[Reposted from earlier posting in Rec.Radio.Amateur.Moderated]

U.S. License Changes over two 60 Day Periods from www.hamdata.com:

Hamdata information sorted from FCC publicly-available database of 24
April 2007
and [in square brackets] 24 January 2007:

New Licensees 2,730 [1,342]

Expirations 2,314 [2,101]

Class Changes 4,342 [ 985 ]

Call Changes 1,130 [ 214 ]

All Updates* 15,038 [16,536]

* Renewals, address or name changes, plus other administrative
changes.

The number of new licensees have approximately doubled since the
advent
of code testing cessation on 23 February 2007 compared to the December
2006 to January 2007 60-day period when code testing was required.

The number of license class changes have approximately quadrupled
since
the advent of code testing cessation on 23 February 2007. The number
of
callsign changes have almost quintupled.

Expirations are approximately the same. In the last 60 days the
number of
new licensees is greater than the number of expirations; for December
2006
and January 2007 the number of new licensees were less than
expirations.

The overall losses of all licensees (all classes including Club and
Grace
Period) over the previous two years were 11,143 [11.528]. This is
approximately the same for each period.

73, Len AF6AY

AF6AY wrote:

...
The overall losses of all licensees (all classes including Club and
Grace
Period) over the previous two years were 11,143 [11.528]. This is
approximately the same for each period.

73, Len AF6AY


The data is most likely skewed because of inherent errors in the
"license census" tally.

These errors are, again, most likely because of the "baby boom bubble"
which is working its' way through the system (large numbers of amateurs
expiring and leaving the planet.)

And, unless the death of an amateur is reported to the FCC, it can take
a bit for the lost license (or deceased ham) to show up (lag time.)

Frankly, as under-reported as the cessation of CW testing is, I am
surprised there has been the increase in new licenses we are seeing.

Perhaps we will get lucky and something not even on our "radar screens"
will happen and promote untold new numbers of hams ... the
intellectual/college crowd might be made licensees if the present image
of amateur radio is changed and somehow made to relate to the
intellectually gifted/inclined.

A few articles in computer/technology magazines describing projects
which meld computers (both hardware and software based) with amateur
communications certainly would not hurt ...

Regards,
JS

AF6AY wrote:

...
The overall losses of all licensees (all classes including Club and
Grace
Period) over the previous two years were 11,143 [11.528]. This is
approximately the same for each period.

73, Len AF6AY


One more thing, perhaps it would be good to further sub-categorize this
data into two main and distinct groups:

1) Those WITH false teeth.

2) Those WITHOUT false teeth.

GRIN
JS

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
AF6AY wrote:

...
The overall losses of all licensees (all classes including Club and
Grace
Period) over the previous two years were 11,143 [11.528]. This is
approximately the same for each period.

73, Len AF6AY


One more thing, perhaps it would be good to further sub-categorize this
data into two main and distinct groups:

1) Those WITH false teeth.

2) Those WITHOUT false teeth.

GRIN
JS

Indeed or mak taht four destinkt catergroies

1) Those WITH false teeth.

2) Those WITHOUT false teeth.

3) tohse taht are indeed two stoopid two pass teh code test

4) them taht indeed hav a shemale wife



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Apr 26, 11:00�am, John Smith I wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

* ...

The overall losses of all licensees (all classes including Club and
Grace
Period) over the previous two years were 11,143 *[11.528]. *This is
approximately the same for each period.

73, Len *AF6AY

The data is most likely skewed because of inherent errors in the
"license census" tally.

JS, there is no "census" of numbers on the www.hamdata.com site.
They take their data download from the FCC's huge amateur radio
database file and sort that. That's what the ARRL does, that's what
QRZ does, that's what everyone else does.

The FCC database has specific fields indicating who is NEW and
the duration of all granted licensees. Adding two years to the
given expiration date is a trivial program task. The two years are
for the grace period.

The FCC does the record keeping for the licenses the FCC grants.

No "baby boom" enters this simple picture of numbers, no inferences.

There are just licensees in the U.S. amateur radio service.

73, Len AF6AY

AF6AY wrote:

...
No "baby boom" enters this simple picture of numbers, no inferences.

There are just licensees in the U.S. amateur radio service.

73, Len AF6AY


If you expect to find a live ham behind each and every ham, don't ...
friend of mine still has his license--from the grave :-(

JS

John Smith I wrote:

err ...

Change:

If you expect to find a live ham behind each and every ham, don't ...


to:

If you expect to find a live ham behind each and every LICENSE, don't ...

JS

On Apr 26, 5:29?pm, John Smith I wrote:
John Smith I wrote:

err ...

Change:

If you expect to find a live ham behind each and every ham, don't ...

to:

If you expect to find a live ham behind each and every LICENSE, don't ...

I don't. FCC database records only have licensees...unless, in a rare
event, a family member corresponds with the FCC that a licensee is
gone.

My wife and I had ham the other night. I hope it wasn't anyone you
knew...

73, Len AF6AY




JS

On Apr 26, 11:03�am, John Smith I wrote:
AF6AY wrote:

* ...

The overall losses of all licensees (all classes including Club and
Grace
Period) over the previous two years were 11,143 *[11.528]. *This is
approximately the same for each period.

73, Len *AF6AY

One more thing, perhaps it would be good to further sub-categorize this
data into two main and distinct groups:

1) Those WITH false teeth.

2) Those WITHOUT false teeth.

Now we get into difficulties such as with crown work...which make
a tooth both real and "false." :-)

Bite that, big guy... :-)

73, Len AF6AY

AF6AY wrote:

...
Bite that, big guy... :-)

73, Len AF6AY


Len:

ROFLOL!!!

No offense meant, my family had teeth of chalk--I would be a member of
those WITH false teeth (darn moms' genetics!) ...

Regards,
JS