Will the New UDP-based Bittorrent Thwart Traffic Shaping?


A customer asked us today how the newer Bittorrent methods using UDP will affect our ability to keep traffic in check. Here is our first take on this subject (See the related article “Bittorrent declares war on VoIP, gamers”).

The change from TCP to UDP transfer will have some effect on our methods to throttle bandwidth, however, at
the IP level there is no difference between the two and we have never based our shaping techniques on whether packets were UDP or TCP. The ISP mentioned in the  article mentioned above likely uses TCP window-size manipulation to slow downloads. You can’t do that with UDP, and I think that is what the author was eluding to.

The only difference for the NetEqualizer will be that UDP streams are harder to knock down, so it may require a tuning change if it is really an issue. By this, I mean we may have to hit them harder with more latency than our standard defaults when throttling packets.

On a side note, we are seeing some interesting trends with regard to Bittorrent.

When looking at our customer networks, we are just not seeing the same levels of Bittorrent that we have seen in the past  (circa 2006).

We believe the drop is due to a couple of factors:

1)  The RIAA’s enforcement — The high school and university crowd has been sufficiently spanked with copyright prosecutions. Most people now think twice about downloading copyrighted material.

2) Legal alternatives — The popularity of online purchase music  sites has replaced some of the illegal transfers (These also take up bandwidth, but they are not distributed by bittorrent).

The recent trends do not mean that bittorrent is going away, but rather that viable alternatives are emerging.  However, while legal distribution of content is here to stay and will likely grow over time, we do not expect an explosion that will completely replace bittorrent.

Five Questions You Should Ask about Internet Speed and Bursting


Art Reisman

By Art Reisman, CTO, APconnections

Editor’s Note: With consumers up in arms about net neutrality, they should also be asking their ISPs for some truth in advertising when it comes their Internet speed and the specifics concerning how and when bursting occurs.

With all the talk of net neutrality and deep packet inspection, we thought it was time to revisit the illusion created by providers offering “burstable” Internet speeds.

What is a burstable Internet speed? Well, it’s a common trick used by providers that lets you temporarily enjoy their highest speed, but then after a certain time period or after a bandwidth quota is reached, you automatically get knocked down  to a slower speed.

Generally, your provider leaves the specifics of when this bursting takes place out of their standard literature.  Instead, they will likely cite a best-case number when marketing their service. When bursting is mentioned, if ever, it is likely done in the fine print.

But, this doesn’t mean that there aren’t ways to hold your ISP accountable. Below are some questions that you should ask your Internet service provider to find out exactly what you are paying for.

  1. Is the speed advertised in their marketing literature available all the time, or is that a best-case speed (or burst) that you may or may not achieve on a regular basis?
  2. Do you get charged, penalized, or black-listed for using this higher speed?
  3. How long can you burst for? For example, is a burst one second, 10 seconds, or 10 hours at a time?
  4. Can you get exactly how this bursting feature works in writing?
  5. Can you trade in the bursting feature for a guaranteed sustained top speed that is always on and not considered bursting?

While we can’t promise that these questions will always elicit an upfront, honest and informed response, they’re a step in the right direction. For a more in depth article on the subject and business behind “bursting” you should also  check out Bursting Is for the Birds.

Open Source Linux Bandwidth Arbitrator vs. NetEqualizer Bandwidth Shaping


As many of you know, the commercial NetEqualizer bandwidth shaper is based on the Linux Bandwidth Arbitrator. From old customers and new, we often get asked what the differences are between the two solutions. Here are a few key points to consider…

1) Time and expertise

Most entities using open source have an experienced technology team with time to burn. Typically, users are university graduate students or eastern European start ups.  If you have time and Linux expertise, then building and supporting the open source Linux Bandwidth Arbitrator is an excellent option.

2) Full featured GUI

The GUI and many advanced integrated features are not available with the Bandwidth Arbitrator.

3) Support

You are on your own should there be a problem with the open source technology.

4) Advanced features not in open source

Many of the features in the NetEqualizer are not part of the GPL source code. For example, priority host, bandwidth pools, and VLAN support are not available with the Bandwidth Arbitrator.

We’re sure longtime users of both products can add to the list, but this is a start. For more information about the Bandwidth Arbitrator and NetEqualizer, visit www.bandwidtharbitrator.com and www.netequalizer.com.

