The new cool digital mode for amateur radio is FT8, made possible by Joe Taylor/K1JT and the WSJT software. At first, FT8 seemed like just the next digital mode to try but it is turning out to have a bigger impact than that. Jeff/KE9V recently posted about the popularity of FT8 here:
FT8 is so far out in front that other digital modes are a foregone conclusion. CW only remains relevant because of its popularity in contests. Even phone, the Holy Grail of wannabe HF operators everywhere, is a nearly forgotten mode compared to FT8.
This reminded me of some of the classic research on adoption of new innovations. What are the factors that cause a new thing to really take off versus languish on the shelf? How do these apply to the quick adoption of FT8?
Diffusion of Innovations
In Diffusion of Innovations, E. M. Rogers lists five factors will influence how quickly a new innovation gets adopted:
Relative Advantage: The degree to which the innovation is superior to ideas it supersedes.
If an innovation is clearly superior to the present way of doing things, people will be more likely to adopt it without too much concern about its usefulness. If it’s not clearly better, people will tend to question whether it is worth the trouble of changing.
Compatibility: The degree to which the innovation is consistent with existing values, past experiences, and the needs of the user.
If an innovation is similar to existing practice and blends in well with user needs and expectations it is more likely to be adopted. If it requires change on the part of the user or represents an inconsistency with the user’s past experience, it may be rejected.
Complexity: The degree to which the innovation is relatively difficult to understand and use.
The more complex something is, the more likely people will reject it because “it’s just too much trouble.” Understandable ideas will tend to be considered more carefully and are more likely to be adopted.
Trialability: The degree to which an innovation may be tried on a limited basis (in other words, without committing to full-scale, total operational change.)
The easier it is for an individual or organization to try something out without being fully committed, the more likely they will give a new innovation a try. If the innovation can only be tried with full-scale change and great expense, it will tend to get rejected.
Observability: The degree to which the results from the use of an innovation are visible and easily communicated to users and other decision-makers.
If the results of an innovation are difficult to measure or see, rejection is more likely. If the results are clearly visible, then the adopting individual or organization can more easily correlate the results to the innovation. Generally, a decision-maker wants to be sure that the intended results can be measured, otherwise how can the innovation be evaluated?
Adoption of FT8
It is very clear that FT8 has a strong relative advantage to other modes. Just listen to the many comments from hams like “the band conditions are really bad but I’m still making contacts.” One could argue that FT8 is not that compatible with existing operating habits (think CW or SSB) but the mega-trend of using “sound card modes” is a huge enabler. For some time now, hams have been using the PC platform as a digital signal processing engine, using the sound card to handle the analog-to-digital conversion (and back). Perhaps this traces back to PSK31 as one of the major forces that caused hams to connect their transceivers to their computer. In that sense, FT8 is very compatible with existing sound-card-enabled stations, making it strong on compatibility and trialability. Just load up the WSJT-X software and give it a try. Of course, observability is strong too…now I’m making QSOs when I wasn’t before.
There is a bit of a learning curve with FT8, which could be a barrier to adoption. You need to learn the software and fiddle around with the settings to make it work. But for many hams, this is not a barrier but a fun challenge to take on. Most of us like to try new things, as long as they aren’t too frustrating.
The final point I’ll make is that the popularity of FT8 reinforces my contention that Ham Radio Is Not For Talking. FT8 is all about making a radio contact and does not enable conversations. Sure, most hams like to talk (usually about radios) but when the bands are poor they like making radio contacts via FT8. Making QSOs is king.
Those are my thoughts. What do you think?
73, Bob K0NR
Thanks, Bob. I’ll be checking out FT8 on Field Day… those stats referenced above are impressive. Mike, KE0GZT
Bob,
The guts of the mode are also pretty cool to me- decoding less than -23dB below the noise floor reassures me that the DSP courses I took in college weren’t in vain. You probably saw the two part write-up in the October and November 2017’s QSTs on FT-8 and WSJT-X in general which took a look at some of these newer digital modes.
I think your last point is spot on. For me, the allure of FT-8 is the QSO; I can get in, get my grid square, and get out without the ragchew.
Finally, FT-8 is just cool. I found it to be an easy segway to HF, DX, and contesting, and I can get contacts without a 40 foot beam. I will concede that for SOTA and portable operation, CW is king since the only processor you need is your brain, but I am not quite up to speed with my code yet.
73s,
Barrett W0ASB
Too bad that FT8 cannot be used as a reliable communication mode for natural or other disasters.
Instead its xxxxx -> xxxxxx ur xxx rst 73 rrr.
That is a contact? The rig + pc makes the response to another rig+pc. no human is even involved.
So, OK do ur thing, but please stay out of traditional freq spaces that are being used.
Thanks for the comments.
Mike, yes, check out FT8…it’s not for everyone or every situation but it is having a big impact on ham radio.
Barrett, I also like the DSP aspect of this mode. Pretty amazing stuff.
Walter, yes it would be good if FT8 had some basic messaging as a feature. Instead they optimized for the minimum requirements of a QSO. Certainly not useful for ragchewing.
Today I am working the VHF contest and the 6m band conditions are poor here. Still, I can make a few contacts with FT8 which is great, else I am sitting on my hands. I choose to make the contacts.
Bob K0NR, yes i agree, FT8 IS a amazing piece of software and my understanding is that it was really designed for extra terrestrial use like moonbounce or satellites. If that is what keeps ham radio from going extinct, then so be it, keep on keeping on. I for one think its genius, I also think that the inventor of the mode would be a world wide hero if he could rewrite a version ( FT-10) that could be used for message transfers in the event of catastrophic wx or other emergencies. Just a thought, I think that would be the salvation of ham radio for the future.
Ham Radio is all about experimentation and this is a great example. There are those that have made over 10,000 FT8 contacts clicking a mouse and tell me they enjoy the hobby more so today than 10 years ago. Others tell me that the joy of 40m rag chews keeps them engaged in ham radio. Lately, SOTA activity is top of my mind. If the next DXpedition leaves the keys and mics at home for a FT8 mouse then I may have to look into a better CB antenna.