nanog mailing list archives
RE: Blocking Internet Gaming
From: Paul Lantinga <prl () q9 com>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 13:32:41 -0500
-----Original Message----- From: Stephen Griffin [mailto:stephen.griffin () rcn com] [snip]
What needs to be done is to balance the knee-jerk IT folks reactions to make life as miserable as possible for the greatest number vs. allowing some amount of employee usage, to increase satisfaction, _increase_ productivity, and basically make it worth going into the office.
That's an excellent point Stephen. Killing employee morale can have longlasting repurcussions. I had the pleasure of experiencing a good decision of this type about 3 years ago when I worked in India. The execs decided NOT to block outbound port 80, even though it was taking up 75% of the bandwidth on a 128k link. They paid for an upgrade to 256k (SFO -> Bangalore, not cheap!) and decided not to block port 80, as the damage to employee morale would be too severe. -Paul.
Current thread:
- Re: Blocking Internet Gaming Spencer . Wood (Jan 06)
- Re: Blocking Internet Gaming Paul Timmins (Jan 06)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Blocking Internet Gaming Spencer . Wood (Jan 07)
- Re: Blocking Internet Gaming Stephen Griffin (Jan 08)
- RE: Blocking Internet Gaming Paul Lantinga (Jan 09)