In article , Mike Coslo writes:
All numbers are *interpreted*. That a poster here chooses to use the
word "massaged" which has a different connotation than interpreted, it
is just another situation akin to your nonexistent quote "Hams used to
do the 911 communications."
Raw data is just that. It signifies very little.
"Raw data" is supplied by the FCC. You know, the agency in the USA
that actually GRANTS those amateur radio licenses. All that data is
found in huge data files, complete with the datafield identification so that
anyone can tally up what they want to tally.
Taking a look at Novice class licensees, anyone can see that the totals
for that class have been steadily dropping for years and years. No
"rocket science" intellect is needed to see that. Those who got started
in amateur radio via a Novice class license don't like that, but the fact
is there. No interpretation needed.
The original no-code-test Technician class license was responsible
for the overall amateur license increase in numbers, ever since that
class was first allocated 13 years ago. The Technician class license
of today has almost 40% of all licensees, far above any other class.
[at the present growth rate it might exceed 40% this month] That is
something the PCTAs vainly try to dispute.
Joe Speroni seems to be the first one disputing that no-code class.
Since the last Restructuring the no-longer-issued-new Technician Plus
class license was no longer allowed to be called a "no-code" license
due to the FCC changing renewals of the Tech Plus to Tech. Speroni
is a definite PCTA type. :-) J.P.Miccolis is another definte PCTA and
made much about Technician class licensees can never be called
"no-code" because of that renewal class change. :-)
One big problem with that (besides the PCTA unable to face reality) is
that the definitely-no-code-test Technician class licensees outnumbered
150K prior to Restructuring. That class total has never stopped growing
(at a rate more than other classes) since it began. The raw data from
the FCC contains enough information on all licensees to show whether
or not a Technician class licensee took a code test or not. PCTAs don't
seem to want to extract that. It refutes their claims.
There isn't any evidence that all those previous-Technician-class-who-
never-took-a-code-test are all "dropping out of ham radio" at the end of
the grace period on their first renewals. That was loudly and repeatedly
trumpeted by the PCTA, even Joe Speroni on the AH0A statistics web-
site. Most of them are still there, have renewed. What now? :-)
Take the "grace
period" for example. It should ONLY be included as a separate part of an
interpretation.
WHY? The license holder isn't prohibited from doing anything after
midnight of the last day of his/her 10-year-active-license period...and
for two more years into that grace period.
There are many, many reasons, all valid, for being unable to renew
prior to the last day of the 10-year period. You created an artificial
thing there with your particular interpretation.
Same goes for club calls and a few other types of
license.
Club calls, as of 1 January 2005, numbered 9,329. I did not include
them in the grand total of 734,384. My posted total was 725,055 for
all classes. Club calls represent 1.27% of all call signs.
In truth, the military call signs, what few there are, were included in
the grand total. If you feel that their numbers are so overwhelmingly
important, just go to Hamdata.com and get them. They post that
data, too.
The raw data from the FCC has ALL that information.
My point is that using all numbers without differentiation will
certainly lead to unclear results that the reader would have to do their
own interpretation with.
Your sentence structure is something up with which most won't put.
:-)
"Interpretation" and "massaging" raw data (classic case is the Speroni
stat-lumping of Tech and Tech+ after restructuring) seems to be a
necessity with the pro-code-test-advocate and the status-quoist who
is vainly trying to hang onto the past long after change has happened.
One bad little number from Hamdata.com: Those failing to renew any
license class in 2004 numbere 19,065. There were only 17,282 new
licensees so the delta is a -1,783. The ranting PCTAs will probably
rationalize that as "class changes" which would not apply...there were
12,203 of those and they do not apply to experiations or brand-new
licensees.
A few PCTAs have gone as far to say that "hardly any" of the brand-new
licensees went to Technician class. :-) The raw data indicates that
they did, against the ardent wishes of the PCTA. It's all in the FCC raw
data. You just have to sort it out. That takes work. PCTAs don't want
to do that, they want to obscure the raw data with their own massaging
and sound like gurus.