Hi Guys,
I (with a friend who knows of this forum) am writing a letter to ICT services complaining about it all- poor internet speed, lack of reasoning, inexplicable bans...
Id like you to read it and tell me what you think.
Obviously, I'd very much love your full support.
Alexandros
Dear Sir/Madam,
Having endured a particularly unreliable internet connection over the last few weeks (which was generally adequate or slow at best), combined with the very sudden and rash decision to de-prioritise and/or block “peer to peerâ€ÂÂ
Letter to ICT Services
Moderator: Operators
-
Alexander102
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:53 pm
Alexandros,
altou I totally agree with the arguments presented in your letter, I would like to give some broad suggestions.
1. Focus on what you (and many of us) are complaining about
- Outrageous slow speed of connection (ping timed out 8/10)
- Blocking p2p ports has impact on the efficiency of several software: such as messenger, skype, AND (among others) file sharing software.
- The University of Warwick does not provide the service it sold us: therefore they should remediate soon in order to fullfil their part of the so called "contract".
2. Then, argue their arguments
- p2p slowing down the traffic is bullshit because
LOOK NOW, EVERY F... PORT HAS BEEN BLOCKED AND OUR CONNECTION HAS NEVER BEEN SO SLOW
- Blocking p2p ports because lawer complaints is bullshit because:
a. Intranet is our business: file sharing on LAN is the reason why what we call "internet" has been created!
b. It is our responsability of any violation of the law, not their
c. There are NO complaints, and they know it perfectly well. Firms suite ISP, and Warwick is no ISP (eventou they provide us the service)
3. Finally, put your personnal remarks (that a lot of people will share, most probably)
- "I would like to conclude on a couple of personnal remarks. I do believe that... and that..."
I don't believe that all ITS are bad guys. And I hope they are reading me because the person who owns a computer, and who hadn't donwlaeded "illegally" anything in his/her entire life, hasn't seen the light of our earth.
They are rules, and people hired to implement them. But this nor of our, or ITS business.
Anyway, thanks for the initiative, if u have questions, remarks or anything jsut pm me.
don, butch on the (rip) hub
altou I totally agree with the arguments presented in your letter, I would like to give some broad suggestions.
1. Focus on what you (and many of us) are complaining about
- Outrageous slow speed of connection (ping timed out 8/10)
- Blocking p2p ports has impact on the efficiency of several software: such as messenger, skype, AND (among others) file sharing software.
- The University of Warwick does not provide the service it sold us: therefore they should remediate soon in order to fullfil their part of the so called "contract".
2. Then, argue their arguments
- p2p slowing down the traffic is bullshit because
LOOK NOW, EVERY F... PORT HAS BEEN BLOCKED AND OUR CONNECTION HAS NEVER BEEN SO SLOW
- Blocking p2p ports because lawer complaints is bullshit because:
a. Intranet is our business: file sharing on LAN is the reason why what we call "internet" has been created!
b. It is our responsability of any violation of the law, not their
c. There are NO complaints, and they know it perfectly well. Firms suite ISP, and Warwick is no ISP (eventou they provide us the service)
3. Finally, put your personnal remarks (that a lot of people will share, most probably)
- "I would like to conclude on a couple of personnal remarks. I do believe that... and that..."
I don't believe that all ITS are bad guys. And I hope they are reading me because the person who owns a computer, and who hadn't donwlaeded "illegally" anything in his/her entire life, hasn't seen the light of our earth.
They are rules, and people hired to implement them. But this nor of our, or ITS business.
Anyway, thanks for the initiative, if u have questions, remarks or anything jsut pm me.
don, butch on the (rip) hub
-
Alexander102
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:53 pm
Letter to ICT Services
Hi Don,
Thanks for your response. Along with my friend, I will integrate everything you suggested I add/remove into my letter. What worries me about this is that ITS may ignore it. I don't know. What do other people think of the letter? Do you think we will be ignored?
Thanks for your response. Along with my friend, I will integrate everything you suggested I add/remove into my letter. What worries me about this is that ITS may ignore it. I don't know. What do other people think of the letter? Do you think we will be ignored?
The key is that i'm fairly sure we're not allowed to get private internet connections installed in our rooms. So basically they're completely cutting off what we should legitimately be able to access, such as IRC (I know we can tunnel through one of the various machines outside of resnet but it's an annoying solution).
