Four Reasons Why Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Is Declining in 2009


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

I recently returned from a regional NetEqualizer tech seminar with attendees from Western Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University and a few regional ISPs.  While having a live look at Eastern Michigan’s p2p footprint, I remarked that it was way down from what we had been seeing in 2007 and 2008.  The consensus from everybody in the room was that p2p usage is waning. Obviously this is not a wide data base to draw a conclusion from, but we have seen the same trend at many of our customer installs (3 or 4 a week), so I don’t think it is a fluke. It is kind of ironic, with all the controversy around Net Neutrality and Bit-torrent blocking,  that the problem seems to be taking care of itself.

So, what are the reasons behind the decline? In our opinion, there are several reasons:

1) Legal Itunes and other Mp3 downloads are the norm now. They are reasonably priced and well marketed. These downloads still take up bandwidth on the network, but do not clog access points with connections like torrents do.

2) Most music aficionados are well stocked with the classics (bootleg or not) by now and are only grabbing new tracks legally as they come out. The days of downloading an entire collection of music at once seem to be over. Fans have their foundation of digital music and are simply adding to it rather than building it up from nothing as they were several years ago.

3) The RIAA enforcement got its message out there. This, coupled with reason #1 above, pushed users to go legal.

4) Legal, free and unlimited. YouTube videos are more fun than slow music downloads and they’re free and legal. Plus, with the popularity of YouTube, more and more television networks have caught on and are putting their programs online.

Despite the decrease in p2p file sharing, ISPs are still experiencing more pressure on their networks than ever from Internet congestion. YouTube and NetFlix  are more than capable of filling in the void left by waning Bit-torrents.  So, don’t expect the controversy over traffic shaping and the use of bandwidth controllers to go away just yet.

Cox Shaping Policies Similar to NetEqualizer


Editor’s Note: Cox today announced a bandwidth management policy similar to NetEqualizer, but with a twist. It seems they are only delaying p2p during times of congestion (similar to NetEqualizer), but in order to specifically determine traffic is p2p, they are possibly employing some form of Deep Packet Inspection (not similar to NetEqualizer, which is traffic-type agnostic). If anybody has inside knowledge, we would appreciate comments here and will make corrections to our assertion if needed.

As this all plays out, it will be interesting to see how they differentiate p2p from video and if they are actually doing Deep Packet Inspection.  Also, if DPI is part of the Cox strategy, how will this sit with the FCC when they clearly strong armed  Comcast to stop using DPI ?

Cox Will Shape Its Broadband Traffic; Delay P2P & FTP Transfers

Om Malik | Gigaom.com | Tuesday, January 27, 2009

Cox Communications, the third largest cable company and broadband service provider is joining Comcast in traffic shaping and delaying traffic it thinks is not time sensitive. They call it congestion management, making it seem like a innocuous practice, though in reality it is anything but innocous. Chalk this up as yet-another-incumbent-behaving-badly!

To be fair, in the past Cox had made it pretty clear that it was going to play god with traffic flowing through its pipes. Next month, they will start testing a new method of managing traffic on its network in Kansas and Arkansas. Cox, outlining the congestion management policy on their website notes:

“…automatically ensures that all time-sensitive Internet traffic — such as web pages, voice calls, streaming videos and gaming — moves without delay. Less time-sensitive traffic, such as file uploads, peer-to-peer and Usenet newsgroups, may be delayed momentarily — but only when the local network is congested.”

Full article

ISP-planet nice article on NetEqualizer


NetEqualizer Sees New Opportunity

An aggressive move into a new channel comes along with cost cutting elsewhere in the business.

by Alex Goldman
ISP-Planet Managing Editor
[January 27, 2009]
Email a Colleague

When some ISP executives think “bandwidth shaper” they think of a device with a five digit price tag. If so, they’re not thinking of Lafayette, Colo.-based APConnection’s NetEqualizer product, which we last wrote about in 2007 (see Network Contention Specialist).

The NetEqualizer starts at under $2,000, and pricing is published online.

