[CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy

Ron Notarius WN3VAW wn3vaw at fyi.net
Wed Apr 3 23:48:05 EST 2002

K1IR's post disappoints me.

Why is any change blamed on ARRL HQ, why is it always bad, and why is always
the ARRL which is at fault?

Why is ARRL once again being blamed for the conniptions of the 2002 Keystone
Kops over at eQSL, who are ready to sell you a QSL card but can't grasp the
concept that they're acting as a (questionably ethical) QSL manager in the
process?  Further, since my understanding (from those involved in the LotW
project) that it's eQSL that chose not to be compatible with LotW or anyone
else, why is anyone else being blamed for anything they do in their own
little world?

If you don't log a QSO and forget to fill out or send a card, and have no
way of following up on it later because of a lack of a log entry (mobile,
portable or otherwise) who's fault is this and why is this blame now being
assigned to LotW which is still a work in progress?

Where is it written that Logbook of the World is going to eliminate the
current use and acceptance of printed QSL cards when everything I have seen
& read to date indicates otherwise?

And most importantly Jim, answer us this:  If you think this is a step in
the wrong direction, then what would you have them do?  And how would you
make it work?  It's easy to crticize and assign blame.  You don't care for
the solution?  Then what would you do?
73, ron wn3vaw

"Why, he's no fun, he fell right over."

-- The Firesign Theatre

----- Original Message -----
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:37:06 -0500
From: Jim Idelson <k1ir at designet.com>
Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] eQSL change of policy
To: CQ-Contest Post <cq-contest at contesting.com>
Organization: DesigNET International

Personally, I think the new ARRL Logbook of the World policy of what we can
call "double-blind confirmation" is unnecessarily strict. What's the point?
you and I want to create a fictitious QSO, we can do it easily. We submit
information from both ends, and it is a QSO. Serious DX stations review
logs to ensure QSOs are good. But, if I'm mobile and I work a good one, but
don't log it, I'm not going to get the confirmation. And, if our clocks are
by too much - no QSO. If we make an error in filling out the on-line QSL -
QSO - and no way to track it.

What do the DXCC Rules say?

"2. Written Proof: Except in cases where the rules of Section IV apply,
proof (e.g. QSL cards) of two-way communication (contacts) must be submitted
directly to ARRL Headquarters for all DXCC credits claimed . . . . Staff may
accept electronic confirmations when procedures to do so are adopted."


"4. Confirmation data for two-way communications must include the call signs
both stations, the Entity name as shown in the DXCC List, mode, and date,
and band."

For about 65 years, confirmation in written form from the DX station -
solicited or unsolicited - has been the benchmark. This new double-blind
confirmation requirement definitely raises the bar for electronic QSLing.

It's always a pleasure to get unsolicited QSLs. It would be a pleasure to
them electronically, too. The beauty of a cool QSL design - whether printed
electronic is a welcome surprise - even if it is not a needed country.

Don't be fooled. This new QSL policy is really a major change in ARRL DXCC
policy. It is now being forced on eQSL in exchange for possible DXCC
accreditation - and it is a giant step in the wrong direction.


Jim Idelson K1IR
email    k1ir at designet.com
web    http://www.designet.com/k1ir

More information about the CQ-Contest mailing list