A Brief History of Peer to Peer File Sharing and the Attempts to Block It

February 8, 2013 — netequalizer

By Art Reisman

The following history is based on my notes and observations as both a user of peer to peer, and as a network engineer tasked with cleaning  it up.

Round One, Napster, Centralized Server, Circa 2002

Napster was a centralized service, unlike the peer to peer behemoths of today there was never any question of where the copyrighted material was being stored and pirated from. Even though Napster did not condone pirated music and movies on their site, the courts decided by allowing copyrighted material to exist on their servers, they were in violation of copyright law. Napster’s days of free love were soon over.

From an historic perspective the importance of the decision to force the shut down of Napster was that it gave rise to a whole new breed of p2p applications. We detailed this phenomenon in our 2008 article.

Round Two, Mega-Upload  Shutdown, Centralized Server, 2012

We again saw a doubling down on p2p client sites (they expanded) when the Mega-Upload site, a centralized sharing site, was shutdown back in Jan 2012.

“On the legal side, the recent widely publicized MegaUpload takedown refocused attention on less centralized forms of file sharing (i.e. P2P). Similarly, improvements in P2P technology coupled with a growth in file sharing file size from content like Blue-Ray video also lead many users to revisit P2P.”

Read the full article from deepfield.net

The shut down of Mega-Upload had a personal effect on me as I had used it to distribute a 30 minute account from a 92-year-old WWII vet where he recalled, in oral detail, his experience of surviving a German prison camp.

Blocking by Signature, Alias Layer 7 Shaping, Alias Deep packet inspection. Late 1990’s till present

Initially, the shining star savior in the forefront against spotting illegal content on your network, this technology can be expensive and fail miserably in the face of newer encrypted p2p applications. It also can get quite expensive to keep up with the ever changing application signatures, and yet it is still often the first line of defense attempted by ISPs.

We covered this topic in detail, in our recent article,  Layer 7 Shaping Dying With SSL.

Blocking by Website

Blocking the source sites where users download their p2p clients is still possible. We see this method applied at mostly private secondary schools, where content blocking is an accepted practice. This method does not work for computers and devices that already have p2p clients. Once loaded, p2p files can come from anywhere and there is no centralized site to block.

Blocking Uninitiated Requests. Circa Mid-2000

The idea behind this method is to prevent your Network from serving up any content what so ever! Sounds a bit harsh, but the average Internet consumer rarely, if ever, hosts anything intended for public consumption. Yes at one time, during the early stages of the Internet, my geek friends would set up home pages similar to what everybody exposes on Facebook today. Now, with the advent hosting sites, there is just no reason for a user to host content locally, and thus, no need to allow access from the outside. Most firewalls have a setting to disallow uninitiated requests into your network (obviously with an exemption for your publicly facing servers).

We actually have an advanced version of this feature in our NetGladiator security device. We watch each IP address on your internal network and take note of outgoing requests, nobody comes in unless they were invited. For example, if we see a user on the Network make a request to a Yahoo Server , we expect a response to come back from a Yahoo server; however if we see a Yahoo server contact a user on your network without a pending request, we block that incoming request. In the world of p2p this should prevent an outside client from requesting a receiving a copyrighted file hosted on your network, after all no p2p client is going to randomly send out invites to outside servers or would they?

I spent a few hours researching this subject, and here is what I found (this may need further citations). It turns out that p2p distribution may be a bit more sophisticated and has ways to get around the block uninitiated query firewall technique.

P2P networks such as Pirate Bay use a directory service of super nodes to keep track of what content peers have and where to find them. When you load up your p2p client for the first time, it just needs to find one super node to get connected, from there it can start searching for available files.

Note: You would think that if these super nodes were aiding and abetting in illegal content that the RIAA could just shut them down like they did Napster. There are two issues with this assumption:
1) The super nodes do not necessarily host content, hence they are not violating any copyright laws. They simply coordinate the network in the same way DNS service keep track of URL names and were to find servers.
2) The super nodes are not hosted by Pirate Bay, they are basically commandeered from their network of users, who unwittingly or unknowingly agree to perform this directory service when clicking the license agreement that nobody ever reads.

From my research I have talked to network administrators that claim despite blocking uninitiated outside requests on their firewalls, they still get RIAA notices. How can this be?

There are only two ways this can happen.

1) The RIAA is taking liberty to simply accuse a network of illegal content based on the directory listings of a super node. In other words if they find a directory on a super node pointing to copyrighted files on your network, that might be information enough to accuse you.

2) More likely, and much more complex, is that the Super nodes are brokering the transaction as a condition of being connected. Basically this means that when a p2p client within your network, contacts a super node for information, the super node directs the client to send data to a third-party client on another network. Thus the send of information from the inside of your network looks to the firewall as if it was initiated from within. You may have to think about this, but it makes sense.

Behavior based thwarting of p2p. Circa 2004 – NetEqualizer

Behavior-based shaping relies on spotting the unique footprint of a client sending and receiving p2p applications. From our experience, these clients just do not know how to lay low and stay under the radar. It’s like the criminal smuggling drugs doing 100 MPH on the highway, they just can’t help themselves. Part of the p2p methodology is to find as many sources of files as possible, and then, download from all sources simultaneously. Combine this behavior with the fact that most p2p consumers are trying to build up a library of content, and thus initiating many file requests, and you get a behavior footprint that can easily be spotted. By spotting this behavior and making life miserable for these users, you can achieve self compliance on your network.

Read a smarter way to block p2p traffic.

Blocking the RIAA probing servers

If you know where the RIAA is probing from you can deny all traffic to their probes and thus prevent the probe of files on your network, and ensuing nasty letters to desist.

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

What Does Net Privacy Have to Do with Bandwidth Shaping?

April 1, 2011 — netequalizer

I definitely understand the need for privacy. Obviously, if I was doing something nefarious, I wouldn’t want it known, but that’s not my reason. Day in and day out, measures are taken to maintain my privacy in more ways than I probably even realize. You’re likely the same way.

For example, to avoid unwanted telephone and mail solicitations, you don’t advertise your phone numbers or give out your address. When you buy something with your credit card, you usually don’t think twice about your card number being blocked out on the receipt. If you go to the pharmacist, you take it for granted that the next person in line has to be a certain distance behind so they can’t hear what prescription you’re picking up. The list goes on and on. For me personally, I’m sure there are dozens, if not hundreds, of good examples why I appreciate privacy in my life. This is true in my daily routines as well as in my experiences online.

The topic of Internet privacy has been raging for years. However, the Internet still remains a hotbed for criminal activity and misuse of personal information. Email addresses are valued commodities sold to spammers. Search companies have dedicated countless bytes of storage to every search term and IP address made. Websites place tracking cookies on your system so they can learn more about your Web travels, habits, likes, dislikes, etc.  Forensically, you can tell a lot about a person from their online activities. To be honest, it’s a little creepy.

Maybe you think this is much ado about nothing. Why should you care? However, you may recall that less than four years ago, AOL accidentally released around 20 million search keywords from over 650,000 users. Now, those 650,000 users and their searches will exist forever in cyberspace.  Could it happen again? Of course, why wouldn’t it happen again since all it takes is a packed laptop to walk out the door?

Internet privacy is an important topic, and as a result, technology is becoming more and more available to help people protect information they want to keep confidential. And that’s a good thing. But what does this have to do with bandwidth management? In short, a lot (no pun intended)!

Many bandwidth management products (from companies like Blue Coat, Allot, and Exinda, for example) intentionally work at the application level. These products are commonly referred to as Layer 7 or Deep Packet Inspect tools. Their mission is to allocate bandwidth specifically by what you’re doing on the Internet. They want to determine how much bandwidth you’re allowed for YouTube, Netflix, Internet games, Facebook, eBay, Amazon, etc. They need to know what you’re doing so they can do their job.

In terms of this article, whether you’re philosophically adamant about net privacy (like one of the inventors of the Internet), or could care less, is really not important. The question is, what happens to an application-managed approach when people take additional steps to protect their own privacy?

For legitimate reasons, more and more people will be hiding their IPs, encrypting, tunneling, or otherwise disguising their activities and taking privacy into their own hands. As privacy technology becomes more affordable and simple, it will become more prevalent. This is a mega-trend, and it will create problems for those management tools that use this kind of information to enforce policies.

However, alternatives to these application-level products do exist, such as “fairness-based” bandwidth management. Fairness-based bandwidth management, like the NetEqualizer, is the only a 100% neutral solution and ultimately provides a more privacy friendly approach for Internet users and a more effective solution for administrators when personal privacy protection technology is in place. Fairness is the idea of managing bandwidth by how much you can use, not by what you’re doing. When you manage bandwidth by fairness instead of activity, not only are you supporting a neutral, private Internet, but you’re also able to address the critical task of bandwidth allocation, control and quality of service.

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

What Is Deep Packet Inspection and Why the Controversy?

February 8, 2011 — netequalizer

By Art Reisman

Art Reisman CTO www.netequalizer.com

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.

Article Updated March 2012

As the debate over Deep Packet Inspection continues, network administrators are often faced with a difficult decision: ensure network quality or protect user privacy. However, the legality of the practice is now being called into question, adding a new twist to the mix. Yet, for many Internet users, deep packet inspection continues to be an ambiguous term in need of explanation. In the discussion that follows, deep packet inspection will be explored in the context of the ongoing debate.

Exactly what is deep packet inspection?

All traffic on the Internet travels around in what is called an IP packet. An IP packet is a string of characters moving from computer A to computer B. On the outside of this packet is the address where it is being sent. On the inside of the packet is the data that is being transmitted.

The string of characters on the inside of the packet can be conceptually thought of as the “payload,” much like the freight inside of a railroad car. These two elements, the address and the payload, comprise the complete IP packet.

When you send an e-mail across the Internet, all your text is bundled into packets and sent on to its destination. A deep packet inspection device literally has the ability to look inside those packets and read your e-mail (or whatever the content might be).

Products sold that use DPI are essentially specialized snooping devices that examine the content (pay load inside) of Internet packets. Other terms sometimes used to describe techniques that examine Internet data are packet shapers, layer-7 traffic shaping, etc.

How is deep packet inspection related to net neutrality?

Net neutrality is based on the belief that nobody has the right to filter content on the Internet. Deep packet inspection is a method used for filtering. Thus, there is a conflict between the two approaches. The net neutrality debate continues to rage in its own right.

Why do some Internet providers use deep packet inspection devices?

There are several reasons:

1) Targeted advertising — If a provider knows what you are reading, they can display content advertising on the pages they control, such as your login screen or e-mail account.

2) Reducing “unwanted” traffic — Many providers are getting overwhelmed by types of traffic that they deem as less desirable such as Bittorrent and other forms of peer-to-peer. Bittorrent traffic can overwhelm a network with volume. By detecting and redirecting the Bittorrent traffic, or slowing it down, a provider can alleviate congestion.

3) Block offensive material — Many companies or institutions that perform content filtering are looking inside packets to find, and possibly block, offensive material or web sites.

4) Government spying — In the case of Iran (and to some extent China), DPI is used to keep tabs on the local population.

When is it appropriate to use deep packet inspection?

1) Full disclosure — Private companies/institutions/ISPs that notify employees that their Internet use is not considered private have the right to snoop, although I would argue that creating an atmosphere of mistrust is not the mark of a healthy company.

2) Law enforcement — Law enforcement agencies with a warrant issued by a judge would be the other legitimate use.

3) Intrusion detection and prevention– It is one thing to be acting as an ISP  and to eaves drop on a public conversation;  it is entirely another paradigm if you are a  private business examining the behavior of somebody  coming in your front door. For example in a private home it is within your right to look through your peep hole and not let shady characters into your home.  In a private business it is a good idea to use Deep packet inspection in order to block unwanted intruders from your network. Blocking bad guys before they break into and damage your network and is perfectly acceptable.

4) Spam filtering- Most consumers are very happy to have their ISP or email provider remove spam.  I would categorize this type of DPI as implied disclosure. For example, in Gmail you do have the option to turn Spam filtering off, and although most consutomers may not realize that google is reading their mail ( humans don’t read it but computer scanners do), their motives are understood. What consumers may not realize is that their email provider is also reading everything they do in order to set target advertising

Does Content filtering use Deep Packet Inspection ?

For the most part no. Content filtering is generally  done at the URL level. URL’s are generally considered public information, as routers need to look this up anyway. We have only encountered content filters at private institutions that are within their right.

What about spam filtering, does that use Deep Packet Inspection?

Yes many Spam filters will look at content, and most people could not live without their spam filter, however with spam filtering most people have opted in at one point or another, hence it is generally done with permission.

What is all the fuss about?

It seems that consumers are finally becoming aware of what is going on behind the scenes as they surf the Internet, and they don’t like it. What follows are several quotes and excerpts from articles written on the topic of deep packet inspection. They provide an overview not only of how DPI is currently being used, but also the many issues that have been raised with the practice.

For example, this is an excerpt from a recent PC world article:

Not that we condone other forms of online snooping, but deep packet inspection is the most egregious and aggressive invasion of privacy out there….It crosses the line in a way that is very frightening.

— Paul Stephens, director of policy and advocacy for the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, as quoted in the E-Commerce Times on November 14, 2008. Read the full article here.

Recently, Comcast had their hand slapped for re-directing Bittorrent traffic:

Speaking at the Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said he’s considering taking action against the cable operator for violating the agency’s network-neutrality principles. Seems Martin was troubled by Comcast’s dissembling around the BitTorrent issue, not to mention its efforts to pack an FCC hearing on Net neutrality with its own employees.

— Digital Daily, March 10, 2008. Read the full article here.

Later in 2008, the FCC came down hard on Comcast.

In a landmark ruling, the Federal Communications Commission has ordered Comcast to stop its controversial practice of throttling file sharing traffic.

By a 3-2 vote, the commission on Friday concluded that Comcast monitored the content of its customers’ internet connections and selectively blocked peer-to-peer connections.

— Wired.com, August 1, 2008.Read the full article here.

To top everything off, some legal experts are warning companies practicing deep packet inspection that they may be committing a felony.

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

— Wired.com, May 22, 2008. Read the full article here.

However, it looks like things are going the other way in the U.K. as Britain’s Virgin Media has announced they are dumping net neutrality in favor of targeting bittorrent.

The UK’s second largest ISP, Virgin Media, will next year introduce network monitoring technology to specifically target and restrict BitTorrent traffic, its boss has told The Register.

— The Register, December 16, 2008. Read the full article here.

Canadian ISPs confess en masse to deep packet inspection in January 2009.

With the amount of attention being paid to Comcast recently, a lot of people around the world have begun to look at their ISPs and wonder exactly what happens to their traffic once it leaves. This is certainly true for Canada, where several Canadian ISPs have come under the scrutiny of the CRTC, the regulatory agency responsible for Canada. After investigation, it was determined that all large ISPs in Canada filter P2P traffic in some fashion.

— Tech Spot, January 21, 2009. Read the full article here.

In April 2009, U.S. lawmakers announced plans to introduce legislation that would limit the how ISPs could track users. Online privacy advocates spoke out in support of such legislation.

In our view, deep packet inspection is really no different than postal employees opening envelopes and reading letters inside. … Consumers simply do not expect to be snooped on by their ISPs or other intermediaries in the middle of the network, so DPI really defies legitimate expectations of privacy that consumers have.

— Leslie Harris, president and CEO of the Center for Democracy and Technology, as quoted on PCWorld.com on April 23, 2009. Read the full article here.

The controversy continues in the U.S. as AT&T is accused of traffic shaping, lying and blocking sections of the Internet.

7/26/2009 could mark a turning point in the life of AT&T, when the future looks back on history, as the day that the shady practices of an ethically challenged company finally caught up with them: traffic filtering, site banning, and lying about service packages can only continue for so long before the FCC, along with the bill-paying public, takes a stand.

— Kyle Brady, July 27, 2009. Read the full article here.

[February 2011 Update] The Egyptian government uses DPI to filter elements of their Internet Traffic, and this act in itself becomes the news story. In this video in this news piece, Al Jazeera takes the opportunity to put out an unflattering piece on the company Naurus that makes the DPI technology and sold it to the Egyptians.

While the debate over deep packet inspection will likely rage on for years to come, APconnections made the decision to fully abandon the practice over two years ago, having since proved the viability of alternative approaches to network optimization. Network quality and user privacy are no longer mutually exclusive goals.

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.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles, Net Neutrality. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 16 Comments »

Analyzing the cost of Layer 7 Packet Shaping

November 16, 2010 — netequalizer

November, 2010

By Eli RIles

For most IT administrators layer 7 packet shaping involves two actions.

Action 1:  Involves inspecting and analyzing data to determine what types of traffic are on your network.

Action 2: Involves taking action by adjusting application  flows on your network .

Without  the layer 7 visibility and actions,  an administrator’s job would degrade into a quagmire of random guesswork. Or would it?

Layer 7 monitoring and shaping is intuitively appealing , but it is a good idea to take a step back and break down examine the full life cycle costs of your methodology .

In an ironic inverse correlation, we assert that costs increase with the complexity of the monitoring tool.

1) Obviously, the more detailed the reporting tool (layer 7 ) , the more expensive its initial price tag.

2)  The kicker comes with part two. The more expensive the tool, the more  detail  it will provide, and the more time an administrator is likely to spend adjusting and mucking, looking for optimal performance.

But, is it a fair to assume higher labor costs with  more advanced monitoring and information?

Well, obviously it would not make sense to pay more for an advanced tool if there was no intention of doing anything with the detailed information it provides. Why have the reporting tool in the first place if the only output was to stare at reports and do nothing? Typically, the more information an admin has about a network, the more inclined he might be to spend time making adjustments.

On a similar note, an oversight often made with labor costs is the belief  that when  the work needed to adjust the network comes to fruition, the associated adjustments can remain statically in place. However, in reality, network traffic changes constantly, and thus the tuning so meticulously performed on Monday may be obsolete by Friday.

Does this mean that the overall productivity of using a bandwidth tool is a loss? Not at all. Bandwidth monitoring and network mucking can certainly result in a cost-effective solution. But, where is the tipping point? When does a monitoring solution create more costs than it saves?

A review of recent history reveals that technologies with a path similar to bandwidth monitoring have become commodities and shunned the overhead of most human intervention.  For example, computer operators disappeared off the face of the earth with the invention of cheaper computing in the late 1980′s.  The function of a computer operator did not disappear completely, it just got automated and rolled into the computer itself. The point is, anytime the cost of a resource is falling, the attention and costs used to manage it should be revisited.

An effective compromise with many of our customers is that they are stepping down from expensive complex reporting tools to a simpler approach. Instead of trying to determine every type of traffic on a network by type, time of day, etc., an admin can spot trouble by simply checking overall usage numbers once a week or so. With a basic bandwidth control solution in place (such as a NetEqualizer), the acute problems of a network locking up will go away, leaving what we would call only “chronic” problems, which may need to be addressed eventually, but do not require immediate action.

For example, with a simple reporting tool you can plot network usage by user.  Such a report, although limited in detail, will often reveal a very distinct bell curve of usage behavior. Most users will be near the mean, and then there are perhaps one or two percent of users that will be well above the mean. You don’t need a fancy tool to see what they are doing; abuse becomes obvious just looking at the usage (a simple report).

However, there is also the personal control factor, which often does not follow clear lines of ROI (return on investment).

What we have experienced when proposing a more hands-off model to network management is that a customer’s comfort depends on their bias for needing to know, which is an unquantifiable personal preference. Even in a world where bandwidth is free, it is still human nature to want to know specifically what bandwidth is being used for, with detailed information regarding the type of traffic. There is nothing wrong with this desire, but we wonder how strong it might be if the savings obtained from using simpler monitoring tools were converted into a trip to Hawaii.

In our next article, we’ll put some real world numbers to the test for actual break downs, so stay tuned. In the mean time, here are some other articles on bandwidth monitoring that we recommend. And, don’t forget to take our poll.

List of monitoring tools compiled by Stanford

Top five free monitoring tools

Planetmy
Linux Tips
How to set up a monitor for free

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

Ten Things to Consider When Choosing a Bandwidth Shaper

April 18, 2010 — netequalizer

This 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

Riverbed

Exinda  Packet Shaper  and Riverbed tend to focus on the enterprise WAN optimization market.

Cymphonix

Cymphonix comes  from a background of detailed reporting.

Emerging Technologies

Very solid  product for bandwidth shaping.

Exinda

Exinda from Australia has really made a good run in the US market offering a good alternative to the incumbants.

Netlimiter

For those of you who are wed to Windows NetLimiter is your answer

Antamediabandwidth

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Equalizing Compared to Application Shaping (Traditional Layer-7 “Deep Packet Inspection” Products)

March 31, 2010 — netequalizer

Editor’s Note: (Updated with new material March 2012)  Since we first wrote this article, many customers have implemented the NetEqualizer not only to shape their Internet traffic, but also to shape their company WAN.  Additionally, concerns about DPI and loss of privacy have bubbled up. (Updated with new material September 2010)  Since we first published this article, “deep packet inspection”, also known as Application Shaping, has taken some serious industry hits with respect to US-based ISPs.   

==============================================================================================
Author’s Note: We often get asked how NetEqualizer compares to Packeteer (Bluecoat), NetEnforcer (Allot), Network Composer (Cymphonix), Exinda, and a plethora of other well-known companies that do Application Shaping (aka “packet shaping”, “deep packet inspection”, or “Layer-7” shaping).   After several years of these questions, and discussing different aspects with former and current application shaping with IT administrators, we’ve developed a response that should clarify the differences between NetEqualizer’s behavior- based approach and the rest of the pack.
We thought of putting our response into a short, bullet-by-bullet table format, but then decided that since this decision often involves tens of thousands of dollars, 15 minutes of education on the subject with content to support the bullet chart was in order.  If you want to skip the details, see our Summary Table at the end of this article…

However, if you’re looking to really understand the differences, and to have the question answered as objectively as possible, please take a few minutes to read on…
==============================================================================================

How NetEqualizer compares to Bluecoat, Allot, Cymphonix, & Exinda

In the following sections, we will cover specifically when and where Application Shaping is used, how it can be used to your advantage, and also when it may not be a good option for what you are trying to accomplish.  We will also discuss how Equalizing, NetEqualizer’s behavior-based shaping, fits into the landscape of application shaping, and how in many cases Equalizing is a much better alternative.

Download the full article (PDF)  Equalizing Compared To Application Shaping White Paper

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Bandwidth Management, White Papers. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Comcast Suit: Was Blocking P2P Worth the Final Cost?

December 29, 2009 — netequalizer

By Art Reisman
CTO of APconnections
Makers of the plug-and-play bandwidth control and traffic shaping appliance NetEqualizer

Art Reisman CTO www.netequalizer.com

Comcast recently settled a class action suit in the state of Pennsylvania regarding its practice of selectively blocking of P2P.  So far, the first case was settled for 16 million dollars with more cases on the docket yet to come. To recap, Comcast and other large ISPs invested in technology to thwart P2P, denied involvment when first accused, got spanked by the FCC,  and now Comcast is looking to settle various class action suits.

When Comcast’s practices were established, P2P usage was sky-rocketing with no end in sight and the need to block some of it was required in order to preserve reasonable speeds for all users. Given that there was no specific law or ruling on the book, it seemed like mucking with P2P to alleviate gridlock was a rational business decision. This decision made even more sense considering that DSL providers were stealing disgruntled customers. With this said, Comcast wasn’t alone in the practice — all of the larger providers were doing it, throttling P2P to some extent to ensure good response times for all of their customers.

Yet, with the lawsuits mounting, it appears on face value that things backfired a bit for Comcast. Or did they?

We can work out some very rough estimates as the final cost trade-off. Here goes:

I am going to guess that before this plays out completely, settlements will run close to $50 million or more. To put that in perspective, Comcast shows a 2008 profit of close to $3 billion. Therefore, $50 million is hardly a dent to their stock holders. But, in order to play this out, we must ask what the ramifications would have been to not blocking P2P back when all of this began and P2P was a more serious bandwidth threat (Today, while P2P has declined, YouTube and online video are now the primary bandwidth hogs).

We’ll start with the customer. The cost of getting a new customer is usually calculated at around 6 months of service or approximately $300. So, to make things simple, we’ll assume the net cost of a losing a customer is roughly $300. In addition, there are also the support costs related to congested networks that can easily run $300 per customer incident.

The other more subtle cost of P2P is that the methods used to deter P2P traffic were designed to keep traffic on the Comcast network. You see, ISPs pay for exchanging data when they hand off to other networks, and by limiting the amount of data exchanged, they can save money. I did some cursory research on the costs involved with exchanging data and did not come up with anything concrete, so I’ll assume a P2P customer can cost you $5 per month.

So, lets put the numbers together to get an idea of how much potential financial damage P2P was causing back in 2007 (again, I must qualify that these are based on estimates and not fact. Comments and corrections are welcome).

  • Comcast had approximately 15 million broadband customers in 2008.
  • If 1 in 100 were heavy P2P users, the exchange cost would be $7.5 million per month in exchange costs.
  • Net lost customers to a competitor might be 1 in 500 a month. That would run $9 million a month.
  • Support calls due to preventable congestion might run another 1 out of 500 customers or $9 million a month.

So, very conservatively for 2007 and 2008, incremental costs related to unmitigated P2P could have easily run a total of $600 million right off the bottom line.

Therefore, while these calculations are approximations, in retrospect it was likely financially well worth the risk for Comcast to mitigate the effects of unchecked P2P. Of course, the public relations costs are much harder to quantify.

