AmateurRadio.com

This is the final installment on my analysis of the RAC Survey 2021 on Canadian amateur operators. The previous article examined RF power reported by this national sample of ham operators. The other shoe on power use is the prospect of gain residing in the antenna used for transmitting. I begin with the HF through six-meter results for the basic antenna type used by Canadian hams. Figure 1 contains these results.

Just shy of two-thirds (62%) report a single-element antenna. The common dipole is an example of such an antenna. This is not a surprising result per se. The dipole antenna is often the first antenna described in license examination material. It is also the most frequent first-time build antenna for most new ham licensees. These results illustrate how the single element antenna serves the HF and six-meter frequencies well even today.

Multi-element arrays, most always having both gain and direction, are used by almost one-third (31%). For this frequency region, most are of the Yagi-Uda type, although there are wire beams as well as phased verticals, too. In results not shown, I examined whether multi-element array antennas on these bands are related to DXing or Contesting activities. They are in both. DXers and contest operators about about twice as likely to report typical use of multiple-element arrays than those who do not participate in these activities.

The magnetic loop is reported in use on HF by about 8 percent in this survey. This antenna design for the HF and six-meter bands is available for homebrew construction with many plans available. But it is also readily available from several commercial manufacturers. Putting a number on the share of hams reporting they use it for transmitting and receiving on HF tells us something about this type of design, which is known to have a high Q coefficient as well as lower noise than the single wire antenna. I examined the results by province, age group, and whether DXers or contest ops were more or less likely to use magnetic loops but do not present the results here. There were no appreciable differences regarding magnetic loop use in those groups of respondents.

Turning now to antennas used in the VHF and UHF bands, Figure 2 shows that the vertical antenna is almost ubiquitous. Three-fourths (77%) use a vertical antenna on these bands. About one-fifth (19%) use a multi-element array, with either a horizontal or vertical polarization. This is likely a Yagi beam design but others are possible. Only a handful say they use a single-element horizontal antenna on these bands.

It is reasonable to assume that most of the multi-element array designs are used for DXing or Contesting or both. As was the case with the HF bands, the use of multi-element arrays for the VHF and UHF bands were about twice as high (40% or so vs 20% or so) as for hams who say they do not do those activities.
Only a small fraction of hams operating in the VHF or UHF frequencies say they use a horizontal single-element antenna. It is likely that the mobile use of these bands may deter an alternative polarization if the operator is at a fixed location.

Heading now to the microwave bands, we noted in a previous article on this blog a small group using higher power levels for transmission. But power in watts is not readily necessary on these bands due to the higher gain often realized in the antennas used. Figure 3 illustrates the distribution of antenna gain (dBi) reported by amateur operators. While a small portion use antennas with less than 5 dBi gain, the median figure is about 22 dBi. Some say they have very high gain of over 40 dBi which makes even small power in watts effectively “high power” on the bands.

These antennas are typically designed to be much physically smaller than those used on lower frequencies. This provides a potential for more accessible use. However, the dangers of a very high effective power rating (power in watts plus antenna gain) can actually work against this flexibility. As manufacturers release more commercial equipment for these varying microwave frequency bands, it is likely that the numbers of amateur operators will dip their toes into the microwave bands. This survey only captures a small number of them because their relative share of the population is small.

This concludes this article series. The full report is available in PDF format at my FoxMikeHotel.com website here.

Results from the RAC 2021 Survey

In this brief article, I focus on how much transmit power is typically used on the HF and microwave bands. Survey respondents were asked about what they consider “typical” usage although these settings can certainly be different at any given operation. The results do give the reader a picture of how amplifiers are used on these two broad segments of band allocations by Canadian ham operators.

In Figure 1 (click for larger image), the maximum power used to transmit on 160-6 meters is displayed in a pie chart. Although many may not agree that 10 watts is QRP power, we are using that convention here. About three-fourths of the survey respondents say they use between 10 and 150 watts in a typical transmission. This is a wide gap in RF power. However, it is a range that places operators between QRP and what many of today’s HF transceivers will output. Some 17 percent use over 150 watts, perhaps up to their license limit. Only 7 percent report that they use QRP levels at less than 10 watts. These responses are not contingent on the mode of transmission.

Turning to the VHF and UHF bands, Figure 2 summarizes the typical power used in Canada. A similar pattern occurs as in HF and six-meter operation. Just under three-fourths (71%) use between 10-150 watts on a regular basis. A small slice, some 2 percent, report over 150 watts. About one-fourth (27%) say that less than 10 watts is what they typically use in these bands.

In both HF and the VHF/UHF frequency bands, only a small proportion say they use amplifiers to reach over the 150-watt RF power mark. There is a small but notable share using what we’ve termed QRP levels in HF (7%). A decidedly larger share use above QRP levels in VHF or UHF bands (27%). For many hams, this is very understandable, given the most popular band of 2 Meters (92%). But operations on HF using a 10-watt definition of QRP are much smaller.

The power utilized in the microwave bands reflects a very different picture. Figure 3 displays two box plots to illustrate. As shown in previous articles on this blog, microwave band usage is a niche activity within Canadian ham radio. Fewer than 10 percent report any activity but these spent quite a bit of time on these frequencies. Likewise, the boxplot in the left panel of Figure 3 illustrates the small number of microwave aficionados who use high power. (This is power in watts without consideration of antenna gain.)

In the right panel, I’ve reproduced the left-hand panel’s data in watts into a logged form to allow readers to more closely see the lower power portion of the distribution. The log of the power in watts places less emphasis in the smaller frequencies at the extreme power levels. The average power usage is 40 watts with a majority under 100 watts of power. This is not the power level emitted from the antenna with is buoyed by the relative gain of the antenna.

I examined these transmitter power reports by province, age group and license class. There was not much meaningful variation in those data apart from the differences in reported activities on microwave bands. In part, this is the limitation I mentioned of the small number of extreme values in the upper power range. The specialization of using high power in the microwave frequencies is a small number of Canadian hams, at least in this survey. It would take a new sampling design to “over sample” hams who are microwave users to get a more reliable estimate of the higher power ranges in use.

In summary, power output in Canadian amateur radio operations tends to reflect the output of the transceiver on HF bands. There is a wide variation in the category but this is a reasonable conclusion. QRP use is a bit smaller than I expected, given the popularity of portable operations (37%). But this reminds us that not all portable operations use low power. There is innovation in a small group of microwave operators. They use a significant amount of power. A later article will examine reported gain in antennas used in this band. As the microwave bands become more routinized in the hobby, these pioneering leaders will have laid a path for others to follow.

Results from the RAC 2021 Survey

What modes of transmission are used in various amateur radio bands? We are aware of the stalwarts of SSB or CW on HF, FM on two meters, and so forth. But some still use AM and there’s the various digital modes, like the venerable RTTY. The weak signal modes implemented under the WSJT-X software (FT8 etc.) have seemed to exploded on the bands. But where? And in what share of reported use by amateur operators?

In this article, I present some of the reported modulation modes used in specific groups of bands for Canadian amateur operators. The mode distribution by band is shown in a pie chart with the percent usage for each band. (Click on the graphic for a larger image.) This allows the reader to quickly identify where a specific mode is used and how diverse modes are for a given band allocation. This depiction does not show how much a mode is used in terms of time, only how the mode’s reported use is distributed across bands.

As a convenience to readers, I have reproduced the bar graph illustrating the percent of Canadian hams reporting the use of each band in an appendix below for quick reference.

In Figure 1, AM and SSB modulation find their traditional bands. One half of the AM use resides in the 80- to 10-meter bands. It is used to a lesser extent in 160-meters, 2-meters and 6-meters with sparse usage in the remaining band allocations. There are contests organized around two meters which may well create some of that use as well as SOTA and related operations. The Magic Band of six meters is open for distance seasonally and sporadically within and outside that season. The use there is likely predicated on the propagation eccentricities of six meters. The microwave bands have small use of AM. Recalling the smaller segment of hams operating in these bands (see appendix), this use may be ardently deployed by a smaller number of active amateurs there.

The use of single sideband usage is unsurprisingly dominated by the 80-10 meter HF bands with six meters coming in a distant second. The six meter and 160 meter bands come in next at 19 and 14 percent, respectively. This is followed closely by two meters (13%). These figures tend to decline sequentially as the frequency band increases. SSB is a frequently used mode, largely in frequency bands that are fairly known to active ham operators.

Turning to the use of CW, it is an original mode for the radio amateur. There are many, many debates as to the status of how much Morse Code is used on the ham bands today. For the first time, this national survey documents both how many hams say they use CW (32%) and where they use it as shown here in this article. As displayed in Figure 2, CW is used in several bands, dominated by HF (80-10 meters) at just over one-third (35%). Two bands bookending HF finds CW a common mode: 160- and 6-meters. This mode’s usage drops off precipitously in the 70cm band, 900 MHz, and 10 GHz bands. These are followed by the 1.2 GHz band with the rest having nominal CW activity reported in this survey.

These national survey results should serve as a benchmark—along with the share of hams reporting the use of CW in the appendix—for future discussions of the status of CW operations, at least in Canada.

The rise of digital data modes (especially the wildly popular FT8) is confirmed in this national survey of hams. Some inferences can be made using signal spots (like PSKreporter) of specific transmissions and reception circuits but they do not represent the broad population of all ham operators, only signals over a transient period. The HF bands, from 80 to 10-meters, are used with digital data modes by over one-third (35%). This is followed by 6 meters (15%) and 160-meters (12%) as well as 2-meters (12%). There is nominal to significant digital data mode use on the rest of these band allocations as well. The 70cm band has, for instance, 6 percent of these amateurs using digital data modes there. Thus, digital data modes are a significant means of communicating in most all of the amateur band allocations for Canada. While HF and nearby frequencies are the prominent areas, it is only 24 GHz that show no reported digital data mode activity as of 2021.

The uses of a modern digital voice mode as well as a traditional data mode, RTTY, are summarized in Figure 3. It is no surprise to the reader who is active on 2 meter and 70cm repeaters that some 85 percent of the relative digital voice usage across bands is concentrated here. The 2-meter band has 44% while the 70cm band has 41% of digital voice use in Canada. The rest reflect nominal patterns, such as the 4 percent with digital voice operations in the 6-meter segment. These specific digital modes (DStar, etc.) are not broken out separately in this survey. The picture of where digital voice modes are used is rather clear in these results.

The traditional data mode of RTTY remains largely an HF-centered transmission style. The 80- to 10-meter bands garner almost three-fourths (71%) with the 160-meter band trailing far behind in second place at 15 percent. The remainder trail off as the frequency goes up the spectrum. RTTY is still used, perhaps during RTTY-allowed contests, but it is used almost wholly on HF and 160 meters.

The final transmission mode presented in this article is slow-scan television (SSTV). Figure 4 contains these results. Like RTTY, it’s largely an HF use pattern (52%). However, for SSTV, two meters has almost a third (31%) of the traffic in this mode. The 70cm band follows (8%) with six-meters right behind (6%). The 1.2 GHz band, gaining in popularity due to more commercial equipment being available, is used by 1 percent. The other slivers in this pie chart round down to zero percent but it does reflect small numbers of microwave-oriented ham operators making use of the spectrum. Will that grow? It will take another replication of this survey a few years in the future to determine if that prospective growth is measurable in such a broad survey like this.

Conclusions

Transmission modes in Canada largely conform to what many readers would expect for the traditional modes of SSB and AM. CW use may be somewhat surprising but should be compared to the prevalence of CW usage by Canadian operators (see appendix). The use of digital voice and data modes is much more diverse in some ways. Digital voice has taken flight on both repeaters but particularly the small, inexpensive “hotspots” that operate via the Internet to connect local operators to other repeater systems worldwide. Digital data modes have exploded through the proliferation of the WSJT-X software and it’s variants. Many hams in the public sphere decry the use of, for instance, FT8, over using voice or CW modes. However, it has made many bands more active as can be seen by others analyzing the online databases of observations such as WSPR, PSKReporter, and the RBN sites. Such is how behavioral change occurs in large, moderately organized groups like amateur radio. It is the collective behavior that shapes the usage of a technological innovation like weak-signal modes and such.

My overall assessment of these results is that the Canadian ham bands are both stable, in the main, and innovating in some frequency bands. I say this partly because the microwave regions have a pluralistic set of modes in use today. This is undoubtedly the result of experimentation as well as competitive contesting or DXing activities. The combination of modes plays well into the future growth of both the operational efficiency as well as the market development for commercial products. The recent release by Icom of their IC-905 transceiver is a case in point.

I hasten to note this. Some readers will invariably say, “But I don’t see that [result]…” Sure, an individual ham operator’s observations either on the bands or elsewhere are a relatively unique way of gathering observations. They are not consistent across observations as people look at the world in differing ways. And, they do not garner insight into a collective national view of what is consistently obtained in a large-scale survey such as that for the RAC Survey 2021. Please bear that in mind with regard to these results as you read them.

Appendix: Band Usage Bar Chart from Full Report

Results from the national RAC Survey 2021

The 2021 RAC Survey asked about the use of frequency band segments and hours per month devoted to each one. This identifies where Canadian amateur operators transmit to complement what type of communications they reported (see Full Report). The bands used and the amount of time per month reported by survey participants provide the contours of these behaviors in Canada. They also provide RAC with demonstrable data for the Canadian regulator as to how these frequency allocations are being utilized by the amateur radio service in that country.

I begin with the share of hams reporting the bands and band ranges they use in a typical month (see Figure 1). The results are fairly clear, reflecting no surprise at the dominant bands, but give empirical contours to those used by smaller segments of Canadian hams.

This chart shows that two-meters is the common band for over 90 percent of Canadian amateurs. The HF bands, from 80-10 meters, are second at over 80 percent. The UHF band of 430 MHz is used by two-thirds (67%). These three bands are used in a typical month by a majority of hams in Canada. They are followed by the Magic Band of six-meters (46%) at less than one-half. The Top Band, 160 meters, is used by almost a third (30%) of these hams. The 220 MHz band captures about one-fifth of Canada’s operators. Above this frequency, are the microwave allocations, including Super HF at above 3 Ghz. None reach a tenth in reported usage and systematically decline as the frequency goes higher. It is likely that the need to homebrew much of the equipment to operate in these frequencies is an inhibitor for their use. This may change in the future as commercial manufacturers get into this market segment.

A total of 194,174 hours per month were reported by Canadian amateurs to have been used over 15 bands during 2021. The average is 93 with an estimated standard error of 5.4 hours. The variation in these reported hours is large, with a standard deviation of 249! (This is not unusual in a highly skewed distribution.) The median is 34 hours per month, or just over an hour a day. This means that one-half spend more with the other half in the survey reporting less. These statistics are only for hams reporting any hours of usage per month (a total of 121 respondents reported zero hours). This demonstrates that many operators are active, perhaps one hour per day or so while a smaller segment report spending vast amounts of time on one or more of these bands.

These summaries should be qualified with a small anomaly. One element of modern amateur operations is “always-on” monitoring receivers or beacons. These could be APRS on 2-meters, transmit beacons on other bands, scanning VHF bands or above, and a host of others. The survey asked an open-ended question about hours of use on a given frequency band. Some respondents added text statements when they replied with 720 hours per month (24 hours x 30 days) to the effect that beacons or other “always-on” transmitters or (scanning) receivers were used in their shack on that band segment. Some of the extreme hours reported per month likely reflect these “always-on” monitoring activities.

These patterns can be seen in Figure 2, containing two box plots of total hours reported. On the left, the number of hours is concentrated around the median (represented by the dark line in the middle of the “box”) of about 34 but a share of respondents responded to the question with increasingly larger totals. The 3,000-hour total clearly reflects multiple radios in operation at the same time by a given operator in the survey. Many of those reporting less than this highest value also fit into this operating style. The complementary box plot (right) illustrates how the bulk of hams vary in hours of operation on all bands. This is expressed in a log transformation of total hours. This graph of the log (LN) of hours reported shows the distribution in a way that is not dominated by the extreme high values reported in the survey. This set of graphs show that there is a small portion of Canadian amateurs who report large numbers of hours on multiple band segments whereas the high majority say they operate around the median of 34 hours or so.

However, the more representative pattern of behavior is a spread of hours that varies by band. To best understand these patterns, we consider the “time portfolio” that a ham might allocate to the hobby. The median would suggest about an hour a day (which may be bundled to several on a weekend but none on a few week days). What share of time in the total number of hours that amateurs report spending each month is allocated to each of these band segments? In other words, whatever the total time spent on the hobby, where is it spent in the frequency spectrum?

I computed the total time as described above. The reported hours on each band were converted into a percent of the total time spent per month by band. These percentages, which total to 100 percent for an individual respondent, are shown in Figure 3 as a box plot of the distribution by band. This represents a time portfolio characterizing each amateur in the survey.

Two patterns jump out to me in Figure 3. Some hams spend most of their time on 2 meters and 430 mHz while others are mostly HF operators. This is not a surprising result for most readers. There are small numbers of hams who are effectively “band specialists.” Note those near the 100 percent mark on various microwave bands or 160 meters or the lowest bands, 630 and 2200 meters. Some operate mostly on six meters. The bands with low medians but a skewed distribution toward the highest end illustrate these specializations.

It is important to note the dominant patterns of frequency usage while also recognizing that not all hams follow suit. Some choose to be band specialists in the time they spend participating on these frequency allocations. These are the first such data ever reported on a national sample of licensed amateurs so it is a benchmark against the various impressions that most hams have of how bands are utilized on a routine basis.

Age Patterns by Frequency Range

I have organized comparisons by age group for each prominent frequency band: Low Frequency, HF, Very and Ultra High Frequency, and Super High Frequency (see Full Report for details). These results will tell us about age differences in how bands are used. Do younger hams use particular bands than more senior ones? Are there sharp differences by age in the adoption of higher bands? Age patterns can inform us about future band allocation policies so they can be critical bits of data for national advocacy groups and spectrum regulators.

Low Frequency (LF) Bands

I begin with low frequency (LF) bands, including 2200, 630 and 160 meters as represented in a stacked barchart (Figure 4). Each bar represents the banduse composition for a given age group with specific labels to make reading them a bit easier.

As a long-standing band allocation, the Top Band of 160-meters is used by every age group. This is particularly so for those over age 30. But the newer allocations of 630- and 2200-meters are sparingly used among all ages. Likely because of the required antenna lengths and land-use restrictions, the lowest frequency band (2200-meters) has, at most, a mere 3 percent participation in any age groups. The 630-meter band has at most a 5 percent usage rate, this among twenty-year-olds. Surprising results perhaps but it is informative to more fully grasp how the newer LF bands are reportedly being used.

High Frequency (HF) Bands

The results for HF include the Magic Band of six-meters are shown in Figure 5. There are few surprises in this graph. The 80 through 10-meter bands are enjoyed by over half of the hams in Canada for those over age 20. (This is likely due to licensing patterns.) These are the most long-standing allocations where the widest variety of commercially available equipment is available to the amateur radio market. Use of 80-10 meters slightly increases with age (e.g., 20-year-olds at 53% vs 80-year-olds at 94%). The HF bands are in good stead regarding dominant use by hams in Canada.

For six meters, use is fairly constant at just less than one-half of Canadian ham operators play in the periodically open Magic Band. This really does not change much by age. The attraction to this low-opening, high-reward band is the ability to work DX during band openings. A minor attraction is local and regional communications, often using repeaters operational on the band. To link this band back to Figure 3’s time portfolio, note the share of hams who spend most of their time on six meters.

