Print

[W3UEC]

Another newbie FT8 question: One prominent feature of FT8 (assumedly) is that the process of making a QSO is automated. When I double-click on a station calling CQ and they answer me, the sequence of exchanged messages proceeds; so long as each station "understands" the other. When I receive the "RRR" my software offers a popup window to log the QSO and sends 73. Then the little dot moves down to the CQ line.
Recently I (thought I had) made a valid contact because I got the popup box to log the QSO and my software sent 73. Upon my request later to QSL, the other station declined because he had not received (his software had not discerned) my 73.
I assume that any station can decline to QSL for any reason -- or no reason at all. However I wonder whether whether there is a rule or convention about whether the final 73 is absolutely required for a valid QSO using FT8. If so, who made the rule and where is it found? Ham radio is, of course, a friendly hobby; so I will not make the long trip to piss on his front steps; but why does the software prompt me to log the QSO if  not sure it is valid?

As always SRI if already asked and answered. TNX es 73 de W3UEC (Steve)

[W5CPT]

There is an article in a recent QST about this very thing, which I can not find right now. The title of the article is something like "What constitutes a complete contact?" There is no requirement to end a contact with a "73". As you noticed, it is a glitch in the software, nothing more. If it were a rule, then there would be very few EME contacts as they end with "RRR", with one "R" being sufficient. You bring up one reason, at least for me, after trying FT-8, I abandoned it.  Too many quirks in the software/operator set-up/over-riding signals/etc. to be any fun.

See you on the lower end of the band where I will end with a "73" or maybe a "TU" or perhaps something else that seems appropriate at the time.

dit dit - de W5CPT

[K0UA]

No need for 73 at all.  Some stations send RR73 instead of RRR.  You can click on the TX4 button to change it to RR73 if you like.

That said, some have taken it upon themselves NOT to QSL if they didn't see your 73.  Why I don't know.  But several have even stated on here and on QRZ pages. NO 73 NO QSL  and NOT SOUP FOR YOU!.   just about like that too. I call them 73 "Nazi's".  They probably have pet names for me too!. 

[KC2QYM]

Typical digital ham radio interaction to consummate a contact.....
F1 .....F5....F2.....F8

Because of the totally impersonal nature of macro based ham radio digital modes why not strip out any ancient personal touches that surround a real QSO.  Who needs to add names, 73, or any other human aspects.  Don't you just want to see what your signal report was in some far off place.  Do you really give a hoot about the person on the other side of the contact?

Ah yes the digital modes, more efficient, cool technology, impersonal, boring..................

[N5INP]

Ah yes the digital modes, more efficient, cool technology, impersonal, boring..................

Here we go again folks - spool it up! 

[VA3VF]

Don't you just want to see what your signal report was in some far off place.

Yes... but a LoTW confirmation is better. The day PSKReporter, Hamspots, or RBN can do that, 'problem' solved.

FT8 is not a conversational mode, FT8Call can play that role, if it must be FT8 flavored.

I currently see day to day FT8 operating like participating casually in a contest, but not submitting a log, just looking for new ones, band fills, etc. Once you see it this way the angst is gone.

[K0UA]

Typical digital ham radio interaction to consummate a contact.....
F1 .....F5....F2.....F8

Because of the totally impersonal nature of macro based ham radio digital modes why not strip out any ancient personal touches that surround a real QSO.  Who needs to add names, 73, or any other human aspects.  Don't you just want to see what your signal report was in some far off place.  Do you really give a hoot about the person on the other side of the contact?

Ah yes the digital modes, more efficient, cool technology, impersonal, boring..................

Not much concerned about the signal report, If I want signal reports, that is what WSPR is all about.  What I want is an LOTW confirmation. no 73's necessary.  If you send one, that is great, but I don't need one to log your contact, as long as I got your callsign, I got a report, and I sent you a report, and I know you got it.  If you want to say best regards, or anything else you want to say, that is great. But I am sure not going to deprive you of a confirmation on my end if you don't.

[K0UA]

I guess a lot of people seem to miss the point of FT8 and its purpose and try to make is something it is NOT.

IT IS NOT a conversational mode. (shouting intended).  Stop trying to make it one. If I want to have a conversation with another ham, I will use SSB .  Even carrying on "conversations" with your fingers on other digital modes or CW is not for me.  I have done it many times, but I don't have the level of satisfaction that I do when I can actually converse with someone on phone and hear their voice, their inflections and meaning, and emotions.  They can actually laugh without say "hi hi".  Not to mention not wearing out your fingers.

FT8 is for making contacts and working towards personal awards. And it is doing a great job of that and keeping interest in ham radio alive during very trying times of our sunspot minimums.

[VA3VF]

If I want to have a conversation with another ham, I will use SSB .

I use GSM, the best digital voice mode available.

[K0UA]

If I want to have a conversation with another ham, I will use SSB .

I use GSM, the best digital voice mode available.

Yeah, 1.9Ghz is hard to beat 

[N5INP]

IT IS NOT a conversational mode. (shouting intended).  Stop trying to make it one. If I want to have a conversation with another ham, I will use SSB .  Even carrying on "conversations" with your fingers on other digital modes or CW is not for me.  I have done it many times, but I don't have the level of satisfaction that I do when I can actually converse with someone on phone and hear their voice, their inflections and meaning, and emotions.  They can actually laugh without say "hi hi".  Not to mention not wearing out your fingers.

FT8 is for making contacts and working towards personal awards. And it is doing a great job of that and keeping interest in ham radio alive during very trying times of our sunspot minimums.

It's great for people like me, because I can't really interact with other human beings very well. If I had an SSB QSO with anyone they'd probably be horrified and wish I would go to a digital mode anyway. So, I just stay on FT8 so I don't bother other people so much. 

[VA3VF]

I assume that any station can decline to QSL for any reason -- or no reason at all.

Correct, not only with FT8, but with any mode.

However I wonder whether whether there is a rule or convention about whether the final 73 is absolutely required for a valid QSO using FT8.

Yes, there are, at least two. One that says it's required, and the other that says it's not.

If so, who made the rule and where is it found?

We, the users, make the rules. Following recommendations and advice from the mode/software developers, amateur radio 'best' practices, and last but not least, individual preferences. We are humans after all.

Ham radio is, of course, a friendly hobby; so I will not make the long trip to piss on his front steps; but why does the software prompt me to log the QSO if  not sure it is valid?

You can disable the prompt, if you want. It's just a convenience. You have the final 'word'. Like the old list lizards' controllers used to 'decide' on the spot: Good contact!

When it comes to confirmations on FT8, the old WFWL (work first, worry later) is making a comeback.

Bottom line is: Enjoy the mode. If one station does not confirm, for whatever reason, there are others. It's a hobby after all, and as such, it's supposed to be fun. If you are not having fun, you are not 'doing' it right.

[VK6HP]

I'm an occasional FT8 user and, despite the non-conversational mode, I regard the two-way exchange of 73 greetings as the minimal courtesy, even if it's just to thank the other station for his/her time. 

More often than not I use FT8 (in conjunction with PSK Reporter) as a near substitute for WSPR on 160m, albeit a substitute having apparently numerically more active listeners.  I enjoy making two-way contacts with e.g. North American stations during gray line times but, in reality, the main return is in assessing technical developments within my station.  There's really no more virtue on my part (or the other station's part) than if a fully automated reception and database logging system (like WSPR) is used and, for that reason, I would never think of asking for a QSL for such contacts.  It's not a bad result to be able to make some 160m contacts around the planet but it's fallacy to suggest that the difficulties involved in doing so with FT8 approach those of conducting a CW or SSB QSO, at least when band conditions are marginal (and that's most of the time on 160m intercontinental DX). 

The previous poster is quite correct in saying there are many views and strategies, all of which are legitimate.  But personally I don't regard chasing FT8 QSLs as worthwhile in either direction.

73, Peter.

[AA2UK]

Depends when running MSK144 RRR's received at 1 end constitutes a valid Q, the same as it was when running meteor scatter using SSB.

RR73 is a valid contact w/FT8 but so is RRR w/73 optional.

FT8 is not a conversation mode it is a contact mode. FT8Call seems to be loosing popularity.

Bill, AA2UK

[VA3VF]

There's really no more virtue on my part (or the other station's part) than if a fully automated reception and database logging system (like WSPR) is used and, for that reason, I would never think of asking for a QSL for such contacts.

Agreed. My enjoyment of WSPR is solely the curiosity of seeing 'how low I can go' in terms of power, and the distances reached. I have always liked milli/microwatting 'challenges', but the time invested for QSOs, specially if not using CW, is just too much. WSPR fullfills the role nicely.

By the way, WSPR can be used for 2-way QSOs, unless the software stopped supporting it, I don't know. But if JT65 and JT9 was like seeing paint dry, and grass grow, I don't know what a WSPR QSO would be equivalent to.