Further to what Ford, and others, are saying and realizing the genuine
usage problems that Jerry is encountering,
I assume that all of the originators of complaints regarding their LoTW
usage difficulties have computers.
Being amateur radio operators, they also own and use relatively
expensive radio equipment and antenna systems.
That being said, why not make a further, rather small, investment in a
good, up to date, computer logging program.
There are several of them out there that make LoTW uploads and downloads
a complete 'no-brainer',
necessitating only a few clicks on the mouse or keyboard to successfully
accomplish the above tasks.
Then make use of your printer to print out the instructions, found on
the LoTW web site, for further,
detailed, study of the use of the many other LoTW facilities and
We need to get more people to use LoTW, not scare them all away.
Try it, you might like it.
My LoTW QSL return rate is a dismal 3.8 %.
73, Carl VE9OV
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ford Peterson" <n0fp@...>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2005 7:09 PM
Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Given up again
> I know you are a reasonable guy, and deserve a reasonable explanation
> as to why things are-the-way-they-are with LOTW. Some of the rest of
> you may learn a thing or two by reading this diatribe.
> Somewhere in this thread, either by you or by others, people have
> expounded on how banks seem to be able to set up on-line processing of
> transactions with great ease. They do it with seemingly seamless
> perfection. But they do this at great risk. A little secret from a
> bank examiner (me)... New account processing is the area of greatest
> financial risk to every bank. On-line wires are a far greater risk
> than loans and deposits combined. The fact is, LOTW uses EXACTLY the
> same procedure as banks, the IRS, the FCC, OCC, US Dept of Ed, US Dept
> of Transportation, etc., etc.
> When I set up my FCC account, I started the application on-line and
> then they assigned a PIN that allows me to continue processing my
> applications. They MAIL me the pin to the correct address. Presuming
> that I know all the other information I need to know to complete the
> application, they let me in. When I set up on-line processing with
> the IRS, which allows me to sign and file tax returns on-line, and
> access customer accounts with the IRS, they used the same procedure
> with two exceptions (1) I needed to know my personal adjusted gross
> income for the previous years, and (2) they needed my finger prints on
> file (you should have heard the hoots-and-hollers at the local PD when
> I asked to be finger printed). When I set up my account with the
> Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which allows me to file my
> banking client's quarterly and annual financial reports to the Federal
> Reserve Bank, they used the IDENTICAL same procedure. When I helped
> my daughter to sign up for her college financial aid, I did this
> on-line too. Guess what? The IDENTICAL procedure was used, and I
> signed the application on-line using pre-designated passwords. Slight
> variations on the same theme, but all were identical to LOTW. The
> exception is my own bank. And I'd like to explain why this
> relationship is different.
> The procedure in every case is to prepare an application for an
> account. To provide some guarantee that I am me, they mail the
> confirmation code to my last known address. Once received, I can then
> continue processing my business. Along the way, they ask all sorts of
> goofy questions to verify that I am me--mother's maiden name, city of
> birth, my adjusted gross income, etc.--all externally verifiable by
> them. The only reason a bank (and I group credit cards and financial
> brokers with this group) procedure is somewhat different is that they
> also provide me a MAILED monthly statement, to which I respond
> confirming receipt with a check for the balance due--EVERY MONTH. In
> each case, these banking relationships started with a complicated
> application that included checking with the previous bank AND looking
> at the "black list" of no-good-dead-beat banking customers (yes, there
> really is a black list, and if you are on it, you will NEVER get a
> checking account at a bank until you straighten out the mess you
> created to get on that list).
> So the difference in all these identical sign-up procedures--bar
> NONE--is the fact that when monthly correspondence occurs already,
> there is no need for additional internal controls since this
> particular control is being performed every month. If you walked into
> a bank and attempted to open an account, complete with authorization
> to make wires, I can guarantee that you will be met with great
> difficulty. Frankly, it may be impossible.
> So LOTW is not even remotely unreasonable. If the ARRL LOTW area was
> sending you some statement periodically, to which you needed to
> respond with a confirmation (like a check for a balance due), then the
> certificate process could be eliminated completely. Frankly, there is
> no reasonable way around this. If your protests fall on deaf ears, I
> suspect it is because a very many very smart people--inside and
> outside the ARRL--have looked at these issues for years. This IS the
> proper way to accomplish what the ARRL fully intends to retain as
> secure--that being the DXCC desk.
> I hope this helps you understand why the world spins the way it
> does... At least re:LOTW...
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
> b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of