YouTube: The Unfunded Mandate

August 29, 2008 — netequalizer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See our recent article on net neutrality for more details.

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

NetEqualizer Offers Net Neutrality, User Privacy Compromise

August 12, 2008 — netequalizer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Curbing RIAA Requests on Your Student Network

August 11, 2008 — netequalizer

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

Posted in Bandwidth Monitoring, HEOA/RIAA, Support, Testimonials. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

FCC to Rule Comcast Can’t Block Web Videos

July 28, 2008 — netequalizer

The FCC is expected to make an announcement this week that could significantly affect the direction of bandwidth management in the years to come. Although it certainly can’t be said that this was unexpected, the decision could signal the beginning of an official backlash against practices that are judged to conflict with net neutrality.

Here’s what the Wall Street Journal had to say…

Washington — Federal regulators are set to announce this week that Comcast Corp. wrongly slowed some of its customers’ Internet traffic, in a victory for consumer groups and high-tech companies that have fought to keep Web traffic free from interference.

The Federal Communications Commission will rule that the cable giant violated federal policy by deliberately preventing some customers from sharing videos online via file-sharing services like BitTorrent, agency officials said. The company has acknowledged it slowed some traffic, but said it was necessary to prevent a few heavy users from overburdening its network.

The decision, expected Friday, would set an important precedent in the continuing fight about how far phone and cable companies can go to make more money from their Internet networks. Cable and phone companies are experimenting with new ways to deal with people who use a lot of bandwidth, including “Internet metering” — charging customers for the amount they use.

To read on, click here.

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

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

July 24, 2008 — netequalizer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tired of Being Asked Why the Internet Is So Slow?

July 17, 2008 — netequalizer

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.”

Posted in Testimonials. Tags: , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Ten Ways to Make Your Life as an Internet Provider Easier

July 8, 2008 — netequalizer

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

For All Providers…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For Commercial ISPs and WISPs…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 30, 2008 — netequalizer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upstream Provider: Oh, really?

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

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

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

Needless to say we rarely ever hear from them again.

Posted in Commentary and Editorials. Leave a Comment »

Telecom Industry Divided on Whether the Internet Will ‘Break’

June 26, 2008 — netequalizer

LAS VEGAS/PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — NXTcomm08 — Telecommunications professionals are split down the middle on whether increasing bandwidth demands are likely to break the Internet, according to a new survey released today. The survey showed half of respondents saying bandwidth demands will eventually break the Internet, with the other half saying they won’t. Of the fifty-one percent who see trouble ahead, one out of four think it could happen within two years.

The industry is also increasingly green about energy costs. Sixty-nine percent think energy efficiency is more important than circuit costs when constructing a network.

Tellabs and research firm IDC conducted the survey of 372 telecom industry professionals, which tracked respondents’ views on Internet use, the challenges providers face, and how those challenges will affect tomorrow’s networks. Broadband is integral to the way users work and play and is a vital part of everyday life.

“The findings of this survey make it very plain that bandwidth is not infinite,” said Lee Doyle, Group Vice President and General Manager, Network Infrastructure and Security Products and Services, IDC. “Unless there is sufficient investment into new infrastructure, the increased bandwidth demands of new advanced services could well outstrip capacity.”

The survey reveals that telecommunications professionals:

  • Are concerned the Internet will “break” – 51% are concerned that increasing bandwidth demands will “break” the Internet
  • Think power efficiency “laps” circuit costs – 69% say that in a network environment, energy consumption is more important than circuit costs
  • Think providers will do what’s necessary to clear lanes – Of the 80% who identified a way to deal with Internet congestion, 32% think providers address spikes in traffic by prioritizing via packet inspection, while 24% believe that spikes are better handled by charging more for excess bandwidth;
  • See video as a road hog – 43% believe that up to 30% of overall Internet traffic is video today, and 40% expect that to increase to up to 75% in five years
  • Believe Europe drives demand for mobile broadband – 80% expect that over the next two years, operators will face greater demand for mobile broadband services in Europe than North America;
  • Predict mobile TV use is in the fast lane – 50% say that video puts the biggest bandwidth demand on mobile networks today and 81% say that will still be true in five years.

“Internet access has become essential for millions of Americans and the appetite for bandwidth is putting pressure on service provider networks,” said Dan Kelly, executive vice president of global products for Tellabs. “Tellabs solutions enable providers to offer multiple levels of broadband offerings, based on the quality of service and the price that is right for their customers.

Tellabs polled industry professionals at NXTcomm08, the premier industry venue co-owned by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) and the United States Telecom Association (US Telecom). Tellabs conducted the survey on June 17.

Posted in News. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

Cyber Crime Feared More Than Burglary, New Study Suggests

June 9, 2008 — netequalizer

ORLANDO, Fla., June 9 /PRNewswire/ — AVG Technologies this week released the results of its own research study that showed U.S. citizens are more concerned about being the victims of cyber crime than burglary or assault.

Of the 1,000 PC users surveyed in March 2008 through market research company Ipsos, 57 percent felt that they will most likely be the victims of cyber crime with only 21 percent believing they will be victims of burglary.

These results can be linked to two key behavioral trends:

  • Very high use of the Internet for increasingly sensitive transactions:
    • 74 percent of users shop online
    • 67 percent of users bank online
    • 63 percent of users pay bills online
  • Low levels of protection with high concerns for cyber-related crime:
    • 15 percent of users surveyed didn’t know when security software was installed on their computers
    • 91percent of users agreed that cyber theft is certainly a concern

While 57 percent of users surveyed said they would most likely be the victims of cyber crime/theft, 73 percent felt confident that they were being protected by their Internet security provider.

Posted in News. Tags: . Leave a Comment »

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

May 30, 2008 — netequalizer

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

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

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

Posted in Business Advice. 1 Comment »

Number of Online Videos Viewed in the U.S. Jumps 13 Percent in March to 11.5 Billion

May 15, 2008 — netequalizer

RESTON, Va. /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ — comScore, a leader in measuring the digital world, has released March 2008 data from the comScore Video Metrix service, indicating that U.S. Internet users viewed 11.5 billion online videos during the month, representing a 13-percent gain versus February and a 64-percent gain versus March 2007.

In March, Google Sites once again ranked as the top U.S. video property with more than 4.3 billion videos viewed (38 percent share of all videos), gaining 2.6 share points versus the previous month. YouTube.com accounted for 98 percent of all videos viewed at Google Sites. Fox Interactive Media ranked second with 477 million videos (4.2 percent), followed by Yahoo! Sites with 328 million (2.9 percent) and Viacom Digital with 249 million (2.2 percent).

Nearly 139 million U.S. Internet users watched an average of 83 videos per viewer in March. Google Sites also attracted the most viewers (85.7 million), where they watched an average of 51 videos per person. Fox Interactive attracted the second most viewers (54.3 million), followed by Yahoo! Sites (37.5 million) and Viacom Digital (26.6 million).

Other notable findings from March 2008 include:

  • 73.7 percent of the total U.S. Internet audience viewed online video.
  • 84.8 million viewers watched 4.3 billion videos on YouTube.com (50.4 videos per viewer).
  • 47.7 million viewers watched 400 million videos on MySpace.com (8.4 videos per viewer).
  • The average online video duration was 2.8 minutes.
  • The average online video viewer watched 235 minutes of video.
Posted in News. Leave a Comment »

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

May 14, 2008 — netequalizer

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

Posted in Testimonials. Leave a Comment »

Thirst for Bandwidth Increases Across Branch, Internet, and Data Center

May 6, 2008 — netequalizer

NEW YORK/PRNewswire/ — Bandwidth demands at branch locations are skyrocketing, according to Nemertes Research’s Advanced Communications Services benchmark. The study found that IT executives expect an 84% increase in bandwidth available in 2008, and a 99% increase in 2009, up from a 72% increase in 2007.

“The continued demand by remote workers for high-performance collaborative and centralized business applications is the driving force behind these increases,” says Robin Gareiss, Nemertes’ executive vice president and senior founding partner.

Nemertes also found the adoption of managed services at the branch is increasing, and has been for the past three years. Now, 63% of companies use some type of managed service at the branch, compared with 46% in 2007, and 27% in 2006. Participants tend to use traditional carriers for network-based services, such as router management, WAN management and implementations. With resellers, the focus is ongoing management of applications, installation and training. With systems integrators, the focus is on design and implementation. With outsourcers, they center on network or application management.

Other key findings of the research include:

  • Video applications (including desktop, room-based and telepresence) top the list of reasons for bandwidth growth.
  • New collaborative applications, multimedia Web-based applications, and IP telephony are also drivers for bandwidth increase.
  • Management and monitoring tools are crucial for benchmarking costs, performance and utilization.
  • Robust, reliable, high-performance networks are crucial, especially in light of new applications and bandwidth requirements.
  • Optimization tools can assist with curtailing bandwidth spending and improve network monitoring.
  • Forty-nine percent of benchmark participants use managed routers or other network gear at the branch, followed by 22% using IP telephony management.
Posted in News. Leave a Comment »

Analysis: Vuze’s Allegations Are Anecdotal, But Troubling

May 1, 2008 — netequalizer

The following article recently appeared on ExtremeTech.com.

Analysis: Vuze’s Allegations Are Anecdotal, But Troubling

By Art Reisman

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

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

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

Now let’s get to Marvin’s comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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