| |
CX2SA > SATDIG 25.01.11 17:04l 837 Lines 29098 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : AMSATBB651
Read: GUEST
Subj: AMSAT-BB-digest V6 51
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<VE2PKT<CX2SA
Sent: 110125/1502Z @:CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA #:47591 [Minas] FBB7.00e $:AMSATBB651
From: CX2SA@CX2SA.LAV.URY.SA
To : SATDIG@WW
Today's Topics:
1. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Jack/W6NF)
2. Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS (Bob- W7LRD)
3. Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees (Scott Armstrong)
4. Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS (Larry Teran)
5. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Mark McMillaN)
6. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Donn)
7. more uploads by WD9EWK to LOTW (Patrick STODDARD (WD9EWK/VA7EWK))
8. Re: VUCC Costs (Gordon JC Pearce)
9. Re: VUCC Costs (Jeff Yanko)
10. Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs (Edward R. Cole)
11. Re: VUCC Costs and VUCC LoTW -- more uploads by WD9EWK to
LOTW (Gary "Joe" Mayfield)
12. Re: VUCC - n3fjp - what am I doing wrong? (Gary "Joe" Mayfield)
13. LOTW Grid vs. Call (Gary "Joe" Mayfield)
14. AMAST WAS and VUCC (wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxxx
15. Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS (Zachary Beougher)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:10:05 -0800
From: "Jack/W6NF" <vhfplus@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: Tim Marek <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Cc: "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, VHF REFLECTOR
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=u=NB2_0wDjgUiM1jY52qzNm3oGfePTXWS83Kc@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Yes, I agree with Tim wholeheartedly.
Paper cards are nice (I have a few from my Novice days in 1957) but I, like
many others, cannot afford the expense. I *do* QSL 100% when a card is sent
to me but LoTW is fine, too. To summarily reject LoTW, to invoke Mr. Spock,
not logical ;>)
BTW, I use N1MM logger for all contests and ACLog for everything
else...painless, easy and I can use the logging program on CW to cover for
my rotten fist :>)
73,
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Tim Marek <K7XC@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> John and the rest of you LOTW doubters...
>
> The costs to use LOTW for VUCC, DXCC, or WAS contact credits IS NOTHING
> compared to the time, effort and money needed to collect cards the old
> fashioned way! At near a buck a card domestically (Over 2$ Internationally)
> for the stamps to send them and as well as a SASE for their return.... all
> the waiting.... Lost or stolen mail, People who NEVER reply, followed by
> dealing with the cards after their collected, the hand sorting and filling
> in paper forms... what a royal pain and more importantly... a very
> inneficient way to do things...
>
> With the new LOTW system, you simply upload your logs, wait for them to
> cross confirm with other uploaded logs, spend less than 20 cents per QSO to
> INSTANTLY use those QSL credits for awards, with little muss or fuss...
>
> I really dont see what the problems is.... Its faster, safer, cheaper, and
> your log data is backed up forever.... Talk about a lasting legacy of your
> efforts!
>
> Compared to the OLD FASHIONED way of handling the laborious chore of
> QSLing, LOTW is a God send saving me much time, money, and alot of hand
> writing that I truly hate. (Try living in a rare state and you will
> understand)
>
> As one who has personally activated 57 grids at one time or another (Alot
> of them RARE), there is now a incentive to sort out and upload all those
> logs from the past 20 years. Not only will it help others who need those
> rare grids (CM86, CM95, CM96, CN90, CN91, CN92, DN00, DN10, DN11, DN20,
> DM07, DM17, DM18, DM19, DM27, DM28, and DM29 just to name a few) but... I
> can now file for additional 6M VUCC's from several of those grids as they
> were June Contest efforts from tall mountains with large antennas and KW
> power where more than 100 Grids was easily accomplished...
>
> Think about it... "Nothing Is Free"... the prices they ask are reasonable,
> and once uploaded who better to back up your logs than those whom you apply
> to for the awards!
>
> Personally, I dont understant why everyone isn't getting setup right now to
> dump their logs online to (at the very least protect those rare and precious
> contacts from being lost forever) and collect those contact credits w/o
> lifting a pen to paper or licking a single stamp...
>
> 73s de Tim - K7XC - DM09nm.... sk
>
> PS: I have been pushing LOTW for years to make this happen. Its not
> perfect, but compared to the old ways, its a VAST IMPROVEMENT!
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Geiger" <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>
> To: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>; "Amsat-Bb@xxxxx. Org" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>;
> "'VHF REFLECTOR'" <vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 2:07 PM
> Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>
>
>
> I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs,
>> but given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an
endorsement
>> for an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule
>> doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much
>> more popular. 73s John AA5JG
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>
>> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
>> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM
>> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>>
>>> Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I
>>> did not see what happens with LOTW submisions.
>>> If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award
>>> insurance as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>)
>>> Merle, AA4QE
>>>
>> ------
> Submissions: vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanford.edu/vhf/
>
--
Jack, W6NF
Silver Springs, NV
DM09ji
Paper, LoTW and eQSL
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 04:37:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: Bob- W7LRD <w7lrd@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS
To: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Cc: AMSAT <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<1049139812.1719305.1295930252725.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxxx.xxx
xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
I like it
73 Bob W7LRD
----- Original Message -----
From: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
To: "AMSAT" <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 4:11:12 PM
Subject: [amsat-bb] ?AMSAT ?VUCC and WAS
Maybe we all can talk AMSAT into offering a WAS and VUCC I would be nice to
see an AMSAT WAS on the wall
WA4HFN ?Damon
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:43:48 -0600
From: Scott Armstrong <aa5am@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees
To: <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <kk5do@xxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL116-W6245AB6AAA824D42EE2628C0FC0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Don't forget to include what it cost to obtain a minimum of 100 QSLs in the
pre VUCC-LOTW world.
Assuming (worst case) SASEs were sent @xx cents each and assuming 100%
response rate (lots of assuming here)plus the $12 for the award fee, it
would have cost a minimum of $100. So that $23 for a LOTW only application
looks great.
The two things that really burns me is the fact that a hybrid application is
not supported like it is on DXCC or WAS. Realistically, you will not have
100% of the grids confirmed on LOTW. This is true of DXCC and WAS even after
8 years of operation. So your basically going to be charged double fees to
have all the confirmed LOTW and paper grids credited. The other thing is the
20 cent per QSO charge for paper applications. It is totally out of line
considering what was charged for a VUCC application and what is currently
charged for DXCC applications.
Don't think I'm slamming LOTW or opposed to it. I love it and think it is a
great idea considering postage costs these days but it can be better. I also
love paper QSLs. I'm just a little ticked by the greed in Newington these
days. I sure hope this isn't the Leagues idea of how to attract to new blood
to the hobby and revitalize its current membership. Things must be pretty
rosy in Newington these days considering the rest of the country is in a
recession.
Scott AA5AM
> From: aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx
> To: kk5do@xxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
> Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 02:24:20 +0000
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: reply from arrl on new vucc fees
>
> The application fee didn't really go down, it also went up, except for VUCCs
> on 2.3ghz and above. The application fee used to be $12, and that included
> how many QSLs you sent to get the VUCC. Now if I want to get a brand new
> VUCC on 6m using LOTW, it is $7 for the intial fee, plus $16.00 for the QSL
> fee, so it is $23, as opposed to the previous $12, so it has doubled in
> price.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Bruce" <kk5do@xxxx.xxx>
> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 12:25 AM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] reply from arrl on new vucc fees
>
>
> > okay, here is what bill moore, nc1l, the head guy for the arrl awards has
> > to say
> > about the new structure for the awards. note at the bottom, if you are
> > submitting your first ever award with 50 lotw and 50 cards, you must
> > submit two
> > separate applications and two separate fees.
> >
> >
> > this is self explanatory (don't shoot the messenger).
> >
> > 73...bruce
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Forwarded Message ----
> > From: "Moore, Bill, NC1L (ARRL Awards Branch)" <nc1l@xxxx.xxx>
> > To: bruce paige <kk5do@xxxx.xxx>
> > Sent: Mon, January 24, 2011 6:14:19 PM
> > Subject: RE: National Association for Amateur Radio Website Form
> >
> >
> > Hi Bruce:
> >
> > Here is how the new fees work:
> >
> > First, for VUCC there is no Hybrid application like there is for DXCC and
> > WAS.
> >
> > For paper applications:
> >
> > $7.00 application fee
> > Each QSO is $0.20
> > $1.00 postage
> > $12.00 for each certificate
> >
> > LoTW Applications:
> >
> > $5.00 application fee
> > Each QSO in LoTW is $0.16
> > $1.00 for paperwork postage
> > $12.00 for each certificate
> >
> > Eg: If someone has a first time ever Satellite VUCC with 250 QSOs the fees
> > would
> > be:
> >
> > $7.00 for the application
> > $50.00 for 250 QSOs @ $0.20 each
> > $12.00 for the certificate
> > $1.00 for paperwork/sticker return
> >
> > His total would be $70.00
> >
> > If he has LoTW and Paper both categories would apply above since we do not
> > have
> > hybrids anymore.
> >
> > Basically, the application fee went down and other fees were adjusted.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> >
> >
> > If someone needs 100 for a first time ever and they have 50 LoTW and 50
> > paper,
> > they would do each application, separately, and the fees for each
> > application
> > apply as noted above.
> >
> >
> > Bill Moore NC1L
> > Awards Branch Manager
> > ARRL - The national association for Amateur Radio?
> > 225 Main Street
> > Newington, CT 06111
> > Telephone: (860) 594 0234
> > Fax: (860) 594-0346
> > email: dxcc@xxxx.xxx
> > DXCC Web Site: www.arrl.org/awards/dxcc
> > Blog: http://ww9:28 -0800
From: Larry Teran <ki6yaa@xxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS
To: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxxx amsat-bb <AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=wMLvecuy69v7du=eUk=hWM_1+-aJ=ei5uZ_k7@xxxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
That will be a great idea! and support for AMSAT
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:11 PM, <wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Maybe we all can talk AMSAT into offering a WAS and VUCC I would be nice to
> see an AMSAT WAS on the wall
> WA4HFN Damon
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 20:26:07 -0800
From: Mark McMillaN <w7mem@xxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>,
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL122-W5776D6DA31FB807383561E0FC0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
John
I don't think setting up and maintaining the VUCC awards on LOTW is free.
That would be like asking for a 8 lane freeway and never paying taxes..
unless it a toll road ..Mark
> From: aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx
> To: mlolmsted@xxxx.xxxx amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subject: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:07:33 +0000
>
> I WAS going to get an endorsement for my satellite and six meter VUCCs, but
> given that it would cost me around 35 dollars each to get an endorsement for
> an extra 150 grids, I don't think so. Hope this new insane fee schedule
> doesn't kill VUCC submissions. I think AMSAT awards will be getting much
> more popular.
>
> 73s John AA5JG
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>
> To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
> Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 12:25 PM
> Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
>
>
> > Nice explanation of the costs for VUCC in the Jeff Yanko blog. However, I
> > did
> > not see what happens with LOTW submisions.
> >
> > If the cost of awards keep going up, maybe the ARRL should offer award
> > insurance
> > as well as equipment insurance. Just a thought. :>)
> >
> > Merle, AA4QE
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> > Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> > Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
> ------
> Submissions: vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> Subscription/removal requests: vhf-request@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> Human list administrator: vhf-approval@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx
> List rules and information: http://www-w6yx.stanfot/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Its not.
