Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Expand Messages
  • Bob Daniels
    ... to 120 ... applied. A ... Mills says, ... The site ... applied ... rope and be free. [Nikos Kazantzakis] Hi Art. I had a long e-mail exchange with
    Message 1 of 26 , May 5, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, Art RX9TX <rx9tx@e...> wrote:
      > Hello ,
      >
      > > The application fee for a basic DXCC Award is $10 and includes up
      to 120
      > > card credits. Applicants pay 15 cents per each additional card
      applied. A
      > > similar fee structure applies for those going the LoTW route,
      Mills says,
      > > and you won't have to pay any additional fees on the DXCC side.
      The site
      > > provides for secure payment via credit card.
      >
      > I did not get it, if I use LoTW I'll pay 15-25 cents for each
      applied
      > QSO and additional 15 cents for every QSO over 120?
      >
      > --
      > 73...Art RX9TX 01.05.2004 4:08 UTC
      >
      > "A person needs a little madness, or else they never dare cut the
      rope and be free." [Nikos Kazantzakis]


      Hi Art. I had a long e-mail exchange with the folks at the ARRL
      concerning the fees. This is what I think I understood them to say.
      There were some contradictions in the messages they sent me so I'm
      not sure this is 100% right.

      The ARRL looks at DXCC and LogBook as two completely different
      entities.

      DXCC is an entity that has its own fee structure, which for all
      intents and purposes has not changed.
      Those fees are:
      1.) First submission - Application fee $10.00 and .15 cents for
      each QSO over the 120 max allowed.
      2.) Subsequent submissions – Application fee $10.00, Surcharge
      $10 and .15 cents for each QSO over the 100 max allowed.

      LogBook is a new entity with its own fee structure. It is an
      entirely new revenue stream for the ARRL. If you want to use it, it
      will cost you .15 cents to .25 cents per LoTW credit.

      ----------------------
      Example:
      Lets say you have 200 LoTW credits that you would like to claim. The
      cost to you would be .15 to .25 cents per credit. (It can vary
      because you are allowed to buy credits in advance of having actual
      confirmations). Lets just say in this case .25 cents a credit. That
      would put the cost to you at $50.00 for the LoTW credits. You are
      now done dealing with the LoTW entity.

      Now lets say this is your first submission of the calendar year of
      any kind to the DXCC entity. And, Lets say that you want to submit
      200 QSOs. They could be paper QSLs or LoTW credits the DXCC entity
      does not care which it is. The cost to you would be a $10.00
      Application fee plus .15 cents for each QSO/Credit over the 120 max
      allowed. (80 * .15 = $12.00). That would put the cost to you at
      $22.00 for claiming 200 DXCC QSOs/Credits. You are now done dealing
      with the DXCC entity.

      Now lets say this was a subsequent submission to the DXCC entity and,
      that you want to submit 200 QSO's. The cost to you would be a $10.00
      Application fee plus a $10.00 Surcharge plus .15 cents for every
      QSO/Credit over the 100 max allowed. (100 * .15 = $15.00). That
      would put the cost to you at $35.00 for claiming 200 DXCC
      QSOs/Credits. You are now done dealing with the DXCC entity.

      Note: According to the ARRL – "For a limited time, you may make a
      second (or subsequent) application in the same year with no $10
      surcharge".

      First Submission total cost to you for claiming 200 LoTW credits and
      electing to use them in one submission to DXCC would be $72.00.
      ($22.00 DXCC + $50.00 LoTW)

      Subsequent submission total cost to you for claiming 200 LoTW credits
      and electing to use them in one submission to DXCC would be $85.00.
      ($35.00 DXCC + $50.00 LoTW)
      ----------------------

      According to the ARRL : "Logbook is an alternative to spending
      postage collecting cards. It is not intended as an alternative to
      submitting paper cards, although it can be used in that way."

      The big benefit provided by LoTW is less money spent acquiring QSLs.
      This is a great deal for newer Hams that have not collected many
      paper QSLs yet. They stand to save a bundle on postage and printing
      cards. Older more established Hams that already have a lot of paper
      QSLs in hand would do better to just submit them the old fashion
      way. The only real LoTW benefit for the Older Ham is if they are
      just starting out on the DXCC chase, or they happen to have cards
      that they would rather not risk via Post/UPS. If a Ham is looking at
      LogBook as an alternative to risking submission of his cards via
      Post/UPS he should be prepared to pay the LogBook fees.

      Bob K8KWT
    • Joe Subich, K4IK
      ... IF one can believe Wayne Mills, there will be a discount to the DXCC fees for credits from LotW. Here is an e-mail exchange I had with him very early in
      Message 2 of 26 , May 5, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, Art RX9TX <rx9tx@e...> wrote:
        >
        >> The application fee for a basic DXCC Award is $10 and includes up
        >> to 120 card credits. Applicants pay 15 cents per each additional
        >> card applied. A similar fee structure applies for those going the
        >> LoTW route, Mills says, and you won't have to pay any additional
        >> fees on the DXCC side. The site provides for secure payment via
        >> credit card.
        >
        > I did not get it, if I use LoTW I'll pay 15-25 cents for each
        > applied QSO and additional 15 cents for every QSO over 120?

        IF one can believe Wayne Mills, there will be a discount to the
        DXCC fees for credits from LotW. Here is an e-mail exchange I
        had with him very early in the process.

        I hope they're not backing away from that now ... after being told
        that I will have to pay the current PER QSO rate to get over 1000
        QSOs from my old awards (CW/Phone/Mixed/5BDXCC/160 DXCC) converted
        and credited in the new record format because I've been inactive
        since BC (before computerization). With 1800+/- band/entities
        depending on card and LotW returns in the next couple of months,
        the 1000 old credits represent a substantial part of "getting
        current." I was looking forward using LotW credits, where possible,
        as one way to minimize "bite."

        If ARRL are planning to charge on both ends, LotW and the entire
        DXCC program are in for a very quick and PAINFUL death.

        73,

        ... Joe, K4IK (ex- AD8I, W8IK)





        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Mills, Wayne N7NG [mailto:N7NG@...]
        > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:49 PM
        > To: Joe Subich, K4IK
        > Subject: RE: LoTW Certificate
        >
        >
        > Absolutely! We encourage it. You can buy them as you use them,
        > or you can buy them in advance. Logbook will keep track of how
        > many you buy, and how many you use. You will note that the price
        > goes down substantially with volume. You should also know know
        > that although there is no connection between Logbook fees and
        > DXCC (and other award fees), we will be offering a discount for
        > those credits being submitted via electronic means. That means
        > that we have to hire less labor to enter the data, and we will
        > pass the savings on. Details are being worked out.
        >
        > 73, Wayne
        >
        >
        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: Joe Subich, K4IK [mailto:k4ik@...]
        > Sent: Thu 2003-10-02 7:44 PM
        > To: Mills, Wayne N7NG
        > Subject: RE: LoTW Certificate
        >
        >
        > A question about purchasing credits while I have you ...
        >
        > Can one purchase a batch of credits (say 250 as a "round number")
        > before they are needed and use them over the course of a couple
        > years or must credits be purchased as they are needed?
        >
        > 73,
        >
        > ... Joe, K4IK
        >
      • Darryl Wagoner
        -- Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club Evil triumphs when good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke [1729-1797] Join the TrustedQSL
        Message 3 of 26 , May 5, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          --
          Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON
          Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club
          "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke [1729-1797]

          Join the TrustedQSL mailing list. An Open Source solution.
          Post message: TrustedQSL@yahoogroups.com
          Subscribe: TrustedQSL-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          List owner: TrustedQSL-owner@yahoogroups.com
          http://www.trustedQSL.org

          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: Joe Subich, K4IK [mailto:k4ik@...]
          > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:08 AM
          > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
          > Cc: w4rh@...; w4ru@...; k8je@...; k5ur@...
          >
          > IF one can believe Wayne Mills, there will be a discount to the
          > DXCC fees for credits from LoTW.

          I think that comment is totally uncalled for! It is very insulting to
          Wayne Mills and shouldn't have been said without supporting evidence
          that Wayne is untrustworthy. It seems to me that Wayne has done a very
          good job and doesn't deserve those types of comments.

          73
          Darryl Wagoner WA1GON
        • FireBrick
          In a couple of hours, these questions will be answered. But for those who can t wait....I ll try. (boy I hope I m right, my memory isn t as good as it never
          Message 4 of 26 , May 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            In a couple of hours, these questions will be answered.
            But for those who can't wait....I'll try.
            (boy I hope I'm right, my memory isn't as good as it never was)

            First off.
            I was one of the beta testers. Yes there is a sliding fee scale for the number of LoTW
            country credits you are submitting.
            I 'THINK' you get the same "1 free submission" a year which includes up to 120 qsls.
            I 'DON'T THINK' the DXCC differentiates between a hard card or LoTW submission in this
            regard.
            I don't have my notes available so I'm NOT carving this in stone.


            Second
            If you already have submitted to DXCC and have an account which contains records of qsls
            submitted, you don't HAVE to do anything with these.
            LoTW knows what they are and you should be able to see them listed.
            Very early submissions may not have info such as band or mode.
            The records from long ago only contained the Call, Date, Time, and whether it was credited
            as Mixed or SSB. As DXCC improved it's software that info was recorded.
            Later submission recorded the other information.

            Third
            While testing, there was the provision to purchase a number of credits before hand.
            I can't remember the exact increments but the large increments were definitely sufficient.
            I bought 100 using my credit card on a 'Secure' system.
            I still had 70 left the last time I looked.

            From that, you can do the math and see I had approx. 30 LoTW qsl's that I had not been
            able to get qsls for.
            Hence my Challenge total just got a nice jump at a minimal expense.


            ----- Original Message -----
            From: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@...>
            To: <ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com>
            Cc: <w4rh@...>; <w4ru@...>; <k8je@...>; <k5ur@...>
            Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 9:08 AM
            Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] (unknown)


            >
            >
            > --- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, Art RX9TX <rx9tx@e...> wrote:
            > >
            > >> The application fee for a basic DXCC Award is $10 and includes up
            > >> to 120 card credits. Applicants pay 15 cents per each additional
            > >> card applied. A similar fee structure applies for those going the
            > >> LoTW route, Mills says, and you won't have to pay any additional
            > >> fees on the DXCC side. The site provides for secure payment via
            > >> credit card.
            > >
            > > I did not get it, if I use LoTW I'll pay 15-25 cents for each
            > > applied QSO and additional 15 cents for every QSO over 120?
            >
            > IF one can believe Wayne Mills, there will be a discount to the
            > DXCC fees for credits from LotW. Here is an e-mail exchange I
            > had with him very early in the process.
            >
            > I hope they're not backing away from that now ... after being told
            > that I will have to pay the current PER QSO rate to get over 1000
            > QSOs from my old awards (CW/Phone/Mixed/5BDXCC/160 DXCC) converted
            > and credited in the new record format because I've been inactive
            > since BC (before computerization). With 1800+/- band/entities
            > depending on card and LotW returns in the next couple of months,
            > the 1000 old credits represent a substantial part of "getting
            > current." I was looking forward using LotW credits, where possible,
            > as one way to minimize "bite."
            >
            > If ARRL are planning to charge on both ends, LotW and the entire
            > DXCC program are in for a very quick and PAINFUL death.
            >
            > 73,
            >
            > ... Joe, K4IK (ex- AD8I, W8IK)
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Mills, Wayne N7NG [mailto:N7NG@...]
            > > Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 7:49 PM
            > > To: Joe Subich, K4IK
            > > Subject: RE: LoTW Certificate
            > >
            > >
            > > Absolutely! We encourage it. You can buy them as you use them,
            > > or you can buy them in advance. Logbook will keep track of how
            > > many you buy, and how many you use. You will note that the price
            > > goes down substantially with volume. You should also know know
            > > that although there is no connection between Logbook fees and
            > > DXCC (and other award fees), we will be offering a discount for
            > > those credits being submitted via electronic means. That means
            > > that we have to hire less labor to enter the data, and we will
            > > pass the savings on. Details are being worked out.
            > >
            > > 73, Wayne
            > >
            > >
            > > -----Original Message-----
            > > From: Joe Subich, K4IK [mailto:k4ik@...]
            > > Sent: Thu 2003-10-02 7:44 PM
            > > To: Mills, Wayne N7NG
            > > Subject: RE: LoTW Certificate
            > >
            > >
            > > A question about purchasing credits while I have you ...
            > >
            > > Can one purchase a batch of credits (say 250 as a "round number")
            > > before they are needed and use them over the course of a couple
            > > years or must credits be purchased as they are needed?
            > >
            > > 73,
            > >
            > > ... Joe, K4IK
            > >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            > ADVERTISEMENT
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
            > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
            >
            > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            > ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            >
            >
          • k5ww_2004
            ... How about: at the end of the week? :-) Quote: The system is undergoing a significant software upgrade and will be off-line until approximately 1300Z, Thu,
            Message 5 of 26 , May 5, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, "FireBrick" <w9ol@b...> wrote:
              > In a couple of hours, these questions will be answered.
              >

              How about: at the end of the week? :-)

              Quote:

              The system is undergoing a significant software upgrade and will be
              off-line until approximately 1300Z, Thu, May 6.

              Unquote.

              73,

              Gert - K5WW
            • R Johnson
              Bah Hum Bug !!! Just tried to log on to LoTW at 1601Z and saw the news. Will try again tomorrow morning. 73 Bob, K1VU
              Message 6 of 26 , May 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                Bah Hum Bug !!! Just tried to log on to LoTW at 1601Z and saw the news.
                Will try again tomorrow morning.

                73
                Bob, K1VU

                At 11:44 5/5/2004 , you wrote:
                >--- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, "FireBrick" <w9ol@b...> wrote:
                > > In a couple of hours, these questions will be answered.
                > >
                >
                >How about: at the end of the week? :-)
                >
                >Quote:
                >
                >The system is undergoing a significant software upgrade and will be
                >off-line until approximately 1300Z, Thu, May 6.
                >
                >Unquote.
                >
                >73,
                >
                >Gert - K5WW
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • Art RX9TX
                Hello Bob, Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Bob Daniels wrote to ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com: BD Example: BD Lets say you have 200 LoTW credits that you would like to
                Message 7 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hello Bob,

                  Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Bob Daniels wrote to ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com:

                  BD> Example:
                  BD> Lets say you have 200 LoTW credits that you would like to claim. The

                  BD> Now lets say this is your first submission of the calendar year of

                  BD> Now lets say this was a subsequent submission to the DXCC entity and,

                  BD> Note: According to the ARRL √ "For a limited time, you may make a

                  BD> First Submission total cost to you for claiming 200 LoTW credits and

                  BD> Subsequent submission total cost to you for claiming 200 LoTW credits

                  VERY and TOO complicated. And the target is that no one can finally
                  clarify for himself the whole pricing sceme :) That is similar to
                  cellular phone companies pricing schemes, they offer you limited
                  discounts etc which you can not keep in mind, but never say they just
                  decrease a price of a minute. Why ARRL would not just say that EVERY
                  QSO costs 15 cents? First submission in a calendar year costs me, not
                  an ARRL member, 20 dollars. And I can check 120 QSO for free. 120 x
                  0.15 = 18 dollars. They just steal my 2 dollars on that 120 "free"
                  cards :))

                  I know, I know, I am "free" not to participate in it :)

                  BD> Bob K8KWT

                  Thanks Bob.

                  --
                  73...Art RX9TX 05-May-04 16:04 UTC

                  "To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than a thousand heads bowing in prayer." (Gandhi)
                • Art RX9TX
                  Hello FireBrick, Wednesday, May 5, 2004 FireBrick wrote to ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com: F I was one of the beta testers. Yes there is a sliding fee scale for
                  Message 8 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Hello FireBrick,

                    Wednesday, May 5, 2004 FireBrick wrote to ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com:

                    F> I was one of the beta testers. Yes there is a sliding fee scale for the number of LoTW
                    F> country credits you are submitting.
                    F> I 'THINK' you get the same "1 free submission" a year which includes up to 120 qsls.

                    What do you mean by "free" in here? "Free" is free of any charge or
                    "free" is 0 cents for first 120 QSOs plus 15-25 cents per QSO, while
                    "not free" is 15 cents for every QSO over 120 and 15-25 cents for
                    every QSO?

                    Looks like we should expect pricing of 30-40 cents total per QSO.

                    --
                    73...Art RX9TX 05-May-04 15:54 UTC

                    "If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change the way you think about it!"
                  • Joe Subich, K4IK
                    ... I ve seen the LotW fee schedule and don t have a problem with it. My problem is with the DXCC side if ARRL/DXCC is charging the same for hard copy QSO
                    Message 9 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > From: FireBrick [mailto:w9ol@...]
                      >

                      > I was one of the beta testers. Yes there is a sliding fee
                      > scale for the number of LoTW country credits you are submitting.

                      I've seen the LotW fee schedule and don't have a problem with it.
                      My problem is with the DXCC side if ARRL/DXCC is charging the same
                      for "hard copy" QSO confirmations as "electronic" confirmations.
                      Wayne's e-mail indicated a substantial discount to the per QSO rate
                      since "we have to hire less labor to enter the data, and we will
                      pass the savings on." In fact, the system is (or could be)
                      completely automated which means NO LABOR to handle electronic
                      confirmations.

                      > If you already have submitted to DXCC and have an account
                      > which contains records of qsls submitted, you don't HAVE
                      > to do anything with these.

                      But I will ... my records were never converted to the computer.
                      If I want credit for the 1000 or so QSOs, Wayne is insisting
                      that I have to submit the cards de novo and pay the $0.15 per
                      card beyond the 120 card limit. Since 95% of the cards are
                      more than 10 years old, they have to be sent to Newington, I
                      can't even deal with a local card checker.

                      > LoTW knows what they are and you should be able to see them
                      > listed. Very early submissions may not have info such as
                      > band or mode. The records from long ago only contained the
                      > Call, Date, Time, and whether it was credited as Mixed or
                      > SSB. As DXCC improved it's software that info was recorded.
                      > Later submission recorded the other information.

                      I would not have a problem shipping them the old cards if they
                      wanted to verify band to "complete" the records. All I would
                      need is a list of calls credited for CW/Phone/Mixed and calls
                      credited on each band for 5BDXCC/160 ... I have all of the cards
                      I've submitted (and new ones I plan to submit "some day") filed
                      by band. Frankly though, if I have to pay $0.15 per QSO for
                      600 QSOs (5BDXCC plus 160 DXCC) as well as 500 plus QSOs from
                      the basic CW/Phone/Mixed awards (they are/were separate), I
                      might as well apply for the awards all over and have all the
                      plaques/certificates issued with my current call. That's what
                      I mean about "paying all over."

                      73,

                      ... Joe, K4IK
                    • Bob Daniels
                      Thanks for the note back Art. Like I said before there was some contradiction in the e-mails I got from the ARRL. It sounds like they are not sure if the
                      Message 10 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Thanks for the note back Art.

                        Like I said before there was some contradiction in the e-mails I got
                        from the ARRL. It sounds like they are not sure if the .15-cent per
                        QSO beyond the 120 QSO/Credit max will be imposed on LoTW credits. I
                        think their confusion here is what to do about an application that
                        includes both paper QSLs and LoTW credits. If you go over the 120
                        QSO/Credit max how should it be charged. Did the paper QSLs put you
                        over the 120 max limit or did the LoTW credits put you over 120 max
                        limit.

                        At any rate it is obvious to me that if you have a paper card in hand
                        and a LoTW credit for the same country you would be better off just
                        turning it in using the old traditional method. I have about 975
                        paper QSL-QSOs to turn in. Most of them are actually QSOs I turned
                        in years ago for 5BDXCC, CW, SSB …… That was before they kept full
                        records of everything sent in. Darn !!

                        It does occur to me that LoTW can still benefit the more established
                        Hams that are looking for fills on their Challenge Cup and don't
                        necessarily want the card.

                        Bottom line as I was told by the ARRL: Logbook is an alternative to
                        spending postage collecting cards. It is not a means to decrease the
                        cost of DXCC. (The two are Separate)

                        So for me the best option is to use the old fashion method for the
                        many paper QSLs I've already got, because no matter how you look at
                        it that is the most cost effective option. I will however use LoTW
                        for future Challenge Cup fills because that will also be my most cost
                        effective option.

                        For those non-North American Hams that were looking for a safer
                        alternative to sending their cards via Post, LogBook is available,
                        but unfortunately it looks like it will cost quite a bit more than
                        just a normal DXCC submission.

                        Bob K8KWT


                        --- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, Art RX9TX <rx9tx@e...> wrote:
                        > Hello Bob,
                        >
                        > Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Bob Daniels wrote to ARRL-
                        LOTW@yahoogroups.com:
                        >
                        > BD> Example:
                        > BD> Lets say you have 200 LoTW credits that you would like to
                        claim. The
                        >
                        > BD> Now lets say this is your first submission of the calendar year
                        of
                        >
                        > BD> Now lets say this was a subsequent submission to the DXCC
                        entity and,
                        >
                        > BD> Note: According to the ARRL – "For a limited time, you may
                        make a
                        >
                        > BD> First Submission total cost to you for claiming 200 LoTW
                        credits and
                        >
                        > BD> Subsequent submission total cost to you for claiming 200 LoTW
                        credits
                        >
                        > VERY and TOO complicated. And the target is that no one can
                        finally
                        > clarify for himself the whole pricing sceme :) That is similar
                        to
                        > cellular phone companies pricing schemes, they offer you
                        limited
                        > discounts etc which you can not keep in mind, but never say they
                        just
                        > decrease a price of a minute. Why ARRL would not just say that
                        EVERY
                        > QSO costs 15 cents? First submission in a calendar year costs me,
                        not
                        > an ARRL member, 20 dollars. And I can check 120 QSO for free.
                        120 x
                        > 0.15 = 18 dollars. They just steal my 2 dollars on that
                        120 "free"
                        > cards :))
                        >
                        > I know, I know, I am "free" not to participate in it :)
                        >
                        > BD> Bob K8KWT
                        >
                        > Thanks Bob.
                        >
                        > --
                        > 73...Art RX9TX 05-May-04 16:04 UTC
                        >
                        > "To give pleasure to a single heart by a single act is better than
                        a thousand heads bowing in prayer." (Gandhi)
                      • FireBrick
                        ... From: k5ww_2004 To: Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:44 AM Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: (unknown) ... yep, I
                        Message 11 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "k5ww_2004" <k5ww@...>
                          To: <ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:44 AM
                          Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] Re: (unknown)


                          > --- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, "FireBrick" <w9ol@b...> wrote:
                          > > In a couple of hours, these questions will be answered.
                          > >
                          >
                          > How about: at the end of the week? :-)
                          >
                          > Quote:
                          >
                          > The system is undergoing a significant software upgrade and will be
                          > off-line until approximately 1300Z, Thu, May 6.
                          >
                          > Unquote.
                          yep, I wasn't going to bet the farm on it going as originally planned. LOL

                          Check again tomorrow.

                          What's the song in 'Annie'??? :-))
                        • Art RX9TX
                          Hello Bob, Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Bob Daniels wrote to ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com: BD At any rate it is obvious to me that if you have a paper card in hand BD
                          Message 12 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hello Bob,

                            Wednesday, May 5, 2004 Bob Daniels wrote to ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com:

                            BD> At any rate it is obvious to me that if you have a paper card in hand
                            BD> and a LoTW credit for the same country you would be better off just
                            BD> turning it in using the old traditional method. I have about 975
                            BD> paper QSL-QSOs to turn in.

                            Unbelievable, in front of me I have a sheet of paper on which I count
                            cards to be submitted, it says "974 QSO" and "771 QSL" :) You are 1
                            QSO ahead :)

                            BD> So for me the best option is to use the old fashion method for the
                            BD> many paper QSLs I've already got, because no matter how you look at
                            BD> it that is the most cost effective option.

                            Thats right, that's what I will do when I get last one needed for
                            Honor Roll.

                            BD> For those non-North American Hams that were looking for a safer
                            BD> alternative to sending their cards via Post, LogBook is available,
                            BD> but unfortunately it looks like it will cost quite a bit more than
                            BD> just a normal DXCC submission.

                            Yep, our expectations did not match severe reality :)

                            5BDXCC #4999 of Sep 30, 2000

                            --
                            73...Art RX9TX 05-May-04 17:57 UTC

                            "People only see what they are prepared to see." [Ralph Waldo Emerson]
                          • FireBrick
                            Ok Now I understand what you mean. Just to reaffirm....I know all my qso s are in the computer it s just that the computer doesn t know exactly which band or
                            Message 13 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Ok Now I understand what you mean.

                              Just to reaffirm....I know all my qso's are 'in the computer' it's just that the computer
                              doesn't know exactly which band or mode.
                              The reason I know that is because during the testing, I could see all of them.
                              The qsl's submitted BEFORE they entered ALL the data had the callsign but just not the
                              details.
                              I even found an error in the DXCC records for me that was corrected when I pointed it out
                              to the DXCC people.

                              But I'm in the same boat. MANY of my qsl's are prior 5BDXCC and prior to the using the
                              full detail software.
                              If I want the full details, I will have to resubmit them, pay the fees and not get a
                              single thing out of it except a more correctly detailed set of records.

                              Just a clarification for MY mind.
                              Submitting hardcards to DXCC does NOT have a sliding scale dependent on the amount of
                              Cards submitted?
                              Submitting LoTW DOES have sliding scale. I saw it...unfortunately I didn't have enough
                              LoTW qsl's to qualify.

                              But I do have a lot of already paid for QSL payment credits waiting in case I get more.
                              :-))


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Joe Subich, K4IK" <k4ik@...>
                              To: <ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:23 AM
                              Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] (unknown)


                              >
                              >
                              > > From: FireBrick [mailto:w9ol@...]
                              > >
                              >
                              > > I was one of the beta testers. Yes there is a sliding fee
                              > > scale for the number of LoTW country credits you are submitting.
                              >
                              > I've seen the LotW fee schedule and don't have a problem with it.
                              > My problem is with the DXCC side if ARRL/DXCC is charging the same
                              > for "hard copy" QSO confirmations as "electronic" confirmations.
                              > Wayne's e-mail indicated a substantial discount to the per QSO rate
                              > since "we have to hire less labor to enter the data, and we will
                              > pass the savings on." In fact, the system is (or could be)
                              > completely automated which means NO LABOR to handle electronic
                              > confirmations.
                              >
                              > > If you already have submitted to DXCC and have an account
                              > > which contains records of qsls submitted, you don't HAVE
                              > > to do anything with these.
                              >
                              > But I will ... my records were never converted to the computer.
                              > If I want credit for the 1000 or so QSOs, Wayne is insisting
                              > that I have to submit the cards de novo and pay the $0.15 per
                              > card beyond the 120 card limit. Since 95% of the cards are
                              > more than 10 years old, they have to be sent to Newington, I
                              > can't even deal with a local card checker.
                              >
                              > > LoTW knows what they are and you should be able to see them
                              > > listed. Very early submissions may not have info such as
                              > > band or mode. The records from long ago only contained the
                              > > Call, Date, Time, and whether it was credited as Mixed or
                              > > SSB. As DXCC improved it's software that info was recorded.
                              > > Later submission recorded the other information.
                              >
                              > I would not have a problem shipping them the old cards if they
                              > wanted to verify band to "complete" the records. All I would
                              > need is a list of calls credited for CW/Phone/Mixed and calls
                              > credited on each band for 5BDXCC/160 ... I have all of the cards
                              > I've submitted (and new ones I plan to submit "some day") filed
                              > by band. Frankly though, if I have to pay $0.15 per QSO for
                              > 600 QSOs (5BDXCC plus 160 DXCC) as well as 500 plus QSOs from
                              > the basic CW/Phone/Mixed awards (they are/were separate), I
                              > might as well apply for the awards all over and have all the
                              > plaques/certificates issued with my current call. That's what
                              > I mean about "paying all over."
                              >
                              > 73,
                              >
                              > ... Joe, K4IK
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                              > ADVERTISEMENT
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              > a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
                              > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/
                              >
                              > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > ARRL-LOTW-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                              >
                              >
                            • R Johnson
                              Darryl: I personally think you are over reacting !!! I don t see that Joe make any disparaging remarks about Wayne Mills at ALL !!! I suspect that you, being
                              Message 14 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Darryl:
                                I personally think you are over reacting !!!

                                I don't see that Joe make any disparaging remarks about Wayne Mills at ALL !!!

                                I suspect that you, being closely involved with the LoTW concept, are trying
                                reading to much into Joe's comments.

                                As far as Wayne Mills doing a good job, I'll take exception to that !!!

                                If you want specifics, I'll site the arbitrary cancellation, without any prior
                                notice to the membership of the following Awards:
                                -Rag Chewers' Club (RCC) $3
                                -ARRL Friendship Award $5
                                -Old-Timers Club (OTC) $3

                                All these Awards did was foster "Good Will" for the League. They didn't cost
                                the League much of anything. The applicant paid a small fee which should have
                                more that covered the cost of the Award !!!

                                The "New Ham" doesn't get much out of his League Membership anymore. Keeping a
                                couple of easily obtainable Awards on the books for the Newbie to earn seems to
                                me like a reasonable thing to keep.

                                Rather than cancel them for lack of interest, I feel that the League should have
                                tried to promote these Awards. Heck we freed up a bunch of pages by eliminating
                                contest line scores, Annual table of contense, other things like that.

                                League membership keeps falling each year, thing like this don't help !!!

                                73
                                Bob, K1VU


                                At 10:48 5/5/2004 , you wrote:


                                >--
                                >Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON
                                >Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club
                                >"Evil triumphs when good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
                                >
                                >Join the TrustedQSL mailing list. An Open Source solution.
                                >Post message: TrustedQSL@yahoogroups.com
                                >Subscribe: TrustedQSL-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                >List owner: TrustedQSL-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                >http://www.trustedQSL.org
                                >
                                > > -----Original Message-----
                                > > From: Joe Subich, K4IK [mailto:k4ik@...]
                                > > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:08 AM
                                > > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                                > > Cc: w4rh@...; w4ru@...; k8je@...; k5ur@...
                                > >
                                > > IF one can believe Wayne Mills, there will be a discount to the
                                > > DXCC fees for credits from LoTW.
                                >
                                >I think that comment is totally uncalled for! It is very insulting to
                                >Wayne Mills and shouldn't have been said without supporting evidence
                                >that Wayne is untrustworthy. It seems to me that Wayne has done a very
                                >good job and doesn't deserve those types of comments.
                                >
                                >73
                                >Darryl Wagoner WA1GON
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                >
                                >
                                >
                                >
                              • rojomn
                                Here here! Well said. I remember getting my RCC award as a fun thing in the early days. I guess I missed out on OTC by never having applied. Always meant to
                                Message 15 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Here here! Well said. I remember getting my RCC award as a fun thing in the
                                  early days. I guess I missed out on OTC by never having applied. Always
                                  meant to get around to that. Maybe I am too old time !!! :=)

                                  Gil, W0MN http://webpages.charter.net/gbaron
                                  N 44.082056 W 92.513024 1050'
                                  Hierro Candente, Batir de repente

                                  > -----Original Message-----
                                  > From: R Johnson [mailto:k1vu@...]
                                  > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:07 PM
                                  > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                                  > Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] (unknown)
                                  >
                                  > Darryl:
                                  > I personally think you are over reacting !!!
                                  >
                                  > I don't see that Joe make any disparaging remarks about Wayne
                                  > Mills at ALL !!!
                                  >
                                  > I suspect that you, being closely involved with the LoTW
                                  > concept, are trying reading to much into Joe's comments.
                                  >
                                  > As far as Wayne Mills doing a good job, I'll take exception
                                  > to that !!!
                                  >
                                  > If you want specifics, I'll site the arbitrary cancellation,
                                  > without any prior notice to the membership of the following Awards:
                                  > -Rag Chewers' Club (RCC) $3
                                  > -ARRL Friendship Award $5
                                  > -Old-Timers Club (OTC) $3
                                  >
                                  > All these Awards did was foster "Good Will" for the League.
                                  > They didn't cost the League much of anything. The applicant
                                  > paid a small fee which should have more that covered the cost
                                  > of the Award !!!
                                  >
                                  > The "New Ham" doesn't get much out of his League Membership
                                  > anymore. Keeping a couple of easily obtainable Awards on the
                                  > books for the Newbie to earn seems to me like a reasonable
                                  > thing to keep.
                                  >
                                  > Rather than cancel them for lack of interest, I feel that the
                                  > League should have tried to promote these Awards. Heck we
                                  > freed up a bunch of pages by eliminating contest line scores,
                                  > Annual table of contense, other things like that.
                                  >
                                  > League membership keeps falling each year, thing like this
                                  > don't help !!!
                                  >
                                  > 73
                                  > Bob, K1VU
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > At 10:48 5/5/2004 , you wrote:
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > >--
                                  > >Darryl Wagoner - WA1GON
                                  > >Past President - Nashua Area Radio Club "Evil triumphs when
                                  > good men do
                                  > >nothing." - Edmund Burke [1729-1797]
                                  > >
                                  > >Join the TrustedQSL mailing list. An Open Source solution.
                                  > >Post message: TrustedQSL@yahoogroups.com
                                  > >Subscribe: TrustedQSL-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  > >List owner: TrustedQSL-owner@yahoogroups.com
                                  > http://www.trustedQSL.org
                                  > >
                                  > > > -----Original Message-----
                                  > > > From: Joe Subich, K4IK [mailto:k4ik@...]
                                  > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:08 AM
                                  > > > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > Cc: w4rh@...; w4ru@...; k8je@...; k5ur@...
                                  > > >
                                  > > > IF one can believe Wayne Mills, there will be a discount
                                  > to the DXCC
                                  > > > fees for credits from LoTW.
                                  > >
                                  > >I think that comment is totally uncalled for! It is very
                                  > insulting to
                                  > >Wayne Mills and shouldn't have been said without supporting evidence
                                  > >that Wayne is untrustworthy. It seems to me that Wayne has
                                  > done a very
                                  > >good job and doesn't deserve those types of comments.
                                  > >
                                  > >73
                                  > >Darryl Wagoner WA1GON
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  > >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Joe Subich, K4IK
                                  ... Thank you ... You are correct, too much is being read into my comments. However, I am still steamed after that getting my hardcopy DXCC record some time
                                  Message 16 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    > From: R Johnson [mailto:k1vu@...]
                                    >
                                    > I don't see that Joe make any disparaging remarks about Wayne
                                    > Mills at ALL !!!
                                    >
                                    > I suspect that you, being closely involved with the LoTW
                                    > concept, are trying reading to much into Joe's comments.

                                    Thank you ...

                                    You are correct, too much is being read into my comments.
                                    However, I am still steamed after that getting my hardcopy
                                    DXCC record some time ago (and was told there would be "no
                                    cost" to convert to the computer) that when I got ready to
                                    do the update after a relocation halfway across the country
                                    and callsign change, I was told, by Wayne, that it would cost
                                    me $10 plus $0.15 per QSO for all QSOs over 120 ... just as
                                    never had the credits.

                                    Quite frankly the ARRL Field Organization (ARES and NTS) are
                                    outmoded and a joke - technology has passed them by ... the
                                    "professional staff" in Newington has run away from contesting
                                    and would probably terminate Sweepstakes and the DX Contest
                                    if they could get away with it (from the contest coverage in
                                    QST, one could almost assume they have) ... and participants
                                    in the DXCC program is being nickel and dimed to death. If I
                                    hadn't been licensed for more than 30 years and a Life Member
                                    for almost as long, I would not give ARRL a second look today.

                                    73,

                                    ... Joe, K4IK
                                  • Martin Fouts
                                    I m going to stay an ARRL member for the simple reason that I have to be in order to be a VE in my particular VEC. LoTW would make a good case study in how
                                    Message 17 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I'm going to stay an ARRL member for the simple reason that I have to be in
                                      order to be a VE in my particular VEC.

                                      LoTW would make a good case study in how not to develope software, but I
                                      suppose it will survive -- there are plenty of examples of poorly designed
                                      software in widespread use.


                                      -----Original Message-----
                                      From: Joe Subich, K4IK [mailto:k4ik@...]
                                      Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:49 PM
                                      To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                                      Cc: 'R Johnson'
                                      Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] (unknown)



                                      > From: R Johnson [mailto:k1vu@...]
                                      >
                                      > I don't see that Joe make any disparaging remarks about Wayne
                                      > Mills at ALL !!!
                                      >
                                      > I suspect that you, being closely involved with the LoTW
                                      > concept, are trying reading to much into Joe's comments.

                                      Thank you ...

                                      You are correct, too much is being read into my comments.
                                      However, I am still steamed after that getting my hardcopy
                                      DXCC record some time ago (and was told there would be "no
                                      cost" to convert to the computer) that when I got ready to
                                      do the update after a relocation halfway across the country
                                      and callsign change, I was told, by Wayne, that it would cost
                                      me $10 plus $0.15 per QSO for all QSOs over 120 ... just as
                                      never had the credits.

                                      Quite frankly the ARRL Field Organization (ARES and NTS) are
                                      outmoded and a joke - technology has passed them by ... the
                                      "professional staff" in Newington has run away from contesting
                                      and would probably terminate Sweepstakes and the DX Contest
                                      if they could get away with it (from the contest coverage in
                                      QST, one could almost assume they have) ... and participants
                                      in the DXCC program is being nickel and dimed to death. If I
                                      hadn't been licensed for more than 30 years and a Life Member
                                      for almost as long, I would not give ARRL a second look today.

                                      73,

                                      ... Joe, K4IK






                                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                                    • Hamish Moffatt
                                      ... Why do you say that? You could say that TQSL/TQSLCERT are not ideal programs for end users. I d agree with that. I see them as demonstrations; the
                                      Message 18 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 08:01:50PM -0700, Martin Fouts wrote:
                                        > LoTW would make a good case study in how not to develope software

                                        Why do you say that?

                                        You could say that TQSL/TQSLCERT are not ideal programs for end users.
                                        I'd agree with that. I see them as demonstrations; the technology is
                                        intended to be incoporated into logging software over time.

                                        I don't see anything much wrong with the mechanisms/algorithms and
                                        the web site though.


                                        Hamish
                                        --
                                        Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@...> <hamish@...>
                                      • NA4FM (Buck)
                                        I quit the league years ago after having a discussion with my area representative. He said that he only counted votes that were based on factual evidence in
                                        Message 19 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          I quit the league years ago after having a discussion with my area
                                          representative. He said that he only counted votes that were based on
                                          factual evidence in favor of the majority of Amateur Radio operators. I
                                          had him clarify it to this degree: He said if I could not justify a
                                          "no" vote with evidence acceptible to him, when he reported votes to
                                          ARRL, my No vote would not be included. Therefore, only votes that
                                          agreed with him or had what might appear to be valid arguments to him to
                                          the contrary, would be counted. It was clear that the majority of
                                          people in the room at that time wanted him to vote "NO" but he said only
                                          a few would be counted as no votes because they were backed up by facts
                                          and not by emotion or lack of understanding.

                                          That is the first and last experience I ever had with an officer of the
                                          League.

                                          I am now awaiting membership papers again. I have joined for similar
                                          reasons to Martin, I want to be part of the VE team, part of ARES and
                                          other things that require membership here. ARES doesn't require
                                          membership, but training reimbursement costs are only granted to those
                                          who complete the courses AND are ARRL members and I intend to take all
                                          the courses I can for emergency service.

                                          Politics? Well, I'll just have to be one more voice they won't listen
                                          to.

                                          Buck



                                          > -----Original Message-----
                                          > From: Martin Fouts [mailto:lists@...]
                                          > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 11:02 PM
                                          > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Cc: 'R Johnson'
                                          > Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] (unknown)
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > I'm going to stay an ARRL member for the simple reason that
                                          > I have to be in order to be a VE in my particular VEC.
                                          >
                                          > LoTW would make a good case study in how not to develope
                                          > software, but I suppose it will survive -- there are plenty
                                          > of examples of poorly designed software in widespread use.
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > -----Original Message-----
                                          > From: Joe Subich, K4IK [mailto:k4ik@...]
                                          > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 7:49 PM
                                          > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                                          > Cc: 'R Johnson'
                                          > Subject: RE: [ARRL-LOTW] (unknown)
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > > From: R Johnson [mailto:k1vu@...]
                                          > >
                                          > > I don't see that Joe make any disparaging remarks about
                                          > Wayne Mills at
                                          > > ALL !!!
                                          > >
                                          > > I suspect that you, being closely involved with the LoTW
                                          > concept, are
                                          > > trying reading to much into Joe's comments.
                                          >
                                          > Thank you ...
                                          >
                                          > You are correct, too much is being read into my comments.
                                          > However, I am still steamed after that getting my hardcopy
                                          > DXCC record some time ago (and was told there would be "no
                                          > cost" to convert to the computer) that when I got ready to do
                                          > the update after a relocation halfway across the country and
                                          > callsign change, I was told, by Wayne, that it would cost me
                                          > $10 plus $0.15 per QSO for all QSOs over 120 ... just as
                                          > never had the credits.
                                          >
                                          > Quite frankly the ARRL Field Organization (ARES and NTS) are
                                          > outmoded and a joke - technology has passed them by ... the
                                          > "professional staff" in Newington has run away from
                                          > contesting and would probably terminate Sweepstakes and the
                                          > DX Contest if they could get away with it (from the contest
                                          > coverage in QST, one could almost assume they have) ... and
                                          > participants in the DXCC program is being nickel and dimed to
                                          > death. If I hadn't been licensed for more than 30 years and
                                          > a Life Member for almost as long, I would not give ARRL a
                                          > second look today.
                                          >
                                          > 73,
                                          >
                                          > ... Joe, K4IK
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                                          > ---------------------~--> Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads.
                                          > Yahoo! Companion Toolbar. Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for
                                          > free! http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/ELTolB/TM
                                          > --------------------------------------------------------------
                                          > -------~->
                                          >
                                          >
                                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ARRL-LOTW/post?>
                                          act=reply&messageNum=1134
                                          > Please do not reply to this message via email. More
                                          > information here:
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                          >
                                        • Martin Fouts
                                          As I write this, LOTW is still down for its upgrade . As I understand it, it was supposed to be back up, if I recall the original message correctly, 10 hours
                                          Message 20 of 26 , May 5, 2004
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            As I write this, LOTW is still down for its "upgrade". As I understand it,
                                            it was supposed to be back up, if I recall the original message correctly,
                                            10 hours ago. The new ETA has been shifted forward 24 hours. Another 24
                                            hour delay would not surprise me.

                                            All of this just to add a feature that was supposed to have already been
                                            beta tested.

                                            Why do I say it makes a good case study?

                                            Because, the system design is inherently flawed. It makes two bad
                                            assumptions from the start. First, it assumes that users are not to be
                                            trusted. Second, it assumes that the social issue of lack of trust can be
                                            solved by, in this case, excessive use of technology. More energy seems to
                                            have been put into 'securing' the system than into every other aspect of it,
                                            combined.

                                            Rather than build a system that helps hams use computers to verify their
                                            QSLs with each other, ARRL built a system that makes it hard for hams,
                                            because it doesn't trust them. It then forces these untrusted hams to use
                                            two tools that even you admit are "not ideal".

                                            Not only is the system poorly designed from a social perspective, and the
                                            visible interface to it poorly implemented, it doesn't even do simple QSL
                                            related things very wel, such as dup checking. This means that if I don't
                                            want my LoTW records screwed up, I have to keep careful track of when I last
                                            uploaded, so that I can export only records it hasn't already seen. Even
                                            eQSL gets this right.

                                            Does it, by the way, allow me any way to delete log records that I discover
                                            are broken and need to be replaced? I tried to find some documentation on
                                            how to deal with this, but I couldn't.

                                            Which reminds me of another failure: I haven't used a system this poorly
                                            documented since I used IBM mainframes in the early '70s.

                                            The system fails to follow what few interchange standards there are, as far
                                            as I understand it, having invented new fields for adif. Is the ARRL
                                            attempting to participate in the formulation of the adif 2 spec? I believe
                                            not.

                                            It is based on the hubris that there should be only one online QSL database,
                                            and that the ARRL should manage it. No thought has been given to
                                            interchange with other such databases, and, if I have been correctly
                                            informed, no effort was made to learn from the experience those databases
                                            already have generated.

                                            The whole process has been clouded in a secrecy that borders on the
                                            mystical. Sadly, it appears this secrecy is best attributed to incompetence
                                            rather than malice, but it has made the process unnecessarily difficult and
                                            has led to what appears to be several bad design features.

                                            By the way, how do I manage logs for special event stations on LoTW? For
                                            that matter, how do I manage logs for multiple stations? The system appears
                                            to have given no thought to QSL managers or to special events and their use
                                            of recycled call signs drawn from a limited pool.

                                            I have ported TQSL/TQSLCERT to freebsd. It is safe to say that the code is
                                            not production quality, hinting at a poor QA process. It is also safe to say
                                            that your assertions about mechanisms and algorithms are, shall we say,
                                            excessively optimistic.

                                            I have no comment on the internal implementation of the web site, having not
                                            seen it, but given the rest of the system, I doubt much thought has been
                                            given to robustness and availability. The "upgrade" now in progress makes
                                            it painfully clear that no thought was given to rolling update.

                                            What's wrong with the system? If you want a shorter answer, ask what's
                                            right, since there seems to be precious little of that.


                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: Hamish Moffatt [mailto:hamish@...]
                                            Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:52 PM
                                            To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                                            Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] (unknown)


                                            On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 08:01:50PM -0700, Martin Fouts wrote:
                                            > LoTW would make a good case study in how not to develope software

                                            Why do you say that?

                                            You could say that TQSL/TQSLCERT are not ideal programs for end users.
                                            I'd agree with that. I see them as demonstrations; the technology is
                                            intended to be incoporated into logging software over time.

                                            I don't see anything much wrong with the mechanisms/algorithms and
                                            the web site though.


                                            Hamish
                                            --
                                            Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@...> <hamish@...>




                                            Yahoo! Groups Links
                                          • Dave Bernstein
                                            All of LotW s extensions to ADIF are in fact consistent with the proposed ADIF 2.0 draft specification. By its adoption of ADIF 2.0 functionality, LotW has
                                            Message 21 of 26 , May 6, 2004
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              All of LotW's extensions to ADIF are in fact consistent with the
                                              proposed ADIF 2.0 draft specification. By its adoption of ADIF 2.0
                                              functionality, LotW has done more to move ADIF 2.0 forward than has
                                              any other organization, commercial or non-profit.

                                              With respect to system design, the ARRL's DXCC program has always
                                              exerted tight control, demanding official documentation of permission
                                              to operate and rejecting QSL cards showing any hint of ex post facto
                                              modification. LotW's top-level security requirements were driven by
                                              this orientation, and are in my personal view reasonable.

                                              That said, there is no reasonable technical explanation for the
                                              ARRL's decision to ignore eQSL.cc and build a new system from
                                              scratch. LotW's biggest problem is its severe shortage of
                                              implementation resources; far more could have been achieved by
                                              applying those limited resources to extending eQSL.cc to meet the
                                              needs of the DXCC program, rather than by first re-inventing the
                                              wheel. This decision may have primarily been driven by the ARRL's
                                              perceived need for exclusive control, but interactions with the
                                              players over the past years leads me to suspect that ego played no
                                              small part.

                                              Some of LotW's useability problems could have been mitigated by
                                              better integration with existing logging applications, but the
                                              project's management put little energy in this direction. To this
                                              day, for example, there is no "LotW Developer" forum in which
                                              questions can be posed and answers shared. Clearly, the LotW team
                                              lacks experience in collaborative software development -- another
                                              factor that may have driven the "ignore eQSL.cc" decision.

                                              While case studies are useful for students and practitioners of
                                              software engineering seeking to do better "next time", we DXers have
                                              a more pragmatic interest: electronic QSLing and recordkeeping should
                                              be a lot less time-consuming and expensive than snail-mailing cards
                                              and hand-checking reports printed by the DXCC desk's computer system.
                                              For better or for worse, LotW is our starting point. Far uglier
                                              systems have been hammered into reasonability via sustained,
                                              constructive critique from their user communities.

                                              73,

                                              Dave, AA6YQ


                                              --- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, "Martin Fouts" <lists@f...> wrote:
                                              > As I write this, LOTW is still down for its "upgrade". As I
                                              understand it,
                                              > it was supposed to be back up, if I recall the original message
                                              correctly,
                                              > 10 hours ago. The new ETA has been shifted forward 24 hours.
                                              Another 24
                                              > hour delay would not surprise me.
                                              >
                                              > All of this just to add a feature that was supposed to have already
                                              been
                                              > beta tested.
                                              >
                                              > Why do I say it makes a good case study?
                                              >
                                              > Because, the system design is inherently flawed. It makes two bad
                                              > assumptions from the start. First, it assumes that users are not
                                              to be
                                              > trusted. Second, it assumes that the social issue of lack of trust
                                              can be
                                              > solved by, in this case, excessive use of technology. More energy
                                              seems to
                                              > have been put into 'securing' the system than into every other
                                              aspect of it,
                                              > combined.
                                              >
                                              > Rather than build a system that helps hams use computers to verify
                                              their
                                              > QSLs with each other, ARRL built a system that makes it hard for
                                              hams,
                                              > because it doesn't trust them. It then forces these untrusted hams
                                              to use
                                              > two tools that even you admit are "not ideal".
                                              >
                                              > Not only is the system poorly designed from a social perspective,
                                              and the
                                              > visible interface to it poorly implemented, it doesn't even do
                                              simple QSL
                                              > related things very wel, such as dup checking. This means that if
                                              I don't
                                              > want my LoTW records screwed up, I have to keep careful track of
                                              when I last
                                              > uploaded, so that I can export only records it hasn't already
                                              seen. Even
                                              > eQSL gets this right.
                                              >
                                              > Does it, by the way, allow me any way to delete log records that I
                                              discover
                                              > are broken and need to be replaced? I tried to find some
                                              documentation on
                                              > how to deal with this, but I couldn't.
                                              >
                                              > Which reminds me of another failure: I haven't used a system this
                                              poorly
                                              > documented since I used IBM mainframes in the early '70s.
                                              >
                                              > The system fails to follow what few interchange standards there
                                              are, as far
                                              > as I understand it, having invented new fields for adif. Is the
                                              ARRL
                                              > attempting to participate in the formulation of the adif 2 spec? I
                                              believe
                                              > not.
                                              >
                                              > It is based on the hubris that there should be only one online QSL
                                              database,
                                              > and that the ARRL should manage it. No thought has been given to
                                              > interchange with other such databases, and, if I have been correctly
                                              > informed, no effort was made to learn from the experience those
                                              databases
                                              > already have generated.
                                              >
                                              > The whole process has been clouded in a secrecy that borders on the
                                              > mystical. Sadly, it appears this secrecy is best attributed to
                                              incompetence
                                              > rather than malice, but it has made the process unnecessarily
                                              difficult and
                                              > has led to what appears to be several bad design features.
                                              >
                                              > By the way, how do I manage logs for special event stations on
                                              LoTW? For
                                              > that matter, how do I manage logs for multiple stations? The
                                              system appears
                                              > to have given no thought to QSL managers or to special events and
                                              their use
                                              > of recycled call signs drawn from a limited pool.
                                              >
                                              > I have ported TQSL/TQSLCERT to freebsd. It is safe to say that the
                                              code is
                                              > not production quality, hinting at a poor QA process. It is also
                                              safe to say
                                              > that your assertions about mechanisms and algorithms are, shall we
                                              say,
                                              > excessively optimistic.
                                              >
                                              > I have no comment on the internal implementation of the web site,
                                              having not
                                              > seen it, but given the rest of the system, I doubt much thought has
                                              been
                                              > given to robustness and availability. The "upgrade" now in
                                              progress makes
                                              > it painfully clear that no thought was given to rolling update.
                                              >
                                              > What's wrong with the system? If you want a shorter answer, ask
                                              what's
                                              > right, since there seems to be precious little of that.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > -----Original Message-----
                                              > From: Hamish Moffatt [mailto:hamish@c...]
                                              > Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 8:52 PM
                                              > To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                                              > Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] (unknown)
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 08:01:50PM -0700, Martin Fouts wrote:
                                              > > LoTW would make a good case study in how not to develope software
                                              >
                                              > Why do you say that?
                                              >
                                              > You could say that TQSL/TQSLCERT are not ideal programs for end
                                              users.
                                              > I'd agree with that. I see them as demonstrations; the technology is
                                              > intended to be incoporated into logging software over time.
                                              >
                                              > I don't see anything much wrong with the mechanisms/algorithms and
                                              > the web site though.
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Hamish
                                              > --
                                              > Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <hamish@d...> <hamish@c...>
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              >
                                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.