"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Kim"
writes:
"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:
Jim,
Of that 423k US hams who are not Techs, how many do you suppose
started
out as Techs and have since upgraded?
I don't know, exactly. Neither do you, I bet ;-)
But why does it matter?
There's a more poignant question that it reveals on the surface.
I'm glad somebody picked up on that!
I like the between the line part of discussions; good "listening" will hear
what's really being said and going on in the background, right?
The only thing the ARRL apparently successfully
*helps* with (but is not solely responsible for) is getting *new* hams
involved. If that statement is true--and it's probably more true than
not--then what does the ARRL need to do to move past just getting new
folks
to the hobby/service of amateur radio?
Publicity is a big thing, but it can be hard to come by because most
people
just aren't going to "get" amateur radio.
I agree...and even if they "get" it, the draw of the internet, cellular
phones (heck we may as well start calling them cellular devices), etc. will
detract from any interest they may have in radio. People can now transmit
pictures, video, and even play games and chat over cellular phones. The
cost is substantially less than it was and nearly anyone can afford them
these days. I've heard of parents who give cellular phones to the kids so
they can all keep in touch (man, that woulda been a real bummer for
me...but)
When I decided to become a
licensed amateur radio operator I gave no thought at all to what it would
take to get my license; only that I needed to meet the requirements at
hand.
It was only *after* I entered the service that any conginitive thought
was
made as to license upgrades for the purpose of more bandwidth,
privileges,
etc.
Exactly! Once you decided you wanted in, the tests were simply a task to
be
performed to get the license.
And, it is *that* desire, emotion, need, want--whatever--that the ARRL needs
to capitalize on. I am not a professional marketer...I only dabble in the
concepts, but it can be done. Somehow. That moment of catching someone who
turns their eye and interest at exactly the right moment...what is it that
did that to them? Harness that, and the ARRL walks away from being a status
quo organization to getting more folks into the hobby...hmmm, I just did a
little bit of turnabout on my opinion there, didn't I? I criticized the
ARRL for being a welcome mat and that is exactly what I meant they should
be! What the criticism should be is that they *don't* have more strategies
to grow the ARS--they merely maintain.
I think the discussion got a little diluted with mention of the "to upgrade
or not to" issue. But, that's OK, I can keep up
If this thread is indeed still discussing the ARRL(?)--the ARRL itself
needs
to consider these questions--probably needs to poll current hams and get
a
professional marketing agency to figure out how to move beyond just being
a
welcome mat and deciding if they also need to take on the task of getting
people to migrate to higher license classes or what those higher license
classes "get" you (because there may not always take a higher license
classes along with the privileges of the "extra" bandwidth, etc.).
But why should they upgrade if they're satisfied with what they've got -
like
you are, Kim? Sure, offer help and information, but if someone's happy,
don;t push.
See? We got a little diluted, there. HOWEVER, I agree...there is no reason
people should feel pressured to upgrade; if they do they are buying into the
masses that attempt to make them feel that way. By the way, rewrite
*everything* up above about the ARRL from the perspective that what they
need to do is figure out how to move beyond being a status quo organization
and *become* a welcome mat for the ARS... Gads, I wasn't even
drinking...LOL
From 1979 to 1991, the number of US hams grew from about 350,000 to
about
550,000 - all of them code-tested. From 1991 to 2003, the number grew
from
about 550,000 to about 683,000. (If someone has more accurate numbers,
please
post them!). We had growth with code tests and growth without code
tests.
It's those fluctuations in the numbers that need to be analyzed. What
was
going on economically, politically, educationally, even migrationally, in
this country at those times? 200,000 vs. 133,000 in growth in two
entirely
different phases of years, but the same number of years.
Well, a bunch of things, from the economy to the politics to lifestyle
changes.
Then there's the 'net and cellphones and (as you pointed out some time
back)
people having less time for organized hobbies and other activities.
Yeah, and I truly think that the above is a hard thing to overcome in terms
of keeping the ARS out in front of people to get them interested. The only
thing I could think of that would work--and it would have to be a culture
thing rather than just an ARS thing--is working at it from a "tradition"
perspective. There will always be people who can inspire an appreciation
for tradition. And, there's a *lot* of tradition in ham radio.
If the games of football, basketball, etc., can "get" people, then the ARS
can. We also have to remember that it's probably a 50/50 effort between the
ARS and amateurs who can take up the torch for the ARS. And, as mentioned
above--we're running short on time.
And, Jim, I know
('least I think I know) you will agree that CW testing or not may have
nothing at all to do with the fact whether there was more or less growth
at
either time.
EXACTLY!
And yet code testing - even the 5 wpm test that's all we have left - is
held up
as some sort of "barrier" that is keeping out huge numbers of wonderful
people who will bring about a new Golden Age....
Psshawww, the CW test is no barrier and that is pure hogwash. There are
folks who post to this newsgroup who are bigger barriers to the ARS than
CW...
It could have nothing *at all* to do with testing structure
because, as I said, I didn't really take enough time to say, "wait a
minute,
what are the requirements and will they ever change?," etc.
Sure. Oh, there will be a surge of growth - but then it will drop off.
Back in 1991 there were about 550,000 US hams, all of them code-tested.
By
April of 2000 there were about 675,000 US hams, of which about 205,000
were
Techs. Since then the renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs clouds the issue.
How many SKs and dropouts would
have reduced the population without the newcomers coming in to replace
them.
Now, there's a question that would be really hard to get answered, but it
could be done. However, based on this discussion alone (the appearance
of
growth being influenced only by whether there is a CW test or not); I
think
there are more people driven by their ambition that driven by
requirements.
I think if I *want* to upgrade, I am going to do it regardless of test
requirements. Really.
Heck, Kim, from what I know of you, if you got it into your head that you
wanted
an Extra, you'd have one soon after the next VE session. Whatever it took.
Uh oh...I am spending too much time here again
How many Generals and Extras
are out there that upgraded (with or without CW) and don't ever really
*use*
their privileges.
I know plenty who are inactive or nearly so because their lives simply
don't
allow it. I went through several years when my only operating was 2 meter
FM because I didn't have the time or space for an HF station or antenna.
Yep. And, I love the couch potatoe upgraders who sneer at those who don't
upgrade! It's so funny to hear them snarling and then ask them, "hey,
where's your HF setup?"
Remember that the ARRL's interest would also be in having
enough numbers of hams to drive their "use them or lose them" campaigns
(boring as they may be). This, by the way, is also why I believe the
ARRL
is not the successful agency it would like to believe it is. It is very
apparent that the ARRL has failed to move past being a welcome mat.
Well, maybe, but there are other factors. For one, how many of the 683,000
hams in the database are active at all? With 10 year licenses, many of
them
are SKs, or have lost interest, or are on hiatus for a while.
Just consider the SK situation. Suppose that just 2% of the amateur
population
dies in any given year. In most cases, they will still be in the database
until
their
license runs out. With 10 year licenses, that means the *average* SK stays
in
the database for 5 years after he/she has gone to the Big Hamshack......
5 years at 2% a year means that 10% of the database is actually SKs.
That's
over 68,000 hams!
FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs for 3 years, 8 months and 18
days.
If no rules changes are made, there will not be any Tech Pluses at all
in
6 years, 3 months and 13 days from now.
Hmmmm, but I will still have the same privileges as I do as a Tech+.
Yep - as long as you keep old license documents showing that you held a
T+.
ROFLMAO!!! Larry'll be so happy to hear that!
So,
for someone who cares, where's the downside of that? I don't care if I'm
called a Tech or a Tech+--that concept is only important to some but not
all
hams--but I do care whether I can get on the radio or not. And the radio
I
care to get on is a FM transceiver using 2M predominantly (if at all
because, heck, I haven't been on the radio in over a year).
My point is simply that some people may point to the large number of Techs
as "proof" of something or other, denying the fact that a growing number
of
them are actually Tech Pluses.
Oh, I know. I was "writing out loud." I looked my call up on QRZ today
(wow what a bunch of hits...but I digress) and I thought this was the year I
had to renew my license, but it's in 2008. I guess that has something to do
with changing my callsign...don't know, because it's been "around" ten years
that I've been licensed...or it seems so anyway.
I would bet that a LOT of the Tech Pluses that existed in April of
2000
are now
Generals or Extras, rather than having been renewed as Techs with code
credit.
See? Carl denies that a large number of Tech Pluses may be perfectly happy
with their licenses.
Y'know...I didn't catch that the first time around. Is there an implication
from Carl that there should be some kind of stigma attached to being
"renewed at Techs with code credit"? I don't get that at all, if so. Are
there really people who would think anything of that?!
How many is "a lot"? The number of Tech Pluses has dropped by about
half
since
April 2000. Some of that drop is due to upgrades. Some of it is due to
dropouts. And some of it is due to renewal as Techs.
I think Carl would find his statement to be false, or closer to false
than
truth.
Me, too. Remember too that code waivers have been around even longer than
a no-code-test license, so anyone who wanted to upgrade and found the code
tests above 5 wpm to be a "barrier" could have done so by the waiver
route.
And many did just that.
To say that we'd only have 340,000 hams today if all hams were
code-tested
is simply not reasonable.
Here are some numbers:
In order to grow from 350K to 550K in 12 years, the number of newcomers
would
have to be at least 17,000 per year, even if there were no dropouts at
all.
Well, you've done some of the work for the ARRL...grin. And, they better
get busy!
Now let's suppose that the changes of 1991 never happened, and that we
were
still getting only 17,000 new hams per year. And suppose that the
dropout
rate
of those 1991 hams from then to the present was 2.5% per year .(average
ham
"career" of 40 years).
Then in the 12 years, we'd have lost about 26% of those who were hams
in
1991.
That's a loss of 143,000 hams, bringing the total down to 407,000. We'd
have
gained 204,000 new hams, bringing the total up to 611,000.
That's a long way from 340,000.
I agree, Jim. And, if NCI *and* the ARRL are ever going to change, or
even
understand, fluctuations in the numbers and in the numbers of license
classes way more study and analysis needs to be done. Some, in fact,
would
be better than none.
Sure - but it's tough to do studies because the target keeps changing. For
example, the FCC started issuing 10 year licenses (up from 5 years) back
in
1984. That change means there were *no* expirations at all from 1989 to
1994.
How do we figure that into the numbers game? Or the changes in vanity call
rules that affect when licenses expire?
73 de Jim, N2EY
The target may not be as elusive as that. The "spark" that gets ignited
with ham radio has nothing to do with "all that" and everything to do with
the fascination of picking up a microphone and talking into it (sorry CW
lovers...it's the truth for the majority). It's at the moment that the
interest is sparked that the "deal has to be made." In other words, I think
the only way to "grow" the ARS is to have venues (and I'm not talking about
ham radio clubs) for ham radio. Childrens' wards at hospitals, scouting and
other civil organizations, YM/YWCAs, etc. Why not develop a "Salvation
Army" of ham radio?
Oh good grief...I'm the trainer and I tell people every day...you came up
with the idea, you run with it. Uh uh...I was just "writing out loud again"
and I am going to go have a drink and forget it...grin
Kim W5TIT