"Who Are We" - Demographics of US Amateur Radio Licensees

With all these technicians that don't upgrade repeaters across the nation are SILENT. When given the numbers they should be very active. This means if there isn't FM activity within their license class there should be a butt-ton more activity outside of FM, which there isn't, or they simply aren't active at all. I'll go with the latter. So then the question is why? Content with where they are? Possibly so, but maybe just don't care for the hobby now that they are in. It's not for everyone. If unhappy with their license class why not upgrade? I'll go with the text in bold above. We live in a world that despises classes or hierarchy of any sort and thirsts for quick and instant gratification. That's a people problem that can't be fixed by VEs or the ARRL.

So then where is the problem that could be fixed with licensing structure? Truth is - there isn't.

 

The problem that can be fixed with changing the license structure is a broken license structure.

It is beyond belief to think Amateur radio licensing is perfect as it is. Is this the kind of licensing we'd get if we started from nothing today? If this is so obviously perfect then we'd see this same kind of licensing all over the world.

The licensing is a relic of the 1940s, and it is well past time to fix it.

 

I know more than a few barely interested people who were encouraged to get their Technician licenses by their public service employers/affiliations, due to the emergency communications aspect of the hobby. They got their licenses to "check the box," so to speak. No interest in the hobby past emcomm.

 

If we adopted a license structure like Canada has then the people that "check the box" would be better prepared for emcomm as they'd have greater access to HF than some data and SSB on 10 meters and some access to CW on other bands that they'd likely never use.

I know we can "encourage" them to upgrade to General but then in an emergency they'd be better equipped by having access to more frequencies. I recall this being an issue with Technician license holders on HF during some hurricane and the FCC waived the restrictions than have to deal with questions on what is an emergency and what is a violation of their operating privileges. I know in an emergency, where life and property is at risk, any means of communication is open so then the question is, why get an Amateur radio license at all? Why not just buy the radio, like some "preppers" do, and don't bother with the license?

The licensing as it is now sets people up to question when they can use given frequencies on HF as there will be debate on if there is an emergency severe enough to operate on HF to offer assistance or to request it. With a license like Canada's Basic license we remove that question, for most situations anyway, we won't need the FCC to waive the limits on licenses in an emergency, and most of all we'd have people that had taken a knowledge test at least at one point in their lives before getting on HF in an emergency.

We have people that get licensed for emcomm that are poorly prepared for emcomm because of the nonsense licensing we have. Maybe we should think of a license structure that has a license for this apparent significant portion of Amateur radio operators. I believe Canada is a model to start from. Their licensing is a bit anachronistic too so we should not have something identical to that. One thing that won't fly with the FCC is allowing demonstration of Morse code knowledge as a means to add privileges. Their use of two levels of a passing score on a test for two levels of privileges won't likely fly either.

One problem with Canada's Basic license is that if we adopted it as is then people with a Technician license now would lose privileges if they got a Basic license, and that would be a disincentive to upgrading. We can grandfather those with Technician to keep the privileges they have, which may work for the FCC. We can force them to decide to stay put, lose privileges at Basic, and only regain them if upgrading to Extra. Or we can just decide to allow Basic to have Technician privileges above 30 MHz but otherwise be like what Canada has. Each option has merit.

I agree with those that say Technician is largely redundant, that we'd be better off if people skip over it to General. But General isn't even all that great for emcomm because it leaves holes in HF privileges that can leave people hesitating to help in an emergency, risk having to defend their actions with the FCC, or end up being "encouraged" to get to Extra. If we do that then why have more than one kind of license? Just have one test, one license, no more sliced and diced band plans, just you have a license with all privileges or you have none.

 

So let me get this straight....People who's special interest is to plan, be equipped, licensed, trained that includes a minimum of 4 FEMA NIMs courses to provide communication in an emergency fail to go forth and get licensed to the appropriate license class to achieve their goal is somehow a problem with license structure? That is a failure to plan and execute!

The license classes as they are fine just as they are. If folks have zero desire to plan, apply themselves or learn in order to gain a bit more knowledge to at least affirm they understand the rules to legally and safely operate a station and the privileges included then they really need to take up a another hobby or be content where they are. If kids under 10 can do it, is there really any excuse? That's just how I feel.

 

So then if kids under 10 can get to Extra then why we need more than one license? Just make one test of 120 questions (or 100, or 150, or whatever) and have a single license equivalent to Extra. We won't call it Extra any more because Extra implies something that it is more than, and with one license or none at all then it's not "extra" any more. We would call it "Amateur Radio Operator Permit" or something.

Why do we need more than one license? If the only way to not fail to plan and execute is to have Extra, so as not to leave some portion of the bands inaccessible, then why even leave anything else an option?

If the argument is that someone can operate any frequency in an emergency then these emcomm operators don't even need a license. If the goal is to have people practice on the air, and General is the minimum for that, then why bother with Extra since in an emergency they'd use that band space anyway? If they practiced for all bands, all modes, but just not these tiny slivers, then why keep those tiny slivers reserved for Extra? Maybe keep Extra for being a VE but why keep General from operating on any HF frequency allotted to the Amateur radio service?

I keep seeing people argue how these people should upgrade, and failure to do so is a failure of them to plan, train, learn, or whatever, so why leave open the option for Technician in the future? I'd think people that believe current Technician license holders to be lazy, or somehow otherwise lacking in character, would jump at the idea to close the door to more of them in the future.

Oh, right, it would take years for the FCC to work through the process, so we should just accept these under performers into Amateur radio. But then that's the problem, isn't it? They are not being accepted. They get treated like second class citizens unless or until they reach General. Okay then, why not start the process of closing that door so more don't come in? If people are no longer considered lazy and ignorant once at General then why not allow then all the same frequency privileges as Extra?

I'm getting mixed signals here. On one hand I'm told nothing is wrong, but on the other is this need to get them to start out at General. So, why not petition the FCC to no longer issue Technician licenses?

 

Sorry to say but world wide the radioamateur lisence doesnt value anymore like in the past in order to not make our hobby dieing. Wrong decision been tken. The examination should be more difficult. We not need many we need quality

 

why is that a problem?

 

Exactly.

Despite what Stalin once said, "quantity is a quality by itself", amateur radio is intended to form an elite. Should amateur radio be started "from scratch" today, it would be completely impossible to obtain the privileges that we currently enjoy, only thanks to our predecessors.

Also, it seems obvious that the root causes behind the decline of amateur radio are structural. I just compared age profiles from 1990 to 2022, and found that the median age of amateurs here has almost doubled from 1989 to today, and the percentage of "youngsters" (29 and b8elow) has shrunk from about 18 % to 5 %.

This is despite removal of the minimum age limits and licence fees, three decades of "youth programmes", removal of the Morse requirement and a general dilution of exam standards.

So, it seems that making it easier and cheaper to become a radio amateur does not attract any more people, and has resulted in the exact opposite.

Unfortunately, it has now become far too late to restore the former elite status. The regulators have looked closely into contemporary amateur radio, and they are not pleased of what they have seen.

73/
Karl-Arne
SM0AOM

 

I don't believe you. I believe you you think that there is a quality vs. quantity issue in Amateur radio but your inability to articulate what qualities are lacking shows this is a lie. You don't want fewer higher quality Amateur radio operators, you just want fewer Amateur radio operators. The FCC has been petitioned many times to make it more difficult to get licensed, so as to get fewer licensed Amateurs of higher quality, but the FCC response has been the same every time. If there is no specificity on what qualities are lacking then there is nothing the FCC, or anyone for that matter, can do to resolve it. Further, the FCC gave Amateurs the ability to define the material on the tests for a very long time, this means if there is a problem with the testing then the FCC need not be involved to resolve it.

SM0AOM makes a similar complaint.

You complain and complain about Amateur radio being irrelevant and on a death spiral, yet you are still here. If Amateur radio is dead to you then why not just walk away? Someone offers a means to keep Amateur radio relevant and you come in to defecate all over the idea as pointless. You don't have to go away mad, just go away.

 

I figured this was self explanatory. Without people with technical interests sharing their knowledge, ham radio stagnates. The best example of someone contributing back to the hobby from your country is Jonathan Naylor G4KLX.

 

Ham radio is stagnating - as is being demonstrated by the stuff in this thread

access to bands is not necessarily an incentive unless the band you want to access is one that comes with a higher licence class ...

also given the way in which the US tech licence is structured if your interests lay in VHF/ UHF/SHF there is no incentive to upgrade - as you have full power and the autorisation to build transmitters in those parts of the band plan |

someone said the UK licence powerr limits wouldn;t work in the USA - funnily enough there are FOundation holders whomake very good DX by choosing QTH/ antenna and the like well ( the power limits in the UK are mainly Feedpoint power limits ' and where it;s EIRP or ERP that is clearly noted - the Irish have that same 400 w limit on their full licence but it's 'back of the set' not feedpoint ( this confuses people sometimes as ' if the power limit is 400 w , why do peopel in the UK have KW amps - leaving aside the benefits of under driving , if you are lucky enough to have a cuople of hundreed foot feeder ... )

 

Thank you. I'm seeing people go into fits if anyone dares suggest we need an update to the Amateur radio licensing, and I find it difficult to imagine why. I ask, "If we started from nothing today is this what licensing would look like?" The usual response is that if we started from nothing then Amateur radio would not exist. While true that doesn't answer the question. This is not what licensing would look like if we started from nothing today. We have a mashup of differing ideas on what licensing should be from over the decades but nobody stopped long enough in these patches on patches to put in lasting and logical changes. This is going to have to happen at some point. I'd just rather it happen before any more stagnation sets in.

 

clean sheet approach

likely to give 2 -4 levels of licence main incentive being power and whole band access rather than the mess that in the US band plan

exactly what the power levles will depend to some extent on the situation in the country / region in question - i.e. just becasue the UK foundation is 10 w at the feedpoint it doesn;t mean everywhere i ntheworld has to be 10 w at the feedpoint for their entry levle licence - equally you could have different power levels for different bands ( as we know therei s diminishing returens with more power in VHF and UHF where height and therefor horizon plus gain ( via directionality or doughnot squashing) actually make the difference

the closest to clean sheet seems to be what happened in the UK when it went to the current three teir system especially as the CW r for HF requirement went at the same sort of time

 

wow..this talk about technicians reminds me of the psychiatrist who became so far advanced he came down the other side and needed treatment himself...hee heei know of persons who memorized the extra in 3 days with no prior experience....what!!!..more to come on this....ole tech w4kla