|
|
These are the numbers of amateur licenses held by individuals on the
stated dates: As of May 14, 2000: Novice - 49,329 Technician - 205,394 Technician Plus - 128,860 General - 112,677 Advanced - 99,782 Extra - 78,750 Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254 Total all classes - 674,792 As of November 30, 2004: Novice - 29,935 (decrease of 19,394) Technician - 265,198 (increase of 59,804) Technician Plus - 54,881 (decrease of 73,979) General - 138,471 (increase of 25,794) Advanced - 78,163 (decrease of 21,619) Extra - 105,991 (increase of 27,253) Total Tech/TechPlus - 320,079 (decrease of 14,175) Total all classes - 672,639 (decrease of 2153) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Total Tech/TechPlus - 320,079 (decrease of 14,175)
Total all classes - 672,639 (decrease of 2153) Yep that dumbing down sure is helping. |
The numbers don't lie. People are..."Movin' On Up"
N2PZK Howie |
These are the numbers of amateur licenses held by individuals on the
stated dates: As of May 14, 2000: Novice - 49,329 Technician - 205,394 Technician Plus - 128,860 General - 112,677 Advanced - 99,782 Extra - 78,750 Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254 Total all classes - 674,792 As of December 14, 2004: Novice - 29,829 (decrease of 19,500) Technician - 265,134 (increase of 59,740) Technician Plus - 54,449 (decrease of 74,411) General - 138,280 (increase of 25,603) Advanced - 78,024 (decrease of 21,758) Extra - 106,019 (increase of 27,269) Total Tech/TechPlus - 319,633 (decrease of 14,621) Total all classes - 671,785 (decrease of 3,007) 73 de Jim, N2EY |
Yep more proof that DUMBING DOWN is working.
|
|
These are the numbers of amateur licenses held by individuals on the
stated dates: As of May 14, 2000: Novice - 49,329 Technician - 205,394 Technician Plus - 128,860 General - 112,677 Advanced - 99,782 Extra - 78,750 Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254 Total all classes - 674,792 As of December 31, 2004: Novice - 29,765 (decrease of 19,564) Technician - 265,534 (increase of 60,140) Technician Plus - 54,152 (decrease of 74,708) General - 138,287 (increase of 25,610) Advanced - 77,948 (decrease of 21,834) Extra - 106,087 (increase of 27,337) Total Tech/TechPlus - 319,686 (decrease of 14,568) Total all classes - 671,773 (decrease of 3019) 73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY |
|
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: wrote: These are the numbers of amateur licenses held by individuals on the stated dates: As of May 14, 2000: Novice - 49,329 Technician - 205,394 Technician Plus - 128,860 General - 112,677 Advanced - 99,782 Extra - 78,750 Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254 Total all classes - 674,792 As of December 31, 2004: Novice - 29,765 (decrease of 19,564) Technician - 265,534 (increase of 60,140) Technician Plus - 54,152 (decrease of 74,708) General - 138,287 (increase of 25,610) Advanced - 77,948 (decrease of 21,834) Extra - 106,087 (increase of 27,337) Total Tech/TechPlus - 319,686 (decrease of 14,568) Total all classes - 671,773 (decrease of 3019) 73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY So Jim, filtering out the big drop due to the "honeydo" Technicians dropping out, what are the numbers? You see them above, Mike. Of course some "honeydo" Techs, Novices and Tech Pluses are dropping out. And some of the older hams are dying off. But beyond that it's all speculation. When we see that big 14.5K drop in Technicians, I would assume that some of the drop was due to upgrading, but most to that dropoff. There's no way to tell from the data. Remember that the number of Tech Pluses is dropping for three reasons: 1) Licenses allowed to expire 2) Upgrades to General and Extra 3) Tech Pluses renewed as Technicians If the rules are simply left as-is, there will be no more Tech Pluses in 5 years and 4 months from now. They will all have gone one of the three routes listed above. All in all, when considering that big deficit, it looks like we could be climbing out of that hole eventually? We were told in 1990 that dropping the code test for Tech would cause growth. We got some growth in the short term. Then we were told in the late 1990s that dropping 13 and 20 wpm, and simplifying the writtens, would cause growth. Again we got some growth in the short term. In neither case did we get long term growth. Perhaps the problem isn't the tests? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
"Sciz" wrote in message ... On 02 Jan 2005 04:04:54 GMT, (WA8ULX) wrote: Total all classes - 671,773 (decrease of 3019) 73 es HNY de Jim, N2EY Yep the No-Code CBplussers were right, Dumbing Down of Ham Radio will cause the RANKS to GROW. The decrease is more likely due to Ye Olde Farhtz like Dick Carroll finally becoming silent keys... And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call (as former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call which may well have never been issued). LOL With all due regards from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA (former WN2CJV, WB2OSP, WA3RJX, N2JH) |
And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call (as
former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call which may well have never been issued). LOL What's sad is these No-Code CBplussers know they can NEVER be an EQUAL to REAL HAMS. They will all ways be referred to as WELFARE HAMS no matter how many CALLSIGNS they BUY. |
"WA8ULX" wrote in message ... And yet another wannabe putting what would likely be an old-timer's call (as former WA3RJX was issued to me in 1971) in his headers (the WB3 call which may well have never been issued). LOL What's sad is these No-Code CBplussers know they can NEVER be an EQUAL to REAL HAMS. They will all ways be referred to as WELFARE HAMS no matter how many CALLSIGNS they BUY. The problem is that I can't define a "real ham". Perhaps you can? There are folks running moonbounce - and it would take me a bit of studying to get to their level - not so much on the electronics, but the rotation of the earth and motion of the moon in its' orbit. There are others that deal in pretty high frequencies. Seems I remember a couple of guys doing moonbounce on 24 GHz. Not a simple problem. There is some truth buried in most posts, but it gets hidden by our own standards of belief - along with the usual flames. I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. 73 from Rochester, NY Jim AA2QA |
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto. ["First Among Equals"] :-) As to license numbers, the regular poster of those uses massaged data as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow "truth in numbers." Not quite. The raw data is available from the FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get their massive files. Several sites provide such raw data, such as www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the regular poster posts. Raw data numbers are usually higher than the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be logical to use the higher number rather than lower] The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no doubt will continue to be great. :-) |
In article , "JAMES HAMPTON"
writes: I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto. ["First Among Equals"] :-) As to license numbers, the regular poster of those uses massaged data as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow "truth in numbers." Not quite. The raw data is available from the FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get their massive files. Several sites provide such raw data, such as www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the regular poster posts. Raw data numbers are usually higher than the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be logical to use the higher number rather than lower] The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no doubt will continue to be great. :-) |
One problem with using "massaged" numbers is that those massagers
seldom show their justification for such massaging. As an example, the data from www.hamdata.com for January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2004 is given following, as Hamdata totalled it - In the left blocks, in one year's time, there have been 12,203 license class changes. Total number of licensed amateurs is not affected by that. For the same period, there were 17,282 new amateurs, but 19,065 are expired and no longer licensed. As far as the overall license totals go, that means a 1,783 DROP in numbers. Not a big thing and might be ascribed to normal attrition rates. The one thing the regular poster wants to downplay is the number of Technician Class licensees. Those have been continually growing and now make up (within 0.02%) two-fifths of all licensees. That growth rate is, by far, the biggest of all classes, amounting to nearly 10 thousand a year. So much for the alleged "drop due to end of grace period." :-) That allegation turned out to be false. Class totals can be compared from Hamdata numbers based on January 1 of 2005 growth/decline relative to January 1, 2004: Technician 289,868 (39.98% of total) (growth of 9,902) Technician Plus 60,664 ( 8.37% of total) (decline of 9,326) Novice 35,894 (4.95% of total) (decline of 4,117) General 146,668 (20.23% of total) (growth of 846) Advanced 83,424 (11.51% of total) (decline of 1,566) Extra 108,537 (14.97% of total) (growth of 1,768) All excepting club calls 725,055 (decline of 2,493) Note: Rounding of percentages to one-hundredths decimals results in 100.01% instead of 100.00%. All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from any class totals. To repeat, the allegation that there is a "big drop" in Technician Class numbers is WRONG. Raw data doesn't show that. Implying that the allegation still exists is merely compounding the wrongness. To paraphrase McLuhan, the medium is the massage. Someone is kneading to bake bad bread. . |
Lenof21 wrote: In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto. ["First Among Equals"] :-) Do you see other posters here as equals, Len? As to license numbers, the regular poster of those Do you mean me, Len? You seem to be unable to refer to me by first name or callsign. Why is that? uses massaged data What do you mean by "massaged data", Len? The plain, simple fact is that there is a brief, clear explanation of the numbers I post - each time they are posted. They are the number of *current* FCC amateur licenses held by *individuals*. Which means that club, military, RACES and other station-only licenses are not included. Also, licenses which are expired but in the grace period are not included. Only currently-licensed individual amateurs are listed in the totals I post. as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow "truth in numbers." Is there some problem with posting the number of currently-licensed individual amateurs, and leaving out station-license-only entries? Is there a problem with leaving out expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses? Not quite. The raw data is available from the FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get their massive files. Have you done that, Len? Several sites provide such raw data, such as www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the regular poster posts. That's because they include expired and station-only licenses. I've explained this before, but apparently you don't understand it. Raw data numbers are usually higher than the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be logical to use the higher number rather than lower] Then it seems you are the one wanting to use them for "self-agitprop purposes". The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no doubt will continue to be great. :-) I don't use "massaged" data. What you see is exactly what the posts say it is: the total number of current FCC amateur licenses held by individuals. Why do you have a problem with that, Len? Jim, N2EY |
|
Lenof21 wrote: One problem with using "massaged" numbers is that those massagers seldom show their justification for such massaging. To whom do you refer, Len? As an example, the data from www.hamdata.com for January 1, 2005, and January 1, 2004 is given following, as Hamdata totalled it - In the left blocks, in one year's time, there have been 12,203 license class changes. Total number of licensed amateurs is not affected by that. For the same period, there were 17,282 new amateurs, but 19,065 are expired and no longer licensed. As far as the overall license totals go, that means a 1,783 DROP in numbers. Not a big thing and might be ascribed to normal attrition rates. Reducing the test requirements was supposed to produce *growth*. It hasn't. The one thing the regular poster wants to downplay is the number of Technician Class licensees. To whom do you refer, Len? Those have been continually growing and now make up (within 0.02%) two-fifths of all licensees. Why is that significant? After all, there are only three classes of license available to new licensees or upgrades. That growth rate is, by far, the biggest of all classes, amounting to nearly 10 thousand a year. And it's quite understandable, because: 1) Most new hams start out as Technicians 2) FCC has been renewing Technician Pluses as Technicians since April 15, 2000 3) A Novice who passes Element 2 gets a Technician Reason 2), all by itself, guarantees a stead influx of thousands of licenses to the Technician totals each year. In a little more than 5 years, if the rules don't change, there will be no more Technician Pluses at all. Every one will have either renewed as a Technician, upgraded or expired. So we should really look at the sum of Technicians and Technician Pluses to understand what's going on, because they are so closely linked. And that sum didn't grow very much in 2004. So much for the alleged "drop due to end of grace period." :-) That allegation turned out to be false. Who alleged that, Len? Who are you quoting? Class totals can be compared from Hamdata numbers based on January 1 of 2005 growth/decline relative to January 1, 2004: Only one year. Can you make the same comparisons going back to, say, 2000? Technician 289,868 (39.98% of total) (growth of 9,902) Technician Plus 60,664 ( 8.37% of total) (decline of 9,326) Novice 35,894 (4.95% of total) (decline of 4,117) General 146,668 (20.23% of total) (growth of 846) Advanced 83,424 (11.51% of total) (decline of 1,566) Extra 108,537 (14.97% of total) (growth of 1,768) All excepting club calls 725,055 (decline of 2,493) Note: Rounding of percentages to one-hundredths decimals results in 100.01% instead of 100.00%. And the significance of all these numbers is? -- Here comes a *big* mistake on Len's part: All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace period. Nope. Wrong. You are mistaken. Once an amateur's license expires, he or she *cannot* legally operate until the license is renewed and that renewal appears in the FCC database. To quote FCC rules: "97.21(b) A person whose amateur station license grant has expired may apply to the FCC for renewal of the license grant for another term during a 2 year filing grace period. The application must be received at the address specified above prior to the end of the grace period. Unless and until the license grant is renewed, no privileges in this Part are conferred." Last sentence says it all: "Unless and until the license grant is renewed, no privileges in this Part are conferred." This isn't some fine point of the rules that's subject to interpretation. FCC amateur licenses have 10 year terms, and if a license is allowed to expire, the licensee *cannot* legally operate until the license is renewed. Period. Do you agree or disagree, Len? There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from any class totals. Sure there is - their licenses are expired and they cannot operate. If you want to include expired-but-in-the-grace-period licensees in the totals, go right ahead. But be sure to indicate that you are doing so, unless *you* want to "massage" the numbers. The numbers I post twice each month are the totals of *unexpired* licenses held by *individuals*. That's clear (to people who can understand plain English) in every one of my post of license totals. Nothing "massaged" about them. To repeat, the allegation that there is a "big drop" in Technician Class numbers is WRONG. Raw data doesn't show that. Implying that the allegation still exists is merely compounding the wrongness. Who made such an allegation, Len? It should be noted that the sum of *unexpired* Technicians and Technician Pluses *has* declined since May of 2000. Jim, N2EY |
Mike Coslo wrote:
wrote: Lenof21 wrote: In article , "JAMES HAMPTON" writes: I've had some interesting conversations off group with a number of folks that get involved with flames. For the most part, they simply deal back what they were dealt. I think it might be better if we found common ground, rather than point out differences. Heh heh...the "common ground" is usually just capitulation to those which could use the Latin phrase "Primus Inter Pares" as their motto. ["First Among Equals"] :-) Do you see other posters here as equals, Len? As to license numbers, the regular poster of those Do you mean me, Len? You seem to be unable to refer to me by first name or callsign. Why is that? uses massaged data What do you mean by "massaged data", Len? The plain, simple fact is that there is a brief, clear explanation of the numbers I post - each time they are posted. They are the number of *current* FCC amateur licenses held by *individuals*. Which means that club, military, RACES and other station-only licenses are not included. Also, licenses which are expired but in the grace period are not included. Only currently-licensed individual amateurs are listed in the totals I post. as if the massaging, whether by hisself or others, is somehow "truth in numbers." Is there some problem with posting the number of currently-licensed individual amateurs, and leaving out station-license-only entries? Is there a problem with leaving out expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses? Not quite. The raw data is available from the FCC...if anyone has high-speed interconnection to the 'net to get their massive files. Have you done that, Len? Several sites provide such raw data, such as www.hamdata.com. Those numbers don't agree with what the regular poster posts. That's because they include expired and station-only licenses. I've explained this before, but apparently you don't understand it. Raw data numbers are usually higher than the massaged numbers. [for self-agitprop purposes, it would be logical to use the higher number rather than lower] Then it seems you are the one wanting to use them for "self-agitprop purposes". The rationalizations for using "massaged" data have been and no doubt will continue to be great. :-) I don't use "massaged" data. What you see is exactly what the posts say it is: the total number of current FCC amateur licenses held by individuals. Why do you have a problem with that, Len? Jim, N2EY 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." Agreed, Mike. Len has posted here that it's legal for a ham to operate with a license that's expired but in the grace period. That's simply not true. You'd think Len, who claims to know so much about radio, and who tells us how the regulations should be changed, would at least know a simple, basic fact about license terms and expirations. No interpretation necessary on operating with an expired license, just read 97.21(b) Raw data is just that. It signifies very little. Take the "grace period" for example. It should ONLY be included as a separate part of an interpretation. Same goes for club calls and a few other types of license. Even orphan classes such as Novice and to a lesser extent Advanced must be approached with caution, du to statistical difference in likelihood of activity. You do well to separate them. If someone wants to include expired-but-in-the-grace-period licenses in the total, and identifies the totals as including such licenses, that's fine. Where the "massaging" happens is when such pertinet details are left out. It's like that picture of Hanoi Jane and John Kerry at the antiwar rally, sitting a couple of rows apart. Some folks like to leave out the pertinent fact that it was taken *two years before* Jane went to North Vietnam... 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. It's simply a matter of including all the pertinent facts. And getting them right. Of course it's also possible that Len has gotten so desperate for attention that he's intentionally posting untrue things (like the legality of operating with an expired license mistake) just to get a response. After all, how does it affect *him* if some ham reads his words, thinks they're true, and operates illegally? 73 de Jim, N2EY |
"Lenof21" wrote in message ... : All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace : period. When a license in your country expires, it is expired without operation beyond that date. Inside the grace period allows only renewal without examination repitition, not operations. Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte sends |
Lenof21 wrote: All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from any class totals. Absolutely, positively, without fear of contradiction WRONG! The "grace period" (as it pertains to Amateur Radio application) is that period of time between the EXPIRATION of your license, and the point of time afterwhich you must re-examine for licensure. In this case, two years. Steve, K4YZ |
K4YZ wrote: Lenof21 wrote: All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from any class totals. Absolutely, positively, without fear of contradiction WRONG! The "grace period" (as it pertains to Amateur Radio application) is that period of time between the EXPIRATION of your license, and the point of time afterwhich you must re-examine for licensure. In this case, two years. PS...I wonder what snivveling excuse His Putziness will use to slither out from under THIS faux pas! He CERTAINLY won't use the words "I was wrong" or some similar manifestation! Watch and wonder, Kids! It's bound to be colorful! 73 Steve, K4YZ |
On 6 Jan 2005 04:15:47 -0800, K4YZ wrote:
All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace period. Absolutely, positively, without fear of contradiction WRONG! The "grace period" (as it pertains to Amateur Radio application) is that period of time between the EXPIRATION of your license, and the point of time afterwhich you must re-examine for licensure. In this case, two years. The only time that a licensee can continue to operate after the license has expired is if an application for renewal was timely made and that application has not yet been acted upon. -- 73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane |
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. |
"Lenof21" wrote in message ... : : 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. : Untrue. (Some would say an outright lie) They are certainly prohibited from operating their amateur radio station without supervision, since they possess no valid operator license. Barnabus Grumwitch Overbyte sends |
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 - |
Lenof21 wrote: 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. That's simply not true, Len. The holder of an expired FCC amateur radio license cannot legally operate until the license has been renewed. This is the second time I've seen you state that mistake here in the past few days. An expired FCC amateur license carries *no* operating privleges. IS there some reason you persist in this obvious error? There are many, many reasons, all valid, for being unable to renew prior to the last day of the 10-year period. Such as? FCC allows renewal from 90 days before the expiration date. Renewal can be done online, or the appropriate forms can be downloaded or ordered well in advance and the renewal done by mail. In any event, even if someone cannot renew before the license expires, they cannot legally operate while in the grace period. You created an artificial thing there with your particular interpretation. Have you read 97.21(b)? It's pretty clear on the subject. |
Subject: ARS License Numbers
From: Date: 1/6/2005 6:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: . com Lenof21 wrote: 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. That's simply not true, Len. The holder of an expired FCC amateur radio license cannot legally operate until the license has been renewed. This is the second time I've seen you state that mistake here in the past few days. An expired FCC amateur license carries *no* operating privleges. IS there some reason you persist in this obvious error? I told ya... His Worminess has yet laid his long-tailed ignorance to bare in a house full of rocking chairs. There are many, many reasons, all valid, for being unable to renew prior to the last day of the 10-year period. Such as? Death? Coma? Prisoner-of-War (about the ONLY valid reason I can think of...) ? FCC allows renewal from 90 days before the expiration date. Renewal can be done online, or the appropriate forms can be downloaded or ordered well in advance and the renewal done by mail. In any event, even if someone cannot renew before the license expires, they cannot legally operate while in the grace period. You created an artificial thing there with your particular interpretation. Have you read 97.21(b)? It's pretty clear on the subject. Not to mention the number of times "Enforcement Letters" have been published in QST from the FCC...Seems Riley & Company have the same opinion...If your license "expires" on December 31st and you are operating on January 1st, YOU have a problem! Come on, Lennie...Suck it it...it ain't that hard to do...Be a man..Own up to your GLARING error and move on... 73 Steve, K4YZ |
Steve Robeson K4YZ wrote:
Subject: ARS License Numbers From: Date: 1/6/2005 6:00 PM Central Standard Time Message-id: . com Lenof21 wrote: 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. That's simply not true, Len. The holder of an expired FCC amateur radio license cannot legally operate until the license has been renewed. This is the second time I've seen you state that mistake here in the past few days. An expired FCC amateur license carries *no* operating privleges. IS there some reason you persist in this obvious error? I told ya... His Worminess has yet laid his long-tailed ignorance to bare in a house full of rocking chairs. It's just a mistake, Steve. Len Anderson obviously doesn't understand 97.21(b). There are many, many reasons, all valid, for being unable to renew prior to the last day of the 10-year period. Such as? Death? Coma? Prisoner-of-War (about the ONLY valid reason I can think of...) ? Well, someone could be ill, or busy with work, family, volunteer activities, travel, moving, natural disaster, military service, etc. FCC doesn't care. If a ham lets his/her amateur license expire, they can't legally operate until it is renewed. Such renewal is valid when it shows up in the FCC database - you don't have to wait for the paper license to show up. All of this is *extremely basic* regulatory stuff, clearly stated in 97.21(b), not somebody's opinion or interpretation. FCC allows renewal from 90 days before the expiration date. Renewal can be done online, or the appropriate forms can be downloaded or ordered well in advance and the renewal done by mail. In any event, even if someone cannot renew before the license expires, they cannot legally operate while in the grace period. You created an artificial thing there with your particular interpretation. Have you read 97.21(b)? It's pretty clear on the subject. Not to mention the number of times "Enforcement Letters" have been published in QST from the FCC...Seems Riley & Company have the same opinion...If your license "expires" on December 31st and you are operating on January 1st, YOU have a problem! Only until it's renewed. What is most interesting is the fact that someone like Len, who has told us how the regulations should be changed for so many years, should be so ignorant of such a basic rule from Part 97. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
In article . net, "Grümwîtch
thë Ünflãppåblê" writes: "Lenof21" wrote in message ... : 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. : Untrue. (Some would say an outright lie) They are certainly prohibited from operating their amateur radio station without supervision, since they possess no valid operator license. Tsk. Ye of little faith. :-) Now what did I write that was UNTRUE? Hmmm? "The license holder isn't prohibited from doing anything after midnight of the last day of his/her 10-year-active-license period." Was anything written about "operating an amateur radio station?" No. :-) They could have a valid commercial license and not be prohibited from using that. Note: A commercial license does not allow operation IN the amateur bands...just like an amateur license does NOT allow operation outside of amateur bands. ALL of Title 47 C.F.R. applies to ALL USA citizens. Yes, that includes amateur radio licensees. :-) In that you will find that, if there is a REAL emergency situation, there is NO prohibition against anyone using any frequency, any mode for help. True. Ain't gonna be no Raddio Polizei saying "papers please" while wearting leather topcoats and armbands in a REAL emergency. Some argumentative amateur word-twister is going to pop in and shout/holler "this is an amateur radio newsgroup!" Well, if so, why is all the Chat Room nonsense going on between "regulars" in here which is NOT about amateur radio? :-) The rationalizations abound about that. Suddenly anyone with a ham license can "justify" their Chat Room gabbling because they once took a small test and got a certificate of "federal authority!" Somehow I don't think the Chat Room regulars would accept an FDA official talking about pork production...even though they would have a real HAM license. :-) I guess the "only ones who count" in here are the Regulars, the life-stylers, those who eat-breathe-sleep amateur radio. They are NEVER wrong. Their words are TRVTH itself, engraved in eternal marble. Their shall be no discourse with them...of course. It's a religious thing. Something like "for the League, God, and Country" (in that order). "Once a ham, always a ham." [it's like the murine corpse] Get with the program, Grum. ...or admit you've almost plagiarized Dr. Dobbs' good journal name. |
Lenof21 wrote:
In article . net, "Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê" writes: "Lenof21" wrote in message ... : 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. : Untrue. (Some would say an outright lie) They are certainly prohibited from operating their amateur radio station without supervision, since they possess no valid operator license. Tsk. Ye of little faith. :-) Now what did I write that was UNTRUE? Hmmm? "The license holder isn't prohibited from doing anything after midnight of the last day of his/her 10-year-active-license period." Was anything written about "operating an amateur radio station?" No. :-) Apparently you said that an amateur with an expired license was given carte blanche to do *anything* after their license expired. Maybe that is why so many allowed there licenses to expire. Now they are not prohibited from doing anything! Kewl! - Mike KB3EIA - |
Lenof21 wrote:
In article . net, "Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê" writes: "Lenof21" wrote in message ... : 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. : Untrue. (Some would say an outright lie) They are certainly prohibited from operating their amateur radio station without supervision, since they possess no valid operator license. Tsk. Ye of little faith. :-) Now what did I write that was UNTRUE? Hmmm? You wrote in an earlier message: Lenof21 All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace Lenof21 period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the Lenof21 grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from Lenof21 any class totals. Then you appear to have modified it to say: "The license holder isn't prohibited from doing anything after midnight of the last day of his/her 10-year-active-license period." Was anything written about "operating an amateur radio station?" No. :-) Yes, because you wrote the above mentioned quote in an earlier message They could have a valid commercial license and not be prohibited from using that. Note: A commercial license does not allow operation IN the amateur bands...just like an amateur license does NOT allow operation outside of amateur bands. So. They *are* prohibited from operating in the amateur bands. That is significantly different than "not being prohibited from doing anything" ALL of Title 47 C.F.R. applies to ALL USA citizens. Yes, that includes amateur radio licensees. :-) In that you will find that, if there is a REAL emergency situation, there is NO prohibition against anyone using any frequency, any mode for help. True. Ain't gonna be no Raddio Polizei saying "papers please" while wearting leather topcoats and armbands in a REAL emergency. Emergency comms is in another ongoing thread. Do you believe that we are trying to argue that expired licensees can't use any frequencies during an emergency? I don't recall anyone saying that. Some argumentative amateur word-twister is going to pop in and shout/holler "this is an amateur radio newsgroup!" Well, if so, why is all the Chat Room nonsense going on between "regulars" in here which is NOT about amateur radio? :-) Hehe, Word twisting? Commercial licenses and Emergency operations dictated by an expired license? The rationalizations abound about that. Suddenly anyone with a ham license can "justify" their Chat Room gabbling because they once took a small test and got a certificate of "federal authority!" Somehow I don't think the Chat Room regulars would accept an FDA official talking about pork production...even though they would have a real HAM license. :-) I guess the "only ones who count" in here are the Regulars, the life-stylers, those who eat-breathe-sleep amateur radio. They are NEVER wrong. Their words are TRVTH itself, engraved in eternal marble. Their shall be no discourse with them...of course. In that you are incorrect. I don't mind having a good discussion, and even enjoy a good argument. But I do expect a good argument with proper give and take. Some times I am wrong, and some times right. But your case would be better served if you were to simply admit your mistakes and move on to good debate. It's a religious thing. Something like "for the League, God, and Country" (in that order). "Once a ham, always a ham." [it's like the murine corpse] Get with the program, Grum. ...or admit you've almost plagiarized Dr. Dobbs' good journal name. Let's do good discussions with proper give and take. Anything else risks irrelevancy. - Mike KB3EIA - |
In article , Mike Coslo
writes: So. They *are* prohibited from operating in the amateur bands. That is significantly different than "not being prohibited from doing anything" Of course it is. However, commercial band users MAY operate in ham bands which are not allocated exclusively for amateurs. :-) For that matter, the federal government seldom requires "licensing" of radio operators, civilian or military, whether in or outside of amateur bands. ALL of Title 47 C.F.R. applies to ALL USA citizens. Yes, that includes amateur radio licensees. :-) In that you will find that, if there is a REAL emergency situation, there is NO prohibition against anyone using any frequency, any mode for help. True. Ain't gonna be no Raddio Polizei saying "papers please" while wearting leather topcoats and armbands in a REAL emergency. Emergency comms is in another ongoing thread. Do you believe that we are trying to argue that expired licensees can't use any frequencies during an emergency? I don't recall anyone saying that. So, have the court clerk read back the court transcript. :-) Don't get your legal briefs in a twist. Some argumentative amateur word-twister is going to pop in and shout/holler "this is an amateur radio newsgroup!" Well, if so, why is all the Chat Room nonsense going on between "regulars" in here which is NOT about amateur radio? :-) Hehe, Word twisting? Commercial licenses and Emergency operations dictated by an expired license? So, in here, what is different with everyone else? Lots of gabble about politics, economics, business activities none of the gabblers have been in, the divinity of morsemanship ability above all other amateur skills. In that you are incorrect. I don't mind having a good discussion, and even enjoy a good argument. But I do expect a good argument with proper give and take. Not much in public evidence to support your claims. :-) PCTAs demand capitulation to them by all NCTA. That's been implied for as long as the League has been around. :-) Some times I am wrong, and some times right. But your case would be better served if you were to simply admit your mistakes and move on to good debate. When I see "good debate" in here, I'll flag you down, run it up the pole, prolly take out a billboard. See...you are falling into the gruff "just capitulate to us PCTA" and be nice attitude. :-) Let's do good discussions with proper give and take. Anything else risks irrelevancy. Hey...you no like my NCTA tone, have me locked out of the newsgroup. Don't worry, several others will call me names, usually names in languages they don't know well. :-) You ARE moderator, aren't you? Didn't Paul Schleck vacate the job and make you Chief of Attitude Protocol? :-) |
In article , Lenof21 writes:
addendum to what was sent prior In that you are incorrect. I don't mind having a good discussion, and even enjoy a good argument. But I do expect a good argument with proper give and take. Not much in public evidence to support your claims. :-) PCTAs demand capitulation to them by all NCTA. That's been implied for as long as the League has been around. :-) Some times I am wrong, and some times right. But your case would be better served if you were to simply admit your mistakes and move on to good debate. A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I thought so, too. Noooo, in here good old KH2D pretty well set that straight for the PCTA side. Must bin around 8+ years ago... :-) Much better than the current crop of PCTApparatchiks. Yourself included, by the way. What is my "case," counsellor? Is this the Righteous Supreme Court of Hamdom? Are you serving torts with coffee during recess? Does the Court Gift Shop sell little souvenirs such as glit-framed pictures of famous telegraph keys (with their own accent lights)? Maybe they sell voodoo dolls of hated NCTA complete with complimentary pins? My "case" seems to vary with whoever thin-skinned is injured the most. To one I made a burn-in-hell-for-eternity mistake by NOT getting an extra "out of the box" long ago. Tsk. He thinks that is utter and complete failure to complete a Life Promise and shows moral turpitude (or something that smells strongly, maybe like paint thinner). Another says I can ONLY "show interest in radio" by getting an amateur radio license FIRST. [no real reason given except he was bereft of any comback and was trying to wing a reply] Well, that's just too #$%^!!!! bad since I made that decision back 48 years ago, got a First Phone and started working in broadcasting, using it. Only one other seems to have a working time machine for regular trips back there...and before. When I see "good debate" in here, I'll flag you down, run it up the pole, prolly take out a billboard. NO, repeat NO "debate" in here is really possible with anyone not-licensed- in-any-amateur-service correspondent. That's been proved so many times over by public example in 8 years, that it shouldn't need any comment. This forum is EXCLUSIVELY for already-licensed amateurs to talk about getting INTO amateur radio? Of course. League has all the answers, just Follow The Law, do like everyone else did, and shuthehellup. Simple. Morse code testing is The Law. All must Obey the Law. Nobody EVER should think heretical thoughts about Changing The Law. Heresy! Blasphemy! [bite thy tongues, irreverent ones] Tsk. Some of us do think the Law ought to be changed here and there. Better call the Department of Homeland Security! The future looks full of tension and anxiety for the Antique Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS). --- So, no like to work with raw data on U.S. amateur radio statistics? Afraid to see the trends showing the changing interests in the hobby? Like for the last dozen years? Don't worry. JPM will be the savior, showing numbers that ease your worries, calm your anxieties. He is NEVER wrong. He say so...mebbe. Meanwhile, rail and rant at all those who don't think quite like you do, Mike. Obviously we are all "mistaken" and "in error" (for that good old "plain simple fact'). You will be vindicated. Nothing the NCTA can possibly be right, can it? [some of us are so nice and obliging that we deliberately make errors...all to make you satisfied...heheheheheh] |
Lenof21 wrote:
In article , Lenof21 writes: My "case" seems to vary with whoever thin-skinned is injured the most. To one I made a burn-in-hell-for-eternity mistake by NOT getting an extra "out of the box" long ago. Tsk. He thinks that is utter and complete failure to complete a Life Promise and shows moral turpitude (or something that smells strongly, maybe like paint thinner). You said you would. The law was changed accordingly. You have subsequently done nothing but make excuses. In short, you lied. No big deal. You do it all the time. Another says I can ONLY "show interest in radio" by getting an amateur radio license FIRST. Another lie. No one has ever said that. What HAS been said is that you have no established basis from which to make INFORMED opinons on Amateur Radio practice and policy since you do NOT have any practical experience as an Amateur. [no real reason given except he was bereft of any comback and was trying to wing a reply] Yet another blatant lie. You ahve been given REAMS of reasons. You just choose to ignore all of them in preference to your own EXCUSES. Well, that's just too #$%^!!!! bad since I made that decision back 48 years ago, got a First Phone and started working in broadcasting, using it. Only one other seems to have a working time machine for regular trips back there...and before. Uh huh. Lennie, YOU are the ONLY one in this forum who routinely discusses ANY form of radio communication more than 10 years old. Those of us who ARE licensed and ARE active in the hobby discuss current events and future plans. When I see "good debate" in here, I'll flag you down, run it up the pole, prolly take out a billboard. NO, repeat NO "debate" in here is really possible with anyone not-licensed- in-any-amateur-service correspondent. That's been proved so many times over by public example in 8 years, that it shouldn't need any comment. You're right...It doesn't need any comment. When it comes to YOU, all "debate" will be in your favor, on subjects YOU want to discuss, and only within parameters YOU establish. Sucks to be you. And you'd be ABLE to enter into more of those discussions IF you had some experience from which to draw upon. A tour of duty in postwar Japan in the 50's is NOT "current events", nor is it even marginally relevent. This forum is EXCLUSIVELY for already-licensed amateurs to talk about getting INTO amateur radio? Of course. League has all the answers, just Follow The Law, do like everyone else did, and shuthehellup. Simple. Actually, exchange "Lennie" for "League", and you have exactly summated all of your posts in this forum. Morse code testing is The Law. All must Obey the Law. I see...You have a problem with obeying the law. That's obvious, of course. Nobody EVER should think heretical thoughts about Changing The Law. Not at all...Just have a reasonable reason for changing it. "Just because everyone else is" is not a reason. Heresy! Blasphemy! [bite thy tongues, irreverent ones] Tsk. Some of us do think the Law ought to be changed here and there. So do those of us who ARE licensed Amateurs. We've said so repeatedly. But since YOU disagree with OUR opinions, all we get is hateful bile and distortions from you. Better call the Department of Homeland Security! The future looks full of tension and anxiety for the Antique Radiotelegraphy Society (ARS). --- So, no like to work with raw data on U.S. amateur radio statistics? So far, that's what Jim Miccolis HAS been doing. Real people with real lcienses...Not club, military, RACES or other categories that don't reflect true numbers of users. It doesn't take a degree in statistics to follow Jim's numbers. Afraid to see the trends showing the changing interests in the hobby? Like for the last dozen years? Don't worry. JPM will be the savior, showing numbers that ease your worries, calm your anxieties. He is NEVER wrong. He say so...mebbe. Meanwhile, rail and rant at all those who don't think quite like you do, Mike. Obviously we are all "mistaken" and "in error" (for that good old "plain simple fact'). You will be vindicated. Nothing the NCTA can possibly be right, can it? [some of us are so nice and obliging that we deliberately make errors...all to make you satisfied...heheheheheh] So...you admit to making deliberate errors. Why am I not surprised? Putz. Steve, K4YZ |
Lenof21 wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: So. They *are* prohibited from operating in the amateur bands. That is significantly different than "not being prohibited from doing anything" Of course it is. However, commercial band users MAY operate in ham bands which are not allocated exclusively for amateurs. :-) There is a world of difference between that statement and your statement that Hams were free to operate during the two year period after their license expires. For that matter, the federal government seldom requires "licensing" of radio operators, civilian or military, whether in or outside of amateur bands. So what? ALL of Title 47 C.F.R. applies to ALL USA citizens. Yes, that includes amateur radio licensees. :-) In that you will find that, if there is a REAL emergency situation, there is NO prohibition against anyone using any frequency, any mode for help. True. Ain't gonna be no Raddio Polizei saying "papers please" while wearting leather topcoats and armbands in a REAL emergency. Emergency comms is in another ongoing thread. Do you believe that we are trying to argue that expired licensees can't use any frequencies during an emergency? I don't recall anyone saying that. So, have the court clerk read back the court transcript. :-) Check, check.... is this microphone on?......OK.... Lenof21 All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace Lenof21 period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the Lenof21 grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from Lenof21 any class totals. Don't get your legal briefs in a twist. Glad you feel that way! 8^) Some argumentative amateur word-twister is going to pop in and shout/holler "this is an amateur radio newsgroup!" Well, if so, why is all the Chat Room nonsense going on between "regulars" in here which is NOT about amateur radio? :-) Hehe, Word twisting? Commercial licenses and Emergency operations dictated by an expired license? So, in here, what is different with everyone else? Lots of gabble about politics, economics, business activities none of the gabblers have been in, the divinity of morsemanship ability above all other amateur skills. What is different is that there is (or should be) an expectation of the initial premise being true. It is simply not true that: Lenof21 All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in Lenof21 their grace period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to Lenof21 eliminate those in the grace period from those in the normal Lenof21 10-year license period from any class totals. You appear to want us to simply allow you to be "right", regardless of your incorrect statements. No thanks! 8^) - Mike KB3EIA - |
N2EY wrote:
In article , Mike Coslo writes: Lenof21 wrote: In article . net, "Grümwîtch thë Ünflãppåblê" writes: "Lenof21" wrote in message ... : 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. : Untrue. (Some would say an outright lie) They are certainly prohibited from operating their amateur radio station without supervision, since they possess no valid operator license. Now what did I write that was UNTRUE? Hmmm? You wrote in an earlier message: Lenof21 All licensees are perfectly legal to continue operating in their grace Lenof21 period. There is no necessity (nor sense) to eliminate those in the Lenof21 grace period from those in the normal 10-year license period from Lenof21 any class totals. Then you appear to have modified it to say: "The license holder isn't prohibited from doing anything after midnight of the last day of his/her 10-year-active-license period." Was anything written about "operating an amateur radio station?" No. :-) Yes, because you wrote the above mentioned quote in an earlier message They could have a valid commercial license and not be prohibited from using that. Do commercial licenses have 10 year terms and 2 year grace periods? And if so, should you be required to include them in your ARS license numbers? 8^) Note: A commercial license does not allow operation IN the amateur bands...just like an amateur license does NOT allow operation outside of amateur bands. In any event, a license holder *is* prohibited from doing something when the license is in the grace period. Yes, and that is operation within the privileges of their expired license. So. They *are* prohibited from operating in the amateur bands. That is significantly different than "not being prohibited from doing anything" ALL of Title 47 C.F.R. applies to ALL USA citizens. Yes, that includes amateur radio licensees. :-) In that you will find that, if there is a REAL emergency situation, there is NO prohibition against anyone using any frequency, any mode for help. Doesn't change the fact that a licensee with a license in the grace period is prohibited from operating an amateur station in a non-emergency situation. I guess the "only ones who count" in here are the Regulars, the life-stylers, those who eat-breathe-sleep amateur radio. They are NEVER wrong. Their words are TRVTH itself, engraved in eternal marble. Their shall be no discourse with them...of course. In that you are incorrect. I don't mind having a good discussion, and even enjoy a good argument. But I do expect a good argument with proper give and take. Some times I am wrong, and some times right. But your case would be better served if you were to simply admit your mistakes and move on to good debate. Agreed. Len made a mistake about 97.21(b), but he seems reluctant to admit it. Note that the position he is taking is modifying. I've worked with a few who do this. They really hate being wrong, but when they are proven wrong, they slowly modify their stance so that eventually they either agree with you, or " you just didn't understand" what they were saying in the first place Think about *why* A couple possibilities: 1. He was genuinely wrong. He made an incorrect statement, and is embarrassed about it. Some people absolutely *hate* being incorrect on anything. 2. He is making deliberate incorrect statements simply to invoke others in arguments. This could be an entertainment issue, or perhaps a loneliness thing. - Mike KB3EIA - |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com