Winlink could be in trouble?

[PNWSalmon]

Hi Winlink users. Are you following the recent filing with the FCC that may lead in Winlink being prohibited for purposes other than emergency services?

I've been following this filing: https://winlink.org/FCC_Action

It's more than a little convoluted, but as I understand, the push to allow Pactor 4 (removing the symbol rate limitations that currently prohibit Pactor 4), has lead to counter arguments that the entire use of Winlink system by cruisers is against the rules and Winlink should be shut-down completely for cruisers.

Opponents of Winlink start by saying that "The Winlink system can be used by terrorists and criminals, and poses a threat to national security" and they go on to talk about cruisers getting a "free ride", allegations of cheating, rule breaking and more.

The ARSFI counters each of these points in their comments.

Anyway, like I said, it's convoluted, but if the FCC takes the step to ban Winlink, it would really shame. What are your thoughts?

[hellosailor]

'He says these modes encourage crime, terrorism and are a threat to national security. "
The FCC, and various other clueless three-letter agencies, are all aware that terrorists don't need encrypted communications in the ham bands, in order to communicate securely.
That argument will go over like a lead zeppelin.

By all means, file a response to make the FCC's job of dumping that one easier. But don't lose any sleep over it.

Remember that all those difficult, expensive, hard, proprietary commercial and freeware solutions will be....publicly available, and chump change for the usual monitoring agencies to add to their shopping list.

Worry more about being attacked, holed, and sunk by giant narwhals.

[PNWSalmon]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

Worry more about being attacked, holed, and sunk by giant narwhals.

I like you!

While we do plan on having Iridium Go, I love our SSB, I use it all the time and I love having the redundancy of systems. It's a wonderful community too.

We're going to re-rig our boat next month. I'm actually getting rid of the insulated backstay and going with a backstay mounted long-wire antenna, I believe it will do just as well as the insulated backstay. We regularly practice with stations as far away as Tijuana without issue today.

Anyway, I like your approach HelloSailor Thank you.

[belizesailor]

There have been a lot worse things done by paranoid bureaucrats & greedy politicians under the ruse of national security. Whacking WinLink by comparison is a trivial event that the general public wont care about.

So, if you want to keep using WinLink etc then file a comment!

Link to comment:

https://winlink.org/content/ECFS

[denverd0n]

As others have said, file a comment. It certainly can't hurt. But honestly, I don't see this going anywhere.


The guy who initiated this attempt to shutdown Winlink is one of those old curmudgeons who thinks you should not be allowed to use the amateur bands unless you can copy CW in your sleep. If you didn't work as hard as HE did to get your license, then you don't have a "real" license. He's an old-timer who is stuck in the past and angry that he can't stop progress. (And this is coming from a ham operator who is well into his 7th decade on Earth!)


Is it POSSIBLE that this will pass? Yeah, probably. That's why it doesn't hurt to comment. Is it LIKELY that this will pass? No. The overwhelming majority of amateurs are opposed to this curmudgeonly attempt to stifle progress, and so I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of the comments they get will be against it. Still, I submitted a comment and encourage you to do the same.

[PNWSalmon]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

Still, I submitted a comment and encourage you to do the same.

I agree! I’ve submitted a comment.

[hellosailor]

d0n-
If you go back to your earliest ham radio books, rashly assuming you've got some from the 60's perhaps? They all had the "reasons" for ham radio, which the FCC was intimately familiar with.
And one of those reasons, now usually not mentioned or known, was "to provide a pool of trained radio operators to the military in time of war".
That's right, if you have a ham license, your local selective service (aka draft) board knows how to reach you. It is among the many specialties that they keep track of, because Uncle Sam has found out that if they need to draft troops for a real war, they can get those draftees out into combat in way less time--if they start with the folks who already have the special skills that normally could take another 30-90 days to train.
And even the military conceded long ago that morse code operations may still have great value--but they're not the primary concern these days. Which is why the FCC was allowed to drop that requirement. An elephant in the room, oh my.
The same way that boat registration lists (state or federal) have been and can again be tapped, to provide lists of available vessels to be commandeered and placed into coast watch service.
I'm not guessing, I know someone who is on a selective service board. They are not happy or eager to do the job--but like your local firemen, they realize that IF they need to go to work, they need all the tools, lined up and ready.

