Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Topband\:\s+LOTW\s*$/: 14 ]

Total 14 documents matching your query.

1. Topband: LoTW (score: 1)
Author: Raoul Coetzee <raoulcoetzee@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 10:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
I will always value a paper QSL card, no matter how simple and cheap in design, more valuable than an electronic one. But having thought about it, I have now, in addition to having a QSL manager, joi
/archives//html/Topband/2011-03/msg00053.html (6,726 bytes)

2. Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: Gedking@aol.com
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:05:29 -0500 (EST)
It's simple why some don't use LOTH it's called $ $ $ $ _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QSB QSB - hw? BK
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00248.html (6,356 bytes)

3. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: Kenneth Grimm <grimm@sbc.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:00:45 -0500
It doesn't cost anything to upload your log to LOTW. The only time "$ $ $ $" is a factor is if someone chooses to use a LOTW verified QSO for award purposes. I upload my log to LOTW, religiously, in
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00254.html (7,544 bytes)

4. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:41:51 -0500
"$ $ $ $" applies to well known "Dollar Bill Collectors" and so called QSL Managers that hold confirmations hostage for cash. 73, ... Joe, W4TV _______________________________________________ UR RST
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00260.html (7,969 bytes)

5. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: Jim Brown <jim@audiosystemsgroup.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:16:55 -0800
What are you possibly talking about? LOTW is FREE for all users. So is logging software that makes is very easy to use. I use DXKeeper for my main log, which uploads to LOTW and eQSL at the push of
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00270.html (8,420 bytes)

6. Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: "Chortek, Robert L" <Robert.Chortek@berliner.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:41:41 -0800
It has been asked: "Why don't more people use LOTW?" I put it off using LOTW for years because I feared, incorrectly, that it would be difficult to set up and use. Just last week, I finally got up th
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00272.html (7,682 bytes)

7. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: "Jim F." <j_fitton@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 09:43:46 -0800 (PST)
Don't forget, Most libraries have PCs (paid for by the taxpayer- You) and coffee shops, even McDonalds has free internet  available to upload logs using that old used flea market laptop you bought :-
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00273.html (8,762 bytes)

8. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: W2PM <w2pm@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:08:09 -0500
Moving it to a new PC or a second one is no simple but again with a little bit of reading isnt bad at all. Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ UR RST IS ... ... ..9 QS
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00274.html (8,374 bytes)

9. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: W2PM <w2pm@aol.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:21:30 -0500
You won't be able to do that. You have to install a key on that pc altho I think you can email your log updates to LOTW. Not sure abt that. Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00275.html (9,943 bytes)

10. Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: "Bill and Liz" <magoo@isp.ca>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 13:08:26 -0500
As a matter of interest, my confirmed rate on LOTW is around 26% even though I upload all logged QSOs. I think this method of confirming a QSO is really great; however, with such a small percentage o
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00278.html (7,409 bytes)

11. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: Herb Schoenbohm <herbs@vitelcom.net>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 16:32:03 -0400
Jim, LOTW cost less than mailing cards and SASE's plus green stamps especially when 20 per cent never arrive at theor destination. Where LOTW has its drawbacks is the nickle and dime charges for mult
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00279.html (11,155 bytes)

12. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: "Joe Subich, W4TV" <lists@subich.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:31:49 -0500
Huh? Install a fresh copy of tQSL on the second PC and "install" your certificate(s) from the *.p12 "backup". You *did* create a back-up of all of your certificates didn't you? It takes less time to
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00283.html (9,314 bytes)

13. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: Jeff Woods <jmwooods@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 15:28:34 -0800 (PST)
Joe, I don't call that process simple.  My beef with LoTW is that it's needlessly complicated to use.  In my opinion, the ARRL spent far too much time on security and too little time on user-friendli
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00285.html (11,536 bytes)

14. Re: Topband: LOTW (score: 1)
Author: "Petr Ourednik" <indians@xsmail.com>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:40:26 +0100
Hi all, ...really bothering to getting 10-20 messages daily about the LOTW on the TB related mailing list. Sorry but I am thinking about unsubscribing from there cos the discussion is not devoted to
/archives//html/Topband/2012-02/msg00286.html (8,083 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 14
Page: [1]
This search system is powered by Namazu