Deep Packet Inspection DPI a Felony ?

November 6, 2008 — netequalizer

Editors Note: In a recent press release APconnections denounced the use of any and all DPI in its products going forward. A customer brought this Article by Ryan Singel to our attention and it is worth reading if you are wondering where this is going.

Former Prosecutor: ISP Content Filtering Might be a ‘Five Year Felony’

By Ryan Singel EmailMay 22, 2008 | 3:23:35 PMCategories: Network Neutrality, Surveillance

Prison_san_quentin NEW HAVEN, Connecticut — Internet service providers that monitor their networks for copyright infringement or bandwidth hogs may be committing felonies by breaking federal wiretapping laws, a panel said Thursday.

University of Colorado law professor Paul Ohm, a former federal computer crimes prosecutor, argues that ISPs such as Comcast, AT&T and Charter Communications that are or are contemplating ways to throttle bandwidth, police for copyright violations and serve targeted ads by examining their customers’ internet packets are putting themselves in criminal and civil jeopardy.

See the full Article

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/05/isp-content-f-1.html

Other ranting

http://xplornetsucks.blogspot.com/2008/11/internet-packet-spoofing.html

Posted in Commentary and Editorials, Net Neutrality, News. 1 Comment »

The birth of a new kind of new kind of Packet Shaper (NetEqualizer)

November 5, 2008 — netequalizer

Today my attention was drawn to a forum thread about setting up queuing and bandwidth fairness on a Cisco Router. The techs in the discussion were obviously very familiar with Cisco and its internal programming language. Needless to say it was a very low level discussion and  to make any sense of it would require  sort a Cisco certification on the inner workings of their IOS programming language. The discussion reminded me of a conversation I had back in 2002 when the idea of turn key bandwidth controller popped into my head

In 2002  I was running a start up WISP with a partner. One issue that we saw coming was sharing bandwidth on a tightly contested T1. We decided it was worth looking into what was available, was there something we could just plug in to handle this and get on with our core business of  running the WISP.
My day job at the time was at Bell Labs, and just recently there had been quite  a few defections to Cisco.  So I  decided to tap some of more former coworkers to see if Cisco had anything turn key picked up the phone and asked a couple of peers what a Cisco box could do  support of some form of turn key fairness. ‘Well you can program the IOS bios queues bla bla” I had heard enough. It seemed that although it was definitely possible to do this with Cisco, I just wanted  something to plug  in and forget about it.  I did not have money to hire a Cisco tech and figured many other start up WISPS in my position were in the same boat. Little did I realize at the time, that the NetEqualizer would become an International hit, distributed across all industries (Hospitals, Cable Companies, Universities etc) around the world over the next 6 years.

The model  of how to approach this issue of fairness was already widely used  in the computer server world. Most people are not concerned with  fairness of processes or threads on web server or data base server? Why is that ? Most  modern computer servers  have some form of operating system that insures that the processes running don’t dominate the central processor (usually Linux). The basic idea is that a little timer that keeps track of a processors resources and how much a process has used if they HOG too much this timer kicks and allows others to get their turn.

The point of this story is there is no manual intervention needed, computers are so cheap that it would be absurd to pay somebody to do this, but that was not always the case. As late as 1986 the Main Frame computer dominated data processing, and with a main frame came a computer operator , a human who had the task of making sure jobs (as there were called) ran to completion in a timely manner,  as well as making sure tape drives were loaded etc.

Do you see the parallel here ? As computers became cheaper it was not economical to employ somebody to watch over this resource, the job still existed  but it was automated and incorporated into the operating system.

Flash forward to 2002, what my Cisco  freinds were  proposing was a labor intensive solution to managing a resource (bandwidth). So the idea was to take this one aspect of managing a network and essentially fire the operator (or the Cisco programmer) And so it was born an automated fairness device for sharing bandwidth and we have no looked back since.

Resources on computers and ways to handle this type of thing were invented back in the 70’s and became wide spread with the death of the card reader.

Editors note: CIsco is a fine product and perhaps there is some easy way to perform this function and I am just too stupid to understand.

Posted in Commentary and Editorials, News. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Delusions of Net Neutrality

November 1, 2008 — netequalizer

I saw this post this morning, and I thought it was fantastically well written and informative.

Delusions of Net Neutrality

A mathematics professor at the University of Minnesota, Andrew Odlyzko, has a pretty blistering critique of Internet Service Provider’s (ISPs) arguments against net neutrality and about their love of streaming over download. It’s worth a read of the abstract if nothing more – his paper, The delusions of net neutrality (caution, links to a pdf) destroys many a myth of the internet and video. Having been to many a conference lately where the best minds in the room can only imagine the internet making a better tv, I appreciate some astute analysis of the reality.

Odlyzko shows that ISPs and others are pushing for a world where the goals of the internet are reduced to streaming movies, in relatively walled envrionments, and that the costs to build a network capable of this demand that net neutrality be curtailed.

Full Article

Posted in Commentary and Editorials, Net Neutrality, News. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

Death to Deep Packet (layer 7 shaping) Inspection

October 29, 2008 — netequalizer

Editors note: Deep packet inspection (layer 7 shaping) will likely be around for a while. It is very easy to explain this technology to customers, hence many IT resellers latch on to it as it makes a compelling elevator pitch.  We put out the press release below to formalize our position on this issue.

For detailed information on how the techniques of NetEqualizer differ from Deep Packet inspection, see the following link: http://www.netequalizer.com/Compare_NetEqualizer.php

LAFAYETTE, Colo., October 28, 2008 — APconnections, a leading supplier of plug-and-play bandwidth shaping products, today made a formal announcement to formally discontinue  deep packet inspection techniques in their NetEqualizer product line.

“Our behavior-based techniques worked so well that current customers stopped asking for the layer-7 techniques we had at one time implemented into our system,” said Art Reisman, CEO of APconnections. “So, we eventually just decided to phase the technique out completely.”

Although deep packet inspection, also known as layer-7 shaping, was unofficially discontinued nearly two years ago, the ongoing debates over user privacy spurred the official announcement.

“What prompted us to make a formal announcement was the continued industry lack of understanding that deep packet inspection not only does not work very well, but it also puts you are at risk of violating privacy laws if you use these techniques without customer consent,” said Reisman.

Although Reisman says most providers cross this line with the good intentions of controlling traffic congestion, the reality of it is that it’s no different than listening to a private phone conversation and terminating the call if you don’t like what you hear.

“It’s quite risky  that any public US based ISP would invest in  this technique, especially after the FCC slapped Comcast’s wrists in a recent decision” said Riesman.

For more information on the NetEqualizer technology, visit www.netequalizer.com or contact APconnections at 1-800-918-2763 or via email sales@netequalizer.com.

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 gives priority to latency sensitive applications, such as VoIP and email. It does it all dynamically and automatically, improving on other bandwidth shaping technology available.

APconnections is a privately held company founded in 2003 and is based in Lafayette, Colorado.

Posted in Commentary and Editorials, Press Releases. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

NetEqualizer a Great ROI Purchase for Reducing T1, E1, DS3 Costs

October 23, 2008 — netequalizer

If you are looking to cut costs with the recent downturn in the economy, now would be a good time re-visit the issue of bandwidth optimization. How can it be cost justified ?

First, ask yourself if you’re maxing out your Internet connection. If the answer is yes, then you should look at optimizing tools before purchasing more bandwidth.  However, some are quite expensive and hard to swallow, making it difficult to justify the expense. But, NetEqualizer offers a very competitive fixed price solution with no recurring costs.

There are two basic cost-savings factors with the NetEqualizer:

1) Greatly reduced IT labor — For most business, the largest single line item cost is human labor.  And one of the hardest labor costs to quantify is your IT.  Your IT staff may seem to somehow make themselves essential to every issue, no matter how hard you try to automate things.

On the issue of complaints that “the Network is slow,” if you were to sit back and conservatively look at tech time spent fiddling with routers or your expensive layer-7 based packet shaper, you’d probably notice that quite a bit of time is spent making adjustments and tweaking equipment on a weekly or daily business, only to repeat the fire drill the next time the network grinds to a halt.

Why is this?

Nine times out of ten,  the core problem is too much congestion, and to compound matters,  the  acute  source of the congestion changes. It is the transient nature of the cause that tends to drive up your labor costs. Yes you can find and head off problems with your router or deep packet inspection device, but you have to re-visit this issue each time the congestion source changes. Great for keeping techs busy, but bad for costs.

The big advantage with the NetEqualizer over the layer-7 shapers, or using a reporting tool and manually chasing issues on your router, is that the NetEqualizer proactively finds and eliminates network congestion before it blows up in your face, becoming an IT fire drill. Over and over again we hear from customers that they have deployed the NetEqualizer with our default setup,  plugged it in, and left it alone.

So, if you’re looking to save money in this downturn, have your IT support do something that helps generate revenue, like forward-facing customer support, and let the NetEqualizer put out the fires before they spread.

2) Stretching your existing  bandwidth to accommodate more users — Essentially, this allows you to indefinitely stave off signing a new bandwidth contract.

NetEqualizer can stretch the life of your current Internet trunk. Internet congestion is similar to the problem power companies face. They must have enough capacity on their grid to meet peak demands even though they may rarely need it. The same holds true for your Ineternet contract. You must purchase a contract with ample bandwidth to meet your peak loads.  But, as you may realize, much of your peaks are transient and they are also related to quite a bit of non-business traffic. The NetEqualizer is effective because it can spread your non-essential traffic out over time, smoothing out your peaks.

For more information on the NetEqualizer, including a live demo and price list, visit www.netequalizer.com.

Posted in Commentary and Editorials, ROI. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

The Pros and Cons of Technology Showdowns (for traffic shapers and more)

October 21, 2008 — netequalizer

This is my second re-write of this quick post discussing the pros and cons of a tech showdown (i.e., pitting two products head-to-head in a trial demo duel). In my first edition, I put together a big list with very politically correct pros and cons.  And then I tossed it. Instead, I am just going to really speak my mind and shorten it a bit.  So here goes. Pulling no punches this time…

1) Assuming you have two or more very high-end solutions to choose from, are truly undecided, and are planning to purchase one of them, then by all means get those vendors in there an make them show them your stuff. But if for some reason you can eliminate one of them early, try to do so.  A showdown should be a final tie breaker, not the first thing you try.

2) Try to avoid a showdown (for political reasons) if  you are pretty sure you know what you want already. Do some background checks on the product.  With the information available on the Internet today, a bad product can’t hide.  Then,  if everything checks out, settle with your first choice and purchase it.  Obviously, make sure you can return it if for some reason it does not live up to expectations.

3) If you are doing a showdown because you have  tech time and no capital budget right now, then please have your techs do something else with their time.

Showdowns drive up product costs for everybody: the vendor, yourself, and future buyers in the industry.  Yes they are a valid tool and necessary in many situations, but please use some discretion.  The time, money, and resources saved by foregoing an uneeded showdown will help the tide come in and raise all ships.

Posted in Commentary and Editorials. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Building a Technology Company from Scratch

October 4, 2008 — netequalizer

Editors note: We wrote this article about a year ago before the blog was established. Although this article chronicles the model used to bootstrap the NetEqualizer from open source, the basic formula applies to any aspiring open source developer.

When we started the APconnections (APconnections makes the popular bandwidth shaping tool NetEqualizer), we had lots of time, very little cash, some software development skills, and a technology idea. This article covers a couple of bootstrapping pearls that we learned to implement by doing.

Don’t be Afraid to Use Open Source

Using open source technology to develop and commercialize new application software can be an invaluable bootstrapping tool for startup entrepreneurs. It has allowed us to validate new technology with a willing set of early adopters who, in turn, provided us with references and debugging.

We used this huge number of early adopters, who love to try open source applications, to legitimize our application. Further, this large set of commercial “installs” helped us ring out many of the bugs by users who have no grounds to demand perfection.

In addition, we jump-started our products without incurring large development expense. We used open source by starting with technology already in place and extending it, rather than building (or licensing) every piece from scratch.

Using open source code makes at least a portion of our technology publicly available. We use bundling, documentation, and proprietary extensions to make it difficult for larger players to steal our thunder. These will account for over half of development work but can be protected by copyright.

Afraid of copycats? In many cases, nothing could be better than to have a large player copy you. Big players value time to market. If one player clones your work, another may acquire your company to catch up in the market.

The transition from open source users to paying customers is a big jump, requiring traditional sales and marketing. Don’t expect your loyal base of open source beta users to start paying for your product. We use testimonials from this critical mass of users to market to paying customers who are reluctant to be early adopters (see below).

Channels? Use Direct Selling and the Web

Our innovation is a bit of a stretch from existing products and, like most innovations, requires some education of the user. Much of the early advice we received related to picking a sales channel. Just signup reps, resellers, and distributors and revenues will grow.

We found the exact opposite to be true. Priming channels is expensive. And, after we pointed the sales channel at customers, closing the sale and supporting the customer fell back on us anyway. Direct selling is not the path torapid growth. But as a bootstrapping tool direct selling has rewarded us with loyal customers, better margins, andmany fewer returns.

We use the Internet to generate hot leads, but we don’t worry about our Google ranking. The key for us is to get every satisfied customer to post something about our product. It probably hasn’t improved our Google ratings but customer comments have surely improved our credibility.

Honest postings to blogs and user groups have significant influence on potential customers. We explain to each customer how important their posting is to our company. We often provide them with a link to a user group or appropriate blog. And, as you know, these blogs stay around forever. Then, when we encounter new potential customers, we suggest that they Google our “brand name” and blog, which always generates a slew of believable testimonials. (Check out our Web site to see some of the ways we use testimonials.)

Using open source code and direct sales are surely out-of-step with popular ideas for growing technology companies, especially those funded by equity investors. But they worked very well for us as we grew our company with limited resources to positive cash flow and beyond.

Posted in Business Advice. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

NetEqualizer the Safe Bet for Optimizing Internet Link During Economic Downturn

September 25, 2008 — netequalizer

We just announced a record profit for the quarter ending September 2008. I have included a copy of that announcement below.

Although we do not believe (or want to see) our success come at the expense of other players in the market, there is a strong contrast if you compare our performance to the higher-cost publicly-traded players in this market (see charts below).

I suspect these high-end shapers with expensive sales channels  may have trouble in this slowing market as they come under price pressure. IT departments continue to cut costs and the main play  of optimization products, reducing  ROI,  will lose some luster as Internet costs slowly fall. At some point, a high-end piece of equipment will lose out to adding more bandwidth.

NetEqualizer, on the other hand, is priced so much lower than these other products that our window of value will extend out at least another 10 years — perhaps more.

Although we are private company, we would be happy to share financials under NDA with any customer that has concerns going forward.  We have plenty of operating cash on hand and will likely expand as we pull out of this downturn and customers continue to look to reduce costs.

Stock charts for major players in the Internet/WAN optimization market

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=RVBD&t=1y

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=ALLT&t=2y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=BCSI&t=1y&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=

Now, here’s our latest press release reporting profits…

———————————————————-

APconnections Announces 50-percent Increase in Profits During Current Quarter

LAFAYETTE, Colo., Sept. 22, 2008 — APconnections, a leading supplier of plug-and-play bandwidth shaping products, today announced that sales revenues have increased by 50 percent during the current quarter.

Company officials report that APconnections is finding that a growing number of ISPs, businesses, libraries, and universities are looking to the NetEqualizer to solve their Internet bandwidth congestion issues, oftentimes switching from more expensive traffic shaping solutions.

As companies deal with the ongoing economic struggles that have hit the nation, the NetEqualizer’s rare combination of effectiveness and affordability has been a major factor fueling this growth.

Other factors driving the upturn are:

  1. Comcast has adopted a similar fairness-based strategy to solve Internet congestion issues, thus validating APconnections’ long-held belief that deep packet inspection is on its way out. (See APconnections’ previous announcements on net neutrality: http://www.netequalizer.com)
  2. Direct sales and support for 90 percent of their customers, thus reducing the overall cost of sales.
  3. Simple turnkey set-up allowing new customer installations to require only one hour of support.

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 gives priority to latency sensitive applications, such as VoIP and email. It does it all dynamically and automatically, improving on other bandwidth shaping technology out there. It controls network flow for the best WAN optimization.

APconnections is a privately held company founded in 2003 and is based in Lafayette, Colorado.

Posted in Commentary and Editorials, News. Tags: , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

YouTube: The Unfunded Mandate

August 29, 2008 — netequalizer

As some of you may know, I have chimed in several times on the debate on Internet access and the games ISP play to block certain types of traffic (Bittorrent).  I have leaned toward the side of Internet providers and defended some of their restrictive practices. I took quite a bit of heat for some of my previous positions. For example, this excerpt was posted in a discussion forum as a reply to an opinion piece I wrote recently for Extreme Tech magazine:

“So I was wondering why Extremetech would allow such blatant misinformation and FUD on their site…”

First off, please understand my point of reference before assuming I am an industry shill. I am an unbiased observer sitting on the sideline.

Secondly, you can villainize providers all you want, but they exist to make a profit. It is, after all, a business. And now they are facing a new threat with the explosion of YouTube and other video content. Here are some trends that we have seen.

Back in 2006, on a typical footprint of usage patterns on an ISP network, streams exceeding 200kbs (that is 200 kilo bits of data per second) averaged around 2 percent of the users at any one time. Almost all other streams were well under 50kbs. The 2006  ratio of big users to small users allowed  a typical Internet provider to serve approximately 500 people on a 10 megabit circuit without any serious issues. Today we are seeing 10 to 15 percent of the active streams exceeding 200 kbs. That is about a 700 percent increase in the last two years. This increase is mostly attributed to increased online video with  YouTube leading the way.

The ramification of YouTube and its impact on bandwidth demands is putting the squeeze on providers– like it or not they have not choice to but to implement some sort of quota system on bandwidth. Providers invested in certain sized networks and capacities based on the older usage model and smaller increases over time, not 700 percent in 2 years.  Some providers did build out higher capaciites with the hopes of reaping returns by supplying  their own video content, but as the caption says, running other people’s video content without sharing the revenue was not planned for.

Was that a mistake this lack of capacity an evil greed driven conspiracy? No, it was just all they could afford at that time. Video has always been out there, but several years ago it was just not in any form of original content that made it compelling to watch from a public content site . I am not predicting Armageddon caused by overburdened Internet access, however, in the next few years you will see things get ugly with finger pointing and most likely Congress getting involved, obviously to saber rattle and score brownie points with their constituents.

With all that said, we will do our best to stay net neutral and help everybody sort it out without playing sides.

See our recent article on net neutrality for more details.

Posted in Caching and Video, Commentary and Editorials. Tags: , , . 4 Comments »

NetEqualizer Offers Net Neutrality, User Privacy Compromise

August 12, 2008 — netequalizer

Although the debates surrounding net neutrality and user privacy are nothing new, the recent involvement of the Federal Communications Commission is forcing ISPs and network administrators to rethink their strategies for network optimization. The potential benefits of layer-7 bandwidth shaping and deep packet inspection are coming into conflict with the rights of Internet users to surf the net unimpeded while maintaining their privacy.

Despite the obvious potential relationship between net neutrality, deep packet inspection and bandwidth shaping, the issues are not inherently intertwined and must be judged separately. This has been the outlook at APconnections since the development of the network optimization appliance NetEqualizer five years ago.

On the surface, net neutrality seems to be a reasonable and ultimately beneficial goal for the Internet. In a perfect world, all consumers would be able to use the Internet to the extent they saw fit, absent of any bandwidth regulation. However, that perfect world does not exist.

In many cases, net neutrality can become a threat to equal access. Whether this is true for larger ISPs is debatable, however it cannot be denied when considering the circumstances surrounding smaller Internet providers. For example, administrators at rural ISPs, libraries, universities, and businesses often have no choice but to implement bandwidth shaping in order to ensure both reliable service and their own survival. When budgets allow only a certain amount of bandwidth to be purchased, once that supply is depleted, oftentimes due to the heavy usage of a small number of users, options are limited. Shaping in no longer a choice, but a necessity.

However, this does not mean that a free pass should be given for Internet providers to accomplish network optimization through any means available even at the expense of customer privacy. This is especially true considering that it’s possible to achieve network optimization without compromising privacy or equal access to the Internet. The NetEqualizer is a proven example.

Rather than relying on techniques such as deep packet inspection, NetEqualizer regulates bandwidth usage by connection limits and, through its fairness algorithm, ensures that all users are given equal access when the network is congested (Click here for a more detailed explanation of the NetEqualizer technology).

Therefore, a heavy bandwidth user that might be slowing Internet access for other customers can be kept in check without having to actually examine or completely block the data that is being sent. The end result is that the large majority of users will be able to access the Internet unhindered, while the privacy of all users is protected.

In the midst of the ongoing debates over net neutrality and privacy, the NetEqualizer approach is gaining popularity. This is apparent in both an increase in sales as well as on message boards and forums across the Internet. A recent Broadband Reports post reads:

“I don’t think anyone’s going to argue with you if you’re simply prioritizing real time traffic over non-real time. Just so long as you’re agnostic as to who’s sending the traffic, not making deals behind people’s backs, etc. then I’d have no problem with my ISP letting me surf the web or e-mail or stream at full speed, even if it meant that, when another person was doing the same, I could only get 100 KBs on a torrent instead of 150.

“I’d much rather have a NetEq’d open connection than a NATed nonmanaged one, that’s for sure.”

It is this agnostic approach that differentiates NetEqualizer from other network optimization appliances. While network administrators are able to prioritize applications such as VoIP in order to prevent latency, other activity, such as BitTorrent, is still able to take place – just at a slower speed when the network is congested. This is all done without deep packet inspection.

“NetEqualizer never opens up any customer data and thus cannot be accused of spying. Connections are treated as a metered resource,” said Art Reisman, CEO of APconnections. “The ISPs that use NetEqualizer simply put a policy in their service contracts stating how many connections they support, end of story. BitTorrent is still allowed to run, albeit not as wide with unlimited connections.”

Although not a proponent of bandwidth shaping, TorrentFreak.com editor-in-chief and founder Ernesto differentiates NetEqualizer from other bandwidth shaping appliances.

“I am not a fan of bandwidth control, the correct solution is for providers to build out more capacity by reinvesting their profits, however I’ll concede a solution such as a NetEqualizer is much more palatable than redirecting or specially blocking bittorrent and also seems to be more acceptable to consumers than bandwidth caps or metered plans.

“There is a risk though, who decides what the ‘peaks times’ are, how much bandwidth / connections would that be? Let me reiterate, I would rather see that ISPs invest in network capacity than network managing hardware.

“The Internet is growing rapidly, and if networks ‘crash’ already, they are clearly doing something wrong.”

The ultimate capacity of individual networks will vary on a case-by-case basis, with some having little choice but to employ bandwidth shaping and others doing so for reasons other than necessity. It has never been the intention of APconnections to pass judgment on how or why users implement shaping technology. The NetEqualizer is simply providing a bandwidth optimization alternative to deep packet inspection that gives administrators the opportunity to manage their networks with respect to both net neutrality and customer privacy.

Posted in Bandwidth Monitoring, Commentary and Editorials, Net Neutrality. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 11 Comments »

QoS on the Internet — Can Class of Service Be Guaranteed?

July 24, 2008 — netequalizer

Most quality of service (QoS) schemes today are implemented to give priority to voice or video data running in common over a data circuit. The trick used to ensure that certain types of data receive priority over others makes use of a type of service (TOS) bit. Simply put, this is just a special flag inside of an Internet packet that can be a 1 or a 0, with a 1 implying priority while a 0 implies normal treatment.

In order for the TOS bit scheme to work correctly, all routers along a path need to be aware of it. In a self-contained corporate network, an organization usually controls all routers along the data path and makes sure that this recognition occurs. For example, a multinational organization with a VoIP system most likely purchases dedicated links through a global provider like ATT. In this scenario, the company can configure all of their routers to give priority to QoS tagged traffic, and this will prevent something like a print server file from degrading an interoffice VoIP call.

However, this can be a very expensive process and may not be available to smaller businesses and organizations that do not have their own dedicated links. In any place where many customers share an Internet link which is not the nailed up point-to-point that you’d find within a corporate network, there is contention for resources. In these cases, guaranteeing class of service is more difficult. So, this begs the question, “How can you set a QoS bit and prioritize traffic on such a link?”

In general, the answer is that you can’t.

The reason is quite simple. Your provider to the Internet cloud — Time Warner, Comcast, Qwest, etc. — most likely does not look at or support TOS bits. You can set them if you want, but they will probably be ignored. There are exceptions to this rule, however, but your voice traffic traveling over the Internet cloud will in all likelihood get the same treatment as all other traffic.

The good news is that most providers have plenty of bandwidth on their backbones and your third party voice service such as Skype will be fine. I personally use a PBX in the sky called Aptela from my home office. It works fine until my son starts watching YouTube videos and then all of a sudden my calls get choppy.