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.

How Much YouTube Can the Internet Handle?


By Art Reisman, CTO, http://www.netequalizer.com 

Art Reisman CTO www.netequalizer.com

Art Reisman

 

As the Internet continues to grow and true speeds become higher,  video sites like YouTube are taking advantage of these fatter pipes. However, unlike the peer-to-peer traffic of several years ago (which seems to be abating), YouTube videos don’t face the veil of copyright scrutiny cast upon p2p which caused most users to back off.
 

In our experience, there are trade offs associated with the advancements in technology that have come with YouTube. From measurements done in our NetEqualizer laboratories, the typical normal quality YouTube video needs about 240kbs sustained over the 10 minute run time for the video. The newer higher definition videos run at a rate at least twice that. 

Many of the rural ISPs that we at NetEqualizer support with our bandwidth shaping and control equipment have contention ratios of about 300 users per 10-megabit link. This seems to be the ratio point where these small businesses can turn  a profit.  Given this contention ratio, if 40 customers simultaneously run YouTube, the link will be exhausted and all 300 customers will be wishing they had their dial-up back. At last check, YouTube traffic accounted for 10 percent of all Internet Traffic.  If left completely unregulated,  a typical rural  ISP could find itself on the brink of saturation from normal YouTube usage already. With tier-1 providers in major metro areas there is usually more bandwidth, but with that comes higher expectations of service and hence some saturation is inevitable. 

If you believe there is a conspiracy, or that ISPs are not supposed to profit as they take risk and operate in a market economy, you are entitled to your opinion, but we are dealing with reality. And there will always be tension between users and their providers, much the same as there is with government funds and highway congestion. 

The fact is all ISPs have a fixed amount of bandwidth they can deliver and when data flows exceed their current capacity, they are forced to implement some form of passive constraint. Without them many networks would lock up completely. This is no different than a city restricting water usage when reservoirs are low. Water restrictions are well understood by the populace and yet somehow bandwidth allocations and restrictions are perceived as evil. I believe this misconception is simply due to the fact that bandwidth is so dynamic, if there was a giant reservoir of bandwidth pooled up in the mountains where you could see this resource slowly become depleted , the problem could be more easily visualized. 

The best compromise offered, and the only comprise that is not intrusive is bandwidth rationing at peak hours when needed. Without rationing, a network will fall into gridlock, in which case not only do the YouTube videos come to halt , but  so does e-mail , chat , VOIP and other less intensive applications. 

There is some good news, alternative ways to watch YouTube videos. 

We noticed during out testing that YouTube videos attempt to play back video as a  real-time feed , like watching live TV.  When you go directly to YouTube to watch a video, the site and your PC immediately start the video and the quality becomes dependent on having that 240kbs. If your providers speed dips below this level your video will begin to stall, very annoying;  however if you are willing to wait a few seconds there are tools out there that will play back YouTube videos for you in non real-time. 

Buffering Tool 

They accomplish this by pre-buffering before the video starts playing.  We have not reviewed any of these tools so do your research. We suggest you google “YouTube buffering tools” to see what is out there. Not only do these tools smooth out the YouTube playback during peak times or on slower connections , but they also help balance the load on the network during peak times. 

Bio Art Reisman is a partner and co-founder of APconnections, a company that provides bandwidth control solutions (NetEqualizer) to ISPs, Universities, Libraries, Mining Camps and any organization where groups of users must share their Internet resources equitably. What follows is an objective educational journey on how consumers and ISPs can live in harmony with the explosion of YouTube video.

NetEqualizer CTO not a fan of Software Patents


NetEqualizer CTO Art Reisman has written several opinion pieces over the years regarding the use of software patents. You might be surprised to find out that he is not a big fan of them and refuses to file any Patent claims to protect the NetEqualizer technology (whose roots are in open source)

Below are links to several analysis articles written by Art for Extreme Tech Magazine over the last couple of years.

  • Analysis: Vuze’s Allegations Are Anecdotal, But Troubling

    According to APConnections CTO Art Reisman, the accusations of network traffic impairment leveled at AT&T and Comcast by Vuze are serious, troubling, and worthy of further investigation, but also mostly anecdotal at present.

  • Analysis: Confessions of a Patent Holder

    APConnections CTO Art Reisman weighs in with an insider’s look at what the patent process is really like. What was the jury in the recent Vonage-Verizon case thinking?

  • How Your Wi-Fi Router May Have ‘Hidden Nodes’

    If you’ve ever tried to connect to your office’s wireless network only to find that the Internet service has slowed to a crawl, you may be running up against a phenomenon known as the “hidden node.”

  • Your Wi-Fi Router May Have ‘Hidden Nodes’

    Deep Tech: If you’ve ever tried to connect to your office’s wireless network only to find that the Internet service has slowed to a crawl, you may be running up against a phenomenon known as the “hidden node.”

  • Analysis: The White Lies ISPs Tell About Broadband Speeds

    Insider Art Reisman, CTO of bandwidth shaper firm APConnections, reveals how how even the common speed tests used to evaluate your broadband connection may be spoofed by ISPs. Think you’re getting your full rated speed? Think again.

  • Analysis: Reverse-Engineering Skype Is Doubtful

    A recent rumor hitting the blogosphere has the world buzzing with the possibility that a Chinese company backed with large sums of money has cracked the Skype encryption codes and is poised to offer a competing product that can send and receive Skype calls. Art Reisman says he’s dubious.

  • Analysis: Reverse-Engineering Skype Is Doubtful

    A recent rumor hitting the blogosphere has the world buzzing with the possibility that a Chinese company backed with large sums of money has cracked the Skype encryption codes and is poised to offer a competing product that can send and receive Skype calls. Art Reisman says he’s dubious.

  • Analysis: ISPs Are Going To Eat Vonage’s Lunch

    Art Reisman of APConnections thinks that market forces will take care of Vonage far sooner, and more effectively, than any efforts to block its services.

Deep packet Inspection a poison pill for NebuAd ?


Editors Note:

NebuAd had a great idea show ads to users based on content and share the revenue with ISPs that sign up for their service. What is wrong with this Idea ? I guess customers don’t like people looking at their private data using DPI hence the lawsuit detailed in the article below.  The funny thing is we are still hearing from customers that want DPI as part of their solution, this includes many Universities , ISPs and alike.  I think the message is clear: Don’t use Deep Packet Inspection unless you fully disclose this practice to your customers/employees or risk getting your head nailed to a table.

———————————————————————–

From Zdnet Nov 11, 2008

NebuAd, the controversial company that was trying to sell deep-packet inspection technology as a means of delivering more relevant ads, has already had most of the life sucked out of it. Now, a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco today, could put the final nail in the coffin.

Full article

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10774

Tips for testing your internet speed


Five tips to look for when testing your network speed

By Eli Riles

Eli Riles is a retired Insurance Agent from New York. He is a self taught expert in network infrastructure. He spends half the year traveling and visiting remote corners of the earth. The other half of the year you’ll find him in his computer labs testing and tinkering with the latest network technology. For questions or comments please contact him at eliriles@yahoo.com.

In the United States, there are no rules governing truth in bandwidth claims, at least none that we are aware of. Just imagine if every time you went to a gas station, the meters were adjusted to exaggerate the amount of fuel pumped, or the gas contained inert additives. Most consumers count on the fact that state and federal regulators monitor your local gas station to insure that a gallon is a gallon and the fuel is not a mixture of water and rubbing alcohol.

Unfortunately in the Internet service provider world, there is no regulation at this time. So it is up to you the consumer to ensure you are getting what you are paying for.

Network operators deploy an array of strategies to make their service seem faster than others. The most common technique is to simply oversell the amount of bandwidth they can actually handle and hope that not all users are active at one time.

It is up to the consumer, who often has a choice of service providers, Satellite, Cable, Phone company, wireless operator etc, to insure that they are getting what they are paying for.

We at Network Optimization news want to help you level the playing field so here are some tips to use when testing your network speed.

1)Use a speed test site that transfers at least 10 megabits of data with each test.

Some providers will start slowing your speed after a certain amount of data is passed in a short period, the larger the file in the test the better


2)Repeat your tests with at least three different speed test sites.

Different speed test sites use different methods for passing data and results will vary.


3)Try not to use speed test sites recommended by your provider. 

Or at least augment their recommended sites with other sites.

Enough said.

4)Run your tests during busy hours typically between 5 and 9 p.m. in the evening, try running them at different times.

Often times providers have trouble providing their top advertised speeds during busy hours.


5)Make sure you test your speed in both directions. 

The test you use should upload as well as download information.

To find the latest speed test sites on the network, we suggest you use a Google search with the terms:

“test my network speed”

Dig down deep in the list of results for more obscure sites.

Lastly, remember the grass is not always greener.  If you find your speeds are not always up to their advertised rates don’t be alarmed – the industry is not regulated in the US and speeds can vary for a variety of reasons. Your provider is likely doing the best job it can while trying to stay profitable.

Good Luck!

Eli Riles

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.

The birth of a new kind of new kind of Packet Shaper (NetEqualizer)


Today my attention was drawn to a forum thread about setting up queuing and bandwidth fairness on a Cisco Router. The techs in the discussion were obviously very familiar with Cisco and its internal programming language. Needless to say it was a very low level discussion and  to make any sense of it would require  sort a Cisco certification on the inner workings of their IOS programming language. The discussion reminded me of a conversation I had back in 2002 when the idea of turn key bandwidth controller popped into my head

In 2002  I was running a start up WISP with a partner. One issue that we saw coming was sharing bandwidth on a tightly contested T1. We decided it was worth looking into what was available, was there something we could just plug in to handle this and get on with our core business of  running the WISP.
My day job at the time was at Bell Labs, and just recently there had been quite  a few defections to Cisco.  So I  decided to tap some of more former coworkers to see if Cisco had anything turn key picked up the phone and asked a couple of peers what a Cisco box could do  support of some form of turn key fairness. ‘Well you can program the IOS bios queues bla bla” I had heard enough. It seemed that although it was definitely possible to do this with Cisco, I just wanted  something to plug  in and forget about it.  I did not have money to hire a Cisco tech and figured many other start up WISPS in my position were in the same boat. Little did I realize at the time, that the NetEqualizer would become an International hit, distributed across all industries (Hospitals, Cable Companies, Universities etc) around the world over the next 6 years.

The model  of how to approach this issue of fairness was already widely used  in the computer server world. Most people are not concerned with  fairness of processes or threads on web server or data base server? Why is that ? Most  modern computer servers  have some form of operating system that insures that the processes running don’t dominate the central processor (usually Linux). The basic idea is that a little timer that keeps track of a processors resources and how much a process has used if they HOG too much this timer kicks and allows others to get their turn.

The point of this story is there is no manual intervention needed, computers are so cheap that it would be absurd to pay somebody to do this, but that was not always the case. As late as 1986 the Main Frame computer dominated data processing, and with a main frame came a computer operator , a human who had the task of making sure jobs (as there were called) ran to completion in a timely manner,  as well as making sure tape drives were loaded etc.

Do you see the parallel here ? As computers became cheaper it was not economical to employ somebody to watch over this resource, the job still existed  but it was automated and incorporated into the operating system.

Flash forward to 2002, what my Cisco  freinds were  proposing was a labor intensive solution to managing a resource (bandwidth). So the idea was to take this one aspect of managing a network and essentially fire the operator (or the Cisco programmer) And so it was born an automated fairness device for sharing bandwidth and we have no looked back since.

Resources on computers and ways to handle this type of thing were invented back in the 70’s and became wide spread with the death of the card reader.

Editors note: CIsco is a fine product and perhaps there is some easy way to perform this function and I am just too stupid to understand.

Death to Deep Packet (layer 7 shaping) Inspection


Editors note: Deep packet inspection (layer 7 shaping) will likely be around for a while. It is very easy to explain this technology to customers, hence many IT resellers latch on to it as it makes a compelling elevator pitch.  We put out the press release below to formalize our position on this issue.

For detailed information on how the techniques of NetEqualizer differ from Deep Packet inspection, see the following link: http://www.netequalizer.com/Compare_NetEqualizer.php

LAFAYETTE, Colo., October 28, 2008 — APconnections, a leading supplier of plug-and-play bandwidth shaping products, today made a formal announcement to formally discontinue  deep packet inspection techniques in their NetEqualizer product line.

“Our behavior-based techniques worked so well that current customers stopped asking for the layer-7 techniques we had at one time implemented into our system,” said Art Reisman, CEO of APconnections. “So, we eventually just decided to phase the technique out completely.”

