A recent debate has started on the Moon-Net mail reflector run by the almighty W9IP. Here’s how it started, with a question from SM7GVF:

Hi, I have received some QSLs for JT QSOs. What is the group idea about the validity of QSLs for JT65 QSO:s where the report either is filled in as “RRR” or “RO”? Neither is a report I am afraid, the report has been “O”. Will the QSL still be valid for DXCC and other awards?
73 Kjell SM7GVF”

A perfectly legitimate question of course. Now, what you see below in bold text are a couple of replies from well known JT65 users:

“My understanding is: there is but one! A correct report is only “O”, nothing else. It can be complemented by a S/N ratio etc, but only the “O” may stand in the report box of a QSL card.

However, there is something else re JT QSOs which is frequently done wrong: the mode. Very often I see as mode “WSJT”, “JT65” or “JT65b”. As far as I’m aware nothing of these three is a valid mode description such as SSB or CW. In QSOs with the WSJT software the mode is “MFSK” – Multi Tone Frequency Shift Keying”. Actually it should even be MAFSK since the tones are audio
tones injected into the mic line.”

And EA6VQ:
“I suffer the same pain. It’s obvious that many newcomers don’t have a clear idea of what the EME report is. I also often receive QSL’s with reports like “OOO”, “-nn dB”, etc.

So far I think that ARRL is accepting EME QSL independently of the report on them, but it’s always a little dissapointing when I get a QSL card with a wrong report on it, specially when it’s from a DX operation.”

Both guys are very dissapointed at JT65-people for not filling out the QSL-card correctly.

So, how are these precious JT65 QSO’s carried out then?

Well.. let me tell you..

– they are rarely, if ever, random

– instead, they are made with constant parallell communication via internet chatboards, so called loggers.

– exchanging QSO information during the QSO is almost mandatory

– or, information is passed via the loggers to make the QSO possible, without it the QSO would never have taken place

– many QSO’s are made with JT65 Deep search mode, meaning that no more than 25% of the needed information is passed via the radio

– reports are 1 (one) bit information only, containing no information

Whenever I bring this up, I am flamed and most often told to shut up!

The JT65 fanatics tell me that they are doing this for fun, and for their own pleasure!

And, I am told that I shouldn’t even care about how they are working their QSO’s!


If we analyze what DF2ZC and EA6VQ are saying we come up with these conclusions:

These JT65-operators
– who are having fun
– and working stations for their own pleasure,
without complying with normal QSO procedures

should in their opinon

– however comply 100% with well established “filling out a QSL” rules!

If they don’t, the situation is painful for the two gentlemen cited above!!!

I find this hypocritical, to say the least!!

To sum it up, we draw the conclusion that JT65 users are allowed to break every established rule telling us how a valid QSO is to be carried out, i e they are making QSO’s that are not valid,


I am glad we CW operators don’t have these problems. We put CW in as mode, and RST numbers as report. End of worries..

CW is King!

73 de Peter, SM2CEW