John Smith I wrote:
...

I have a bad habit of leaving out words, darn it!

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


I should have stuck, "what " in between "So, " and "you"--but you
already knew that ...

Regards,
JS

"John Smith I" wrote in message
...
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!"


No that is not what I said. I said anyone can cross check the data on their
own. None of us has to settle for someone else's interpretation.


Dee, N8UZE

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?

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...

Len:

Ever see the movie "Die Hard?"

Yes, good action film...

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

NO WAY! Miccolis could NEVER equal the performance of
Alan Rickman as "Hans Gruber!"

Well, maybe Heil could if he had lost many pounds...

John, I'm taking you off the list of guest hosts on Ebert & Roeper.
:-(


Film at eleven...
LA

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 21:22:20 -0800, John Smith I
wrote:

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!"

No, what she's saying, in effect, is that the Major League Baseball
Players' Association (for example) doesn't bother keeping track of the
license data because they couldn't possibly care less. The FCC and we
hams are the only people who are interested in the data at all. :-)

John Kasupski, KC2HMZ

wrote:
...
John, I'm taking you off the list of guest hosts on Ebert & Roeper.
:-(


Film at eleven...
LA


Len:



Regards,
JS sly grin

John Smith I wrote:
wrote:
...
John, I'm taking you off the list of guest hosts on Ebert & Roeper.
:-(

Film at eleven...
LA

Len:



OK, make that phlegm at eleven...

Koff, koff, wink

LA

Jeff: now that's funnyL.O.L. And I'll second that!!!!

Just one of those pesky old soon to be New Bee.
I wonder what my new number will be/??????
Jimmie the 52" year old New Bee

"Jeffrey Herman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
we do which is why we want to end the dummbing by ending the mode
welfare that exists in it

And with that, I propose a mandatory test for internet privileges.

No 73 for you,
Jeff KH6O


--
*Chief Petty Officer, U.S. Coast Guard, Dept. of Homeland Security*
*Mathematics Lecturer, University of Hawaii System*

These are the numbers of current, unexpired
amateur radio licenses held by individuals
on the stated dates, and the percentage of
the total number of active licenses that
class contains:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329 (7.3%)
Technician - 205,394 (30.4%)
Technician Plus - 128,860 (19.1%)
General - 112,677 (16.7%)
Advanced - 99,782 (14.8%)
Extra - 78,750 (11.7%)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254 (49.5%)

Total General/Advanced/Extra - 291,209 (43.2%)

Total all classes - 674,792

As of January 15, 2007:

Novice - 23,423 (3.6%) [decrease of 25,906]
Technician - 290,646 (44.4%) [increase of 85,252]
Technician Plus - 32,321 (4.9%) [decrease of 96,539]
General - 130,825 (20.0%) [increase of 18,148]
Advanced - 69,651 (10.6%) [decrease of 30,131]
Extra - 108,219 (16.5%) [increase of 29,469]

(percentages may not add up to exactly 100.0% due to rounding)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 322,967 (49.3%) [decrease of 11,287]

Total General/Advanced/Extra - 308,695 (47.1%) [increase of 17,486]

Total all classes - 655,085 (decrease of 19,707)

Note that these totals do not include licenses
that have expired but are in the grace period.

They also do not include club, military
or other station-only licenses.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new
Novice, Technician Plus and Advanced licenses
are no longer issued.

Since April 15, 2000, FCC has renewed all existing
Technician Plus licenses as Technician. By May of
2010, the number of Technician Plus licenses will drop
to zero, because all of them will have been renewed as
Technician or allowed to expire. It is therefore
informative to consider the totals of the two classes,
since the Technician class includes a significant
number of Technician Plus licenses renewed as
Technician.

73 de Jim, N2EY

These are the numbers of current, unexpired FCC-issued
amateur radio licenses held by individuals on the stated dates,
and the percentage of the total number of active licenses that
class contains:

As of May 14, 2000:

Novice - 49,329 (7.3%)
Technician - 205,394 (30.4%)
Technician Plus - 128,860 (19.1%)
General - 112,677 (16.7%)
Advanced - 99,782 (14.8%)
Extra - 78,750 (11.7%)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 334,254 (49.5%)

Total General/Advanced/Extra - 291,209 (43.2%)

Total all classes - 674,792

As of February 1, 2007:

Novice - 23,298 (3.6%) [decrease of 26,031]
Technician - 291,992 (44.5%) [increase of 86,598]
Technician Plus - 31,728 (4.8%) [decrease of 97,132]
General - 130,671 (19.9%) [increase of 17,994]
Advanced - 69,441 (10.6%) [decrease of 30,341]
Extra - 108,389 (16.5%) [increase of 29,639]

(percentages may not add up to exactly 100.0% due to rounding)

Total Tech/TechPlus - 323,720 (49.4%) [decrease of 10,534]

Total General/Advanced/Extra - 308,501 (47.1%) [increase of 17,292]

Total all classes - 655,519 (decrease of 19,273)

Note that these totals do not include licenses
that have expired but are in the grace period.

They also do not include club, military
or other station-only licenses.

Note also that effective April 15, 2000, new
Novice, Technician Plus and Advanced licenses
are no longer issued.

Since April 15, 2000, FCC has renewed all existing
Technician Plus licenses as Technician. By May of
2010, the number of Technician Plus licenses should drop
to zero, because all of them will have been renewed as
Technician or allowed to expire. It is therefore
informative to consider the totals of the two classes,
since the Technician class includes a significant
number of Technician Plus licenses renewed as
Technician.

73 de Jim, N2EY