Although deep packet inspection, also known as layer-7 shaping, was unofficially discontinued nearly two years ago, the ongoing debates over user privacy spurred the official announcement.

“What prompted us to make a formal announcement was the continued industry lack of understanding that deep packet inspection not only does not work very well, but it also puts you are at risk of violating privacy laws if you use these techniques without customer consent,” said Reisman.

Although Reisman says most providers cross this line with the good intentions of controlling traffic congestion, the reality of it is that it’s no different than listening to a private phone conversation and terminating the call if you don’t like what you hear.

“It’s quite risky  that any public US based ISP would invest in  this technique, especially after the FCC slapped Comcast’s wrists in a recent decision” said Riesman.

For more information on the NetEqualizer technology, visit www.netequalizer.com or contact APconnections at 1-800-918-2763 or via email sales@netequalizer.com.

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 gives priority to latency sensitive applications, such as VoIP and email. It does it all dynamically and automatically, improving on other bandwidth shaping technology available.

APconnections is a privately held company founded in 2003 and is based in Lafayette, Colorado.

Network Access Control Features Redirection for Delinquent Customers


What should an Internet service provider do to customers who are late with their payment?   If you simply block the user completely  at your firewall, you will likely generate a costly call to  your support engineering. But, there are other options…

A better way to collect payment without creating support calls is to redirect the delinquent user to a splash screen  informing them they need to pay their bill.  Obviously a customer won’t call unless they are ready to pay, hence no costly call to support engineering. For the suggested redirection capability, you do not need a fully automated network access control system (requiring a login  and credit card payment), but you do need a way to redirect delinquent customers to a Web page telling them to pay their outstanding bill.

With our latest version that is available now, we can set up IP redirection to a custom web page for a nominal support charge.

Note:  We now host the redirection page right on your NetEqualizer, so there is no need for another third party server.

Call us if you are interested:  303-997-1300
www.netequalizer.com

Building a Technology Company from Scratch


Editors note: We wrote this article about a year ago before the blog was established. Although this article chronicles the model used to bootstrap the NetEqualizer from open source, the basic formula applies to any aspiring open source developer.

When we started the APconnections (APconnections makes the popular bandwidth shaping tool NetEqualizer), we had lots of time, very little cash, some software development skills, and a technology idea. This article covers a couple of bootstrapping pearls that we learned to implement by doing.

Don’t be Afraid to Use Open Source

Using open source technology to develop and commercialize new application software can be an invaluable bootstrapping tool for startup entrepreneurs. It has allowed us to validate new technology with a willing set of early adopters who, in turn, provided us with references and debugging.

We used this huge number of early adopters, who love to try open source applications, to legitimize our application. Further, this large set of commercial “installs” helped us ring out many of the bugs by users who have no grounds to demand perfection.

In addition, we jump-started our products without incurring large development expense. We used open source by starting with technology already in place and extending it, rather than building (or licensing) every piece from scratch.

Using open source code makes at least a portion of our technology publicly available. We use bundling, documentation, and proprietary extensions to make it difficult for larger players to steal our thunder. These will account for over half of development work but can be protected by copyright.

Afraid of copycats? In many cases, nothing could be better than to have a large player copy you. Big players value time to market. If one player clones your work, another may acquire your company to catch up in the market.

The transition from open source users to paying customers is a big jump, requiring traditional sales and marketing. Don’t expect your loyal base of open source beta users to start paying for your product. We use testimonials from this critical mass of users to market to paying customers who are reluctant to be early adopters (see below).

Channels? Use Direct Selling and the Web

Our innovation is a bit of a stretch from existing products and, like most innovations, requires some education of the user. Much of the early advice we received related to picking a sales channel. Just signup reps, resellers, and distributors and revenues will grow.

We found the exact opposite to be true. Priming channels is expensive. And, after we pointed the sales channel at customers, closing the sale and supporting the customer fell back on us anyway. Direct selling is not the path torapid growth. But as a bootstrapping tool direct selling has rewarded us with loyal customers, better margins, andmany fewer returns.

We use the Internet to generate hot leads, but we don’t worry about our Google ranking. The key for us is to get every satisfied customer to post something about our product. It probably hasn’t improved our Google ratings but customer comments have surely improved our credibility.

Honest postings to blogs and user groups have significant influence on potential customers. We explain to each customer how important their posting is to our company. We often provide them with a link to a user group or appropriate blog. And, as you know, these blogs stay around forever. Then, when we encounter new potential customers, we suggest that they Google our “brand name” and blog, which always generates a slew of believable testimonials. (Check out our Web site to see some of the ways we use testimonials.)

Using open source code and direct sales are surely out-of-step with popular ideas for growing technology companies, especially those funded by equity investors. But they worked very well for us as we grew our company with limited resources to positive cash flow and beyond.

NetEqualizer Evaluation Policy


Our official policy for customers requesting evaluation units is to require payment upfront.  However, we do honor a no-questions-asked  30-day return policy.

As you can imagine, we get a constant stream of requests for evaluation units. Obviously we’d love to provide everybody who asks with a demo unit. After all, the other brand name packet shapers will throw them at you. Especially if you are coming from an account they want to win over.

So, you may be wondering why we don’t do the same…

Some background:

APconnections  sells quite a few units under $3000 dollars. To put this in perspective, last year a CEO from a larger competitor selling similar equipment admitted that $4000 is their break-even point.

So, how do we offer units starting at $2000 and still turn a profit?

A big part of our model to is make sure that we do not drill dry wells. Dry well is industry speak for pursuing business that will never materialize. Yes, we love chatting with people, but in order to pay our engineers and stay in business, we must limit money spent supporting customers that are just “looking”.  The easiest way to do this is to enforce our evaluation policy.

Serious customers that are ready to buy something but need to see it work in their network usually have no problem with purchasing up front.  Some, but not all, customers that are not agreeable to purchasing up front may have cash flow problems of their own. In an economy where banks do not know how to qualify loans, we don’t want  to try to calculate this risk.

The result of our conservative policy translates to much lower prices , and to date nobody is arguing with that.

NetEqualizer Network Access Control Rollout



After several months in development, the NetEqualizer network access control module is now available for trial.

The basic features of the Module are what you would expect (think airport T Mobile daily access etc):

1) The ability to dynamically authenticate/restrict users through a login process.

2) Automated payment processing for users who do not have a login.

3) The ability to selectively exempt an IP range from authentication redirection server. For example well known IP addresses on your network will not be forced to login, while other open IP address ranges (guest network) will require a login to obtain access.

4) The ability to custom brand  login pages and redirection service

Plus a couple of new twists that go above and beyond normal Network Authentication products:

1) Class of Service Specification When Customers Sign Up

For example, you will be able to offer customers a free standard service at modem speed with an option to pay for an upgrade for a faster connection. We have been playing with this feature at the office with our test system and the option to upgrade is very compelling. This could be a great way to increase revenue for those who might otherwise not log on at all if asked to purchase up front. Of course, this is made possible because the network access control is hosted by our NetEqualizer platform with full access to rate limiting features.

2) Group Licenses

This was one of the main requests from Portola Plaza Hotel (our beta site). They wanted to know if we could offer a system that allowed them to sell a group license (limited by total simultaneous sessions) to conference attendees. The other part of the challenge was to maintain a pay as you go option for individual hotel guests at the same time. Well, we have all that in there and it really is pretty impressive!

3) Smooth Service

For those hotels and institutions that have not been able to pull the trigger on something to eliminate their busy hour congestion, they will get the full power of our automated bandwidth controller. Many hotels and institutions have too many irons in the fire to address this issue, and perhaps their management cannot quantify the cost of slow Internet service, so they just live with it. These same institutions love to implement pay for internet service because that feature is clear-cut revenue generating device. So, now they will get both — revenue and smoother service for their paying customers all in one swoop!

4) Reliable Engineering

As many of our customers already know, we are an engineering company that developed a product, not an investor with a business plan that hired an engineering company. What this means is that our roots are conservative and we are in no hurry to put a solution on the market that will cause customers headaches as a result of some greedy business plan and offshore engineering. We do the work here in the U.S. and pay our engineers salaries of U.S. quality. The end result is a smoother process from start to finish. In addition, we are very conservative with our roll out and will not sell more than we can support at one time.

Needless to say, we were very excited to see the control module in action. It’s been even better to see that the months of research and development have paid off. For more information about the NetEqualizer network access control module, please visit our Web site at www.netequalizer.com.

NetEqualizer Offers Net Neutrality, User Privacy Compromise


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.

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


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!