Looking at different ham radio blogs, I came upon a cool concept by KE9V, Jeff about using the cloud for ham radio logging.
Looking at his proposal initially, I scoffed, as an IT person, “cloud computing” is the current “buzzword” in IT.
But keeping an open mind, I began to consider his thoughts carefully, especially in light of some of the comments that were made in reference to his post…..
As Jeff points out, at one time logging was a legal requirement for hams, and many of us have our paper logbooks (ARRL and Radioshack comes to mind) to fall back on. I know I have quite a few paper logbooks.
Then I transitioned them to computer. Oh man, I remember what a pain that was……it tooks me weeks and weeks of data entry to get everything into myelectronic logbook. The good thing is, that it forced me to review my logs and send out some old QSLs that had been forgotten by the wayside.
Unfortunately in one case, 9N1MM, the QSL manager for him had died and his XYL had just destroyed the logs…so it was too late for that QSL…..
but I have faithfully kept up my logs in electronic format, making multiple backups to ensure I never have to go through that horrendous exercise again.
Electonic logs did a lot for me, helped me track awards, helps me send logs to contest sponsers easier and helps me keep stuff for uploading to LOTW easier.
But then Jeff comes up with this radical idea, to put a logbook app into the “cloud” where you can reach it anytime. Good idea as long as you have internet access. As Jeff states, think of Gmail, Yahoo, etc and you get the concept of “cloud computing.”
The intriguing part of his concept to me, was his thought, that the ARRL should adopt that as a project.
I have always supported the LOTW, but for differing reasons, the adoption rate of LOTW has been very small as compared to EQSL.cc
The main reasoning for that has been the security required by the ARRL, it is difficult for foriegn hams to get registered. I think this cloud computing concept could potentially hold the key to getting a wider adoption of LOTW.
As Jeff so aptly points out “Their servers could issue a token that matches a certificate when you log in so that your contacts auto magically matches up via their LoTW database. No more uploading a signed file that was generated by another program to get award credit, it would all be seamless to the end user.”
I agree. The technology is present now to make it easier. For instance if you have a wordpress blog, for certain plug ins you have to have a key generated by WP so that you can “turn on” certain features. Why couldn’t ARRL generate the same key for the LOTW and incorporate that into a “cloud logbook.”
Of course there will be some hams, that no matter how easy it is made, just the fact that the ARRL is part of it, will cause them to not use it.
That should not deter devlopment of this.
If the ARRL or some other party were to take this project up, I would like to see it be an open-source project, so APIs and other plugins can be devloped.
Read Ke9V’s post and some of the comments, I would love to hear some of your comments here as well.
What are your thoughts on this?
73, Jack K4SAC
K4SAC RSS FEED
Revenge of the mainframe dinosaurs!
The technology to implement the idea is indeed readily available. There is something similar in use for the real-time contest scores website.
I see a need for this sort of project to be sponsored by an organization of some sort. The need to keep the server and database available over the long term.
There have been hundreds of “free” apps and web sites that have come and gone. Often the “gone” comes with little or no warning. (e.g., W4PA’s Journalspace blog)
So for the sake of simple continuity of the data repository, it would be best for a club like ARRL, RSGB, DARC to sponsor and commit to support of the app. It could initially be built by an individual, at least through proof of concept and beta testing, but long term support by an individual is problematic.
From an application standpoint it might be easier to use a server side api that could be called by the clients to store or regurgitate the data into/from the remote repository. Then the existing loggers would have an easy method for adding the option to their programs if they chose, and there could be a “supported” client side interface supplied by the as yet imaginary sponsor.
For my own part I prefer the variety offered by competing client side apps. I don’t see any value added in a web data repository for my own logs, beyond offloading the headache of backups and storage costs.
73 de w4kaz
W4KAZ,
Thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you, on the need of a club or entity to sponser and support the app. As you so aptly point out, there have been a lot of free apps that have disappeared, but if a organization would support and maintain the app, it would have some longevity.
It definately is a concept worth persuing.
73, Jack K4SAC
Now as a Ham operator and software developer, I’m very sceptical about cloud computing. The main problem I have is what if the server goes down? basically you’re screwed if there’s no regular backups, and the second is security.
I’m open minded, but why does anyone want to put their head in the clouds?
I’m 34, and I guess I sound like an old timer. I could never trust the RSGB – The Society of Good Buddies, as they’ve never listened to their membership, and I can see them wanting to charge for the use of such a thing.
I’ll be sticking to the good ole’ stand alone apps, like Logger32, at least I’ve got the power of what and when I back stuff up, and if the PC goes down you have a backup of your logs.
Dave,
Thanks for your comments. You raise a valid point. But I would assume that a person would be responsible for their own backups. I am a sysadmin and although we keep backups for people, I always tell them, if something is mission critical, keep a copy yourself “just in case”
For example my LOTW, I make a backup (or export more technically) and save that on a flash drive, and burn a copy on a CD and leave that CD in my safety deposit box at the bank. I do this on a regular basis.
Anyone using a “cloud logging program” would be responsisble for doing the same. I use Logger32 currently as well. I make multiple backups of Logger 32 as well. No difference as far as I can see.
You raise another valid point of security. Since I am not really a programmer ( I know enough C++ and VB to be dangerous). Not sure whether you are talking physical server security or database security.
ARRL implemented good database security with LOTW but in the process have made it incredibly difficult for foreign hams to use. I am not sure exactly what the answer is. I know for example that Word Press generates a API key that you have to use to activate certain features. I dont know if the ARRL or whoever would sponser this would be able to generate a key like that for security based on your callsign and some other data. That is something that needs to be looked at closer.
Thanks Dave for the comments….73, Jack K4SAC
I posted a few times in the original referenced thread. I think the technical aspect isn’t the challenge which needs to be overcome in a successful solution. It would be getting all the 3rd party programs to integrate with it and then dealing with the political/social aspects of the offering.
Your post above mentions that you see a much greater adoption of eQSL then LoTW. I don’t see that same experience, but I’m not sure I can quantity the exact adoption as it relates to my contacts. In LoTW I have ~7750 QSO’s uploaded and ~3,875 confirmed. Is there a way to see the same info on eQSL? I know I have over 100 DXCC’s confirmed just on LoTW and only 81 on eQSL. I have WAS a couple times/modes on LoTW and no WAS yet on eQSL. Based on that, I see LoTW as more accepted/used then eQSL. Maybe your numbers differ?
73,
K2DSL – David
@K2DSL – David – I think I have 2,089 confirmed on eQSL if that is what the number at the bottom of http://eqsl.cc/qslcard/InBoxSelector.cfm?Archive=1 represents. If so, I have approximately a 50% confirmation rate on LoTW and 27% confirmation rate on eQSL so I’d say there’s a much higher rate among the operators I have logged to confirm via LoTW then via eQSL.
David,
Thanks for your comments. I do actually have a higher QSL rate on eQSL. On LOTW I have 11,103 QSOs and 1,673 confirmed. On eQSL I have the same 11,103 uploaded and have 2,673 confirmed.
I have no independent hard facts to back this up, but sense of eQSL being more prevalent,especially among the non-US population of hams is due to the statistics on this page on eQSL http://www.eqsl.cc/qslcard/CountryList.cfm
There are more countries represented in eQSL I would say than in LOTW, but I dont think ARRL gives out stats on LOTW.
(Ah I found them.. 230,237,286 LOTW QSO records have been entered into the system, resulting in 21,909,467 LOTW QSL records by 27,706 LOTW Users are registered in the system. This calculates out to a 10.51% QSL rate if my math is correct with each average user uploading about 8300 Qsos)
Dont get me wrong I wish everyone used LOTW, I sure would love to get all 11,000 Q’s verified!
I looked on eQSL’s site and could not find any statistics at all, so any conclusion I can draw is merely speculative.
Good points though.
73, Jack K4SAC
Jack,
Thanks for the reply. I’m always interested to see how other folks QSLs come out. I did a quick set of queries on my logbook at the results are below:
QSOs: 7,774
QSLs via LoTW: 3,890 (what LoTW shows)
QSLs via LoTW by US (DXCC 291) stations: 2,779
QSLs via LoTW by non-US stations: 1,111
QSLs via eQSL: 2,040 (less then what eQSL shows)
QSLs via eQSL by US (DXCC 291) stations: 1,252
QSLs via eQSL by non-US stations: 788
Looking at the above, I have a higher percent of LoTW confirmations for US stations with 72% of LoTW QSLs then DX station at 28%. Dor eQSL the QSLs for US stations is 61% and DX stations are 39%.
73,
K2DSL