Lenof21 wrote:
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 is a difference. The ex-license holder is prohibited from
operating. The callsign is saved, and the ex-license holder will not
have to retest if they renew within that time, but they are no longer
permitted their privileges


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.

What is artificial about the loss of operating privileges?




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.

:-)

It is not backwards. Raw numbers = unclear results = reader
interpretation. Seems like I put them in the right order. 8^)



"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.

THen explain how including ex-hams is *not* doing massaging of the
numbers? They cannot operate, all they can do is have some bit of
convenience if and when they do renew.


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.


My own interpretation of the numbers is that there were a lot of
Technicians that did not renew their licenses, leading to a big falloff.
My suspicion is that they did not renew because they had been inactive
for years. Some of the activities that were attractive to them at time
of licensing are better served by other mediums such a cell phones, and
there will always be a certain number who will find a new hobby not
interesting enough to keep them in it. Of course there might be some
mortality reasons, and no doubt a few miscellaneous reasons.

But it happened regardless of the the reason(s).

Many people want to apply spin to the drop-off.

Some will say it is because dumbing down the tests didn't attract more
people to amateur radio. That seems like a strange reason to me, because
first I don't believe that the requirements have been "dumbed down".
Secondly, it is a negative reason anyhow, presupposing that a person is
thinking about becoming a ham, and that they know that the tests were
"harder" before their interest, so to spite themselves, they won't get
the license. That is pretty weird.

Others will say that it is because the Morse code requirement is too
hard, causing people to become discouraged. Now I am absolutely sure
that some people do indeed become discouraged at the learning effort and
may drop out. I don't doubt that some did at the Technician level also.
But there is no way that some 19,000 did.

My spin, or lack thereof is that times changed, and what attracted
those people to Ham radio no longer attracts them. Probably the cell
phone. Maybe some found that surfing the internet was a lot more fun and
less challenging.

My final analysis of the situation is that it is encouraging in spite
of the change. That we had 19K+ Hams fall out of the ranks, yet are
close to making up for it is not a bad thing. It is too bad they didn't
stay, but if they don't wanna be Hams, there isn't any way we can stop
them! 8^)



- Mike KB3EIA -