K0HB wrote:
Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925
new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of
guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have
not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond
the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only
2.3%.

Somehow the numbers don't seem right, or at least I don't understand
them. For the months of February through June, 2001, when most of these
licenses should have been expiring, the AH0A web site gives these numbers:

Renewals: 7380
Expiries: 2623
Grace Period Renewals: 810
Cancelations: 645

While the 1,880 number might be right, the 1,925 number almost certainly
isn't. The above suggests that about 10,000 Technician licenses came up
for renewal in the 5 month period, or about 2,000 per month. The AH0A
data shows the service has averaged about 1,500 new Tech licenses per
month over the past few years, with the monthly new license total seldom
dropping below 1,000. As the code-free Technician license was reputed
to have more popular in its first few years of existance than later on,
it seems extremely unlikely that there were only 400 new Tech licenses
issued per month between February and July of 1991, especially when
2,000 per month ended up expiring 10 years later.

My guess would be that between 80% and 85% of those licensed as no-code
Techs in that period are still engaged enough to have renewed their license.
This isn't entirely out of line with other license classes. If you picked
a random group of Extra class amateurs (who, I assume, would tend to be older)
only 75% to 80% of them would be around 10 years later.

Dennis Ferguson

(Dennis Ferguson) wrote in message ...
K0HB wrote:
Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925
new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of
guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have
not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond
the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only
2.3%.

Somehow the numbers don't seem right, or at least I don't understand
them. For the months of February through June, 2001, when most of these
licenses should have been expiring, the AH0A web site gives these numbers:

Renewals: 7380
Expiries: 2623
Grace Period Renewals: 810
Cancelations: 645

While the 1,880 number might be right, the 1,925 number almost certainly
isn't. The above suggests that about 10,000 Technician licenses came up
for renewal in the 5 month period, or about 2,000 per month. The AH0A
data shows the service has averaged about 1,500 new Tech licenses per
month over the past few years, with the monthly new license total seldom
dropping below 1,000. As the code-free Technician license was reputed
to have more popular in its first few years of existance than later on,
it seems extremely unlikely that there were only 400 new Tech licenses
issued per month between February and July of 1991, especially when
2,000 per month ended up expiring 10 years later.

My guess would be that between 80% and 85% of those licensed as no-code
Techs in that period are still engaged enough to have renewed their license.
This isn't entirely out of line with other license classes. If you picked
a random group of Extra class amateurs (who, I assume, would tend to be older)
only 75% to 80% of them would be around 10 years later.

All very reasonable, Dennis. The petitioners do not explain how they
derived their data.

Depending on how they traced each licensee, there are many sources of
error. For example, how did they deal with changes in callsign,
address and license class? How did they deal with name changes (many
women change their names when their marital status changes)? How did
they deal with the Tech/Tech plus confusion of the 1991-94 period?
Etc.

This petition needs to be challenged.

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

It's self-evident that a radio amateur who has no Morse code skills is
not a
fully qualified radio amateur, particularly for HF/MF amateur operation.
That's
a plain and simple fact.

What is it about plain and simple facts that so confuses NCI members?

Duh!!!

We know you are confused, Brian.

Why does it have to be "particularly for HF/MF operations?"

Because that's where Morse operation by amateurs is most common.

(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

It's self-evident that a radio amateur who has no Morse code skills is
not a
fully qualified radio amateur, particularly for HF/MF amateur operation.
That's
a plain and simple fact.

What is it about plain and simple facts that so confuses NCI members?

Duh!!!

We know you are confused, Brian.

"Duh!!!" doens't indicate a lack of confusion

Why does it have to be "particularly for HF/MF operations?"

Because that's where Morse operation by amateurs is most common.

If a lack of Morse code skills renders one less than a fully qualified
amateur radio operator, I would think "praticularly for VHF+
operation" would have been more appropriate for the very reason you
gave.

Duh!!! again.

(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

It's self-evident that a radio amateur who has no Morse code skills is
not a
fully qualified radio amateur, particularly for HF/MF amateur operation.
That's
a plain and simple fact.

What is it about plain and simple facts that so confuses NCI members?

Duh!!!

We know you are confused, Brian.

"Duh!!!" doens't indicate a lack of confusion

My point exactly.

We know you are confused, Brian.

Why does it have to be "particularly for HF/MF operations?"

Because that's where Morse operation by amateurs is most common.

If a lack of Morse code skills renders one less than a fully qualified
amateur radio operator,

It does. Get over it.

So does lack of a lot of other skills.

I would think "praticularly for VHF+
operation" would have been more appropriate for the very reason you
gave.

That makes no sense at all.

We know you are confused, Brian.

Duh!!! again.

Exactly. You keep proving my point for me. Thanks.

(N2EY) wrote in message . com...
(Brian) wrote in message . com...
(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article ,
(Brian) writes:

"Dick Carroll;" wrote in message
...
N2EY wrote:

It's self-evident that a radio amateur who has no Morse code skills is
not a
fully qualified radio amateur, particularly for HF/MF amateur operation.
That's
a plain and simple fact.

What is it about plain and simple facts that so confuses NCI members?

Duh!!!

We know you are confused, Brian.

"Duh!!!" doens't indicate a lack of confusion

My point exactly.

Yet you said it did.

We know you are confused, Brian.

We? You got a mouse in your pocket?

Why does it have to be "particularly for HF/MF operations?"

Because that's where Morse operation by amateurs is most common.

If a lack of Morse code skills renders one less than a fully qualified
amateur radio operator,

It does. Get over it.

Can't. I've had Morse whether I liked it or not.

So does lack of a lot of other skills.

What skills do you lack?

I would think "praticularly for VHF+
operation" would have been more appropriate for the very reason you
gave.

That makes no sense at all.

Since everyone presently on HF had to go thru the Morse hoop, and
those on VHF+ didn't necessarily have to do it...

We know you are confused, Brian.

Too bad things must be explained to you in the minutest of detail.

Duh!!! again.

Exactly. You keep proving my point for me. Thanks.

So what do you lack to be a fully qualified radio amateur,
particularly for HF/MF amateur operation?

"K0HB" wrote in message news:b71720b321f483edfb53ce7de21e4078.128005@myga te.mailgate.org...
Between February 14, 1991 and July 5, 1991, the Commission granted 1,925
new Technician class licenses under the no-code provisions. A couple of
guys have done research which shows that 1,880 of those licenses have
not been renewed or upgraded to a higher class license and are beyond
the two year grace period. That equates to a retention rate of only
2.3%.

Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate?

73, de Hans, K0HB

Sound like COMPLETE BULL**** to me. CITE and VERIFY your sources
before posting misleading crap like this

- Stewart
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MURS-OPEN

(stewart) wrote

Sound like COMPLETE BULL**** to me.

http://www.earth2.net/fcc/petition/

Argue with them, not with me.

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB

In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

My mileage does not vary in the least, Hans. And this is a large part of what
separates the.........

Oh well, probably enough has already been written on the subject.

Dick:

Then allow me to say it. It separates the Real Hams from the unmotivated,
disinterested 2-meter FM jockeys who wouldn't know a challenging and
satisfactory radio operating experience if it landed on their big toe.

---------------------------------------------------------
BTW, I think the last time I turned on my linear amp was when I worked that
etherial signal from the other side of the planet, VK0IR, on a near-dead 20
meter CW band. Their response to my 100 watt calls was "didi dum dum didi",
and "QRZ?"

Running 1400 watts out, the recognition was immediate.

Dick

I'll bet. It would have been interesting to see if 250 watts would have
made the trip.

73 de Larry, K3LT

In article ,
(K0HB) writes:

(N2EY) wrote


Would you enjoy it as much if your QSOs went through a series of automated
digital systems that would insure perfect copy at both ends with no
operator skill required?

Because I'm a 'tinkerer' sort, with a strong sense of curiousity,
certainly yes, at least the first handful of times, just to see what
made it work.

Wouldn't you?

Like you, it would be interesting *the first handful of times*.

But after that?

73 de Jim, N2EY