This isn't much different than what IBM or GM might do if they found that a ton of their bandwidth was being sucked up for social apps and silly videos. The only difference I see is that in some geographic areas, military personnel may have infrequent access to a personally owned computer, internet cafe, or other public access.

I actually quite surprised at what I am reading here, I have always assumed the folks posting at Webmasterworld to be more on the critical/independent side then anything else, but I guess I was wrong.

This is clearly a censorship move. Bandwidth can be dealt with, how about just lowering the max throughput per connection?

Reality is, soldiers aren't like the regular Joe sitting in front of his computer, programming, but actually wasting time on YouTube. I understand that corporations ban sites because we are always in front of the screen

But soldiers, thats a whole different ball game: limited computer time, high stress environment, geographical distance.

I doubt there is a soldier out there skipping work to check out a new vid on YouTube.

Seems pretty clear to me

But soldiers, thats a whole different ball game: limited computer time, high stress environment, geographical distance.

Limited computer time is right. When I was deployed, I would be lucky to get ten minutes. With the slow connection speeds, I was lucky to read four or five emails and write back short responses to two or three of those (and I'm fast at typing and using a computer).

I would watch the soldiers who had less restricted access to a connected computer spend that time cruising high bandwidth sites. In other words, sucking away bandwidth from soldiers whose access was more limited. There are few officers and NCOs who understand networking well enough to realize abuse was even taking place.

Good on the higher ups for taking action to clarify the purpose of the military networks. Call me uncritical or a conformist all you like -- this will have a greater benefit to a greater number of soldiers than leaving those sites accessible.

I doubt there is a soldier out there skipping work to check out a new vid on YouTube.

Not every soldier goes running through the desert with a 65-pound backpack and M-16 rifle. There are plenty of desk jockeys who are in front of computers all day long. And trust me, there are plenty of them (just like in corporate environments) who abuse their Internet connections.

Trust someone who has been there/done that (military contractor/network administrator for 3+ years)- it IS a bandwidth issue.

"Loose lips sink ships" - maybe this phrase and the idea around it stands behind all.

Censoship. But from a different direction than is being discussed:

The military will find it hard to keep soldiers "focused" when they can read forum discussions of regular americans discussing what a waste of human life this war has been, and that now more Americans have died in this conflict than were killed on 9/11 -- The military may also be concerned that even soldiers who never see any action may be getting access to the very same IED vids mentioned earlier, and seeing their buddies being killed or hurt.

Their morale is very tightly tied to believing that all Americans are behind them, not just their family and the President.

Actually, I'm for the whole war thing and especially our sons and daughters who are there, I just see the military adding smoke (ie: Live365 internet radio) to a very simple censorship issue, and applying code to enforce policy, just like any other agency. They should just admit it, but that's just not their style.

Believe me, bandwidth is not an issue for the US Military, they have more than you can imagine.

Believe me, bandwidth is not an issue for the US Military, they have more than you can imagine.

Can you back up your position with some evidence or at least person experience?

As someone who was a network administrator military contractor for over 3 years, part of my job was monitoring bandwidth utilization and bottlenecks. So my statements come from personal/professional experience. And as I have said several times before, bandwidth *IS* an issue.

Trust me- I can imagine quite a bit of bandwidth, and the military does NOT have anywhere close to that amount. Yes, some bases in CONUS (the CONtinental United States) may be swimming in bandwidth, but NOT most bases outside CONUS.