Its certainly interesting to speculate. On one hand, ops will save
substantial time, money, and stomach lining by using LOTW (when its
finally working); the ARRL would be justified in seeking to recoup their
investment and operating costs by "recovering" some of the savings
experienced by users. On the other hand, the more ops that adopt LOTW,
the more money ARRL saves by shifting DXCC processing to a much more
efficient platform; ARRL could thus decide to accelerate LOTW adoption
by charging little or nothing.
[mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] On Behalf Of Chuck Gooden
Sent: Thursday, August 14, 2003 12:44 AM
To: Jim White, K4OJ
Cc: Tower Talk
Subject: [TowerTalk] ARRL and LOTW
On 13 Aug 2003 at 22:31, Jim White, K4OJ wrote:
> To tell you the truth I cannot wait for the bugs to get ironed out of
> LOTW... I REALLY hate all the expenses associated with QSLing.
The ARRL is controlling LOTW and I firmly believe they will start to
charge for the
use of it just like the charge for the QSL buro, and any awards.
I believe this is more so the case as I look at the aging ham
population. If you send
green stamp(s), or IRC's, now, why wouldn't you spend 50 cents to a
$1.00 for a
contact in LOTW.
I believe one of the major reasons they will not accept an E-QSL or
eletronic QSL is because they want the control and the profit that goes
with it. They
may not be charging initially but they will in time.
See: http://www.mscomputer.com for "Self Supporting Towers", "Wireless
Weather Stations", and lot's more. Call Toll Free, 1-800-333-9041 with
any questions and ask for Sherman, W2FLA.
TowerTalk mailing list