-
Alexander102
- Posts: 3
- Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:53 pm
The problem is that everyone seems to have a point.
In response-
-My point about the billion users was to point out why we should be isolated from it while lots of others can use it.
-The number was taken from an online chart found at some encyclopedia-type website, I have forgotten where but scarily its the truth.
-If I said "you are liars" then yes, that would be calling them liars. We are simply disagreeing with a point that cannot possibly have a basis of truth and therefore cannot be true, thus a lie or an exaggeration. If anyone is going to confront IT services in my view and get them to do something we have to be direct and to the point. Plus, where do they get the addresses to send letters? And ITS would lie about it so they have a reason for getting rid of P2P software, which they have a silly prejudice over.
-About the monitoring connection- yes it would be trivial, but it happens and you are basically repeating what I said.
-Oh come on, the fact that we use the internet and P2P software programs LEGALLY is enough to allow them. Plus, every letter to ICT has to have some steaming bullcrap. Well, yes- well done, you found the sucking up shite of the letter. It's an attempt to be tactful.
-The metaphor of the car is not meant to be literal. It is basically saying that something which is legal should never be judged to be illegal simultaneously. What we do in DC++ or other filesharing programs is none of ITS business- hence there is nothing wrong with it. It is a legal program.
Perhaps they can't just sit there and ignore violations, but they also can't just sit there and ignore complaints. And if they do, it's at there peril. I mean, have you noticed the sheer force of people who are pissed off?
Detty- it is a DC++ based arguement because
1) DC++ is the only file-sharing program that Warwick students could all use internally and have say one hub for all. Kazaa and other programs would be too widespread and infiltrating.
2) DC++ is apparently 'not' banned, yet they make it so corruptly slow to logon that it constantly times out. This is just cheeky- I mean, its just appalling! It's an easy way out for them.
3) Finally, everyone wants DC++. In fact, I bet when ITS members go back to their little homes they use it. One hub allowed on DC++ would not slow the server (its bloody slow with or without DC++ as exemplified today) and would be totally safe and secure. Now, what is wrong with that?
Ok guys, hope this sheds some light. Keep me updated about what you think.
In response-
-My point about the billion users was to point out why we should be isolated from it while lots of others can use it.
-The number was taken from an online chart found at some encyclopedia-type website, I have forgotten where but scarily its the truth.
-If I said "you are liars" then yes, that would be calling them liars. We are simply disagreeing with a point that cannot possibly have a basis of truth and therefore cannot be true, thus a lie or an exaggeration. If anyone is going to confront IT services in my view and get them to do something we have to be direct and to the point. Plus, where do they get the addresses to send letters? And ITS would lie about it so they have a reason for getting rid of P2P software, which they have a silly prejudice over.
-About the monitoring connection- yes it would be trivial, but it happens and you are basically repeating what I said.
-Oh come on, the fact that we use the internet and P2P software programs LEGALLY is enough to allow them. Plus, every letter to ICT has to have some steaming bullcrap. Well, yes- well done, you found the sucking up shite of the letter. It's an attempt to be tactful.
-The metaphor of the car is not meant to be literal. It is basically saying that something which is legal should never be judged to be illegal simultaneously. What we do in DC++ or other filesharing programs is none of ITS business- hence there is nothing wrong with it. It is a legal program.
Perhaps they can't just sit there and ignore violations, but they also can't just sit there and ignore complaints. And if they do, it's at there peril. I mean, have you noticed the sheer force of people who are pissed off?
Detty- it is a DC++ based arguement because
1) DC++ is the only file-sharing program that Warwick students could all use internally and have say one hub for all. Kazaa and other programs would be too widespread and infiltrating.
2) DC++ is apparently 'not' banned, yet they make it so corruptly slow to logon that it constantly times out. This is just cheeky- I mean, its just appalling! It's an easy way out for them.
3) Finally, everyone wants DC++. In fact, I bet when ITS members go back to their little homes they use it. One hub allowed on DC++ would not slow the server (its bloody slow with or without DC++ as exemplified today) and would be totally safe and secure. Now, what is wrong with that?
Ok guys, hope this sheds some light. Keep me updated about what you think.
Ok sorry if I seem to rip ur letter to parts, but I really dont think that will get the response u want..
First u have a totally wrong concept of the current Resnet and warwick network. ITS (as already mentioned) can monitor anyone on the network and kno exactly wat they're transfering.. But to make matters worse public ips also open up for government (among others anti-piracy agencies) to monitor users as well.. With a public ip address you are identifiable when you download a file on DC++, bittorent and any other P2P app. Also ITS are in fact responsible for activity on the network:
The letters that ITS claim to have received are most likely true, but I would rather argue the severity of the letters (if you have to bring them in). Use the example that large proportions of ISP get the letters and simply throw them out. Government agencies have even been found to send the letters without proper factual evidence, which is also one of the reasons why many ISP still dont cooperate with the anti-piracy agencies.
The main points I would stress are the fact that you are not receiving the product you are paying for (remember that £5 were added to the rent a few year ago to pay for internet). This includes low speeds and the loss of applications such as skype (when P2P apps are such low priority skype does not function properly).
I like your initiativ, but I believe its better to keep the statement/arguments simple and then increase the number of students supporting the letter. I believe larger numbers backing few (but very solid ) arguments is more effective/powerful and will likely get a more positive response from ITS.
Its not actually disputable whether its unacceptable with the slow speeds and the loss of useful and for some international students essential software such as skype. ITS will have to realize it, but they have gone into panick mode and are very defensive right now. So a "slightly" threatening letter will probably just push more buttons with the ITS leadership!
First u have a totally wrong concept of the current Resnet and warwick network. ITS (as already mentioned) can monitor anyone on the network and kno exactly wat they're transfering.. But to make matters worse public ips also open up for government (among others anti-piracy agencies) to monitor users as well.. With a public ip address you are identifiable when you download a file on DC++, bittorent and any other P2P app. Also ITS are in fact responsible for activity on the network:
The AUP simply means that ITS cannot get sued and they're given a chance to stop the activity first. It does not in fact remove all responsibility from them.according to legal terms issued in the IT Services Manual, is not responsible for the students actions within their uses of the internet.
The letters that ITS claim to have received are most likely true, but I would rather argue the severity of the letters (if you have to bring them in). Use the example that large proportions of ISP get the letters and simply throw them out. Government agencies have even been found to send the letters without proper factual evidence, which is also one of the reasons why many ISP still dont cooperate with the anti-piracy agencies.
The main points I would stress are the fact that you are not receiving the product you are paying for (remember that £5 were added to the rent a few year ago to pay for internet). This includes low speeds and the loss of applications such as skype (when P2P apps are such low priority skype does not function properly).
I like your initiativ, but I believe its better to keep the statement/arguments simple and then increase the number of students supporting the letter. I believe larger numbers backing few (but very solid ) arguments is more effective/powerful and will likely get a more positive response from ITS.
Its not actually disputable whether its unacceptable with the slow speeds and the loss of useful and for some international students essential software such as skype. ITS will have to realize it, but they have gone into panick mode and are very defensive right now. So a "slightly" threatening letter will probably just push more buttons with the ITS leadership!
I wouldn't even bother complaining about not being able to use P2P programs when you can't even use Google half the time because its so slow. 60Mbps is a joke, how many people are there using it?
I am very concerned about it being slower here to download a simple page with a few pictures than using a 512Kbps connection
I am very concerned about it being slower here to download a simple page with a few pictures than using a 512Kbps connection
Yes it is. The reason is a virus was being propogated through it.cocodude wrote:Is IRC banned? If so, why, and can't just DCC (i.e. file transfers) be banned instead?
Cocodude
The external company were going to unblock it. Its now inhouse and there are no current plans to do so.
How many signaturies would the union require for a member to setup and chair a committee on any matter and would they allow it? If so I will seek authorisation from Mary Visser and try and form a user/its liason committee that can attempt to tackle the many issues concerning the connection.
Excuse the mysterious name etc but I work for ITS in some capacity so would prefer not to be posting under a recognisable name,
However I understand this also puts me in a unique position in that I am both a customer and member of staff. A committee would possibly be an expedient option regarding what is allowed and what is blocked.
There is no way they should be blocking things like IRC given the consumer is paying over £20 a month for the service.
However I understand this also puts me in a unique position in that I am both a customer and member of staff. A committee would possibly be an expedient option regarding what is allowed and what is blocked.
There is no way they should be blocking things like IRC given the consumer is paying over £20 a month for the service.