Ham Talk Live! Episode 199 - State of the Hobby Survey

More conjecture. Do you have any evidence that these newer hams are much under 50? In most industries, when you are 50 you still have lots of work years ahead of you before retirement. How do we know the age of these new hams? Where is this info coming from?

 

Then they are, by the international definitions, not radio amateurs.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

It's a switch. You look at their pictures and employment history in LINKEDIN to see: Are they OLDER than 50? Are they YOUNGER than 50? Younger/older than 40? etc.

DO I need to lecture you on this process? On selection and sampling biases, and under-sampling?

If so, get a book. I'm not interested.

 

In the US, if you have a Part 97 license you ARE A RADIO AMATEUR.

Maybe that loses something when translated in Sveedish....

 

In other words, you don't have any evidence, just conjecture.

 

I am sitting on the 'evidence'. I gave you the 'executive summary'. I invite you to see the validity of the conclusions by repeating the process, on a small or larger scale.

I told you the data bases to pursue. Hint: a useful piece of the bases is one of the old Zed CD's with BIRTHDAYS on it. MYLIFE also provides ages, if LINKEDIN proves ambiguous.

IF you can guarantee that I will not be abused, harrassed, or threatened by releasing a full report, then I will gladly release the full report.

Go ask N8RMA if he was harrassed or threatened...I mean really: just look at the BS I've had to deal with, mildly, here!

 

You seem to be hung up on being abused. I have no intention of abusing you, I am just asking how you are arriving at your conclusions. You can't make a claim like this and not expect people to ask questions about how the conclusions were determined.

You could start by explaining what you did, the size of your sample, the methodology, etc. If your sample size is 10 or 50, it may not matter much. If your sample only includes people in a certain industry it may be flawed. There are lots of questions that can be asked about how you did your survey, or evidence gathering.

 

The sample size was 500.

Guarantee as I asked and I will publicly release the survey.

 

I can't make guarantees as to what other people will do, you can send it to me privately if you want. I am not going to abuse you, but I may point out what I perceive as flaws, or I may agree with your conclusions.

The sample size looks good, if done in an appropriate manner.

 

No guarantees= no survey report.

You can go and do it yourself. Takes about 8 hours of work or less. Pretend you are inputting a log in a contest or dxpedition. Easiest if you have linkedin running on one computer, and Zed on another, for example. Use a random number generator to pick FRN's on ULS.

The real question is: why hasn't the ARRL done this already? These data bases are easy to access.

 

But we don't know what you are doing, or how you are compiling your data. The whole process you have described is extremely cryptic, how could I possibly be able to replicate your results if I don't know what you did, or how you did it?

 

Start from scratch. Define your own objective methodology. Define the sampling and selection biases upfront.

And go get a book.

Hint: marketing people do this cross data base stuff all the time.

 

Chip, no evidence, no belief. Sorry, I understand your desire to avoid persecution, but that's not my fault. When you claim something that runs against what most of us believe based on personal experience, then we'd all like to see the evidence. If you can't provide it, you can't provide it. But neither can we provide belief.

 

I have never preached a belief system and am astounding you think I WANT you to believe anything. I am hardly insulted if you don't agree to summaries. But I will not risk the abuse of providing you the report. Maybe you can talk Dustin into doing that analysis. Lots of people understand such simple 'analytics'. Let them give it a crack.

The point is this < 'old man'--'hobby'> coccoon we've espoused is adverse to the reality of who we are and how we are defined. It's kind of like we slipped into this crack and just assumed it always was and will be this way.

That is very,very sad,IMO, with a predictable outcome...Karl got that part right!

 

So it may then be assumed that a large proportion of the US amateur population is intending to use the amateur spectrum for "agency or municipal" purposes and be completely inactive in anticipation of such an event, and still be referred to as "radio amateurs"?

At a recent WRC, such arguments were voiced against expanded amateur spectrum.

One may just hope that the international spectrum regulation communities do not become more aware of these developments.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM