 |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
The excerpt below is from the full article published on our blog, NetEqualizerNews.com.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
FrontDoorSoftware: Prevent, Protect, Recover…Peace of Mind
Many of our customers, especially universities and IT organizations with help desk support (educational discounts are available), offer FrontDoorSoftware to their end users. It has some amazing features, including several security tools that will help prevent theft and locate a computer if it’s ever lost or stolen.
FrontDoorSoftware inserts a virtual security ownership label that appears as soon as anyone turns on a protected computer, essentially helping you to “Lock Your Laptop’s Front Door”. This feature works to (1) prevent theft of protected equipment, (2) protect valuable information, and (3) recover lost and stolen equipment. The unique design help makes it virtually impossible for a thief to resell, or even use, a protected computer, increasing chances of recovery from just three percent to 97 percent. Owners of a lost or stolen computer can:
For more information, visit frontdoorsoftware.com. |
||||||
|
||||||
Do We Really Need IPv6 And When?
May 30, 2010 — netequalizerBy Art Reisman
Editor’s note: Art Reisman is the CTO of APconnections. APconnections designs and manufactures the popular NetEqualizer bandwidth shaper. APconnections removed all Deep Packet Inspection technology from their NetEqualizer product over two years ago.
First off, let me admit my track record is not that stellar when it comes to predicting the timing of eminent technology changes.
In 1943, Thomas Watson, the chairman of IBM forecast a world market for “maybe only five computers.” Years before IBM launched the personal computer in 1981, Xerox had already successfully designed and used PCs internally… but decided to concentrate on the production of photocopiers. Even Ken Olson, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, said in 1977, “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home” (read about other predictions that missed the mark).
As a young computer scientist 1984-ish, I would often get questions from friends on whether they needed a personal computer. I was on the same bandwagon as Ken Olsen, telling anybody that asked — my dentist, my in-laws, random strangers in the park — that it was absurd to think the average person would ever need a PC.
I did learn from my mistake and now simply understand that I really just suck at predicting consumer trends.
However, while the adoption of the personal computer was a private consumer-driven phenomenon, IPv6, on the other hand, is not a consumer issue. And, my track record as an innovator of technology for business is much better. My years of guiding engineering decisions in Bell Labs, and now running my own technology company, provide a good base for understanding the headwinds facing IPv6.
Since the transition to IPv6 is not a consumer adoption issue, it has many more parallels to the Y2K scare than the iPod. But, even then there are major differences.
Y2K had a time bomb of deadline. You could choose to ignore it, but most IT managers could not afford to be wrong, so they were played by their vendors with expensive upgrades.
My prediction is that we will not transition to IPV6 this century, and if we attempt such a change, there will be utter chaos and mayhem to the point that we will have to revert back to IPv4.
Here’s my argument:
- There is no formal central control for certification of Internet equipment. Yes, manufactures are self-proclaiming readiness, but even if they all do a relatively good and professional job of testing — even with a 99 percent accuracy — on switchover day, the day everybody starts using IPV6 address space, the cumulative errors from traffic getting lost, delayed, or bounced from the one percent of equipment with problems will bring the Internet to its knees. I don’t think the world will sit around for a few weeks or even months without the Internet while millions of pieces of routing equipment from thousands of manufacturers are retrofitted with upgrades.
- There’s no precedence. The only close precedent for changing the Internet address space would be the last time when AT&T added an extra digits to the dialing plan. At the time they controlled everything from end to end. They also had only one mission , and that was to complete a circuit from A to B. Internet routers, other than in the main backbone, do all kinds of auxiliary functions today such as firewalls, Web filtering, and optimization, hence further distancing themselves from any previous precedence.
- We have a viable workaround. Although a bit cumbersome, organizations and ISPs have been making due with a limited public address space using NetWork Address Translation for more than 10 years already. NAT can expand one Internet address into thousands. Yes, public IP addresses for every man woman child for earth and every other planet in the Milky Way is possible with IPV6, but for the forseeable future, NAT combined with the 4 billion addresses available in IPv4 should do the trick, especially given the insurmountable difficulty with a switchover.
- Phased Switchover nonsense ? The pundits of moving to IPv6 are touting a phased switchover. I am not sure what this accomplishes . If one set of users starts using a larger address range, for example, the Indian Government, they will still need to keep their original address range in order to communicate with the rest of the world. To realize the benefits of IPV6, the world as whole, will need 100 percent participation. Phased switchover by a segment of users, will only benefit vendors selling equipment.
Despite these predictions, the NetEqualier is ready for IPv6. We have already done some preliminary validation on IPv6 implementation in our NetEqualizer. In fact, we have even run on networks with IPv6 traffic without issues. While we have some work to do to make our product fully functional, we’ve already sufficiently tested enough to have confidence that if and when the IPv6 switch over happens, we will not cause any issues.
Looking To Block P2P?
May 27, 2010 — netequalizerArticle reprinted from Slyck.com
By Thomas Mennecke
Let’s face it. P2P networking takes up a considerable amount of bandwidth. Whether you are a network administrator for a college LAN (Local Area Network) or an ISP, some estimates place P2P consumption (especially BitTorrent) at 60%. However, figuring out the most practical solution for various administrators varies. Should you outright ban P2P traffic? Incorporate bandwidth throttles? NetEqualizer lets you choose from these options and much more.
ISPs are in a more precarious situation than say a college LAN administrator. If P2P traffic begins to saturate a college network, the LAN administrator does not have to worry all that much if the decision is made to filter or block file-sharing traffic. Perhaps some people may complain, but the loss of revenue is not a concern.
ISPs on the other hand must take this into heavy consideration. P2P traffic consumes an enormous amount of bandwidth compared to the amount of individuals that use it. For example, CacheLogic, a P2P measuring and network solutions firm, states P2P traffic can consume a majority of the ISPs bandwidth, easily blowing away HTTP. Comparatively, only a relative few individuals actually utilize such high consumption protocols.
So here is the tricky part. ISPs know that P2P has helped fuel the broadband revolution. While not everyone uses BitTorrent; eDonkey2000, FastTrack, Gnutella, etc. are very popular. Block P2P users, an the ISP might face a significant backlash. Throttle their bandwidth, and the ISP might have similar results.
One of the more compromising solutions has been offered from CacheLogic, which aims to make everyone happy. CacheLogic’s function is to “cache” or store common P2P files based on the frequency of search queries. Instead of P2P traffic bogging down and ISPs network, it simple searches the cache server. P2P fans are left to enjoy their file-sharing bliss and web surfers can happily surf the World Wide Web.
However, say you are not interested in making the P2P crowd happy, and catering to web surfers is the priority. Say you want to throttle or block P2P traffic completely…then APConnection’s Net Equalizer comes into play.
According to a press release issued by APConnection today, their product “Net Equalizer” will now be distributed on a worldwide scale. Net Equalizer aims to give priority to web based traffic, while throttling back those who utilized P2P software. When file-sharing traffic begins to slow down those surfing the web, its “fairness” algorithing kicks. For more information on Net Equalizer, read the FAQ here.
“The recently signed distributors have selected NetEqualizer primarily for its ability to deliver automated bandwidth control. Other features that have driven adoption include the enhancement of security offerings with the ability to block and control p2p traffic and unique quality of service (QoS) capabilities that enable distributors to include NetEqualizer as part of a service provider VoIP package.”
NetEqualizer is a stark contrast to CacheLogic, which aims to compromise rather than block or throttle P2P traffic. Regardless, NetEqaulizer’s solution is straight forward and offers and immediate solution to a network that is bogged down with P2P traffic. However, as file-sharing and P2P traffic becomes more mainstream, consumers may take into consideration whether an ISP uses NetEqualizer or CacheLogic as a network management solution.
Fourteen Tips To Make Your ISP/WISP More Profitable
May 25, 2010 — netequalizerAs the demand for Internet access continues to grow around the world, opportunities for service providers are emerging in markets far and wide. Yet, simply offering Internet service, even in untapped areas, does not guarantee long-term success. Just as quickly as your customer-base grows, the challenges facing ISPs and WISPs begin to emerge.
From competition to unhappy customers, the business venture that once seemed certain to succeed can quickly test the will of even the most battle-hardened and tech savvy business owners. However, there are ways to make the road to profitability a little smoother.
1. Make Sure You Have an Easy Customer Base to Grow into — 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. Before you build out do some demographic research.
2. Set Boundaries from the Start — When starting up a new service, don’t let your customers run wide open. You may be OK without putting rate caps on users when you have only 10 customers sharing a 10 meg link, but when you get to 100 customers 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.
3. Keep Your Network from Locking Up — Many ISPs 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 customers 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 customer 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 customers 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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. Your router or bandwidth controller likely already has this capability.
7. 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.
8. Don’t Overspend – 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 knight 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 in the current market, so plan your expenses accordingly.
9. Cross Market — What do your customers see when they login or sign up for service ? Do you send them regular e-mails about your service ? If you answered yes to either of these questions you have ready-made billboards. 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 customers 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.
10. Optimize Your Bandwidth — A NetEqualizer bandwidth controller will allow you to increase your customer 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 four months. On the other hand, purchasing additional bandwidth keeps adding up month after month.
11) Look for Creative Ways to Purchase Bandwidth — The local T1 provider is not always the lowest price. There are many Tier 1 providers out there that may have fiber within line of sight of your rural business. For example, Level 3 has fiber rings already hot in many metro areas and will be happy to sell you bandwidth. To get a low-cost high-speed link to your point of presence, numerous companies can set up with wireless backhaul equipment, which is a one time fixed cost for transport.
12) Bundle Data Service with Phone Service — Look into your options for reselling phone service with your data packages.
13) Offer a Discount for Customers that Auto-pay with Electronic Transfer or Credit Card on File — This is usually a win-win for both customer and ISP. The provider won’t have to worry about customers forgetting to pay their bill each month and the client won’t be forced to remember.
14) Offer Troubleshooting Services for Home PCs — You are a reliable tech contact point with your end customers, and likely know as much or more about PC viruses than the people giving out advice and charging for it at the local electronics superstore. You’re also likely in a rural area where good home tech support is hard to find. This would be a great source of additional revenue and you are likely already troubleshooting some home PC problems anyway, so why not make this part of your service and charge for it?
Obviously, these 14 tips won’t apply to every ISP/WISP, but it’s almost a given that at least some of these issues will emerge over time. While there’s no guarantee that any business will succeed, these tips should help steer Internet service providers in the right direction.
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.
Net Neutrality Enforcement and Debate: Will It Ever Be Settled?
May 19, 2010 — netequalizerBy Art Reisman
Editor’s note: Art Reisman is the CTO of APconnections. APconnections designs and manufactures the popular NetEqualizer bandwidth shaper. APconnections removed all Deep Packet Inspection technology from their NetEqualizer product over 2 years ago.
As the debate over net neutrality continues, we often forget what an ISP actually is and why they exist.
ISPs in this country are for-profit private companies made up of stockholders and investors who took on risk (without government backing) to build networks with the hopes of making a profit. To make a profit they must balance users expectations for performance against costs of implementing a network.
The reason bandwidth control is used in the first place is the standard switching problem capacity problem. Nobody can afford the investment of infrastructure to build a network to meet peak demands at all times. Would you build a house with 10 bedrooms if you were only expecting one or two kids sometime in the future? ISPs build networks to handle an average load, and when peak loads come along, they must do some mitigation. You can argue they should have built their networks; with more foresight until you are green, but the fact is demand for bandwidth will always outstrip supply.
So, where did the net neutrality debate get its start?
Unfortunately, in many Internet providers’ first attempt to remedy the overload issue on their networks, the layer-7 techniques they used opened a Pandora’s box of controversy that may never be settled.
When the subject of net neutrality started heating up around 2007 and 2008, the complaints from consumers revolved around ISP practices of looking inside customer’s transmittal of data and blocking or redirecting traffic based on content. There were all sorts of rationalizations for this practice and I’ll be the first to admit that it was not done with intended malice. However, the methodology was abhorrent.
I likened this practice to the phone company listening into your phone calls and deciding which calls to drop to keep their lines clear. Or, if you want to take it a step farther, the postal service making a decision to toss your junk mail based on their own private criteria. Legally I see no difference between looking inside mail or looking inside Internet traffic. It all seems to cross a line. When referring to net neutrality, the bloggers of this era were originally concerned with this sort of spying and playing God with what type of data can be transmitted.
To remedy this situation, Comcast and others adopted methods that relegated Internet usage based on patterns of usage and not content. At the time, we were happy to applaud them and claim that the problem of spying on data had been averted. I pretty much turned my attention away from the debate at that time, but I recently started looking back at the debate and, wow, what a difference a couple of years make.
So, where are we headed?
I am not sure what his sources are, but Rush Limbaugh claims that net neutrality is going to become a new fairness doctrine. To summarize, the FCC or some government body would start to use its authority to ensure equal access to content from search engine companies. For example, making sure that minority points of view on subjects got top billing in search results. This is a bit a scary, although perhaps a bit alarmist, but it would not surprise me since, once in government control, anything is possible. Yes, I realize conservative talk radio show hosts like to elicit emotional reactions, but usually there is some truth to back up their claims.
Other intelligent points of view:
The CRTC (Canadian FCC) seems to have a head on their shoulders, they have stated that ISPs must disclose their practices, but are not attempting to regulate how in some form of over reaching doctrine. Although I am not in favor of government institutions, if they must exist then the CRTC stance seems like a sane and appropriate request with regard to regulating ISPs.
Broadband in Rural America
May 13, 2010 — netequalizerBy Art Reisman, CTO, www.netequalizer.com
Art Reisman is a partner and co-founder of APconnections, a company that provides bandwidth control solutions (NetEqualizer) to ISPs, Universities, Wireless ISPs, Libraries, Mining Camps, and any organization where groups of users must share their Internet resources equitably.
“The report of my death was an exaggeration”. As with Twain’s humorous response to his death, America and our free-spending Congress must also be made aware that the accusations that, rural America is starved for broadband, are mostly false. There are literally thousands of independent broadband providers that are serving rural communities across the country. There are websites devoted to locating them and trade organizations devoted to representing them. The implied myth that somehow rural America does not have access to broadband is simply not true.
How is it possible that Rural America already has access to broadband ?
Most rural small businesses already have access to decent broadband speeds and are not stuck on dial-up. To be fair, rural broadband currently is not quite fast enough to watch unlimited YouTube, but it is certainly fast enough to allow for VoIP, E-mail, sending documents, and basic communication without the plodding of dial-up.
We support approximately 500 rural operators around the US and the world. The enabling technology for getting bandwidth to rural areas is well-established using readily available line-of-sight back haul equipment.
For example, let’s say you want to start a broadband business 80 miles southwest of Wichita, Kansas. How do you tap into the major Internet backbone? Worst case scenario is that the nearest pop to a major backbone Internet provider is in Wichita. For a few thousand dollars, you can run a microwave link from Wichita out to your town using common backhaul technology. You could then distribute broadband access to your local community using point to multipoint technology. The technology to move broadband into rural areas is not futuristic; it is a viable and profitable industry that has evolved to meet market demands.
How much bandwidth is enough for rural business needs?
We support hundreds of businesses and their bandwidth needs. From our observations, what we have found is that unless a business is specifically a content distribution or hosting company, they purchase minimal pipes, much less per capita than a consumer household.
Why? They don’t want to subsidize their employees’ YouTube and online entertainment habits. Therefore, they typically don’t need more than a T1 (1.5 meg) for an office of 20 or so employees.
As mentioned, bandwidth in rural American towns is not quite up to the same standards as major metro areas, but the service is adequate to ensure that businesses are not at a disadvantage. Most high speed connections beyond business needs are used primarily for entertainment -watching videos, playing Xbox, etc. It’s not that these activities are bad, it’s just that they are consumer activities and not related to business productivity. Hence, considering this, I would argue that a government subsidy to bring high speed into rural areas will have little additional economic impact.
The precedent of building highways to rural areas cannot be compared to broadband.
Highways did open the country to new forms of commerce, but there was a clear geographic hurdle to overcome that no commercial entity would take on. There were farm producers in rural America, vital to our GDP, that had to get product to market efficiently.
The interstate system was necessary to open the country to commerce, and I would agree that moving goods from coast-to-coast via highway certainly benefits everybody. Grain and corn from the Midwest must be brought to market through a system of feeder roads connecting into the Interstate and rail sytems. And, the only way to transport goods from anyplace must include a segment of highway.
But the Internet transports data, and there is no geographic restriction on where data gets created and consumed. So, there is not an underlying need to make use of rural america for economic reasons with respect to data. Even if there was a small business building widgets in rural America, I challenge any government official to cite one instance of a business not being able function for lack of Internet conectivity. I am able to handle my e-mail on a $49 -per-month WildBlue Internet connection, 20 miles from the nearest town, in the middle of Kansas, and my customers cannot tell the difference — and neither can I.
With broadband there is only data to transport, and unlike the geographic necessity of farm products, there is no compelling reason why it needs to be produced in rural areas. Nor is there evidence of an issue moving it from one end of the country to another, the major links between cities are already well-established.
Since Europeans are far better connected than the US, we are falling behind.
This comparison is definitely effective in convincing Americans that something drastic needs to be done about the country’s broadband deficiencies, but it needs to be kept in perspective.
While it is true the average teenagar in Europe can download and play oodles more games with much more efficiency than a poor American farmhand in rural Texas, is that really setting the country back?
Second, the population densities in Western Europe make the economics of high-speed links to everybody much more feasible than stringing lines through rural towns 40 miles apart in America’s heartland. I don’t think the Russians are trying to send gigabit lines to every village in Siberia, which would be a more realistic analogy than comparing U.S. broadband coverage to Western Europe in general.
Therefore, while the prospect of expanded broadband Internet access to rural America is appealing for many reasons, both the positive outcomes of its implementation as well as the consequences of the current broadband shortcomings must be kept in perspective. The majority of rural America is not completely bandwidth deprived. Although there are shortcomings, they are not to the extent that commerce is suffering, nor to the extent that changes will lead to a significant increase in jobs or productivity. This is not to say that rural bandwidth projects should not be undertaken, but rather that overly ambitious expectations should not be the driving force behind them.
NetEqualizer News: May 2010
May 6, 2010 — netequalizer |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
Starting this month, we’re offering all current and prospective NetEqualizer users a $150-credit toward your next NSS license. All you have to do is send us a link to your posting on a publicly accessible website featuring a short write-up or testimonial about the NetEqualizer.
For those of you who are not currently planning renewals, keep in mind that we’ll be releasing our formal IPv6 compatibility update this summer. Since the time when you’ll need to be IPv6 compatible is fast approaching, this voucher offer couldn’t have come at a better time.
If the $150 voucher wasn’t enough, also being given away through random drawings are three complementary full NSS-license renewals and three $100 Amazon gift cards.
Links must be submitted by June 1, 2010 to qualify. For more information on the voucher offer, please visit our blog.
|
||||||
|
||||||
 Whether you need a quick overview of the NetEqualizer for yourself, or a simple way to share information about the technology with a colleague, our new online guided product demonstration is the place to start. In just over seven minutes, you’ll get a clear and concise picture of how the NetEqualizer works and what the NetEqualizer can do for you. The product demonstration includes overviews of:
To see the guided product demonstration video in full, click here. For our past NetEqualizer animated video, click here. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Since being introduced earlier this month, interest in the NetEqualizer User-Quota API programmer’s toolkit has quickly been picking up steam.
This new toolkit allows NetEqualizer users to generate custom configurations to better handle bandwidth quotas as well as keep their customers informed of their individual bandwidth usage.
The NetEqualizer User-Quota API programmer’s toolkit features include:
In addition to providing the option to create separate bandwidth quotas for individual customers and reduce a customer’s Internet pipe when they have reached their set limit, customers themselves can be notified when a limit is reached and even have access to an interface to monitor current monthly usage.
For more information about the NetEqualizer User-Quota API programmer’s toolkit, click here.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Ten Things To Consider When Choosing A Bandwidth ShaperThis article is intended as an objective guide for anyone trying to narrow down their options in the bandwidth controller market. Organizations today have a plethora of product options to choose from. To further complicate your choices, not only are there specialized bandwidth controllers, you’ll also find that most firewall and router products today contain some form of bandwidth shaping and QoS features.
What follows is an all-encompassing list of questions that will help you to quickly organize your priorities with regard to choosing a bandwidth shaper.
1) What is the cost of increasing your bandwidth?
Although this question may be a bit obvious, it must be asked. We assume that anybody in the market for a bandwidth controller also has the option of increasing their bandwidth. The costs of purchasing and operating a bandwidth controller should ultimately be compared with the cost of increasing bandwidth on your network.
2) How much savings should you expect from your bandwidth controller?
|
||||||
|
||||||
APconnections would like to offer special thanks to the VARs, distributors and resellers who help us operate worldwide.
If you did not see your name on this list, let us know and we’ll be sure to mention you in our next edition. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
|
|||
|
|||||||||||||||||
Interview with Tommy Prozach NetEqualizer Reseller of the Quarter
May 4, 2010 — netequalizerApril 1 2010
Tommy Prozach
The final numbers are in for first quarter 2010, and Tommy Prozach has done it again. Tommy and his consulting business moved more NetEqualizer systems than anybody else in his age bracket.
Tommy brings a diverse background and passion to his trade. He draws from technical background and mixes that with a metaphysical zen like approach to helping customers. His diverse approach to business translates into success. Just this past week , we were fortunate enough to catch up with Tommy and learn a little bit more on his approach to life and representing NetEqualizer.
Editor: Tommy , I just read your bio and not only are you Networking Guru but I noticed you have also been very active in the Sierra Club and also in Activist activities from the 70’s , how did you stumble into Network Consulting ?
Tommy: It all started with my work at the Antarctic research station. Connectivity of all the lab equipment for data collection was of vitally important for the resident scientists to coordinate their research data . Our network tech was supposed to take a short leave days to visit his wife , and as nature would have it a storm broke out socking us in, he was unable to get back to base for over a month. Our network went down during his absence and there was nobody with formal training to fix it. So I did what I have always done, I rolled up my sleeves and got to work. With the endless Antarctic winter night there were no distractions. I learned everything I could about networking, Routers, Firewalls QOS, Window, Linux, TCP/IP. By the time the old tech was ready to come back they did not need him anymore, lazy slouch reassigned him on the spot and sent him out watch Penguins.
Editor: So how did the NetEqualizer come into play ? What got you started ?
Tommy: Well the one smart thing the old tech did was when he was ordering provisions, he picked up a NetEqualizer thinking it might come in handy. Once I had the network up and running people started complaining about their Skype calls breaking up to home. Skype was our link to our outside world ,and I soon figured out that many a large data file being sent back to the states was clobbering the link. I found the literature on the NetEq and was able to configure it in a few minutes. We were able to run all winter and keep people happy with our limited bandwidth, and I was able to relax and go back and read all the Harry Potter series without interruption.
Editor: So how did you transition from Tech to NetEqualizer Sales ?
I made quite a few contacts posting remedies for people with Network Issues that winter when I was in Antarctica. When I returned to the states I had quite a few consulting inquiries to fix the slowness on corporate networks. I ended up hiring several techs to help out, and as a group we found that many congestion situations could be solved by inserting NetEqualizer system, and now, here we are today installing NetEqualizer systems on a weekly basis.
Editors Note:
April Fools
Mention Us On Your Website And Earn Great Prizes And Discount Vouchers
May 2, 2010 — netequalizerStarting this month, we’ll offer all current and prospective NetEqualizer users a $150-credit toward your next NSS license. All you have to do is send us a link to your publicly accessible website featuring a short write-up or testimonial about the NetEqualizer.
For those of you who are not currently planning renewals, keep in mind that we will be releasing our formal IPv6 compatibility this summer. Since the time that you will need to be IPv6 compatible is fast approaching, this voucher offer couldn’t have come at a better time.
If you not currently a customer, feel free to jot some notes about why you’re considering the NetEqualizer or what you like about our technology (you don’t need to purchase anything to enter). Please feel free to be honest in your write-up, but while it doesn’t have to be a glowing review, obviously the more positive the better.
If the $150 voucher wasn’t enough, also being given away through random drawing are three complementary full NSS-license renewals and three $100 Amazon gift cards.
To qualify, your Web page must clearly identify your company or organization or the name and professional background of the poster if you’re not associated with a company.
Links must be received NO LATER THAN June 1, 2010.
We will send a voucher identifier for $150 toward your next NSS purchase, that must be redeemed no later than June 1, 2011. All vouchers will expire on June 1, 2011.
For more information, or to email your link, contact us at admin@apconnections.net.
Using NetEqualizer to Ensure Clean, Clear QoS for VOIP Calls
April 27, 2010 — netequalizerA Little Bit of History
Many VoIP installations are designed with an initial architecture that assumes inter-office phone calls will reside within the confines of the company LAN. Internal LANs are almost always 100 megabit and consist of multiple paths between end points. The basic corporate LAN design usually provides more than enough bandwidth to route all inter-office VoIP calls without congestion.
As enterprises become more dispersed geographically, care must be taken when extending VoIP calls beyond the main office. Once a VoIP call leaves the confines of your local network and traverses over the public Internet link, it will have to compete for space with any data traffic that might also be destined for the Internet. Without careful planning, your Enterprise will most likely start dropping VoIP calls during busy traffic times.
The most common way of dealing with priority or VoIP is to set what is called the TOS bit. The TOS bit acts like a little flag inside each Internet packet of the VoIP stream. An Internet router can rearrange the packets destined for the Internet, and give priority to the outgoing VoIP packets by looking at the TOS bit. The downside of this method is that it does not help with VoIP calls originating from the outside coming into your network. For example, somebody receiving a VoIP call in the main office from a VPN user working at home, may experience some distortion on the incoming VoIP call. This is usually caused when somebody else in the office is doing a large download during the VoIP call. Routers typically cannot set priority on incoming data, hence the inbound data download can dominate all the bandwidth, rendering the VoIP call inaudible.
How NetEqualizer Solves VoIP Congestion Issues
The NetEqualizer solves the problem of VoIP traffic competing with regular data traffic by using a simple method. A NetEqualizer provides priority for both incoming and outgoing VoIP traffic . It does not use TOS bits. It is VoIP and Network agnostic. Sounds like the old Saturday Night Live commercial where Chevy Chase hawks a floor cleaner that is also an ice cream topping.
Here is how it works…
It turns out that VoIP streams require no more than 100kbs per call, usually quite a bit less. Large downloads, on the other hand, will grab the entire Internet Trunk if they can get it. The NetEqualizer has been designed to favor streams of less than 100kbs over larger data streams. When a large download is competing with a VoIP call for precious resources, the NetEqualizer will create some artificial latency on the download stream causing it to back off and slow down. No need to rely on TOS bits in this scenario, problem solved.
Conceptually, that is all there is to it. Obviously, the NetEqualizer engineering team has refined and tuned this technique over the years. In general, the NetEqualizer Default Rules need very little set-up, and a unit can be inline in a matter of minutes.
The scenarios where NetEqualizer is appropriate for ensuring that your VoIP system runs smoothly are:
- You are running an Enterprise VoIP service with remote offices that connect to your main PBX over VPN links
- You are an ISP and your customers use a VoIP service over limited bandwidth connectivity
Recommended Reading
Other vendor White Papers on the subject: River Bed
Other suggested reading: http://www.bandwidth.com/wiki/article/QoS_(Quality_of_Service)
Building a Software Company from Scratch
April 24, 2010 — netequalizerBy Art Reisman, CEO, CTO, and co-founder of APconnections, Inc.
Adapted from an article first published in Entrepreneurship.org and updated with new material in April 2010.
At APconnections, our flagship product, NetEqualizer, is a traffic management and WAN optimization tool. Rather than using compression and caching techniques, NetEqualizer analyzes connections and then doles out bandwidth to them based on preset rules. We look at every connection on the network and compare it to the overall trunk size to determine how to eliminate congestion on the links. NetEqualizer also prevents peer-to-peer traffic from slowing down higher-priority application traffic without shutting down those connections.
When we started the company, we had lots of time, very little cash, some software development skills, and a technology idea. This article covers a couple of bootstrapping pearls of wisdom 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. Proprietary extensions 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. However, 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 sign-up 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 to rapid growth. But as a bootstrapping tool, direct selling has rewarded us with loyal customers, better margins, and many 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 in the marketplace.
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 testimonials. (Check out our Web site to see some of the ways we use testimonials.)
Conclusion
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.
Here are some notes on what type product to create. Obviously, you’ll want to do something you are passionate about, otherwise there is no sense in even getting started. If you are passionate about more than one thing remember this: trying to sell product on value, to IT people or engineering types, is much harder than selling to other Entrepreneurs or sales people. Technical people are generally skeptical about new claims of something working well. Also, unless somebody asks, they often really don’t tell many other people about the product they bought and the value they are receiving from it.
Looking for a peer group to get some advice from? Find a local software group that you can join. If you are in the Denver area, I would recommend trying http://www.denversoftware.org/
*Preview Version* of NetEqualizer Online Guided Product Demonstration Video
April 20, 2010 — netequalizerClick on the picture below to see our new YouTube video (7:46 min) walkthrough of our technology. Please note that the buttons listed on the last slide are not yet available. We will update this post when they are available on our website…
NetEqualizer chosen as role model bandwidth controller for HEOA
April 19, 2010 — netequalizerJust ran across this posting where Educause recommended the NetEqualizer solution as role model for bandwidth control in meeting HEOA requirements.
Pomona College and Reed College were sited as two schools currently deploying Netequalizer equipment.
Related Article from Ars Techica website also discusses approaches schools are using to meet HEOA rules.
About Educause:
EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit association whose mission is to advance higher education by promoting the intelligent use of information technology. EDUCAUSE helps those who lead, manage, and use information resources to shape strategic decisions at every level. A comprehensive range of resources and activities is available to all interested employees at EDUCAUSE member organizations, with special opportunities open to designated member representatives.
About HEOA:
The Higher Education Opportunity Act (Public Law 110-315) (HEOA) was enacted on August 14, 2008, and reauthorizes the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). This page provides information on the Department’s implementation of the HEOA.
Some parts of the law will be implemented through new or revised regulations. The negotiated rulemaking process will be used for some regulations, as explained below. Other areas will be regulated either through the usual notice and comment process or, where regulations will merely reflect the changes to the HEA and not expand upon those changes, as technical changes.
Ten Things to Consider When Choosing a Bandwidth Shaper
April 18, 2010 — netequalizerThis article is intended as an objective guide for anyone trying to narrow down their options in the bandwidth controller market. Organizations today have a plethora of product options to choose from. To further complicate your choices, not only are there specialized bandwidth controllers, you’ll also find that most Firewall and Router products today contain some form of bandwidth shaping and QoS features .
What follows is an all-encompassing list of questions that will help you to quickly organize your priorities with regards to choosing a bandwidth shaper.
1) What is the Cost of Increasing your Bandwidth?
Although this question may be a bit obvious, it must be asked. We assume that anybody in the market for a bandwidth controller also has the option of increasing their bandwidth. The costs of purchasing and operating a bandwidth controller should ultimately be compared with the cost of increasing bandwidth on your network.
2) How much Savings should you expect from your Bandwidth Controller?
A good bandwidth controller in many situations can increase your carrying capacity by up to 50 percent. However, beware, some technologies designed to optimize your network can create labor overhead in maintenance hours. Labor costs with some solutions can far exceed the cost of adding bandwidth.
3) Can you out-run your Organization’s Appetite for Increased Bandwidth with a One-Time Bandwidth Upgrade?
The answer is yes, it is possible to buy enough bandwidth such that all your users cannot possibly exhaust the supply. The bad news is that this solution is usually cost-prohibitive. Many organizations that come to us have previously doubled their bandwidth, sometimes more than once, only to be back to overwhelming congestion within a few months after their upgrade. The appetite for bandwidth is insatiable, and in our opinion, at some point a bandwidth control device becomes your only rational option. Outrunning your user base usually is only possible where Internet infrastructure is subsidized by a government entity, hiding the true costs. For example, a small University with 1000 students will likely not be able to consume a true 5 Gigabit pipe, but purchasing a pipe of that size would be out of reach for most US-based Universities.
4) How Valuable is Your Time? Are you a Candidate for a Freeware-type Solution?
What we have seen in the market place is that small shops with high technical expertise, or small ISPs on a budget, can often make use of a freeware do-it-yourself bandwidth control solution. If you are cash-strapped, this may be a viable solution for you. However, please go into this with your eyes open. The general pitfalls and risks are as follows:
a) Staff can easily run up 80 or more hours trying to save a few thousand dollars fiddling with an unsupported solution. And this is only for the initial installation & set-up. Over the useful life of the solution, this can continue at a high-level, due to the unsupported nature of these technologies.
b) Investors do not like to invest in businesses with homegrown technology, for many reasons, including finding personnel to sustain the solution, upgrading and adding features, as well as overall risk of keeping it in working order, unless it gives them a very large competitive advantage. You can easily shoot yourself in the foot with prospective buyers by becoming too dependent on homegrown, freeware solutions, in order to save costs. When you rely on something homegrown, it generally means an employee or two holds the keys to the operational knowledge, hence potential buyers can become uncomfortable (you would be too!).
5) Are you Looking to Enforce Bandwidth Limits as part of a Rate Plan that you Resell to Clients?
For example , let’s say that you have a good-sized backbone of bandwidth at a reasonable cost per megabit, and you just want to enforce class of service speeds to sell your bandwidth in incremental revenue chunks.
If this is truely your only requirement, and not optimization to support high contention ratios, then you should be careful not to overspend on your solution. A basic NetEqualizer or Allot system may be all that you need. You can also most likely leverage the bandwidth control features bundled into your Router or Firewall. The thing to be careful of if using your Router/Firewall is that these devices can become overwhelmed due to lack of horsepower.
6) Are you just Trying to Optimize the Bandwidth that you have, based on Well-Known Priorities?
Some context:
If you have a very static network load, with a finite well-defined set of applications running through your enterprise, there are application shaping (Layer-7 shaping) products out there such as the Blue Coat PacketShaper,which uses deep packet inspection, that can be set up once to allocate different amounts bandwidth based on application. If the PacketShaper is a bit too pricey, the Cymphonics product can also detect most common applications.
If you are trying to optimize your bandwidth on a variable, wide-open plethora of applications, then you may find yourself with extremely high maintenance costs by using a Layer-7 application shaper. A generic behavior-based product such as the NetEqualizer will do the trick.
Update 2015
Note : We are seeing quite a bit of Encryption on common applications. We strongly recommend avoiding layer 7 type devices for public Internet traffic as the accuracy is diminishing due to the fact that encrypted traffic is UN-classifieble , a heuristics based behavior based approach is advised
7) Make sure what looks elegant on the cover does not have hidden costs by doing a little research on the Internet.
Yes this is an obvious one too, but lest you forget your due diligence!
Before purchasing any traffic shaping solution you should try a simple internet search with well placed keywords to uncover objective opinions. Current testimonials supplied by the vendor are a good source of information, but only tell half the story. Current customers are always biased toward their decision sometimes in the face of ignoring a better solution.
If you are not familiar with this technology, nor have the in-house expertise to work with a traffic shaper, you may want to consider buying additional bandwidth as your solution. In order to assess if this is a viable solution for you, we recommend you think about the following: How much bandwidth do you need ? What is the appropriate amount for your ISP or organization? We actually dedicated a complete article to this question.
8) Are you a Windows Shop? Do you expect a Microsoft-based solution due to your internal expertise?
With all respect to Microsoft and the strides they have made toward reliability in their server solutions, we believe that you should avoid a Windows-based product for any network routing or bandwidth control mission.
To be effective, a bandwidth control device must be placed such that all traffic is forced to pass through the device. For this reason, all manufacturers that we are aware of develop their network devices using a derivative of Linux. Linux-based is based on Open Source, which means that an OEM can strip down the operating system to its simplest components. The simpler operating system in your network device, the less that can go wrong. However, with Windows the core OS source code is not available to third-party developers, hence an OEM may not always be able to track down serious bugs. This is not to say that bugs do not occur in Linux, they do, however the OEM can often get a patch out quickly.
For the Windows IT person trained on Windows, a well-designed networking device presents its interface via a standard web page. Hence, a technician likely needs no specific Linux background.
9) Are you a CIO (or C level Executive) Looking to Automate and Reduce Costs ?
Bandwidth controllers can become a means to do cool things with a network. Network Administrators can get caught up reading fancy reports, making daily changes, and interpreting results, which can become extremely labor-intensive. There is a price/benefit crossover point where a device can create more work (labor cost) than bandwidth saved. We have addressed this paradox in detail in a previous article.
10) Do you have any Legal or Political Requirement to Maintain Logs or Show Detailed Reports to a Third-Party (i.e. management ,oversight committee, etc.)?
For example…
A government requirement to provide data wire taps dictated by CALEA?
Or a monthly report on employee Internet behavior?
Related article how to choose the right bandwidth management solution
Links to other bandwidth control products on the market.
Packet Shaper by Blue Coat
NetEqualizer ( my favorite)
Exinda Packet Shaper and Riverbed tend to focus on the enterprise WAN optimization market.
Cymphonix comes from a background of detailed reporting.
Very solid product for bandwidth shaping.
Exinda from Australia has really made a good run in the US market offering a good alternative to the incumbants.
For those of you who are wed to Windows NetLimiter is your answer
NetEqualizer News Blog 
The Promise of Streaming Video: An Unfunded Mandate
June 1, 2010 — netequalizerBy Art Reisman, CTO, www.netequalizer.com
Art Reisman is a partner and co-founder of APconnections, a company that provides bandwidth control solutions (NetEqualizer) to ISPs, Universities, Libraries, Mining Camps, and any organization where groups of users must share their Internet resources equitably. What follows is an objective educational journey on how consumers and ISPs can live in harmony with the explosion of YouTube video.
The following is written primarily for the benefit of mid-to-small sized internet services providers (ISPs). However, home consumers may also find the details interesting. Please follow along as I break down the business cost model of the costs required to keep up with growing video demand.
In the past few weeks, two factors have come up in conversations with our customers, which has encouraged me to investigate this subject further and outline the challenges here:
1) Many of our ISP customers are struggling to offer video at competitive levels during the day, and yet are being squeezed due to high bandwidth costs. Many look to the NetEqualizer to alleviate video congestion problems. As you know, there are always trade-offs to be made in handling any congestion issue, which I will discuss at the end of this article. But back to the subject at hand. What I am seeing from customers is that there is an underlying fear that they (IT adminstrators) are behind the curve. As I have an opinion on this, I decided I need to lay out what is “normal” in terms of contention ratios for video, as well what is “practical” for video in today’s world.
2) My internet service provider, a major player that heavily advertises how fast their speed is to the home, periodically slows down standard YouTube Videos. I should be fair with my accusation, with the Internet you can actually never be quite certain who is at fault. Whether I am being throttled or not, the point is that there are an ever-growing number of video content providers , who are pushing ahead with plans that do not take into account, nor care about, a last mile provider’s ability to handle the increased load. A good analogy would be a travel agency that is booking tourists onto a cruise ship without keeping a tally of tickets sold, nor caring, for that matter. When all those tourists show up to board the ship, some form of chaos will ensue (and some will not be able to get on the ship at all).
Some ISPs are also adding to this issue, by building out infrastructure without regard to content demand, and hoping for the best. They are in a tight spot, getting caught up in a challenging balancing act between customers, profit, and their ability to actually deliver video at peak times.
The Business Cost Model of an ISP trying to accommodate video demands
Almost all ISPs rely on the fact that not all customers will pull their full allotment of bandwidth all the time. Hence, they can map out an appropriate subscriber ratio for their network, and also advertise bandwidth rates that are sufficient enough to handle video. There are four main governing factors on how fast an actual consumer circuit will be:
1) The physical speed of the medium to the customer’s front door (this is often the speed cited by the ISP)
2) The combined load of all customers sharing their local circuit and the local circuit’s capacity (subscriber ratio factors in here)
3) How much bandwidth the ISP contracts out to the Internet (from the ISP’s provider)
4) The speed at which the source of the content can be served (Youtube’s servers), we’ll assume this is not a source of contention for our examples below, but it certainly should remain a suspect in any finger pointing of a slow circuit.
The actual limit to the am0unt of bandwidth a customer gets at one time, which dictates whether they can run a live streaming video, usually depends on how oversold their ISP is (based on the “subscriber ratio” mentioned in points 1 and 2 above). If your ISP can predict the peak loads of their entire circuit correctly, and purchase enough bulk bandwidth to meet that demand (point 3 above), then customers should be able to run live streaming video without interruption.
The problem arises when providers put together a static set of assumptions that break down as consumer appetite for video grows faster than expected. The numbers below typify the trade-offs a mid-sized provider is playing with in order to make a profit, while still providing enough bandwidth to meet customer expectations.
1) In major metropolitan areas, as of 2010, bandwidth can be purchased in bulk for about $3000 per 50 megabits. Some localities less some more.
2) ISPs must cover a fixed cost per customer amortized: billing, sales staff, support staff, customer premise equipment, interest on investment , and licensing, which comes out to about $35 per month per customer.
3) We assume market competition fixes price at about $45 per month per customer for a residential Internet customer.
4) This leaves $10 per month for profit margin and bandwidth fees. We assume an even split: $5 a month per customer for profit, and $5 per month per customer to cover bandwidth fees.
With 50 megabits at $3000 and each customer contributing $5 per month, this dictates that you must share the 50 Megabit pipe amongst 600 customers to be viable as a business. This is the governing factor on how much bandwidth is available to all customers for all uses, including video.
So how many simultaneous YouTube Videos can be supported given the scenario above?
Live streaming YouTube video needs on average about 750kbs , or about 3/4 of a megabit, in order to run without breaking up.
On a 50 megabit shared link provided by an ISP, in theory you could support about 70 simultaneous YouTube sessions, assuming nothing else is running on the network. In the real world there would always be background traffic other than YouTube.
In reality, you are always going to have a minimum fixed load of internet usage from 600 customers of approximately 10-to-20 megabits. The 10-to-20 megabit load is just to support everything else, like web sufing, downloads, skype calls, etc. So realistically you can support about 40 YouTube sessions at one time. What this implies that if 10 percent of your customers (60 customers) start to watch YouTube at the same time you will need more bandwidth, either that or you are going to get some complaints. For those ISPs that desperately want to support video, they must count on no more than about 40 simultaneous videos running at one time, or a little less than 10 percent of their customers.
Based on the scenario above, if 40 customers simultaneously run YouTube, the link will be exhausted and all 600 customers will be wishing they had their dial-up back. At last check, YouTube traffic accounted for 10 percent of all Internet Traffic. If left completely unregulated, a typical rural ISP could find itself on the brink of saturation from normal YouTube usage already. With tier-1 providers in major metro areas, there is usually more bandwidth, but with that comes higher expectations of service and hence some saturation is inevitable.
This is why we believe that Video is currently an “unfunded mandate”. Based on a reasonable business cost model, as we have put forth above, an ISP cannot afford to size their network to have even 10% of their customers running real-time streaming video at the same time. Obviously, as bandwidth costs decrease, this will help the economic model somewhat.
However, if you still want to tune for video on your network, consider the options below…
NetEqualizer and Trade-offs to allow video
If you are not a current NetEqualizer user, please feel free to call our engineering team for more background. Here is my short answer on “how to allow video on your network” for current NetEqualizer users:
1) You can determine the IP address ranges for popular sites and give them priority via setting up a “priority host”.
This is not recommended for customers with 50 megs or less, as generally this may push you over into a gridlock situation.
2) You can raise your HOGMIN to 50,000 bytes per second.
This will generally let in the lower resolution video sites. However, they may still incur Penalities should they start buffering at a higher rate than 50,000. Again, we would not recommend this change for customers with pipes of 50 megabits or less.
With either of the above changes you run the risk of crowding out web surfing and other interactive uses , as we have described above. You can only balance so much Video before you run out of room. Please remember that the Default Settings on the NetEq are designed to slow video before the entire network comes to halt.
For more information, you can refer to another of Art’s articles on the subject of Video and the Internet: How much YouTube can the Internet Handle?
Other blog posts about ISPs blocking YouTube
Share this: