[CQ-Contest] L.O.T.W.

[Bill]

Bill, et al,

I thought this issue had died.  I hadn't heard much regarding LOTW lately.

It seems to me that interest sorta waxes and wanes with the big contests.
After I put my 1600 Qs from IARU, it immediately returned over 200 QSLs. I
was amazed. Since that time I have an additional 200+ QSLs.  Prior to the
IARU contest, I was getting about 2 or 3 a day. I am within a hairs breathe
of DXCC on 4 bands on LOTW. The fact that there are a lot of people using
LOTW means that many, but not all, feel that it isn't too complicated to
use. Of those who don't use it, many don't have the necessary logging
software, computer access or interest. Some seem to be standing "on
principle" that it is improperly complicated and refuse to participate.
Fortunately, we all have the opportunity to choose if we use LOTW.

I use a commercial logging program (DXBase, but several do the same thing)
that makes using LOTW pretty easy. Each month I ask the software to give me
an ADIF file of the contacts that have not been submitted. I sign the
software using the TQSL software and upload it to LOTW. After a couple of
minutes, I check to see the changes in my awards file and download the
updated file for re-integration into my logging program. If I didn't use a
computer logging program, I probably wouldn't use LOTW either.

I have been a member/life member of ARRL for 40 years and I strongly support
ARRL. If I were going to find something to complain about, it would be the
cost of submitting QSLs for awards. It is expensive to submit cards, whether
LOTW or hard copy. I am interested in submitting cards/LOTW QSLs for the
Challenge Award, but 1,000 QSLs (QSLs/LOTW) is going to be expensive.
Another source of irritation is that we don't even have WAS, much less WAZ
or County Hunters on LOTW. I have called my director (you might do the same)
about LOTW and it's slow pace. I think that we need to press for more money
to be allocated to the software development for these additional services.

Is LOTW too complicated? It's a matter of opinion.
Are awards using LOTW too expensive? Look at your bank balance.


Bill, W5VX

All organizations are perfectly aligned for the results they get.




 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: cq-contest-bounces at contesting.com [mailto:cq-contest-
>bounces at contesting.com] On Behalf Of Bill Turner
>Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 8:26 PM
>To: N7MAL; CQ-CONTEST at contesting.com
>Subject: Re: [CQ-Contest] L.O.T.W.
>
>At 02:04 AM 7/16/2005, N7MAL wrote:
>>I've heard a lot of moaning and groaning because it's to complicated or to
>>time consuming etc.
>
>_________________________________________________
>
>The moaning and groaning is right on. LoTW is far too complex for the level
>of security needed. I can log into my bank account with only a user name
>and password and do financial transactions in perfect security. No
>"certificates", no "signing" of transactions, no .TQ8 files, no .p12 files,
>no yearly renewal, etc, etc.
>
>Each of us should put pressure on our ARRL director to fix it. LoTW should
>be a source of pride to the ARRL, not a source of endless complaints.
>
>
>Bill, W6WRT
>LoTW user since day one... that's how I know.
>
>_______________________________________________
>CQ-Contest mailing list
>CQ-Contest at contesting.com
>http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest