Circumventing Jamming or interference with Winlink

When all else fails, so will Winlink. Do you think that RMS frequencies are secret? Hint: If they were, you wouldn't know what they were or where to attempt to connect. If you want secure communications during a crisis, use something that's totally random and satellite based....like a cellular modem to satellite link.

Do you really think hams in Cuba can afford or even get to them the gear and software needed to even use Winlink?

This sounds more like an ad for Winlink, coupled with some anti US government clips here and there, that gets near the reason for the FCC Enforcement Bureau's Official Warnings regarding the events of January 6th in Washington, DC: The use of personal radio services, including amateur radio, as a means of terrorist planning, coordination and operations.

 

Again, a Winlink advertisement. Demonstrating exactly ***why*** it currently violates 47CFR113. And, when used with VARA, a spread-spectrum, unspecified protocol modulation scheme, it violates other FCC regulations. VARA's baud rate also exceeds that permitted by current FCC regulations.

 

Excellent petit transceiver. Fait le job.

73's F4HGV Fabien

 

Um, no Lee ... The question of "violation" about the compression scheme raised by the "anti-winlinkers" has already been put to rest ... a couple of years ago, IIRC. That issue has nothing to do with the VARA protocol. See also: Just because a modulation scheme isn't "open source" doesn't mean it's in "violation". That issue was put to rest as well. Rest well, knowing that with thousands of radio amateurs using Winlink effectively to move safety-related traffic, it isn't going away any time soon. After all, that's our PRIMARY job!

 

Cool video Julian, I have a Kenwood TS-430S, I'm wondering if I can use that for digital modes.

 

Did you just contradict yourself? "Winlink is perfect for getting info into and out of Cuba ... because of the compression scheme, messages outbound - or inbound for that matter, can't be read by the bad actors even if they are intercepted." Which is it? Decode the compression or not? For all modes used by the Winlink system? The case is far from "put to rest", wait for the FCC hammer to fall.

De facto standard for critical messages? I'm trying to be polite here, can you provide some 'critical message' examples from recent events? Fair warning, I have a ton of very embarrassing Winlink 'critical messages' archived. If you can't provide valid examples it didn't happen. Sorry, but that's the truth of the matter.

Nice video Julian, very well done sir!.

 

As K0IDT points out, you did contradict yourself, with respect to winlink's unique compression protocol. So, if the 'gubment experts can't listen in, cause it's too difficult, well that sounds like its obscured content. Accepted and advertised as such. And, at least the last time I checked about a half dozen FCC proceedings, they're all still open and haven't been ruled upon. There's also a rather large list of examples of pecuniary and business use of winlink. Still under study by the Commission. The examples included purchases via credit card numbers and other sensitive data. That kind of content alone demonstrates an assumption of obscurity and privacy.

Perhaps your reading of codified sections of Part 97 is different that mine. However, I'll add to mine that several accepted, credentialed experts in modulation have submitted testimony that indeed, VARA is a form of spread spectrum; and that its protocol is not published. A verbatim example of what the Commission defines as an UNSPECIFIED protocol. As such, not permitted below 10 meters. And, as a sidebar, VARA's baud rate exceeds the existing 300 baud limitation. Still 300 baud and it hasn't changed. But, I will concede that the Commission has allowed special temporary authorization for use of Pactor 4 post disasters on several occasions.

Perhaps, if your PRIMARY job is thought to be so important, you should spend some time trying to get VARA a pass to avoid the inevitable crack down that's coming down the track. And, soon. After all, there now are widely available satellite based pathways for sailors to send and receive emails. Oh, but they charge something for access. Is winlink a means to avoid paying common carriers for wireless email service? I'll let you answer that one.

 

Many Cuban hams are on FT8 and PSK so all they need is the Winlink software which is free. Also, Winlink has a peer to peer mode so you don't have to use the RMS frequencies.
You can connect with another station on any digital mode frequency and bypass the internet.
See the YouTube video "Last Voice From Kuwait" 9K2DZ passed many messages out of Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation using HF AMTOR peer to peer, no internet, landline or satellite.
Winlink is a fabulous system and with the VARA modem it is very affordable now.

Harry W5IR

 

Well ... I'm no expert on the issue at all, but the compression "problem" was pretty much resolved a few years back. That was my primary point. And my reasoning is that "Winlink *is*" and "anti-winlinkers" *ain't*. - If, in this post-9/11 world, the "gummit experts" were concerned that winlink is a method by which people can intentionally obscure the meaning of a message - winlink would be gone. That tells me anecdotally that the "gummit experts" can, if required, read the compression scheme. I think the issue between us is that I have no problem not being able to read *your* winlink e-mail. Anti-winlinkers seem to be upset that they can't read mine. Oh, and what "crackdown" would that be that you expect? Why does VARA frighten you guys so much? I still haven't figured that one out. It can't be because our RMSs and BBSs just pop-up when required, or you'd have been squawking back in the 300bps packet BBS days! I think it has to do with resistance to change that doesn't seem to bother you when it comes to the "FT8" "hello" "5-9" "73" 0ver and over again ... so I admit I'm rather confused. You're probably not gonna see the winlink system going away with your so-called "crackdown coming down the track" - People actually interested in real ECOM efforts have a lot invested in infrastructure, and it's doubtful the FCC is gonna wipe such progress away. I remember the squawking when AMSAT control points were allowed to use encryption for satellite control links. Again, too much infrastructure at stake to allow just anyone to send commands maliciously. Same with Winlink, VARA, SCS and the amateur ECOM system. Sure the green-vested kids with their Baofengs will still have a role in emergency communications, but the ability to move real, interstate health and welfare traffic by auxiliary means will have to be done on another level. Winlink provides for this. You can cry "winlink advertisement" all you like, but the same would apply to any of the new soundcard or modem-based modes .... geez, there are still legacy skipnet nodes on HF bands using 300 bps packet! No - some progress is good ... it wouldn't hurt to try embracing that if we want amateur radio's primary charter to remain relevant. Sorry for taking the bandwidth but this is important, we have to stick together as hams, and we must keep in mind the entire reason we're here - and no - "international good will" ain't it. That went out the window decades ago. The issues in Cuba point that up pretty well. You can have the last word. Promise.

 

Sure you can.

 

Appreciate the education on this topic. Do you ever employ starlink technologies to circumvent jammers? Wonder how a combination of Amateur radio and starlink could be used to get around problematic jamming? A little Elon Musk assist?

 

Was it? Please describe the solution to the problem of "compression".

Anti-Winlink? Try anti-abuse of the ham bands, actual illegal activity and gross violations of Part 97 rules instead. There's ample proof of what I just said. What about the people that use Winlink on a daily basis when other services are readily available? I can provide plenty of evidence of that if you doubt it.

Well, once your 'email' hits the ham bands it should be open for anyone to read and the FCC agrees. Amateur radio is supposed to be self-policing, if you can't 'read the mail' how do you know it's a legitimate ham communication or some slug running commercial content -- the latter did happen over Winlink and it wasn't just an isolated incident.

People actually interested in real ECOM efforts have moved on from the amateur service if that's where they started. There's too much infighting and disagreement among the many ham groups that turns real ECOM types away.
Can you provide examples from recent events where Winlink was used? Actual messages please, not the usual "we handled many critical messages",etc. Amateur ECOM is dying (dead), with many "served agencies" preferring their own comm solutions rather than having to deal with a bunch of hams and their petty internal squabbles -- comment from one ECOM group, "ARES hates everybody". If Winlink is so vital to ECOM should it be restricted to 'break the glass' emergency use only instead of a 24/7 common carrier email service bypassing available commercial providers? Remember, amateur radio is not an emergency service per the FCC and only supposed to be a backup to a backup, "when all else fails", which doesn't happen much in today's world.

 

Hello, Harry. A couple of comments. Peer to peer is what ham radio is all about. Not "services" that operate to bypass commercial links to common carriers. So, yes, peer to peer is just fine.
Now, while Winlink software itself is free, you're asked to contribute $25 annually. Also, VARA is not free. Last I checked it was $75. May or may not be the same price as of now. And, again, it's not open source software as the FCC requires, at least for now, for use below 10M. And, Winlink forces folks to use VARA to access most RMSs.

Does the average Cuban operator have $100 to invest in a Winlink membership and (if they can get the transaction to work) buy VARA for $75? Maybe Arnie Coro CO2KK does, but he's a government loyalist. Or, at least he used to be, from his days on Radio Havana.