What Users Are Saying

Editor’s Note: As NetEqualizer’s popularity has grown, more and more users have been sharing their experiences on message boards and listservs across the Internet. Just to give you an idea of what they’re saying, here a few of the reviews and discussion excerpts that have been posted online or emailed to us…


Very happy with this appliance so far.  Keep up the good work!


Yes, going well, thanks. The NetEqualizers are doing a remarkable job and have reduced our guest complaints over the last year.


Thank you very much – we still absolutely love our NetEq. We went 1:1 with Chromebooks for our students this year and the NetEq has been amazing.

hws_logoDerek Lustig, Director, Network & Systems Infrastructure, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, New York, USA

…HWS implemented the NetEqualizer solution based on its stellar reputation in the education space as well as its value, which is difficult to match in competing products….

…The NetEqualizer has been a great solution because it is extremely easy to maintain, and – when needed – it just works, says Derek Lustig of HWS.

Out of the box, the configuration is very straightforward, and our staff only really ever “manages” the system when there are periodic firmware upgrades. Support has always been swift and eager to assist in whatever ways possible. …

“If only all the systems we managed were so easy!”

Kevin Olson, Communication Manager, Cooperative Light & Power, Minnesota, USA

Our company is an electric utility and we have a subsidiary WISP with about 1,000 unlicensed fixed wireless customers. We purchased our first NetEqualizer about a year ago to replace our fair access policy server from another company. The server we replaced allowed burst then sustained bandwidth so we weren’t sure if “equalizing” would work, but it works extremely well as advertised.

The NetEqualizer is stable and actually requires very little maintenance after initial configuration. In our case, we wanted to limit the upper end of what a customer could use (max burst). We were able to set that parameter in our wireless CPE’s. Then we set the equalizing pools for the size of our APs. The NetEqualizer can do a burst then sustained then burst at equal intervals, but to our surprise we actually didn’t need to use it.

We also purchased the DDoS Firewall and that is working nicely as well for quick identification of attacks. Perhaps the most important thing to note is the support is excellent. From sales to engineering the team is very responsive and knowledgeable. We were so impressed that we actually purchased a second NetEqualizer to handle the rest of our network.  This company is A+.

Willy Damgaard, Network and Telecom Analyst, Edmonton Regional Airport Authority, IT Department, Alberta, Canada

We presently use two NE3000 units for Internet traffic control and monitoring in a redundant setup. At present we have a maximum of 600 Mbps Internet throughput, with over 300 IP addresses in use in some 120+ address Pools. The NetEqualizer is a very useful tool for us for monitoring and setting speeds for our many users. Most of the feeds come straight off our Campus network, which is spread over a seven kilometer distance from one end of the airdrome to the other. We also feed a number of circuits to customers using ADSL equipment in the older areas where fiber is not yet available. Everything runs though the “live” NE3000!

Controllability and monitoring is key for our customers, as they pay for the speed they are asking for. With the RTR Dashboard, we continually monitor overall usage peaks to make sure we provide enough bandwidth but, more importantly, to our individual customers. Many customers are not sure of how much bandwidth they need, so using the Neteq we can simply change their speed and watch the individual IP and/or Pool usage to monitor. This becomes especially useful now as many customers, including ourselves, use IP telephony to remote sites; so we need to maintain critical bandwidth availability for this purpose. That way when they or we have conference calls for example, no one is getting choppy conversations. All easily monitored and adjusted with the Dashboard and Traffic Management features.

We also have used the Neteq firewall feature to stop certain attack threats and customer infected pcs or servers from spewing email or other reported outbound attacks, not a fun thing but it happens.

Overall a very critical tool for our success in providing internet to users and it has worked very well for the past 8 or more years!

Gary Schlickeiser, Director of Technology Infrastructure Services, Reed College, Oregon, USA

We’ve had NetEqualizers on campus at Reed for several years and continue to be very happy with the product . We have a very small staff and don’t have time to “tune” a device like a Packetshaper. Instead the NetEqualizer is protocol agnostic in the way it shapes traffic for most users but also allows us to quickly prioritize some traffic if necessary. Over the years the NetEqualizer has saved us countless hours of staff time. We did lose some visibility into what is happening on our border network but our IDS/IPS replaced that functionality. NetEqualizer is an excellent product.

youngharriscollegeHollis Townsend, Director of Technology Support and Operations, Young Harris College, Georgia, USA

At Young Harris College, our network supports 47 buildings and residences for our 1,200 students. Prior to 2007, we had a Packeteer in place to shape our networks, and found that we were having to tweak it on a regular basis, sometimes weekly, in order to keep our policies working as needed. Like many others, when we were told that our equipment was “end of life”, I decided it was time to look at other options. My goal was to find a shaping solution that required less management.

I found that in the NetEqualizer. Once I had the NetEqualizer set-up and configured, I have spent very little time managing it – it just works! This product is great! And I love that our students are not even aware that they are being shaped – I just don’t get any complaints about bandwidth. The NetEqualizer ensures that network hogs do not take over my network during peak periods.

I also like how the NetEqualizer has grown with us. We started in 2007 with an NE2000-10, and traded that in for an NE3000-50 in 2011. In 2012, I upgraded our license to 1Gbps, which is what I am running today.

And the future? We are planning for off-site campus locations, to expand YHC’s offerings, as well as the communities we can serve. I am working with the folks at APconnections to map out NetEqualizers to support several of our new locations, as I know that I need to guarantee a quality online experience Day 1.

drew_universityChris Stave, Network Administrator, Drew University, New Jersey, USA
(from a RESNET LISTSERV discussion, January 2016)

It’s been a long time since I’ve used anything but a NetEqualizer, but having previously used the Allot NetEnforcer and the Packeteer Packetshaper (which hasn’t been “Packeteer” since 2008), the thing I like about the NetEqualizer is that you basically set it up one time and then it is working. No determining that “Web Games” will for now and all time be dedicated 7% of your bandwidth, no needing to rapidly update application signatures because people realized that FileShare4000+ isn’t blocked, so everyone quickly shifts to using that.

Before we upgraded our connection, the NetEqualizer really was astounding in its effectiveness, we have one on the primary firewall and if we switched to the secondary firewall the network was nearly unusable.

So with the note that it’s been a long time since we’ve used anything else (they have to have gotten better, right?), definitely “what they said” about the NetEqualizer. It isn’t bells and whistles, but is quite effective when (and only when!) it needs to be.

monmouthMichael McGuire, Network Systems Administrator, Monmouth University, New Jersey, USA
(from a RESNET LISTSERV discussion, January 2016)

We have had a similar experience with our NetEqualizer.  About 4 years ago we made the switch from our PacketShaper to a NetEqualizer when looking at a bandwidth upgrade.  The total cost of the NetEq was less than a year of maintenance on the PacketShaper so we figured we’d give it a try – and we’ve never looked back.

The NetEq is really something you put in place and it just works!  We have upgraded once to go along with a bandwidth increase, other than that there is not really much to do with it.  When initially looking at the products we had our doubts and questioned the pricing discrepancy from the PacketShaper, and wondered if it could really do what it claimed.  Since we’ve had it in production we see it performs as advertised.

Really the only issue we’ve had was with our IPv6 implementation.  Working with support they were able to get this resolved fairly quickly and everything is going along nicely.

One of the features we really like about the NetEq is that when traffic is below the set threshold, in our case 90% of total capacity the appliance just passes traffic.  Only when the ratio is crossed does it step in to manage traffic.  Once the traffic drops again it goes back to just monitoring.