The bottle neck for this type of outage is not your provider’s backbone, but rather the limited link coming into your office or your home. The easiest way to ensure that your Skype call does not crash is to self-regulate the use of other bandwidth intensive Internet services.

Considering all of this, NetEqualizer customers often ask, “How does the NetEqualizer/AirEqualizer do priority QOS?”

It is a very unique technology, but the answer is also very simple. First, you need to clear your head about the way QoS is typically done in the Cisco™ model using bit tagging and such.

In its default mode, the NetEqualizer/AirEqualizer treats all of your standard traffic as one big pool. When your network is busy, it constantly readjusts bandwidth allocation for users automatically. It does this by temporarily limiting the amount of bandwidth a large download (such as that often found with p2p file sharing) might be using in order to ensure greater response times for e-mail, chat, Web browsing, VoIP, and other everyday online activities.

So, essentially, the NetEqualizer/AirEqualizer is already providing one level of QoS in the default setup. However, users have the option of giving certain applications priority over others.

For example, when you tell the NetEqualizer/AirEqualizer to give specific priority to your video server, it automatically squeezes all the other users into a smaller pool and leaves the video server traffic alone. In essence, this reserves bandwidth for the video server at a higher priority than all of the generic users. When the video stream is not active, the generic data users are allowed to utilize more bandwidth, including that which had been preserved for video. Once the settings are in place, all of this is done automatically and in real time. The same could be done with VoIP and other priority applications.

In most cases, the only users that even realize this process is taking place are those who are running the non-prioritized applications that have typically slowed your network. For everyone else, it’s business as usual. So, as mentioned, QoS over the NetEqualizer/AirEqualizer is ultimately a very simple process, but also very effective. And, it’s all done without controversial bit tagging and deep packet inspection!

Posted in Commentary and Editorials. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Ten Ways to Make Your Life as an Internet Provider Easier

July 8, 2008 — netequalizer

From ISPs and WISPs to networks in libraries, businesses, and universities, Internet use is on the rise. Yet, as the demand for Internet access continues to grow around the world, so do both the opportunities and challenges for service providers. Just as quickly as your user-base grows, the obstacles facing providers begin to emerge.From competition to unhappy customers, the venture that once seemed certain to succeed can quickly test the will of even the most battle-hardened and tech savvy business owners and network administrators. However, for all types of Internet providers, there are ways to make the process smoother.

For All Providers…

1. Set Boundaries from the Start – When starting up a new service, don’t let your users run wide open. You may be OK without putting rate caps on users when you have only 10 users sharing a 10 meg link, but when you get to 100 users sharing a 10 meg link, you’ll need to put rate caps on them all. The problem with waiting is that your original users will become accustomed to higher speeds and will not be happy with sharing as your business expands – unless you enforce some reasonable restrictions up front.

2. Keep Your Network from Locking Up — Many Internet providers believe that if they set maximum rate caps for their users that their network is safe from locking up due to congestion. However, if you are oversold on your contention ratios, you will lock up and simple rate limits are not enough. Don’t make this mistake.

This may sound obvious, but let me spell it out. We often run into operators with 500 users on a 20-meg link. They then offer two rate plans — 1 meg up and down for consumers and 5 megs up and down for businesses. Next, they put rate caps on each type of user to ensure they don’t exceed their allotted amount. Somehow, this is supposed to exonerate the operator from being oversold. This is all well and good, but if you do the math, 500 users on a 20 meg link will overwhelm your link at some point and nobody will be able to get anywhere close to their “promised amount.”

If you are oversold, you will need something more than rate limits to prevent lockups. At some point, you will need to go with a layer-7 shaper such as Packeteer or Allot NetEnforcer. Or, you can use a NetEqualizer. Your only other option is to keep adding bandwidth.

3. Good Tech Support Is a Must — Don’t put all your faith into the local guru who set up your network. There are many good technical people out there and there are many more that will make a mess of your business. This can create some really tough decisions. I like to use this analogy:

I’m not a concert pianist – not even close – so I can’t tell the guy that hacks away playing Beatles tunes in the piano bar at my local pub from a Julliard trained pianist. Since I can’t play a lick, they all amaze me. Well, the same holds true for non-technical business owners hiring network techs or developers. They all seem amazingly smart when in fact they may run you into the ground. The only way to tell is to find somebody with a really good track record of making things work for people. So, ask around.

The good ones have no vested interest in making a custom dynasty of your business (another thing to watch out for). It’s like the doctor who needs the patient to stay sick. You don’t want that. Poor or misguided tech support may be the single largest cause for failed ISPs or issues with selling your business.

4. Don’t Overspend – ISPs and WISPs, remember that on the open market your business is likely only to be valued at three quarters of your revenue, so don’t delude yourself and overspend on equipment and borrowing thinking that a white night will come along. If your revenue is $500,000 per year, you will be in good shape if you get $400,000 for your business. And this may just cover your debt. Yes, there are exceptions and you might get a bit more, but don’t expect two-times your revenue. It’s just not going to happen, so plan your expenses accordingly.

For network administrators in both public and private companies and institutions, funding is not always a given. Budget cuts and funding reallocation can leave administrators in a bind. So, be judicious when planning and managing your network. Take things like recurring costs and licensing fees into consideration when making purchases. Over time, these expenses can add up.

5. Optimize Your Bandwidth — A NetEqualizer bandwidth controller will allow you to increase your user base by between 10 to 30 percent without having to purchase additional resources. This allows you to increase the amount of people you can put into your infrastructure without an expensive build out. Yet, a purchase like this can be a difficult decision. It’s best to think in the long term.  A NetEqualizer is a one-time cost that will pay for itself in about 4 months. On the other hand, purchasing additional bandwidth keeps adding up month after month.

For Commercial ISPs and WISPs…

6. Make Sure You Have a User-Base to Grow Into — For ISPs and WISPs, perhaps 500 households before you start building out. Yes, you can do it for less, but 500 is sort of a magic number where you can pay yourself and perhaps some hired help so you can be profitable and take a day off. WISPs and ISPs with 100 customers are great, but, at that size, they will remain a hobby that you may not be able to unload a couple of years down the road.

7. Be the Reliable Alternative — If you are in a dense metro area, and have the resources, you can offer Internet connections to hotel and business customers with pay-as-you-go services. Many hotels and businesses have unreliable connections, or none at all.  Obviously you’ll need real estate across the street, but once secured, you can point a directional antenna into the building and give your signal a recognizable name so your users will connect. Then, offer them the connection for a daily fee. For many users, paying a small daily fee for reliable service will be worth it – especially if the hotel or business offers sub par Internet service, none at all, or a connection for an exorbitant price.

8. Make Payment As Easy As Possible — When a customer is delinquent on paying their bill, make sure you have a way to direct them to a payment site. Don’t just shut off their service and wait for them to call. For small operators, you don’t need to automate the payment cycle, just send them to a static page telling them how to pay their bill. For larger operators (3,000-plus users), the expense of automated bill payment may be worth the extra cost, but with a smaller set of customers, a static redirection to a page with instructions and a phone number will suffice.

9. Look for a Competitive Credit Card Processor — Your bank will likely provide a service for you, but they are generally a middle man in this transaction. There are credit card processing agencies that sell their services direct and may be more cost effective. These are no-brainer dollars that add up each month in savings.

10. Cross Market — Don’t be shy about it. Once you have a captive audience, there are all kinds of cross marketing ideas you can do for extra revenue. Done tastefully, your users won’t mind. This could be a special with the local car dealer running coupons for them. Or for something like a pizza place. There is unlimited potential here, and if you’re not taking advantage of it, you’re missing out on easy revenue.

Obviously, these 10 tips won’t apply to every Internet provider, but it’s almost a given that at least some of these issues will emerge over time. While there’s no guarantee that any network will operate perfectly, these tips should help steer Internet providers and network administrators in the right direction.

Posted in Business Advice. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Why Doesn’t Your T1 Provider Offer a Bandwidth Optimizer Along with Their Service?

June 30, 2008 — netequalizer

We often get contacted by T1 and DS3 resellers after one of our customers installs a NetEqualizer that they’ve purchased directly from us. The conversation usually goes something like this…

Upstream Provider: We’re interested in potentially entering into a partnership with your company. Our customer, XXXX, found you on the Internet and told us they’re using the NetEqualizer now. They’re very happy with it.

Us: Yes, of course, it makes sense to do this. Many people just blindly purchase additional bandwidth only to find that those resources are quickly eaten up. Kind of like adding a lane to highway. It’s only a matter of time before more traffic fills it up. They are always happy to find us, as often they feel buying additional bandwidth is futile.

Upstream Provider: Yes, we want to do what’s right for our customers. Hey, did you say that your NetEqualizer cuts back on the need for additional bandwidth?

(The joke here is that they called us without doing any research on what we actually do, and this does happen all the time)

Us: Yes, it does. In fact, many of our customers can put off adding additional bandwidth for several years with our box in place.

Upstream Provider: Oh, really?

Us: Yes. That means that you’ll lose an easy sale and some recurring monthly revenue.

Upstream Provider: Well, yes, but we don’t want to lose the customer, so we will certainly make sure we let our customers know about your alternative. After all, it’s the right thing to do.

Us: Yes, let us know if we can help in any way.

Needless to say we rarely ever hear from them again.

Posted in Commentary and Editorials. Leave a Comment »

Tips to Placing Effective Google Ads (What We’ve Learned over the Years)

May 30, 2008 — netequalizer

Here are some basic do’s and don’ts regarding using Google Adwords that we’ve learned through experience. Follow these and you’ll save time and money. We assume that you have run a Google Ad campaign and are familiar with the basic terms.

  • Do use search words and search engine advertising. These clicks are worth it if you want to spend your click-money wisely.
  • Don’t use content ads, or, if you do, use them with extreme caution. We have deduced through much anecdotal evidence that our content ads were often fraudulently abused through scams that Google was unable to detect. In the last six months or so they seem to have this under control, but in general content ad clicks are not worth it. Too many bored people clicking them with no intention to buy anything.
  • Do use the time of day feature. If you have a commercial product for business, don’t run it on weekends. You will get less qualified and more confused buyers. Obviously, if you are targeting home consumers, weekends may be your best bet.
  • Don’t try to be first or even second on the page. Set your budget and try to get the cheapest clicks possible. For example if you are selling “spy vision glasses” and you budget $80 per day, you want to barely reach your target each day. For two reasons.
    • 1) Potential customers that find you on the second page are very seriously searching for a product and are likely to buy. If you can hit your target budget with clicks on the second (less expensive) page your value per click will be much higher.
    • 2) Being the first product displayed will cost you much more per click and will most most likely bring you an early browser rather than somebody ready to buy.
  • Do make sure you have some motivation on your home page to entice people to tell you who they are. This could be a prize giveaway or a white paper — basically just something of value for which they will register or provide contact information.
  • Don’t hide your price. If your product costs $200 and customers are expecting something for $50, you are not going to upsell them. These clicks to unqualified customers will cost you both time and money.
  • Do run multiple ads and route them to specific pages. We call this follow through. Your google ad has very limited word space so, when clicking, the customer should see a follow through on the ad they just clicked. For example, if your product ad says “bumper stickers for baseball fans” don’t send them to your home page if it features 100 other different products. Send them to something specific regarding baseball bumper stickers.

Obviously these tips aren’t foolproof, but we hope they will make the Google Adwords process both easier and more productive.

Posted in Business Advice. 1 Comment »

Analysis: Vuze’s Allegations Are Anecdotal, But Troubling

May 1, 2008 — netequalizer

The following article recently appeared on ExtremeTech.com.

Analysis: Vuze’s Allegations Are Anecdotal, But Troubling

By Art Reisman

Marvin Ammori of Free Press recently referenced a report issued by a third party company, Vuze, that insinuates with some evidence that ISPs are blocking certain kinds of Internet content.

While I respect Marvin’s right to his opinion, and support the mission of FreePress.net, I was asked to comment on his assertions by the editors of PC Magazine and ExtremeTech.

As to the report issued by Vuze: I read their findings over and they were very careful to point out that their evidence is anecdotal in nature. Other than Comcast, which was outed and forced to admit its practice of blocking peer-to-peer traffic under certain conditions, the report does nothing to convince me conclusively of any deliberate blocking. In today’s world, anybody can assert something from scant evidence and there will be a bandwagon of followers drawing their own conclusions for a variety of reasons. Marvin’s reasons for jumping the bandwagon are noble but I think we must be careful here.

Now let’s get to Marvin’s comments.

“Vuze’s report suggests what many have feared all along: In addition to Comcast, other phone and cable companies may be censoring legal Web traffic over their networks. Many industry practices remain unknown and are increasingly difficult to detect.”

I can not agree more that industry practices are unknown and difficult to detect; that is an understatement and something I alluded to I wrote last year: “Consumers and innovators cannot be expected to police for abuse, nor should they have to accept interference until their network provider is exposed. Until the FCC makes it clear that it will not tolerate Internet blocking, phone and cable companies will continue to engage in this harmful practice.”

However looking to the government to solve this issue with mandates can easily backfire into a quagmire.

The Internet is what it is today exactly because no regulatory body hovers over it at every turn, although it has become vital and one could argue that somebody must protect it. However, the right way to protect it is to use antitrust laws to make sure consumers have a choice. You might also force some truth in advertising laws to insure consumers have accurate information when choosing a provider. Consumers are smart and savvy and will go with the provider that gives them the best service.

However, I would draw the line and not dictate to providers and tell them how to handle traffic congestion. There are legitimate overload situations on a network that can cause gridlock, and an honest effort to avoid these situations is what most ISPs strive for. Yes, some may view this as greedy abhorrent behavior, but you can’t have it both ways. If you want a government-run Internet, then come out and lobby for it — but declare your motives! But for now, these are public companies and over-regulating them will backfire. The way to solve it is with consumer choice and not another office at the FCC.

For example: We have three choices for broadband Internet in my part of Colorado: Comcast, Qwest and Mesa Networks. Mesa is the local wireless ISP here in the Front range. I know for a fact that Mesa Networks does not block or re-direct BitTorrent traffic. The competition is too fierce and being the smaller player, it is in their interest to provide top notch service. Unfortunately, some areas of the country may only have one option and I would concede in this case the FCC needs a soft hand:

1) Do not allow an incumbent to own both wired and licensed frequencies in the same area (if they are the only player). I am aware of several investors that plan to offer high speed internet services over licensed frequencies.

2) Require truth in advertising about contention ratios on a network; contention ratios dictate how many users share an Internet resource.

3) Require ISPs to divulge what bandwidth control techniques they deploy. Note this stops short of telling them what to do.

As for my personal bias, my position as CTO of NetEqualizer, a company that makes bandwidth controllers, seems to insinuate that I am in the pocket of the ISPs. Yes, that is a bias, but for the bulk of this discussion I view the large service providers as a consumer. Big agnostic corporations driven by their stockholders’ greed drive me crazy. Most are not my customers, however I just happen to understand both sides of this equation, as I live and breath bandwidth control for many verticals, and not just public ISPs.

Posted in Commentary and Editorials, News. Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »