[CQ-Contest] Encouraging Casual Participation in Contests
jpreston1 at cox.net
Mon May 1 14:58:29 EDT 2017
It isn't a presumption. WPX is set up on LOTW, and the cost is 12 cents
I agree with a flat fee, but I'm thinking more along the lines of $5 or
$10. Possibly charge 0.12 per QSO up to that maximum. The lower the fee,
the more likely people will be to use the system. While I don't want the
ARRL to lose money on LOTW, I think fees should be reasonable.
To keep this contest related, a lrge number of my confirmed prefixes
have been worked during contests.
On 5/1/2017 4:55 AM, Ron Notarius W3WN wrote:
> Well, that's just it, Mike.
> The presumption in this particular subthread is that if WPX is ever
> set up for LotW, the per confirmation fee will be the same as it
> currently is for the ARRL awards. That's actually a heck of a
> If I were asked, which I have not been, I'd recommend a flat fee for
> the basic award, rather than a per confirmation charge (on top of the
> actual fees for WPX itself). Something reasonable -- it costs $$ to
> run and maintain the LotW server, after all -- but not outrageous or
> out of line. Would $25 be out of line, considering the alternative
> of how much it would cost (even over a long period of time) to gather
> the physical cards themselves?
> W5VX may accuse me of missing the point, which of course is out of
> context considering his PM to me. But I don't believe that I have.
> The simple fact is, TANSTAAFL. Somewhere, someone has to pay the
> bills. The ARRL can not continue to do so out of membership dues,
> and it is not unreasonable to ask those applying for these awards to
> cover some of the reasonable administrative costs. If & when other
> awards are brought online, the same issue of covering those
> administrative costs will still exist. We all wish it were
> otherwise, and we could go back to the days when the costs were
> hidden... but those days are long gone.
> 73, ron w3wn
More information about the CQ-Contest