Defense Department Says MySpace, YouTube Eating Up Too Much Bandwidth
from the no-more dept
The U.S. Department of Defense is apparently cutting off access to a variety of sites, including MySpace and YouTube. It's not so much that they don't want people surfing the web for recreational purposes... but that they don't have enough bandwidth to handle the demand. In a time where the Defense Department probably should be doing its best to keep soldiers happy, cutting them off from one of their main sources of entertainment and communication seems like a particularly short-sighted move. Obviously, if you had to chose between, say, body armor and more bandwidth, you could make the argument that body armor could be more important -- but it certainly seems likely to greatly upset a lot of soldiers.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Short-sighted move? by Az on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:06pm
not exactly since these sites provide the other side of the argument...
First!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by anonymous coward on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:11pm
if you substitute "free speech" for "bandwidth" you actually get a true statement.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
obligatory by chris on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:15pm
you go to war with the bandwidth you have, not with the bandwidth you would like to have.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: obligatory by Sohrab on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:20pm
So is that like saying, you go to war with the Armor and Equipment you have and not what you would like to have? Cause if so, that means there is no room for criticism or upgrades. Everything is what it is?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: obligatory by Az on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:26pm
Sohrab - you missed Rumy's famous quote on equipment
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Mike4 on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:26pm
Since when is the government trying to make soldiers happy? I'm not trying to be controversial, but the military is not like some 9-5 job where you can do pretty much what you want.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: obligatory by Faceless Minion on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:27pm
Unfortunately, that's exactly what that quote means... because Bush SAID "You go to war with the army you have, not the army you would like to have." It's also the reason that when army or national guard groups would try and upgrade their vehicles with armor plating, theyd get screamed at - because apparently fuel efficiency is more important then the engine exploding. THAT is a big issue.
That being said... THIS is really a terribly minor issue, and I dont see why people are whining about it. A term of military service means that you're owned till you are out of the military, end of story.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: Re: obligatory by Faceless Minion on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:27pm
And excuse my stupidity, yeah, it was Rummy
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Just dispursing by Witty Nickname on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:31pm
OK, so you blocked PhotoBucket - you will now see your traffic split between PicasaWeb, walgreens.com, etc.
You block myspace, they go to another less popular social networking site. You use just as much bandwidth, while also managing to piss off the troops.
Maybe the Pentagon could allow private citizen to pay for their internet access, like we pay for their phone cards. I would chip in $20 to let the soldiers get on Myspace, I doubt I am the only one.
Maybe MySpace could solicit donations on their site.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Correction, that is a Rumsfeld quote by TbaBin on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:32pm
As you know, you go to war with the Army you have. They're not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.
Donald Rumsfeld
On another note,I would think Google and News Corp would help chip in the cost of the bandwidth. Good PR if you ask me.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
no IT people here? by Able-X on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:40pm
As an Network Admin, I too have had to block myspace and youtube at times. They really do use ALOT of bandwidth, and it's a valid justification as to why the DOD is blocking those sites.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by chokeX on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:46pm
it'll be just like a highschool
now you'll have a bunch of soldiers that know how to use a web proxy and still use the sites
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Won't work by UniBoy on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:48pm
Unfortunately, data behaves as a gas. It alsways expands to fill its container. Whatever bandwidth they have, its going to get used up --- for something. If not MySpace and YouTube, then something else will fill the gap.
Would they rather have the soldiers just e-mail the videos to one another?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: to poster #11 by That Guy on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:49pm
I would have to agree with you. Youtube is a pretty clear offender for sucking up bandwidth, and the thing that so many people forget about myspace is the HUGE amount of movies and music that you can get to from the site.
With youtube its all or nothing for the site, but it's a shame that myspace.com can't run a "light" version that filters out video & music content but still allows people to have access to the bulletins, message boards and emails.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Dan on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:53pm
As a Soldier who was in Afghanistan and needed to use the Government provided network for work this is a great move.
Since we were relying on satellite communications the internet speeds were not fast to begin with, then we had to deal with everyone swarming the office computers to check their myspace or upload the pictures they just took. The afternoon / evening hours it would take forever to get documents to load. If I had to scan and send documents stateside I would go in at 0400 just so it didn't take me all day to send.
There are other internet options available for Moral boosting. The USO had its own connection providing wireless connections with no blocks. There was also a service you could buy for $35 a month to have internet in your quarters. I'm pretty sure the MWR available computers were also on a separate connection because they allowed blocked sites.
The DOD doesn't go out trying to violate our rights, there are good reasons for what they do. People need to stop crying about not being able to access certain sites and remember the other wars where our Brothers in Arms sat in a foxhole for weeks at a time...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Jake Lockley on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:53pm
It's all that Friggin AJAX!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Mark on May 14th, 2007 @ 1:55pm
I'm in a Communications Squadron in one of the branches of the military. The bandwidth is coming from Satilite in most cases and there is not that much bandwidth avail as not only computer but voice/video communications must use as well. In many case there could only be 256k or 512k avail for data/voice. And then the data has to be split up between the classified and unclassified networks. I'm surprised access to those sites lasted this long.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Isn't this a TECHNICAL forum? by Anonymous Coward on May 14th, 2007 @ 2:05pm
Why not traffic-shape the bandwidth that can be put toward those sites at any given time. Blocking seems extreme when you can throttle overall traffic to a reasonable proportion. The result would ultimately be FEWER pissed off troops who can't see videos of their family or a funny clip someone wanted to send. If the messages says "network load too busy - try again later" they'll think they're on any other crappy commercial ISP.
Bandwidth requirements are evolving, as they have been since the mainframe days. As more and more customers are getting faster and faster connections, expect the amount of streaming content to get more detailed and much more prolific. (Just wait for the damn advertising and porn pop-ups!) If we are taxing our resources at this much consumption, clearly banning a few websites is as effective as hiding your head like an ostrich. Plus, it puts your back-side about where we all expect to see it!
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
bandwidth? by discojohnson on May 14th, 2007 @ 2:12pm
the block is not for bandwidth concerns, trust me. i recently separated from the air force (and was positioned at a place appropriate to talk to this exact topic). in theater, bandwidth is a concern, yes. everywhere else, not really. it's about not wanting folks screwing off at work, under the guise of saving bandwidth. ok, get this: all traffic, not internal to a base, was sent to a central location several thousand miles away for monitoring and flow control. even with this kind of spread, over the enterprise i could still draw over 5000k/s from almost anywhere, even during peek usage times with
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
The Internet by Some Person on May 14th, 2007 @ 2:39pm
You know, the internet does not belong to you, you are a "leaser" of the internet. Actually it belongs to the US government. Here is an idea, why dont people start a Ad-Hoc pptp network that the government doesnt control?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: chokeX by Wyndle on May 14th, 2007 @ 2:42pm
The DOD already blocks every known web proxy and is constantly monitoring for signs of unknown ones being used. There are ways around but the di... er, personnel, in charge of the proxys and firewalls are very efficient at stopping unwanted web usage.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Does anyone read? by TheDock22 on May 14th, 2007 @ 3:03pm
We have had some posts from military personnel. They aren't blocking access to ALL internet connections, just the ones being in military offices...for military work. Troops are free to have internet in their "dorms" and access wireless connections.
You are all making a big deal out of nothing. I don't even get to surf YouTube or MySpace where I work, and I'm sure it is a bandwidth issue over anything else.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Big Deal by El Jefe on May 14th, 2007 @ 3:50pm
They have blocked these sites for quite a long time at the base I am stationed at. This is really old new and just not that big of a deal...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Anonymous Coward on May 14th, 2007 @ 4:32pm
is this about bandwidth, or not wanting soldiers to blog about their experiences and post cellphone videos?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by Not an idiot on May 14th, 2007 @ 4:39pm
Please, this is most certainly about bandwidth. the military doesn't have some deep dark motive for all of its actions no matter how much you'd like to believe it. get a grip.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Big Deal by Anonymous Coward on May 14th, 2007 @ 5:00pm
There is the Internet, and there is the NMCI, and never the twain shall meet (or at least, they are not supposed to).
The NMCI (google it) is the largest network outside of the internet. Owned by the Navy and run by EDS (yes, that EDS).
It would be fair to say these blocks are a combination of bandwidth and keeping with the agreement users click past every time they log on htat says they understand they are using a DoD network for DoD work. Not watching mentos and diet coke get it on.
They blocked the Warcraft forums, too. Where's the hue and cry about that?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by RandomThoughts on May 14th, 2007 @ 6:24pm
Don't we kind of want our military to be pissed off?
I actually served, so before you go all protesty, lighten up.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: chokeX by mkam on May 15th, 2007 @ 4:43am
Ha! Thanks, I needed a good laugh in the morning. 'every known proxy'? I love it.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
by David Williams on May 15th, 2007 @ 6:40am
I think the bigger picture here is that the brass is realizing that the internet is a threat to their control over the flow of data about the war. Not tactical data, but information that gives families/friends a feeling for what goes on on the ground that's not necessarily in keeping with the Tillman/Lynch spin.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by Max on May 15th, 2007 @ 6:55am
"The DOD doesn't go out trying to violate our rights, there are good reasons for what they do. "
Yes the DOD does, the whole purpose of the DoD is to violate rights and destroy property.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Blogs and security by |333173|3|_||3 on May 15th, 2007 @ 8:48am
The amount of interesting info wich leaks out from around the edges of what is supposed to be secret is quite large. for example, in teh first Gulf War, and otehr heavily reported operatios, it was possible to infer where an operation was going to take place because the patterns of reporting change. Even using three channels, if there are suddenly fewer reports about an area, it can be inferred that there is some form of build-up there which no-one wants attention drawn to. Whilst this sort of thing is not particularly useful to governments, it could well be to guerillas with weaker inteligence support.
Consider this: if several soldiers from a unit were blogging about theier daily lives, events happening around the base and so on, and then the posts stopped for a while, you could guess that either they had moved, and so the posts were disrupted, or that they were doing something which they were told to keep quiet about. OTOH, the news often reports what regiment they are with, and thier location, so that is nnot a significant porblem.
I should think the main reason is to stop people fooling around on work computers, not because they necessarily think fooling around is bad, but to stop those wasting time from wasting bandwidth as well. i should think proxies are blocked for security reasons. Blocking them is as simple as using a read program to add the domain names and their IP addresses of all the proxies listed in sites full of open proxies. Of course a private, personal proxy would go undectected for far longer, but since you have little privacy frpm your ISP (all security certificates et go through them, so any encrypted data you download with a key can be decrypted trivially), you would get caught eventually.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
work when at work by taxpayer joe on May 15th, 2007 @ 9:21am
DOD employees should be working when at work, not watching youtube videos.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Bandwidth Usage vs Soldier Safety by Rose on May 15th, 2007 @ 5:04pm
I heard on the news this morning that the soldiers who wish to surf MySpace etc, can do so at several of the Internet Cafes available.
Yikes.
They would rather put our soldiers in harms way by making them use public internet cafes, than allow them to use a little extra bandwidth during their off-time.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by salem on May 15th, 2007 @ 6:11pm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: by salem on May 15th, 2007 @ 6:13pm
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
hmm... by James Stevens on May 15th, 2007 @ 6:32pm
I guess soldiers will just be forced to use P2P and other video sites. Bandwidth prolly won't change.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Bandwidth Usage vs Soldier Safety by jason on May 18th, 2007 @ 5:31am
QUOTE:
I heard on the news this morning that the soldiers who wish to surf MySpace etc, can do so at several of the Internet Cafes available.
Yikes.
They would rather put our soldiers in harms way by making them use public internet cafes, than allow them to use a little extra bandwidth during their off-time.
/Quote
The internet cafe would be on post provided by MWR (Moral Welfare and Recreation) Red Cross, or SpaWar.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
My Name is Earl by Richard Head on May 18th, 2007 @ 3:08pm
You are ugly. Ugly fugly.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
SUCH BULLSHIT by Sergeant M on Jun 25th, 2007 @ 9:16am
I am on a remote site in Iraq. Let me tell you, sites such as Myspace are the easiest way for us to keep in touch with our loved ones. Its quite ironic, because SPAWAR provides us voip phones. Voip phones that you have to PAY FOR MINUTES ON. So basically they are making it so the only way we can communicate home is to use their voip phones which they are using over their internet connection for free and charging the shit out of us in the process. Guess what else? These voip phones use FAR MORE bandwidth than surfing Myspace. This is on the Marine Welfare Recreation networks, which are set up for MORALE, WELFARE AND RECREATION - NOT FOR TACTICAL COMMUNICATIONS. I swear they want to exploit us for every damn penny they can. Reenlist? FUCK THAT.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: to poster #11 by Edub9 on Feb 12th, 2008 @ 10:00pm
I wholeheartedly agree with the "light" version. I am a heavy myspace user but also an artistwebdesigncoderetcetc. And a linux/win dual boot user and if I could have a light version I don't think I would switch back. I have been on myspace since it's inception and it has sooooo many bugs and. has really pissed me off at times. As far as the soldiers go give em a break they are being shot at and dying. At least they could see a lil' youtube myspace xtube etc.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment