[DX] Email from ARRL President about eQSL's / DXCC

[Steven Wheatley KU9C]

Thanks for posting that note Charles.

I think the key here, and what is most important to me, is the verification that the station has indeed authorized eQSL as their manager, and then that eQSL performs a verification that would be indeed like that that I do today as a 'paper' QSL manager. 

The first may actually hurt eQSL.  I wonder if pseudo-rare stations will want someone acting on their behalf, without understanding where the money made goes, and also that the eQSL 'QSL manager' provides a level of service consistent with their desires.   Nothing like getting on the air and getting a ration of grief about the quality (read, lack thereof) of the manager.  I'm not suggesting eQSL won't be up to the challenge, but rather, it's a consideration that I suspect many of the DX stations haven't considered.  To this point, it was a place to upload your logs 'en masse'.

The second can put a crimp in the budget of any dx station's budget.  For example, even if they only get 10 qsl cards a month, there's a few cents that can be used toward b uying a new piece of equipment now and then, etc.  Or, heck, even a beer.  Now, the more active station may be able to net more.  As you have accurately stated, there are some that never reply,a nd pocket the entire greenstamp, or whatever, but my guess is more likely they try to reply and use the 'extra' towards their family budget, which likely means that it will help their ham budget in most cases.  Frankly, if I were a DX station, given that situation, I'd either keep my QSL responsibility to help with whatever little I get toward new equipment, bureau cards, etc...or if I was aware of a problem with theft of my incoming mail, I'd see if I could find a 'paper' manager that might return some or all of the 'extra' to me in terms of equipment, etc.   This is what I do, and many have worked one of my stations on a new band or mode, or with a better signal, because of my policy to return all to the deserving.  It can be fun at times...try getting a 6 meter brick and rig into Cuba...but those that have worked one of the stations I manage who has been incredibly active on 6 know what happens when you do!

All I'm suggesting here is that there is a number of reasons that stations might benefit by looking at their QSL situation.  No doubt you'll be able to get a 'WP2' or a "K2" or a JA or G, DL etc station confirmed via eQSL given the ARRL's comments.  But, I wonder if you will be able to get DXCC.....I know there are several countries represented today, but I wonder if that will be the case when the rubber hits the road regarding acting as a bonafide manager.

I further think that this eQSL banter would be benefitted by a full explanation of not only 'eQSL will be accepted for DXCC'...which is a rather strong statement, and seems to have gotten the majority of the discussion here rolling.....but to fully disclose how they intend to check each qsl request to make sure it is valid., points 2 and 3 of your note (below). 

>2. Then, we'd need something better than  his word that he is verifying
>logs each time a request comes in (something  we do not think he will be
>willing to do with all the stations he has logs
>for).
>
>3. The requesting station must send information listing the specific QSL
>information then the
>manager must check the log for it. I believe the term for not doing this
>is
>pre-emptive QSLing.

I can tell you from personal experience that the ARRL takes this very seriously...as they should.   If I blindly issued BS7H cards, there would be a lot of folks closer to the top.  I'm again not suggesting that eQSL will 'blindly issue cards'...but I'm suggesting that to be a TOP RATE QSL manager, the kind that will take eQSL beyond the 'garden variety' dx log to the second and third tier of qsl management, is not an easy thing to do without human intervention.  My guess is they'll earn their greenstamp fee in this environment, should they get the logs.

I think I've expressed my personal belief on the concept of eQSL before.  Frankly, it's relative to the LOTW, or whatever formats that will be acceptable for DXCC approval..  I think common, garden variety DX, contest stations (that have to submit LOTW logs to ARRL for contest results anyway (at least currently, the ARRL contests)...etc will likely do that.  Whats interesting here, is by giving the ARRL the logs, does that mean that ARRL will be automatically the QSL manager.  Given the argument they post, if a ham running one of my stations, WP2Z, for example, does NOT explicitly give the ARRL authority to act as QSL manager, can they verify QSL cards.  I am not sure that Bill has thought of this when he wrote this, but to require eQSL would seemingly require ARRL LOTW to do the same.

Now, back to WP2Z.  Would I do that, even for a station as rare as one in WP2?  Probably not.  Why.  First, I think most folks are happy with the response that they've gotten from your's truly, the current QSL manager (if not, let me k now please!).  Second, how many of you can find a WP2Z QSO on the WARC bands in your log, or a WP2Z card that came via the bureau?  Thank those that send donations in for that effort....

Enough said.  I'm not sure this banter is particularly healthy without some facts.  Myself, I'd like to see how eQSL will verify QSL cards.....and how many stations will authorize.  That's wher ethe rubber will hit the road and put this debate to rest, or at least at a more meaningful level!

73
Steve

--------------------------- 
Steve Wheatley KU9C 
PO Box 5953 
Parsippany NJ  07054-6953 
U.S.A. 

email:  ku9c@ku9c.com 
http://www.ku9c.com/