was asked who was the most influential person in
> her life. She answered, "My own higher self."
She's her own God. Kind of like on here. ;)
Brian
Yeh, you keep saying that. So let us review.
Len brings up the fact that the numbers of coded hams are decreasing and
the numbers of non-coded hams are increasing (the "point" of the
discussion). He uses a balance scale term. You cannot comment on the
facts of the ham population, so instead dissect balance scale
engineering, and thus you claim Len's statements false. Ergo coded ham
populations are increasing. Nice fantasy.
Am I still in over my head?
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
> What are you saying? That code-tested licensees are opting
> to change over to Technician class from a code-tested previous
> class not a Technician-Plus?
No...simply YOU try to discount the "Techs" who upgrade. Yes,
most "new" licensees are Techs. But a LARGE number don't stay there.
You ignore that.
> >Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 19:08:48 GMT <----------!!!
> Ah, still doing e-mail from work, ey?
From wherever I do it, it doesn't take much to make a fool out of
you, Lennie.
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
PLEASE SEND PRIVATE E MAIL COMMENTS TO K4...@AOL.COM. RESPSONSES TO THE
DEJA MAY OR MAY NOT BE RETRIEVED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
> I'll ask again, are you saying that already-code-tested license
> class amateurs are switching over to the Technician class?
Accorning to the way the FCC is "realigning" the licenses on
paper, so it would seem, but even an idiot like you knows better.
T. L. Bryant
>> > Shall we all have fun with word games here? Or would you
>> > rather discuss some issues regarding the code-tested state
>> > of US amateur radio license classes?
>>
>> It would go a long way if you would just TRY to make less inflamatory
>> statements, Len. You seem to feel the need to taunt, or exaggerate, or
>> belittle, or insult, in every stinkin' one of your posts. That's all
>> this was about. Geez.
>
> It's all he has ever done and is the reason most here just ignore him.
>He had pretty well dried up for lact of attention when someone engaged
>him in a drawnout flamefest, and he was rejuvenated.He is not interested
>in ham radio in the least, other than to slam and criticize it and all
>who are in it. He lives only to disturb and disrupt and like all such
>idiots, when he gets no attention he goes away.
I think that if Len wanted to be inflamatory, he would have done a lot more
than complain about playing word games.
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
> The "taunt" seems to be 31,971 NEW no-code-test Technicians
> who came into the US ARS in the 27 months from the
> beginning of January 1998 and end of March 2000...while only
> 6009 NEW code-tested US ARS licensees came in during the
> same time.
And again you try to make it appear that ONLY the "new" Technician
licenses are making an impact. You fail to account for those who
transition. You only refer to "new" code tested licensees. NOT those
who are ALREADY licensed and upgrade.
> Is it "belittling" that over 200 thousand no-code-test Techs are
> now in the US ARS?
Only to you. Must chap your chops knowing there's all those teen
and pre-teen ops out there able to do what you CAN'T do after your
years aas a technician
> Is it "insulting" that such facts are pointed out to those who
> have been code-tested?
Only when YOU presume us to be ignorant enough to accept your poor
math as "fact".
> I suppose I should "apologize" for pointing out the obvious, but
> what are over 200 thousand Technician licensees expected to
> do when they are discounted, demeaned, taunted, belittled by
> some souls who feel they are "superior" to "stinking" inferiors?
They are only those things in YOUR mind, Lennie. It's all you
have left to believe that you are on some noble crusade.
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21) wrote:
> I didn't see any "correcting of a poor assessment of data."
Of course you didn't....Someone pointed out that you were (again)
wrong, and you immediately went into flame mode.
> All I saw was your attempt at trying to make a new issue out of your
> "correction" of the phrase "tipping the scales."
That was about 2-3 posts later...after you had stuck your poisoned
pen in the well a couple times.
Dave Heil
>
> In article <95spsv$gqf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Brian <brian...@my-deja.com>
> writes:
>
> >> the ____ class of license?
> >>
> >> Dave Heil K8MN
> >
> >Of course, you assume that all hams, coded and codeless, weigh the same.
>
> Ever since Uncle retired him he is all at sea and wanting to be
> "under weigh" or "under way."
Troll number one?
