Bandwidth Shaping Shake Up, Your Packet Shaper May be Obsolete?


If you went to sleep in 2005 and woke up 10 years later you would likely be surprised by some dramatic changes in technology.

  • Smart cars that drive themselves are almost a reality
  • The desktop PC is no longer a consumer product
  • Wind farms  now line the highways of rural America
  • Layer 7 shaping technology is now clinging to life, crashing the financials of a several  companies that bet the house on it.

What happened to layer 7 and Packet Shaping?

In the early 2000’s all the rave in traffic classification was the ability to put different types of bandwidth traffic into labeled buckets and assign a priority to them. Akin to rating your food choices  on a tapas menu ,network administrators  enjoyed an extensive  list of various traffic. Youtube, Citrix,  news feeds, the list was only limited by the price and quality of the bandwidth shaper. The more expensive the traffic shaper , the more choices you had.

Starting in 2005 and continuing to this day,  several forces started to work against the layer 7 paradigm.

  • The price of bulk bandwidth went into a free fall, much faster than the relatively fixed cost of a bandwidth shaper.  The business proposition of buying a bandwidth shaper to conserve bandwidth utilization became much tighter. Some companies that were riding high saw their stock prices collapse.
  • Internet traffic became invisible and impossible to identify with the advent of encryption techniques. A traffic classifier using Layer 7,  cannot see inside HTTPS or a VPN tunnel, and thus it is essentially becomes a big expensive albatross with little value as the rate of encrypted traffic increases.
  • The FCC ruling toward Net Neutrality further put a damper on a portion of the Layer 7 market. For years ISPs had been using Layer 7 technology to give preferential treatment to different types of traffic.
  • Cloud based services are using less complex  architectures. Companies  can consolidate on one simplified central bandwidth shaper, where as before they might have had several on all their various WAN links and Network segments

So where does this leave the bandwidth shaping market?

There is still some demand for layer 7 type shapers, particular in countries like China, where they attempt to control   everything.  However in Europe and in the US , the trend is to more basic controls that do not violate the FCC rule, cost less, and use some form intelligent based fairness rules such as:

  • Quota’s ,  your cell phone data plan.
  • Fairness based heuristics is gaining momentum, lower price point, prevents congestion without violating FCC ruling  (  Equalizing).
  • Basic Rate limits,  your wired ISP 20 megabit plan, often implemented on a basic router and not a specialized shaping device.
  • No Shaping at all,  pipes are so large there is no need to ration bandwidth.

Will Shaping be around in 10 years?

Yes, consumers and businesses will always find ways to use all their bandwidth and more.

Will price points for bandwidth continue to drop ?

I am going to go against the grain here, and say bandwidth prices will flatten out in the near future.  Prices  over the last decade slid for several reasons which are no longer in play.

The biggest driver in price drops was the wide acceptance of wave division muliplexing on carrier lines in the 2005- present time frame. There was already a good bit of fiber in the ground but the WDM innovation caused a huge jump in capacity, with very little additional cost to providers.

The other factor was a major world-wide recession, where businesses where demand was slack.

Lastly there are no new large carriers coming on line. Competition and price wars will ease up as suppliers try to increase profits.

 

 

NetEqualizer is Net Neutral, Packet Shaping is Not


The NetEqualizer has long been considered a net neutral appliance. Given the new net neutrality FCC regulations, upheld yesterday, I thought it would be good time to reiterate how the NetEqualizer shaping techniques  are  compliant with the FCC ruling.

Here is the basic FCC rule that applies to bandwidth shaping and preferential treatment:

The FCC created a separate rule that prohibits broadband providers from slowing down specific applications or services, a practice known as throttling. More to the point, the FCC said providers can’t single out Internet traffic based on who sends it, where it’s going, what the content happens to be or whether that content competes with the provider’s business.

I’ll break this down as it relates to the NetEqualizer.

1. The rule “prohibits broadband providers from slowing down specific applications or services”.

The NetEqualizer makes shaping decisions solely based on instantaneous usage and only when a link is congested. It does not single out a particular application or service for throttling. The NetEqualizer does not classify traffic, instead looking at how the traffic behaves in order to make a shaping decision.  The key to remember here is that the NetEqualizer only shapes when a link is congested, and without it in place, the link would drop packets which would cause a serious outage.

2.  The FCC said “providers can’t single out Internet traffic based on who sends it, where it’s going”.

The NetEqualizer is completely agnostic as to who is sending the traffic and as to where it is going. In fact, any rate limiting that we provide is independent of the traffic on network, and is used solely to partition a shared resource amongst a set of internal users, whether they be buildings, groups, or access points.

I hope we have finally seen an end to application-based shaping (Packet Shaping) on the Internet.  I see this ruling being upheld as the dawning of a new era.

Net Neutrality must be preserved


As much as I hate to admit it, it seems a few of our Republican congressional leaders are “all in” on allowing large content providers to have privileged priority access on the Internet. Their goal for the 2015 congress is to thwart the President and his Mandate to the FCC on net neutrality. Can you imagine going to visit Yosemite National park and being told that the corporations that sponsor the park have taken all the campsites? Or a special lane on the Interstate dedicated exclusively for Walmart Trucks?  Like our highway system and our National parks, the Internet is a resource shared by all Americans.

I think one of the criteria for being a politician is a certification that you flunked any class in college that involved critical or objective thinking, for example, this statement from Rep Marsha Blackburn

“Federal control of the internet will restrict our online freedom and leave Americans facing the same horrors that they have experienced with HealthCare.gov,”

She might as well compare the Internet to the Macy’s parade, it would make about as much sense; the Internet is a common shared utility similar to electricity and roads, and besides that, it was the Government that invented and funded most of the original Internet. The healthcare system is complex and flawed because it is a socialistic re-distribution of wealth, not even remotely similar to the Internet.  The internet needs very simple regulation to prevent abuse, this is about the only thing the government is designed to do effectively. And then there is this stifle innovation argument…

Rep. Bob Goodlatte, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said he may seek legislation that would aim to undermine the “FCC’s net neutrality authority by shifting it to antitrust enforcers,” Politico wrote.

Calling any such net neutrality rules a drag on innovation and competition

Let me translate for him because he does not understand or want to understand the motivations of the lobbyist when they talk about stifling innovation. My Words: “Regulation, in the form of FCC imposed net neutrality, will stifle the ability of the larger access providers and content providers from creating a walled off garden, thus stifling their pending monopoly on the Internet.” There are many things where I wish the Government would keep their hands out of, but the Internet is not one of them. I must side with the FCC and the President on this one.

Update Jan 31st

Another win for Net Neutrality, the Canadian Government outlaws the practice of zero rating, which is simply a back door for a provider to give free content over rivals.

The Internet, Free to the Highest Bidder.


It looks like the FCC has  caved,

“The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers.”

WSJ article April 2014

Compare today’s statements to those made back in  January and February, when  the FCC was posturing  like a fluffed up Tom Turkey for Net Neutrality.

“I am committed to maintaining our networks as engines for economic growth, test beds for innovative services and products, and channels for all forms of speech protected by the First Amendment”

– Tom Wheeler FCC chairman Jan 2014

“The FCC could use that broad authority to punish Internet providers that engage in flagrant net-neutrality violations, Wheeler suggested. The agency can bring actions with the goal of promoting broadband deployment, protecting consumers, or ensuring competition, for example.”

-Tom Wheeler Jan 2014

As I eluded to back then, I did not give their white night rhetoric much credence.

“The only hope in this case is for the FCC to step in and take back the Internet. Give it back to the peasants. However, I suspect their initial statements are just grandstanding politics.  This is, after all, the same FCC that auctions off the airwaves to the highest bidder.”

– Art Reisman  Feb 2014

It seems to me the FCC is now a puppet agency of regulation. How can you  start by talking about regulating abuses threatening free access to the Internet, and then without blinking an eye, offer up a statement that Rich Guys can  now pay for privileged access to the Internet ?

I don’t know whether to cry or be cynical at this point. Perhaps I should just go down to my nearest public library , and pay somebody to stock their shelves with promotional NetEqualizer Material?

“The court said that because the Internet is not considered a utility under federal law, it was not subject to that sort of regulation.”

Quotes Referenced from New York Times article FCC in shift backs fast lanes for Web Traffic

Federal Judge Orders Internet Name be Changed to CDSFBB (Content Delivery Service for Big Business)


By Art Reisman – CTO – APconnections

Okay, so I fabricated that headline, it’s not true, but I hope it goes viral and sends a message that our public Internet is being threatened by business interests and activist judges.

I’ll concede our government does serve us well in some cases;  they have produced some things that could not be done without their oversight, for example:

1) The highway system

2) The FAA does a pretty good job keeping us safe

3) The Internet. At least up until some derelict court ruling that will allow ISPs to give preferential treatment to content providers for a payment (bribe), whatever you want to call it.

The ramifications of this ruling may bring an end to the Internet as we know it. Perhaps the ball was put in motion when the Internet was privatized back in 1994. In any case, if this ruling stands up,  you can forget about the Internet as the great equalizer. A place where a small businesses can have a big web site. The Internet where a new idea on a small budget can blossom into a fortune 500 company. A place where the little guy can compete on equal footing without an entry fee to get noticed. No, the tide won’t turn right away, but at some point through a series of rationalizations, content companies and ISPs, with deep pockets, will kill anything that moves.

This ruling establishes a legal precedent. Legal precedents with suspect DNA are like cancers, they mutate into ugly variations, and replicate rapidly. There is no drug that can stop them. Obviously, the forces at work here are not the court systems themselves, but businesses with motives. The poor carriers just can’t seem to find any other solution to their congestion other than charge for access? Combine this with oblivious consumers that just want content on their devices, and you have a dangerous mixture. Ironically, these consumers already subsidize ISPs with a huge chunk of their disposable income. The hoodwink is on. Just as the public airwaves are controlled by a few large media conglomerates, so will go the Internet.

The only hope in this case is for the FCC to step in and take back the Internet. Give it back to the peasants. However, I suspect their initial statements are just grandstanding politics.  This is, after all, the same FCC that auctions off the airwaves to the highest bidder.

Internet Regulation, what is the world coming to ?


A friend of mine just forwarded an article titled “How Net Neutrality Rules Could Undermine the Open Internet”

Basically Net Neutrality advocates are now worried that bringing the FCC in to help enforce Neutrality will set a legal precedent allowing wide-reaching control over other aspects of the Internet. For example, some form of content control extending into gray areas.

Let’s look at the history of the FCC for precedents.

The FCC came into existence to manage and enforce the wireless spectrum,  essentially so you did not get 1000 radio/tv stations blasting signals over each other in every city.  A very necessary and valid government service. Without it, there would be utter anarchy in the airwaves. Imagine roads without traffic signals, or airports without control towers.

At some point in time, their control over frequencies got into content and accessibility mandates.  How did this come about? Simply put, it is the normal progression of government asserting control over a resource. It is what it is, neither good nor bad, just a reflection of a society that looks to government to make things “right”. And like an escaped non-native species in the Hawaiian Islands, it tends to take as much real estate as the ecosystem will allow.

What I do know as a certainty, the FCC, once in the door at regulating anything on the Internet, will continue to grow in order to make things “right” and “fair” during our browsing experience.

At best we can hope the inevitable progression of control by the FCC gets thwarted at every turn allowing us a few more good years of the good old Internet as we know it. I’ll take the current Internet flaws for a few more years while I can.

For more information on non-native species invading Hawaii’s ecosystem, check out this blog, from the Kohala Watershed Partnership.

For an overview of Net Neutrality – check out this Net Neutrality for Dummies Article explaining the act’s possible effects on the everyday internet user.

For a discussion on the possible lawlessness of the FCC’s control over the internet, read this blog entitled “Is the FCC Lawless?”.

Does your ISP restrict you from the public Internet?


By Art Reisman

The term, walled off Garden, is the practice of a  service provider  locking  you into their  local content.   A classic  example of the walled off garden  was exemplified by the early years of AOL. Originally when using their dial-up service,  AOL provided all the content you could want.  Access to the actual internet was  granted  by AOL only after other dial-up Internet providers started to compete with their closed offerings.  Today, using much more subtle techniques, Internet providers try to keep you on their networks.  The reason is simple, it costs them money to transfer you across a boundary to another network, and thus,  it is in their economic interest to keep you within their network.

So how do Internet service providers keep you on their network?

1) Sometimes with monetary incentives , for example, with large commercial accounts they just tell you it is going to cost more. My experience with this practice are first hand. I have heard testimonial from many of our customers running   ISPs, mostly outside the US , where they are  sold a chunk of bulk  bandwidth with conditions. The Terms are often something on the order of:

  • – you have a 1  gigabit connection
  • – if you access data outside  the country you can only use 300 megabits.
  • – If you go over 300 megabits outside the country there will hefty additional fees.

obviously there is going to be a trickle down effect where the regional ISP is going to try to discourage usage outside of the local country under such terms.

2) Then there are more passive techniques such as blatantly looking at your private traffic and just not letting off their network. This technique was used in the US,  implemented by large service providers back in the mid 2000’s.  Basically they targeted peer-to-peer requests and made sure you did not leave their network. Essentially you would only find content from other users within your providers network, even though it would appear as though you were searching the entire Internet.  Special equipment was used to intercept your requests and only allow to you probe other users within your providers network thus saving them money by avoiding Internet Exchange fees.

3) Another way your provider will try  to keep you on their network is offer local mirrored content. Basically they keep a copy of common files at a central location . In most cases this  actually causes the user no harm as they still get the same content. But it can cause problems if not done correctly, they risk sending out old data or obsolete news stories that have been updates.

4) Lastly some governments just outright block content, but this is for mostly political reasons.

Editors Note: There are also political reasons to control where you go on the Internet Practiced in China and Iran

Related Article Aol folds original content operations

Related Article: Why Caching alone won’t speed up your Internet

%d bloggers like this: