[Dx4win] ARRL eQSL policy
At 06:17 PM 12/31/02 +, W0YG Charlie Summers wrote: ... Here is the current policy just received from Bill Moore at the DXCC Desk: Recent discussion regarding the QSL service offered by eQSL.ccTM suggests that there is some confusion about ARRL QSL policy. Simply put, there has been no change in League policy regarding eQSLs. ARRL does not accept QSLs that have been transmitted to the recipient via electronic means for its awards. Does this mean that they would accept QSLs mailed to a user by eQSL that met the other requirements below? First, we expect that a QSL manager will seek permission from operators for whom QSLs are handled. We do not accept cards from unauthorized QSL managers for DXCC credit. Such an authorization must be a pro-active choice of the DX station rather than an opt out, default authority given to a bulk mailer. This would be easy for eQSL to obtain, with uploading of QSO date, it would appear. Second, since most operators requesting QSLs expect that the returned cards will correctly reflect the actual QSO data, we expect that a QSL manager will do the checking required to assure that only real contacts are verified. We all know that raw logs contain many errors. A recent sample from a bulk-mailing QSL service show three out of five QSOs confirmed were not in the recipient's log. This is unacceptable. Often, these errors are only detected when incoming cards are compared to the log. The distribution of QSLs, without any checking of the information contained on the incoming cards, is poor QSLing practice, and may lead to blanket rejection of all QSL cards from the station/manager in question. This, too, could be done by eQSL using standard database techniques, sort of like Logbook of the world, in fact. Also, we expect to be able to identify cards as authentic. Many cards are printed on home printers, and in many cases, the data is printed on card stock at the same time. Although this is technically acceptable, the process often makes verification difficult. In certain cases we may reject these cards. Cards should be personalized or otherwise made unique through the use of a stamp or other personal mark (signature or initials) across a label boundary. Presumably they are less than stringent about this, except in the case of rarer DX. I have not done this personalization on something over 20,000 QSLs prepared using DX4WIN's label printing, and have never had any indications of my QSLs being questioned. Finally, the concept of obtaining a QSL card at no charge is a long-held tradition in ham radio and DXCC, and we endeavor to continue this tradition. QSL managers handling cards for DXCC submission must make cards available if adequate postage is supplied. Postage can be supplied by sending IRCs, direct funds, or SASEs. We consider it an ethics violation if cards can only be claimed through payment of a fee, and thus we will not accept cards for DXCC credit for which a fixed charge is made. A number of well-known DXpeditioners and QSL managers do not accept bureau cards, but we are not aware of any cases where a card will not be forthcoming if adequate postage is provided. This could be a sticking point, since I assume eQSL would want to be compensated for their time and infrastructure investment. If they met the other requirements, though, and mailed QSLs from a lot of stations to a requester for a per-card cost that was less than the one-at-a-time per-card postage, it's hard to see how the ARRL could squawk. I wonder whether, at that time, they wouldn't begin to question eQSL's security arrangements for log submissions. Maybe eQSL will give it a try and see what happens. But for the moment, I agree with Charlie, ARRL would only have accepted an electronically-transmitted EQSL as an oversight. 73, Pete N4ZR Happy Holidays
[Dx4win] ICOM 765 !
Lou, I don't have any experience with the interface you are considering, but I did have (apparently) the same problem with my CT-17 and faced the same quandry. My choice was to assume that the MAX232 chip in the CT-17 was fried (the IC is about the most fragile component in there) and decided to try replacing it. Using de-soldering braid and a 15 watt iron, it is quite easy to remove the old chip. Since I didn't want to risk heat damage to the new the new chip, I installed a chip socket instead, then simply plugged in the new chip. The CT-17 now works like a charm, and the job was much easier than I thought it would be. The replacement for the MAX232CPE chip cost $2.19, and the 16 pin solder-tail sockets sell for 10 cents each (but you have to by 10!) The real eye opener was when I priced all the components in the CT-17, and the total came out around 10 bucks! But then you wouldn't have that nice ICOM stencil on the box! Replacing the chip isn't like building your own interface, but it sure was easy and satisfying. Got my parts from Jameco Electronics. They do have a web-presence and a very nice catalog. Good luck! Greg KT0K
[Dx4win] ICOM 765 !
Mel, The point of my post was to let Lou, and anyone else facing the same problem with their CT-17s, know just how easy and inexpensive they are to fix. I wasn't attacking ICOM for overpricing their products, or complaining about the cost of technology. Everyone recognizes the value of research, development, design and marketing, so I didn't think it necessary to append a disclaimer to that effect to my post. It's just always amazed and amused me to find out how much cars, radios, or people for that matter, are worth if you simply total their parts, so I just thought I'd toss the CT-17 example in as an humorous aside to my post. That a $1.87 worth of organic chemicals can take about $2 worth of paint and canvas and turn it into a multi-million dollar work of art is pretty amazing. I sure as heck can't do that...but I *can* fix a CT-17 for $3.00, and hopefully now Lou and a few others might give it a try, too. I'll leave the creation of real Mona Lisas, such as DX4WIN, the ProII and superfluous responses to helpful posts, to real artists! ;-) Happy New Year to all of us common, parts-cheap, folk! Greg KT0K -Original Message- Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: Mel Martin (VE2DC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'Gregory Brown' [EMAIL PROTECTED], dx4win@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Dx4win] ICOM 765 ! Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 20:19:46 -0500 If you added up the cost of the components of a Pro II, I doubt that would come out anywhere near the selling price either... But then, is the value of the Mona Lisa calculated in terms of a little canvas and some oil paint? Happy New year to all...
[Dx4win] ICOM 765 !
If you added up the cost of the components of a Pro II, I doubt that would come out anywhere near the selling price either... But then, is the value of the Mona Lisa calculated in terms of a little canvas and some oil paint? Happy New year to all... -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gregory Brown Sent: December 31, 2002 6:05 PM To: dx4win@mailman.qth.net Subject: RE: [Dx4win] ICOM 765 ! Lou, I don't have any experience with the interface you are considering, but I did have (apparently) the same problem with my CT-17 and faced the same quandry. My choice was to assume that the MAX232 chip in the CT-17 was fried (the IC is about the most fragile component in there) and decided to try replacing it. Using de-soldering braid and a 15 watt iron, it is quite easy to remove the old chip. Since I didn't want to risk heat damage to the new the new chip, I installed a chip socket instead, then simply plugged in the new chip. The CT-17 now works like a charm, and the job was much easier than I thought it would be. The replacement for the MAX232CPE chip cost $2.19, and the 16 pin solder-tail sockets sell for 10 cents each (but you have to by 10!) The real eye opener was when I priced all the components in the CT-17, and the total came out around 10 bucks! But then you wouldn't have that nice ICOM stencil on the box! Replacing the chip isn't like building your own interface, but it sure was easy and satisfying. Got my parts from Jameco Electronics. They do have a web-presence and a very nice catalog. Good luck! Greg KT0K ___ Dx4win mailing list Dx4win@mailman.qth.net http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/dx4win
