Robert Casey wrote in message ...
N2EY wrote:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

N2EY wrote:

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Why select May 14th 2000?

Two reasons:

1) I happened to have those numbers recorded

2) By that date, it's reasonable to expect that all of the backlog from before
the April 15 changes had gone through FCC.

Restructuring took effect a month
earlier. I upgraded from tech + to extra on April 15, 2000 and
the paperwork reached the FCC just a few days later the next week.
Thus I would show up as an extra in the May 14th 2000. If your
objective is to show the effects of restructuring, you need to list
the numbers for April14, 2000.


If you have them, I'll show them.


Okay, that makes sense, especially reason #2. There would be some
cross leakage, but probably not enough to matter in determining long term
trends.

Yep. One can look at the AH0A site for monthly numbers as well.

FCC and the various VECs got pretty backlogged around then, too. Some
folks didn't see actual database changes for a few weeks.

PS, I don't have the numbers myself, but as you mentioned, they would miss
the backlog of activity before April 15th.

Yup. I know a bunch of hams who strove to upgrade *before* April 15,
for various reasons (such as getting an Advanced before they were gone
forever).

--

What I find interesting is how *little* the numbers have changed in
almost 4 years. For example, at the end of March, 2000, there were a
little over 103,000 Advanceds. Now there's something over 80,000, even
though the 20 wpm code test is gone. In similar fashion, look how many
Tech Pluses still exist despite the fact that they need never take
another code test, and that many of them already have credit for the
General written as well. And FCC has been renewing Tech Plus as Tech
since April 15, 2000, too.

IOW, perhaps the code test wasn't the "barrier" it was proclaimed to
be.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
om...
Robert Casey wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

In article , Robert Casey
writes:

N2EY wrote:

These are the number of unexpired FCC ARS
licenses held by individuals on the dates listed:

As of May 14, 2000:

Why select May 14th 2000?

Two reasons:

1) I happened to have those numbers recorded

2) By that date, it's reasonable to expect that all of the backlog from
before
the April 15 changes had gone through FCC.

Restructuring took effect a month
earlier. I upgraded from tech + to extra on April 15, 2000 and
the paperwork reached the FCC just a few days later the next week.
Thus I would show up as an extra in the May 14th 2000. If your
objective is to show the effects of restructuring, you need to list
the numbers for April14, 2000.


If you have them, I'll show them.


Okay, that makes sense, especially reason #2. There would be some
cross leakage, but probably not enough to matter in determining long
term
trends.

Yep. One can look at the AH0A site for monthly numbers as well.

FCC and the various VECs got pretty backlogged around then, too. Some
folks didn't see actual database changes for a few weeks.

PS, I don't have the numbers myself, but as you mentioned, they would
miss
the backlog of activity before April 15th.

Yup. I know a bunch of hams who strove to upgrade *before* April 15,
for various reasons (such as getting an Advanced before they were gone
forever).

What I find interesting is how *little* the numbers have changed in
almost 4 years. For example, at the end of March, 2000, there were a
little over 103,000 Advanceds. Now there's something over 80,000, even
though the 20 wpm code test is gone. In similar fashion, look how many
Tech Pluses still exist despite the fact that they need never take
another code test, and that many of them already have credit for the
General written as well. And FCC has been renewing Tech Plus as Tech
since April 15, 2000, too.

IOW, perhaps the code test wasn't the "barrier" it was proclaimed to
be.

Good thing I never made the argument about code testing
being a barrier. I have always strictly viewed the code test
as simply no longer necessary as a test requirement.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK

In article t, "Bill Sohl"
writes:

Good thing I never made the argument about code testing
being a barrier.

Agreed!

So we have to wonder why, even after almost four years, so many hams have not
upgraded. I can think of several reasons:

1) Perfectly happy with the license they have now
2) Don't know what's involved in upgrading
3) Dead, incapacitated, or completely inactive.
4) Haven't gotten around to it yet.
5) Waiting for the requirements to change yet again (for example, there was a
false rumor some time back that Advanceds would get a free upgrade to Extra)
6) Can't pass the written tests yet.

I expected the numbers of Advanceds and Tech Pluses to drop faster than they
have in the 43 months.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article t, "Bill
Sohl"
writes:

Good thing I never made the argument about code testing
being a barrier.

Agreed!

So we have to wonder why, even after almost four years, so many hams have
not
upgraded. I can think of several reasons:

1) Perfectly happy with the license they have now
2) Don't know what's involved in upgrading
3) Dead, incapacitated, or completely inactive.
4) Haven't gotten around to it yet.
5) Waiting for the requirements to change yet again (for example, there
was a
false rumor some time back that Advanceds would get a free upgrade to
Extra)
6) Can't pass the written tests yet.

I expected the numbers of Advanceds and Tech Pluses to drop faster than
they
have in the 43 months.

Jim,

I agree all those reasons are valid...the difficulty is we have no
way of knowing the breakdown.

I think novice will dry up first...i.e. before Advanced.

Cheers,
Bill K2UNK