Thanks, Dave.
After reading the new fee schedule and announcement, I
have a few questions, some of which users might also raise.
1) A QSL card-based application costs $7.50
more if you let HQ staff manually enter the data for up to 101 contacts, about
7-1/2 cents per contact for a new application, yet that applicant is
charged 15 cents per additional contact beyond the 101. Why the
discrepancy?
2) Since there is no manual input or cross-checking for
LoTW confirmations (as far as I know), why do we charge anything for
excess contacts in LoTW applications? It would seem we do no more
work for 120 credits than we do for 100.
3) Do we know what each application mode actually costs us
to process? If so, what are those costs? I ask this because DXCC
fees are over $1/4 million of our annual revenues, but I have no idea - even
being on A&F - what we might be making or losing on the program. If we
want the fee structure to match whatever our intentions for the program are
(e.g., pay for itself? cover marginal processing costs?), now is the time
to do that rather than after we have announced the new fee
structure.
4) The announcement says that, under LoTW, "each user can see which records are stored in the DXCC system for all of
his/her entities on each band and mode." Band and mode
detail for pre-computerized legacy credits are not, in fact, available
in LoTW until and unless the applicant resubmits cards for those
pre-computer contacts. What fees, if any, will apply and what process(es)
would be utilized by an applicant wishing to bring his or her old DXCC credits
up to date in LoTW? The announcement and chart appear silent on this
issue. (I would think that, for applicants doing their own data entry
using the on-line application model, the cost would be zero or
nominal, assuming no award is being issued in conjunction with such a
records update, since we're not charging for either staff or field card-checking
per se, but I guess that should be up for discussion.)
5) The On-Line application is "primarily
intended to be used in conjunction with Field Checkers", but sending cards to HQ
is not ruled out. Can an on-line applicant send cards to HQ or
not?. Also, don't we want some incentive (other than saving some
postage) for an on-line applicant to seek out a field checker rather than to
have paid staff check the cards? Along that line, do we want to incent
all-paper applications to go through volunteer field checkers rather than to
paid staff?
6) Reference to a fee for "your DXCC matrix"
(presumably a printout) makes me wonder whether the source of that matrix
will be the old system or LoTW. If the former, does this mean we're
maintaining the old system for all DXCC participants who are not
registered LoTW users?
7) Could some of the wording in the announcement use
a more positive spin? For example,
"There will no longer be a free, printed
DXCC Yearbook. A free, digital version will be available, as well as a printed version
at additional cost. " could be
reworded as follows: "The free DXCC yearbook will
now be made available electronically for you to download and print. For
those who still want a League-printed yearbook, it will still be available at a
modest cost" (Actually, we should specify that cost in the announcement; there's
no major uncertainty as to what it will cost, is there?)
As another example, "There will no longer be
a "First DXCC" pricing break. " could read "The fee for initial DXCC
awards will now be the same as for other
applications".
Maybe we should let our copywriters in Advertising take a
look at the announcement.
73,
Marty N6VI
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, December 23, 2011 12:34
PM
Subject: [arrl-odv:20380] DXCC news
The 2012 Plan includes a
75th
anniversary Diamond DXCC
Challenge http://www.arrl.org/diamond-dxcc
that’s intended to
be an enjoyable and challenging history lesson. Dave Patton
has done a lot of research to put
together a DXCC list that’s as close as
possible to the one adopted
in 1937 and used
by DXers
in the years just before World War II. Working and
confirming 100 of these
entities was much more challenging than today’s DXCC hunt. Not only were there far fewer than there are
today, the DXer of that day
had far fewer bands to choose from and only
two modes: CW and AM. Add
in that transmitters were either unstable or crystal
controlled, receivers were
unstable and lacked both selectivity and accurate frequency readout, antenna systems were much less sophisticated than we have
today, there were far fewer
hams on the air outside the US, and there were no spotting
networks like DX
Cluster – not to mention
CW Skimmer and LOTW – and
it’s easy to see that the first amateurs to earn
DXCC were true masters of our craft.
Another bit of DXCC news will
be announced next week: a new fee structure
that should help us avoid
the
end-of-year backlogs that
have developed in the past and to provide better member service throughout the
year. The announcement and fee chart are attached.
Best wishes to all for an
enjoyable remainder of
the holiday
season.
73,
Dave Sumner,
K1ZZ
<<2012 DXCC Fee Chart.pdf>> <<2012 DXCC Fee Structure Announcement.pdf>>
_______________________________________________
arrl-odv mailing
list
arrl-odv@reflector.arrl.org
http://reflector.arrl.org/mailman/listinfo/arrl-odv