This is deeply ridiculous and, if pressed in court, they will lose. Unfortunately, it wastes everyone's time, money and is demoralizing. I find it funny to see even on The Food Network that some shows go to great lengths to "greek out" the labels and brands, where others just let it all hang out. I always wondered why there was a difference...I'm sure it's just the legal advice the production companies got. So stupid and it assumes the viewers and consumers are stupid, too.
Okay.....so? Still a massive leap. And the memo is pretty clear that their definition of P2P refers to file sharing. Your injection of Skype was clearly splitting hairs to bolster your weak consternation and conspiracy theory. Normally, you'd tear apart a bridge this weak, so your coverage is very odd. Read Marty's synopsis below for a much more reasonable, likely and complete explanation of the situation. Or are you an expert on Antarctic research outpost operations, too? ;-)
GAO, you just provided new information which seems to go beyond what you stated before.
You now say that you know there is no bandwidth issue and there hasn't been since 2003/4. How do you know and what are the stats then/now?
You also now agree that this is a policy reiteration, yet before you said it was a "change." You said, even, "This was treated as an emergency change." So is it a reiteration or a change?
You also said earlier that this is a change made at "the ISP level" which it isn't. It's not a change and nothing was done at the ISP or network level.
And you also said that USAP users are not able to install their own applications, but the policy would clearly indicate that this is possible, even asking people to pretty-please disable or uninstall these apps. Which is it?
I guess I do share your grinding axe over mis-information.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's like arguing with a table...
Jay, you didn't call me out, you dropped your argument after I exposed it as irrelevant to the topic at hand. You did provide some info on your view of government workings...thanks for that. You also misunderstand the notion of "consumer" versus "employee"...just because an employee consumes bandwidth does not mean they are a "consumer" in the retail sense. You further misunderstood the post thinking that something was being blocked, which it isn't. Please, O Jay, explain to me how I am not up-to-date on current events and am inadequately informed. Just because you "smell" the entertainment industry's influence doesn't make it so.
GAO, you seem to have the axe to grind about P2P. Many others do here, too. I could care less, have used various P2P clients and support net neutrality (where it's relevant, which is not here).
The point here is that this whole post is about.......nothing! All I'm doing is debunking conspiracy theorists, pointing out that there are very simple explanations for all elements of this story. I UNDERSTAND that this is a politically charged topic with recent hearings and an active lobby, and that the government works in mysterious (actually very obvious, plodding) ways.
This WAS an internal reminder, not a press statement. It was sent as an email to USAP staff. It is a simple policy reiteration probably driven by an event or impact due to bandwidth utilization. It could also be an overzealous yet properly positioned administrator wanting to make a point. Perhaps the entertainment lobby got to him, bought him off, threatened his family or some such thing. The reality of the likelihood of that is slim, but I'll grant that it could have happened. But it probably didn't and this just is what it is: an internal reminder memo, fleshed out with some examples someone read in ComputerWorld (or 1000 other blog sites) which was triggered by someone complaining about a lack of bandwidth during some critical operation.
Actually, between the three permanent stations the US operates (McMurdo Station, Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, and Palmer Station) they are capable of supporting a couple thousand residents. See Wiki for McMurdo, as an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Station . Not sure how many residents there are year-round. Even a few dozen will cause huge bandwidth problems over satellite if abused.
That's me...Mr. Insider. Deep, deep inside just waiting for the talking points from the lobbyists and lawyers. Must be the case since it's clearly not possible for anyone to have an honest disagreement with the self-appointed Proclaimers of Truth here on TechDirt. I'll change my handle to BobInsider. Tom and AC, I bow to your collective outsiderness and intellect.
Actually, the only mistake I made was bothering to read the damn article that was posted. I'm quite aware of current events and I am quickly bechuckled at the rush to conspiracy on this simple, simple matter of enforcing an existing and really very reasonable policy for the sake of bandwidth.
And love the name-calling. Great contribution, you guys!
Mike, this policy isn't new. It's been in place and includes gaming and streaming, which having nothing to do with the entertainment lobby. He included an example from freakin' ComputerWorld....an obvious and well-discussed example to reinforce an existing policy which certainly appears, by virtue of the inclusion of gaming and streaming, to be bandwidth-related.
You are seeing demons where there are none...get off the hippie sauce! :-)
If you read the memo, it is basically a reminder of the policy already in place and a further instruction to uninstall any such software. And, with due respect to your insider knowledge, given that the memo starts out with an example involving software being downloaded and installed and given that the memo states that any such software must be uninstalled, I have to believe that the users in the case DO have the capability to install their own software. Either that or this agency thought it would be helpful to remind people of an irrelevant policy using an irrelevant example and making an irrelevant request to install software that couldn't possibly have been installed in the first place.
Yes P2P can be used for legit purposes...the memo even says so. But in this case the policy has been and is that P2P, gaming and streaming is prohibited. What's hard about that? I'd note that the inclusion of gaming and streaming in the policy really - again - points to the issue being bandwidth, rather than the demons Mike is chasing.
Hold on now...where are you getting that any of this traffic is BLOCKED? Whether by the ISP or via network routing/security??
All the posted memo does is to REMIND people that it IS and HAS BEEN the policy of USAP to disallow ANY use of internet gaming, P2P or streaming media. And it tells them to uninstall any non-compliant software. There is no change to policy here and I have read nothing that says it's BLOCKED.
The fact that streaming media is included in the rpe-existing ban says to me that bandwidth is the likely issue.
"This is not normal or reasonable behavior from a government IT shop at this time of the year." It may be when you are operating over a satellite uplink to the bottom of the world. Bandwidth there is (likely) extremely limited.
I agree that the entertainment and recording industries are lobbying hard. My point is that people are applying a lot of altered context and grinding axes where there is a really simple explanation given the unqique circumstances of the local.
How do you know this is blocked on the ISP level? Again with the assumptions.
All the ISPs I work with with carry everything. The security policies applied to those links is up to the contracting company or government entity. OMB does not set departmental security policy. Neither does GSA...they ensure that service providers and vendors meet standards set generally and by the purchasing department at hand, but that's it. This is NOT net neutrality, which is the ISP unilaterally making decisions for CONSUMERS as to what flows and how much of it. This may be as simple as a single policy on a stupid redundant pair of firewalls operated by a government-employed network admin sitting in Iowa. You don't know.
Again, your unfounded assumptions are driving you to unsupportable claims.
Jay, you're way off. USAP ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Antarctic_Program ) is not an ISP for the continent. It is a government agency supporting US government-sponsored activities on the continent. This is not a matter of international law or net neutrality, etc. This is not a commercial enterprise or an international one. Is the US government...just like your local Social Security office.
And, again, your obsession with an entertainment industry conspiracy here is just not supported by any facts I've seen.
Thanks AC. I clearly meant casual users of this software. I live my life in IT, but I am surely a casual user (as opposed to expert user) of many applications. Just because you have a PhD doesn't mean that you can intuit the configuration instructions for all software applications. Smart people make mistakes.
That aside, my point is that neither Mike nor this article actually reveal what drove the conclusion that this policy was appropriate. So, it's all speculation, some of it more defensible than the rest.
Jay, you're making a lot of assumptions as to what precisely was banned and why it was banned, just like Mike did. The blathering about international law is meaningless...the people who provide the equipment and bandwidth set the policy. Done. And record executives? Where did that come from other than Mike's head?
Mike made the COLOSSAL leap that the reason for USAP banning P2P file sharing had something to do with the entertainment lobby. Where the HELL is that coming from? This post is scant on details, so who knows. Perhaps there was a legitimate incident which drove this change...it is not at all inconceivable...perhaps even likely given the boredom and isolation down there (form what I've read). I can tell you working for 15+ years in and around big corporate and government IT, there are a lot of stupid users who do stupid things even when they have PhDs and are otherwise smart folks...most of the policies I've seen are mandated for legal purposes or to prevent unknowledgeable or careless users form impacting themselves and the enterprise environment. The SIMPLEST explanation is that it is these motives - and not some convoluted impact by the entertainment lobby - that are at work. Methinks Mike is going the path of Oliver Stone on this one.
There's no controversy here, in my view. This is a very limited bandwidth situation. As with many corporations and government entities, it looks like the USAP wants to ensure that its (probably very expensive) bandwidth is not used for extraneous purposes. I agree with several above that their use of P2P seems to point to pure-play file sharing, not Skype and other types of services, though we'd need to ask them to clarify. And, frankly, for casual users, it is not at all unheard of for some unintended files to be shared out on some software, especially if it is misconfigured, so it is not inconceivable that this happened and the edict is partly a legitimate reaction to that.
On the post: Why Does Lego Get To Stop Spinal Tap From Using Lego Video?
Dead-on
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Connection Issues
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Connection Issues
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Not Perfectly Reasonable
On the post: Techdirt Book Reading List 2009
Great List
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Not Perfectly Reasonable
You now say that you know there is no bandwidth issue and there hasn't been since 2003/4. How do you know and what are the stats then/now?
You also now agree that this is a policy reiteration, yet before you said it was a "change." You said, even, "This was treated as an emergency change." So is it a reiteration or a change?
You also said earlier that this is a change made at "the ISP level" which it isn't. It's not a change and nothing was done at the ISP or network level.
And you also said that USAP users are not able to install their own applications, but the policy would clearly indicate that this is possible, even asking people to pretty-please disable or uninstall these apps. Which is it?
I guess I do share your grinding axe over mis-information.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It's like arguing with a table...
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Not Perfectly Reasonable
The point here is that this whole post is about.......nothing! All I'm doing is debunking conspiracy theorists, pointing out that there are very simple explanations for all elements of this story. I UNDERSTAND that this is a politically charged topic with recent hearings and an active lobby, and that the government works in mysterious (actually very obvious, plodding) ways.
This WAS an internal reminder, not a press statement. It was sent as an email to USAP staff. It is a simple policy reiteration probably driven by an event or impact due to bandwidth utilization. It could also be an overzealous yet properly positioned administrator wanting to make a point. Perhaps the entertainment lobby got to him, bought him off, threatened his family or some such thing. The reality of the likelihood of that is slim, but I'll grant that it could have happened. But it probably didn't and this just is what it is: an internal reminder memo, fleshed out with some examples someone read in ComputerWorld (or 1000 other blog sites) which was triggered by someone complaining about a lack of bandwidth during some critical operation.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Perfectly Reasonable
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: It's like arguing with a table...
Actually, the only mistake I made was bothering to read the damn article that was posted. I'm quite aware of current events and I am quickly bechuckled at the rush to conspiracy on this simple, simple matter of enforcing an existing and really very reasonable policy for the sake of bandwidth.
And love the name-calling. Great contribution, you guys!
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Connection Issues
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Connection Issues
You are seeing demons where there are none...get off the hippie sauce! :-)
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Not Perfectly Reasonable
If you read the memo, it is basically a reminder of the policy already in place and a further instruction to uninstall any such software. And, with due respect to your insider knowledge, given that the memo starts out with an example involving software being downloaded and installed and given that the memo states that any such software must be uninstalled, I have to believe that the users in the case DO have the capability to install their own software. Either that or this agency thought it would be helpful to remind people of an irrelevant policy using an irrelevant example and making an irrelevant request to install software that couldn't possibly have been installed in the first place.
Yes P2P can be used for legit purposes...the memo even says so. But in this case the policy has been and is that P2P, gaming and streaming is prohibited. What's hard about that? I'd note that the inclusion of gaming and streaming in the policy really - again - points to the issue being bandwidth, rather than the demons Mike is chasing.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:Connection Issues
All the posted memo does is to REMIND people that it IS and HAS BEEN the policy of USAP to disallow ANY use of internet gaming, P2P or streaming media. And it tells them to uninstall any non-compliant software. There is no change to policy here and I have read nothing that says it's BLOCKED.
The fact that streaming media is included in the rpe-existing ban says to me that bandwidth is the likely issue.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Not Perfectly Reasonable
I agree that the entertainment and recording industries are lobbying hard. My point is that people are applying a lot of altered context and grinding axes where there is a really simple explanation given the unqique circumstances of the local.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Re: Re:Connection Issues
All the ISPs I work with with carry everything. The security policies applied to those links is up to the contracting company or government entity. OMB does not set departmental security policy. Neither does GSA...they ensure that service providers and vendors meet standards set generally and by the purchasing department at hand, but that's it. This is NOT net neutrality, which is the ISP unilaterally making decisions for CONSUMERS as to what flows and how much of it. This may be as simple as a single policy on a stupid redundant pair of firewalls operated by a government-employed network admin sitting in Iowa. You don't know.
Again, your unfounded assumptions are driving you to unsupportable claims.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re:Connection Issues
And, again, your obsession with an entertainment industry conspiracy here is just not supported by any facts I've seen.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Perfectly Reasonable
That aside, my point is that neither Mike nor this article actually reveal what drove the conclusion that this policy was appropriate. So, it's all speculation, some of it more defensible than the rest.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Re: Re: Connection Issues
Mike made the COLOSSAL leap that the reason for USAP banning P2P file sharing had something to do with the entertainment lobby. Where the HELL is that coming from? This post is scant on details, so who knows. Perhaps there was a legitimate incident which drove this change...it is not at all inconceivable...perhaps even likely given the boredom and isolation down there (form what I've read). I can tell you working for 15+ years in and around big corporate and government IT, there are a lot of stupid users who do stupid things even when they have PhDs and are otherwise smart folks...most of the policies I've seen are mandated for legal purposes or to prevent unknowledgeable or careless users form impacting themselves and the enterprise environment. The SIMPLEST explanation is that it is these motives - and not some convoluted impact by the entertainment lobby - that are at work. Methinks Mike is going the path of Oliver Stone on this one.
On the post: P2P Banned In Antarctica?
Perfectly Reasonable
Next >>