The result of the highest reported usage (33%) among the small number of teens in the survey should be taken cautiously since the actual use in the population could be different than the other age groups with higher numbers of respondents (i.e., there is a low number of teens in the survey).

In short, the results for usage in the high frequency to six-meter bands is largely what would be expected by most amateur operators. But knowing the age patterns does empirically illustrate how young hams get into HF at those ages, too. This grounds the survey into the type of results that can be more reliably trusted for findings that are unexpected, too. The intriguing result of the “band specialists” for six meters await openings to operate tell us about another segment of the amateur radio hobby in Canada.

Very and Ultra High Frequency (VHF/UHF) Bands

Turning to VHF and UHF bands, Figure 6 also shows no surprises: two meters is king! About 90 percent or more of every age group says they work two meters in a typical month, hands-down the universal frequency band for Canadian amateurs (see Figure 1). This is followed by the 430 MHz band which is a bit more popular among younger hams than older ones who tend to favor 2 meters. The 220 MHz band universally holds a slice of about one-fifth (15-24%) of the survey respondents’ reported usage.

Now, we often hear: why are the repeaters dead? I interpret these survey results with reference to Figure 3 above regarding the time portfolio spent on 2 meters. Most Canadian hams say they spend between 10 and 50 percent of ALL their amateur radio hobby on the 2 Meter band. I suspect that this is due to the prevalence of short-lived Nets that are on weekly activation cycles but this is speculation. So many hams check-in, have nothing to report, and are quickly off of the Net. Some hams may check-in to many Nets while others just a few (or none).

This time-targeted behavior pattern hypothesis may not explain these survey results versus the mantra that we all tend to hear but it’s one possibility for sure. It does beg the question of what “dead” means in this sense. No one there when a given ham listens for a few minutes? No one responding to a dropped call sign on the frequency? Given these survey results, the use of “dead” may be hyperbole.

Microwave and Super High Frequency (SHF) Bands

Moving into the microwave and Super High Frequency ranges involving the highest band allocations, Figure 7 shows these results of band usage by age. (I have included the 900 Mhz to 2.3 Ghz bands here for convenience, technically not part of the SHF range.) The barriers to getting into SHF operations differ markedly from other bands. There are fewer off-the-shelf commercial radios and associated equipment so homebrewing is almost a perquisite. The equipment and space for homebrewing, for instance, a transverter for an HF or VHF/UHF radio or a horn antenna is not available to every ham operator as they can be very expensive relative to VHF/UHF or HF radios and antennas.

With this preface, there are significant age-graded patterns of usage in this frequency allocation region. Figure 6 displays a stacked bar chart by age group of Super HF band use. This region of band allocation is sparsely used at the highest band of 24 GHz. The users are exclusively in the 40- to 70-year-old groups. On the other end, the 900 MHz region is used by all age groups, especially younger hams. The 1.2 GHz band has a significant group of users, between a fifth and a third of those from age 40 to 80 or more. This compares well with the 5 GHz (5650-5925 MHz) band. The 2 GHz region is close behind. With these relatively new allocations as compared to HF, for instance, there is likely to be increased use. The concentration of use in large urban centers may foster increased adoption since there are more operators and Elmers available in those cities.

With this in mind, Figure 7 shows that younger hams do operate in the various SHF bands (slightly less than one third). There is a spread of participants across these individual bands, too. Most of it is in the 900 Mhz to 5 Mhz range as 10 Ghz and above require quite specialized equipment. As more commercially manufactured equipment comes on the market, this highest set of bands may perk up, too.

Conclusions on Band Use in Canada

There is a healthy use of the amateur radio spectrum in Canada as reported by the hams in this national survey. Two meters is the common band for the vast majority. But HF is a dominant place where Canadian amateurs get on the air, too. The age patterns in band use are not as prevalent as they are in modes of operation (see Full Report and previous blog articles). This bodes well for future band allocations as use is often said to drive allocations.

It is good to see the presence of hams in bands above HF. While some of this is very specialized technology at this point in time, experimentation and innovation in the SHF region will likely yield grand benefits. This national survey confirms these patterns of behavior rather than rely on what is technically hearsay by individual hams. These results should also have importance for manufacturers and, especially, small innovators. They establish a market for such products. We now know that the bands above VHF/UHF have a significant segment of amateurs participating in activities on these frequency regions. Moreover, the mainline HF and VHF/UHF markets are stable, a safe and sound target for product design and sales.

The Churches and Chapels on the Air coordinator, John Wresdall G3XYF, sent this notice out this morning:

Dear All,
thanks to all those who have let me know they are operating in CHOTA 2024
on 14 Sept . If you intend to put your church or chapel on the air please let me know. The latest list is periodically uploaded to the WACRAL site when Mike G0RBB can manage it.
73
John G3XYF

John’s email for this is: [email protected]. He is good on QRZ.com

Note: CHOTA 2024 is September 4, 2024. See other posts on this blog about CHOTA. The main site for this event is: https://wacral.org/chota-2024/. My church group had a blast last year!

Results from the RAC Survey 2021 and Statistics Canada

One of the pressing issues facing all amateur radio organizations in the modern world is what appears to be a rapidly aging set of participants. We mostly base this belief on various observations at in-person amateur radio activities since licensing bodies rarely ever collect or release birth dates with their license data. (Not all release actual license records themselves.) The issue is whether we are simply seeing ham operators who participate in these venue events or is the ham population actually aging as much as our eyes tell us? I present national data on the aging patterns of Canadian amateurs in addition to projections for the future. The results are sobering for they are predicated on a clear demographic pattern in the developed world itself.

From every data source that I have seen or analyzed, the population of amateur radio licensees worldwide is substantially graying.¹ RAC Survey 2021 respondents were asked what is your age group and given a choice of mostly decade-length age ranges. The 2021 Census of Canada age-by-year data were extracted from Statistics Canada and collapsed to fit the same age ranges (see Final Report). These data are presented in a population pyramid in Figure 1. The Canadian population (left) and RAC Survey 2021 of amateurs (right) add a further confirmation of this aging amateur radio population. Ham operators in the survey are far below the population at less than age fifty but increasingly over the population distribution after the half-century mark. In the sixties and above, amateur operator percentages are over double that of the population at large.

What does this population distribution comparison mean for amateur radio in Canada? There are at least two elements to the demographic equation here. If we think of amateur radio as a behavior, a hobby or a pastime that occurs over the life course of individuals, then the behavior of being a ham operator may be age-related regardless of the historical period.² Or, alternatively, it could be an historical period behavior that is prominent during an age range (or birth cohort) of one or more adjacent periods in history. In simpler terms, is amateur radio mostly a Baby Boom-era hobby that is scheduled to recede into a much smaller pursuit? There are many behaviors that do largely fade away as the participants age through other stages of life. Some, however, begin at later stages without younger groups joining the activity until they reach that age range. I will show evidence of both through my analysis of this national Canadian survey.

This life course perspective recognizes the effects on hobby behavior that are frequently revealed by hams themselves: work, marriage, family formation, competing interests, and others. Additional investigations with relevant data are required to answer these questions. But one aspect that is critical involves the future Canadian population itself. How is it scheduled to age over the next several decades? This will indeed shape the hobby in significant ways, given current circumstances in the hobby.

Statistics Canada has published age-specific population projections for the nation. These have been used to prepare Figure 2 with various projection scenarios (left) and age-specific projections from 2021 to 2050 (right). As is common, the “medium growth” scenario was selected to present the scheduled growth of age groups. Shown in the purple line (left), this set of assumptions for population growth fall in the middle of those with high-growth or slow-aging models versus low-growth or fast-aging parameters. They are generally the most reliable to use for analyses such as this.

The results in the right panel for each age group that were configured to match the RAC Survey age groups tell us that the population in Canada will grow in the middle-age categories and in the most senior ones. Those in the twenties through fifties will top the age pyramid by 2050, followed by those most senior residents in their seventies and over. The youngest population of teens (10 through 19) will be far smaller. This is a significant signal to policy-makers in Canada with two clear implications for amateur radio in Canada.

One is that the age groups of 60-80 years of age, now dominating amateur radio as the RAC Survey suggests, will simply disappear as they age-out to infirmity or becoming Silent Keys. Yet, the projected number of persons in these age groups are scheduled to actually grow in number over the forecast period.

A second implication is that teens will be a relatively scarce recruitment commodity in terms of the age pyramid. There will simply not be enough of them to replace those Baby Boomers now dominating the hobby. The much higher rates for the recruitment of younger people are significantly higher than has been the case in the recent past. Compare Figure 1 Canadian population versus estimated amateur radio population for these age groups to also see this imbalance as follows. The ratio of the population percent to the amateur operator percent tells us what recruitment improvement would be necessary to actually fit the population.

To aid in illustrating what the demographic patterns for the Canadian age structure mean for amateur radio, consider what rates of “recruitment” would be necessary to simply replace the current share of licensed hams by age group. I’ve summarized a simple table (Table 1) of this “additional recruitment success” that would be needed to just maintain what we have today in Canada for those below age 50.

While it would only take recruiting 1.5 times the current number in the age 40 range, it becomes increasing more challenging as each age group gets younger. For those in their thirties, when typical family obligations are most demanding, it would require 4.6 times the current number to be recruited base on the future population projections for this age segment. The dramatically higher rates are for those in their twenties (16.7 times) and teens (20 times) make it simply unfeasible to realistically believe that current methods of age-specific recruitment will come close to securing these levels of required newcomes into the hobby. To repeat, in practical terms, there simply will not be enough members of these youngest cohorts to replace their current age segment even if all parties went into recruitment modes with their “hair on fire”.

Demography can be destiny. But it does not have to be so.

Understanding Ham “Careers” and Recruitment into the Hobby

While the population demography reflects a challenge for the future of amateur radio in Canada, it is important to more fully understand how the hobby is pursued over the ham’s “career” as a licensed amateur operator. There is a notion, perhaps rooted in the Baby Boomer and preceding generations, harkening back to the emergence of amateur radio itself, that young people get exposed to amateur radio, get licensed and continue their amateur radio careers in a continuous fashion. (For more and an empirical investigation, see Howell 2021) This would make the teen years the principal period in the life course for recruitment into the hobby. In the survey, however, there is only modest evidence of this pattern.

RAC Survey 2021 participants were asked how many years they had held a license as well as have been active in the hobby. The graphic in Figure 3 displays histograms of the frequency of hams in each year bin. On the left is length of holding a license (tenure). The right panel is the same display except for years of activity. The average years of license tenure is about 26 while 22 is the average of years active. The variation in each measure is about the same, a standard deviation of around 17-18 years. The experience levels among Canadian amateurs are lengthy but it is also quite variable.

There are two things to hold out as important from this graphic. One is that survey responses bunch around newcomers (or zero to 4 years) or 25-30 years of holding a license. Activity is about the same pattern except the bunching of respondents is not as pronounced as license tenure. The “careers” of activity in amateur radio tend to vary quite a bit. A second is that these two variables are not linked to the same amateur. How many have activity periods that last for most of their license tenure? What lengths of active periods characterize Canadian hams?

Hams who are in the most senior age groups report years of license tenure suggesting that the teen years were when they became licensed. Moreover, a large number of them say they have been “active” all of their licensed years.³ This notion, however, does not fit many respondents in the survey. The latter are large enough to beg the question of how valid is this traditional idea with which we often characterize all amateurs. Like many stereotypes, there are significant popular examples that fit but it also mischaracterizes a larger share of ham operators.

We have visualized this linkage through a scatterplot of ham radio activity by license tenure with age groups identified (see Figure 4). A scatter plot is an X-Y plotting of individual data points along the data values of each variable. The age group for each survey respondent is shown by a distinct color.

There are no respondents above the line in this plot since activity is predicated in this survey upon holding a license. The diagonal line of hams reflects those who have been active their entire careers in ham radio. Only among those in the most senior age groups (e.g., 70 and over) supports the commonly held pattern of getting licensed at a teen or young adult and staying the course. There are many of these amateurs but they are far from being the dominant group.

The large number of data points moving away from this diagonal (toward the lower right) reflect hams who got licensed and have not been “active” nearly as long as those on the straight diagonal line. The most senior groups reveal many who were not licensed early in their lives but significantly later. Thus, these data illustrate that our conventional image of the amateur who gets licensed early in life and maintains that hobby activity throughout is largely a stereotype that nevertheless fits a smaller share of the population. These patterns of activity are directly pertinent to policies for recruitment into the hobby. They illustrate clearly the significant market for late-in-life hams. See Howell (2013) for another U.S. survey with data on late-in-life ham operators.

To further illustrate inactivity over the ham’s career, Figure 5 uses box plots of the simple difference between years licensed and years of activity (i.e., years licensed – years active). It’s broken out by age group. Box plots show the data around the center point of the median at the middle of the box. In this case, zero provides a bounding so that there is only one end of the distribution of survey respondents.

These data are highly skewed toward higher periods of less activity (“inactivity”). The median lines in the boxes are barely visible. There is a trail of hams who report a growing gap of inactivity as age increases. Some get licensed but drop out of the hobby, at least for some periods of time. For example, for the most senior group, some have been licensed-but-inactive for 40 or more years. Over their license tenure, a significant group of hams fall away from practicing the hobby.⁴ This licensed but inactive segment represents a ripe market for recruitment back into amateur radio activities. I will note in passing that we do not have any consensus for what “active” in the hobby means.

Conclusions

These results describe an emerging demographic shift in Canada that will affect the amateur radio hobby.  There will simply not be enough younger people to replace those Baby Boomers now dominating the hobby. But what is the fundamental reason behind these population projections leading to fewer younger people in the decades ahead? It is now something unique to Canada but common to all developed countries. In Figure 6, I’ve reproduced a graph showing the total fertility rate (TFR) over time among a number of countries. This was recently published in the highly respected demography journal, The Lancet. The gray line at the fertility rate of 2.1 is the replacement level for a given population. High income countries include Canada, the U.S. and the UK, among others. They have been below replacement level since around 1980. Thus, the issue of why official Canadian population projections show that younger age groups will be diminished in the near term is due to this falling total fertility rate among high income countries around the world.

Returning to the issue of these demographic patterns for amateur radio, the rates for the recruitment of younger people to achieve mere replacement are significantly higher than has been the case in the recent past. This should not be misconstrued to suggest that it would be a waste of time to expose young people to amateur radio as a recruitment method. It may well be an incubator effect of planting the seed that will be sown later in the life course. The short-term efforts should not ignore middle-age prospects for the hobby. They have three key characteristics that make them prime targets for marketing. One, they tend to be “empty nesters” without dependent children. Two, they are at or near their peak-earning years with perhaps the highest discretionary income they will ever have. Three, they have more time on their hands for the pursuit of hobbies. The demographic fact is that there will also be more of them in the near term for effective recruitment into the hobby.

