I’ve been asked about this thorny question on a couple of occasions now, and a tweet received this morning has prompted me to post this to a wider audience to get some thoughts from other hams.
Is a QSL card for a repeater contact “valid”?
As a result of uploading my log into the Ham Radio deluxe logging software recently, HRD automatically uploaded details of a number of QSOs made over various repeaters, to eQSL, meaning that a number of local amateurs would have received an eQSL card from me that they may not have been expecting.
I’ve sent eQSL cards for repeater contacts in the past, normally at the end of a Monday Night Net, to acknowledge to the new M6s that joining the Net that they’ve made a contact, and also to start their QSL collection. I tend not to send paper QSL cards for a repeater contact, although I have received two paper cards, and responded in kind.
On checking eQSL.cc recently, I noted a rejection of a card sent out as a result of my log import. Stated reason was “Repeater QSO or Not in Log”. Nor a problem. Anyone who gets an eQSL card from me is free to reject, delete or make a small paper plane out of it as far as I’m concerned. What got me thinking was the following tweet from the recipient:
“An eQSL for a repeater QSO. Seriously?! Rejected”
Fair enough, and not a problem, but it sent me on a path of trying to confirm the etiquette here, so’s not to make a mistake in the future.
As this topic has come up before,I’m keen to make sure I’m complying with convention. So I went hunting online. After some Internet research, here’s what I’ve discovered. Some say “yes”, and some say “no”. Here are my findings:
QSL for a repeater? Yes!
- A QSL is defined as confirmation of “a two-way radiocommunication between two amateur radio stations” (Wikipedia), and a repeater counts.
- “The final courtesy of a QSO is a QSL confirmation” (QSL.net)
- “QSL cards for repeater contacts are pretty unusual. But, if you feel that the QSO was particularly notable, sending a QSL as a thank you is certainly acceptable.” (QRZ Forum)
QSL for a repeater contact? No!
- ARRL rules: “Contacts made through “repeater” devices or any other power relay methods (other than satellites for Satellite DXCC) are not valid for DXCC credit.”(ARRL.org)
- Worked All Britain rules: “Contacts can not be made via repeaters or satellites.” (W.A.B site)
- “… repeater contacts don’t count for awards or contest points or really anything other than the satisfaction of having made them.” (QRZ Forum)
- “I don’t send QSL requests for contacts made on repeaters… But if I get a request for a card, I send it out just the same… and it has happened.” (QRZ Forum)
QSL cards and awards
One of the objections against QSLing for a repeater contact is that the QSL card is not eligible for awards and contesting, which ic a very valid observation. To help add to the “No!” section above, I turned to eQSL.cc to get their “no repeater contacts allowed” statement to paste in above, but discovered that repeater contacts appear to be allowed with eQSL cards:
“Unlike the ARRL DXCC, contacts made through repeaters, satellites, and other power relay methods are permitted, and stations contacted may be either land-based or mobile from automobiles, ships and boats, aircraft, or space vehicles.” (eQSL.cc)
My policy
Currently, I log all repeater QSOs made at home, with the exception of very short exchanges. When I’m looking after a Net, I log more precisely, and tend to send out eQSL cards to net participants electronically as a courtesy. I don’t log mobile repeater QSOs unless very memorable and I can remember the details when I stop and can log it on my phone.
If I receive a paper QSL for a repeater contact, I respond. If I receive an eQSL for a repeater contact, I respond. Ham Radio Deluxe sends eQSL cards for any RF contact in my HRD log by default.
When it comes to someone new to the hobby, especially those I’ve helped to train, I tend to eQSL for the first contact on a repeater. I feel that correctly programming the first rig with offset and CTCSS settings for repeater access (with a Chinese manual) is harder than a local 2m simplex contact, and deserves some kind of acknowledgement when they get it right for the first time. I recall someone doing the same for me, and seeing waiting cards when I first created my eQSL account was pleasing.
So… Conclusions?
I’d welcome the opinions of others on this one, as I’m still not 100% sure of the etiquette for repeater QSLs. Over to you!
Please add your thoughts in the box below, and let’s see if we can reach a consensus…
I’ll comment on this, as it was me that sent that tweet(!). I think it’s down to individual policy and whether you wish to confirm *every* contact regardless of how it is achieved. I myself do not log repeater QSOs unless there is a reason to note something of interest – As we are not obliged to maintain a log, the most important reason for the “reject” was “Not in Log” – so I couldn’t verify the details although I *knew* a QSO took place, I couldn’t confirm it ;)
As for a repeater QSO – technically, the repeater is re-transmitting your signal. It’s being received, demodulated, filtered and then sent back out via a separate transmitter – So certainly not a direct contact. A moon-bounce QSO would qualify for a QSL in my book, but any “third-party” network or intermediate-relay wouldn’t.
Automatic vs manual processing of QSLs I guess is another good point – I export mine manually and my (self-written) logging application has a tickbox for “Send QSL” which I can tick during a QSO to ensure I include it in the next eQSL upload.
All copied Charlie.
FWIW, the post wasn’t due to feeling miffed not to be able to own (and frame) your eQSL card, but to confirm what’s the done thing.
I’ve been asked about this when helping on Foundation courses, and my assumption was that an RF QSO on a repeater, via a ham sat, or in theory, even with part (but not all) of the journey being over IP… counted as a QSO for QSL purposes, but don’t count for awards.
Be interested in opinions from other Essex Hams on this one…
OK, Pete – I think the interwebs have it much easier now to get a QSL card/JPG from a distant station. I guess my “policy” is down to being used to writing them out by hand and posting etc.
To Charlie – M0PZT
I’m just trying to understand your position. Am I right that a radio conversation is only valid if:
1) It wasn’t via a repeater, or
2) It was via a repeater, and was interesting enough to you to be worth logging?
All other QSO, even those you remember but didn’t log, are invalid. Have I got that about right?
John
John,
My *own personal policy* is not to log QSOs via the local repeater, nor would I QSL for one. The contact is valid, sure – However the exchange of information becomes distorted – Signal reports, for example. The repeater is S9 with me, but Pete’s signal may have been much less.
Like I said, the main reason for “rejecting” the eQSL was because I didn’t log it. I didn’t log it because I’m not required to. Just so that I’m seen as a bit of an “old Scrooge” over this – I’m happy to QSL with Pete (or anyone) using any direct method of communication, be it 40m, 10m, 2m FM or PSK etc.
Personally I don’t send QSL cards for a repeater contact, however, I’d never reject a valid QSO just because it came through a repeater or didn’t count to an award I was working to. Neither would I insult the other party for sending an unwanted QSL.
Check the definition of QSO, OM : “Can you communicate with … direct or by relay?”
IARU: http://hf.ref-union.org/c4_iaru_r1/10vienne/VIE10_C4_11%20QSO%20definition.pdf
Station-to-Station is valid whether via a relay or not and this includes satellites/repeaters.
Agree that there is no credit for use of a relay in a DX contest, but lots of contests don’t count eQSL as valid either.
If one of the stations wants to QSL, why the heck not.Just because it doesnt count in your DX Contest is no reason to invalidate the QSO.
Calm down everyone – it’s just a hobby…
Calm down? This is healthy debate.
Agreed. I’m genuinely interested in views on this, as it’s come up before and will come up again. It also helps to get some controversy on the site, and encourage a little more site interaction… so it’s all good.
Looking at things from the other side of the fence, I suppose the removal of logging as a licence requirement has kind of put the dampeners on QSLing in the UK. I was an avid QSLer in my early years – over 100 sent in the first 6 months of being licensed, most of them for 6m. Now, I prefer eQSL but my main source of “confirmation” and stats is the logbook program.
It’s quite amusing when you send a rather “blunt” message out there and people pop-up from nowhere with an opinion – This is, after all, a communications hobby ;) As Jim pointed out, it is a hobby and we take/learn from it whatever interests us at that time, whether it’s CW, satellites, PSK, WSPR etc.
David M0TFY below mentions receiving SWL cards – I have a few in my eQSL Inbox and was pleasantly surprised to receive them. To return those, I typed a personal message thanking them for the report. But 2 M0’s having a natter via the local repeater, ‘fraid not! Personally, I think we should be required to keep a log of all transmissions – this is a technical pursuit as well as a communications hobby. However, as we’re not obliged to keep a log, I’m won’t be made to feel guilty for not doing something that I’m not required to do.
QSL is 100% OK via the buro OM, microphone back to you, over over…
>> I’m won’t be made to feel guilty for not
>> doing something that I’m not required to do.
You’re correct… you’re not required to be courteous to other licensed amateurs. Just as with logging, some like to do it, and some don’t…
Personally I tend to not log, but then I am mobile a lot.
I would log a memorable contact be they direct or through a repeater (especially if they were hitting a repeater from some considerable distance). A memorable contact for me normally involves the unusual :
– A conversation rather than just a report
– A conversation about something interesting like what you have made or do rather than what you have bought
I like hearing repeaters when they are busy regardless of *most* of the conversations. If someone wants to send me a card (virtually or not) I gladly take them. Even from someone who just listens (I like the [hf] operators who acknowledge that a lot of people gain a lot of pleasure from being an SWLer – it was how I started).
I have read with interest this debate and it shows who is professional at the hobby and who is not i personally qsl 100% via the bureau,direct or eqsl which i think is the future for qsl’s
if i have a contact on hf or 2m through a repeater i qsl if we start getting picky of who we send qsl’s to they will eventually vanish like many things in amateur radio
Sorry charlie not with you on this one om
Choosing whether or not to QSL (or even keep a log) isn’t professionalism, it’s personal preference. The plain fact of the matter is that the QSO in question wasn’t logged here, so I couldn’t “confirm” it. I stand by my earlier comments regarding the distortion of the the QSL details – GB3DA is S9+ with me. I can hit it with 500mW. It may only be S7 to Pete, who is about 10 miles further away from it than I. He’s not telling me how strong I was with him – He can only tell me what signal the repeater was. It was not a direct contact, there was an intermediary.
What does interest me is that a couple of the responders here aren’t able (or willing) to attach their callsign. Wouldn’t it be “professional” to offer it alongside your comments? We could take the term “professional” (confusing that the hobby is known as “amateur”) to the extremes: Why are we using PL259 connectors when N-types are far superior? Why do we give our callsigns at the start+end of each “over” despite the licence conditions only requiring us to do it at 15-minute intervals? Home-brew projects – Veroboard vs a custom PCB layout. Ah yes, cost.
A real problem is how to deal with “non QSLers” over the air, how do you politely say that you don’t QSL, or you don’t do it via the Buro? Do you stall the pile-up whilst you explain that you don’t accept cards or they need to be sent via a special PO Box or whatever? People still take the time to write+send a paper QSL only for it to sit at the sub-manager’s house for 3 months before being put in the bin. eQSL does make this easier (not to mention more cost-effective) – dump your logbook entries to ADIF and send them to eQSL: Those who are registered will see their latest QSLs in seconds.
Certainly with eQSL you can send out en-masse but if you’re doing paper ones, I think you are entitled to be “picky” about who/where you send cards to.
An interesting debate either way!
To M0PZT. I think some of the comments here have been created out of the way you handled this.
Here’s what I think happened:
The guy had a chat with you on 2 metres, and wanted to sent you a QSL card electronically.
Your QRZ page states that you QSL via eQSL or Direct and that “cards received always replied to”
You got the QSL card, decided it wasn’t a valid QSO as it came through a relay, so rejected the card.
Then you went out of your way to publicly tell your friends how stupid he was for asking for you to acknowledge his QSO with the message “An eQSL for a repeater QSO. Seriously?! Rejected”
I could see how some people on this forum could see that as elitist and discourtious.
Mart
Just for the record… The eQSL was sent automatically, and I’m not offended. This post was intended to stimulate debate on QSL cards for repeater contacts, not to air any personal grievance! Sorry if I’ve given anyone (including Charlie) that this was personal.
It certainly wasn’t my intention to insult/annoy Pete, I didn’t name/shame home but sent the original tweet out to generate some discussion. It was Pete who replied to me so when I saw his post I felt it would be a good thing to “explain myself”.
Different views have been aired and this is what makes the hobby wonderful: we all have our own ways, policies and quirks.
Guess I’ll have to amend the note on my QSL policy to say that *most* QSOs are logged!
… And while you’re at it, add that cards from repeater or satellite QSOs are not welcome!
No offence taken. I didn’t name and shame you either – same reason.
We certainly got some debate out of it though!
This is an interesting discussion. I’ve been in the hobby for quite some time, and actions like this don’t do us any favours.
Good manners in this hobby are lacking these days in some quarters, and if someone wants to ask for acknowledgment of a chat, that should be respected, not ridiculed.
If I receive a QSL card from someone, I will acknowledge the card. Just because the card is electronic, makes no difference. What the gentleman has done is the electronic equivalent of opening a QSL card envelope, rip it up and put it in the bin, because he didn’t like the transmission mode. Then had a laugh with his friends about it.
As has been pointed out, electronic cards count for some awards, and regardless of your feelings about electronic cards, this attitude show a lack of respect to other amateurs.