> Note that Davey put the Technician class in a "blank" form up
> there? Looks like a Freudian slip to me...not counting the
> non-code-tested as "real hams."
>
> didit
Troll number two?
It doesn't matter which license class is inserted in the blank, Len.
You still can't make me believe that the balance scales are tipping
until any group of non-code tested hams exceeds the number of code
tested hams. No scales have begun tipping so your original claim is,
like several others you have made, false.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
>
> In article <3A819251...@uci.edu>, Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> writes:
>
> >Len Over 21 wrote:
> >
> >> by concentrating on certain phrases to "prove his point" (which
> >> was not really explained except in trying to provoke something
> >> about phrase choices. :-)
> >
> >It's not a smokescreen to point out that what you said contradicted the
> >facts you presented. I can't help it if you didn't say what you meant.
> >
> >jim
>
> Major Kelley, sir, you are just trying to ignite a flame war by
> concentration on a trivial phrase of English.
>
> My point was that the non-code-tested US amateur licensees
> keep increasing in number while the code-tested US amateur
> licensees are decreasing in number.
>
>
> didit
I don't think anyone will dispute that statement. That is not the
statement you originally made, Windy--the one with scales tipping. It
is obvious that with an easy test available, most folks will opt for
that one initially.
So?
We could even come up with a new and radical assumption from all of
this: maybe some code tested hams are turning in their tickets and
obtaining non-code tested licenses. That could certainly account for
the increase on one hand and the decrease on the other.
Do you have anything interesting for the group or can we expect more
number crunching ala Len?
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
>
> In article <3A82D670...@uci.edu>, Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> writes:
>
> >Brian wrote:
> >> I knew what Len meant. What was your excuse again?
> >
> >My excuse for what? Len was trying to make a mountain out of a mole
> >hill - as usual.
> >
> >ac6xg
>
> You were looking for an excuse...and nit-picked a single phrase
> for a "critique" that was not on the subject.
>
> Apparently you don't want to believe that code-tested US radio
> amateurs are decreasing in number while non-code-tested
> been going on for years.
>
> The "molehill" is getting bigger, bigger, bigger. The "mountain"
> is eroding faster and faster. Closing one's eyes or mind won't
> reverse any trend.
>
> didit
You, of course assume that non-code tested licensees will never upgrade.
What is this rate of change supposed to mean to us, Len? Why all this
"mountain eroding" and "scales tipping" guff? It would appear to be
something which is natural given the current licensing structure and it
certainly doesn't worry me. Why should it worry you, a non-licensee?
I don't think those scales will tip in your lifetime. Would you like
one of us to give you a report in the afterlife? Please provide a
forwarding address.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
His statement, taken as a whole, was false because of his incorrect
analogy. When Len can carry on a dialog without inserting all of the
silly phrases such as the obviously wrong one which he used, maybe
someone will take him seriously. Just maybe.
When viewed as an obvious troll meant to stir things up rather than to
really discuss anything, Len's post has little meaning. Len isn't a ham
so he isn't contributing to eroding mountains or tipping scales one way
or the other. He knows a few hams though.
Your own role here is an interesting one. For several years I've had
the opportunity to observe you playing defender for the likes of Len,
Cecil and Carl Stevenson. If you'd like to continue with analogies, I'd
describe your perception of amateur radio reality with a term from
ionospheric propagation: skewed path.
Dave K8MN
Dave Heil
...sort of like Cecil and a group of Baptists down his way praying to
Cecil's inner self as desribed here a couple of years back. Maybe Cecil
has been praying to Shirley MacLaine all of these years.
Dave K8MN
R.L. Tannehill, P.E.
W1RFI wrote:
>
> >From: leno...@aol.com (Len Over 21)
>
> >The "molehill" is getting bigger, bigger, bigger. The "mountain"
> >is eroding faster and faster. Closing one's eyes or mind won't
> >reverse any trend.
>
> I don't see that the changes in either direction have been anything like
> "fast." If we factor out the Tech/Tech+ licencees, the number of General,
> Advanced, Extra and Novices have actually increased slightly since 1997. I
> don't see any significance to the percentages of increase or decrease of either
> the code-tested or non-code-tested hams. To date, the changes have been
> relatively minor.