[brownr377]

I skimmed through the NPRM, it seems like some way overdue fairly sensible updates. I'd be very surprised if even a large number of cranks that want to stop the change would be successful. File a comment if it's important to you either way.

Based on other NPRM processes I've monitored for work, the FCC has already thoroughly vetted the NPRM, they would require overwhelming technical justifications to not go forward with implementing the NPRM as proposed. At worst the updates would be scrapped and the status quo would be maintained. It would take a whole nother NPRM process to roll back the allowed usage of the amateur bands as currently written.

Will be interesting to see their responses to the comments.

[fatherchronica]

Coincidentally, just yesterday while keeping occupied between Superbowl scoring, I read an article that said occasionally Narwhals are capable of growing two antlers, as it were. That has really scared me.

[denverd0n]

hellosailor -



Having been in the Air Force Reserves a handful of decades ago, I was already on their list before I got my ham license. If they ever feel the need to call me up, we are in BIG TROUBLE!

[duncan_ellison]

I personally wasn't aware of this. Thanks PNWSalmon for bringing it to my attention.

<rant>

I've never heard such a load of tosh from this Rappaport guy in my life. Having had some insight to these spooky matters during my fairly long professional career in communications (don't ask), I would be totally astonished if the NSA didn't already have the ability to read Pactor 4 whenever and wherever they like.

All this scaremongering talk using loaded words like 'secret' cross border communications and 'matters of National Security' sound like they have come straight out of an Alex Jones podcast.

FWIW, this sounds like a commercially motivated attack on SCS because they won't play nicely and release their commercial IP to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to clone their kit. Does he have any commercial interest in any rival systems, I wonder?

Or perhaps it's just the "Aw, those nasty German guys are spoiling our Ham fun by not releasing their code so we can hack it and sell homebrew Pactor 4 kits for $25"

Don't get me wrong, I personally think SCS charges waaay to much for their kit knowing they are an effective monopoly, but that's how it is, if you want one, you gotta pay up (I did) otherwise be happy with the original AMTOR / AX.25 and spend your days looking for someone (actually anyone) else to talk to.

The very idea of a group of bad guys using Winlink from some pseudo-Ham shack in the desert in the belief that their messages aren't being converted to cleartext anyway on the sysop's server is just preposterous.

Didn't the Snowden revelations teach us anything? - You don't have to intercept the comms in flight when it's already available at rest on the server.

At any rate, bad guys are way to busy using Whatsapp with end-to-end encryption to be bothered with ground planes, antennas, power supplies, propagation forecasts, sunspots etc etc.

</rant>

de G6BXS

[brownr377]

Originally Posted by duncan_ellison

The very idea of a group of bad guys using Winlink from some pseudo-Ham shack in the desert in the belief that their messages aren't being converted to cleartext anyway on the sysop's server is just preposterous.

Didn't the Snowden revelations teach us anything? - You don't have to intercept the comms in flight when it's already available at rest on the server.

At any rate, bad guys are way to busy using Whatsapp with end-to-end encryption to be bothered with ground planes, antennas, power supplies, propagation forecasts, sunspots etc etc.

de G6BXS

Totes agree, there are actual encrypted coms that could be used that are much easier to deal with. This seems to be a personal crusade this Rappaport dude is on going back years.

Since I seem to have more time than sense today, and I'm oddly fascinated by this type of beaureacratic process, I dug into one of the letters this guy wrote to the FCC, appended to it is an email thread with Erik Bruger (FCC CTO) in which Bruger pretty succinctly swats away the word salad Rappaport is slinging.

[wsmurdoch]

Originally Posted by PNWSalmon

Hi Winlink users. Are you following the recent filing with the FCC that may lead in Winlink being prohibited for purposes other than emergency services?

I've been following this filing: https://winlink.org/FCC_Action

It's more than a little convoluted, but as I understand, the push to allow Pactor 4 (removing the symbol rate limitations that currently prohibit Pactor 4), has lead to counter arguments that the entire use of Winlink system by cruisers is against the rules and Winlink should be shut-down completely for cruisers.

Opponents of Winlink start by saying that "The Winlink system can be used by terrorists and criminals, and poses a threat to national security" and they go on to talk about cruisers getting a "free ride", allegations of cheating, rule breaking and more.

The ARSFI counters each of these points in their comments.

Anyway, like I said, it's convoluted, but if the FCC takes the step to ban Winlink, it would really shame. What are your thoughts?

I use Winlink on my boat for email, weather GRIBs, and position reports both by telnet when a cell phone data signal or WIFI is available and by HF when it is not.

I filed a comment. If you have a stake in the game, you may wish to file one as well.

Bill Murdoch
AK4PO

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by duncan_ellison

I've never heard such a load of tosh from this Rappaport guy in my life. Having had some insight to these spooky matters during my fairly long professional career in communications (don't ask), I would be totally astonished if the NSA didn't already have the ability to read Pactor 4 whenever and wherever they like....

FWIW, this sounds like a commercially motivated attack on SCS because they won't play nicely and release their commercial IP to every Tom, Dick and Harry who wants to clone their kit. Does he have any commercial interest in any rival systems, I wonder?

Fascinating stuff.

This is close to the heart of the dispute. To be clear, Dr Rappaport isn't against SSB data transmissions, and I don't think he's against the higher baud rate. It's the proprietary stuff. One of the restrictions put on all ham radio use is that thou shall not "encrypt"; the transmissions must be decodable by any who can receive them. This is to keep amateur radio open, to allow users to share the burden of policing it, and to prevent abuse or commercial use of the amateur frequencies.

(and I'm sure that the US agencies can decode whatever they want, whenever they want )

From that viewpoint, use of a proprietary modem, whose protocols are not available (and are illegal to reverse engineer, thanks to DCMA) and a relay system which further hampers decoding is ... encryption, and a foot in the door that could lead to more commercial exploitation of the amateur frequencies. I'm kind of sympathetic to that argument, in part because of how many amateur bands are already less effective due to EMI from all the digital stuff in our lives. I recall how angry I was when some CCTV camera installers were using marine radios for aligning security cameras. On CH 68, no less.

In a perfect world, possible solutions would look like:

1. FCC and the other world bodies regulating radio spectrum set aside (or designate as shared) a piece of the HF spectrum for data systems like PACTOR, Winlink etc.
2. Proprietary, encrypted systems are not used on amateur bands.

I don't really have a dog in the fight; I don't currently use marine HF frequencies, and I'm not (yet) a licenced ham.

[waterman46]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Fascinating stuff.

This is close to the heart of the dispute. To be clear, Dr Rappaport isn't against SSB data transmissions, and I don't think he's against the higher baud rate. It's the proprietary stuff. One of the restrictions put on all ham radio use is that thou shall not "encrypt"; the transmissions must be decodable by any who can receive them. This is to keep amateur radio open, to allow users to share the burden of policing it, and to prevent abuse or commercial use of the amateur frequencies.

(and I'm sure that the US agencies can decode whatever they want, whenever they want )

From that viewpoint, use of a proprietary modem, whose protocols are not available (and are illegal to reverse engineer, thanks to DCMA) and a relay system which further hampers decoding is ... encryption, and a foot in the door that could lead to more commercial exploitation of the amateur frequencies. I'm kind of sympathetic to that argument, in part because of how many amateur bands are already less effective due to EMI from all the digital stuff in our lives. I recall how angry I was when some CCTV camera installers were using marine radios for aligning security cameras. On CH 68, no less.

In a perfect world, possible solutions would look like:

1. FCC and the other world bodies regulating radio spectrum set aside (or designate as shared) a piece of the HF spectrum for data systems like PACTOR, Winlink etc.
2. Proprietary, encrypted systems are not used on amateur bands.

I don't really have a dog in the fight; I don't currently use marine HF frequencies, and I'm not (yet) a licenced ham.

Ok, I am a licensed Ham op and one that agrees with your argument that proprietary coding should not be allowed on ham bands. Completely runs counter to spirit of Ham radio, IMHO. I use Sailmail for Pactor, not Winlink. Digital modes in ham bands should use coding technology that is publicly available..