In "Turn of the Century", the so-1999-it-hurts novel of new media and old mores by the American writer Kurt Andersen, one character gives her thoughts on media convergence: "Online video is like a parrot: the fact that a bird talks is interesting, at least when you first get it home, but do you really want to listen to it say anything?" True enough. So, who let that parrot into the office?

You can, if you like, blame "Big Brother", the breakthrough reality television show, for persuading millions of Europeans to go online last summer to follow its progress. Or Hollywood studios: Miramax is making a movie, "Guinevere", available as a 500MB web file. And let's not forget Napster, which may or may not still be in business as you read this, but whose central feature of online music file-swapping will certainly survive.

Websense, the US internet software company, estimates that most "Big Brother" visitors logged on during office hours, and speculates that many will have used high-speed internet usually only found in offices. It argues that historically 70 per cent of internet porn has been downloaded during office hours, and although most large companies have introduced rules to ban such sites, few have a policy for more mainstream multimedia.

As Websense sells software to filter workplace access to websites, its arguments should not solely be taken on trust. But for several reasons it would be wrong to dismiss it simply as another internet solutions company in search of a problem.

First, both streaming media - viewing files live over the web - and completed content downloads are on the increase. NetValue, the internet research company, estimates that one in five Spanish internet users streamed video or audio to their PCs in January, the highest figure in Europe. Spain was closely followed by Denmark, the UK, France and Germany.

Second, it now looks clear that outside bandwidth "hotspots" in Scandinavia and the Benelux countries, early roll-out of high-speed connections will be predominantly to businesses, not homes. A study by ZDNet and Nielsen//NetRatings estimates that users with high-speed lines are twice as likely to stream content as dial-up surfers.

Third, avid web media users tend to be young. Napster flourishes in universities. In Spain, where people traditionally move out of the family home late, 39 per cent of streamers recorded by NetValue were under 24. It is not inconceivable that both groups will seek to continue the practice from offices when they enter the workplace over the next few years.

One way of looking at this is to treat it as a "soft" human issue. In innovative companies, keeping people entertained during long stints in front of a PC screen is a competitive advantage, not a weakness. Familiarising them with the technology will encourage legitimate uses of streaming, such as online training. Wouldn't a ban be as unreasonable as forbidding screen-savers, personal e-mail or personal phone calls?

The other point of view is based on "hard" economics. Streaming is addictive, distracts staff, slows down corporate networks and adds to telecoms costs. How many people would expect to be able to bring a television into work?

As ever, technology isn't creating a new problem, but a variation on an old one. In this case, it is the blurring of boundaries between work and leisure. Most companies will reach a compromise on the question, based on common sense as much as web sense. After all, the last thing to do when there is a parrot on the loose is flap.

Email Carlos Grande at carlos.grande@ft.com