Chris Beaver, Naitauba Adidam, Naitauba Island, Fiji

(from an email to Support Team June 2015)

Very happy with our NetEq…

Stephen Gale, Director of Technology, West Grand School District, Colorado, USA

The NetEqualizer is working well for us.  As our device count increases, it is helping to keep a handle on would-be bandwidth hogs. Setup was simple, and since it looks at the packet size, not the content, there is no need for any certificates to limit encrypted traffic.
As our student-facing devices increase in number, I anticipate that the NetEqualizer will continue to save us money, by allowing us to effectively utilize the bandwidth we have rather than purchasing more.

athenianMatt Binder, Director of Information Systems, The Athenian School, California, USA

NetEqualizer is one of very few products that lives up to its promise. After initial configuration it simply does manage traffic in defined pools/objects. There is no complex application based rules or management required. It is a fantastic product that makes the life of a school network manager easier.

lawrencevilleMark Costello, Network Engineer, The Lawrenceville School, New Jersey, USA

We’ve been a NetEqualizer customer for several years and I want you to know how pleased we are with it. Unlike our previous bandwidth management product which required constant tending and updates, the NetEqualizer works exactly as advertised: plug it in and forget it. Our Internet connections run smoothly regardless of the kind or amount of traffic thrown at it.  Thanks again!

Julie Wyatt, Technology Librarian, Bedford Public Library System, Virginia, USABedford Public Library System

Background: Bedford Public Library System is the oldest publicly-supported, continuously operating public library in any of the communities surrounding Bedford County, and is one of the oldest public libraries in Virginia. Bedford Public Library System has six (6) locations. They use one NetEqualizer for Internet traffic and the other to support traffic between locations. After implementing their NetEqualizers, they were able to move three (3) libraries onto a centralized, shared catalog, housed at one library.

Julie Wyatt, Technology Librarian, describes BPLS’ experience with the NetEqualizer as follows…

“The two (2) NetEqualizers that we purchased last year have really helped us keep all of our locations running smoothly. We’ve been able to prioritize staff operations and VoIP phones, then allocate remaining bandwidth to public and wireless systems efficiently. Our network has been more stable, even though we now have 2 other library systems pulling from a shared circulation and catalog system housed at our location.”

Matt Pocock, Director of Technology, Miss Hall’s School, Massachusetts, USAmisshalls

We have been extremely happy with our NetEqualizer. Gone are the bottlenecks that used to occur when all of our students were on the Internet at the same time. The NetEqualizer handles all of the bandwidth management, keeping our users happy, and has been completely hassle-free for our admins.

Charles R. Watts III, Network Manager, Information & Technology Services,
Washington & Jefferson College, Pennsylvania, USA

(from an email to Support Team July 2015)

The NetEqualizer works so well, I rarely have to do any administration on it!

lutheran_healthJason Whiteaker, Senior Network Engineer, Lutheran Health Network, Indiana, USA
(Excerpt from Case Study, January, 2015)

Background: Lutheran Health Network (LHN) is a regional healthcare provider network that consists of multiple hospital campuses and dozens of urgent care and physician practice locations, serving 23 counties in northeastern Indiana and northwestern Ohio. Every year, LHN cares for more than 50,000 inpatients, treat hundreds of thousands of outpatients, and touches the lives of their families and friends. To learn more about Lutheran Health Network, go to http://www.lutheranhealth.net/.

Jason Whiteaker is a Senior Network Engineer at LHN. He is part of a network engineering team that supports a diverse mix of traffic, including: traditional Email, Internet SaaS/ASP, patient EMR, VoIP (unicast and multicast), medical imaging, teleworker, and telemedicine (unicast, multicast, and video) applications.

LHN utilizes a mix of enterprise (wired and 802.11 wireless) and carrier (TDM and Metro Ethernet) transport services to provide these application services to their clients.

The Solution: LHN purchased two NE4000 1Gpbs units in May 2014, and then installed them as an active/passive pair to ensure traffic limiting full redundancy in case of an outage.

LHN looks to the NetEqualizer approach of traffic management as a way to augment their traffic processing needs. Because the NetEqualizer actively manages TCP connections and UDP flow states, they can apply a coarse interface traffic policy on the metro ring, yet fine tune and manage the mobile phone user checking their medical record portal or watching a YouTube video.

The Results: LHN loves the user-friendliness of the NetEqualizer appliance. Their environment is large enough that they can dig as deep as they care to into the esoteric QoS/traffic management tools of the infrastructure. However, being able to perform an initial configuration and let the appliance do its thing without a huge amount of babysitting is a big time saver.

The NetEqualizer appliances allow Lutheran Health Network to optimize the network infrastructure in which they have already invested. Management can feel more confident that when the time comes for bandwidth upgrades, those purchases will be effective and beneficial. As a bonus, applications that aren’t bandwidth constrained enjoy better “goodput” and the overall user experience is smoother – a technical and political win-win for the network engineering team.

monmouth_univMichael McGuire, Network Systems Administrator, Monmouth University, New Jersey, USA  (In response to a question on Bandwidth Management posted on LISTSERV RESNET September, 2014)

We have had a similar experience with our NetEqualizer.  Two and a half years ago we made the switch from our PacketShaper to a NetEqualizer when looking at a bandwidth upgrade.  The total cost of the NetEq was less than a year of maintenance on the PacketShaper so we figured we’d give it a try – and we’ve never looked back.  The NetEq is really something you put and place and it just works!  After the initial install, even before the planned bandwidth upgrade, the complaints from users dropped off dramatically.  We went from have to constantly monitor and tweak the PacketShaper to actually having to lookup the password since we hadn’t logged onto it for a while.

When initially looking at the products we had our doubts and questioned the pricing discrepancy from the PacketShaper, and questioned if it could really do what it was advertising.  Now that we have it in production we see it performs as advertised.

Jan Hatherell, Network Administrator, Tenacre – A Ministry of Christian Scientists,
New Jersey, USA
(testimonial submitted April 2014)

Similar to a college situation, we provide internet service for both offices and residences on a single campus. In the past, a couple of users would bring the internet service for others to a crawl and it was clear that we needed a good bandwidth management device. Since putting in the NetEqualizer in 2008, we haven’t had to think about it again. Using the default equalizing out of the box and making a few tweaks as the result of helpful support calls, bandwidth management is a non-issue now. We upgraded the NetEqualizer when we increased our pipe and it continues to do an efficient job. This is an excellent product and we recommend it without hesitation.

George Brady, Director of Technology,South Orangetown Central School District, New York, USA

(From an email, April 2014)south_orangetown_motto

The units are working well – definitely see a performance increase in our bandwidth optimization. Love the “KISS” (“keep it simple, stupid”) principle of bandwidth shaping.

johnson_city_schoolKevin Jacks, Technology Coordinator, Johnson City Independent School District, Texas, USA

(From an email, April 2014.)

Best investment we have made in the last five years. The NetEqualizer is a lifesaver!

paloverde_collegeDan Spechtenhauser, Network and Systems Security Specialist, Palo Verde College, California, USA

(Original quote from September 2011. Updated November 2013.)

NetEqualizer is truly is a set it and forget type of appliance. I used another vendor’s product years ago and I was always working on it, frequently digging around to find heavy use users and products; it was a never-ending process. Sometimes I would spend up to 20 plus hours a week on QoS. With NetEq, I have spent maybe 3 or less hours doing administrative tasks over the last 6 years. With the purple product company’s device, I would usually spend 3 hours daily before lunch. NetEq is Rock Solid and ROCKS!

Linfield College logoAndrew Wolf, Telecommunications Manager, Linfield College, Oregon, USA
(In response to a question on Internet Bandwidth for Students posted on LISTSERV RESNET November, 2013)

Don’t really have a base level; On our Net Equalizer, our students can use whatever is available up to the max of their “Pool” (currently 275 mbps) – when the pool is saturated, the really heavy users get delayed until they back off, and everybody gets “equalized” as required. It’s pretty cool…. At this point, no firm plans to add – currently 300 mbps/~4500 devices….

principiaChris Davis, The Principia, Missouri, USA
(In response to a question on Internet Bandwidth for Students posted on LISTSERV RESNET November, 2013)

We have 2 campuses and don’t really distinguish between resnet and non-resnet. One a K-12 and one a 4 year College. About 850 faculty/staff/students/guests per campus. We have 100Mbps at the K-12 and 150Mbps at the college. We used to use a BlueCoat packet shaper for bandwidth management but changed to an APConnections NetEqualizer almost 2 years ago. The use of such devices do seem to help extensively. I did some surveying of sites a couple of years ago, and it seemed that the sweetest spot for student to bandwidth ratio was about 4:1 (I had folks report good response between 4 and 18 to 1). We do pretty well on 9:1 and 6:1. Our college site is beginning to outgrow that ratio and we’re considering moving from 150 to 200 or 250 (cost dependent). 200 would be 4:1 and 250 would be 3:1….

NAT ConsultingMatias Pagola, CEO, NAT Consulting Inc., New York, USA

(From an email to NetEqualizer Sales, November, 2013)

I’ve had an experience I’d like to share with you… Since last week, the WiFi vendor at 3 of my client’s locations was insisting that the NetEqualizer was preventing users from having good Internet connections. They wanted the NetEqualizers to be disconnected.

Knowing that they were looking for a scapegoat, and picked the thing they knew very little about (NetEqualizer), I agreed to disconnect them, just to show them how the network would react… and it was day and night! As I knew would happen, complaints flooded the call center, people reported slow or no connections, delays, etc.

This was a very good way of showing them how effective NetEqualizers are. Their networks were in complete chaos without them! Needless to say, now they understand the value of NetEqualizer! The NetEqualizers are back online, and we are now taking steps to also add bandwidth at the 3 sites….”

pluGreg Briggs, Network Manager, Pacific Lutheran University, Washington, USA
(In response to the following question posted on LISTSERV RESNET October 2013)

Question: For those of you doing traffic shaping: what percentage of your Internet pipe do you allow streaming media to use (if you differentiate between faculty/staff I’m looking specifically at students)? If you’re capping do you also provide a minimum reserved % for streaming?

Answer: We use the NetEqualizer. We have no caps for users or applications. We have sane connection limits only to prevent problems. As we approach saturation, the NetEqualizer does its job and adds a bit of delay to the sessions that are hogs. This approach is user and protocol agnostic. The result is that when we approach saturation, protocols that are burstie, and in general can handle the latency have their peaks put into the valleys and the perception of quality continues further into saturation. It has been a while since we have needed the NetEqualizer, but we are glad it is there. I highly recommend this approach as it accomplishes the ultimate goal of “traffic shaping” in a way that makes the most people happy. It is very hands off, and very inexpensive relative to other offerings. So to sum up and answer your question, we allow as much as the user wants while we can, and then fairly distributed after that.

Linfield College logoAndrew Wolf, Telecommunications Manager, Linfield College, Oregon, USA
(In response to the following question posted on LISTSERV RESNET October 2013)

Question: For those of you doing traffic shaping: what percentage of your Internet pipe do you allow streaming media to use (if you differentiate between faculty/staff I’m looking specifically at students)? If you’re capping do you also provide a minimum reserved % for streaming?
Answer: We have bandwidth caps for the students, total simultaneous connection limits, and keep all the students in an overall bandwidth pool; because we are shaping behavior using a NetEqualizer, not controlling specific applications or doing any DPI, all the streaming media seems to pass through without any issues. Most streaming content is buffered to some extent, so small delays that might imposed by our NetEqualizer don’t seem to be noticed. I have a connection at home that is a wireless link to the colleges network, so I appear in the student network segment. I stream Netflix at my house often during the peak hours for students and only once have I noticed an issue; it turns out it was a Netflix issue, not our network. We’ve got ~2500 residential students; about 6.5k of devices, and 300 meg overall of which 275 meg is carved out for the student bandwidth pool. Anyone using over 2 meg sustained is considered a HOG and will be slowed down in increments if the pool saturates above 85%. Anyone under that is basically ignored.

gordon_collegeDirector of Networking and Computer Services, Network Systems Group, Gordon College, Massachusetts, USA
(In response to the following question posted on LISTSERV RESNET October 2013)

Question: For those of you doing traffic shaping: what percentage of your Internet pipe do you allow streaming media to use (if you differentiate between faculty/staff I’m looking specifically at students)? If you’re capping do you also provide a minimum reserved % for streaming?

Answer: We did an audit recently. The top apps include:
All other Combined (Facebook, Tumblr, Instagram..)

We use a Netequalizer to distribute our bw evenly to our students. We make minor adjustments yearly. We increased our pipe because the demand was high and rising, Ustream is in place for one to many streams like sports, Chapel and Special Events.

The Neteq has served us well. We have the ability to prioritize traffic. For example, Ustream special events.

bethanyMichael Gaspard, IT Director, Bethany World Prayer Center, Louisiana, USA

(From an email to NetEqualizer Sales, September, 2013)

The NetEqualizer unit we have is amazing. One feature I love, and we use quite frequently, is P2P monitoring and throttling. In one click of a button, the system will check all connections and tell me the probability of someone torrenting files. We can then check this against our IP tables and instantly identify the source and shut it down from either the NetEqualizer or the person’s computer. This feature saves us a major headache when it comes time for auditing!

bethel_college_kansasTim Buller, Information & Media Services, Bethel College, Kansas, USA

(testimonial to APconnections, August 2013 )

I’ve been very happy with the NE2000, it’s a solid box and has never given us any grief. I also appreciate its content-agnostic approach to bandwidth shaping. Many of my peers spend a lot of time tuning their traffic control devices to catch/except various L7 protocols, and I am glad not to have to play that game. Many of them are also paying a lot more to purchase their appliances, with very high annual SnS (software and support) costs.
Again, I really appreciate your product and excellent service. I am also impressed with the pace of upgrades and added features over the past couple years. Keep up the good work!

Mark Kadzie, Network Manager, Skokie Public Library, Illinois, USAskokie_library
(testimonial to APconnections, August 2013 )

Skokie Public Library, located in Skokie, IL, is an award-winning public library that serves a diverse community of sixty five thousand residents just north of Chicago. In addition to a robust wireless network, which frequently accommodates more than 100 simultaneous devices during peak use, the Library also provides more than sixty computers and laptops for public use.

As far as the Internet is concerned, the Library is part of a metropolitan area network (MAN) consortium where Internet access is shared among five local school districts and other Village institutions.  In 2004, when the Skokie I-Net was formed, the large, shared Internet pipe was more than enough to accommodate everyone.  It has been only in the last few years, as bandwidth needs have continually increased for all, that the I-Net began to slow down under the strain of network congestion.

Particularly acute during the day while schools are in session, the network congestion was becoming problematic, and a significant portion of that daily load was generated by the Library.  As a responsible consortium member, it was the Library’s obligation to figure out a way to lower its overall Internet use, especially during the day, without adversely affecting our user experience.

We were aware of NetEqualizer but did our due diligence anyway in researching all our options.  In the end we decided that NetEqualizer was our best option. Installation was quick and easy.  The configuration was minimal.  By defining smaller Bandwidth Up/Down parameters during the day, the “equalizing” kicks in sooner and lowers our overall bandwidth use. During nights and weekends, when there is virtually no Internet contention, we raise these parameters to let our Internet access fly. In addition to lowering our Internet bandwidth use during the day, our users also benefit from the ability to receive equitable network access. The heavy multimedia-streamers no longer monopolize the network like they had in the past.

Looking back, purchasing a NetEqualizer was a “no-brainer”.  I just don’t know why we didn’t purchase one sooner.

Christopher Stave, Computing and Network Services, Drew University, New Jersey, USA

(Email to APconnections, updated August 2013.  Originally from August, 2011.)

At Drew our NetEqualizer continues to work very well, so thanks for making an excellent product that just works and does what it says it will very well. It is usually one of the things I mention to people as a “best thing we’ve bought” type device, as it really is SO easy to use and configure and really does keep everything usable. Thanks for making an excellent product!

great_falls_collegeJohn Frisbee, Network & Telecom Analyst, Great Falls College Montana State University, Montana, USA

(Excerpt from an email to our Support Team, August 2013)

By the way… I really like the new GUI

Rick Jex, Director of Information Technology, Riverdale JointRiverdale Joint Unified School District Logo Unified School District, California, USA
(Excerpt from “NetEqualizer Helps Prioritize Network Traffic” article in DataBusOnline, June 4, 2013)

As K-12 schools in California begin shifting to a new model of learning that is heavily reliant upon the Internet, this places pressures on IT directors to develop methods that ensure equal Internet access for all. By properly designing a network utilizing traditional VLANs (virtual local area network), and QOS (quality of service) as well as with smart networking tools like NetEqualizer from AP Connections, a school district can prioritize their network traffic based on a plethora of policies.  read more

John Bailey, Assistant Director, Student Technology Services, Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Washington University in St Louis(In response to a question on P2P traffic posted on LISTSERV RESNET April, 2013)

Here at Washington University of St. Louis, we got out of the business of sniffing and blocking certain types of traffic, and we have been much better off since.  We moved to a simple NetEqualizer appliance that ensures each student gets a fair slice of the available bandwidth and throttles down devices that have a huge number of connections (likely bit torrent-style traffic.)

Of course, we still have a swift and robust tracking and response system for dealing with copyright infringement complaints, so the students have a healthy fear of using any P2P file sharing apps while on campus.  We have not seen any notable increase in copyright violation notices since we moved away from targeting and blocking specific types of traffic.  This change has gotten us almost completely away from the various instances like you are describing below where a legitimate bit of traffic was getting hung up because of P2P management tools.

gordon_collegeRuss Leathe, Director of Networking and Computer Services, Network Systems Group, Gordon College, Massachusetts, USA
(In response to a question on P2P traffic posted on EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv, May, 2013)

Great product and support!!

We have used Netequalizer for about 6 years.  Very pleased with the results as it uses the  ‘fairness’ principle. That is, total bw divide by # of users equals bw per user.  Pretty brilliant idea.   We noticed a change right away – within the first hour –with response and speed.  We were a packeteer shop but quickly switch to netequalizer from day one.  The students stopped complaining. J

We were literally spending about 2-3 (or more) hours per day managing the packeteer….now with the netequalizer its maybe 2-3 hours a year.  The time we do spend on it is  for reports and upgrades.  When we need reports, it readily available.

Set it and  forget it! With limited staff, I recouped those hours!

We manage 200MB and will be increasing to 350MB – more devices per student.  The nice thing about it is we can dedicate bw to a particular app/client if needed (like streaming media or video conferencing).  Great to have that flexibility.

We give low bw to all p2p programs so basically it worthless to run one.  Haven’t had a notice in 6 years.

HEOC speaks well here.

Anco van Bergeijk, Mission Protestante CMA, Hospital, Mali

(Email to APconnections , May, 2013)

Thanks for your great software still running on old hardware.

You might like our story… In 2005 I bought two NE1000 1U servers. One of them is still 24/7 running at our hospital in Mali, Koutiala. I saw on the netequalizer globe map that we are not on it, we should be added… The other unit I still use as measuring unit and is sometimes borrowed for a few weeks so that a school or little network can be monitored. We are still running software version 2.28N. The one unit at the hospital is nicely airconditioned in a small room. The other NE1000, I modified a bit as it was chrashing to often due to temperatures in non airconditioned places. See attached photo’s. For example daytime in shadow is now around 100 degrees F…

Dapuget_soundve Hamwey, Network Manager, University of Puget Sound, Washington, USA

(Email to APconnections Support Team, May, 2013)

…Thank you.  I really appreciate the great support we get with your products.
They have proved to be invaluable in our environment.

Mark Fowler, RT21.NET, Ohio & West Virginia, USArt21.net
(May, 2013)

RT21.NET is a mostly rural WISP offering secure, reliable, high-speed wireless to business and residential customers in Jackson County, West Virginia and Meigs County, Ohio. RT21.NET has over twenty wireless access points, and several mesh networks. The operations center has fiber optic and redundant cable connections to the Internet.

Mark Fowler, owner of RT21.NET, has been a NetEqualizer customer since October 2008, when he purchased an NE2000-10Mbps unit. In 2010 he upgraded his NE2000 to a 20Mbps license. We talked to Mark earlier this year while working with him to configure his box with separate configurations based on “time of day”. During our discussion, Mark told us “I can’t imagine being in the WISP business without the NetEqualizer”. While we love glowing statements, we asked for specific reasons behind his statement, so that we could share his experience with you.

In a nutshell, there are three things that Mark loves about his NetEqualizer: 1) first and foremost, interactive activity (browsing web pages, gaming, chat, etc.) is no longer degraded by the heavy use of a few customers, 2) that he has invested very little ongoing effort over the 4 ½ years he has had his NetEqualizer in place, and 3) finally, the fact that there is the ability to customize the configuration when needed (like setting up multiple configurations that switch based on the time of day, individual bandwidth limits, and priority users).

Mark also told us that APconnections really understands the needs of Internet Providers. He runs his WISP business in as streamlined a fashion as possible, and NetEqualizer’s simple set-up and maintenance support this goal. He also appreciates that functionality within the NetEqualizer is well-aligned with WISPs. In particular, the use of Bandwidth Pools to set up “virtual NetEqualizers” works really well on his wireless network. He uses bandwidth pools to ensure that any group of customers off a particular access point (AP) can be given maximum bandwidth without the possibility of saturating the AP’s wireless backhaul link.

I guess now we know why Mark cannot imagine running his business without the NetEqualizer. Thanks Mark, we are happy to help!

Kevin Melson, Eagleone Wireless Internet, Mississippi, USA  eagleone wireless
(May 2013)

Company Background
Eagleone Wireless, LLC is an industry-leading, privately held, Internet Service Provider based in Corinth, MS. In 1997, Eagle One Wireless, Inc., began construction of an innovative network optimized for data traffic and launched service in two initial markets. That same year, major telecommunication companies announced for the first time ever that global networks carried more data traffic than voice traffic. Eagle One was perfectly positioned to step into this growing market.

In 2010 Eagleone Wireless, LLC was formed, through the acquisition of the existing Internet service provider network. The new owners, also owners of other local Corinth companies, immediately started updating the existing network for the future. This new organization has put in place several things to carry Eagleone Wireless and its customers in to the future. Today we are one of the largest carriers of data traffic in North East MS, providing businesses and homes with a reliable data network and outstanding service.

Eagleone’s experience with NetEqualizer
I tell every other WISP that I speak to about the NetEqualizer. Most have never heard of it.

We would certainly hate to be without it, because we feel the NetEqualizer is far ahead of all other bandwidth shaping devices. It is not like simple rate limiting devices; it intelligently shares bandwidth across all users, using equalizing to penalize network hogs when the network is congested. When the network is not congested, users can have as much bandwidth as they need, without being artificially limited.

We bought an existing WISP that had been in business about 10 years and was failing badly. In 2005 we purchased our first NetEqualizer (a NE1000-10Mbps). We traded that for an NE2000-45 in 2009, and have since upgraded to our current 100Mbps license.

The NetEqualizer is affordable. It helped us to spread our dollars further on limited bandwidth while we spent our money on all the backhaul link upgrades that we needed to do. Now that most of our backhaul links are upgraded, it is time to finally upgrade bandwidth, and the NetEqualizer has been great about scaling with us as we grow.

Thank you for a great product. We feel that our NetEqualizer will last us many, many years to come…

Scott Dean, Network Manager,  Augustana College, Illinois, USAaugustana_college

(Email to APconnections regarding a Support request, Apr, 2013)

Ok, everything is back up and running with our config and key.  We’ll keep an eye on it for a few days or a couple of weeks to see if we resolved the issue.  I think we have.

I’ll keep you posted and many, many thanks for the quick responses.  I wish other companies had support half as quick and proficient as you folks.

Russ Leathe, Director of Networking and Computer Services, Network Systems Group, Gordon College, Massachusetts, USAgordon_college

(Email to APconnections, Mar, 2013)

We had an incident over the weekend I wanted to tell you about:

One of our webservers got hit with a ‘zero-day’ malware.  We noticed our bw was completely pegged even though our student population was on, or leaving for Spring-Break (so our bw consumption should have been trending downwards, not upwards).  We maintain over 100 servers, 95% of which are in a VM environment.  Needless to say, finding the exposed culprit would be like finding the proverbial “needle in a haystack”.  Alas, NetEQ to the rescue.

We used NTOP to discover our ‘Top Talkers’.  The Inbound bw was saturated, which was unusual and we pinpointed it to one machine.  We quickly wrote a bw rule for that web-server and things returned to normal.

We found the malware and inoculated the server…all within an hour’s time.  Normally, this could have taken hours or a few days.

Thanks again… for creating such a great solution for Higher ED!!

john_tyler_ccMichael Smith, Network and Systems Administrator, Information Technology Services Center, John Tyler Community College, Virginia, USA
(Email testimonial to APconnections, Mar, 2013)

In discussing a recent software update to 6.0:

“…You guys have done a lot of work and the new interface looks good and works well.”

alila_jakartaBen Whitaker, Principal at Jetset Networks, Hotel Alila Jakarta, Greater Jakarta Area, Indonesia
(Email testimonial to APconnections, Feb, 2013)

Just an update about the results we got on our latest install…

“We just finished a project with the 262-room Hotel Alila Jakarta, installing our aggregation gear and also the NetEqualizer. At the hotel we were able to double the bandwidth to 15Mbit and provide failover. But the Active Bandwidth Control with the NetEqualizer was the most impressive.

The hotel was using a primitive system called Rate Caps on Microtik equipment to limit each accesspoint to 3/4 megabit. So nobody ever got speeds over 3/4 megabit. The entire Ballroom for example, had to fight over 3/4 megabit. Really inefficient.

We put in our gear and now guests are getting 3.5 megabit even if the line is full. It instantly “makes room” for important traffic and guests can get peak speeds all the way up to 15Mbit if the line isn’t full.

When we set it up, by chance their Global CEO was in town that day. He suddenly got 7Mbit, which is 9 times the speed he usually gets at the hotel – and told the GM about it. The hotel’s Financial Controller shook my hand the next day and thanked me. Internet is nine times faster? That’s major. Just by fixing the traffic control system.

Available speeds to guests are now 5x to 10x what they were because we got rid of the primitive Rate Cap system…”

Darren Muloin, Manager, AirSpeed Wireless, British Columbia, Canadaairspeed
(email testimonial to APconnections, Feb, 2013)

“AirSpeed Wireless runs a fairly extensive wireless network and we use the NetEqualizer to keep traffic flowing smoothly even at peak times and under heavy load. The NetEq’s give our wireless backhaul links as much as 50% more capacity without noticeably affecting customer service. This gives our equipment a longer lifespan and keeps bandwidth costs down, which is good for the bottom line.”

Chris Davis, CIS Security Director, The Principia, Missouri, United Statesprincipia
(In response to a question on bandwidth shaping posted on LISTSERV RESNET Dec, 2012)

“…I was in the same place you were last spring.  Due to increasing bandwidth I was looking at significant licensing and hardware replacement of our shapers.  I was also beginning to see the end of the tunnel in terms of deep packet inspection with regard to prioritization of traffic.  We had been changing what we wanted out of our shaper from prioritization to equalization.  While we wanted to prioritize by application on some things, what we really wanted was to share the bandwidth equally between our users, resnet and other.  While I couldn’t do everything I wanted with the NetEq, I found that those things I wanted to do, I really didn’t need to do.  We have been up on ours for about 7 months now, and we have had nothing but a terrific experience.

In the midst of this I also took some data on user population to bandwidth (Mbit/second) and found that with any kind of packet shaping, the sweet spot of user/bandwidth ratio was 4:1.  I also heard from many that were higher than that, 6:1, 8:1, 10:1 even as high as 20:1.  We run at 6:1 and 9:1 on our two campuses.  There have been no significant complaints.

The one problem I have with the NetEq is that the network interfaces aren’t pass through by default.  I got very used to that with our shaper.  You either have to set up your own switches to bypass it in the event of a failure, or buy a solution from them that does basically the same thing.  Other than that small complaint, I have had no problems and more importantly almost no bandwidth help desk calls!   That’s the big plus.  Plus it is very easy to manage.  I hardly ever touch mine.  I just monitor them with the new Dashboard interface. …”

Linfield College logoAndrew Wolf, Telecommunications Manager, Linfield College, Oregon, United States
(In response to a question on bandwidth shaping posted on LISTSERV RESNET Dec, 2012)

“… I think you’ll find rate limiting with the core equipment problematic at best. You want your core network gear to move packets as quickly as possible; not spend time calculating if a user is exceeding their bandwidth. My advice would be to simply place a behavior- based shaper at the choke point towards the internet.   Talk to the folks that have installed behavior based shaping  – I use NetEqualizer and would be happy show you what we do with it.  I know there are several other folks on this listserv who also use them – it’s an terrific product – set and forget for the most part.  If you check the ROI you can probably pay for the Neteq for what the upgrade would cost you.  AND you would get a real tool to control the resident population’s behavior fairly, so everyone gets better performance. ..”

Thierry Le Prettre, IT Analyst, Soleica, Incorporated, Kuujjuaq, Quebec, Canadasoleica
(from email to APconnections regarding our new GUI, Oct, 2012)

“… The interface is much more friendly, and it’s easier to configure the device with it. Good job. …”

quinsamTravis Renney, Quinsam Radio Communications, Campbell River, British Columbia, Canada
(from email to APconnections regarding our new GUI, Oct, 2012)

“… Wow, simply amazing.  Thanks guys, nice job.. …”

Josiah Erikson, Network Engineer, Hampshire College, Massachusetts, United Stateshampshire_college
(from email to APconnections, Oct, 2012)

“…you guys also answered me outside of stated support hours. Thanks! You guys consistently provide the highest level of support I have ever received from any company, bar none. Also your product is fabulous. I have recommended it to all other four colleges in the Pioneer Valley…”

Otto, Network Maintenance, Letaba Wireless Internet, Greater Tzaneen, South Africaletaba
(from email to members of the Wireless Access Providers Association of South Africa (wapa), Apr, 2012)

We’ve been contemplating buying a NetEqualizer for the last 2 or 3 years now.  We recently took the plunge and purchased a NE3000-150 unit and I must say we are EXTREMELY happy with what it’s doing for our network. If you have the capital to purchase this piece of equipment YOU WILL NOT be disappointed.

Stephanie Dickens, Vice President of US Operations, Global Gossip, Colorado, USA
(from joint press release http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20120302005149/en/NetEqualizer-Selected-Global-Gossip-Support-High-Speed-Internet Mar, 2012)Circle Logo

Global Gossip’s Vice President of US Operations, Stephanie Dickens, says “The use of the NetEqualizer greatly diminishes the need for hands-on bandwidth management. Our customers are located in areas where bandwidth is not easy to come by, and the NetEqualizer helps control that bandwidth so that one single user is not monopolizing it. We are thoroughly satisfied with the NetEqualizer’s remote management capabilities and its ease-of-use. We currently have NetEqualizers deployed at the Furnace Creek Resort in Death Valley National Park, throughout guest and employee accommodations in Yellowstone National Park, Grand Canyon, Mount Rushmore, and five Ohio State Parks. The NetEqualizer will be deployed with the Global Gossip system in several more US locations before the end of 2012.”

Global Gossip currently manages and maintains over three hundred wireless networks and kiosk internet sites around the world. Their wireless installations include some of the most remote and challenging locations on Earth, from central Australia, New Zealand, Vanuatu, Fiji, to Yellowstone, Wyoming, the UK and Spain. Global Gossip’s unique HSIA product integrates seamlessly with NetEqualizer technologies to provide a highly structured internet access gateway, cloud based management tools, and 24/7 technical support. Global Gossip has offices in Sydney, Australia, Denver, Colorado, and London, England. Global Gossip can be found online at http://hsia.globalgossip.com.

Karl Childress, Information Technology Manager , Powell River School District 47, British Columbia, Canadapowell_river_sd
(from Educational Technology Management Association (ETMA) listserv, Feb, 2012

We've started using these (NetEqualizer) too.  So far everything is working 
great.  (Haven't tried the cache function yet though.)

Geoff Wilson, Manager of Information Technology , Campbell River School District 72, British Columbia, Canadacampbell_river_sd
(from Educational Technology Management Association (ETMA) listserv, Feb, 2012)

We are using Layer 7 bandwidth arbitrators http://www.netequalizer.com/index.htm. They can also run a caching proxy server with the latest OS.  They are very affordable, simple to use, and a powerful tool on our network.

Dan Spechtenhauser, Network Technician, Palo Verde College, California, USA
(comment, YouTube NetEq Online Demo, Oct 2011)paloverde_college

This truly is a set it and forget type appliance. I used another vendors product years ago and I was always in there working on it, finding heavy use users and products, and tweaking and geeking out on it. With Neteq, I have spent maybe 2 or less hours doing administrative task over the last 4 or more years.  I would spend 2 hours per day before noon most of the time when using the purple companies product. NETEQ ROCKS!

Peter Spencer Deskspace.biz, United Kingdom, Europe

In the UK there is an advertising slogan for paint that says:  “It does exactly what it says on the tin”. Well the NetEqualizer does exactly what they claim on their website: we took it out of the box, plugged it in to our network, and 10 minutes later, all our bandwidth problems disappeared. No more dropped VoIP calls, and no more complaints about slow internet access or stuck emails. We did get a couple of unhappy users – but those were the folks who were downloading movies on peer-to-peer or running unauthorised web-servers on our network – and they had caused all the trouble for everyone! NetEqualizer was automatically throttling back their bandwidth usage. Easy. We have 100 tenants in our serviced office, and the internet just HAS to work 24/7 – NetEqualizer has made them, and us, happy!

Thanks, Peter

George, unknown (Ubiquiti Forum, Nov 12th, 2010)

… We have the 45Mbit NetEqualizer model. Works simply awesome, just like black magic.

bethel_college_kansasTim Buller, Bethel College, Kansas, USA
(From email to APconnections, Nov, 2010)

… Thanks again for such a great, easy to use product.

macalester_collegeTim Payne, Network Administrator, Macalester College, Minnesota, USA
(From EDUCAUSE Network Management (NETMAN) Listserv, Mar, 2010)

… We just bought a new NetEQ unit here as well when we upgraded our internet pipe to 130Mbps.  It has worked perfectly for us, as did our old one….

Nathan P. Hay, Network Engineer — Computer Services, Cedarville University, Ohio, USAcedarville_university
(From EDUCAUSE Network Management (NETMAN) Listserv, Mar, 2010)

… We have the NE3000-350 on a 150 Mbps pipe.  We bought it the same time we had a large increase in our pipe, so I am just recently starting to see the graphs plateau at 120 Mbps (80% of 150, the point where neteq kicks in).   It took our users a while to catch up to our larger pipe size, so I think the Neteq didn’t do anything for about a year because we never hit 80% usage.

So it is working well for us.  I barely touch it as far as management goes.

It lives up to the sales pitch for us and the price easily convinced us when we outgrew the PacketShaper we had.

Vince Stoffer, Reed College, Oregon ,USAreed_college
(From Educause SECURITY list, Jan 19th-20th, 2010)

… We’ve had the NetEqualizer in place at Reed since the beginning of this year.  So far, so good.  It’s lived up to the promise of being a set it and forget it type of appliance.  It was replacing a Packetshaper and while we do miss the increased visibility into the traffic (including better monitoring and reporting) of the Packetshaper, the Netequalizer has been trouble-free at doing its job of equalizing traffic in a protocol-agnostic fashion.  It requires very time little beyond the initial setup and bit of fine tuning.  The unit will also allow us to continue upgrading our bandwidth without needing to upgrade the hardware (the reason our Packetshaper had to go). …


Jason Lavoie, Bowdoin College, Maine, USA

(From EDUCAUSE Small College Constituent Group Listserv)

…Bowdoin was in a similar position this summer. We were happy with our Packetshapers, but were not able to renew the service/software contract on our pair of 9500’s. I believe the Bluecoat acquisition was to blame for them pushing out the slightly-old hardware. The “special” upgrade pricing was excessive, so we looked into alternatives. After some testing with on site demo units, we selected the NetEqualizer. We’ve been using them since mid-August, and have had no issues since the initial installation.

Years ago, I had made the determination that playing whack-a-mole with Packeteer DPI and chasing down the latest classification plugin or software upgrade was more operational overhead than the gains warranted. Our attempt at using Dynamic Partitions failed — the box couldn’t keep up with our bandwidth/session demands. We had been running our Packetshapers in a dumbed-down configuration that had High/Medium/Default/Low priority class trees. Administration time was relatively low, but we weren’t using much of the DPI functionality we were paying for. Netequalizer fits our needs almost perfectly for the right price.

The other major factor that led to the decision were how cooperative and helpful they were with pre-sales support. We were able to augment their standard option with optical interfaces for essentially the price of the cards. All of our questions were answered promptly and with technical understanding of the product. In pre-production testing, the few problems we ran into were quickly and thoroughly addressed whether they were our implementation problems or a NetEqualizer issue (there was one with an incorrect license key). …

Dave Barker, BroadLinc Communications, Kentucky, USAbroadlinc

I just wanted to let you guys at Netequalizer know how much I depend on my NE2000. I am a small ISP with about 360 customers and I would be lost without the Netequalizer. The people there are always very friendly and quick to respond. Keep up the great work.

Kevin Kershner, CS&T Inc, Wyoming, USAcs&t

I admin several NetEqualizers in hospital and county couthouse networks and the clients love them.  They let employees have freedom from whitelists and yet keep data lines open for legit traffic, makes for happier employees.

Damien McNabb, Ronald Communications, Manitoba, Canada (ronaldcom.ca)

We provide IT support and services for a large hotel and conference center here in Russell Manitoba. Since installing the NetEqualizer our Internet Congestion  during peak usage has disappeared. I was so impressed with the NetEqualizer that we are now  installing two more NetEqualizer units at  other  smaller resort properties here in town.

Craig Mackay, Director, Mascon Cable Systems, AirSpeed Wireless Inc, British Columbia, Canadamascon

We just returned from the cable operators convention here in Canada. We were surprised to learn that similar operators without the benefit on a NetEqualizer often needed as much as 250 megabits sustained bandwidth to keep 650 users running. We on the other hand run about 4000 on 60 megabits made possible by the unique abilities of our NetEqualizer to distribute out the load over time more efficiently. That translates to the NetEqualizer investment paying for itself many times over…

Mike Ferguson, Chapman University, California, USA chapman_university

I’d also recommend you look at the NetEqualizer. We evaluated it this summer along with several other packet-shaping solutions. We also needed to upgrade our NetEnforcer to handle more than 100M for our ResHalls, but we weren’t impressed with its P2P classification. As a matter of fact, we haven’t had much success using L7 packet inspection of P2P traffic with other solutions: either using our Fortigate firewalls, the Packeteer box we used before, or the NetEnforcer we just retired. We don’t block P2P, but we do want to throttle it. You can be diligent about updating your policies from the manufacturer as soon as they’re released; however, we found a significant amout of P2P traffic still bypassed the filters right after an update because it wasn’t identified properly.

Our work-around with the NetEnforcer was to throttle the number of connections per second and limit the total amount of bandwidth per IP. But we always felt we were constraining our available resources, particularly by reducing bandwidth per IP, as we were limiting a person’s bandwidth to DSL/Cable-like levels just because of lack of L7 capabilities.

With the NetEqualizer, we’re still limiting the number of connections per second, but we’re using the “behavior” algorithms to dynamically adjust bandwidth per IP so all users are given a fair amount of bandwidth. But at the same time, we’re still able to throttle P2P traffic just as effectively without it affecting quality video streaming or anything else non-P2P related.

Last, the cost is 1/4th to 1/7th less than a comparable L7 solution. We were able to buy 2 NetEqualizer units and hook them to both our public core boxes for redundancy. The total price was astoundling less than any other solution we looked at, except one which didn’t meet our requirements. For the other solutions, the price you’re paying is to invest in their R&D efforts to classify L7 traffic accurately and manage it effectively. But our experience using the NetEqualizer for the last 2 months has been that it manages bandwidth just as well, if not better.

In our case, we have just less than 2000 residents, but we also have wireless clients on the Academic side that go through the same NetEqualizer (NE3000). Our second unit is strictly for failover. I’ve seen up to 4500 active users, which at night we give 150M of bandwidth. Even at peak (100%) utilization of the allotted bandwidth, the NetEqualizer gives great results.

Adam Forsythe, Luther College, Iowa, USALuther-Logo-Horizontal

You might want to look into a NetEqualizer.  We switched to one 2 summers ago and have been very happy with it.  Like you, I needed to upgrade our NetEnforcer because we were expanding our internet connection beyond what the NetEnforcer was licensed for.  I decided to look into what other options were available because I was coming to the conclusion that prioritizing traffic based on being able to classify it 100% accurately is only great as long as you can classify the traffic accurately 100% of the time.  Since we were finding that a lot of the encrypted P2P traffic looked like https to NetEqualizer, I was having a hard time keeping the P2P under control without having negative affects on https traffic to web pages.

NetEqualizer doesn’t prioritize traffic based on identifying traffic type, it takes a different approach.  It simply tries to make everyone share the internet connection fairly.  It does this by limiting the total number of simultaneous network connections that any one ip address can make, and by introducing small delays into the sessions of users that are deemed to be using more than their fair share of bandwidth.  This approach means that it took a little bit of work up front to figure out what settings would work best for our users, but after that it takes very little ongoing work to keep it running.  As a bonus it was much less expensive than any of the other options I considered.

Steve Hess, Wheaton College, Illinois, USA wheaton_college

We don’t have a big gamer population but no complaints on our end. Our gaming complaints pretty much disappeared when I replaced our PacketShaper with a NetEqualizer last year. No classification = no classification headaches.

Wade LeBeau, The Daily Journal Network Operations Manager, Illinois, USAthe_daily_journal
(“Leveling Your Business Network” article, page 26)

NetEqualizer is one of the most cost-effective management units on the market, and we found the unit easy to install—right out of the box. We made three setting changes to match our network using the web (browser) interface, connected the unit, and right away traffic shaping started, about 10minutes total setup time. The unit has two Ethernet ports…one port toward your user network, the other ports toward your broadband connection/server if applicable. A couple of simple clicks and you can see reporting live as it happens. In testing, we ran our unit for 30-days and saw our broadband reports stabilize and our users receiving the same slices of broadband access. With the NetEqualizer, there is no burden of extensive policies to manage….The NetEqualizer is a nice tool to add to any network of any size. Businesses can see how important the Internet is and how hungry users can be for information.

DSL Reports, April 2009dsl_reports

The Netequalizer has resulted in dramatically improved service to our customers. Most of the time, our customers are seeing their full bandwidth. The only time they don’t see it now is when they’re downloading big files. And, when they don’t see full performance, its only for the brief period that the AP is approaching saturation. The available bandwidth is re-evaluated every 2 seconds, so the throttling periods are often brief.

Bottom line to this is that we can deliver significantly more data through the same AP. The customers hitting web pages, checking e-mail, etc. virtually always see full bandwidth, and the hogs don’t impact these customers. Even the hogs see better performance (although that wasn’t one of my priorities).

Loyola University — Chicago, Illinois, USAloyola_univ_of_chicago

At Loyola University Chicago, we are on our 2nd iteration of the NetEqualizer. We used the product happily for a number of years when we had a T3. We upgraded our internet pipe to 100MB and after about 6 months we noticed 100% saturation and students complaining of slow internet for various applications. We knew then that we needed another NetEqualizer. Once we plugged the box in it started managing the bandwidth, our pipe has not been saturated since, and more importantly the complaints have ceased.

Alan Leech, Orlean Invest West Africa Limited, January 24, 2009, Africa


We purchased 3 of your devices last year and I have to say we are very impressed by them.