Full article

Do Internet Service Providers give home field advantage to their VOIP?


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.

The following article caught my attention this morning. Many of the ISPs that deploy our technology also provide their own VOIP service. Most have asked the question; can they make their in house VOIP offering work better than that offered by third parties such as Skype ? Fortunately, to date, we have taken the high road and talked them out of such a policy. We contend that protectionist strategies will eventually backfire. We have always proselytized if you have VOIP offering make sure it works well, price it well and your customers will stick with you.
Here is an excerpt from the Ars Technica article:

FCC wants to know if Comcast is interfering with VoIP

By Matthew Lasar | Published: January 19, 2009 – 10:25PM CT

Does Comcast give its own Internet phone service special treatment compared to VoIP competitors who use the ISP’s network? That’s basically the question that the Federal Communications Commission posed in a letter sent to the cable giant on Sunday.

Read on for the full article

Related Articles

The White lies ISPs tell about broadband speeds


Tips on Evaluating Routers, Bandwidth Shapers, Wirelss Access Points and Other Networking Equipment


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 two years ago.

As many IT managers may already know, it is very hard to find unbiased information regarding networking equipment.  Publications and analysts always seem to have some bias or motivation, as you never know who pays their fees. Even your peers that swear by a new technology  have a vested interest in the commercial success of their chosen technology. And, most IT managers are not going to second guess and critique a technology decision, where big money was spent,  as long it provides some value, even if it’s not exactly what they’d hoped for.

Obviously you should continue to use analysts and peers as sources of advice and information, but there are also other ways to find unbiased data prior to making a technology decision.

Here are some ideas that have worked over the years for both myself as a buyer as well as for our customers:

1) When evaluating technology, request to talk to the engineering or test team at the company you are buying from. This may not be possible, but is worth a try. Companies (sales teams) hate it when you talk directly to their engineers. Why? Because they are more likely to tell the truth about every little problem.

2) If you can’t find an engineer that currently works at the company, then find one that formerly worked there. This is easier than you might think. Techies with loads of experience and insight spend time in tech forums, and a simple post asking for inside knowledge may yield some good sources.

3) This may sound silly, but try Googling  (productname)sucks.com. You’ll be surprised by what you might find. Many of the companies that are too large for you to get in touch with their engineering staffs will have ad-hoc consumer complaint sites.  However, keep in mind that all companies and products will have unhappy customers, so don’t discount a large company in favor of a smaller one just because you find complaints about the market leader.  The smaller company just may not yet have the critical mass to draw organized negative attention. And, no matter how good a product is, there will likely always be an unhappy customer.

4) Nothing beats a live trial of a product. But, don’t limit your decision to the vendors slobbering to give you free trials.  Giving away free trials is a marketing strategy to move a product and ultimately adds to the final cost in one way or another. Smaller vendors with great products may not be offering free trials, so you may miss out on some valuable technology if you only look for the complimentary test runs. Plus, all vendors should have a return policy if  they are confident in their product, so, even without a free trial, it shouldn’t be all or nothing.

While there is no guarantee that these tips will always lead to the perfect product, they have certainly bettered our hit-to-miss ratio over the past several years. If you’re asking the right people and looking in the right places, a little research can go a long way.

Related Articles

Choosing an IM security Product

A call for revolutions against beta culture

Is Barack Obama going to turn the tide toward Net Neutrality ?


NetWork World of Canada discusses some interesting scenarios about possible policy changes with the new adminstration.

In the article the author (Howard Solomon) specifically sites Obama’s leaning…

Meanwhile, the new President favours net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) shouldn’t interfere with content traveling online, which could hurt Sandvine, a builder of deep packet inspection appliances for ISPs. At least one Senator is expected to introduce limiting legislation this month.

Will this help NetEqualizer sales and our support for behavior-based Net Neutral policy shaping?

According to Eli Riles vice president of sales at APconnections, “I don’t think it will change things much, we are already seeing steady growth, and I don’t expect a rush to purchase our equipment due to a government policy change. We sell mostly to Tier2 and Tier3 providers who have already generally stopped purchasing Layer 7 solutions mostly due to the higher cost and less so due to moral high ground or government mandate.”

related article

Stay tuned…

Can your ISP support Video for all?


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

Art Reisman CTO www.netequalizer.com

Art Reisman

As the Internet continues to grow with higher home user speeds available from Tier 1 providers,  video sites such as YouTube , Netflix,  and others are taking advantage of these fatter pipes. However, unlike the peer-to-peer traffic of several years ago (which seems to be abating), These videos don’t face the veil of copyright scrutiny cast upon p2p which caused most p2p users to back off. They are here to stay, and any ISP currently offering high speed Internet will need to accommodate the subsequent rising demand.

How should a Tier2 or Tier3 provider size their overall trunk to insure smooth video at all times for all users?

From measurements done in our NetEqualizer laboratories, a normal quality video stream requires around 350kbs bandwidth sustained over its life span to insure there are no breaks or interruptions. Newer higher definition videos may run at even higher speeds.


A typical rural wireless WISP will have contention ratios of about 300 users per 10-megabit link. This seems to be the ratio point where a small businesses can turn  a profit.  Given this contention ratio, if 30 customers simultaneously watch YouTube, the link will be exhausted and all 300 customers will be experience protracted periods of poor service.

Even though it is theoretically possible  to support 30 subscribers on a 10 megabit , it would only be possible if the remaining 280 subscribers were idle. In reality the trunk will become saturated with perhaps 10 to 15  active video streams,  as  obviously  the remaining 280 users are not idle. Given this realistic scenario, is it reasonable for an ISP with 10 megabits and 300 subscribers to tout they support video ?

As of late 2007 about 10 percent of Internet traffic was attributed to video. It is safe to safe to assume that number is higher now (Jan 2009). Using the 2007 number, 10 percent of 300 subscribers would yield on average 30 video streams, but that is not a fair number, because the 10 percent of people using video, would only apply to the subscribers who are actively on line, and not all 300. To be fair,  we’ll assume 150 of 300 subscribers are online during peak times.  The calculation now  yields an estimated 15 users doing video at one time, which is right on our upper limit of smooth service for a 10 megabit link, any more and something has to give.

The moral of this story so far is,  you should  be cautious before promoting unlimited video support with contention ratios of 30 subscribers to 1 megabit.  The good news is, most rural providers are not competing in metro areas, hence customers will have to make do with what they have. In areas more intense competition for customers where video support might make a difference, our recommendation is that  you will need to have a ratio closer to 20 subscribers to 1 megabit, and you still may have peak outages.

One trick you can use to support Video with limited Internet resources.

We have previously been on record as not being a supporter of Caching to increase Internet speed, well it is time to back track on that. We are now seeing results that Caching can be a big boost in speeding up popular YouTue videos. Caching and video tend to work well together as consumers tend to flock a small subset of the popular videos. The downside is your local caching server will only be able to archive a subset of the content on the master YouTube servers but this should be enough to give the appearance of pretty good video.

In the end there is no substitute for having a big fat pipe with enough room to run video, we’ll just have to wait and see if the market can support this expense.

Virtual PBX revisited


Editors Note:

This article written for VOIP magazine back in 2004 is worth revisiting.

Back in 2004 when I first wrote this article for the most part there was nothing commercially available  now, Jan 2009, the market is crowded with offers claiming to be virtual PBX’s . At APconnections, we currently use an offering from Aptela.com.  A true virtual PBX. Make sure you look under the hood at anything you evaluate.  All  the 800 service numbers call themselves virtual PBX’s; however, in our opinion, simply having a call answer service in the sky  is not a PBX. Read on for a detailed definition.

Before reposting we searched for the original but were unable to find it online.

—————————————————————————————————-

Art Reisman

By Art Reisman, CTO, APconnections makers of NetEqualizer Internet Optimization Equipment

Outsourcing Communications with a Virtual PBX

CTO http://www.apconnections.net http://www.netequalizer.com

A new breed of applications emerging from the intersection of VoIP and broadband may soon make the traditional premise-based PBX a thing of the past. Virtual PBX, hosted and delivered by today’s telcos and cable operators, is quickly becoming an option for businesses looking to outsource portions of their communications network. Rather than purchase and maintain an expensive piece of equipment, you can now sign up for a pay-as-you-go service with all of the functionality of an on-site PBX but with none of the expense.


To some, this idea may sound like a return to the past and, in a sense, it is. AT&T began delivering PBX functionality through its Centrex services in the 1970s. However, upon closer investigation, it is clear that the functionality delivered and the economics of the two approaches are very different.

The Private Branch Exchange: A Brief Primer

A PBX or private branch exchange allows an organization to maintain a small number of outside lines when compared to the number of actual telephones and users within an organization. Users of the PBX share these outside lines for making telephone calls outside the organization (external to the PBX).

Onsite PBX became popular and matured in the 1980s when the cost of remote connectivity was extremely high and the customer control of hosted PBX-like services of the time (Centrex) was limited, if it was even offered. In 1980, providing advanced, remote PBX services to a building with 100 employees would have required AT&T to run 100 individual copper lines from the local exchange to each telephone at the site.

As more and more businesses opted to install a PBX onsite, competition for customer dollars drove ever more extensive “business-class” features into these devices, further differentiating the premise-based PBX from the hosted products offered by telephone companies. Over time, PBX offerings gradually standardized into the product set that today we have come to expect when we pick up any business phone: voice-mail, auto attendant, call queuing, conferencing, call transfer, and more.

Flash forward from 1980 to 2005. Today, 100 direct phone lines can be transported from one location to another over many miles with no more than one wire. Remote access to control a PBX outside of your building is also trivial to implement with a simple Web portal. Technological advances coupled with feature stability and the broad appeal of PBX “applications” makes them a prime candidate for hosting.

A business starting today can have a full-featured hosted PBX with a single high-speed Internet connection. These virtualized services would require no additional equipment to purchase or maintain.

Defining Virtual PBX

Businesses looking to purchase such a service today can expect to find significant differences in the features and functionality available among offerings being marketed under the, often interchangeable, terms hosted or virtual PBX. To alleviate confusion and provide a starting point in your quest to outsource your communications network, the perfect, hosted PBX service would have the following features:

Auto-detectionThe PBX must dynamically detect remote stations from any place in the world and provide dial tone (As opposed to having a user dial in to obtain service. See the sidebar, Start with a Dial Tone).
Start with a Dial Tone
There are products on the market that remotely host a set of PBX services and require the user to dial in with a standard phone so the PBX can identify the caller. This is a viable approach to providing a hosted PBX with established stability. However, it does have a few restrictions not applicable to a pure hosted PBX.

  • When using the PBX services, the caller ties up a local phone line and blocks calls directly made to that line.
  • Obtaining a dial tone for an outbound call can only be done by first connecting to the PBX, or as a final alternative just using the standard phone line to dial out without going through the PBX, which takes away all of the cost and convenience benefits of the PBX.
  • A truly hosted PBX solution must provide a dial tone without first dialing in.

    Service Provisioning New service provisioning must be self-service with no expensive customer premise equipment required. For example, a customer with a credit card and access to a provider’s Web page should be able to initiate worldwide service in a matter of minutes.

    Standards Support Off-the-shelf SIP phones must be supported by the hosted service. A virtual PBX should not lock customers into using specific equipment or proprietary protocols.

    Affordable Start-up costs should be minimal and usage-based, allowing a small business to seamlessly grow and add stations as needed, without ever needing a disruptive upgrade or requiring a large capital investment.

    Level Rates Outbound and inbound toll rates should be provided at wholesale prices globally by the service provider. The customer can be assured of one published competitive price for outgoing calls and incoming calls.

    Administration Each business using the service should have access to a private portal allowing them to administer features and options. The organization’s account and services should be secure and accessible to a designated administrator 24/7.

    Bundled Applications The service must offer a minimum set of applications common to an onsite PBX. The most common of which include: transfer, conference, forward, find me, follow me, voice mail, auto attendant, basic call reporting, and inbound and outbound caller ID.

    Technology Considerations

    While the benefits to a hosted PBX solution are immediately obvious–elimination of equipment hard costs and the specialized knowledge required to keep it up and running–there are drawbacks to consider when adopting an emerging technology.

    The first point to consider is that the technology behind hosted PBX services has not yet developed to the point of large-scale enterprise deployments. Currently, the organizations that will see the most benefit from a hosted solution are small- to medium-sized businesses.

    Quality of service, the shadow that follows every voice over IP application, is the overriding technology hurdle that consumers need to be aware of when considering a hosted PBX solution. Latency can also be an issue; the different routes that IP data takes across the Internet can cause speech breaks and dropped calls.

    QoS and latency are key considerations when discussing bandwidth requirements and network architecture with potential vendors. Being undersold on bandwidth when moving to an IP communications network can create problems above and beyond being oversold.

    Selecting a Vendor

    The low barrier to entry for vendors looking to offer hosted PBX services has created a number of options for consumers and driven down costs, but customers need to be aware that not all service providers are equal.

    Existing Infrastructure Deploying a world-wide hosted PBX service as outlined above requires a significant infrastructure investment to handle the centralized switching needed to move millions of simultaneous call around the world. When investigating service providers, look for a vendor that has the knowledge to grow not only with your business but also with the broad adoption of the technology as a whole. Having a tested, existing infrastructure in place for business-class communications is key.

    Service Provider Network One method of alleviating IP voice quality issues on a regional basis is by staying within a large service provider network. For example, if an organization uses a Qwest T3 trunk service at its headquarters and an employee travels to neighboring cities with Qwest DSL service in their hotels, it is unlikely that quality problems will be experienced at the carrier level. Choosing a vendor that understands how your organization will use the service should be an important part of your selection process.

    Conclusion

    While adoption is not yet widespread, hosted services are here and will only get better with time. As companies continue to seek the benefits of outsourcing the elements of their enterprise–from business processes to core technologies—adoption will continue to grow, making hosted PBX is a technology to keep your eye on in 2005.

    Note the author uses a solution from Aptela and has found their support to be top notch and was the main reason for switching about 4 years ago.

    Comcast fairness techniques comparison with NetEqualizer


    Comcast is now rolling out the details of their new policy on Traffic shaping Fairness as they get away from their former Deep Packet inspection.

    For the complete Comcast article click here

    Below we compare techniques with the NetEqualizer

    Note: Feel free to  comment if you feel we  need to make any corrections in our comparison our goal is to be as accurate as possible.

    1) Both techniques make use of slowing users down if they exceed a bandwidth limit over a time period.

    2) The Comcast bandwidth limit kicks in after 15 minutes and is based only on a customers usage over that time period, it is not based on the congestion going on in the overall network.

    3) NetEqualizer bandwidth limits are based on the last 8 seconds of customer usage, but only kick when the overall Network is full.  (the aggregate bandwidth utilization of all users on the line has reached a critical level)

    4) Comcast punishes offenders by cutting them back  50 percent for a minimum of 15 minutes

    5) NetEqualizer punishes offenders  just a few seconds and then lets them back to full strength. It will hit the offending connection with a decrease ranging from 50 to 80 percent.

    6) Comcast puts a restriction on all traffic to the user during the 15 minute Penalty period

    7) NetEqualizer only punishes offending connections , for example if you were running an FTP download and a streaming audio , only the FTP download would be effected by the restriction.

    In our opinion both methods are effective and fair.

    FYI NetEqualizer also has a Quota system which is used by a very small percent of our customers. It is very similar to the Comcast 15 minute system only that the time interval is done in Days.

    Details on the NetEqualizer Quota based system can be found in the user guide page 11.

