Ham Radio Callsign & Call Area Analysis – State Stats

Ham Radio Callsign & Call Area Analysis talks about how I gathered the data and very high level groupings comparing call areas by address vs call areas as derived from a ham operators callsign. I ran some additional queries to show information by state.

The first set of results lists each state alphabetically and how many operators are classified as living in that state, how many mismatches based on the callsign call area and the percentage of mismatches based on that state.  The follow-up data below it shows the top 10 based on # of mismatches and % of mismatches.

Alphabetical listing by state:

State Total Mismatch % Mismatch
AK 3744 425 11.4%
AL 12027 1106 9.2%
AR 7880 878 11.1%
AS 36 5 13.9%
AZ 17660 4584 26.0%
CA 103017 7133 6.9%
CO 14254 2901 20.4%
CT 7948 639 8.0%
DC 442 147 33.3%
DE 1634 188 11.5%
FL 41790 10891 26.1%
GA 17034 2166 12.7%
GU 521 35 6.7%
HI 3663 407 11.1%
IA 6480 568 8.8%
ID 5910 750 12.7%
IL 22067 1663 7.5%
IN 15912 1393 8.8%
KS 7611 725 9.5%
KY 9540 949 9.9%
LA 6882 415 6.0%
MA 13840 1047 7.6%
MD 11215 1713 15.3%
ME 4701 384 8.2%
MI 22175 1483 6.7%
MN 12023 955 7.9%
MO 14275 1584 11.1%
MP 519 28 5.4%
MS 5322 552 10.4%
MT 3539 425 12.0%
NC 19715 2821 14.3%
ND 1537 103 6.7%
NE 4023 371 9.2%
NH 5389 507 9.4%
NJ 14790 1049 7.1%
NM 6727 1304 19.4%
NV 6189 1881 30.4%
NY 29638 1815 6.1%
OH 29973 2014 6.7%
OK 10273 995 9.7%
OR 16252 2156 13.3%
PA 24890 2306 9.3%
PR 4810 3870 80.5%
RI 2161 136 6.3%
SC 8637 1293 15.0%
SD 1828 284 15.5%
TN 16737 2002 12.0%
TX 49871 5663 11.4%
UM 1 0 0.0%
UT 12728 1078 8.5%
VA 18603 3654 19.6%
VI 281 243 86.5%
VT 2307 222 9.6%
WA 29637 3168 10.7%
WI 11685 929 8.0%
WV 7118 588 8.3%
WY 1797 280 15.6%

Top 10 states by # mismatches:

State Total Mismatch % Mismatch
FL 41790 10891 26.1%
CA 103017 7133 6.9%
TX 49871 5663 11.4%
AZ 17660 4584 26.0%
PR 4810 3870 80.5%
VA 18603 3654 19.6%
WA 29637 3168 10.7%
CO 14254 2901 20.4%
NC 19715 2821 14.3%
PA 24890 2306 9.3%

Top 10 states by % mismatches:

State Total Mismatch % Mismatch
VI 281 243 86.5%
PR 4810 3870 80.5%
DC 442 147 33.3%
NV 6189 1881 30.4%
FL 41790 10891 26.1%
AZ 17660 4584 26.0%
CO 14254 2901 20.4%
VA 18603 3654 19.6%
NM 6727 1304 19.4%
WY 1797 280 15.6%

More stats to come,
K2DSL

2 thoughts on “Ham Radio Callsign & Call Area Analysis – State Stats

  1. This is a neat analysis. Do you have any thoughts about the mechanisms behind the distributions?

    I can think of several:

    1. Population mobility/migration: Some of the states that have high proportions of “non-resident” callsigns also tend to “import” people, whether retirees (arguably biasing the ham population) or job-seekers. I fall into this category, having lived in the 8th, 10th, 9th, and 3rd call districts as a holder of my present call.

    2. Preferred callsign pressure: The 4th and 6th call districts have long had a shortage of “desirable” callsigns with respect to the others, especially the 9th, 1st, and 3rd districts. Before vanity callsigns, people occasionally registered their station address at a relative’s home in a different district to get a 2×1 callsign.

    3. Puerto Rico is interesting. I assume that you filtered for [KNW]P[34][A-Z]{1,3} and not just [KNW]P4[A-Z]{1,3}, to use the regexps? If so, this probably represents the mobility (#1) of the population. I think a lot of Puerto Ricans work in the states as long as they can stand it and move/retire back to PR.

    There is probably a way to isolate some of these phenomena…

  2. Ethan – thanks for the reply. I’m in agreement on all your points. As for the KP type calls, based on the data provided by the FCC it is easy to tell all that *should* be in what the FCC indicates is the “12″ call area based on their address. For this filtering, the FCC data made it easy. Just running a quick check on KP, NP & WP calls, excluding PR and VI, far and away most calls are associated with a FL address with 298 followed by TX with 50 and NY with 42. FL has 298 [KNW]P calls and VI has 235, so more KP calls are now associated with FL addresses then VI addresses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Private