- First, I am happy, I just got my #50 for my first WAS.
I start the application process, but have a question. What are the
I paid for 50..
there is a $10 for the certificate. which is fine.
there is .70 for postage, which is fine.
there is a $5.00 LoTW fee.... ??????
then what are the credits for ?
please do not misunderstand me, I have no problem at all
with supporting the LoTW program, but it feels as if I am being charged
I am sure that it's just me and my failing to understand the system.
Why not just one single fee when applying for an award?
- There are some good nets out there one of the better ones is the ANZA net that is on 14.183 at 0515Z each day ANZA stands for A(VK)NZ(ZL)A(Africa)lots of good ops there. http://anzadxnet.webs.com/ The 40 meter net that is metioned is also boring as heck I have been on it a few times and I fall asleep most of the time.
--- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, Jerry <n9avy@...> wrote:
> There are some nets that are run on the sloppy side and they should be avoided.Â They are usually populated by newer hams or those who are unfamiliar with awards programs.Â However, there are many decent nets if you must operate a net.
> I've chased DX on some nets because that was the only way I could work certain DX. If nets aren't for you, then, don't operate nets.Â The blame for lousy nets goes on those NC's who tolerate such bad operation.
> JerryÂ N9AVY
> --- On Wed, 6/15/11, Paul. W. Copeland <pcopeland1@...> wrote:
> From: Paul. W. Copeland <pcopeland1@...>
> Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Awards
> To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, June 15, 2011, 5:44 PM
> I personally think that contacts made on those "nets" should be dis-allowed.Â I worked a JY (Royal Family) once on one of those nets, but that was because the guy on the JY end would ONLY operate on that net.Â He had assistance on his end by a "regular" ham.Â I later worked the "regular"Â ham and HIS card was the one I turned in for DXCC, not the "Royal Family" guy.Â I did not feel good about that Royal FamilyÂ contact because of the way it was handled and I haven't been back to that "net" since then (1980).
> 73 de K4KCSÂ