"N2EY" wrote in message
...
In article , "Carl R. Stevenson"
writes:

Jim,

Of that 423k US hams who are not Techs, how many do you suppose started
out as Techs and have since upgraded?

I don't know, exactly. Neither do you, I bet ;-)

But why does it matter?


There's a more poignant question that it reveals on the surface. Why *does*
it matter how many licensed amateurs upgrade at any given point--and what
determines whether they do or not? Anyone truly interested in the growth of
the ARS needs to know those answers for effective marketing, esepecially if
the concern is driven from a desire to see the ARS grow, rather than
maintain numbers.

For me, personally, I am happy with my Tech License and see no reason to
upgrade "just for the hell of it." The "just for the hell of it" idea has
never been a motivational factor for me in anything--personal, hobby, or
professional. So, what marketing campaign would: #1 *reach* me and, #2
motivate me to change my mind?

The ARRL has never reached me yet (can't speak for others) on a campaign to
motivate me to upgrade. The only thing the ARRL apparently successfully
*helps* with (but is not solely responsible for) is getting *new* hams
involved. If that statement is true--and it's probably more true than
not--then what does the ARRL need to do to move past just getting new folks
to the hobby/service of amateur radio? I suspect it has *nothing* to do
with license class or even requirements. When I decided to become a
licensed amateur radio operator I gave no thought at all to what it would
take to get my license; only that I needed to meet the requirements at hand.
It was only *after* I entered the service that any conginitive thought was
made as to license upgrades for the purpose of more bandwidth, privileges,
etc.


You are assuming that if the Tech still had a code test, none of those
hams who
got Techs would have gotten a ham license. That's not a reasonable
assumption
at all.


I agree with that. Based on what I said above. At the moment I considered
the hobby/service of ham radio, I gave no thought to the idea that maybe the
requirements would change. Well, in fact, I gave no thought at all to the
requirements--other than that I had to meet them to achieve my ambition of
getting a license. I think there would be a preponderance of folks who
aren't even going to be that aware of requirements and necessity at the time
they are considering entering the ARS.

If this thread is indeed still discussing the ARRL(?)--the ARRL itself needs
to consider these questions--probably needs to poll current hams and get a
professional marketing agency to figure out how to move beyond just being a
welcome mat and deciding if they also need to take on the task of getting
people to migrate to higher license classes or what those higher license
classes "get" you (because there may not always take a higher license
classes along with the privileges of the "extra" bandwidth, etc.).


From 1979 to 1991, the number of US hams grew from about 350,000 to about
550,000 - all of them code-tested. From 1991 to 2003, the number grew from
about 550,000 to about 683,000. (If someone has more accurate numbers,
please
post them!). We had growth with code tests and growth without code tests.


It's those fluctuations in the numbers that need to be analyzed. What was
going on economically, politically, educationally, even migrationally, in
this country at those times? 200,000 vs. 133,000 in growth in two entirely
different phases of years, but the same number of years. And, Jim, I know
('least I think I know) you will agree that CW testing or not may have
nothing at all to do with the fact whether there was more or less growth at
either time. It could have nothing *at all* to do with testing structure
because, as I said, I didn't really take enough time to say, "wait a minute,
what are the requirements and will they ever change?," etc.


Back in 1991 there were about 550,000 US hams, all of them code-tested. By
April of 2000 there were about 675,000 US hams, of which about 205,000
were
Techs. Since then the renewal of Tech Pluses as Techs clouds the issue.

How many SKs and dropouts would
have reduced the population without the newcomers coming in to replace
them.


Now, there's a question that would be really hard to get answered, but it
could be done. However, based on this discussion alone (the appearance of
growth being influenced only by whether there is a CW test or not); I think
there are more people driven by their ambition that driven by requirements.
I think if I *want* to upgrade, I am going to do it regardless of test
requirements. Really. Yes, there are some that are driven more by the
requirements--but I don't think it would end up being revealed that they are
in a majority at all. Test requirements are not a stifler or an
encouragement--either way.


Depends on the dropout rate. The important thing is you *assume* that we
wouldn't have any newcomers if they all had to pass code tests. That's
simply
not a reasonable assumption.


As much as I, being on the side of eliminating a CW (or any other mode)
requirement, would like to jump on that bandwagon, I think it's a mistake to
do so and get any real positive results out of it. However, the sum of all
the avenues of non-CW testing folks is probably the only way there will ever
be enough support to end CW testing grin.


Maybe 50% is a slight stretch, but I'd guess not by a lot.

I'd say an awful lot. Look up how many new hams we got per year in the
'80s
compared to the '90s.

Yes, there are almost 260,000 Techs today - but a large number of them
are
actually Tech Pluses whom the FCC renewed as Techs since April 2000.

Out of 10 years of NCTs, only a few years worth would fall into that
category.

The Tech hasn't had a code test for almost 13 years.


Is that a good comparison? The Tech may not have...but what about the Tech+
who, incidentally, has HF privileges and was that the motivating factor or
did they just want a higher class of license. How many Generals and Extras
are out there that upgraded (with or without CW) and don't ever really *use*
their privileges. Remember that the ARRL's interest would also be in having
enough numbers of hams to drive their "use them or lose them" campaigns
(boring as they may be). This, by the way, is also why I believe the ARRL
is not the successful agency it would like to believe it is. It is very
apparent that the ARRL has failed to move past being a welcome mat.


FCC has been renewing Tech Pluses as Techs for 3 years, 8 months and 18
days.
If no rules changes are made, there will not be any Tech Pluses at all in
6
years, 3 months and 13 days from now.


Hmmmm, but I will still have the same privileges as I do as a Tech+. So,
for someone who cares, where's the downside of that? I don't care if I'm
called a Tech or a Tech+--that concept is only important to some but not all
hams--but I do care whether I can get on the radio or not. And the radio I
care to get on is a FM transceiver using 2M predominantly (if at all
because, heck, I haven't been on the radio in over a year).


I would bet that a LOT of the Tech Pluses that existed in April of 2000
are
now
Generals or Extras, rather than having been renewed as Techs with code
credit.

How many is "a lot"? The number of Tech Pluses has dropped by about half
since
April 2000. Some of that drop is due to upgrades. Some of it is due to
dropouts. And some of it is due to renewal as Techs.


I think Carl would find his statement to be false, or closer to false than
truth.


To say that we'd only have 340,000 hams today if all hams were code-tested
is
simply not reasonable.

Here are some numbers:

In order to grow from 350K to 550K in 12 years, the number of newcomers
would
have to be at least 17,000 per year, even if there were no dropouts at
all.

Now let's suppose that the changes of 1991 never happened, and that we
were
still getting only 17,000 new hams per year. And suppose that the dropout
rate
of those 1991 hams from then to the present was 2.5% per year .(average
ham
"career" of 40 years).

Then in the 12 years, we'd have lost about 26% of those who were hams in
1991.
That's a loss of 143,000 hams, bringing the total down to 407,000. We'd
have
gained 204,000 new hams, bringing the total up to 611,000.

That's a long way from 340,000.

73 de Jim, N2EY


I agree, Jim. And, if NCI *and* the ARRL are ever going to change, or even
understand, fluctuations in the numbers and in the numbers of license
classes way more study and analysis needs to be done. Some, in fact, would
be better than none.

Kim W5TIT