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

Re: [ARRL-LOTW] RE: Expectations of LotW & why folk don't use it

Expand Messages
  • THOMAS WYLIE
    Absolutely Phil. Sometimes I despair at the messages I read on this reflector. Some people are just too stupid to be let loose with a computer....I have
    Message 1 of 35 , Jul 10 3:39 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      Absolutely Phil.   Sometimes I despair at the messages I read on this reflector.   Some people are just too stupid to be let loose with a computer....I have always found LOTW to be pretty straightforward.

      73 due Tom
      GM4FDM

      On Wednesday, 10 July 2013, pcooper <pcooper@...> wrote:
      >  
      >
      > Hi all,
      >
      > I've been following this thread with curiosity.
      > It would appear to me that some folks have a way-too-high expectation of LoTW.
      >
      > There have been many posts complaining about LoTW, including one which moaned about the length of time it took for the postcard to get from the ARRL HQ to the recipient in the USA! Oh come on! It must be a few days at most? And I bet you are willing to wait MONTHS for a QSL card confirming a new one!
      >
      > Outside the USA, we have a few more hoops to jump through, but for me, it was well worth doing. OK, so it took a week to get the email and get it all set up and running, but in the grand scheme of things, this really isn't an issue.
      >
      > I don't particularly understand the grip about it being difficult to set up. For me, it was fairly straightforward, and everything worked as I expected it to, with a little help from the PDF's available on the ARRL website about getting started with TQSL.
      > I will admit that remembering to renew certificates has caught me out once, and this process can lead to some confusion. Upgrading TQSL hasn't been as easy as it could be, but I would suggest that most of us in this hobby are now reasonably computer literate. If you can configure a microHam, all the other connecting stuff used in the average shack, and play radio as a hobby, you ought to be able to tackle this type of thing with some guidance from help files.
      > Dave AA6YQ and others have combined to make the TQSL troubles much simpler, and make the whole process much easier to use generally.
      >
      > Any decent logging software will have LoTW integration built in. DXKeeper does, and it works like a charm. Not only that, but the whole DXLab suite is free, and the support is above and beyond.
      >
      > I see that Dave did a survey about ones expectations of LoTW, and the results are a bit of a shock.
      > Do folk REALLY expect 1 minute per month downtime? And do they really expect QSO's to be processed in 1 minute?
      > Time for a reality check I think!
      > If it was down for 1 day per month, and it took 1 hour to process, which I guess would be MAXIMUM times, then is that really a burden on your time?
      > These times were the most chosen of those available, so the survey shows that this is what most of us would expect, but I am amazed that folk really thought that 1 minute was realistic for both.
      >
      > My only gripe with LoTW is not the TQSL function or the ARRL at all, but folk who upload part of a log, then never bother to do so again.
      >
      > We all owe a great debt of gratitude to Dave AA6YQ, Rick K1MU and Robert KC2YWE for taking on this onerous task, and for making our lives easier.
      >
      > And finally, yes, I am a member of the ARRL, but not being so should not prevent anyone from using it.
      > How many DXCC certificates would you get if only ARRL members were allowed to use it?
      >
      > 73 de Phil GU0SUP
      >
      >
    • Barry Murrell ZS2EZ
      Last time I looked, the ARRL WAS a US organisation - their awards, their rules!! If you don t like or accept their rules, don t play!!! Joe is quite right -
      Message 35 of 35 , Jul 11 11:55 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        Last time I looked, the ARRL WAS a US organisation - their awards, their rules!! If you don't like or accept their rules, don't play!!!
        Joe is quite right - the RSGB's IOTA rules are totally ridiculous - hence I don't participate (or moan about them)!!
        Same goes for contest rules.....

        Despite being a LONG way from the USA I have absolutely no issues with the rules and regulation pertaining to LoTW, the DXCC program or for that matter WAS/VUCC - and hold certificates for all of them. As it is, I have found the whole system very easy to use, and am very grateful to the ARRL for providing the whole awards program.


        73 de BARRY MURRELL ZS2EZ
        KF26ta - Port Elizabeth, South Africa
        Member : SARL - ARRL
        EPC#0558 DMC#1690 WCC#030 30MDG#4081
        DXCC(mixed)#41,146 DXCC(RTTY)#1,916
        DXCC(phone)#34,990 DXCC(CW)#11,714
        DXCC 40m,30m,20m,17m,15m,12m,10m
        WAS Triple Play #492 WAS(RTTY)#538 WAZ(RTTY)#185 WAE-I(mixed)#72
        WAZS(mixed)#214 AAA#1569
        AS ZR6DXB: VUCC(50MHZ)#1,334 UKSMG WAE(Silver)#75 UKSMG AFRICA#22 WAC (Satellite)
        website : www.zs2ez.co.za




        -----Original Message-----
        From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Joe Subich, W4TV
        Sent: 11 July 2013 14:04
        To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
        Cc: Robert Galambos
        Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] RE: Expectations of LotW & why folk don't use it


        > Sad really when ham radio is such a world wide hobby and not just US > centric

        When ARRL set up the awards programs (DXCC, WAS, VUCC) and the confirmation platform (LotW), they can make the rules. I think RSGB's rules for IOTA are absurd but I don't criticize them.


        73,

        ... Joe, W4TV


        On 7/11/2013 6:23 AM, Robert Galambos wrote:
        > It all comes down to AARL not trusting anyone other themselves.
        >
        > Sad really when ham radio is such a world wide hobby and not just US
        > centric
        >
        > Sent from my iPad
        >
        > On 2013-07-11, at 4:50, Nuno Lopes - CT2IRY <ct2iry@...> wrote:
        >
        >> Hi Joe,
        >>
        >> Here in CT Land the National Telecommunications Agency (ANACOM) it's the Government (they are a part of the Ministry of Telecommunication ) when regarding to all telecommunications in CT, they make the exams, the band plan, issue call's, everything in Hamradio, television, mobile phones, etc..., is regulate by them.
        >>
        >> They keep an database of all the call's in CT, CT3, CU, up to date.
        >>
        >> Our National Society (REP) has nothing to do with databases or call issue or exams or whatever in hamradio, they are the buro, and representative from CT in IARU.
        >>
        >> Here when there is a revision for the ham band plan the National Telecommunications Agency (ANACOM), ask for every ham club, ham society, or individual ham, to make an proposal for the revision.
        >>
        >> The only thing here different from the snail mail to email license & ID, it's the fact there in snail mail the envelope carry's the post office mark of the country from where he is sent.
        >>
        >> But let´s say for e.g. - I sent in email an D2 license & my Portuguese ID, if I was not there I can't have access to an license from D2, but if I was there and got the license, when I sent by snail mail my ID would be the Portuguese one, with my address in Portugal, so I would have D2 license with D2 address, and Portuguese ID with Portuguese address, but the post office mark from D2.
        >>
        >> All of this comes to the post office mark on the envelope.
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> 73 Nuno
        >> CT2IRY
        >>
        >> From: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@...>
        >> To: Nuno Lopes - CT2IRY <ct2iry@...>
        >> Cc: "ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com" <ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com>
        >> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 11:23 PM
        >> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] RE: Expectations of LotW & why folk don't
        >> use it
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> On 7/10/2013 3:16 PM, Nuno Lopes - CT2IRY wrote:
        >>> Joe,
        >>>
        >>> If the card checker is good for checking the QSL's for awards, I
        >>> think they should be good for ID & Call check, I don't think that
        >>> this is give up control, they already do a job for them, oppose to
        >>> National Societies (here I understand).
        >>
        >> ARRL is not comfortable with someone else determining ID. The credit
        >> card address verification is not a third party - with a name and
        >> address match that matches the licensee name and address it is an
        >> independent objective verification.
        >>
        >>> My point on credit card is that one, many people don't have a credit
        >>> card with is/her name on it,
        >>
        >> There are limitations to every system - with no credit card one can
        >> still use the "by mail" system. I don't think ARRL should or will
        >> allow one person to both check the cards and verify ID.
        >>
        >>> I think that the best option for us R.O.W, would be ID&Call checking
        >>> trough the Card checker, most of the county's that I know have an
        >>> database like the FCC, the card checker can see there if the call is
        >>> good (active or suspend, or doesn't exist), here when you pass the
        >>> exam, you bring home your license, no waiting, our card has the name
        >>> and address.
        >>
        >> ARRL have said they would use databases equivalent to those of the
        >> FCC
        >> *IF* they are maintained by the responsible *government* agency. The
        >> problem is that most (e.g., Canada, Great Britain, etc.) are not
        >> government databases but databases maintained by national societies.
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >> 73,
        >>
        >> ... Joe, W4TV
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>> 73 Nuno CT2IRY
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>
        >>>> ________________________________ From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"
        >>>> <lists@...> To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com Cc: Nuno Lopes -
        >>>> CT2IRY <ct2iry@...> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:53 PM
        >>>> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] RE: Expectations of LotW & why folk don't
        >>>> use it
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> On 7/10/2013 2:17 PM, Nuno Lopes - CT2IRY wrote:
        >>>>> The card checker's could verify the documents from the person,
        >>>>> e.g.
        >>>>
        >>>> ARRL could also use national societies if they wanted to do so but
        >>>> it seems that they do not want to give up that control.
        >>>>
        >>>>> The problem with credit cards is if you don't have one, and have
        >>>>> to use an card from a friend or family member.
        >>>>
        >>>> The card from a friend or family member would not provide
        >>>> verification. That is the entire point - to provide a secure ID
        >>>> that matches name to address and matches name/address on the
        >>>> license.
        >>>>
        >>>>> Snail mail from here to Rest of the World is 0.85€
        >>>>
        >>>> At an average of between 1.30 and 1.35 USD/EUR your 0.85€ would be
        >>>> $1.12 ... 2.00€ from Italy would be $2.60 ... 0.75€ from Germany
        >>>> would be $1.00, etc.
        >>>>
        >>>> Looking at rates here: http://www.k4hb.com/postage/ shows most of
        >>>> the rest of the world are between $1.00 and $5.00 as I suggested.
        >>>>
        >>>> 73,
        >>>>
        >>>> ... Joe, W4TV
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>> On 7/10/2013 2:17 PM, Nuno Lopes - CT2IRY wrote:
        >>>>> Hi Joe,
        >>>>>
        >>>>> The card checker's could verify the documents from the person,
        >>>>> e.g.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> I sent the TQ.5 to ARRL Then sent to the card checker an copy of
        >>>>> my license and my ID, by email, it's easy to the Manager to
        >>>>> confirm if your call is valid, here in CT we've a database from
        >>>>> the ANACOM, National Telecommunications Agency, and it's up to
        >>>>> date. The Manager confirms my credentials to ARRL. ARRL sent the
        >>>>> TQ.6 with the password. This can be done in less then 24/48h.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> The problem with credit cards is if you don't have one, and have
        >>>>> to use an card from a friend or family member.
        >>>>>
        >>>>> Snail mail from here to Rest of the World is 0.85€
        >>>>>
        >>>>> 73 Nuno CT2IRY
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>
        >>>>>> ________________________________ From: "Joe Subich, W4TV"
        >>>>>> <lists@...> To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com Cc: pcooper
        >>>>>> <pcooper@...> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 7:00 PM
        >>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] RE: Expectations of LotW & why folk
        >>>>>> don't use it
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> On 7/10/2013 12:59 PM, pcooper wrote:
        >>>>>>> Outside the USA, we have a few more hoops to jump through, but
        >>>>>>> for me, it was well worth doing. OK, so it took a week to get
        >>>>>>> the email and get it all set up and running, but in the grand
        >>>>>>> scheme of things, this really isn't an issue.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> I have suggested to the Manager of the MVP Department
        >>>>>> (responsible for LotW, and all of the awards programs) that ARRL
        >>>>>> consider the use of credit cards and/or PayPal for verification
        >>>>>> of DX stations - even if it meant charging a nominal $1.00 -
        >>>>>> $5.00 to cover the fees. LotW/MVP could use a credit card *in
        >>>>>> the name of the licensee* with a billing address that matched the
        >>>>>> license address as a check against scanned copies of the license
        >>>>>> and ID (driver's license, passport, ID card, etc.) and avoid the
        >>>>>> need to see the physical papers with *postmark* from the country
        >>>>>> of license.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> Credit card address verification is very well advanced and as
        >>>>>> long as the issuing bank supports it, address verification should
        >>>>>> provide a quick and effective way to accomplish what takes an
        >>>>>> extended period of time today. A nominal fee could conceivably
        >>>>>> be less than the postage (or certainly competitive with postage
        >>>>>> rated from places like Germany) and "address verification" might
        >>>>>> provide considerable saving of staff time compared to the manual
        >>>>>> verification process. Unfortunately, there are countries/banks
        >>>>>> that do not provide address verification so those licensees would
        >>>>>> still need to use the existing procedure.
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> 73,
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>> ... Joe, W4TV
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>>>
        >>
        >>
        >>
        >


        ------------------------------------

        Yahoo! Groups Links
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.