>
> What will tell, IMHO, is the attrition rate of the no-code Techs that come up
> for renewal soon. My speculation is that about 60% of them will not renew.
>
> Lobster anyone? :-)
>
> 73,
> Ed Hare, W1RFI
ED,
What's the percentage differential that qualifies for a wager? :)
Rick T.
W7RT
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> > What will tell, IMHO, is the attrition rate of the no-code Techs that
come up
> > for renewal soon. My speculation is that about 60% of them will not
renew.
> > Lobster anyone? :-)
> What's the percentage differential that qualifies for a wager? :)
I don't know if I dare to make another lobster bet with you! :-) At least a
60% chance I will be at Ft Tuthill, though.
But I do deserve a chance to break even, so here's the deal: In the first 3
full months of the time period where no-code Tech license, I think that more
than 60% of those Technician licencees eligibile to renew will not do so. If
the percentage that renews is >40%, you will win. In very unlikely event it
is precisely 60.000%, we each buy a lottery ticket and go dutch treat on
the lobster. :-)
What say?
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Jon Bloom
>
> W1RFI wrote:
> >
> > What will tell, IMHO, is the attrition rate of the no-code Techs that come up
> > for renewal soon. My speculation is that about 60% of them will not renew.
> >
> > Lobster anyone? :-)
> >
> > 73,
> > Ed Hare, W1RFI
> ED,
> What's the percentage differential that qualifies for a wager? :)
Maybe it should be based on the size of the lobster. 5% = 1 lb, 10% = 2
lb...
Jon
Brian
> > It's all he has ever done and is the reason most here just ignore
him.
> >He had pretty well dried up for lact of attention when someone
engaged
> >him in a drawnout flamefest, and he was rejuvenated.He is not
interested
> >in ham radio in the least, other than to slam and criticize it and
all
> >who are in it. He lives only to disturb and disrupt and like all such
> >idiots, when he gets no attention he goes away.
>
> I think that if Len wanted to be inflamatory, he would have done a lot
more
> than complain about playing word games.
I'd say they got off pretty easy.
Brian
Dave Heil <k8...@ovis.net> wrote:
I'd
> describe your perception of amateur radio reality with a term from
> ionospheric propagation: skewed path.
>
> Dave K8MN
Likewise, you seem to hang with what I consider some of the wrong
elements in amateur radio. You follow the ground wave.
n2...@aol.com
>
> >In article <20010204002041...@nso-ff.aol.com>,> >> Firecracker Material (courtesy of AH0A statistics on US ham
licenses)-
> >>
> >> In the 9 months following US amateur radio restructuring, the
> >> total number of US amateur radio licenses increased by
> >> 3,701 (+0.55% of total). Code-tested licensees declined by
> >> 9,531 while non-code-tested licensees increased by 13,132.
> >
> >(Rest snipped for brevity)
> >
> >The above analysis is not correct.
>
> Sorry, Jim, but based on the conditions I stated, it is correct.
No, Len, it is not correct. Let's look at what you wrote:
"In the 9 months following US amateur radio restructuring, the total
number of US amateur radio licenses increased by 3,701 (+0.55% of
total)."
That part is correct. Subtract the total number of licenses in December
2000 from the total in April 2000 and you get a difference of 3701.
"Code-tested licensees declined by 9,531 while non-code-tested
licensees increased by 13,132."
That part is NOT correct. First off, there's a minor arithmetic error
(9431 not 9531). But the big mistake is that you equate "non-code-
tested licensees" with "Technicians". The two are not the same. Some
holders of Technician licenses are code-tested, and have some HF
privileges.
You wrote "licensees" not "licenses", too. So you were referring to the
people, not their licenses.
>
> Since your arithmetic is the same as mine, my analysis
> using the stated conditions is very correct. :-)
Your arithmetic contains a small error. And your analysis is flawed and
in error, as I have shown.
>
> <snip>
>
> >However, all is not as simple as it appears. As part of the
> >restructuring changes, Technician Plus licenses will be renewed as
> >Technicians. So the above apparent gain of 13,132 is inflated by such
> >renewals, as is the apparent loss of 9,431 in the other classes.
> >
> >Let's see how big this error really is. Looking at the renewal data
on
> >the Speroni site, we see that the number of Tech and Tech Plus
renewals
> >over the nine month period was 4,870. Because the FCC will not
process
> >renewals until the license is close to expiring, almost all of these
> >4,870 are Tech Pluses being renewed as Technicians. A fair estimate
> >would be that about 4,700 of them were such renewals.
>
> That is an ESTIMATE.
Yes, it is. It's also true - the FCC renewed 4,870 Technician and
Technician Plus licenses in that time period, and reclassified the Tech
Pluses as Technicians. The holders of the licenses - the licensees -
are responsible for maintaining proof that they have been code tested
if they want to retain their HF privileges.
This stuff is all explained on the Speroni site. Your failure to
include it in your analysis is a serious error that reduces your
credibility.
> By using personal estimates based only
> on "gut feeling" or something, you are yourself in ERROR.
My estimate is not based on "gut feeling". It is based on a thorough
knowledge of the information, the applicable regulations and basic math
as applied to statistics. It's a fair estimate.
Your analysis did not include the fact that the FCC is renewing Tech
Plus licenses as Technicians, and that by doing so, one cannot
equate "Technician license" with "non-code-tested licensee". By
improperly putting code-tested Technicians in the non-code-tested
category, you overstate their number and understate the number of code
tested licensees.
The error is not a small one. 4,700 of 13,000+ is more than a third.
If there is any error in my analysis, it is that the number 4,700 is
too small. Also left out are all Technicians who have passed the 5 wpm
code test but not upgraded to General or Extra yet. They are "code-
tested licensees".
End result is that your numbers are way off.
>
> <snip>
>
> >But even THAT's not a complete or correct analysis.
>
> True, using your estimates is not a correct analysis. :-)
It is far more correct than your analysis.
>
> <snip>
>
> >Suppose that the annual rate of expirations of "noncodetested"
licenses
> >is just 5%. Based on 215,000 licensees, that works out to 10,075
> >expirations per year, or about 840 per month. So the gain of 937 per
> >month shrinks to just 97 per month IF a 5% annual dropout rate is
> >correct.
>
> As far as ESTIMATES, you've failed once more.
How do you know? What is faulty in my estimate? I clearly
said "SUPPOSE" - that makes it hypothetical.
> Note the
> tabulation of NEW licensees which increased at 1184 per
> month for the 27 months between beginning of January 1998
> and end of March 2000 for Technician.
The actual numbers jump all over the place from month to month. And the
tabulation is of new licenses, not new licensees.
The number of new Technician licenses proves one thing: Most people
starting out in ham radio do so by getting a Technician license. The
data does not tell how many of those new licensees later upgrade,
because upgrades are lumped into "modifications".
> The renewals for
> those will be in the year 2008 to 2010...
Which has no bearing on the analysis. What really matters is how many
will come up for renewal, and be renewed, in the near future. My hope
is that the renewal rate will be very high. 99% would be great. 100%
would be even better, but is probably not realistic.
> but the trend is for
> NEW Tech licensees still growing after January 2001.
That's an ESTIMATE on your part. Nobody knows what the renewal rate
will be like until they actually start to expire.
>
> You've made a wish-fulfillment estimate on the "840 per month
> Technician class expirations of 5 percent."
That's simply not correct. I don't "wish" for a 5% dropout rate -
I "wish" it would be 0%. The 5% is just a highly-educated guess, and
identified as such.
By ignoring the fact that no Technician licenses have expired yet, your
analysis is even more faulty. My estimate is closer to the facts than
yours because it includes relevant corrections. My method is simply
more accurate.
> That assumes that
> percentage will expire and you have NO idea if they will do that.
It was identified as a "suppose". You ignored the whole expiration
thing completely. My analysis is more correct because the relevant
factors are included, and estimates identified as such.
You have no idea how many will expire and how many will renew, either.
> New Technician class licensees are continually being added
> and not just from "Tech-Plus renewals."
Of course! No one denies that, least of all me. But as I have shown, at
least a third of the ones you have credited as "new non-code-tested
licensees" are actually code-tested Tech Pluses renewed as Techs. The
real number is probably close to 40%. That's a BIG error, Len. And it's
an avoidable error.
>
> >In other words, the trend is not nearly so dramatic as was originally
> >presented.
>
> Your statement is "true" only in using incomplete and faulty
> estimates.
My estimates are accurate within the limits stated. My analysis is more
accurate than yours. Much more accurate.
> The trend is there whether you want to see it or
> not.
The trend is that most new hams start out with Technician licenses.
That's been the trend for over a decade. Some upgrade, some don't.
Describing all Technicians as "non-code-tested licensees" is simply not
correct or accurate.
> >More important, however, is the simple fact that it is far too early
to
> >even guess at the long-term impact of the restructuring.
>
> Denial will never see any trend of any kind.
I'm not denying any trends. I'm just stating the facts and pointing out
your errors. Which of my facts is not true?
>
> > It is also
> >interesting that the January 2001 figures were not included.
>
> Why? Is 9 months after restructuring somehow "faulty" but
> 10 months after restructuring is somehow "more correct?!?"
10 months of data are available, so why not include them? The longer
the baseline, the more accurate the extrapolation or interpolation.
Basing conclusions on the 10 months of data following the restructuring
is, by definition, more accurate and correct than basing them on the 9
months of data following the restructuring.
>
> What about the two years PRIOR to restructuring?
Different ballgame. Different license structure, different test
requirements, different dynamics. And the FCC was renewing Tech Pluses
as Tech Pluses back then.
> Go do
> the figures again and see the trends.
I have. The trends changed markedly after April 2000.
>Here, I'll do it for you.
Will this be as accurate as your earlier analysis? ;-)
>
> First three months of 2000: 163/month code-tested NEW
> licensees; 1980/month NEW Technicians. Not affected
> by April 15, 2000 restructuring.
>
> All of year 1999: 196/month code-tested NEW licensees;
> 1165/month non-code-tested NEW Technicians. Not
> affected by April 15, 2000 restructuring.
>
> All of year 1998: 265/month code-tested NEW licensees;
> 1231/month non-code-tested NEW Technicians. Not
> affected by April 15, 2000 restructuring.
Which tells us that most new hams start out with the Technician
license - as I have written many times. Upgrades are not shown as new
licenses in the Speroni data. Upgrades are not shown separately in the
Speroni data, either.
And the restructuring DID have an effect. Once the NPRM was announced,
hams and prospective hams who kept up with the news knew that changes
were probably coming. Some of them would act accordingly, perhaps
delaying upgrading until the new license structure was known. After the
late December 1999 R&O, those thinking about getting licenses or
upgrading knew what was on the way and acted accordingly. The exact
effects can only be guessed at, but there WERE effects.
What do you think the above data says in terms of trends, beyond the
fact that most new hams today start out as Technicians?
>
> > And it is
> >to be expected that the easiest-to-get license will have large
numbers
> >of licensees.
>
> The "easiest-to-get license" is a Restricted Radiotelephone
> License or Permit from the FCC.
Sorry, I made a mistake there. It should read:
"And it is to be expected that the easiest-to-get US amateur radio
license will have large numbers of licensees."
That's better. I apologize for being vague in that statement the first
time.
N2EY
--
FISTS #4360
BIT #0001
Jim Kelley
Brian wrote:
> Len brings up the fact that the numbers of coded hams are decreasing and
> the numbers of non-coded hams are increasing (the "point" of the
> discussion). He uses a balance scale term.
He use a balance scale analogy to indicate the opposite of the facts he
cites.
> You cannot comment on the
> facts of the ham population, so instead dissect balance scale
> engineering, and thus you claim Len's statements false.
I DID not comment on that because no comment was necessary. I have
nothing to say on the issue other than, great! More new hams.
> Ergo coded ham
> populations are increasing. Nice fantasy.
Yours, not mine.
Jim Kelley
Len Over 21 wrote:
> The "taunt" seems to be 31,971 NEW no-code-test Technicians
> who came into the US ARS in the 27 months from the
> beginning of January 1998 and end of March 2000...while only
> 6009 NEW code-tested US ARS licensees came in during the
> same time.
What's to taunt about?
> Is it an "exaggeration" that the no-code-test Technician class
> has been constantly growing since the beginning while every
> other US ARS class (code tested) has not grown nearly as fast?
Nope. That's not it.
> Is it "belittling" that over 200 thousand no-code-test Techs are
> now in the US ARS?
Nope. Not what I was referring to at all.
> Is it "insulting" that such facts are pointed out to those who
> have been code-tested?
You are all of the above, Leonard. It's amazing you can't see it.
> I suppose you are right. All this talk about stopping code
> testing is sure "stinking," isn't it?
I don't think so. You're like a bad comedian, Len. The jokes would be
funny if somebody else told them.
> didit
no you didn't
Ed Hare, W1RFI
> Len Over 21 wrote:
> > The "taunt" seems to be 31,971 NEW no-code-test Technicians
> > who came into the US ARS in the 27 months from the
> > beginning of January 1998 and end of March 2000...while only
> > 6009 NEW code-tested US ARS licensees came in during the
> > same time.
> What's to taunt about?
Nothing. I am pleased that there are 37,980 new hams.
73,
Ed Hare, W1RFI
Jim Kelley
> Show where I misunderstood.
You apparently understand nothing. You're an impudent boorish punk with
nothing intellectual to bring to a discussion. I expect you find
pestering people on the newsgroup to be as entertaining as jamming your
local repeater and playing telephone pranks.
Blither on, N0IMD.
Steven J Robeson, K4YZ
n2...@aol.com wrote:
> Your analysis did not include the fact that the FCC is renewing Tech
> Plus licenses as Technicians, and that by doing so, one cannot
> equate "Technician license" with "non-code-tested licensee". By
> improperly putting code-tested Technicians in the non-code-tested
> category, you overstate their number and understate the number of code
> tested licensees.
You would expect this creep to admit an error?
> The error is not a small one. 4,700 of 13,000+ is more than a third.
Of course if WE made this error, we KNOW what would be coming out
of Soutern Californication, don't you?
--
"It Could Be That Your Life's Only Meaning Is To Serve As A Warning To
Others Of How Bad It Could REALLY Be!"
"Just Remember...An Amateur Built The Ark, Engineers Built The Titanic"
PLEASE SEND PRIVATE E MAIL COMMENTS TO K4...@AOL.COM. RESPSONSES TO THE
DEJA MAY OR MAY NOT BE RETRIEVED IN A TIMELY FASHION.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Brian
Jim, you have yet to say anything intellectual, you discuss nothing, you
only attack my character. It is likely you really have nothing to say
intellectual or not, yet you go on and on and on. You, sir, are the
jammer. Be Silent!
Brian
Jim Kelley <jwke...@uci.edu> wrote:
>
>
> Brian wrote:
> > Len brings up the fact that the numbers of coded hams are decreasing
and
> > the numbers of non-coded hams are increasing (the "point" of the
> > discussion). He uses a balance scale term.
>
> He use a balance scale analogy to indicate the opposite of the facts
he
> cites.
Fine! I guess balance scales cannot be in a process or a state of
"tip-ping" until they have tipped. Everything is static until,
suddenly, they are tipped. The balance beam cannot move until it
instantly comes in to a state of having been tipped. The beam cannot be
moving downward or upward.
The idea of tipping is impossible for you to grasp. I pity your
waitress.
> > You cannot comment on the
> > facts of the ham population, so instead dissect balance scale
> > engineering, and thus you claim Len's statements false.
>
> I DID not comment on that because no comment was necessary. I have
> nothing to say on the issue other than, great! More new hams.
There - you said it. Great! Not exactly intellectual, but we're making
progress.
> > Ergo coded ham
> > populations are increasing. Nice fantasy.
>
> Yours, not mine.
>
> > Am I still in over my head?
That's your fantasy.
T. L. Bryant
>
>In article <95voc...@enews3.newsguy.com>,>> In article <95v8mt$jmt$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, brian...@my-deja.com
>says...
>>
>> >> Still trying to figure out what, if
>> >> anything, you ARE expert at though.
>> >
>> >The greatest hobby in the world - the one everyone talks about!
>> >
>>
>> At the moment, that would be collecting Pokemon cards.
>
>Not the moment most people live in. Guess again.
You don't get out much do you?