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

NetEqualizer provides Net Neutrality solution for bandwidth control.

October 4, 2009 — netequalizer

By Eli Riles NetEqualizer VP of Sales

This morning I read an article on how some start up companies are being hurt awaiting the FCC’s decision on Net Neutrality.

Late in the day, a customer called and exclaimed, “Wow now with the FCC coming down  hard on technologies that jeopardize net neutrality, your business  must booming since you offer an excellent viable alternative” And yet  in face of this controversy, several of our competitors continue to sell deep packet inspection devices to customers.

Public operators and businesses that continue to purchase such technology are likely uninformed about the growing fire-storm of opposition against Deep Packet Inspection techniques.  The allure of being able to identify, and control Internet Traffic by type is very a natural solution, which customers often demand. Suppliers who sell DPI devices are just doing what their customer have asked. As with all technologies once the train leaves the station it is hard to turn around. What is different in the case of DPI is that suppliers and ISPs had their way with an ignorant public starting in the late 90’s. Nobody really gave much thought as to how DPI might be the villain in the controversy over Net Nuetrality. It was just assumed that nobody would notice their internet traffic being watched and redirected by routing devices. With behemoths such as Google having a vested interest in keeping traffic flowing without Interference on the Internet, commercial deep packet inspection solutions are slowly falling out of favor in the ISP sector. The bigger question for the players betting the house on DPI is , will it fall out favor in other  business verticals?

The NetEqualizer decision to do away with DPI two years ago is looking quite brilliant now, although at the time it was clearly a risk bucking market trends.  Today, even in the face of world wide recession our profit and unit sales are up for the first three quarters of 2009 this year.

As we have claimed in previous articles there is a time and place for deep packet inspection; however any provider using DPI to manipulate data is looking for a potential dog fight with the FCC.

NetEqualizer has been providing alternative bandwidth control options for ISPs , Businesses , and Schools of all sizes for 7 years without violating any of the Net Nuetrality sacred cows. If you have not heard about us, maybe now is a good time to pick up the phone. We have been on the record touting our solution as being fair equitable for quite some time now.

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

Top Tips To Quantify The Cost Of WAN Optimization

July 27, 2009 — netequalizer

Editor’s Note: As we mentioned in a recent article, there’s often some confusion when it comes to how WAN optimization fits into the overall network optimization industry — especially when compared to Internet optimization. Although similar, the two techniques require different approaches to optimization. What follows are some simple questions to ask your vendor before you purchase a WAN optimization appliance. For the record, the NetEqualizer is primarily used for Internet optimization.

When presenting a WAN optimization ROI argument, your vendor rep will clearly make a compelling case for savings.  The ROI case will be made by amortizing the cost of equipment against your contracted rate from your provider. You can and should trust these basic raw numbers. However, there is more to evaluating a WAN optimization (packet shaping) appliance than comparing equipment cost against bandwidth savings. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

  1. The amortization schedule should also make reasonable assumptions about future costs for T1, DS3, and OC3 links. Most contracted rates have been dropping in many metro areas and it is reasonable to assume that bandwidth costs will perhaps be 50-percent less two to three years out.
  2. If you do increase bandwidth, the licensing costs for the traffic shaping equipment can increase substantially. You may also find yourself in a situation where you need to do a forklift upgrade as you outrun your current hardware.
  3. Recurring licensing costs are often mandatory to keep your equipment current. Without upgrading your license, your deep packet inspection (layer 7 shaping filters) will become obsolete.
  4. Ongoing labor costs to tune and re-tune your WAN optimization appliance can often costs thousands per week.
  5. The good news is that optimization companies will normally allow you to try an appliance before you buy. Make sure you take the time to manage the equipment with your own internal techs or IT consultant to get an idea of how it will fit into your network.  The honeymoon with new equipment (supported by a well trained pre-sales team) can be short lived. After the free pre-sale support has expired, you will be on your own.

There are certainly times when WAN optimization makes sense, yet it many cases, what appears to be a no-brainer decision at first will begin to be called into question as costs mount down the line. Hopefully these five contributing factors will paint a clearer picture of what to expect.

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.

Posted in Bandwidth Management, Educational Articles, ROI. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »

The True Price of Bandwidth Monitoring

July 16, 2009 — netequalizer

By Art Reisman

Art Reisman CTO www.netequalizer.com

For most IT administrators, bandwidth monitoring of some sort is an essential part of keeping track of, as well as justifying, network expenses. Without visibility into a network load, an administrator’s job would degrade into a quagmire of random guesswork. Or would it?

The traditional way of  looking at monitoring your Internet has two parts: the fixed cost of the monitoring tool used to identify traffic, and the labor associated with devising a remedy. In an ironic inverse correlation, we assert that costs increase with the complexity of the monitoring tool. Obviously, the more detailed the reporting tool, the more expensive its initial price tag. The kicker comes with part two. The more expensive the tool, the more  detail  it will provide, and the more time an administrator is likely to spend adjusting and mucking, looking for optimal performance.

But, is it a fair to assume higher labor costs with  more advanced monitoring and information?

Well, obviously it would not make sense to pay more for an advanced tool if there was no intention of doing anything with the detailed information it provides. Why have the reporting tool in the first place if the only output was to stare at reports and do nothing? Typically, the more information an admin has about a network, the more inclined he might be to spend time making adjustments.

On a similar note, an oversight often made with labor costs is the belief  that when  the work needed to adjust the network comes to fruition, the associated adjustments can remain statically in place. However, in reality, network traffic changes constantly, and thus the tuning so meticulously performed on Monday may be obsolete by Friday.

Does this mean that the overall productivity of using a bandwidth tool is a loss? Not at all. Bandwidth monitoring and network mucking can certainly result in a cost-effective solution. But, where is the tipping point? When does a monitoring solution create more costs than it saves?

A review of recent history reveals that technologies with a path similar to bandwidth monitoring have become commodities and shunned the overhead of most human intervention.  For example, computer operators disappeared off the face of the earth with the invention of cheaper computing in the late 1980’s.  The function of a computer operator did not disappear completely, it just got automated and rolled into the computer itself. The point is, anytime the cost of a resource is falling, the attention and costs used to manage it should be revisited.

An effective compromise with many of our customers is that they are stepping down from expensive complex reporting tools to a simpler approach. Instead of trying to determine every type of traffic on a network by type, time of day, etc., an admin can spot trouble by simply checking overall usage numbers once a week or so. With a basic bandwidth control solution in place (such as a NetEqualizer), the acute problems of a network locking up will go away, leaving what we would call only “chronic” problems, which may need to be addressed eventually, but do not require immediate action.

For example, with a simple reporting tool you can plot network usage by user.  Such a report, although limited in detail, will often reveal a very distinct bell curve of usage behavior. Most users will be near the mean, and then there are perhaps one or two percent of users that will be well above the mean. You don’t need a fancy tool to see what they are doing; abuse becomes obvious just looking at the usage (a simple report).

However, there is also the personal control factor, which often does not follow clear lines of ROI (return on investment).

What we have experienced when proposing a more hands-off model to network management is that a customer’s comfort depends on their bias for needing to know, which is an unquantifiable personal preference. Even in a world where bandwidth is free, it is still human nature to want to know specifically what bandwidth is being used for, with detailed information regarding the type of traffic. There is nothing wrong with this desire, but we wonder how strong it might be if the savings obtained from using simpler monitoring tools were converted into a trip to Hawaii.

In our next article, we’ll put some real world numbers to the test for actual break downs, so stay tuned. In the mean time, here are some other articles on bandwidth monitoring that we recommend. And, don’t forget to take our poll.

List of monitoring tools compiled by Stanford

Planetmy
Linux Tips
How to set up a monitor for free

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.

Posted in Bandwidth Monitoring, Educational Articles, ROI. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

APconnections Announces NetEqualizer Lifetime Buyer Protection Policy

July 15, 2009 — netequalizer

This week, we announced the launch of the NetEqualizer Lifetime Buyer Protection Policy. In the event of an un-repairable failure of a NetEqualizer unit at any time, or in the event that it is time to retire a unit, customers will have the option to purchase a replacement unit and apply a 50-percent credit of their original unit purchase price, toward the new unit.  For current pricing see register for our price list.  This includes units that are more than three years old (the expected useful life for hardware) and in service at the time of failure.

For example, if you purchased a unit in 2003 for $4000 and were looking to replace it or upgrade with a newer model, APconnections would kick in a $2000 credit toward the replacement purchase.

The Policy will be in addition to the existing optional yearly NetEqualizer Hardware Warranty (NHW), which offers customers cost-free repairs or replacement of any malfunctioning unit while NHW is in effect (read details on NHW).

Our decision to implement the policy was a matter of customer peace-of-mind rather than necessity. While the failure rate of any NetEqualizer unit is ultimately very low, we want customers to know that we stand behind our products – even if it’s several years down the line.

To qualify,

  • users must be the original owner of the NetEqualizer unit,
  • the customer must have maintained a support contract that has been current within last 18 months , lapses of support longer than 18 months will void our replacement policy
  • the unit must have been in use on your network at the time of failure.

Shipping is not included in the discounted price. Purchasers of the one-year NetEqualizer hardware warranty (NHW) will still qualify for full replacement at no charge while under hardware warranty.  Contact us for more details by emailing sales@apconnections.net, or calling 303.997.1300 x103 (International), or 1.888.287.2492 (US Toll Free).

Note: This Policy does not apply to the NetEqualizer Lite.

Posted in New Features, Support. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Deep Packet Inspection Abuse In Iran Raises Questions About DPI Worldwide

July 10, 2009 — netequalizer

Over the past few years, we at APconnections have made our feelings about Deep Packet Inspection clear, completely abandoning the practice in our NetEqualizer technology more than two years ago. While there may be times that DPI is necessary and appropriate, its use in many cases can threaten user privacy and the open nature of the Internet. And, in extreme cases, DPI can even be used to threaten freedom of speech and expression. As we mentioned in a previous article, this is currently taking place in Iran.

Although these extreme invasions of privacy are most likely not occurring in the United States, their existence in Iran is bringing increasing attention to the slippery slope that is Deep Packet Inspection. A July 10 Huffington Post article reads:

“Before DPI becomes more widely deployed around the world and at home, the U.S. government ought to establish legitimate criteria for authorizing the use such control and surveillance technologies. The harm to privacy and the power to control the Internet are so disturbing that the threshold for using DPI must be very high.The use of DPI for commercial purposes would need to meet this high bar. But it is not clear that there is any commercial purpose that outweighs the potential harm to consumers and democracy.”

This potential harm to the privacy and rights of consumers was a major factor behind our decision to discontinue the use of DPI in any of our technology and invest in alternative means for network optimization. We hope that the ongoing controversy will be reason for others to do the same.

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

Google Questions Popular Bandwidth Shaping Myth

July 8, 2009 — netequalizer

At this week’s Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission Internet traffic hearing, Google’s Canada Policy Counsel, Jacob Glick, raised a point that we’ve been arguing for the last few years. Glick said:

“We urge you to reject as false the choice between debilitating network congestion and application-based discrimination….This is a false dichotomy. The evidence is, and experience in Canada and in the U.S. already shows, that carriers can manage their networks, reduce congestion and protect the open Internet, all at the same time.”

While we agree with Glick to a certain extent, we differ in the alternative proposed by hearing participants — simply increase bandwidth. This is not to say that increasing bandwidth isn’t the appropriate solution in certain circumstances, but to question the validity of a dichotomy with an equally narrow third alternative doesn’t exactly significantly expand the industry’s options. Especially when increasing bandwidth isn’t always a viable solution for some ISPs.

The downsides of application-based shaping are one of the main reasons behind NetEqualizer’s reliance on behavior-based shaping. Therefore, while Glick is right that the above-mentioned dichotomy doesn’t explore all of the available options, it’s important to realize that the goals being promoted at the hearing are not solely achieved through increased bandwidth.

For more on how the NetEqualizer fits into the ongoing debate, see our past article, NetEqualizer Offers Net Neutrality, User Privacy Compromise.

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

Do We Need an Internet User Bill of Rights?

June 4, 2009 — netequalizer

The Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference wraps up today in Washington, D.C., with conference participants having paid significant attention to the on-going debates concerning ISPs, Deep Packet Inspection and net neutrality.  Over the past several days, representatives from the various interested parties have made their cases for and against certain measures pertaining to user privacy. As was expected, demands for the protection of user privacy often came into conflict with ISPs’ advertising strategies and their defense of their overall network quality.

At the center of this debate is the issue of transparency and what ISPs are actually telling customers. In many cases, apparent intrusions into user privacy are qualified by what’s stated in the “fine print” of customer contracts. If these contracts notify customers that their Internet activity and personal information may be used for advertising or other purposes, then it can’t really be said that the customer’s privacy has been invaded. But, the question is, how many users actually read their contracts, and furhtermore, how many people actually understand the fine print? It would be interesting to see what percentage of Internet users could define deep packet inspection. Probably not very many.

This situation is reminiscent of many others involving service contracts, but one particular timely example comes to mind — credit cards. Last month, the Senate passed a credit card “bill of rights,” through which consumers would be both better protected and better informed. Of the latter, President Obama stated, “you should not have to worry that when you sign up for a credit card, you’re signing away all your rights. You shouldn’t need a magnifying glass or a law degree to read the fine print that sometimes doesn’t even appear to be written in English.”

Ultimately, the same should be true for any service contracts, but especially if private information is at stake, as is the case with the Internet privacy debate. Therefore, while it’s a step in the right direction to include potential user privacy issues in service contracts, it should not be done only with the intention of preventing potential legal backlash, but rather with the customer’s true understanding of the agreement in mind.

Editor’s Note: APconnections and NetEqualizer have long been a proponent of both transparency and the protection of user privacy, having devoted several years to developing technology that maintains network quality while respecting the privacy of Internet users.

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

Obama’s Revival of Net Neutrality Revisits An Issue Hardly Forgotten

June 1, 2009 — netequalizer

Last Friday, President Obama reinvigorated (for many people, at least) the debate over net neutrality during a speech from the White House on cybersecurity. The president made it clear that users’ privacy and net neutrality would not be threatened under the guise of cybersecurity measures. President Obama stated:

“Let me also be clear about what we will not do. Our pursuit of cyber-security will not — I repeat, will not include — monitoring private sector networks or Internet traffic. We will preserve and protect the personal privacy and civil liberties that we cherish as Americans. Indeed, I remain firmly committed to net neutrality so we can keep the Internet as it should be — open and free.”

While this is certainly an important issue on the security front, for many ISPs and networks administrators, it didn’t take the president’s comments to put user privacy or net neutrality back in the spotlight.  In may cases, ISPs and network administrators constantly must walk the fine line between net neutrality, user privacy, and ultimately the well being of their own networks, something that can be compromised on a number of fronts (security, bandwidth, economics, etc.).

Therefore, despite the president’s on-going commitment to net neturality, the issue will continue to be debated and remain at the forefront of the minds of ISPs, administrators, and many users. Over the past few years, we at NetEqualizer have been working to provide a compromise for these interested parties, ensuring network quality and neutrality while protecting the privacy of users. It will be interesting to see how this debate plays out, and what it will mean for policy, as the philosophy of network neutrality continues to be challenged — both by individuals and network demands.

Further Reading

Posted in Bandwidth Monitoring, Commentary and Editorials, Net Neutrality, News. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »
« Older posts
%d bloggers like this: