What our French Speaking Customers are saying.


Nous sommes un fournisseur Internet sans-fil de la rive-sud de Montréal au Canada. Plusieurs communautés étaient totalement dépourvues de service haute-vitesse avant le lancement de notre projet Internet en région rurale.  Le service connu tellement de succès que les demandes pour un service de téléphonie IP se multiplièrent.
Nous avons dû faire des analyses pour évaluer la qualité de la voix sur notre réseau. La qualité sonore se dégradait très fortement en heure de pointe car des utilisateurs de P2P monopolisaient la majeure partie de notre bande passante. Ceci rendait pratiquement impossible l’utilisation du service de téléphonie IP durant ces heures.

Nous avons donc cherché une solution à ce problème afin de limiter le P2P et de prioriser la voix. Nous avons enfin trouvé la solution de NETEQUALIZER sur google.
En premier lieu, nous pensions à installer la version gratuite, Bandwidth Arbitrator, sur une machine existante. Nous sommes finalement arrivé à la conclusion que la machine vendue et supportée par NETEQUALIZER serait une option plus avantageuse. En achetant le NE2000, nous évitions les frais d’intégration par un techniciens Linux et avions confiance de ne pas rencontrer de problème de pilotes et de compatibilité lors de l’installation et des mises à jours subséquentes. Dès que nous avons branché l’appareil tout a …naturellement…fonctionné. La machine fonctionne de façon totalement transparente. Hormis les bienfaits, les clients ne s’aperçoivent de rien.

Nous avons maintenant près de 2000 clients, une centaine de lignes IP et la progression continue. Nous devons cette qualité de service en partie à NETEQUALIZER. Nous tenons à remercier toute l’équipe de NETEQUALIZER, en particulier Art Reisman, pour l’excellent service après-vente. Toutes nos questions furent répondues instantanément et habillement.

Louis-Paul Bourdon
Président
TARGO Communications

Update: NetEqualizer Access Control Module Running Live at Portola Hotel & Spa


Well, we did it. The new NetEqualizer access control module is now up and running at the Portola Hotel and Spa in Monterey, California. Of course, we wanted to be there for the maiden voyage.

We retrofitted one of the existing NetEqualzier bandwidth controllers at the Portola Hotel with our network access controller and have been live in their lobby areas without an issue going on 36 hours now.

According to Phillip Pennington of Portola Plaza’s IT department, he was not surprised with the results as our NetEqualizer products (they have four of them) have worked flawlessly throughout the complex since being installed 18 months ago.

We have just a few minor customizations to make for their billing needs, and plan to bring up the rest of the hotel in January 2009.

If you were waiting for our latest release with our NAC, now is a good time to call.

The price for any trials next month will start at $2500 and include two hours of consulting.

Note: Customers will need some HTML experience to customize their text pages. Customers will also need to meet basic network configurations to be eligible. Contact us for details at 303-997-1300 or see our Web page for more information.

Portola Plaza Personalized Welcome Screen

Returning Users Sign In Screen

Curbing RIAA Requests on Your Student Network


Editor’s Note: We often get asked by college administrators how the NetEqualizer can block p2p with our behavior-based rules. Since the NetEqualizer is containment based, it is effective in stopping approximately 80 to 90 percent of all p2p (see comparison with layer 7 shapers). Yet, questions and fears still remain about RIAA requests. Since the NetEqualizer is not a complete block, not that anything is, customers wonder how they can be safe from those intimidating lawyers.

In short, here’s the answer. The RIAA finds copyright violators by downloading files from your network. Since these downloads must be initiated from the outside, you simply need to block all outside initiated requests for data. Obviously you would still allow requests to your Web servers and other legitimate well known content servers on your network. Understanding this, administrators can configure their routers to work in conjunction with their NetEqualizers to largely curb RIAA requests.

Below, NetEqualizer user Ted Fines, the network administrator at Macalester College, shares his methods for preventing RIAA requests on his university network.

A few years ago, we implemented a rule on our firewall to improve our overall security. However, it has also had the added effect of stopping RIAA notices almost entirely.

The rule simply blocks all inbound connections to all ports on all residence hall computers. Here are some sample config lines from our firewall (aCisco PIX) that show how the rule works:

name 111.112.113.0 Kirk description Kirk Res Hall
object-group network Res_Halls
description All Residence Halls
network-object Kirk 255.255.255.0
network-object Bigelow 255.255.255.0
network-object Wallace 255.255.255.0
access-list 101 extended deny ip any object-group Res_Halls

Even though it may appear this rule would interfere with normal user Web browsing, etc., this rule actually has no effect at all on what systems the student computers in our residence halls may access. This is because the firewall tracks what computer initiates the connection.

For instance, when a student tries to access “http://www.cnn.com”, they are initiating the connection to CNN’s server. So when CNN’s server replies and send back news content, etc., the firewall knows that the student computer requested it and the incoming connection is allowed.

However, if a student is running a server, such as a Web server or a file sharing server, outside computers are not able to connect to it. The firewall knows that the outside computer is trying to initiate a connection, so it is blocked.

Our student body makes great use of our resources and we have a very open and unrestricted campus life, so I was pleasantly surprised that making this change did not ruffle any feathers. We do make exceptions when students request that a port be unblocked for a particular need. I have found that the ones who are savvy enough to know that they need a particular port opened are not typically the ones we have to be worried about, so we’re usually happy to accommodate them.

–Ted Fines, Macalester College, St. Paul, MN


Editor’s Note cont’d
: This recent tip was given on the ResNet mailing list by Sidney Eaton of Ferris State University…

If you want to minimize your notices, just block these address ranges on your firewalls (in and out):

64.34.160.0/20

64.124.145.0/25

These are MediaSentry IP addresses (the company scanning your network to determine if your users are sharing copyprotected materials). They are not the only company hired by the RIAA and MPAA but they are the largest one. So you may still get some but hopefully not as many.

Sidney Eaton, Ferris State University, Big Rapids, MI

Tired of Being Asked Why the Internet Is So Slow?


We recently received this update from NetEqualizer user Chris Gilles of the Heartwood Institute. We’ve posted it with his permission…

“I’ve had my neteq in about 2 weeks now. It’s running great!. I really never want to hear, ‘Why is the internet so slow?’ ever again. I used to hear it at least 20 times a day. Now, I hear it never. Thanks guys. Of course, I only hear, ‘Wow, the internet is so fast’ about twice a day, but it will do. Still, after months of being harassed, it’s nice not to have that ‘stress’ of hearing it all day.”

NetEqualizer — “No maintenance, no upgrades, no headaches…”


Here’s a look at what our customers are saying on the message boards:

We had a Packeteer here at Keystone College, but outgrew it when we upgraded our bandwidth. Someone on this list (Educause) suggested looking at a NetEqualizer box (http://netequalizer.com/). I did, bought it, love it. No maintenance, no updates, no headaches. It just sits there and works…

– Charlie

NetEqualizer Gains Traction against Competition in Australia


In a recent discussion on how and where to deploy a NetEqualizer Stephan Wickham, Product Marketing Manager for KeyTrust (keytrust.com.au), had the following astounding revelation:

“My view is to try NetEqualizer and see how it works – I would then only apply a more expensive solution in instances that require special features or functionality not available with NetEqualizer. I believe this approach is the most practical. I also don’t believe that identifying and reporting on 100s of application types as performed by other products on the market serves much purpose. It would be like trying to manage freeway traffic flow by the identifying vehicle types and then reserving lanes per type. NetEqualizer works more like identifying a gang riding Harleys disrupting traffic and turns them into nice people riding Vespa scooters going with the flow.”

The Power of Organic Growth and Testimonials


The path that most entrepreneurs envision to growth is to create a product or an idea and the world will buy it. Usually by the time the development is complete, the bills are coming in and revenue has not caught up enough to cover the carrying cost. The only option at this point is to get a real job and put the dream on hold or solicit outside funding. The downside of this model, besides the obvious selling of your soul, is that most inventors want to see a return on investment within a couple of years. To do this, much of their cash flow is used on developing a channel.

Common wisdom (this came from a discussion with a couple of analysts from Gartner a couple years ago) is that you can have a little niche of a product via direct sales, but you’ll never be anything substantial without a serious channel. To be a real company, you need to gross tens of millions of sales. You can’t do that without a channel. This means regional offices in metro areas and countries, presence at all the right events, coverage by analysts, etc. And that takes capital.

Well, we continue to buck that trend. Perhaps our customers are self-selecting, but more and more are shunning trade shows and are finding good products through peer groups and selective Internet searches.

The nice thing about our organic growth is that we have grown without the traditional channels or the expensive management that are pushed on start ups. Hence we keep our prices well under the competition while remaining financially healthy.

Here is a recent unsolicited testimonial thread I recently ran into. It is this type of support that will ensure we will remain privately held, profitable, and affordably priced into the forseeable future.

———————————————————————–

From: The EDUCAUSE Security Constituent Group Listserv [mailto:SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU] On Behalf Of Rafael Cortes
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 4:01 PM
To: SECURITY@LISTSERV.EDUCAUSE.EDU
Subject: [SECURITY] Packet shaping and Bandwidth Management

Is anyone doing anything different these days with packet shaping using Packeteer appliances,

especially due to the increase of streaming video and flash?

********************************************
Rafael Cortes
Manager, Network and Technical Services
Mercer County Community College

Hi, Rafael. We had a Packeteer here at Keystone College, but outgrew it when we upgraded our bandwidth. Someone on this list suggested looking at a NetEqualizer box (http://netequalizer.com/). I did, bought it, love it. No maintenance, no updates, no headaches. It just sits there and works…

– Charlie

Charlie Prothero

CIO

Keystone College


A Detailed Case Study of Packet Shaper and NetEqualizer


Editors note:

The quote by the Adams State administrator sums it up.

 "The price is fair, the best value in the product space"

This is a re-post of the Adams state blog, the details are a bit technical which don’t reflect the actual simplicity of a basic setup. From box to Network it is usually under an hour, without little or no recurring maintenance.

http://faculty.adams.edu/~cdmiller/?TrafficShaping

Also note NTOP reporting issues were remedied shortly after this original post back in 2006.

———————————————————————————————————-

In May 2006 we switched bandwidth management products. We moved from traditional layer 7 traffic shaping to bandwidth arbitration. We looked at upgrading our current product and 3 other solutions.

I am convinced protocol and layer 7 based filtering is dead. I expect P2P products to use SSL or TLS bypassing layer 7 filters. Ethically layer 7 filtering smells like content filtering, big brother, evil.

Bandwidth arbitration keeps things simple. When the Internet connection reaches a tuneable level of utilization the arbitrator slows down longer lived higher usage data transfers based on the number of connections and their utilization. Per host connection limiting keeps P2P playing nicely.

The chosen product? Net Equalizer.

Based on the open source Bandwidth Arbitrator, it is easy to configure and highly customizable. Support has been excellent.

  • Initial Tests

With the netequalizer link size at ~20% below our average utilization our pipe remained completely usable. Interactive applications responded well while large transfers continued to function. The connection limits appear to keep bittorrent and gnutella functional and in control.

  • Qualitative Results 2006-06-23

Downloads are faster, latency is at pre layer 7 filtering levels (9ms vs 300ms), P2P protocols are usable again, and we no longer police content, we manage bandwidth. Support has been excellent with technicians responding directly to my emails with all technical levels of questions answered, good, silly, and questions about the inner workings of the appliance. I was instructed on cautions to take withe any attempt at customization, and given the go ahead for some minor custom configuration without voiding the warranty.

  • Update 2006-11-06

We have run the Netequalizer for 6 months. Results are phenomenal compared with our last product. Our Netequalizer box has been up for 116 days with no configuration changes from the start of the semester. I look at my Cacti graphs and the custom CGI reports for solace, as if I’m disappointed the appliance doesn’t need more care and feeding.

  • Our Configuration

For our 21Mb link, we set 3 basic parameters:

 RATIO 75
 BRAIN_SIZE 2500
 CONNECTION LIMIT 40

The ratio is the amount of of our pipe in use before any shaping (arbitration) takes place. The brain_size is the number of connections for the equalizer to track and act upon, I have seen this number reached only once on our system. The connection limit means we allow 20 incoming and 20 outgoing connections maximum for every host on our network. We had to set every one or our servers as an exception to this rule, allowing 50,000 incoming and outgoing connections for those. We also had to specify our link size. That’s it end of configuration.

  • Custom Modifications

We did very simple things to appease ourselves of the performance of the box. First, we placed an SNMP daemon on it. I used a stock snmpd from a Mandriva 2006 server, from net-snmp 5.2.1.2. I was going to static compile one, but it turned out the dynamic libraries were all in place, here is the ldd output:

     ldd /usr/local/snmp/sbin/snmpd
     linux-gate.so.1 =>  (0xffffe000)
     libdl.so.2 => /lib/tls/libdl.so.2 (0x4001b000)
     libz.so.1 => /usr/lib/libz.so.1 (0x4001f000)
     libm.so.6 => /lib/tls/libm.so.6 (0x40031000)
     libc.so.6 => /lib/tls/libc.so.6 (0x40057000)
     /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0x40000000)

I put the daemon in /usr/local/snmp/sbin/ and the mibs and snmpd.conf in /usr/local/snmp/share/snmp/.

We created 2 custom CGI scripts. One script shows the complete current logfile on demand rather than the last however many lines the web interface shows. The other script shows total current connections, followed by a list of hosts with more than 3 connections, sorted by total outgoing and incoming connections. I modified some of the scripts provided in the /art directory to produce those results. Someone with more familiarity with the Linux bridge utilities could probably do better.

Here is the showlog.cgi script I placed in the /var/www/cgi-bin/arbi directory:

 #!/bin/perl
 print "Content-type: text/html\n\n";
 print "<html><head></head><body><pre>";
 system("cat /tmp/arblog.bak");
 system("cat /tmp/arblog");
 print "</pre></body></html>";

Here are some lines from the showlog output, catching the arbitrator slowing someone down with .05 second delays (the DELAY portion):

 11/06/06 08:39:32 PENALTY  IP : 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 POOL: 0  WAVG:  133212 BUFF: 102  DELAY: 5
 11/06/06 08:39:32 INCREASE PENALTY  IP: 147.124.8.230  192.156.134.2 POOL: 0  BUFF: 102  DELAY: 10
 11/06/06 08:39:44 Traffic up: 575430 Traffic  down: 962330  POOL 0
 PENALTY  THRESHOLD pool 0 up 2688000 down 2688000
 11/06/06 08:39:47 PENALTY DECREASE: 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 to 5 POOL: 0
 11/06/06 08:39:51 PENALTY REMOVE: 147.124.8.230 192.156.134.2 POOL: 0

Here is some output from our connections script with the top 5 out and in hosts:

 Total Connections: 2074
 More than 3 Outgoing Connections:
 192.156.134.15 76
 192.156.134.2 61
 72.166.201.218 58
 192.156.134.16 36
 72.166.205.159 21
 More than 3  Incoming Connections:
 72.166.205.159 88
 192.156.134.15 76
 72.166.201.110 57
 192.156.134.2 56
 72.166.201.218 51

Notice the hosts with more than 20 connections. Some of these are exempt servers, but others are workstations. Our firewall disallows non related incoming connections campus workstations, Netequalizer is in front of the firewall. I have examined some of these cases and many are P2P connection attempts that never truly connect to transfer data or are very short lived. We typically see about 20 to 30 hosts at or above the connection limit and about 100 hosts with more than 3 incmoing or outgoing connections, including all of our Internet servers.

  • Verification, Tests

We have an out of band PC using Ntop to track what hosts on the network are doing. I have verified the output of the Netequalizer against our Ntop machine many times in the last few months. I have also on occasion initiated a large download from a fast Internet site when I notice one or two folks getting high data rates. At those times I have observed Netequalizer start to arbitrate, creating head room on the pipe to keep bursty interactive traffic responsive.

  • Criticism, Pros, Cons
 The user interface is spartan, strictly functional
 Ntop is not really usable on the appliance

 Editors note: ( NTOP has been updated and supported in later versions since this comment was posted)

 An SNMP daemon should be included
 More logging should be available
 Performance is as advertised, if not better
 Minimal configuration is required
 Maintenance is minimal
 User manual has some typos
 User manual requires a full read
 User manual is only 36 pages, reflects minimal configuration required
 Some level of customization is allowed without voiding the warranty
 Support is excellent
 The price is fair, the best value in the product space

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 for a full price list.

Inside the Thought Process of a Customer Buying a Traffic Shaper


Editor note: Here is a snippet of an e-mail re-printed with permission from a perspective customer. Their analogy on how a NetEqualizer compares to some of the competition was one of those aha moments where a customer gets it.


“My view is to try NetEqualizer and see how it works – I would then only apply a more expensive solution in instances that require special features or functionality not available with NetEqualizer. I believe this approach is the most practical. I also don’t believe that identifying and reporting on 100s of application types as performed by XXXXX and XXXXXXX serves much purpose. It would be like trying to manage freeway traffic flow by the identifying vehicle types and then reserving lanes per type. NetEqualizer works more like identifying a gang riding Harleys disrupting traffic and turns them into nice people riding Vespa scooters going with the flow.

Regards,

Stephan Wickham
Product Marketing Manager

KeyTrust
L 9 / 22 William Street
Melbourne, VIC 3000
Australia”

Customer testimonial from ISP-wireless.com sums it up.


Editors note: This customer wrote this from the heart he has never received any perk or compensation from APconnections.
“We’ve been having problems with encrypted BitTorrent running on Port 80. uTorrent, Azureus, BitComet clients in particular were impossible to track down automatically, so finding them by hand and putting them in jail was starting to take more and more admin time.

We had a pretty good connection aging rule set in MikroTik, but lost bandwidth by having to define a pipe size first, then setting queues within that defined pipe. Doesn’t work particularly well for wireless where the pipe size tends to change a bit with changing RF conditions during the day. Also had to put too many rules in too many routers so it was getting pretty difficult to maintain.

I saw a mention or two of NetEqualizer on a couple of forums, and pretty much brushed it off as more BS. We already had an Etinc bandwidth manager gathering dust and didn’t want the same thing happening again.

Well, about two weeks ago we got fed up enough to give NetEqualizer a call. Had a couple of interesting chats, decent tech sales conversations, very little push from them, careful to set reasonable expectations etc. They said it works, its completely transparent, holds traffic levels within 10-15% of what you want, prioritizes interactive stuff including VoIP and requires very little setup and even less maintenance. It manages traffic patterns only and doesn’t try to sniff packets to detect PtP.

They were also very clear that “less is more”. Don’t put in a bunch of rules to micromanage, just let it do its thang.

So we bought one last Friday. The 45Mbit version, cost about $3500 or so including some basic support and maintenance. Nice 1U case, but quite a noisy fan. Showed up Tuesday morning, which is pretty good shipping time considering it went through customs to get here.

Plugged it in around lunchtime Tuesday into a managed switch where we could easily cut it in and out of our main feed trunk. Left if out of the traffic stream while we read through the quickstart guide, then took about 5 mins to give it an IP address and put in the basic three rules. Made a few entries to exempt various servers from connection limits, gave three or four customer IPs “priority host” exemptions and left it alone for a while to make sure that the magic smoke wasn’t going to suddenly escape.

Flipped switch ports to put the NetEq into the traffic stream about 5pm Tuesday. Still had a bunch of MT routers running rule sets, including the main gateway with a global daytime PtP ban.

WELL! It settled in very gracefully within a few minutes, and we could see the connection count to the Internet gradually dropping off, while bandwidth utilization started to smooth out to about 2 Mbit less than the 21 Mbit we had set. You could watch IP pair delay “penalties” being applied, increased, decreased and removed in the log. Bursts were still allowed to bring the peak just over 22 Mbit, and the upload side settled at about 1 Mbit less than the 6 Mbits we set. Again, bursts were allowed to around 7 Mbits. The Internet felt great!!

Over the next few hours we disable all the existing MT rule sets, including the global gateway rules for PtP. Bandwidth utilization still looked relatively smooth, cruising around the Net felt great, VoIP worked fine, everything was peachy.

The next day we figured out that a couple of big customers running over VPN tunnels needed priority exemptions, as tunnels look like one big lump of abuse from a NetEqualizer viewpoint.

We also set some priorities with bandwidth caps for big clients running server farms.

And waited for the shoe to drop…. And waited, and waited. Calls to our tech support dropped off, nobody was complaining about throughput, and we waited some more. Even PtP worked great during the day as it was allowed to use any unused bandwidth that “real-time” applications didn’t need.

And we’re still waiting four days later.

This device is about the closest thing to black magic we’ve seen in years. It just plain works. I’ve removed about half of the few config rules I put in to start, we simply don’t need them. The only thing you have to watch is connection limits on servers, and make exemptions for big customers routing all their traffic through tunnels. That’s it.

To put this in context, we’re handling just under 30 Mbits total flow, and sit at about 2400 pps each way during the day, dropping off out of business hours. We have an evening residential burst to about 70% of our daytime max. We’re seeing about 1300 concurrent IP connection pairs during the day down to around 800 in the evening. That’s with roughly 750 customers representing 5000+ total seats. 900 MHz customers normally get 3 Mbit or so, and pretty much everyone else gets 5+, so they get grumpy fast if bandwidth drops off.

It only took 10-15 customers running encrypted PtP on Port 80 to ruin our lives, and the trend they represented was horrifying. Over the last six months, our bandwidth utilization has gone up at least 50% higher than can be accounted for by customer growth.

Obviously we have no connection with NetEqualizer beyond being a very happy customer. Their FAQ here »www.netequalizer.com/tsfaq.htm pretty much says it all.”

George Morris

Candlelight.ca

NetEqualizer Trivia, Famous Encounters with bandwidth shaping


What do Lance Armstrong, Barack Obama have in common with NetEqualizer? Read on to find out.

The engineers at APconnections, being the geeks that they are, like to play a little game of trying to make a valid case for famous people who may have used a NetEqualizer. Loosely defined this means have they ever logged into the Internet through an ISP provider that uses NetEqualizer for their bandwidth control.

Obviously most of this game based on p racticalspeculation, but there are some compelling cases.  In the case of Barack Obama it is a matter of timing. The diplomatic American Embassy in Kabul runs an unsecured  wireless internet service for employees and visitors. A few months ago they purchased and installed a NetEqualizer , seems there internet link was getting a bit overloaded.  We also know from our sources inside the embassy, that Diplomats, including US Congressmen and Senators, will often stop over, open their laptops and use the wireless network in the Embassy to check personal e-mail. So it is very likely that various US Senators and Congressmen have been logged into our system there, especially over the holidays when they are drumming up support by posing with the troops.  Unfortunately our research shows that Senator Obama’s recent world wide tour had him in Kabul on July 19th. The NetEqualizer did not arrive at the embassy until early October of this year.  A minor disappointment, but things are looking good for the next president.

Note: Sitting presidents do not use public Wi-fi systems when traveling.

Other likely famous users include Lance Armstrong. The Olympic Cycling training center in Colorado springs deploys a NetEqualizer going on two years now certainly Lance has stopped by once or twice over the years?  As for Sarah Palin,  we have quite a few units scattered around  regional ISPs in the state of Alaska.  If Sarah Palin gets out and about with her laptop, there is a good chance she has logged into the Internet through one of our units.

Since we first published this article back in November 2008, we added the Vancouver International Airport as well 100,000 additional users through ISPs throughout the world. We’ll keep searching for celebrity sitings as they come in.

Taming the Net in the Middle East


Here’s an article about NetEqualizer’s work in Iraq and Afghanistan that appeared in the Boulder Daily Camera

In the event of a possible system crash, the NetEqualizer re-prioritizes power distribution giving priority to things like e-mail and Web browsing over large file downloads, preventing a system shut-down and helping with the congestion of the Internet network.

“Think of it as regulating traffic as it merges onto the highway,” said Art Reisman, CEO and president of APconnections. “If it weren’t for the NetEqualizer, traffic would come to a standstill. It puts a delay on things like big downloads to slow them down.

“But the key is it’s temporary — if we didn’t, everything in the network would come to a halt.”

The NetEqualizer has become the “bandwidth optimization technology” of overseas companies such as Afghan Wireless, which was the first firm to provide public Internet access in Afghanistan, and Blackwater USA, the controversial personal-security company with the largest presence in the region.

Afghan Telecom, which became the official telecommunications provider of the government when it was incorporated by the Ministry of Communications and Internet Technology in 2005, also uses the NetEqualizer. APconnections currently has supplied NetEqualizer to more than 10 companies in the region.

“We don’t want to take credit for anything grand over there,” Reisman said. “We’re just providing a service. But it’s good they have a product like ours that they can count on. But we’re not going to create an office over there or anything.”

NetEqualizers are used all over the world, including Africa. This summer, APconnections announced it has served more than 1 million Internet users.

APconnections competes with the Israeli product NetEnforcer and the California-based company Packeteer, both of which provide products with similar services as the NetEqualizer.

“We do things a little differently than those companies, but still accomplish the same things a little cheaper,” Reisman said. “We’ve kind of developed a cult following. We’re the smaller player, but the people who use us would never switch.”

NetEqualizer playing key role in developing Iraqi and Afghan Internet industries


Although best known for solving corporate and institutional bandwidth issues in the United States, APconnections’ NetEqualizer technology is now playing a major part in the developing Internet industries in Iraq an Afghanistan.

The NetEqualizer is the bandwidth optimization technology of choice for Blackwater USA in Iraq and Afghanistan’s Afghan Wireless and Afghan Telecom.

“Internet access has seen tremendous growth in both Afghanistan and Iraq over the past few years,” said Art Reisman, CEO of APconnections. “We’re pleased that the NetEqualizer has been able to help facilitate that growth.”

In 2002, Afghan Wireless became the first provider of public Internet and telecommunication services in Afghanistan. They currently serve more than 95 cities and towns and are one of only a few Afghan companies to operate in more than 20 separate regions.

Afghan Telecom is the official government-run telecommunications provider in Afghanistan, having been incorporated by the Ministry of Communications and Internet Technology in 2005. With their Afghan Telecom Air Cards, users now enjoy wireless Internet access throughout the city of Kabul.

In addition to serving as one of the largest private security contractors in Iraq, Blackwater USA also provides Internet service to both its employees and Iraqi citizens. The company just went live this summer with their NetEqualizer to maximize its bandwidth and prevent network congestion.  

NetEqualizer Accelerates Internet Access for the Hotel Industry


APConnections, Inc., has moved into the hotel industry in a big way and is being used in prominent hotels to insure vital communications for their guests.APConnections has announced a major deployment at the Holiday Inn, Washington-Central/White House in Washington, D.C. Visiting dignitaries will be relying on the NetEqualizer to insure responsive Internet connections.

“We try to stay ahead of the curve here in Washington D.C. Our customers are very tech savvy and require the best service when it comes to their Internet connectivity. Since installing the NetEqualizer back in November, it has been smooth sailing: no busy hour slowdowns or complaints.” Jeff Billings, System Administrator, Holiday Inn Central.

The NetEqualizer is increasingly used in hotels because the guests demand quality Internet services. The load from many hotel guests simultaneously can create slowed Internet access. NetEqualizer users report experiencing 50% or more bandwidth.

According to analysts, broadband Internet access in guest rooms is expected to more than triple between 2004 and 2009 to nearly 54,000 properties worldwide. Currently, hotels are being judged and ranked according to their quality of Internet access.

With nearly 1,500 Holiday Inn hotels around the world, Holiday Inn remains the most popular hotel brand. They offer free high-speed Internet access at each of their facilities in the U.S. & Canada.

%d bloggers like this: