[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
Nah, that computer thing is never going to catch on :-) Bob K0NR On 1/24/2011 7:10 PM, Jack/W6NF wrote: > Yes, I agree with Tim wholeheartedly. > > Paper cards are nice (I have a few from my Novice days in 1957) but I, like > many others, cannot afford the expense. I *do* QSL 100% when a card is sent > to me but LoTW is fine, too. To summarily reject LoTW, to invoke Mr. Spock, > not logical ;>) > > BTW, I use N1MM logger for all contests and ACLog for everything > else...painless, easy and I can use the logging program on CW to cover for > my rotten fist :>) > > 73, > > On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Tim Marek wrote: > >> John and the rest of you LOTW doubters... >> >> The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS NOTHING >> compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards the old >> fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ Internationally) >> for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for their return all >> the waiting Lost or stolen mail, People who NEVER reply, followed by >> dealing with the cards after their collected, the hand sorting and filling >> in paper forms... what a royal pain and more importantly... a very >> inneficient way to do things... >> >> With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them to >> cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents per QSO to >> INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little muss or fuss... >> >> I really dont see what the problems is Its faster, safer, cheaper, and >> your log data is backed up forever Talk about a lasting legacy of your >> efforts! >> >> Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of >> QSLing, LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of hand >> writing that I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you will >> understand) >> >> As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another (Alot >> of them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload all those >> logs from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others who need those >> rare grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00, DN10, DN11, DN20, >> DM07, DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to name a few) but... I >> can now file for additional 6M VUCC's from several of those grids as they >> were June Contest efforts from tall mountains with large antennas and KW >> power where more than 100 Grids was easily accomplished... >> >> Think about it... "Nothing Is Free"... the prices they ask are reasonable, >> and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than those whom you apply >> to for the awards! >> >> Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right now to >> dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare and precious >> contacts from being lost forever) and collect those contact credits w/o >> lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp... >> >> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm sk >> >> PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not >> perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT! >> >> - Original Message - From: "John Geiger" >> To:; "Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org"; >> "'VHF REFLECTOR'" >> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM >> Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs >> >> >> >> I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs, >>> but given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement >>> for an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule >>> doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much >>> more popular. 73s John AA5JG >>> >>> - Original Message - From: >>> To: >>> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM >>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs >>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I did not see what happens with LOTW submisions. If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award insurance as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>) Merle, AA4QE >>> -- >> Submissions:[email protected] >> Subscription/removal requests: [email protected] >> Human list administrator: [email protected] >> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/ >> > > ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
I have been reading all the comments. I really only QSL eme contacts. I will QSL meteor scatter once there is some activity up here (nearest activity is 1300-miles away which kind of tough to do. Also, I will reply to a QSL request on satellite, HF, or 6m. Please SASE, or include a "buck" with your QSL. VUCC in Alaska _ Ha Ha pretty funny joke! There are not 100 grids with hams in AK. I might try for eme WAC, DXCC, and WAS someday. The only VUCC I am interested in accomplishing is on microwave where 7-grids qualify. That will be a challenge, but I have identified 7-8 grid squares that should be workable from my home qth. Of course that will require rovers/portables to go to these girds to set up. The Alaska VHF-Up Group offers an award for VHF+ starting at 5-grids worked in Alaska. A plaque is awarded for 20-grids. No QSLs are required for submission for an award. Just send a copy of the station logs showing the qualifying contacts. See the rules on my website: http://www.kl7uw.com/avg.htm In the Jan 2010 ARRL VHF Contest NL7HJ/R activated 12 grids making him the first ham to qualify for the rover-class "Pathfinder" Award. This year I think there may be 2-3 stations that worked 5-grids to qualify. NL7HJ/R activated them and had planned on two more grids within my range, but ran too late at night to do. I am not doing LotW; only paper QSL's. I have receive a few e-QSL. What I do in the future is ??? Being the sole Alaska 2m-eme station makes my QSL very desired for 2m-eme WAS. It costs me quite a lot to QSL 100% of eme contacts. 73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45 == BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com EME: 144-1.4kw*, 432-100w*, 1296-testing*, 3400-winter? DUBUS Magazine USA Rep [email protected] == *temp not in service ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
Its not. PAPER LoTW Application Fee$7$5 Per QSO fee $0.20 $0.16 Certificate+postage $12 $12 Sticker+postage $1$1 Pin+postage $7$7 Ex: 6m VUCC certificate w/100 grids $39 $33 BEFORE LoTW, the cost was $10 (Certificate + Pin) and any endorsement was $10 (Sticker) PLUS the cost of QSL-ing, of course. You decide. Also, remember that someone who wouldn't QSL even w/SASE or, in some cases with a card they simply had to sign and drop in the mail box, may not upload to LoTW either. 73 Donn WA2VOI/0 - Original Message - From: "Mark McMillaN" To: ; ; ; Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:27 AM Subject: RE: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs > John > > I don't think setting up and maintaining the VUCC awards on LOTW is free. That > would be like asking for a 8 lane freeway and never paying taxes.. unless it a > toll road ..Mark > ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
John I don't think setting up and maintaining the VUCC awards on LOTW is free. That would be like asking for a 8 lane freeway and never paying taxes.. unless it a toll road ..Mark > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs > Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:07:33 + > > I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs, but > given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement for > an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule > doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much > more popular. > > 73s John AA5JG > > - Original Message - > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs > > > > Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I > > did > > not see what happens with LOTW submisions. > > > > If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award > > insurance > > as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>) > > > > Merle, AA4QE > > > > ___ > > Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > -- > Submissions: [email protected] > Subscription/removal requests: [email protected] > Human list administrator: [email protected] > List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/ ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
Yes, I agree with Tim wholeheartedly. Paper cards are nice (I have a few from my Novice days in 1957) but I, like many others, cannot afford the expense. I *do* QSL 100% when a card is sent to me but LoTW is fine, too. To summarily reject LoTW, to invoke Mr. Spock, not logical ;>) BTW, I use N1MM logger for all contests and ACLog for everything else...painless, easy and I can use the logging program on CW to cover for my rotten fist :>) 73, On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Tim Marek wrote: > John and the rest of you LOTW doubters... > > The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS NOTHING > compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards the old > fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ Internationally) > for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for their return all > the waiting Lost or stolen mail, People who NEVER reply, followed by > dealing with the cards after their collected, the hand sorting and filling > in paper forms... what a royal pain and more importantly... a very > inneficient way to do things... > > With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them to > cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents per QSO to > INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little muss or fuss... > > I really dont see what the problems is Its faster, safer, cheaper, and > your log data is backed up forever Talk about a lasting legacy of your > efforts! > > Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of > QSLing, LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of hand > writing that I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you will > understand) > > As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another (Alot > of them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload all those > logs from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others who need those > rare grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00, DN10, DN11, DN20, > DM07, DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to name a few) but... I > can now file for additional 6M VUCC's from several of those grids as they > were June Contest efforts from tall mountains with large antennas and KW > power where more than 100 Grids was easily accomplished... > > Think about it... "Nothing Is Free"... the prices they ask are reasonable, > and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than those whom you apply > to for the awards! > > Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right now to > dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare and precious > contacts from being lost forever) and collect those contact credits w/o > lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp... > > 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm sk > > PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not > perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT! > > - Original Message - From: "John Geiger" > To: ; "Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org" ; > "'VHF REFLECTOR'" > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM > Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs > > > > I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs, >> but given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement >> for an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule >> doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much >> more popular. 73s John AA5JG >> >> - Original Message - From: >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs >> >>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I >>> did not see what happens with LOTW submisions. >>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award >>> insurance as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>) >>> Merle, AA4QE >>> >> -- > Submissions:[email protected] > Subscription/removal requests: [email protected] > Human list administrator: [email protected] > List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/ > -- Jack, W6NF Silver Springs, NV DM09ji Paper, LoTW and eQSL ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
Very good observation and analogy. Please add: Mechanical Filters vs. DSP Analog display vs. Digital Display Paper logs vs. Electronic logs Paper duping (contest) vs. Computer duping (contest) 73, Jeff WB3JFS - Original Message - From: "Sebastian" To: "amsat-bb" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 5:55 PM Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs > Spark vs CW > AM vs SSB > Tubes vs Solid State > Homebrew vs Appliance Operator > FCC Office vs VECs > Code vs No-Code > EME CW vs WSJT > QSL Cards vs LoTW > > Time marches on... > > 73 de Sebastian, W4AS > > >> Personally, I'm disappointed that the ARRL has chosen to create this LotW >> thing. It is aimed at ruining one of the classic enjoyments of ham radio. > > > ___ > Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb > ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
Spark vs CW AM vs SSB Tubes vs Solid State Homebrew vs Appliance Operator FCC Office vs VECs Code vs No-Code EME CW vs WSJT QSL Cards vs LoTW Time marches on... 73 de Sebastian, W4AS > Personally, I'm disappointed that the ARRL has chosen to create this LotW > thing. It is aimed at ruining one of the classic enjoyments of ham radio. ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
Tim, I'm not a LotW doubter. I'm a LotW rejecter. I've been in ham radio for 52 years and have always loved QSLing. I like to QSL. I look at every card I receive and look forward to receiving cards for the QSOs I make. There have been times when the QSLiing chores were intense, like after working hundreds of JAs during the F2. Yeah, it was work, but I looked forward to receiving their cards and I know that they enjoyed receiving mine. QSLing has always had a cost. Nowadays, it would cost me a lot to send cards to everyone that I work and pay for it out of my own pocket. That's why I require an s.a.s.e. from those domestic hams who want my card. But, I don't have a problem doing that. I figure if you want to apply for major awards like VUCC and FFMA, and need my card, you can send me an s.a.s.e. I don't necessarily think that using LotW is all that efficient. I do not computer log except in contests. The only reason I do it in contests is because contest sponsors want electronic submissions, and since I would have to transcribe my hand-written logs into electronic form after the fact, I choose to computer log to save work. But, I would rather log via pencil and paper during contests. Personally, I'm disappointed that the ARRL has chosen to create this LotW thing. It is aimed at ruining one of the classic enjoyments of ham radio. 73, Paul, K7CW --- On Mon, 1/24/11, Tim Marek wrote: From: Tim Marek Subject: Re: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs To: "John Geiger" , [email protected], "Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org" , "'VHF REFLECTOR'" Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 11:36 AM John and the rest of you LOTW doubters... The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS NOTHING compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards the old fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ Internationally) for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for their return all the waiting Lost or stolen mail, People who NEVER reply, followed by dealing with the cards after their collected, the hand sorting and filling in paper forms... what a royal pain and more importantly... a very inneficient way to do things... With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them to cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents per QSO to INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little muss or fuss... I really dont see what the problems is Its faster, safer, cheaper, and your log data is backed up forever Talk about a lasting legacy of your efforts! Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of QSLing, LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of hand writing that I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you will understand) As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another (Alot of them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload all those logs from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others who need those rare grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00, DN10, DN11, DN20, DM07, DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to name a few) but... I can now file for additional 6M VUCC's from several of those grids as they were June Contest efforts from tall mountains with large antennas and KW power where more than 100 Grids was easily accomplished... Think about it... "Nothing Is Free"... the prices they ask are reasonable, and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than those whom you apply to for the awards! Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right now to dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare and precious contacts from being lost forever) and collect those contact credits w/o lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp... 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm sk PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT! - Original Message - From: "John Geiger" To: ; "Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org" ; "'VHF REFLECTOR'" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs > I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs, but > given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement for > an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule > doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much > more popular. 73s John AA5JG > > - Original Message - From: > To: > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs >> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I >> did not see what happens with LOTW submisions. >> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award >> insurance as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>) >> Merle, AA4QE -- Submissions:
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
Hi Randy... I spent weeks and weeks over 2 years hand typing ALL of my old paper logs (HF and VHF) into a database program and kept it updated fairly regular till 2006 or so... My old database didnt work well under the then latest version of windows and it became a project that fell by the wayside.. 2 years ago I sorted that file (100,000+ records) based my my callsign, then on the grid I was in at the time... I took all the DM09 contatcts and dumped them into LOTW. That filled in my DXCC, and WAS files fairly well for HF and VHF... I then gathered up all the Cabrillo submission files from them to now, signed them individually, and sublitted them to LOTW as well. With the advent of LOTW VUCC support, I am now converting ALL my files(sorted by call then location) into individual files, converting them into the propper format, digitally sign, and then upload them into LOTW. At that point, ALL of the data from my various ham radio efforts will then be backed up at LOTW, and... in a position to be of use to me (and others) for many years to come. No one said it would be easy to get up to speed... Nothing worthwhile ever is... you assumed I have done it all electronically from day one... I HAVE NOT! What I did do was the hard work of hand typing them all in (and yes it sucked) but now all that hard work is showing me that it was all well worth it. 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm... sk - Original Message - From: "Randy" To: "Tim Marek" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:40 PM Subject: Re: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs > Hi Tim: > I agree LoTW will be a great thing for VUCC, especially for future, > computer-logged contacts where uploading to LoTW is simple. But I wonder > about older QSOs. I guess if you have lots of computer-logged QSOs and > can convert them into VUCC compatible files easily, sure why not go ahead. > But even for those, and especially for old paper logged QSOs, I wonder. > > For one thing, if somebody really wanted your QSL in the past (for VUCC or > anything else) they would have already exchanged paper cards. And for > another thing, I find that for my operating from CN74 and CN75, at least, > I only get requests for cards from maybe 10% of the QSOs I make, > indicating that nobody really cares about QSLs for the vast majority of > QSOs, even from a semi-rare grid like CN74/CN75. > > Of course for an even rarer grid there would be some increase in QSL > interest. But really, unless you are one of the extremely rare breed of > operator that can see the possibility of actually getting ALL grids for > FFMA in their lifetime, one grid is as just good as another, rare or not. > > So I guess my point is, as a by-product of computer logging of future > QSOs, LoTW will be really great. Especially for operators that make large > numbers of contacts each year. But as far as everyone hustling to put all > their old QSOs in LoTW it seems like a lot of collective work with very > little payback except to a very few. > > Randy, W7HR > Port Orchard, WA > > >> >> Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right now >> to dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare and >> precious contacts from being lost forever) and collect those contact >> credits w/o lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp... >> >> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm sk >> >> PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not >> perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT! > > > > > - > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 10.0.1202 / Virus Database: 1435/3400 - Release Date: 01/24/11 > ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
Hi Paul and the group... I can understand and respect your reasons for doing as you do... At the same time you have to respect the fact that life is about growth and LOTW is a natural expression of Amateur Radio embracing technology in a meaningful manner and moving forward. As one who has been a ham not as long as you, only 33 years... (as if it matters) I love QSLs and awards as much as anyone What I detest is having to deal with QSLs in such a inneficent manner as paper, pen, stamps, and envelopes. As one who makes several thousand QSO's a year between HF and VHF contesting (not to mention a healthy 6M Es addiction) QSLing has always been a heavy burden that I dont do well. Traditionally... all QSL's recieved go in a box and when its full I sit down and in a few days empty out the box. The box is not even looked at during 6M Es season or during the time period between CQ WW DX SSB and the ARRL 10M Contest. Some people have been quite vocal about my "Lack of QSLing" which has never been the case... But i have a deffinant "Delay in QSLing" that at time lasts months and can be hard for some to understand. Live in a rare state, activate rare grids a few times, and you will understand. I do them ON MY TERMS or not at all. With the advent of LOTW support for VUCC and FFMA, I hope the future VHF+ QSL burden drops by at least half, which will be a huge help. Unlike many of you, my days are filled with painfull headaches (remants from a bad car crash) which limits my ambitions to mainly the things that must be done to survive and QSLing is NOT anywhere near the top of that list. The ultimate purpose for any QSL is to apply for an award of one type or another... LOTW spares me the Paper QSLIng Burden while still allows me to keep chasing those awards and thankfully lets me focus what little energy I have to where it belongs... Finding work, Operating, Station building, and fighting pain. LoTW is NOT ruining existing QSLing, its improving it with many more options And my take on the cost associated with using LOTW... It takes time, effort, energy, manpower, equipment, infrustructure, and more to run a program as large as LOTW... The fact we only pay to use the service when we elect to use QSO credits for awards make perfect sense to me I know hams are notoriously cheap but this is one case I think we are getting what we pay for... 73s and GL de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm... sk - Original Message - From: Paul Kiesel To: John Geiger ; [email protected] ; Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org ; 'VHF REFLECTOR' ; Tim Marek Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs Tim, I'm not a LotW doubter. I'm a LotW rejecter. I've been in ham radio for 52 years and have always loved QSLing. I like to QSL. I look at every card I receive and look forward to receiving cards for the QSOs I make. There have been times when the QSLiing chores were intense, like after working hundreds of JAs during the F2. Yeah, it was work, but I looked forward to receiving their cards and I know that they enjoyed receiving mine. QSLing has always had a cost.. Nowadays, it would cost me a lot to send cards to everyone that I work and pay for it out of my own pocket. That's why I require an s.a.s.e. from those domestic hams who want my card. But, I don't have a problem doing that. I figure if you want to apply for major awards like VUCC and FFMA, and need my card, you can send me an s.a.s.e. I don't necessarily think that using LotW is all that efficient. I do not computer log except in contests.. The only reason I do it in contests is because contest sponsors want electronic submissions, and since I would have to transcribe my hand-written logs into electronic form after the fact, I choose to computer log to save work. But, I would rather log via pencil and paper during contests. Personally, I'm disappointed that the ARRL has chosen to create this LotW thing. It is aimed at ruining one of the classic enjoyments of ham radio. 73, Paul, K7CW --- On Mon, 1/24/11, Tim Marek wrote: From: Tim Marek Subject: Re: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs To: "John Geiger" , [email protected], "Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org" , "'VHF REFLECTOR'" Date: Monday, January 24, 2011, 11:36 AM John and the rest of you LOTW doubters... The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS NOTHING compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards the old fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ Internationally) for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for their return. all the waiting Lost or stolen mail, People who NEVER reply, followed by dealing with the cards after their collected, the hand sorting and filling in paper forms... what a royal pain and more importantl
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
John and the rest of you LOTW doubters... The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS NOTHING compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards the old fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ Internationally) for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for their return all the waiting Lost or stolen mail, People who NEVER reply, followed by dealing with the cards after their collected, the hand sorting and filling in paper forms... what a royal pain and more importantly... a very inneficient way to do things... With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them to cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents per QSO to INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little muss or fuss... I really dont see what the problems is Its faster, safer, cheaper, and your log data is backed up forever Talk about a lasting legacy of your efforts! Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of QSLing, LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of hand writing that I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you will understand) As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another (Alot of them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload all those logs from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others who need those rare grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00, DN10, DN11, DN20, DM07, DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to name a few) but... I can now file for additional 6M VUCC's from several of those grids as they were June Contest efforts from tall mountains with large antennas and KW power where more than 100 Grids was easily accomplished... Think about it... "Nothing Is Free"... the prices they ask are reasonable, and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than those whom you apply to for the awards! Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right now to dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare and precious contacts from being lost forever) and collect those contact credits w/o lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp... 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm sk PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT! - Original Message - From: "John Geiger" To: ; "Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org" ; "'VHF REFLECTOR'" Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs >I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs, but >given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement >for an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule >doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much >more popular. 73s John AA5JG > > - Original Message - > From: > To: > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM > Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs >> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I >> did not see what happens with LOTW submisions. >> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award >> insurance as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>) >> Merle, AA4QE ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
[amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
I couldn't agree more with Tim. It is easier to get a card out of Bhutan than it is from some of these VHF ops that operate on a regular basis. I would love to print the list of calls that I have here that will just not respond to an SASE. I won't because I'm typically castigated whenever I bring the issue up. I realize this is a hobby as the defenders of the non-QSLers love to point out but replying to a card is part of that hobby. Or used to be. At least post prominently wherever your call is displayed that you won't QSL. Or something. Steve, N4JQQ, EM55 On 1/24/2011 1:36 PM, Tim Marek wrote: > John and the rest of you LOTW doubters... > > The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS > NOTHING compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards > the old fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ > Internationally) for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for > their return all the waiting Lost or stolen mail, People who > NEVER reply, followed by dealing with the cards after their collected, > the hand sorting and filling in paper forms... what a royal pain and > more importantly... a very inneficient way to do things... > > With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them > to cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents > per QSO to INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little > muss or fuss... > > I really dont see what the problems is Its faster, safer, cheaper, > and your log data is backed up forever Talk about a lasting legacy > of your efforts! > > Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of > QSLing, LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of > hand writing that I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you > will understand) > > As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another > (Alot of them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload > all those logs from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others > who need those rare grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00, > DN10, DN11, DN20, DM07, DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to > name a few) but... I can now file for additional 6M VUCC's from > several of those grids as they were June Contest efforts from tall > mountains with large antennas and KW power where more than 100 Grids > was easily accomplished... > > Think about it... "Nothing Is Free"... the prices they ask are > reasonable, and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than > those whom you apply to for the awards! > > Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right > now to dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare > and precious contacts from being lost forever) and collect those > contact credits w/o lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp... > > 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm sk > > PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not > perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT! > > - Original Message - From: "John Geiger" > To: ; "Amsat-Bb@Amsat. Org" ; > "'VHF REFLECTOR'" > Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM > Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs > > >> I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter >> VUCCs, but given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get >> an endorsement for an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this >> new insane fee schedule doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT >> awards will be getting much more popular. 73s John AA5JG >> >> - Original Message - From: >> To: >> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM >> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs >>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. >>> However, I did not see what happens with LOTW submisions. >>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer >>> award insurance as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>) >>> Merle, AA4QE > -- > Submissions:[email protected] > Subscription/removal requests: [email protected] > Human list administrator: [email protected] > List rules and information:http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/ > > ___ Sent via [email protected]. Opinions expressed are those of the author. Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program! Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
