| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
December 10th 03, 03:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Expirations in 2004
The calendar year 2004 has a considerable
amount of expirations...well above a normal distribution which would have been about 1/10th of existing hams...or about 63K. The actual future expiratons data from the Joe Speroni web site is over 84K expirations with two months showing very high numbers... almost 11K in May and over 17K in July. Will be interesting to watch the renewal results. Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#2
December 10th 03, 10:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net...
The calendar year 2004 has a considerable amount of expirations...well above a normal distribution which would have been about 1/10th of existing hams...or about 63K. Don't you mean "about 68K", Bill? The actual future expiratons data from the Joe Speroni web site is over 84K expirations with two months showing very high numbers... almost 11K in May and over 17K in July. Didn't FCC change the vanity call rules right about then? If so, it would explain the spike because getting a vanity call causes an automatic renewal regardless of the 90 day rule (so FCC doesn't have to pro-rate the fee, IIUC) Will be interesting to watch the renewal results. Yep! Further clouded by the 90 days before/2 years after rules. If someone is a little late renewing, they show up as an expiration. 73 de Jim, N2EY |
|
#3
December 11th 03, 11:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"N2EY" wrote in message Didn't FCC change the vanity call rules right about then? No, IIRC Gate 1 of the vanity program opened in May or June of 1996. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
#4
December 12th 03, 05:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"KØHB" wrote in
ink.net: "N2EY" wrote in message Didn't FCC change the vanity call rules right about then? No, IIRC Gate 1 of the vanity program opened in May or June of 1996. 73, de Hans, K0HB No-code started in '92. I would expect a bump in renewals falling due from last year onwards. |
|
#5
December 12th 03, 07:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, N2EY wrote:
"Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... The calendar year 2004 has a considerable amount of expirations...well above a normal distribution which would have been about 1/10th of existing hams...or about 63K. Don't you mean "about 68K", Bill? More like 73K.... The actual future expiratons data from the Joe Speroni web site is over 84K expirations with two months showing very high numbers... almost 11K in May and over 17K in July. Didn't FCC change the vanity call rules right about then? If so, it would explain the spike because getting a vanity call causes an automatic renewal regardless of the 90 day rule (so FCC doesn't have to pro-rate the fee, IIUC) That's going to be the 2006 problem. Will be interesting to watch the renewal results. Yep! Further clouded by the 90 days before/2 years after rules. If someone is a little late renewing, they show up as an expiration. What's more interesting is the count of those whose licenses expire WITHOUT them also having expired (i.e. those who DON'T renew, as opposed to those who can't). |
|
#6
December 12th 03, 07:16 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Alun wrote:
"K=D8HB" wrote in ink.net: "N2EY" wrote in message Didn't FCC change the vanity call rules right about then? No, IIRC Gate 1 of the vanity program opened in May or June of 1996. 73, de Hans, K0HB No-code started in '92. I would expect a bump in renewals falling due fro= m last year onwards. Wrong. Try getting your facts straight: Testing change: 2/14/1991. First no-code license issued 4/12/1991. |
|
#7
December 12th 03, 02:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Stussy" wrote in
. org: On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Alun wrote: "KØHB" wrote in ink.net: "N2EY" wrote in message Didn't FCC change the vanity call rules right about then? No, IIRC Gate 1 of the vanity program opened in May or June of 1996. 73, de Hans, K0HB No-code started in '92. I would expect a bump in renewals falling due from last year onwards. Wrong. Try getting your facts straight: Testing change: 2/14/1991. First no-code license issued 4/12/1991. I see, December '91 instead of some time in '92. Not exactly a huge error, is it? The first batch were all people who had taken the theory tests at Anne Arundel ARC before no-code licences were actually introduced, and so were ready to go when it came in. I think you may find that those six people had the only no-code licences issued in the US in '91! |
|
#8
December 12th 03, 05:13 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Alun" wrote I think you may find that those six people had the only no-code licences issued in the US in '91! Hardly! The first ones were issued in April of 91, and they issued somewhat more than 6 Tech license in the next 8 months. 73, de Hans, K0HB |
|
#9
December 12th 03, 08:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org... On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, N2EY wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... The calendar year 2004 has a considerable amount of expirations...well above a normal distribution which would have been about 1/10th of existing hams...or about 63K. Don't you mean "about 68K", Bill? More like 73K.... I think Jim has it correct. The existing ham base is 683K, so an even distribution of those license renewals over a 10 year span would net 68K renewals per year...if they were evenly distributed. The actual future expiratons data from the Joe Speroni web site is over 84K expirations with two months showing very high numbers... almost 11K in May and over 17K in July. Didn't FCC change the vanity call rules right about then? If so, it would explain the spike because getting a vanity call causes an automatic renewal regardless of the 90 day rule (so FCC doesn't have to pro-rate the fee, IIUC) That's going to be the 2006 problem. Will be interesting to watch the renewal results. Yep! Further clouded by the 90 days before/2 years after rules. If someone is a little late renewing, they show up as an expiration. What's more interesting is the count of those whose licenses expire WITHOUT them also having expired (i.e. those who DON'T renew, as opposed to those who can't). How can you tell the difference? Cheers, Bill K2UNK |
|
#10
December 13th 03, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"D. Stussy" wrote in message . org... On Wed, 10 Dec 2003, N2EY wrote: "Bill Sohl" wrote in message link.net... The calendar year 2004 has a considerable amount of expirations...well above a normal distribution which would have been about 1/10th of existing hams...or about 63K. Don't you mean "about 68K", Bill? More like 73K.... The actual future expiratons data from the Joe Speroni web site is over 84K expirations with two months showing very high numbers... almost 11K in May and over 17K in July. Didn't FCC change the vanity call rules right about then? If so, it would explain the spike because getting a vanity call causes an automatic renewal regardless of the 90 day rule (so FCC doesn't have to pro-rate the fee, IIUC) That's going to be the 2006 problem. Will be interesting to watch the renewal results. Yep! Further clouded by the 90 days before/2 years after rules. If someone is a little late renewing, they show up as an expiration. What's more interesting is the count of those whose licenses expire WITHOUT them also having expired (i.e. those who DON'T renew, as opposed to those who can't). Actually if you go to the FCC database and sort for expired licenses, those that have lapsed but are in the grace period will not show up as expired. So there is a two year lag between the actual expiration date and when they are marked as expired in the database. Dee D. Flint, N8UZE |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