They have matched our requirement perfectly and allow us to provide fair usage to our clients whilst reducing our overall OPEX.

You can be sure we will be purchasing in the future.

Alan Leech

Illinois Wesleyan Replaces Packeteer with NetEqualizer as Part of Bandwidth Upgrade, Illinois, USA
(By Trey Short, January 19, 2009illinois_wesleyan_university)

Network Services has completed the Network Upgrade Project.  The Internet bandwidth available to the Campus was doubled from 45MBs (DS3) to 90MBs in December.  Along with the additional bandwidth, a new bandwidth sharing device call a NetEqualizer replaced the existing Packeteer.  The NetEqualizer uses bandwidth sharing fairness rules based on network usage to share bandwidth and balance the available bandwidth between all users.  The project made a dramatic improvement to Internet access for the campus community.

Chris Chamberlain, Oakland University, Michigan, USAoakland_university


Because Netequalizer simply makes things fair, i.e. gives everyone on the link the same percentage of the bandwidth “pie” the netequalizer can handle any type of traffic, because it isn’t classifying anything.

Chris Chamberlain

Oakland University

>On Apr 30, 2008, at 4:42 PM, Green, Doug wrote:

>We are considering Netequalizer. They are claiming to be able to manage  encrypted BitTorrent. Can anyone verify this?

>Thank you,

>Doug Green

>Manager, Network Services & Security

>University of New Hampshire

>50 College Rd

Charlie Prothero, CIO, Keystone College, Pennsylvania, USAkeystone_college

I have written on a couple of Educause lists about our experience with the Netequalizer, which has been invariably positive.  It’s a snap to set up and doesn’t require anywhere near the tuning effort that a Packeteer does.  For general Internet circuit coverage, I’m very pleased with it.

Ben Schworm, The Independent School Educators’ List, ISED-L

We just re-evaluated our systems after realizing that even with the Packetshaper in place, we’d need to increase the amount of bandwidth that we offer the community. First of all, the new Packetshaper hardware we’d need was going to cost $18,000. Second, over the 5 years that we’ve had the Packetshaper, we’ve seen its effectiveness decrease with the increased availability and academic usage of real-time streaming apps and the increasing amount of traffic that is classified as either pure web browsing traffic (whether it is or not) or “default”, the traffic class that catches all the other traffic that the Packetshaper can’t specifically identify. Furthermore, the Packetshaper can tend to be a pretty admin-intensive system to keep working effectively.

The NetEqualizer really only deals with end-user behavior in that it looks at the bandwidth that a given user is trying to utilize relative to what’s available and throttles “bad” users in order to try to maintain fair access to the bandwidth. It also throttles “bad” applications like P2P that open many connections to and from a given user. The box is nearly configuration and maintenance-free and costs a fraction of what the Packetshaper does.


I was asked to tell our experience with NetEqualizer. We purchased the box about 3 weeks into first semester when our old bandwidth control server died and support was not forthcoming from the company.

We put NetEqualizer in place and fired it up with little to no problem. For the first 5-6 hours it worked as we were told it would with NO configuration. After the first day we noticed problems with students exceeding the connection limits we set. We called the company and within 24 hours we had the configuration modified to the specific needs of our network and our bandwidth was under our control again.

In the last 4 months I have not had to make any additional changes to the configuration. In fact we have not even had the need to restart the box. The NetEqualizer box has some very good algorithms to have controlled our heavy bandwidth users with not adding significant network overhead to the rest of our low bandwidth users. Our students have seen an increase in bandwidth when they need it. The gamers are happy because the latency we used to have under our old bandwidth system has disappeared.

Douglas Hedges, EDUCAUSE Small College Constituent Group Listserveducause logo

We’ve dumped our Packeteer device about 18 mos. ago for a NetEqualizer. It has worked as advertised and has required virtually no maintenance after initial setup (which took just a few minutes as well). There are some good technical papers on their site (http://www.netequalizer.com) describing its operation and comparing it to other products. I believe they’re worth a read if you want to see if it’s a good fit for your campus. It sure was for ours.

Russ Leathe, EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserveducause logo

Gordon College switched from Packeteer to netEQ a while ago. It works flawlessly and our daily management of bandwidth decreased significantly.

They also have a CALEA probe.

Superdog, DSLReports.comdsl_reports

When you plug in the Neteq box, it doesn’t care about IP’s or what range it is on. You set the bandwidth maximum limit for whatever your pipe size is and then plug it inline between your core router and your first main switch and you are done…

…I love this unit and I can not say enough about it. With M0n0wall and Packetteer, you have to manually setup all of the rules in order for the units to be effective. After you spend a few hours getting them setup, it only takes the user/program 10 seconds to switch ports on you and that rule is then invalid and you need to go back and redo it.

This type of setup requires you to monitor your box constantly, creating even more work. The Neteq unit doesn’t need to know all of this. It just counts connections per user (A limit you set) and the amount of bandwidth each user consumes. If the bandwidth is there and no one else is using it, that person gets it. If they are running Limewire at full throttle and another user logs in and starts to surf the net?, that user gets full priority and their pages will load quickly while the Limewire download has delay added to their packets.

IMHO, using this unit is a no-brainer for any ISP. It is a hands off setup that really works.

Josh Heller, Sr. Network Analyst — IT, Kutztown University, Pennsylvania, USAkutztown_university

Our University started with PacketShapers, but also made an investment in NetEqualizer when we found the PacketShaper wasn’t completely doing the job. Today we use both products.

We have been pleased with NetEqualizer  as it does what it advertises – it makes a noticeable difference in congested network.

Nathan P. Hay, Network Engineer — Computer Services, Cedarville University, Ohio, USAcedarville_university

We switched from PacketShaper to NetEqualizer this summer.
NetEq is much simpler to manage and much cheaper.

George Flowers, Southern Crescent Technical College (formerly Flint River Tech), Georgia, USAsouthern_crescent_tech_college

We currently have the NE2000, and it works great!
No other product can do what the NetEqualizer does at a great price!

Constantinos Tsakonas, General Manager, Twin Island Communications, British Columbia, Canadatwin_comm

I would like to order another NETEQ-POE.
I have 2 of these units segmenting my wireless network and they work like a dream!

educause logo

NetEqualizer has also received mention as an Educause HEOA role model.

Created by APconnections, the NetEqualizer is a plug-and-play bandwidth control and WAN/Internet optimization appliance that is flexible and scalable. When the network is congested, NetEqualizer’s unique “behavior shaping” technology dynamically and automatically gives priority to latency sensitive applications, such as VoIP and email. Click here to request our price list.

5 Responses to “What Users Are Saying”

  1. What NetEqualizer Users Are Saying (Updated June 2009) « NetEqualizer News Blog Says:

    […] What NetEqualizer Users Are Saying (Updated June 2009) […]

  2. What NetEqualizer Users Are Saying (Updated December 2009) « NetEqualizer News Blog Says:

    […] What NetEqualizer Users Are Saying (Updated December 2009) […]

  3. Traffic Management recommendations Drija Says:

    […] So, it’s a good way to get some feedback from people who are actually using it — https://netequalizernews.com/about-the-netequalizer/what-netequalizer-users-are-saying/ June 25, 2009 6:35 am LanceW I have done quite a bit of work with Packeteer devices. They […]

  4. Gavin Pyle Says:

    Pacific Lutheran University is in Tacoma, Washington, not Oregon!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: