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.

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 ...

Regards,
JS

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

N2EY


And, HAPPY NEW YEAR! to you, sir.

Thanks

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

Thnaks again.

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 ...

What do you wonder about?

They are simply the number of licenses in the FCC database.

Of course a certain percentage of amateurs shown in the database
are dead, but their families have not notified FCC of the fact, and
their licenses will stay in the database and in the license counts
until they expire.

And a certain percentage are held by amateurs with health problems
such that they will never again be on the air, yet again their licenses
will stay in the database for years.

And a certain percentage are held by amateurs who, for a variety of
reasons,
have lost interest such that they will never again be on the air, yet
again their licenses
will stay in the database for years.

In the latter two examples, the licensee may renew the license even
though they don't use it. All it takes is a few clicks on the FCC
website, or the proper form, envelope and stamp. A well-meaning friend
or family member could do all the paperwork and simply get the licensee
to sign or OK the renewal, and there's another decade for one license.

So there's an unknown percentage of licenses in those numbers that are
temporarily or permanently inactive, yet they're still counted.

A couple of decades ago, back when the license term was five years, it
was required that the licensee certify that they'd actually used their
amateur license a certain amount, and could still pass the license
tests. All that is long gone.

wrote:
...
What do you wonder about?
They are simply the number of licenses in the FCC database.
...


Well, let me give you an example which I am familiar with:

Take the unemployment figures. Here in california, in past decades (pre
1975?), the numbers of unemployed were based on those who were looking
for work, if you registered as being such--you were counted on the
unemployment roles. Today it is much different.

Today, the unemployment roles ONLY list those who are DRAWING
unemployment. Somehow, these figures are even manipulated to keep the
unemployment rate hovering at, or around, 5%, or 1 in 20.

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 came into knowledge of these figures when I was creating software
utilities to monitor these statistics. The avg. guy in the general
public just sees the 5% figure on the news and thinks it is real ...

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

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

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.

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

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
What do you wonder about?
They are simply the number of licenses in the FCC database.
...

Well, let me give you an example which I am familiar with:

Take the unemployment figures. Here in california, in past decades (pre
1975?), the numbers of unemployed were based on those who were looking
for work, if you registered as being such--you were counted on the
unemployment roles. Today it is much different.

Today, the unemployment roles ONLY list those who are DRAWING
unemployment. Somehow, these figures are even manipulated to keep the
unemployment rate hovering at, or around, 5%, or 1 in 20.

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 came into knowledge of these figures when I was creating software
utilities to monitor these statistics. The avg. guy in the general
public just sees the 5% figure on the news and thinks it is real ...

Of course - what they do is to carefully define what "unemployed" means
so that the numbers aren't too worrisome.

Sounds to me like what is done in CA is to eliminate those who have no
job and have
exhausted their unemployment benefits, those who have no job and have
given up looking,
those who are "underemployed" (say, working part time because it's all
they can find right now)
etc.

There's nothing wrong with defining "unemployed" a certain way *IF* the
definition is clearly
stated so that we know who is included and who isn't.

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.

FCC amateur license figures may be checked by anyone who bothers to
download the database and go through it.

I don't see any way for govt. to manipulate those license figures. The
database contains all current licenses and all licenses in the 2 year
grace period.

---

It's clear why someone would want to report a low unemployment rate -
makes the economy, and the current administration, look good. It's also
clear why someone would want to report a high unemployment rate - makes
the economy, and the current administration, look bad.

But why would someone want to manipulate amateur radio license numbers?
Overstating the numbers would make amateur radio look bigger than it
is, while understating them would make amateur radio look smaller than
it is. Who would benefit?

Right now there are about 655,000 current unexpired FCC-issued licenses
held by individuals. Do you think that number is high or low?