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

VUCC or other??

Expand Messages
  • wb4iuy@teara.org
    Over the last few years I ve been watching to see if the ARRL was going to actually bring VUCC or other awards to LOTW, but haven t seen any change in a long
    Message 1 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Over the last few years I've been watching to see if the ARRL was going to
      actually bring VUCC or other awards to LOTW, but haven't seen any change in
      a long time. Does anyone know if there is any move afoot to bring LOTW
      forward, or is it pretty much just going to be for WAS & DXCC?

      Thanks,
      Dave WB4IUY
    • n9lah@arrl.net
      The rumor, as I heard it, was that VUCC was to be implemented after the first of the year. We can only wait and watch. There have been a couple of down times
      Message 2 of 15 , Jan 3, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        The rumor, as I heard it, was that VUCC was to be implemented after the first of the year. We can only wait and watch. There have been a couple of down times over the weekend and each time I had hoped to see it pop up as WAS did but nothing yet.

        Phil
        N9LAH

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "wb4iuy@..." <WB4IUY@...>
        To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, January 3, 2010 8:06:23 AM GMT -06:00 US/Canada Central
        Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] VUCC or other??

         

        Over the last few years I've been watching to see if the ARRL was going to
        actually bring VUCC or other awards to LOTW, but haven't seen any change in
        a long time. Does anyone know if there is any move afoot to bring LOTW
        forward, or is it pretty much just going to be for WAS & DXCC?

        Thanks,
        Dave WB4IUY

      • la4rt
        ... Obviously, VUCC is an ARRL award. The easiest way to integrate with LotW is to code it into LotW. As for awards with other sponsors, like WAZ or IOTA, ARRL
        Message 3 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, "wb4iuy@..." <WB4IUY@...> wrote:
          >
          > Over the last few years I've been watching to see if the ARRL was going to
          > actually bring VUCC or other awards to LOTW, but haven't seen any change in
          > a long time. Does anyone know if there is any move afoot to bring LOTW
          > forward, or is it pretty much just going to be for WAS & DXCC?
          >
          > Thanks,
          > Dave WB4IUY
          >

          Obviously, VUCC is an ARRL award. The easiest way to integrate with LotW is to code it into LotW.

          As for awards with other sponsors, like WAZ or IOTA, ARRL should let you download digitally signed LotW reports, signed with the ARRL's published public key (which they've hopefully now learned not to let expire).

          *Any* third party award program could then verify the report, and decide for themselves whether or not to trust LotW. No bilateral agreement necessary.

          I guess data quality could be a problem. I've heard claims that IOTA numbers are often wrong. OTOH, QSL cards can also be wrong.

          73
          Jon LA4RT, Trondheim, Norway
        • Peter Laws
          ... Zone, IOTAs, Counties, grid locs (especially). Many US users don t even set their state. Yes, data quality is an issue. This is a problem that needs to be
          Message 4 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 06:07, la4rt <hellan@...> wrote:

            > I guess data quality could be a problem. I've heard claims that IOTA numbers are often wrong. OTOH, QSL cards can also be wrong.


            Zone, IOTAs, Counties, grid locs (especially). Many US users don't
            even set their state.

            Yes, data quality is an issue.

            This is a problem that needs to be solved within TQSL. Unfortunately,
            that open-source project is dead. Which is another problem!


            --
            Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
          • wb4iuy@teara.org
            ... first of the year. We can only wait and watch. There have been a couple of down times over the weekend and each time I had hoped to see it pop up as WAS
            Message 5 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
            • 0 Attachment
              At 05:21 PM 1/3/2010 +0000, you wrote:
              >The rumor, as I heard it, was that VUCC was to be implemented after the
              first of the year. We can only wait and watch. There have been a couple of
              down times over the weekend and each time I had hoped to see it pop up as
              WAS did but nothing yet.
              >
              >Phil
              >N9LAH

              Does the ARRL have a person (or people) who are working on LOTW for
              implementation of things like VUCC and other ARL awards?

              It would be great if they could get something worked out with CQ like eQSL
              did, to allow for CQ to easily accept ARRL QSL credits as well.

              Dave WB4IUY
            • Peter Laws
              ... One person, apparently, and not full-time. Remember that fees collected from cashing in LoTW credits DO NOT cover the cost of operating LoTW. ... I can t
              Message 6 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 15:36, wb4iuy@... <WB4IUY@...> wrote:

                > Does the ARRL have a person (or people) who are working on LOTW for
                > implementation of things like VUCC and other ARL awards?

                One person, apparently, and not full-time. Remember that fees
                collected from cashing in LoTW credits DO NOT cover the cost of
                operating LoTW.


                > It would be great if they could get something worked out with CQ like eQSL
                > did, to allow for CQ to easily accept ARRL QSL credits as well.

                I can't imagine CQ ever overtly accepting anything from the ARRL.
                Rumor has it that they will accept printouts of your LoTW credits for
                awards, but they aren't up-front about it.

                IMNSHO, for LoTW to thrive and be a QSO match engine for *any* award,
                the ARRL needs to spin it off into a separate foundation.

                As for eQSL ... I have a 4X "card" there awaiting my approval. Of
                course, I've never worked 4X (sadly!). That's not possible with LoTQ.
                'nuff said.


                --
                Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
              • Iain MacDonnell - N6ML
                ... See http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/OnlineConfir.html *shrug* ~Iain / N6ML
                Message 7 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0@...> wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 15:36, wb4iuy@... <WB4IUY@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > > Does the ARRL have a person (or people) who are working on LOTW for
                  > > implementation of things like VUCC and other ARL awards?
                  >
                  > One person, apparently, and not full-time. Remember that fees
                  > collected from cashing in LoTW credits DO NOT cover the cost of
                  > operating LoTW.
                  >
                  > > It would be great if they could get something worked out with CQ like eQSL
                  > > did, to allow for CQ to easily accept ARRL QSL credits as well.
                  >
                  > I can't imagine CQ ever overtly accepting anything from the ARRL.

                  See http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/OnlineConfir.html

                  *shrug*

                  ~Iain / N6ML
                • Peter Laws
                  ... I sit corrected! Good for CQ. Now, can HQ make it happen??? :-) -- Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 16:31, Iain MacDonnell - N6ML <ar@...> wrote:
                    > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0@...> wrote:

                    >> I can't imagine CQ ever overtly accepting anything from the ARRL.
                    >
                    > See http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/OnlineConfir.html
                    >
                    > *shrug*


                    I sit corrected! Good for CQ. Now, can HQ make it happen??? :-)



                    --
                    Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
                  • wb4iuy@teara.org
                    ... Really? I m guessing someone was either using your call, the other station heard it wrong, wrote it down wrong, or typed into the logging program wrong.
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >As for eQSL ... I have a 4X "card" there awaiting my approval. Of
                      >course, I've never worked 4X (sadly!). That's not possible with LoTQ.
                      > 'nuff said.
                      >Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

                      Really? I'm guessing someone was either using your call, the other station
                      heard it wrong, wrote it down wrong, or typed into the logging program
                      wrong. With eQSL, you simply deny the contact when it comes to you for
                      approval. I've had contacts from my logs I've submitted to eQSL and were
                      denied for that exact reason...I heard the other ststaion call wrong, they
                      didn't have me in the log, etc.

                      Just my $.01 worth...

                      I'm a LOTW user and enjoy the service. It works pretty good and I have about
                      12% return rate. I just wish the ARRL would get a move on so the other
                      awards were available via this method while most of us are still alive to
                      enjoy them. I pay ARRL dues, and have for over 35 years (since 1974). If the
                      dues aren't enough, they should step up to the plate and ask for more $$.
                      Heck, they could ask for additional $$ from those who wish to support LOTW,
                      so everyone doen't have to pay for something they might not have much
                      interest in. I've seen the arguement about it being such a huge job for the
                      coding & development, and I don't doubt that...but again, a small amount of
                      additional $$ from those of us who would pay up, would go a long ways to
                      offsetting the cost and hiring people to get it done.

                      In the last 11 years I've founded and operate 3 companies, have designed
                      over 700 products that we manufacture, enjoy ham radio, build and fly R/C
                      Airplanes, maintain two commercial eCommerce sites with over 7 million
                      items, build custom motorcycles, have written & debugged a goodly bit number
                      applications in several languages, paint the house, etc, etc...so I know
                      what it's like to work a lot. Where I'm headed with that is, upgrading this
                      one service can not possibly be such a monumental task that it has been
                      dragging on all these years with little change. Since being launched over 6
                      years ago, there has been almost no change in the awards interface. If I
                      were an owner of that company (ARRL) or an investor (and most of us here in
                      this forum are, as dues paying members), I would have long since fired the
                      crew that was "punching the timeclock" and supposedly completing the job.
                      There are people who could get the job done in a timely manner, and move on.

                      Their competitor, eQSL, has done much more in a much shorter period of
                      time...with fewer resources and less money. Their security is fine, despite
                      the pokes and jabs by the pro-ARRL folks who say it isn't. This is an awards
                      program...not homeland security (and we all know that has been breached in
                      the past, despite zillion dollar security efforts)...nothing is perfect. The
                      program is for us to get a little wallpaper to enjoy, and has no value for
                      securing a new mortgage or other venture that actually impacts real life.
                      Heck, eQSL actually got a 3rd party to participate (CQ) and allow the
                      credits towards their awards program, too. The ARRL could have easily done
                      this...but they chose not to. Instead the ARRL choose to spend time
                      developing a system that was made so difficult that many hobbiests can't get
                      past the LOTW code that has to be sent via USPS, security keys that have to
                      be installed, secret handshakes, etc and have given up on the whole process.
                      Those of us who have it working might not see the issue, but many simply
                      can't make it work. If you've been on this forum for any period of time,
                      you've seen this, too.

                      So, if the ARRL is listening...please get someone to be a project manager
                      for LOTW, get some new programmers, ask for more money, etc...do whatever it
                      is that you need to do to get this show on the road, while there's still a
                      road for it to travel on. Set a reasonable timeline, and hold someone
                      accountable for it. Oh well, that's just my $.01, and is worth exactly $0,
                      hihi.

                      Dave WB4IUY
                    • wb4iuy@teara.org
                      ... Wow...that would be great. I do notice the following from that page: For details, click here or see March 2009 CQ, page 92. Since it is in March 09,
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
                      • 0 Attachment
                        >> > It would be great if they could get something worked out with CQ like eQSL
                        >> > did, to allow for CQ to easily accept ARRL QSL credits as well.
                        >>
                        >> I can't imagine CQ ever overtly accepting anything from the ARRL.
                        >
                        >See http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/OnlineConfir.html
                        >*shrug*
                        > ~Iain / N6ML

                        Wow...that would be great. I do notice the following from that page:

                        "For details, click here or see March 2009 CQ, page 92."

                        Since it is in March '09, that means it was written at least 6 weeks prior
                        to that. Oh well...same timeline issues with this as with VUCC and other
                        items for LOTW through the league.

                        Dave WB4IUY
                      • Dave AA6YQ
                        The LotW development/operations team is so thinly staffed that it takes months to correct serious defects -- like the premature certificate expiration defect
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The LotW development/operations team is so thinly staffed that it takes months to correct serious defects -- like the premature certificate expiration defect whose workaround required setting your PC's clock backwards a few months.
                           
                          I'd love to be wrong about this, but new features? Dream on...
                           
                             73,
                           
                                   Dave, AA6YQ
                           
                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of wb4iuy@...
                          Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 4:37 PM
                          To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                          Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] VUCC or other??

                           

                          At 05:21 PM 1/3/2010 +0000, you wrote:

                          >The rumor, as I heard it, was
                          that VUCC was to be implemented after the
                          first of the year. We can only wait and watch. There have been a couple of
                          down times over the weekend and each time I had hoped to see it pop up as
                          WAS did but nothing yet.
                          >
                          >Phil
                          >N9LAH

                          Does the ARRL have a person (or people) who are working on LOTW for
                          implementation of things like VUCC and other ARL awards?

                          It would be great if they could get something worked out with CQ like eQSL
                          did, to allow for CQ to easily accept ARRL QSL credits as well.

                          Dave WB4IUY

                        • Dave AA6YQ
                          Those words have been present on the CQ web site for several years. 73, Dave, AA6YQ ... From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jan 4, 2010
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Those words have been present on the CQ web site for several years.
                             
                               73,
                             
                                   Dave, AA6YQ
                             
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Peter Laws
                            Sent: Monday, January 04, 2010 5:35 PM
                            To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] VUCC or other??

                             

                            On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 16:31, Iain MacDonnell - N6ML <ar@...> wrote:

                            > On Mon, Jan
                            4, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Peter Laws <plaws0@gmail. com> wrote:

                            >> I can't imagine CQ ever overtly accepting anything from
                            the ARRL.
                            >
                            > See
                            href="http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/OnlineConfir.html">http://www.cq- amateur-radio. com/OnlineConfir .html
                            >
                            >
                            *shrug*

                            I sit corrected! Good for CQ. Now, can HQ make it happen??? :-)

                            --
                            Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

                          • Peter Laws
                            ... Which is my point. LoTW does not create the opportunity to cheat the way eQSL does. You can certainly cheat with LoTW: both stations agree on the QSO
                            Message 13 of 15 , Jan 10, 2010
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 16:44, wb4iuy@... <WB4IUY@...> wrote:
                              >>As for eQSL ... I have a 4X "card" there awaiting my approval.  Of
                              >>course, I've never worked 4X (sadly!).  That's not possible with LoTW.
                              >> 'nuff said.
                              >>Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
                              >
                              > Really? I'm guessing someone was either using your call, the other station
                              > heard it wrong, wrote it down wrong, or typed into the logging program
                              > wrong. With eQSL, you simply deny the contact when it comes to you for
                              > approval. I've had contacts from my logs I've submitted to eQSL and were
                              > denied for that exact reason...I heard the other ststaion call wrong, they
                              > didn't have me in the log, etc.


                              Which is my point. LoTW does not create the opportunity to cheat the
                              way eQSL does. You can certainly cheat with LoTW: both stations agree
                              on the QSO parameters and each uploads the QSO - voila, signed,
                              sealed, and fake.

                              But eQSL allows fishing expeditions. Only one station needs to upload
                              fake QSO data. Most ops (I'm certain) will just deny the QSOs but
                              some don't. And that tarnishes the whole eQSL system.



                              > I'm a LOTW user and enjoy the service. It works pretty good and I have about
                              > 12% return rate. I just wish the ARRL would get a move on so the other
                              > awards were available via this method while most of us are still alive to
                              > enjoy them. I pay ARRL dues, and have for over 35 years (since 1974). If the


                              You either have a lot of pre-2003 QSOs or don't do a lot of contests.
                              :-) DXLab tells me that I have 4919/9728 or 51% confirmed. The bulk
                              of those are from when I finally got a permanent station and got
                              active in 2004, 13 yrs after I got licensed.

                              As for the money, I'm an LM, so my dues are handled differently. If I
                              wasn't, I'd not want my dues going to cover any more of the costs of
                              LoTW than they cover for, say, books. I expect LoTW (and books) to be
                              (mostly) self-supporting.

                              The best way to do this for LoTW is to simply increase the fees on
                              credit redemption. Even if they doubled the per-QSO fee, it's still
                              cheaper than QSLing Direct.

                              As for secret handshakes, you know as well as I that they are simply
                              asking you to sign your logs. The postcards are just a way to verify
                              you are who you say you are. No different than applying for an SSL
                              certificate. It's a pain for non-FCC-licensed hams so if you can come
                              up with a better way to verify those hams, please forward it to your
                              Division leadership.


                              What I would like to see is a whole lot more transparency from the
                              League regarding LoTW ... well, and probably other things too, but
                              let's start there. Things like LoTW are not line items in the budget
                              which essentially has no line items You can ask about things but
                              you'll essentially be told to MYOB.

                              Ultimately, as I've said before, LoTW will need to be spun off to some
                              sort of foundation so that the League's pride doesn't get in the way
                              of supporting other awards (CQ, RSGB, etc). Once that's done, they
                              can open up development to the ham community that already produces
                              stuff like N1MM, MMTTY, DXLabs, fldigi, etc, etc, etc. As it is now,
                              LoTW is dying, the ARRL just doesn't know it.


                              --
                              Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
                            • pa3c_aart
                              ... sealed, and fake. But eQSL allows fishing expeditions. Only one station needs to upload fake QSO data. Most ops (I m certain) will just deny the QSOs but
                              Message 14 of 15 , Jan 11, 2010
                              • 0 Attachment
                                >>>> Which is my point. LoTW does not create the opportunity to cheat the way eQSL does. You can certainly cheat with LoTW: both stations agree on the QSO parameters and each uploads the QSO - voila, signed,
                                sealed, and fake.

                                But eQSL allows fishing expeditions. Only one station needs to upload
                                fake QSO data. Most ops (I'm certain) will just deny the QSOs but
                                some don't. And that tarnishes the whole eQSL system.

                                -------
                                So what is different from qsl-cards and eqsl?
                                Did you never/ever receive a qsl-card for a qso you never made?
                                But: cards are accepted for DXCC-credits, eqsl not.

                                And Eqsl's are only accepted (WAZ) with AG-status.
                                Cards are accepted anytime.

                                So I say: Eqsl (AG) has stronger authenticity check than real cards and less possibility for cheating.

                                73 Aart PA3C
                              • Peter Laws
                                ... Except for the fact that cheating with cards costs money, nothing. I was, however, comparing LoTW and eQSL, not either one to paper cards. And no, for the
                                Message 15 of 15 , Jan 11, 2010
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 05:58, pa3c_aart <aartw@...> wrote:
                                  >>>>> Which is my point. LoTW does not create the opportunity to cheat the way eQSL does. You can certainly cheat with LoTW: both stations agree on the QSO parameters and each uploads the QSO - voila, signed,
                                  > sealed, and fake.
                                  >
                                  > But eQSL allows fishing expeditions. Only one station needs to upload
                                  > fake QSO data. Most ops (I'm certain) will just deny the QSOs but
                                  > some don't. And that tarnishes the whole eQSL system.
                                  >
                                  > -------
                                  > So what is different from qsl-cards and eqsl?


                                  Except for the fact that cheating with cards costs money, nothing.

                                  I was, however, comparing LoTW and eQSL, not either one to paper cards.

                                  And no, for the record, I've never received a card for a QSO I didn't make.

                                  I did get a buro card last year that I can't figure out and that has,
                                  amazingly, no callsign on it other than mine! I think it's a SQL
                                  card, but I can't tell!


                                  --
                                  Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.