"AF6AY" wrote:

Yes, an accurate portrayal won't be possible until some time
in the future. However, this day is only the end of March and
the code test ended on 23 February 2007. I was showing what
was thought to be the beginning of a trend, based on the FCC
database information as collected - en toto - by third parties.

Extrapolation from such limited data may or may not
be representative of a trend.

Please forgive me for not having a working crystal ball. The
figures for April to December 2007 and all of 2008 were not
available to me. :-)

However, some "trends" should be clearly visible:
1. There was a sudden jump of seven times the number of
upgrades in a 30 day period as compared to the 30 day
period two months prior.
2. There was a sudden jump of four times the number of
license class changes in a 30 day period as compared
to the 30 day period two months prior.
3. There was an approximate doubling of the number of NEW
(never before licensed) amateurs in a 30 day period as
compared to the 30 day period two months prior.

The daily variation of the license totals can exceed the
apparent growth, too. For example, on February 23, 2007
the total number of current FCC-issued amateur license
held by individuals was 654,710. On March 29, 2007,
the total was 654,774, which looks like a growth of 64.

I specifically used a 30-day period as an averaging scheme
and such averaging over time is quite common in sensing
trends in statistical work. Day-to-day variations DO occur
but a total of actions in a 30-day period do have a smoothing
effect and come closer to an average.

Note that most of the VEC testing schedules are monthly or
bi-weekly.

IMHO, it is more accurate to use the number of current,
unexpired licenses rather than including those in the grace
period. Renewal is free, easy and can be done several
ways including online. Why would any licensed amateur
with continued interest allow the license to be in the grace
period without renewing?

For several possible reasons:
1. Death, natural, suicide, or as the result of (2).
2. Accident or stroke (or similar medical problems) not
allowing full use of communications faculties.
3. Spousal or family or friends' disapproval.
4. Extended military or business relocations.
5. Incarceration or arrest (rare).
6. Growing dissatisfaction with amateur activities and/or
policies.

Now, item (6) might be debateable, but then observe that
your conditional "...with continued interest" implies
that no other reasons are valid, including the possibility
of growing dissatisfaction. I don't choose to argue that
point with you since the rest of your posting appears too
confrontational and argumentative.

I merely compared two 30-day periods based on the numbers
available to all on www.hamdata.com, a service provided
by them and one that is derived from FCC database
information which is available to the public. I trust in
the veracity of that information since it compares well
with other Internet-access sources of statistical
information, also derived from the same FCC database.
The conclusions I came to were my own observations, not
my "opinion" nor of having any preconceived notion of
what "might" happen...only that some did speculate on
"what would happen" in other discussion venues.

I have PDFs of the downloads I used and will ZIP them up
and send them privately via e-mail attachments to anyone
having a valid Internet address. That includes a "nice"
formatting of my original post. If there are errors
between my numbers postings and the www.hamdata.com
numbers, I will acknowledge those errors. At this point
I don't believe there are any errors in my postings'
numerical values.

73, Len AF6AY

The FCC database derived numbers can be inconclusive, because the "new/
upgrade" numbers are masked by expirations, giving a "net" number.

Here are some interesting numbers compiled by NCVEC just from test/
upgrade-paper numbers are "bare" of the influence of expirations.

These numbers compare the period of Jan 1 to March 25 of this year
(2007) vs. last year (2006)


New Tech (2006) 4685 (2007) 6565 Change = +40%
New/Upgraded Generals (2006) 945 (2007) 7395 Change = +683%
New/Upgraded Extras (2006) 775 (2007) 1910 Change = +146%

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote in message
oups.com...
The FCC database derived numbers can be inconclusive, because the "new/
upgrade" numbers are masked by expirations, giving a "net" number.

Here are some interesting numbers compiled by NCVEC just from test/
upgrade-paper numbers are "bare" of the influence of expirations.

These numbers compare the period of Jan 1 to March 25 of this year
(2007) vs. last year (2006)


New Tech (2006) 4685 (2007) 6565 Change = +40%
New/Upgraded Generals (2006) 945 (2007) 7395 Change = +683%
New/Upgraded Extras (2006) 775 (2007) 1910 Change = +146%

73, de Hans, K0HB



Yet the net number is far more meaningful. It is what tells us if we have
growth or not. Many (but not all) proponents said that this would bring
growth and, at least so far, it has not. Admittedly the time frame is as
yet too short. However, it's also too short to see if this change in new
Technicians is sustained or is a momentary blip in the curve.

Dee, N8UZE

On Apr 9, 5:16 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:


Yet the net number is far more meaningful.


"Meaningful" is context dependent.

If the context is "compare the number of new/upgraded licenses by
class for the period January 1 through March 25, 2007 with the
corresponding period in 2006", then the "net" number is not meaningful
and would be misleading.

73, de Hans, K0HB

"Dee Flint" wrote:

Yet the net number is far more meaningful. It is what tells us if we have
growth or not. Many (but not all) proponents said that this would bring
growth and, at least so far, it has not. Admittedly the time frame is as
yet too short. However, it's also too short to see if this change in new
Technicians is sustained or is a momentary blip in the curve.


As I see it, the time frame is too short to draw any conclusions of
any sort. Imagine that we were discussing a change to the tax laws that
was intended to increase reinvestment. How many YEARS would you have to
wait before you could say that you had conclusive proof that the policy
had succeeded or failed?
I still believe that the vast majority of persons who have an
interest in electronics, computers, radio and related fields; the
demographic segment from which one would reasonably expect to attract
new hams, knows nothing whatever about any of this. While they probably
read technical publications of some sort, most of them probably read no
publications that are explicitly about amateur radio. I have seen
virtually nothing on this topic in any other media.

"xxx" wrote in message
...
"Dee Flint" wrote:

Yet the net number is far more meaningful. It is what tells us if we
have
growth or not. Many (but not all) proponents said that this would bring
growth and, at least so far, it has not. Admittedly the time frame is as
yet too short. However, it's also too short to see if this change in new
Technicians is sustained or is a momentary blip in the curve.


As I see it, the time frame is too short to draw any conclusions of
any sort. Imagine that we were discussing a change to the tax laws that
was intended to increase reinvestment. How many YEARS would you have to
wait before you could say that you had conclusive proof that the policy
had succeeded or failed?
I still believe that the vast majority of persons who have an
interest in electronics, computers, radio and related fields; the
demographic segment from which one would reasonably expect to attract
new hams, knows nothing whatever about any of this. While they probably
read technical publications of some sort, most of them probably read no
publications that are explicitly about amateur radio. I have seen
virtually nothing on this topic in any other media.


Which is precisely my point. Changes in requirements don't have any effect
when the potential recruits have no idea that the hobby even exists.

Dee, N8UZE

On Apr 9, 8:22 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:


Changes in requirements don't have any effect
when the potential recruits have no idea that the hobby even exists.


I don't believe that there is any significant percentage of the
general population of the USA who has never heard of ham radio.

I don't believe the "changes in requirements" were intended to grow
ham radio.

I don't even care if ham radio grows or doesn't grow. There are
millions of hams on planet Earth, more than enough to fill my logs on
any mode I choose through at least the next four sunspot cycles.

73, de Hans, K0HB

wrote:
On Apr 9, 8:22 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:

Changes in requirements don't have any effect
when the potential recruits have no idea that the hobby even exists.


I don't believe that there is any significant percentage of the
general population of the USA who has never heard of ham radio.

I don't believe the "changes in requirements" were intended to grow
ham radio.

I don't even care if ham radio grows or doesn't grow. There are
millions of hams on planet Earth, more than enough to fill my logs on
any mode I choose through at least the next four sunspot cycles.


I believe that Hans' percentage numbers are indeed relevant.

In a dynamic area such as ARS license numbers, there is a need to look
beyond raw numbers and to determine exactly why the numbers that you are
comparing look as they do.

Looking at the numbers in one way, we may wonder at an apparent
drop-off. A lot of technicians went way. We need to speculate on why. It
would be a basic assumption that they decided that Ham radio was not for
them.

Why? Some have speculated that the majority of that drop-off was a
change in communication habits, ie. Hams who got their licenses for
purposes of "calling home" to check in, or get a grocery list, or the
like. Some call that flavor of Ham a "honeydo" Ham. These people are
served by Cell phones now.

Others have speculated that the dropoff was due to poor treatment of
new Hams.

I don't doubt that there may be examples of the second group, I would
surmise that there could be a little bit of both reasons, but am
inclined to think it might be a 90/10 in favor of the former.

I have personally seen a surge of new Hams in our area. We've been
having a 2 percent growth in our area since *before* the testing change,
and assuming that tonights testing is successful, 2 new generals and a
Technician will be added to the ranks this evening. Those new guys don't
know a thing about what the Honeydo hams were doing ten years ago, and
don't particularly care either. They have become interested in Ham
radio, and we've encouraged them every step of the way. We've been
selling the sizzle.

One minor disagreement with Hans, though. I don't care if we get some
kind of huge growth, in fact, that would be lots of problems to deal
with. We need a steady influx of new people to keep the hobby
interesting, and to replace the fact that everyone is terminated to
ground eventually. 1 percent growth would be desirable in that context,
I think.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

wrote in message
oups.com...
On Apr 9, 8:22 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:


Changes in requirements don't have any effect
when the potential recruits have no idea that the hobby even exists.


I don't believe that there is any significant percentage of the
general population of the USA who has never heard of ham radio.


Well I certainly run into a lot of people who don't know about it. They ask
me what my antennas are for and I tell them ham radio. The next question
out of their mouths is "Ham radio, what's that?"

I don't believe the "changes in requirements" were intended to grow
ham radio.


I don't know if that was the intent or not but some people tried to convince
the rest of us that it was absolutely necessary for amateur radio to grow.

I don't even care if ham radio grows or doesn't grow. There are
millions of hams on planet Earth, more than enough to fill my logs on
any mode I choose through at least the next four sunspot cycles.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Personally I think there will be ups and downs.

Dee, N8UZE

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

In .com writes:

On Apr 9, 8:22 pm, "Dee Flint" wrote:


Changes in requirements don't have any effect
when the potential recruits have no idea that the hobby even exists.


I don't believe that there is any significant percentage of the
general population of the USA who has never heard of ham radio.

I believe that there is a significant difference between "never heard"
of ham radio versus just aren't aware of aspects of ham radio that may
be appealing to them personally. The latter is far more prevalent, and
worrisome, in my opinion. What is the lay perception of ham radio?
Probably the most positive is that of of hard-core techies with antennas
all over their houses and cars (as hard-core techies are the force
behind popular, sometimes useful, things like the space program,
cellular telephones, digital music, HDTV, the Internet, etc.). Being
admired as techie heroes doesn't necessarily mean that a lot of people
want to become such techie heroes themselves, however. The most
negative image would be that of reclusive individuals engaging in an
obscure, possibly obsolete, pastime with no apparent redeeming social
value beyond preserving history and reminiscing about the past.

Over the years, I have observed the following common reactions by the
lay public to ham radio publicity and recruitment:

- Oh, isn't that like CB?

- So, can I set up my own broadcast station and play whatever music I
want?

- My grandfather/uncle/father/brother/cousin was into that many years
ago, is it still around?

- I'm really not deeply technical, is that for me?

- I do consider myself a techie, but would ham radio give me any useful
training or experience beyond what I could already get from
traditional academic or vocational programs?

The editorials linked by Ed Mitchell, KF7VY, in his "last column" below
are at least 8 years old or more, but I think they are still relevant to
the current discussion (though there has been some regulatory relief
since he wrote them, especially with regard to digital modes and
spread-spectrum):

http://www.hamradio-online.com/1999/oct/lastcolumn.html

I don't believe the "changes in requirements" were intended to grow
ham radio.

That does seem to be the main strawman that's been built up by some (not
all) who would fight for the status-quo to the bitter end, and appear to
want to transfer the blame for lack of growth to others. Would a
stagnant service that wasn't shrinking, but wasn't growing, be any
better or worse than trying to appropriately embrace change?

I don't even care if ham radio grows or doesn't grow. There are
millions of hams on planet Earth, more than enough to fill my logs on
any mode I choose through at least the next four sunspot cycles.

73, de Hans, K0HB

Let's hope those sunspot cycles are better than the last few. I can't
recall any really good HF propagation since at least the late 1980's,
and certainly nowhere near the all-time peak in recorded history that
occurred in the 1950's (or so I'm told by my elders).

- --
73, Paul W. Schleck, K3FU

http://www.novia.net/~pschleck/
Finger for PGP Public Key


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (SunOS)

iD8DBQFGHARk6Pj0az779o4RAjY/AKCBEHFZ+PL2qUffAGWNbUvBO9/H/gCgtvcR
xHQTZqqUXR7IWCCGY4mcLbU=
=v9/9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----