I am sure that, like me, many of the genuine users of this group, those with a real interest in
the topic, have had more than enough of the whining from some "old school" amateurs.

The question is, do they have a point? Is there really a big flooding of the band with
unqualified "amateurs" and are they speking for the majority?
Decide the answers to the questions for yourself, using the figures from an official survey:


Are young idiots taking over the band?
74% of Amateurs are over 45 years.
93% of Amateurs are male, 7% female.

Are people going for the easiest option?
84% hold full/advanced licences,
11% foundation,
5% intermediate.

Are ex-CBers going for the easy option?
30% of foundation licence holders are under 21 (although more may have got
theirs while under 21). As the CB craze ended some time back, most CBers
will be well over 21... as are most Amateurs.
70% of 21 - 44 year old Amateurs hold full/advanced licences.
88% of 45 - 64 year old Amateurs hold full/advanced licences.
It should be noted that many of those with lower licences may be new to the hobby and
working their way up.

With the relaxed exams, are people flooding onto the band?
46% have had licence over 20 years,
24% 10 - 20 years.
9% 6 - 10 years

Do Amateurs think that the licensing is too relaxed?
Too relaxed: 9%
About right: 66%
Too tight: 4%

Lifetime licence?
45% were in favour.
26% yearly.
26% increase length - mainly wanting 5 year licences.


The full report can be downloaded from the Ofcom or Mori Website...
Ofcom: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/i...ur/morireport/
MORI: http://www.mori.co.uk/

Are there any similar, official or accepted Amateur or CB surveys from other countries?


Regards,

Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/

"Peter" wrote in message
news:436cb011.0@entanet...
I am sure that, like me, many of the genuine users of this group, those
with a real interest in
the topic, have had more than enough of the whining from some "old school"
amateurs.


The problem is that there are a veciferous small number of foundation
licence holders who told us they would habng off until a new licence was
introduced, then they would get licenced and run big linears and/or use it
as a cover for thier illegal activities on 27, 6.5 or 3.4 MHz.
This is exactly what has happened.
They use CB language on the air and refuse to comply with their licence
conditions because there is noone to enforce them now that the RIS has been
scaled down.

Part of the reason is that some clubs have been handing out licence passes
to people who did not even meet the qualification requirments.
There seems to be a pattern of certain sorts of people passing more
regularly with certain clubs.

None of this will be seen from the statistics.

To make matters worse a lifetime or five year licence will stop the falling
away in numbers which used to happen with those less keen not keeping up
their licences. They will now be able to have a year or two of and come back
on without having to make any effort to get their licence back.

Its not a case of old school vs new school.
The people I am talking about are "having a laugh" deliberately at the
expense of those CBers who got their licences in the 80's and left CB to get
away from the same people!

From this week's ARNewsline(#1473): www.arnewsline.org

RESTRUCTURING: UK POLL SHOWS HAMS OPPOSE LICENSING FOR LIFE

British hams have told U-K Radio Regulator Ofcom that they do not want
lifetime licenses. This in a poll commissioned by the regulatory agency.
Jeramy Boot, G4NJH, is in Nottingham in the U-K, with mo

--

The majority of radio amateurs want to keep the existing amateur radio
licensing regime or change to a longer license renewal period rather than
switch to a license for life, according to an Ofcom commissioned MORI poll
into the future of amateur radio in the UK.

The survey of 1,572 amateurs also revealed that two-thirds of amateur
radio licensees believe that the current licensing arrangement is "about
right".

Ofcom is keen to issue amateur radio licenses for life. But 52% of
respondents to the MORI survey said they prefer either the existing
arrangement or an extended renewal period.

Among members of the RSGB, the life-time license is even less popular, with
around two-thirds favoring the current arrangement or a longer renewal
period. Only a third preferred a life-time license. Interestingly, support
for the lifetime license was less among frequent radio users than among
those who use their radios irregularly.

Of those who wanted a longer renewal period, 60% preferred a five year
renewal period, 23% a three year renewal period and only 10% a ten years or
more renewal period. The survey also showed that only a tiny minority (1%)
wanted to abolish the licensing arrangement altogether, radio amateurs
generally believing that the licensing system was vital in maintaining
standards of on-air operation. Less than 1% wanted to replace the current
Foundation, Intermediate and Advanced licenses with something else.

Radio amateurs were generally also not keen on Ofcom's plans for web-based
electronic licenses, with only two in five giving their support to this
idea in spite of Ofcom offering to provide a license postal service for
those who don't have access to the Internet.

I'm G4NJH, in Nottinhgam.

--

The results of the poll do not appear to be in any way binding on Ofcom
which previously stated that it wants to issue ham radio licenses for life.
(GB2RS)

"Scott in Baltimore" wrote...
From this week's ARNewsline(#1473): www.arnewsline.org

The majority of radio amateurs want to keep the existing amateur radio
licensing regime or change to a longer license renewal period rather than
switch to a license for life,

If people want to play with the figures in that way...
More people want to change the licensing rules than want to keep it as it is.

Once you start adding together figures from different groups, you can make it what you want.
For example, how often does a Prime Minister or President get in power with over 50%?
As is usual for a government, more people wanted Tony Blair out than wanted him in! You can
only combine figures if you can combine the actions in the same way. Fine if you want to
divide power between two political groups, but you cannot combine keeping the same licence
rules with changing the length... it's either one or the other.


RESTRUCTURING: UK POLL SHOWS HAMS OPPOSE LICENSING FOR LIFE

Playing with figures that way shows that a much larger majority oppose the yearly licence. If
people want to use the figures that way then, as 52% are opposed to licensing for life while a
larger 71% are opposed to yearly licensing, there can be no choice but to change the licence.

Personally, I think that a longer period would be a good middle ground to take. Those wanting
a lifetime licence should not complain, as it is a move in their direction.
So, although 26% may be unhappy, the large majority of Amateurs should be happy with that
result. If that 26% cannot accept simply extending the period, which would still require
renewal, Maybe Ofcom could allow them to renew their licence yearly.
Why deny them the opportunity to fill in unnecessary paperwork and to throw money at the
Government.


Regards,

Peter.

Regards,

Peter.

Do you have a ham ticket? I'm just wondering. I got mine
back in '03. I still use CB. If you've got your ticket,
send me an email, we'll exchange callsigns and meet on
echolink. This email is good if you remove DONTSPAMME.

On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 06:55:16 -0000, "Peter"
wrote:

"Scott in Baltimore" wrote...
From this week's ARNewsline(#1473): www.arnewsline.org

The majority of radio amateurs want to keep the existing amateur radio
licensing regime or change to a longer license renewal period rather than
switch to a license for life,

If people want to play with the figures in that way...
More people want to change the licensing rules than want to keep it as it is.

Once you start adding together figures from different groups, you can make it what you want.
For example, how often does a Prime Minister or President get in power with over 50%?
As is usual for a government, more people wanted Tony Blair out than wanted him in! You can
only combine figures if you can combine the actions in the same way. Fine if you want to
divide power between two political groups, but you cannot combine keeping the same licence
rules with changing the length... it's either one or the other.

in the US it noramly the case that you need more than 50 persent to be
elected (not much more) and there are ofcourse kinky exception in the
Us system in theroy would allow a president to take office with some
about 25 % of the vote if they lived in exactly the right places
(althought wether such apresident could govern is good question


RESTRUCTURING: UK POLL SHOWS HAMS OPPOSE LICENSING FOR LIFE

I oppose Life licensing of the US or anywhere else

just because it mean that the dead are not likely to draged out od the
pool of "license holders" after all if they find a way to DX back to
us out of the beyond I don't think they will need a license to be do (
are Heaven and Hell DXCC entiies yet?)

Playing with figures that way shows that a much larger majority oppose the yearly licence. If
people want to use the figures that way then, as 52% are opposed to licensing for life while a
larger 71% are opposed to yearly licensing, there can be no choice but to change the licence.

Personally, I think that a longer period would be a good middle ground to take. Those wanting
a lifetime licence should not complain, as it is a move in their direction.
So, although 26% may be unhappy, the large majority of Amateurs should be happy with that
result. If that 26% cannot accept simply extending the period, which would still require
renewal, Maybe Ofcom could allow them to renew their licence yearly.
Why deny them the opportunity to fill in unnecessary paperwork and to throw money at the
Government.


Regards,

Peter.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

wrote...
"Peter" wrote:

If people want to play with the figures in that way...
More people want to change the licensing rules than want to keep it as it is.

Once you start adding together figures from different groups, you can make it what you want.
For example, how often does a Prime Minister or President get in power with over 50%?
As is usual for a government, more people wanted Tony Blair out than wanted him in! You can
only combine figures if you can combine the actions in the same way. Fine if you want to
divide power between two political groups, but you cannot combine keeping the same licence
rules with changing the length... it's either one or the other.

in the US it noramly the case that you need more than 50 persent to be
elected (not much more) and there are ofcourse kinky exception in the
Us system in theroy would allow a president to take office with some
about 25 % of the vote if they lived in exactly the right places
(althought wether such apresident could govern is good question

Here in the UK, we have three main political parties plus several more who get just a few
votes. Although it means that a winning party will almost certainly have less than 50% of the
vote, it does mean that we have more choice. Even the BNP managed to take some seats.
The problem is that, in a general election, people tend not to vote for the "third" party as
the two main ones convince people that it will simply waste their vote and allow the one they
do NOT want to get in power. But, what can be more wasted than to vote for anyone other than
who you really want in power?
So, maybe too many people vote for who they think can win, rather than who they think *should*
win.


I oppose Life licensing of the US or anywhere else

I know how the Americans would like to control the World but, as small as England may
be, we still set our own rules ;~)
Seriously, how would you feel about a longer period like 5 years between renewal? Do you
believe this would be a good middle ground for the UK government to take?


Regards,

Peter.

"Peter" wrote in message
news:43822ce4.0@entanet...
wrote...
"Peter" wrote:

If people want to play with the figures in that way...
More people want to change the licensing rules than want to keep it
as it is.

Once you start adding together figures from different groups, you can
make it what you want.
For example, how often does a Prime Minister or President get in power
with over 50%?
As is usual for a government, more people wanted Tony Blair out than
wanted him in! You can
only combine figures if you can combine the actions in the same way.
Fine if you want to
divide power between two political groups, but you cannot combine
keeping the same licence
rules with changing the length... it's either one or the other.

in the US it noramly the case that you need more than 50 persent to be
elected (not much more) and there are ofcourse kinky exception in the
Us system in theroy would allow a president to take office with some
about 25 % of the vote if they lived in exactly the right places
(althought wether such apresident could govern is good question

Here in the UK, we have three main political parties plus several more who
get just a few
votes. Although it means that a winning party will almost certainly have
less than 50% of the
vote, it does mean that we have more choice. Even the BNP managed to take
some seats.
The problem is that, in a general election, people tend not to vote for
the "third" party as
the two main ones convince people that it will simply waste their vote and
allow the one they
do NOT want to get in power. But, what can be more wasted than to vote
for anyone other than
who you really want in power?
So, maybe too many people vote for who they think can win, rather than who
they think *should*
win.


I oppose Life licensing of the US or anywhere else

I know how the Americans would like to control the World but, as small as
England may
be, we still set our own rules ;~)
Seriously, how would you feel about a longer period like 5 years between
renewal? Do you
believe this would be a good middle ground for the UK government to take?


Regards,

Peter.


Hello, Peter


Not all Americans, I assure you. The religious right feel they have all the
answers for everyone. Heck, they can't even agree on which Bible is the
correct one LOL.

Here in the U.S., I'd love to see retesting. Heck, I wouldn't mind taking
20 word per minute CW at any time or any theory exam they care to throw my
way.

My grandfather was born in Scotland, and my mother's side goes back to
England. So I'm only removed from the U.K. by one generation. If I weren't
so old, I'd think about applying for a visa



73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

"Peter" wrote in message
news:436cb011.0@entanet...
I am sure that, like me, many of the genuine users of this group, those
with a real interest in
the topic, have had more than enough of the whining from some "old school"
amateurs.

The question is, do they have a point? Is there really a big flooding of
the band with
unqualified "amateurs" and are they speking for the majority?
Decide the answers to the questions for yourself, using the figures from
an official survey:


Are young idiots taking over the band?
74% of Amateurs are over 45 years.
93% of Amateurs are male, 7% female.

Are people going for the easiest option?
84% hold full/advanced licences,
11% foundation,
5% intermediate.

Are ex-CBers going for the easy option?
30% of foundation licence holders are under 21 (although more may have
got
theirs while under 21). As the CB craze ended some time back, most
CBers
will be well over 21... as are most Amateurs.
70% of 21 - 44 year old Amateurs hold full/advanced licences.
88% of 45 - 64 year old Amateurs hold full/advanced licences.
It should be noted that many of those with lower licences may be new to
the hobby and
working their way up.

With the relaxed exams, are people flooding onto the band?
46% have had licence over 20 years,
24% 10 - 20 years.
9% 6 - 10 years

Do Amateurs think that the licensing is too relaxed?
Too relaxed: 9%
About right: 66%
Too tight: 4%

Lifetime licence?
45% were in favour.
26% yearly.
26% increase length - mainly wanting 5 year licences.


The full report can be downloaded from the Ofcom or Mori Website...
Ofcom: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/

http://www.ofcom.org.uk/radiocomms/i...ur/morireport/
MORI: http://www.mori.co.uk/

Are there any similar, official or accepted Amateur or CB surveys from
other countries?


Regards,

Peter.
http://www.citizensband.radiouk.com/




some interesting points Peter
to the question of are the bands being flooded with unqualified amateurs
I think it depends on what you class as qualified, if you say qualified to
use a two-way radio then the answer has to be yes as a foundation licence
holder has had more training than say a taxi driver who is also a two-way
radio user
but are they qualified to experiment with home constructed equipment
then the answer would have to be no as the foundation licence holder
to me they have not demonstrated the level of technical knowledge required.
which is what the foundation licence is all about it is suppose to be
a stepping stone to a higher level.

I have nothing against amateurs that just like to talk to people and
never get involved in the technical side of the hobby each to there own
but to me a true radio amateur is one that constructs and experiments with
radio.

as for the language the new amateur uses, well the way people speak
around the country and through time has change and much as the old time
amateurs do not like it we don't all speak with a plum in out mouths
and never will so as long as anyone can communicate over the air without
all the Anglo Saxon expletives then that's ok to me.