These results encourage strategic and efficient methods for RAC and its membership clubs and associated organizations to reach both the youth population as well as later-in-life adults. Demography does not have to be destiny if these actions are taken soon. But it will be if heads are placed solidly into the sand.

Notes

1.For other data on the aging ham operator population in the United States and the United Kingdom, see https://k4fmh.com/2021/08/28/the-secret-storm-approaching-cw-contesting/ or https://k4fmh.com/2021/03/31/uk-regulator-ofcom-releases-ham-licenses-by-age-compares-favorably-with-us-estimates/.

2.The “life course” is the routine and mostly orderly progression of the transition of individuals among various recognized stages of life. The broadest definition is “The entirety of individual’s life from birth to death and the typical set of circumstances an individual experiences in a given society as they age.” (Source: https://sociologydictionary.org/life-course/).

3.This question wording leaves the definition of activity up to the respondent. I’ve asked many hams what being “active” in the hobby means. I received a wide-ranging variety of responses that do not identify a singular coherent defining concept.

4.In analysis not shown, there is virtually no distinction in reported inactivity during the amateur career and current RAC membership. We cannot determine whether past membership patterns is linked to periods of inactivity during the full period of license tenure.

References

Frank M. Howell. 2013. “Survey of Members 2013.” ARRL Delta Division Report. Online resource: http://arrldelta.org/dd-final13.pdf.

Frank M. Howell. 2021. “The lost Tribe, the Pied Piper and the Executive.” The Spectrum Monitor October, 7-12. Available for download as a PDF here.

Frank M. Howell and Scott Wright. 2021. https://foxmikehotel.com/aging-and-radio-contesting/

This is going to be a long post. In our last episode, I was telling you all about the musings and thoughts I have had about the original W2LJ ...... who he was and what he was like.  The experience I have had over the past couple of days has just been amazing and more than I could ever have hoped for.

In my Google search, I had mentioned that Ed and Norma had a daughter. I also saw in the Google results that his daughter has a Facebook page. Not totally sure that I would be addressing the right person, I decided to send a Facebook message, anyway. I introduced myself and explained why I was contacting her. After all, I didn't want her to think that some creepy stranger from out of left field was contacting her for nefarious reasons. Lord, knows, we have enough of that, these days. Between scams, phishing and other evil intentions, I wanted his daughter to know this was harmless.

I didn't know what to expect, or even if I would ever get a reply. What happened next was one of the most gracious and kind exchanges from Carmen, Ted's (as he preferred to be known) daughter, and his grandson, Jon. Two of the most remarkable people who I am so glad to know, and will be eternally grateful to.

Carmen answered me via e-mail. (I have their permission to post - I would never do that without their consent):

Hi!

Yes, I am the daughter (and only child) of Edward (Ted) Roscoe Swoffer who was a ham radio operator since adolescence.  He was born and brought up in Walnut Grove, Minnesota one of eight children. He signed up for duty in World War !! And served on submarine duty (Peto and the Albacore).  The Albacore was torpedoed shortly after he got off to marry my mom.  He studied Electrical Engineering at Penn State and worked for Singer Link in Binghamton for many years.  He and my mom (Norma) were amazing grandparents to my three children and I am so grateful.

My father was very quiet and humble, never boasting of his many accomplishments.   He was not very social, although well liked by all.  I am not sure what all those letters mean concerning his equipment etc.   I do have many of his postcards from far and near and would be glad to send you one.  Let me know if you have further questions and let me know your address if you want one of his postcards from other ham operators.  I donated a Morse Code machine and some other stuff to a local museum called Tech Works.

I look forward to your response!

Carmen

Wow! I was floored! I was hoping for some kind of response and was so glad to receive such a warm and welcoming one!

I had cross posted to the AmateurRadio.com site hoping that other folks who might have known Ted would offer some tid bits about him. His grandson Jon replied there:

Hi Larry – Thanks so much for your post and your curiosity. Ted Swoffer (“Pappy” to his grandkids) was my grandfather. He was a great one. So much I could share with you about him. He started building radios as a kid in Walnut Grove, Minnesota, had multiple tours of duty in the pacific theater in WWII as a radio/sonar guy aboard two USN submarines (USS Albacore and USS Peto), and after the war graduated from Penn State with an engineering degree. Joined Singer Link in Binghamton, NY as an aeronautical engineer, working on flight simulators for several warbirds. While I spent much of my childhood being fascinated with his many hobbies, he was a quiet man. And amateur radio remained something that he did by himself. Perhaps that’s why nobody else in the family continued the craft. I think he would be so pleased to know that his call sign lives on through you.

And Jon also sent me an e-mail:

Hi Larry - attached is a wartime photo of Ted Swoffer.  Also attached is a picture of a collage of post cards to W2LJ from all over the world that I made a few years ago.  

I’ll look through other things to see if I have any other W2LJ stuff I could send you

And also from Jon:

Larry - thanks for sharing!  Very cool to see the W2LJ license plate.  

And here's the photos that both Carmen and Jon sent.