[Dx-qsl] AR - VE7CC

[John Becker]

> Ernie seems to forget that many of us are QSL card collectors more
> than just awards chasers.  We really do want to have and keep the
> QSLs, a fine tradition of the Amateur Radio service.  Therefore we
> don't want to provide the people who we work an alternative way of
> getting a confirmation from us.
> 
> 73, Fred, K3ZO
> 
I think that without a doubt, LOTW is the future of QSLing. And I say
this as a DXer who still keeps only a paper log, and who has only
manually uploaded a few dozen QSOs to LOTW just to see what credits
might be available. But having said that, I also very much treasure
having the physical QSL cards as a visible memento of memorable QSOs.

The cost of obtaining the physical QSLs by mail certainly has risen in
recent years, and no doubt will continue to do so. But there COULD be an
alternative that would provide the best of both worlds. The eQSL system
allows participants to upload custom-designed QSLs which the recipients
can download and print. ARRL doesn't accept these for award credit
because of lack of adequate security. But I know of no TECHNICAL reason
why the security of LOTW and the printable QSLs of eQSL couldn't be
merged to provide a secure, printable QSL over the Internet.

I assume that the security of LOTW involves a unique encrypted ID for
each QSO entered into the system. It should be possible to generate a
unique bar code from these encrypted IDs which could be printed on each
eQSL. While it would still be possible for someone to alter an eQSL to
produce a bogus card that would LOOK good, it would be impossible for
them to generate a valid bar code for a bogus QSO.

For award credit, ARRL could either accept data directly from LOTW data,
or scan the bar code from the eQSL at gatherings where field-checking of
QSLs is presently done.

I have suggested this idea to a couple of ARRL staffers over the last
couple of years, but the responses I have received have been
disappointing. They didn't seem to accept the idea that what I suggested
would yield an eQSL that was as secure as LOTW. Possibly they didn't
have the technical background to fully comprehend my suggestion, or
possibly there is bad blood between the LOTW and eQSL developers.

As far as I know, there is nothing proprietary about the eQSL system
which would prevent ARRL from incorporating the functionality of an
eQSL-like system into LOTW without the involvement of the current eQSL
organization.

73 and HNY to all,

John, K9MM