|
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 |
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com