    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.

    NetEqualizer Seminar at Eastern Michigan University


    NetEq. Seminars

    On January 27, we will be hosting a complimentary NetEqualizer Seminar at Eastern Michigan University in Ypsilanti, Michigan. EMU, which has been a NetEqualizer user for several months, is the home of over 23,000 students, providing for a first-hand look at the NetEqualizer’s capabilities. In addition, door prizes will be awarded to attendees, including a number of Garmin GPS systems.We’ll cover:

    • The various tradeoffs regarding how to stem p2p and bandwidth abuse
    • Recommendations for curbing RIAA requests
    • Demo of the new NetEqualizer network access control module
    • Lots of customer Q&A and information sharing on how Eastern Michigan University is using the NetEqualizer, including some hands on probing of a live system

    When: Tuesday, January 27, 10 a.m. to noon

    Where:

    Eastern Michigan University
    Bruce T. Halle Library Building, Room 302
    955 West Circle Drive
    Ypsilanti, MI 48197
    (directions)

    This will be a great opportunity to learn more about the issues and challenges facing network administrators as well as see the NetEqualizer in action. If you’re in the area, be sure not to miss it! For more information, contact us at admin@apconnections.net.

    Network Access Control lease plan now available from APconnections


    APconnections to Offer Managed Network Access Control with no upfront costs.

    LAFAYETTE, Colo., January 6, 2009 — APconnections, a leading supplier
    of plug-and-play bandwidth shaping products and the creator of the
    NetEqualizer, today announced it would begin offering a network access
    control management services with no upfront  costs.

    The services will be targeted toward networks that typically see a
    high degree of turnover among users, such as airports, hotels, and
    Internet cafes. For qualifying customers, APconnections will remotely
    manage access to Internet connections, leaving clients free from the
    worry of regulating and distributing short-term Internet service.

    The suggested initial management package will offer users the option
    of utilizing a complimentary 128 kbs connection or upgrading to a
    high-speed 1-megabit connection for a fee. Upon accessing the network,
    users will be directed to a billing page, which will offer the two
    levels of service. The content of this page will largely be determined
    by the client, including the option to display advertisements from
    local vendors, providing the opportunity to further increase revenues.

    In addition to clients no longer having to worry about regulating
    Internet access, APconnections will also be responsible for all
    billing and technical support. On a monthly basis, clients will be
    provided with a statement showing income and network usage.

    The only cost to clients will be a pre-determined percentage of the
    income from customers’ high-speed upgrades. While this service can be
    provided for customers with an existing ISP, Internet service can also
    be established or expanded through APconnections directly for an
    additional fee.

    To qualify, clients must average a set number of monthly users. A
    one-month trial of the service will be offered at no charge, at the
    conclusion of which a service contract must be signed.

    For more information, please contact APconnections at 1-888-287-2492
    or via e-mail at admin@APconnections.net.

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

    Art Reisman
    www.apconnections.net
    www.netequalizer.com
    303-997-1300 extension 103
    720-560-3568 cell

    The True Cost of Bandwidth Monitoring


    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.

    Planetmy
    Linux Tips
    How to set up a monitor for free

    APconnections Announces NetEqualizer Holiday Promotion


    APconnections announced today that all NetEqualizer’s purchased between December 10, 2008 and January 1, 2009 will automatically entitle the purchaser to a free Garmin GPS system.

    Details:

    Qualifying purchasers of NetEqualizer models NE2000-20 and above will receive a Garmin nüvi® 200 (part number: 010-00621-10):

    garming-nuvi-2001

    Purchases of NetEqualizer models NE2000-10, NE2000-4, NE2000-2, or any NSS qualify for a free Garmin eTrex® H (part number: 010-00631-00):

    etrex-h

    To qualify, send us the serial number and purchase date from your NetEqualizer. Requests for Garmin  units must be received by Jan 31, 2009. Only NetEqualizer models and NSS upgrades purchased between December 10, 2008 and January 1, 2009 will qualify. Offer good while supplies last. Standard mapping software included as provided by Garmin. All other accessories and mapping software not included.

    NetEqualizer Network Access Control Module Helps Generate Revenue


    Background: The NetEqualizer network access control module (NAC), which was released this past September, allows users to re-direct “unknown” or “unauthorized” traffic to a web server hosted on the NetEqualizer.  Once redirected, you can have the NetEqualizer perform a variety of actions, including:

    1) Authenticating a user via login
    2) Allowing the unknown user to create a paid account (using a credit card, for example)
    3) Allowing the user to pass through to the Internet without logging in

    Did you know that the NetEqualizer network access control module offers several options to generate revenue? One of the dilemmas many of our customers have mentioned is that in order to be competitive they don’t want to charge for their Internet service (hotels, etc.). Well, the cool thing about the NAC module is that you can offer multiple logins with different rate limits. For example, one could be your standard free service and another could be a paid service with higher bandwidth rates.

    An additional revenue generating feature of the NAC module is the ability to run advertisements on the login screens. For example, if you’re a hotel operator, even if you’re not charging for Internet service, you could have your guests login on a screen with the logo and name of a local merchant, or anybody that is interested in cross marketing with your hotel.

    The NAC module also has customizable splash screens on its default login page that you can edit, thus welcoming your users with whatever content you choose.

    For more information about the NetEqualizer network access control module, visit our Web page at www.netequalizer.com or contact us at 1-888-287-2492 or via email at sales@netequalizer.com.

    NetEqualizer Passes Load Testing with High Marks


    Editor’s Note: We just wanted to comment on this recent press release. This is not just industry hype as we really do test our units. To give you an example, several years ago we had a few units locking up in the field (perhaps one out of hundred) after many hours of continuous use. This type of problem is hard to re-create in a lab, but, unless you can recreate it, there’s very little chance of finding and correcting the issue. However, with the help of Candela Technologies and their LanForge equipment, we were able to recreate the problem quite easily. It was just a matter of accelerating time by increasing loads on the NetEqualizer well beyond what was likely in the real world.

    Since that first experience with a load-related latent bug, we have always gone back to Candela for validation testing under load and are happy to say we have caught all service-related bugs with new versions prior to release.

    With that said, here is the latest press release:


    One-Gigabit NetEqualizer Performs Flawlessly Under Independent Load Testing

    USA, FERNDALE, Washington (December 03, 2008) – APconnections – a leading supplier of plug-and-play bandwidth shaping products – today announced test results from the independent laboratory of Candela Technologies.

    “APconnections has been coming to us for years to put extreme realistic loads on their equipment,” said Ben Greear, lead engineer, Candela Technologies. “We used our LANforge traffic generator to hit the latest NetEqualizer release with over 1.2 million simulated user data streams within a 60 second window. The NetEqualizer shrugged off
    the abuse and continued to pass in excess of 800Mbps of bi-directional traffic.  The NetEqualizer successfully ran this torture test for a full 24 hours without a hiccup.”

    Eli Riles, vice president of technology at APconnections, was very pleased with the results, noting the importance of the tests to ensuring NetEqualizer’s high level of performance.

    “With our higher-end shaping solutions, we cannot afford a problem in the field,” said Riles.

    APconnections is extremely grateful to have such a knowledgeable company like Candela Technologies with such impressive simulation capabilities testing its equipment. Their load generator is able to strain equipment well beyond real world situations, ensuring its stability and protecting company and product reputations.

    The NetEqualizer is a plug-and-play bandwidth control and WAN/Internet optimization appliance. It is both flexible and scalable. The NetEqualizer’s unique “behavior shaping” technology gives priority to latency-sensitive applications such as VoIP and email. It does it all automatically and so dynamically while improving on other bandwidth shaping technology available.

    For more information regarding the New NetEqualizer one-gigabit  carrier class traffic shaping solution, please visit www.netequalizer.com.

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

    Candela Technologies specializes in emulating network traffic including VoIP and VLANs.