PAPER LoTW
Application Fee $7 $5
Per QSO fee $0.20 $0.16
Certificate+postage $12 $12
Sticker+postage $1 $1
Pin+postage $7 $7
Ex: 6m VUCC certificate w/100 grids
$39 $33
BEFORE LoTW, the cost was $10 (Certificate + Pin)
and any endorsement was $10 (Sticker)
PLUS the cost of QSL-ing, of course.
You decide.
Also, remember that someone who wouldn't QSL even w/SASE or, in some cases
with a card they simply had to sign and drop in the mail box, may not upload
to
LoTW either.
73 Donn
WA2VOI/0
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark McMillaN" <w7mem@xxx.xxx>
To: <aa5jg@xxxxxxx.xxx>; <mlolmsted@xxxx.xxx>; <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>;
<vhf@xxxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 4:27 AM
Subject: RE: [VHF] Re: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC costs
> John
>
> I don't think setting up and maintaining the VUCC awards on LOTW is free.
That
> would be like asking for a 8 lane freeway and never paying taxes.. unless
it a
> toll road ..Mark
>
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:17:27 -0800 (PST)
From: "Patrick STODDARD \(WD9EWK/VA7EWK\)" <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] more uploads by WD9EWK to LOTW
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <391440.97857.qm@xxxxxxxx.xxxx.xxx.xxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Hi!
After a few hours of watching TV and crunching lots of data
files, I now have a total of 7796 satellite QSO records in LOTW,
with 985 QSLs from those. This is about 12.7% of my QSO records
being confirmed already. Even one of my first two satellite QSOs
from 2000 was QSLed as I uploaded data!
As for a satellite VUCC for me from the Phoenix area (generally
centered on DM33xp/DM43ap), I have 90 grids confirmed toward that
just from my LOTW uploads. I'm not sure if I can get to 100 without
others joining in and uploading their QSOs, but it's a good start.
I still have over 2100 QSOs to upload, and those will have to wait
for another night. I hope to have those uploaded by the end of this
week. If you think you should have a QSL with me and you don't see
it in your LOTW account, please e-mail me directly. I'll be happy
to look at things on my side.
Now, time for bed....
73!
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK
http://www.wd9ewk.net/
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:49:23 +0000
From: Gordon JC Pearce <gordonjcp@xxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC Costs
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Message-ID: <1295941763.3905.6.cameppy about the registration process which requires me to send a great
> deal of personal information to some random person in America.
>
> Gordon MM0YEQ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
------------------------------
Message: 10
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 23:08:35 -0900
From: "Edward R. Cole" <kl7uw@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: [VHF] Re: Re: VUCC costs
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <201101250808.p0P88ZUo088716@xxxxxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
I have been reading all the comments.
I really only QSL eme contacts. I will QSL meteor scatter once there
is some activity up here (nearest activity is 1300-miles away which
kind of tough to do. Also, I will reply to a QSL request on
satellite, HF, or 6m. Please SASE, or include a "buck" with your QSL.
VUCC in Alaska _ Ha Ha pretty funny joke! There are not 100 grids
with hams in AK. I might try for eme WAC, DXCC, and WAS someday.
The only VUCC I am interested in accomplishing is on microwave where
7-grids qualify. That will be a challenge, but I have identified 7-8
grid squares that should be workable from my home qth. Of course
that will require rovers/portables to go to these girds to set up.
The Alaska VHF-Up Group offers an award for VHF+ starting at 5-grids
worked in Alaska. A plaque is awarded for 20-grids. No QSLs are
required for submission for an award. Just send a copy of the
station logs showing the qualifying contacts. See the rules on my website:
http://www.kl7uw.com/avg.htm
In the Jan 2010 ARRL VHF Contest NL7HJ/R activated 12 grids making
him the first ham to qualify for the rover-class "Pathfinder"
Award. This year I think there may be 2-3 stations that worked
5-grids to qualify. NL7HJ/R activated them and had planned on two
more grids within my range, but ran too late at night to do.
I am not doing LotW; only paper QSL's. I have receive a few
e-QSL. What I do in the future is ??? Being the sole Alaska 2m-eme
station makes my QSL very desired for 2m-eme WAS. It costs me quite
a lot to QSL 100% of eme contacts.
73, Ed - KL7UW, WD2XSH/45
======================================
BP40IQ 500 KHz - 10-GHz www.kl7uw.com
EME: 144-1.4kw*, 432-100w*, 1296-testing*, 3400-winter?
DUBUS Magazine USA Rep dubususa@xxxxxxx.xxx
======================================
*temp not in service
------------------------------
Message: 11
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:53:45 -0600
From: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC Costs and VUCC LoTW -- more uploads by
WD9EWK to LOTW
To: "'Ted'" <k7trkradio@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "'Zachary Beougher'"
<zack.kd8ksn@xxxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>, "'John Papay'"
<john@xxxxxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL114-DS639037B1286681DB6F6908AFC0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Ted,
I never noticed, but my records also look like it is tracking by
callsign and not grid square. Does anyone's records show the same callsign
from multiple grids?
Patrick WD9EWK/VA7EWK,
Do you ever show the same callsign from multiple grids? I suspect
you or John, K6YK have the most confirmed by LOTW.
73,
Joe kk0sd
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Ted
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 1:14 PM
To: 'Zachary Beougher'; amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxxx 'John Papay'
Subject: [amsat-bb] VUCC Costs and VUCC LoTW
Would it not make sense for someone to summarize all these issues and make a
formal request to Bill Moore and request some clarification?
Also, as to VUCC in LoTW, it looks like it is not tracking by GRID. For
example, in my account, I show 1 contact from John, K8YSE. Well, I know I
have maybe 5-6 grids confirmed from John. So to get to 100 grids, LoTW
should be showing the number of GRID contacts with John instead of just 1
contact. (unless I'm missing something)
Thanks, Ted K7TRK
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mail57. I understand that the rules say $.20/QSO, but are they going to
charge me for both QSOs that are contained on the same QSL card and were
both contacts from the same grid? I guess the rules are pretty clear -
include $.20/QSO - but it seems like it may be more reasonable to say
$.20/QSL card; or maybe $.20/grid. I don't understand why they would charge
you for two QSOs that were from the same grid AND are on the same QSL card.
What it boils down to is if I work (eg.) K8YSE in EN90/EM99 next Saturday,
and lets say I work him 3 times, when I come home and send out QSL cards I
am naturally going to include in the card all the QSOs we had at that
location. I would then send the card off to him, and when he would go to
get credit for it he would be charged $.60 for that one QSL card - $.20 for
each QSO. So, because I included all QSOs on that one card, I have now cost
K8YSE an extra $.40. When you have a few more cards that contain this same
scenario, it begins to add up.
It seems like it would be much easier to just raise the flat fee than charge
per QSO, along with a flat fee. It takes enough time for the applicant to
sort cards and grids, let alone have to go through and count all QSOs.
Sorry to gripe. I am not against ARRL raising the fee (to some extent), but
it seems like it could be done in a more efficient manner than charging by
QSO.
Just my $.20 - literally. ;-)
Zack
KD8KSN
-----Original Message-----
From: John Papay
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 9:53 AM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC Costs (re-send with corrections)
The new fee schedule has brought forth a lot of
comments. Twenty cents a card seems like a lot of
money but consider how much you spent to get that card.
An SASE with a stamp on it plus the stamp for sending
it here in the US costs you $.88. If you send for a
DX card to countries other than Canada and Mexico, it's
$.98 for the postage and an IRC costs $2.10. If you are
lucky, you will get a DX card back for $3.08. If you're
not lucky, you'll send for it again hoping to get a reply.
Then there's the cost of the cards to add in, maybe $.10 each,
and the envelopes, hopefully self seal so the other guy doesn't
have to spend time moistening and sealing it. Maybe you bought
one of those stamps that say QSO Verified by (Callsign) at $25.
Then there are special airmail envelopes, one slightly smaller
than the other from Plum. It's starting to add up.
If everyone would use LOTW for satellite qso's, the savings would
be impressive. No postage, no cards, and just a $.16/card to
get credit for the grid. But cards are nice to receive; much
more personable and they sometimes have other useful info.
So after you spent all that money to get the card, spending
another $.20 to submit it for VUCC doesn't seem all that bad.
73,
John K8YSE
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 12
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 06:51:06 -0600
From: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: VUCC - n3fjp - what am I doing wrong?
To: "'Michael J. Wolthuis'" <wolthui3@xxx.xxx>, <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL114-DS6F82019CCC813461201FD8AFC0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mike,
I have no idea of how many other QSOs you have uploaded. You can log
in to the LOTW web page and look through all of your confirmed QSOs. It
maybe a fair amount of work, but it will probably let you know what is going
on.
73,
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxx [mailto:amsat-bb-bounces@xxxxx.xxxx On
Behalf Of Michael J. Wolthuis
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 8:17 PM
To: amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] VUCC - n3fjp - what am I doing wrong?
I am still learning LoTW. I uploaded my whole log from ACLog by n3fjp.
I downloaded LoTW into it and it shows 60 confirmed QSOs on LoTW.
Yet, for my VUCC award it only says 29 confirmed.
I removed all the /p, /h, /#, /m etc's from the callsigns and tried
again. I got 1 additional confirmed.
That leaves 30 that my log program says LoTW has confirmed, but that are
not showing up for VUCC.
Any ideas?
mike
kb8zgl
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
Message: 13
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:49:47 -0600
From: "Gary \"Joe\" Mayfield" <gary_mayfield@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] LOTW Grid vs. Call
To: <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <COL114-DS2203B1CCD2B24F13E3BDDB8AFC0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Apparently I was doing something wrong. I now see the same station from
different grid squares for a couple of calls. I believe it is working just
as it should.
73,
Joe kks0d
------------------------------
Message: 14
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:21:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: [amsat-bb] AMAST WAS and VUCC
To: AMSAT <amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID:
<639926798.1848585.1295965294509.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxx.xx.xxxx.xxx
xxxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
OK everyone in favor of supporting AMSAT having a W.A.S and a VUCC lets
contact AMSAT with the request.I should have an effective start date
WA4HFN Damon
------------------------------
Message: 15
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2011 09:52:58 -0500
From: "Zachary Beougher" <zack.kd8ksn@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS
To: "Larry Teran" <ki6yaa@xxxxx.xxx>, <wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx>, "amsat-bb"
<AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx>
Message-ID: <SNT111-DS10841747F1CC3C6E31F73EB3FC0@xxx.xxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
I like that idea a lot better! I have always enjoyed working with Bruce,
and it would support AMSAT like Larry said!
Zack
KD8KSN
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Teran
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2011 11:59 PM
To: wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx ; amsat-bb
Subject: [amsat-bb] Re: AMSAT VUCC and WAS
That will be a great idea! and support for AMSAT
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 4:11 PM, <wa4hfn@xxxxxxx.xxx> wrote:
> Maybe we all can talk AMSAT into offering a WAS and VUCC I would be nice
> to
> see an AMSAT WAS on the wall
> WA4HFN Damon
> _______________________________________________
> Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
> Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
> Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
>
_______________________________________________
Sent via AMSAT-BB@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT-NA member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
Subscription settings: http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Sent via amsat-bb@xxxxx.xxx. Opinions expressed are those of the author.
Not an AMSAT member? Join now to support the amateur satellite program!
http://amsat.org/mailman/listinfo/amsat-bb
End of AMSAT-BB Digest, Vol 6, Issue 51
***************************************
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
