John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
Happy New Year!

N2EY


And, HAPPY NEW YEAR! to you, sir.

Don't get me wrong. You do us a service by posting these figures.

Anyone can access www.ah0a.org or www.hamdata.com
and get similar figures.

Hmmm. You may, indeed, have more faith in the FCC figures than I do.
However, I do not dispute the figures.

Only wonder about them ...

Don't DARE even wonder about them! If Jimmie
posted them they are sacrosanct, without error!

Challenge him and you may wind up being "asked why"
you asked seven years from now! And, to boot, having
your "motivation" challenged! :-)

LA

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...



However, if you take into account all who are looking for work AND those
drawing unemployment, that figure becomes closer to 1 in 5.

I am highly suspicious that those amateur statistics may be manipulated
in much the same way--although I have no figures here to the contrary of
what is listed or even why such manipulations would be done ... I just
have a naturally suspicious nature ... been burnt by my gov't one to
many times.

Regards,

JS

I am familiar with the saying "figures don't lie,but liers can
figure.And I can believe what
you say about the unemployment figures being suspicious. The pols
certainly have plenty to gain by keeping those figures low. But what
would be the point of skewing the amateur
statistics. I don't understand what the payoff would be to manipulate
them on purpose.
I admit when talking about numbers and stats I tend to have bouts of
dumb attacks.
73
KC9IRR

sapper wrote:

I am familiar with the saying "figures don't lie,but liers can
figure.And I can believe what
you say about the unemployment figures being suspicious. The pols
certainly have plenty to gain by keeping those figures low. But what
would be the point of skewing the amateur
statistics. I don't understand what the payoff would be to manipulate
them on purpose.
I admit when talking about numbers and stats I tend to have bouts of
dumb attacks.
73
KC9IRR


Sorry about that. Didn't mean for my paranoia to be catching ...

I am just looking about for means to double check these figures.
Supposed to work that way, I think, we should be looking over the gov'ts
shoulder--just to keep 'em honest, mind you!

The reason why they would skew figures? I really can't point a finger
at anything.

Like I say, I remember when YOU COULD trust your gov't, times have
changed ...

Warmest regards,
JS

146 From: John Smith I - view profile
Date: Tues, Jan 2 2007 6:15 am
Email: JohnFrom: John Smith I on Tues, Jan 2 2007 6:15 am

sapper wrote:
I am familiar with the saying "figures don't lie,but liers can
figure.And I can believe what
you say about the unemployment figures being suspicious. The pols
certainly have plenty to gain by keeping those figures low. But what
would be the point of skewing the amateur
statistics. I don't understand what the payoff would be to manipulate
them on purpose.
I admit when talking about numbers and stats I tend to have bouts of
dumb attacks.
73
KC9IRR

Sorry about that. Didn't mean for my paranoia to be catching ...

Double-checking the government isn't "paranoia." It's
just a means for concerned citizens to be alert and
aware. Most citizens don't give a damn as long as they can
gripe and moan about "the government" doing nasty; few of
those ever try to DO anything to make it "good."

I am just looking about for means to double check these figures.
Supposed to work that way, I think, we should be looking over the gov'ts
shoulder--just to keep 'em honest, mind you!

Anyone can freely access the FCC amateur radio databases over
the Internet. There are two flavors: Weekly and Daily. The
weekly Zip files are found at:

http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/data/complete/l-amat.zip

Note: If it were capitalized, the file would be "L-AMAT.ZIP"

Beware on SIZE. In checking today (2 Jan 07), the weekly
file for 31 Dec 06 was 80.1 MB in size! The weekly
Applications file for 1 Jan 07 was 87.7 MB. If you have
only dial-up service it will take hours at 56K rate.
One needs DSL or faster to save time.

The records fields are explained by the FCC for delimiters
and content and abbreviations. To make a searchable text
file suitable for sorting is a fairly easy programming
task even for beginning computer programmers.

The reason why they would skew figures? I really can't point a finger
at anything.

Not a problem for me. :-) Case in point for amateur
radio is Joseph Speroni, AH0A, an obvious pro-code
proponent. Speroni boosts the use of "CW" on his
website www.ah0a.org and allows free download of a code
cognition training program, "Morse Academy."

Speroni's "statistics" have always been slanted to
showing code testing in the best possible light and
downgrading the no-code-test class. That happened on
the release of NPRM 98-143 regarding amateur radio
restructuring. A search of FCC Petitions and Comments
for same will show that Speroni has made several
Petitions and many comments to retain the code test,
all of the Petitions eventually rejected by the FCC
in following Reports and Orders.

At this point, be aware that Miccolis will be
champing at the bit in regards to the Speroni
description above. He will - undoubtedly - be writing
"that is plain and simply wrong" even though the
observations I gave are quite obvious to any reader.

A more honest set of statistics is provided by
www.hamdata.com which apparently has no preconceived
bias or mode favoritism. Maybe.

Like I say, I remember when YOU COULD trust your gov't, times have
changed ...

Ahhhh...in seeing all kinds of "statistics" put out
by everyone from non-government individuals to market
companies over the last 50 years, I'll put the onus
on not trusting the non-government statistics. One of
the more blatant stats compilers, Neilsen (on TV
viewership), is questionable based on their very low
sampling rate. However, those figures (bought and
paid for by broadcasters) don't seem to be questioned
in regards to new programs or cancellations of
programs. They don't have larger sample sizes for
more accurate figures because that increases their
cost and that reduces their profit margin. Neilsen
and their contemporaries are selling a PRODUCT (the
"statistics") and want to maximize ROI. Those TV
"stats" companies have managed to convince buyers
(and the general public) into believing they are
absolutely "honest" and "accurate." AS IF... :-)

Insofar as amateur radio data, the FCC ULS is pretty
complete and its not that hard to search individuals'
data. The only problem is the massive file size of
the single databases. Prior to the ULS the FCC had
smaller, regional databases which could, with lots of
time on-line, download at 2.4K rates.

Note: There are weekly and daily and quarterly data-
bases on over two dozen other radio services and
special radio service groups also available for free
(if one has high-rate connections).

Informationally yours,
LA

wrote:

Yanno Len, there is much in what you posted here, give me a bit to
digest it ...

But, what I am looking for is "someone" else keeping, or claiming
figures/records, not gov't, not pro-coders, not anti-coders ...

Warmest regards,
JS

146 From: John Smith I - view profile
Date: Tues, Jan 2 2007 6:15 am
Email: JohnFrom: John Smith I on Tues, Jan 2 2007 6:15 am

sapper wrote:
I am familiar with the saying "figures don't lie,but liers can
figure.And I can believe what
you say about the unemployment figures being suspicious. The pols
certainly have plenty to gain by keeping those figures low. But what
would be the point of skewing the amateur
statistics. I don't understand what the payoff would be to manipulate
them on purpose.
I admit when talking about numbers and stats I tend to have bouts of
dumb attacks.
73
KC9IRR
Sorry about that. Didn't mean for my paranoia to be catching ...

Double-checking the government isn't "paranoia." It's
just a means for concerned citizens to be alert and
aware. Most citizens don't give a damn as long as they can
gripe and moan about "the government" doing nasty; few of
those ever try to DO anything to make it "good."

I am just looking about for means to double check these figures.
Supposed to work that way, I think, we should be looking over the gov'ts
shoulder--just to keep 'em honest, mind you!

Anyone can freely access the FCC amateur radio databases over
the Internet. There are two flavors: Weekly and Daily. The
weekly Zip files are found at:

http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/data/complete/l-amat.zip

Note: If it were capitalized, the file would be "L-AMAT.ZIP"

Beware on SIZE. In checking today (2 Jan 07), the weekly
file for 31 Dec 06 was 80.1 MB in size! The weekly
Applications file for 1 Jan 07 was 87.7 MB. If you have
only dial-up service it will take hours at 56K rate.
One needs DSL or faster to save time.

The records fields are explained by the FCC for delimiters
and content and abbreviations. To make a searchable text
file suitable for sorting is a fairly easy programming
task even for beginning computer programmers.

The reason why they would skew figures? I really can't point a finger
at anything.

Not a problem for me. :-) Case in point for amateur
radio is Joseph Speroni, AH0A, an obvious pro-code
proponent. Speroni boosts the use of "CW" on his
website www.ah0a.org and allows free download of a code
cognition training program, "Morse Academy."

Speroni's "statistics" have always been slanted to
showing code testing in the best possible light and
downgrading the no-code-test class. That happened on
the release of NPRM 98-143 regarding amateur radio
restructuring. A search of FCC Petitions and Comments
for same will show that Speroni has made several
Petitions and many comments to retain the code test,
all of the Petitions eventually rejected by the FCC
in following Reports and Orders.

At this point, be aware that Miccolis will be
champing at the bit in regards to the Speroni
description above. He will - undoubtedly - be writing
"that is plain and simply wrong" even though the
observations I gave are quite obvious to any reader.

A more honest set of statistics is provided by
www.hamdata.com which apparently has no preconceived
bias or mode favoritism. Maybe.

Like I say, I remember when YOU COULD trust your gov't, times have
changed ...

Ahhhh...in seeing all kinds of "statistics" put out
by everyone from non-government individuals to market
companies over the last 50 years, I'll put the onus
on not trusting the non-government statistics. One of
the more blatant stats compilers, Neilsen (on TV
viewership), is questionable based on their very low
sampling rate. However, those figures (bought and
paid for by broadcasters) don't seem to be questioned
in regards to new programs or cancellations of
programs. They don't have larger sample sizes for
more accurate figures because that increases their
cost and that reduces their profit margin. Neilsen
and their contemporaries are selling a PRODUCT (the
"statistics") and want to maximize ROI. Those TV
"stats" companies have managed to convince buyers
(and the general public) into believing they are
absolutely "honest" and "accurate." AS IF... :-)

Insofar as amateur radio data, the FCC ULS is pretty
complete and its not that hard to search individuals'
data. The only problem is the massive file size of
the single databases. Prior to the ULS the FCC had
smaller, regional databases which could, with lots of
time on-line, download at 2.4K rates.

Note: There are weekly and daily and quarterly data-
bases on over two dozen other radio services and
special radio service groups also available for free
(if one has high-rate connections).

Informationally yours,
LA

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...

[snip]


But, what I am looking for is "someone" else keeping, or claiming
figures/records, not gov't, not pro-coders, not anti-coders ...


These are the only people even interested in the data. The only entity that
has the original records is the government. Everyone can download the raw
data. Thus anyone who wants to can cross check the information presented.
I've no issue with anyone's presentation so long as they clearly define what
was included and excluded and why.

Dee, N8UZE

wrote:
146 From: John Smith I - view profile
Date: Tues, Jan 2 2007 6:15 am
Email: JohnFrom: John Smith I on Tues, Jan 2 2007 6:15 am

The reason why they would skew figures? I really can't point a finger
at anything.

Not a problem for me. :-) Case in point for amateur
radio is Joseph Speroni, AH0A, an obvious pro-code
proponent. Speroni boosts the use of "CW" on his
website www.ah0a.org and allows free download of a code
cognition training program, "Morse Academy."

Nothing wrong with that.

Speroni's "statistics" have always been slanted to
showing code testing in the best possible light and
downgrading the no-code-test class.

How?

Exactly how can the number of licenses be "slanted" to show any testing
in a good or bad light?

That happened on
the release of NPRM 98-143 regarding amateur radio
restructuring. A search of FCC Petitions and Comments
for same will show that Speroni has made several
Petitions and many comments to retain the code test,
all of the Petitions eventually rejected by the FCC
in following Reports and Orders.

Does posting license numbers somehow bar the person posting them
from his Constitutional right of free speech?

It seems to me that what you are saying, Len, is just a version
of the old ad-hominem fallacy. What you are saying is that
a pro-code person's numbers cannot be accurate, even though
you have absolutely no evidence that they're not 100% accurate.

A more honest set of statistics is provided by
www.hamdata.com which apparently has no preconceived
bias or mode favoritism. Maybe.

Exactly how can the number of licenses be "slanted" to show any testing
in a good or bad light?

The hamdata.com numbers are derived from the same FCC database as the
AH0A numbers and the ones I post.

The big difference is that the hamdata.com numbers include current
unexpired licenses *and* licenses that are expired but still in the 2
year grace period. They also include club, military and other
station-only licenses.

The numbers I post do not include expired licenses that are in the
grace period, nor club, military and other station-only numbers. This
is done so that the numbers indicate how many
currently-licensed-by-FCC amateurs are out there - just as is explained
in the postings I make with the numbers.

The AH0A numbers are derived by methods explained on the website.
www.ah0a.org

All three sets of numbers are equally accurate *IF* you know and keep
in mind what they
include and exclude.


Insofar as amateur radio data, the FCC ULS is pretty
complete and its not that hard to search individuals'
data. The only problem is the massive file size of
the single databases. Prior to the ULS the FCC had
smaller, regional databases which could, with lots of
time on-line, download at 2.4K rates.

Don't you have a connection faster than dialup, Len? Even I don't use
dialup anymore.

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:

Yanno Len, there is much in what you posted here, give me a bit to
digest it ...

But, what I am looking for is "someone" else keeping, or claiming
figures/records, not gov't, not pro-coders, not anti-coders ...

But, but, but...we're still morally obligated to that good old
Latin phrase: Quis custodiet, ipsos custodes. (more or less,
been a lonnnng time since my Latin classes).
Translated to English: "Who watches the watchers?"

Not to worry...ALL pro-coders are implicitly 'honest.' It is those
nasty, evil NCTAs who are the trouble-makers! :-)
[according to "informed sources"]

LA

Dee Flint wrote:
"John Smith I" wrote in message
...

[snip]

But, what I am looking for is "someone" else keeping, or claiming
figures/records, not gov't, not pro-coders, not anti-coders ...


These are the only people even interested in the data. The only entity that
has the original records is the government. Everyone can download the raw
data. Thus anyone who wants to can cross check the information presented.
I've no issue with anyone's presentation so long as they clearly define what
was included and excluded and why.

Dee, N8UZE



So, you say, in effect is, "We are GOD (meaning the "good 'ole boys"),
look no further!"

See Dee, that is what I am pointing out to you, those people who have
taken you "ear as hostage" can't be trusted.

Naaa. The real world is hardly ever the way people would present it to 'ya.

But then, I warned 'ya, I believe in conspiracies--and for good reason!,
I construct some of my own ... but I DON'T believe 'em, don't believe
others--if you do anything, construct your own, or are you?

Warmest regards,
JS

wrote:
...

Len:

Ever see the movie "Die Hard?"

Too bad they didn't hear about N2EY, from his performance here, he would
have been a much better actor for that role ...

Regards,
JS