Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 03:24 PM
charlesb
 
Posts: n/a
Default Low reenlistment rate


"K0HB" wrote in message
news:[email protected] e.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


Drop the no-code provision of the Tech license, obviously.

With a 97.7% failure rate, I'd say the new policy is a real loser. - We
better drop it fast and return to what worked better in the past.

I predicted something like this, but not to such a degree, when so many of
the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs
and the traditions of amateur radio. It was obvious that many of them did
not care at all about the hobby. - They just wanted to know what they could
get out it, what they could get away with. Many of them spent more time
bashing the hobby than anything else. As you have noted, almost none of them
went on to progress and advance themselves as hams.

Personally, I think we will be much better off without most of those "hams",
and that we should avoid policies that increase membership in this way in
the future. We should do as we did in the past, emphasizing quality, not
quantity of our membership.

According to your figures Hans, the no-code tech deal did the hobby more
harm than good.

Charles, N5PVL



  #2   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 04:07 PM
Kim W5TIT
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"charlesb" wrote in message
m...

"K0HB" wrote in message
news:[email protected] e.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


Drop the no-code provision of the Tech license, obviously.

With a 97.7% failure rate, I'd say the new policy is a real loser. - We
better drop it fast and return to what worked better in the past.

I predicted something like this, but not to such a degree, when so many of
the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs
and the traditions of amateur radio. It was obvious that many of them did
not care at all about the hobby. - They just wanted to know what they

could
get out it, what they could get away with. Many of them spent more time
bashing the hobby than anything else. As you have noted, almost none of

them
went on to progress and advance themselves as hams.

Personally, I think we will be much better off without most of those

"hams",
and that we should avoid policies that increase membership in this way in
the future. We should do as we did in the past, emphasizing quality, not
quantity of our membership.

According to your figures Hans, the no-code tech deal did the hobby more
harm than good.

Charles, N5PVL



Sigh. How 'bout this: ever consider that a lot of CBers did, indeed, hear
of the new requirements (lower CW testing standards) and decide to get into
ham radio for....guess what: FM!!!!!???? When I was "into" CB radio, I was
barely ever on AM. There's a whole "other" gang of participants out there
on CB--and the mentors of that group are mostly hams. The USB/LSB and,
alas, FM--yes, illegal but done--part of CB is an area where you'll find
people who are courteous, have "gentlemen's" rules that are followed; where
people experiment with antenna design and construction; where an "eyeball"
meeting is just as likely; etc.

When I was drawn to and got my ticket, you know what the greatest relief
was? Being able to turn a radio on and not hear all that hissing,
heterodyning, etc.!!! FM is great and that is what I like most about ham
radio. HF sucks for all the noise. So, no need/interest to upgrade. And,
everyone else was as relieved and impressed with FM also. Listening to HF
brings back those days when we had to deal with all that noise. And, it's
not a pretty memory.

Kim W5TIT


  #3   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 04:19 PM
Mike Coslo
 
Posts: n/a
Default

charlesb wrote:
"K0HB" wrote in message
news:[email protected] e.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



Drop the no-code provision of the Tech license, obviously.


You raise an interesting point Charles. To test the thesis, it would be
nice to have a comparison with the numbers of General and above
licensees from the same period.

With the Technician license being so easy to get, many will take the
test to become a tech as a passing whiiim or fancy. By the time their
license is up for renewal, they are on to something else.


With a 97.7% failure rate, I'd say the new policy is a real loser. - We
better drop it fast and return to what worked better in the past.

I predicted something like this, but not to such a degree, when so many of
the new no-code techs showed a generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs
and the traditions of amateur radio. It was obvious that many of them did
not care at all about the hobby. - They just wanted to know what they could
get out it, what they could get away with. Many of them spent more time
bashing the hobby than anything else. As you have noted, almost none of them
went on to progress and advance themselves as hams.

Personally, I think we will be much better off without most of those "hams",
and that we should avoid policies that increase membership in this way in
the future. We should do as we did in the past, emphasizing quality, not
quantity of our membership.

According to your figures Hans, the no-code tech deal did the hobby more
harm than good.



There are a couple thoughts here.

"Who cares about the retention rate? It's a free country."

Well, how would you like to be a VE, giving up your time and effort on
weekends, only to have almost all that work be fro naught? I would not
want to do this task unless I thought that most of the students were
going to continue.

"We gotta have those numbers".

Your post points out the not-so-subtle difference between quality and
quantity. I'll take a good dedicated ham any day over someone who just
gets their license on a lark.

- Mike KB3EIA -

  #4   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 06:01 PM
Dee D. Flint
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"K0HB" wrote in message
news:[email protected] e.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


This is sheer speculation but I would guess that the reason the retention
rate is so low is that a lot of the no-code tech licenses were the result of
the licensed ham in the family urging family members to get a license so
they could stay in touch via 2m as they bog around town since they didn't
have to convince the family members to take code. Ten years later, it's a
whole different world. There are cheap cell phones that fulfill this need
nicely. For use out camping, there are cheap FRS radios. To keep in touch
with someone in the next town, there are internet chat capabilities.

In a sense, we have come full circle back to where we will only be able to
get and keep those who develop an interest in the radio hobby itself rather
than using it for personal communications among family members who are
otherwise not interested in radio.

Dee D. Flint, N8UZE

  #5   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 06:21 PM
Steve .. AI7W
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Hans Kohb" wrote in message news:[email protected] te.mailgate.org...
"charlesb" wrote

...... so many of the new no-code techs showed a
generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs
and the traditions of amateur radio.


Pure unadulterated bull****, old biker! Try a different lure when you
troll, because nobody is gonna bite on this one!

With all kind wishes,

de Hans, K0HB


Hans, you need to turn off the computer and listen to your radio a
little bit. charlesb is right.
Steve


  #6   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 06:45 PM
Jim Hampton
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kim, Hans was pointing out the large (apparent) numbers of *codeless* techs
not renewing their licenses. My guess is that close to 100% of their
operation (if, indeed, they did operate) was on FM. As far as the noise on
HF, that may be one reason I never cared for contests. I spent time on 40
during the day and 160 in the evening. For the distance, I simply preferred
CW. Back in the pre-DSP days, a 250 Hz filter did wonders. Noise?
Non-existent.

73 from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA


"Kim W5TIT" wrote in message
...

Sigh. How 'bout this: ever consider that a lot of CBers did, indeed, hear
of the new requirements (lower CW testing standards) and decide to get

into
ham radio for....guess what: FM!!!!!???? When I was "into" CB radio, I

was
barely ever on AM. There's a whole "other" gang of participants out there
on CB--and the mentors of that group are mostly hams. The USB/LSB and,
alas, FM--yes, illegal but done--part of CB is an area where you'll find
people who are courteous, have "gentlemen's" rules that are followed;

where
people experiment with antenna design and construction; where an "eyeball"
meeting is just as likely; etc.

When I was drawn to and got my ticket, you know what the greatest relief
was? Being able to turn a radio on and not hear all that hissing,
heterodyning, etc.!!! FM is great and that is what I like most about ham
radio. HF sucks for all the noise. So, no need/interest to upgrade.

And,
everyone else was as relieved and impressed with FM also. Listening to HF
brings back those days when we had to deal with all that noise. And, it's
not a pretty memory.

Kim W5TIT




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.514 / Virus Database: 312 - Release Date: 8/28/03


  #7   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 07:19 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "Kim "
writes:

FM!!!!!????


(snipped for brevity)

That's one reason, Kim, stated in a way that makes a lot of sense.

Here's another:

Even before 1991, a considerable number of hams in this area (metro Philly)
were friends and family members of hams who wanted a way to keep in touch while
mobile. The most common setup was the 2-careers/kids/cars household, where the
radio was used for all sorts of "honeydew" purposes.

This sort of thing was particularly popular on some machines around here
because the culture in this area encourages open machines, deference to mobiles
and HTs, and wide coverage. Plus there are so many open machines around here
that you can usally find one that's not in use.

What really drove that boom was not the dropping of the code test but the
availability of inexpensive, small, easy-to-use HTs and mobile rigs. And the
proliferation of repeaters,

These folks were hams, all right, but their interest in ham radio was not about
radio as an end in itself, but radio as a means to an end. IOW, just a tool to
do a job, not the main attraction.

Trouble is, cell phones now fill those roles.

73 de Jim, N2EY
  #8   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 07:19 PM
N2EY
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ilgate.org,
"K0HB" writes:

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%.


That rate is so low that the methodology needs examining. IOW, how did the
"couple of guys" determine their data?

How did they examine the data for every one of those 1,925 licenses? How did
they deal with name changes, address changes, and the vanity callsign rule
changes?

I'm not saying they were dumb or had an ulterior moive, just that their data
analysis methods need to be examined.

Did they check any other license classes?

Any ideas for increasing the reenlistment rate?


Here's one - track down those who did not reup and find out why.

73 de Jim, N2EY


  #9   Report Post  
Old September 6th 03, 08:33 PM
Steve Robeson, K4CAP
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Hans Kohb" wrote in message news:[email protected] te.mailgate.org...
"charlesb" wrote

...... so many of the new no-code techs showed a
generalized disrespect for the PART97 regs
and the traditions of amateur radio.


Pure unadulterated bull****, old biker! Try a different lure when you
troll, because nobody is gonna bite on this one!


Sans the profanity, I agree with your assessment on this part of
Charles' comments, Hans, but he's quite correct in another...We went
to all this trouble...For what?

I also agree with his assertion that we need a better quality
Amateur Radio...Not necessarilly more numbers.

The "more numbers" aspect certainly seems to support (and I once
agreed with) the concept that "there's strength in numbers". But
since these licensees ar non-contributing anyway, of what use is it to
"recruit" people who won't stick it out and be of some use?

I certainly take every opportunity to "show off" Amateur Radio to
anyone who's interested, however not everyone wouild make a "good
Ham".

Granted, not everyone is going to be a Maxim, Clark or DeMaw, but
then they don't have to be.

It's worth a thought.

73

Steve, K4YZ
  #10   Report Post  
Old September 7th 03, 12:51 AM
Y letter Y
 
Posts: n/a
Default


It's too little, too late Hans.

Years of keeping the CW requirement and
the advent of the Internet as a cheap alternative
to Amateur Radio spelled the end of Amateur
Radio for those who could see the writing on
the wall a VERY long time ago.

Add to that a median-age of 67 Yrs for the US Amateur population does not help
either - we are LITERALLY
dying off.

Finally the outrageous cost of ham gear (HF gear)
is enough to scare off any prospective newcommer.
Who in their right mind wants to spend $2000+
for a Yaesu HF station when for about $400 you can
buy a fully equipped "white box" PC with a 56K
and DSL modem, and be able to interact worldwide
without the use of unsightly dipoles and tri-band beam
antennas...?

Hans, Amateur Radio is **OBSOLETE**.
It's popularity is enjoyed by an extremely small
esoteric sector of the populace, and the general
public looks at us as a curiosity at best.

That is the bottom line .

Ken (ex-W3 circa 1985)

"K0HB" wrote in message
news:[email protected] e.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







--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG




Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
PL-259 loss rate? Ken Bessler Antenna 9 November 8th 04 02:45 PM
Why do monitors flicker on TV? hnmm Antenna 19 January 21st 04 08:30 PM
Single Sideband FM Bruce Kizerian Homebrew 84 October 27th 03 05:52 AM
Latest News - Morse Code Test May Not "Die" at ITU Conference. Ryan, KC8PMX Policy 90 July 11th 03 03:49 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:06 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 RadioBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Radio"

 

Copyright © 2017