If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   There's a Pandora for porn because of course there Is   (gizmodo.com) divider line 62
    More: Obvious, Pandora Media Inc., Rdio  
•       •       •

6839 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Nov 2013 at 11:40 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-07 11:56:47 AM  
Eh, we'll see.  So much of the free Internet stuff is all the same gonzo style.  It would surprise me to find much to distinguish it in something like this.
 
2013-11-07 11:56:47 AM  
Our IT guys just told us to stop using Pandora and other streaming media sites, so I don't thing they'll be OK with this either.
 
2013-11-07 12:02:18 PM  

There's a Pandora for porn


Porndora?
 
2013-11-07 12:07:08 PM  
My...interest...is peaked.
 
2013-11-07 12:07:34 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: There's a Pandora for porn


Porndora?



Wanker, no wanking!

Wanker, no wanking!

Wanker, no wanking!


img.fark.net


/ too slow
 
2013-11-07 12:09:30 PM  

Wellon Dowd: Our IT guys just told us to stop using Pandora and other streaming media sites


God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.  Do you also have to put a quarter in a can every time you get coffee from the break room?  Do you have to sign out for every pen and pad of paper from the office supply room?  If so you have my sympathy.

Or it could be you have a fat pipe but incompetent IT I spose.
 
2013-11-07 12:12:31 PM  

Bacontastesgood: God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.


Blocking Pandora and other streaming sites are not tightfisted. That sort of nonsense has no place in the work environment. It uses up bandwidth that is needed to get actual work done, so people can do their jobs efficiently.
 
2013-11-07 12:15:48 PM  

Solty Dog: Bacontastesgood: God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.

Blocking Pandora and other streaming sites are not tightfisted. That sort of nonsense has no place in the work environment. It uses up bandwidth that is needed to get actual work done, so people can do their jobs efficiently.


BOSS-LIKE TYPING DETECTED

... But seriously, do you disagree with the assertion that music is not a good way to raise morale and therefore productivity?

Alternately, how much bandwidth would you propose allowing to allow for morale-boosting activities that may not be work-related, like Fark?
 
2013-11-07 12:24:51 PM  
I love how their symbol for "Asian Beauties" is a rice bowl and chopsticks.  I guess with porno there is really no point in trying to be politically correct.
 
2013-11-07 12:26:31 PM  

elchupacabra: Solty Dog: Bacontastesgood: God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.

Blocking Pandora and other streaming sites are not tightfisted. That sort of nonsense has no place in the work environment. It uses up bandwidth that is needed to get actual work done, so people can do their jobs efficiently.

BOSS-LIKE TYPING DETECTED

... But seriously, do you disagree with the assertion that music is not a good way to raise morale and therefore productivity?

Alternately, how much bandwidth would you propose allowing to allow for morale-boosting activities that may not be work-related, like Fark?


Streaming uses up way more bandwidth than web browsing.  It's not at all uncommon to block it, particularly video sites.

Fun fact: They have a Pandora (and a Spotify) app for your phone.
 
2013-11-07 12:26:57 PM  

elchupacabra: Solty Dog: Bacontastesgood: God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.

Blocking Pandora and other streaming sites are not tightfisted. That sort of nonsense has no place in the work environment. It uses up bandwidth that is needed to get actual work done, so people can do their jobs efficiently.

BOSS-LIKE TYPING DETECTED

... But seriously, do you disagree with the assertion that music is not a good way to raise morale and therefore productivity?

Alternately, how much bandwidth would you propose allowing to allow for morale-boosting activities that may not be work-related, like Fark?


Screw morale! And screw heat too, those industrial heating units on the roof cost money to run so we're selling them.
 
2013-11-07 12:28:06 PM  

Bacontastesgood: Wellon Dowd: Our IT guys just told us to stop using Pandora and other streaming media sites

God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.  Do you also have to put a quarter in a can every time you get coffee from the break room?  Do you have to sign out for every pen and pad of paper from the office supply room?  If so you have my sympathy.

Or it could be you have a fat pipe but incompetent IT I spose.


I'm the network admin for a school district. I block Pandora for teachers and students. But that's because the only internet connection we get is a "courtesy" connection from the local cable provider that's pretty low-end. We just got the HS budgeted for a nice connection so I'll probably lift the restriction at that point... at least for the teachers.
 
2013-11-07 12:31:30 PM  

Bacontastesgood: Wellon Dowd: Our IT guys just told us to stop using Pandora and other streaming media sites

God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.  Do you also have to put a quarter in a can every time you get coffee from the break room?  Do you have to sign out for every pen and pad of paper from the office supply room?  If so you have my sympathy.

Or it could be you have a fat pipe but incompetent IT I spose.


Bandwidth is finite.  User data, unless controlled, expands to consume all available bandwidth.  Having manufacturing jobs fail or healthcare information delayed because Tiffany in Accounting wanted to stream Justin Beiber all day is usually not acceptable.

You should see the dashboards light up during the world cup and watch the network performance tickets roll in.
 
2013-11-07 12:41:28 PM  
 
2013-11-07 12:47:32 PM  
Well, good luck closing THAT box.
 
2013-11-07 12:49:24 PM  

bifford: I guess with porno there is really no point in trying to be politically correct.


You guess?
the rules are fairly simple.
In fact there are 34(34) of them
 
2013-11-07 12:56:09 PM  
This is just the sort of thing that might make porn a significant presence on the internet.
 
2013-11-07 01:01:00 PM  

Bacontastesgood: Wellon Dowd: Our IT guys just told us to stop using Pandora and other streaming media sites

God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.  Do you also have to put a quarter in a can every time you get coffee from the break room?  Do you have to sign out for every pen and pad of paper from the office supply room?  If so you have my sympathy.

Or it could be you have a fat pipe but incompetent IT I spose.


The problem doesn't come from one user streaming Pandora.  The problem comes when you have 300 users streaming Pandora (or Youtube, or Netflix, or whatever your particular "morale booster" is) all day.  Unfortunately, you have to block everybody or you get accused of playing favorites.

/IT guy
//we have the bandwidth we're budgeted for
///if you want more, go talk to the accounting guys
 
2013-11-07 01:01:42 PM  

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: This is just the sort of thing that might make porn a significant presence on the internet.


You can get porn on this thing?
 
2013-11-07 01:01:44 PM  
Hey, Pandora for Porn/

Oh Wait...
Really it is more like Songza.
An exact copy more or less.
But lets not promote Songza.

PANDORA, Cause everyone knows what that is.
 
2013-11-07 01:04:14 PM  

elchupacabra: Solty Dog: Bacontastesgood: God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.

Blocking Pandora and other streaming sites are not tightfisted. That sort of nonsense has no place in the work environment. It uses up bandwidth that is needed to get actual work done, so people can do their jobs efficiently.

BOSS-LIKE TYPING DETECTED

... But seriously, do you disagree with the assertion that music is not a good way to raise morale and therefore productivity?

Alternately, how much bandwidth would you propose allowing to allow for morale-boosting activities that may not be work-related, like Fark?


Pandora and youtube are our biggest bandwidth uses on our network, our internet pipe is almost always full because of this.  I suggested that we block pandora due to the high data usage that is being used but was denied.  Then I get some users complaining on how slow the internet is.  If it was up to me Pandora would be blocked.

If you want to stream music open your phone and use your own bandwidth.
 
2013-11-07 01:05:07 PM  
So it won't have any amateur porn and will only show you 3 minutes in the middle of the scene?

/the second references how Pandora treats concept albums and multiple movement works
 
2013-11-07 01:08:02 PM  

TNel: elchupacabra: Solty Dog: Bacontastesgood: God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.

Blocking Pandora and other streaming sites are not tightfisted. That sort of nonsense has no place in the work environment. It uses up bandwidth that is needed to get actual work done, so people can do their jobs efficiently.

BOSS-LIKE TYPING DETECTED

... But seriously, do you disagree with the assertion that music is not a good way to raise morale and therefore productivity?

Alternately, how much bandwidth would you propose allowing to allow for morale-boosting activities that may not be work-related, like Fark?

Pandora and youtube are our biggest bandwidth uses on our network, our internet pipe is almost always full because of this.  I suggested that we block pandora due to the high data usage that is being used but was denied.  Then I get some users complaining on how slow the internet is.  If it was up to me Pandora would be blocked.

If you want to stream music open your phone and use your own bandwidth.


Fair enough -- I actually was more poking fun at the wording.  But yeah, I'm actually amazed that any company larger than a small business would allow Pandora, considering what it can do.

Well, that and in the "Bieber" case, Pandora probably would be the prime cause for workplace violence.
 
2013-11-07 01:10:55 PM  

Bacontastesgood: Wellon Dowd: Our IT guys just told us to stop using Pandora and other streaming media sites

God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.  Do you also have to put a quarter in a can every time you get coffee from the break room?  Do you have to sign out for every pen and pad of paper from the office supply room?  If so you have my sympathy.

Or it could be you have a fat pipe but incompetent IT I spose.


They don't want you hogging the bandwidth.  Your content in the way of the content they want to look at.
 
2013-11-07 01:18:32 PM  

maxx2112: Englebert Slaptyback: There's a Pandora for porn


Porndora?


Wanker, no wanking!

Wanker, no wanking!

Wanker, no wanking!


[img.fark.net image 281x425]


/ too slow


If only I could 'shop that pic into an "Eek a pervert"
 
2013-11-07 01:19:40 PM  
Streaming porn is generally awful. Yeah, there's something to be said for the sheer glory of amateur content now possible because of smartphones, but poorly edited clips at VHS resolutions, shiatty incorrect metadata, dealing with scam sites and redirects and the general sort of misogyny (facials, spitting, all women over 22 are "MILFs" etc) and lowest common denominator nature of mainstream porn make the prospect of visiting a Tube site highly unappealing.
 
2013-11-07 01:29:01 PM  

likefunbutnot: Streaming porn is generally awful. Yeah, there's something to be said for the sheer glory of amateur content now possible because of smartphones, but poorly edited clips at VHS resolutions, shiatty incorrect metadata, dealing with scam sites and redirects and the general sort of misogyny (facials, spitting, all women over 22 are "MILFs" etc) and lowest common denominator nature of mainstream porn make the prospect of visiting a Tube site highly unappealing.


You must be great fun at parties...
 
2013-11-07 01:34:57 PM  

likefunbutnot: Streaming porn is generally awful. Yeah, there's something to be said for the sheer glory of amateur content now possible because of smartphones, but poorly edited clips at VHS resolutions, shiatty incorrect metadata, dealing with scam sites and redirects and the general sort of misogyny (facials, spitting, all women over 22 are "MILFs" etc) and lowest common denominator nature of mainstream porn make the prospect of visiting a Tube site highly unappealing.


Yes but Redtube has the smurf fark fest, so there's that.
 
2013-11-07 01:42:06 PM  

maxx2112: Englebert Slaptyback: There's a Pandora for porn


Porndora?


Wanker, no wanking!

Wanker, no wanking!

Wanker, no wanking!


[img.fark.net image 281x425]


/ too slow


www.couplescostumes.com
 
2013-11-07 02:03:44 PM  
That is about the worst interface to search for porn I've ever seen.
 
2013-11-07 02:03:51 PM  
Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.
 
2013-11-07 02:05:22 PM  

likefunbutnot: Streaming porn is generally awful. Yeah, there's something to be said for the sheer glory of amateur content now possible because of smartphones, but poorly edited clips at VHS resolutions, shiatty incorrect metadata, dealing with scam sites and redirects and the general sort of misogyny (facials, spitting, all women over 22 are "MILFs" etc) and lowest common denominator nature of mainstream porn make the prospect of visiting a Tube site highly unappealing.


You must be surfing the wrong porn sites.
 
2013-11-07 02:05:38 PM  

BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.


1000 users, 50MB connection you do math.
 
2013-11-07 02:13:45 PM  

TNel: BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.

1000 users, 50MB connection you do math.


500 users, and a 15 MB DSL(i.e. about 11MB  if we're lucky). Or even worse, the T1 failover, 1.5MB...


I've been trying all year to get us some real internet. Hell, my home internet is 30MB.

Streaming isn't actually blocked, although it probably should be.
 
2013-11-07 02:15:27 PM  

TNel: BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.

1000 users, 50MB connection you do math.


I get the matter of scale. But that doesn't really speak to the idea that an organization is set up to deliver a certain fixed maximum bandwidth (again, I don't know if that's the case, only that's how I imagine it). The organization can't go beyond that maximum, but still pays for the whole chunk if a fraction of it goes unused.

I see streaming as acceptable to the extent that it fits into the gap between maximum allotted and normal use.
 
2013-11-07 02:17:16 PM  

meanmutton: elchupacabra: Solty Dog: Bacontastesgood: God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.

Blocking Pandora and other streaming sites are not tightfisted. That sort of nonsense has no place in the work environment. It uses up bandwidth that is needed to get actual work done, so people can do their jobs efficiently.

BOSS-LIKE TYPING DETECTED

... But seriously, do you disagree with the assertion that music is not a good way to raise morale and therefore productivity?

Alternately, how much bandwidth would you propose allowing to allow for morale-boosting activities that may not be work-related, like Fark?

Streaming uses up way more bandwidth than web browsing.  It's not at all uncommon to block it, particularly video sites.

Fun fact: They have a Pandora (and a Spotify) app for your phone.


I have this new fangled thing called an iPod. You should look it up.
 
2013-11-07 02:17:54 PM  

BetterMetalSnake: I get the matter of scale. But that doesn't really speak to the idea that an organization is set up to deliver a certain fixed maximum bandwidth (again, I don't know if that's the case, only that's how I imagine it). The organization can't go beyond that maximum, but still pays for the whole chunk if a fraction of it goes unused.

I see streaming as acceptable to the extent that it fits into the gap between maximum allotted and normal use.


Do you know how much that 50MB connection costs us?  It's not like home cable $75 a month, try closer to $1k a month
 
2013-11-07 02:32:40 PM  

likefunbutnot: Streaming porn is generally awful. Yeah, there's something to be said for the sheer glory of amateur content now possible because of smartphones, but poorly edited clips at VHS resolutions, shiatty incorrect metadata, dealing with scam sites and redirects and the general sort of misogyny (facials, spitting, all women over 22 are "MILFs" etc) and lowest common denominator nature of mainstream porn make the prospect of visiting a Tube site highly unappealing.


I'm not bothered by VHS quality resolutions, I really don't care if I'm not seeing every last hair around some chicks browneye that she never managed to shave completely.

If you're visiting a streaming site with redirects, you're visiting the wrong site. If the site has only amateur content and that's not what you're looking for, you're visiting the wrong site. I will give you the bit about incorrect metadata and tags though.
 
2013-11-07 03:06:22 PM  

BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.


The problem is not every business can get a 50mb pipe or isn't willing to pay for it. A lot of businesses are limited in their options because of their location in relation to the nearest central office. And if Comcast isn't coming into your building be prepared to pay them to trench. It's not cheap. So some businesses are stuck with a few megs at best.
 
2013-11-07 03:33:16 PM  

Anne.Uumellmahaye: meanmutton: elchupacabra: Solty Dog: Bacontastesgood: God I hate workplaces that are more tightfisted than a college dorm.

Blocking Pandora and other streaming sites are not tightfisted. That sort of nonsense has no place in the work environment. It uses up bandwidth that is needed to get actual work done, so people can do their jobs efficiently.

BOSS-LIKE TYPING DETECTED

... But seriously, do you disagree with the assertion that music is not a good way to raise morale and therefore productivity?

Alternately, how much bandwidth would you propose allowing to allow for morale-boosting activities that may not be work-related, like Fark?

Streaming uses up way more bandwidth than web browsing.  It's not at all uncommon to block it, particularly video sites.

Fun fact: They have a Pandora (and a Spotify) app for your phone.

I have this new fangled thing called an iPod. You should look it up.


but I don't want to watch porn on my ipod.  The screen's too small.
 
2013-11-07 03:45:15 PM  
FTFA's Comments:

On a somewhat unrelated but VERY IMPORTANT note: http://pornhubcommentsonstockphotos.tumblr.com/

It is Pornhub comments on Stock photos. Laffs to be had.

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-11-07 03:46:45 PM  

TNel: BetterMetalSnake: I get the matter of scale. But that doesn't really speak to the idea that an organization is set up to deliver a certain fixed maximum bandwidth (again, I don't know if that's the case, only that's how I imagine it). The organization can't go beyond that maximum, but still pays for the whole chunk if a fraction of it goes unused.

I see streaming as acceptable to the extent that it fits into the gap between maximum allotted and normal use.

Do you know how much that 50MB connection costs us?  It's not like home cable $75 a month, try closer to $1k a month


I have NO idea how much it costs. You are correct. But that doesn't really doesn't answer the point. Is it the case that we are paying that 1k a month whether or not the bandwidth is used?

Hells_Nachos: BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.

The problem is not every business can get a 50mb pipe or isn't willing to pay for it. A lot of businesses are limited in their options because of their location in relation to the nearest central office. And if Comcast isn't coming into your building be prepared to pay them to trench. It's not cheap. So some businesses are stuck with a few megs at best.


Here too, I understand it isn't cheap. I didn't realize how much more expensive it was than home service (why the hell is there THAT much difference, anyway). The maximum available bandwidth is estimated for core business needs (does not include streaming services). I assume decision makers then add a certain percentage over that to act as a buffer. Once that is purchased, the ISP is not going to refund the organization on any unused bandwidth, so why not use it for streaming like this. It literally didn't cost the company anything extra.
 
2013-11-07 03:50:10 PM  

bifford: I love how their symbol for "Asian Beauties" is a rice bowl and chopsticks.  I guess with porno there is really no point in trying to be politically correct.


It's a double whammy, as it is printed as "Oriental Beauties", not "Asian Beauties".
 
2013-11-07 04:11:11 PM  

BetterMetalSnake: TNel: BetterMetalSnake: I get the matter of scale. But that doesn't really speak to the idea that an organization is set up to deliver a certain fixed maximum bandwidth (again, I don't know if that's the case, only that's how I imagine it). The organization can't go beyond that maximum, but still pays for the whole chunk if a fraction of it goes unused.

I see streaming as acceptable to the extent that it fits into the gap between maximum allotted and normal use.

Do you know how much that 50MB connection costs us?  It's not like home cable $75 a month, try closer to $1k a month

I have NO idea how much it costs. You are correct. But that doesn't really doesn't answer the point. Is it the case that we are paying that 1k a month whether or not the bandwidth is used?

Hells_Nachos: BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.

The problem is not every business can get a 50mb pipe or isn't willing to pay for it. A lot of businesses are limited in their options because of their location in relation to the nearest central office. And if Comcast isn't coming into your building be prepared to pay them to trench. It's not cheap. So some businesses are stuck with a few megs at best.

Here too, I understand it isn't cheap. I didn't realize how much more expensive it was than home service (why the hell is there THAT much difference, anyway). The maximum available bandwidth is estimated for core business needs (does not include streaming services). I assume decision makers then add a certain percentage over that to act as a buffer. Once that is purchased, the ISP is not going to refund the organization on any unused bandwidth, so why not use it for streaming like this. It literally didn't cost the company anything extra.


It certainly could. Even assuming they lack a monthly data cap, having several users tie down the bandwidth to the point email becomes slow or fails, or net-based apps slow or fail, or IP phones get choked off the network, is a huge business breaking issue.

And that assumes there isn't a data cap that could be nasty.

The issue isn't 'the bandwidth' costs. It's the use and availability of that bandwidth solely for corporate purposes. Especially with the prevalence of smart phones, the compact nature of MP3 players and data holders, and so on, you can fit 20+ hours of music on a USB MP3 player the size of your thumb. There's no reason to stream aside from laziness.
 
2013-11-07 04:27:45 PM  

Dingleberry Dickwad: If you're visiting a streaming site with redirects, you're visiting the wrong site. If the site has only amateur content and that's not what you're looking for, you're visiting the wrong site. I will give you the bit about incorrect metadata and tags though.


Mostly I see the mistakes and complaints from others. Personally I just torrent. It's much easier to keep stuff organized and I have the local storage. 30GB/day for the life of my current storage array is completely manageable.
 
2013-11-07 04:30:46 PM  

kroonermanblack: BetterMetalSnake: TNel: BetterMetalSnake: I get the matter of scale. But that doesn't really speak to the idea that an organization is set up to deliver a certain fixed maximum bandwidth (again, I don't know if that's the case, only that's how I imagine it). The organization can't go beyond that maximum, but still pays for the whole chunk if a fraction of it goes unused.

I see streaming as acceptable to the extent that it fits into the gap between maximum allotted and normal use.

Do you know how much that 50MB connection costs us?  It's not like home cable $75 a month, try closer to $1k a month

I have NO idea how much it costs. You are correct. But that doesn't really doesn't answer the point. Is it the case that we are paying that 1k a month whether or not the bandwidth is used?

Hells_Nachos: BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.

The problem is not every business can get a 50mb pipe or isn't willing to pay for it. A lot of businesses are limited in their options because of their location in relation to the nearest central office. And if Comcast isn't coming into your building be prepared to pay them to trench. It's not cheap. So some businesses are stuck with a few megs at best.

Here too, I understand it isn't cheap. I didn't realize how much more expensive it was than home service (why the hell is there THAT much ...


Laziness and convenience and highly correlated, but I see your point. However, I would be very shocked to learn that anything done on the user side could interfere with core business applications. Any decent IT team should be able to prioritize data streams, such that transactions and phone communications get first dibs on available bandwidth. If there isn't enough left over to stream or browse, by all means make sure critical data gets to where it is going. It strikes me as the kind of thing that IT would be knowledgeable enough to manage.
 
2013-11-07 04:43:57 PM  

BetterMetalSnake: TNel: BetterMetalSnake: I get the matter of scale. But that doesn't really speak to the idea that an organization is set up to deliver a certain fixed maximum bandwidth (again, I don't know if that's the case, only that's how I imagine it). The organization can't go beyond that maximum, but still pays for the whole chunk if a fraction of it goes unused.

I see streaming as acceptable to the extent that it fits into the gap between maximum allotted and normal use.

Do you know how much that 50MB connection costs us?  It's not like home cable $75 a month, try closer to $1k a month

I have NO idea how much it costs. You are correct. But that doesn't really doesn't answer the point. Is it the case that we are paying that 1k a month whether or not the bandwidth is used?

Hells_Nachos: BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.

The problem is not every business can get a 50mb pipe or isn't willing to pay for it. A lot of businesses are limited in their options because of their location in relation to the nearest central office. And if Comcast isn't coming into your building be prepared to pay them to trench. It's not cheap. So some businesses are stuck with a few megs at best.

Here too, I understand it isn't cheap. I didn't realize how much more expensive it was than home service (why the hell is there THAT much difference, anyway). The maximum available bandwidth is estimated for core business needs (does not include streaming services). I assume decision makers then add a certain percentage over that to act as a buffer. Once that is purchased, the ISP is not going to refund the organization on any unused bandwidth, so why not use it for streaming like this. It literally didn't cost the company anything extra.


You're doing them a favor by making use of that available bandwidth!

Yeah, why don't you go down to the bank and offer to make use of any extra money they have sitting around.

What's so hard to understand? businesses pay for bandwidth for business purposes. If there is extra capacity for you to stream music, there likely isn't enough for everyone to stream music.

Yes, there is QoS which can prioritize net traffic based on service, but then you get unreliable service and frustration instead of soothing music.

There are so many cheap, easy, and reliable alternatives, why is this an issue?

/not a boss
 
2013-11-07 04:54:44 PM  

BetterMetalSnake


However, I would be very shocked to learn that anything done on the user side could interfere with core business applications. Any decent IT team should be able to prioritize data streams, such that transactions and phone communications get first dibs on available bandwidth. If there isn't enough left over to stream or browse, by all means make sure critical data gets to where it is going. It strikes me as the kind of thing that IT would be knowledgeable enough to manage.


Here is the very simple answer: it is not your* bandwidth to use as you see fit. It is provided for business purposes.

You shouldn't be shocked, btw. User activity can put high CPU loads on devices like proxies; if the proxy is running flat-out and cannot keep up with traffic, then performance for all applications will suffer.

Yes, QoS can alleviate some problems but the fact remains that it is not your* personal or home connection and shoudl not be treated as such. Any organization of a decent size should have policies in place to state exactly that.

* generic "your", not you specifically
 
2013-11-07 05:01:28 PM  

mcmnky: BetterMetalSnake: TNel: BetterMetalSnake: I get the matter of scale. But that doesn't really speak to the idea that an organization is set up to deliver a certain fixed maximum bandwidth (again, I don't know if that's the case, only that's how I imagine it). The organization can't go beyond that maximum, but still pays for the whole chunk if a fraction of it goes unused.

I see streaming as acceptable to the extent that it fits into the gap between maximum allotted and normal use.

Do you know how much that 50MB connection costs us?  It's not like home cable $75 a month, try closer to $1k a month

I have NO idea how much it costs. You are correct. But that doesn't really doesn't answer the point. Is it the case that we are paying that 1k a month whether or not the bandwidth is used?

Hells_Nachos: BetterMetalSnake: Not being an IT guy, I don't understand the bandwidth limitations organizations face. Do organizations pay per data unit? I always assumed that an organization has the infrastructure for a specific amount of traffic, even if the full capacity wasn't used, the costs are fixed. If costs rise significantly with increased use, then I can see restrictions on streaming services. If they don't then IT should STFU and GBTW.

If it is a matter of streaming slowing down other types of traffic, couldn't important traffic be given priority? I think my home router allows for that sort of thing.

/Allow me to don my flame-resistant suit before hitting me full-blast with the flames.

The problem is not every business can get a 50mb pipe or isn't willing to pay for it. A lot of businesses are limited in their options because of their location in relation to the nearest central office. And if Comcast isn't coming into your building be prepared to pay them to trench. It's not cheap. So some businesses are stuck with a few megs at best.

Here too, I understand it isn't cheap. I didn't realize how much more expensive it was than home service (why the hell is there THAT much ...


Using bandwidth that has already been purchased is not the same as liberating "unused" funds from the bank. The fact that it is in the bank makes it money in use. Indeed businesses pay for bandwidth for business purposes, employee satisfaction could be a use. Certainly, an employee considering two positions in different companies might base a decision on a restrictive bandwidth policy and that affects the bottom line.

If QoS (whatever that means) delivers unreliable service, then perhaps a better QoS or a different technology might be employed. Ultimately, this (as all decisions should be) should be determined by a cost/benefit analysis. If allowing streaming costs the company little (again, IF), then there is no reason to restrict its use. If streaming does have a quantifiable cost, then by all means shut it down.

/boss, but not an important one.
 
2013-11-07 05:08:37 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: BetterMetalSnake

However, I would be very shocked to learn that anything done on the user side could interfere with core business applications. Any decent IT team should be able to prioritize data streams, such that transactions and phone communications get first dibs on available bandwidth. If there isn't enough left over to stream or browse, by all means make sure critical data gets to where it is going. It strikes me as the kind of thing that IT would be knowledgeable enough to manage.


Here is the very simple answer: it is not your* bandwidth to use as you see fit. It is provided for business purposes.

You shouldn't be shocked, btw. User activity can put high CPU loads on devices like proxies; if the proxy is running flat-out and cannot keep up with traffic, then performance for all applications will suffer.

Yes, QoS can alleviate some problems but the fact remains that it is not your* personal or home connection and shoudl not be treated as such. Any organization of a decent size should have policies in place to state exactly that.

* generic "your", not you specifically


I won't claim ownership of bandwidth and I suspect few anywhere will. However, I always caution managers and decision-makers to make sure they understand the costs associated with rules prohibiting various employee behaviors. It is very possible that a rule is necessary, but every rule imposes a psychological cost. Ignore these at the peril of your organization.

Another thing that IT folks too often forget, a company's technology resources are not theirs any more than they belong to the employee. IT is simply charged with it's maintenance and development. Too many IT folks treat tech as their own and resent people with the audacity of using it differently than they would. A user's computer is no more IT's than your paycheck belongs to payroll.
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report