Net Neutrality Defined,Barack Obama is on the bandwagon

By Art Reisman, CTO,

Art Reisman CTO

Art Reisman

There continues to be a flurry of Net Neutrality articles published and according to one, Barack Obama is a big supporter of Net Neutrality.  Of course that was a fleeting campaign soundbite that the media picked up without much context.

I was releived to see that finally a politically entity put a definition on Net Neutrality.

From the government of Norway we get:

“The new rules lay out three guidelines. First, Internet users must be given complete and accurate information about the service they are buying, including capacity and quality. Second, users are allowed to send and receive content of their choice, use services and applications of their choice. and connect any hardware and software that doesn’t harm the network. Finally, the connection cannot be discriminated against based on application, service, content, sender, or receiver.”

Full Article: Norway gets net neutrality—voluntary, but broadly supported

I could not agree more. Note that this definition does not rule out some form a fair bandwidth shaping, and that is an important distinction because the Internet will be reduced to gridlock without some traffic control.

The funniest piece of irony in this whole debate is that the larger service providers are warning of Armageddon without some form of fairness rules, (and I happen to agree) , while at the same time their marketing arm is creating an image of infinite unfettered access for $29 a month. (I omitted a reference link because they change daily)

More on Deep Packet Inspection and the NebuAd case

By Art Reisman

CTO of APconnections, makers of the plug-and-play bandwidth control and traffic shaping appliance NetEqualizer

Art Reisman CTO

Editors note:

This  latest article published in DSL reports reminds me of the time  where a bunch of friends (not me),  are smoking a joint in a car when the police pull them over, and the guy holding the joint takes the fall for everybody.  I don’t want to see any of these ISPs get hammered as I am sure they are good companies.

It seems like this case should be easily settled.  Even if privacy laws were viloated , the damage was perhaps a few unwanted AD’s that popped up on a browser, not some form of extortion of private records. In any case, the message should be clear to any ISP, don’t implement DPI of any kind to be safe.  And yet, for every NebuAd privacy lawsuit case article I come across , I must see at least two or three press releases from vendors announcing major deals with  for DPI equipment ?

FUll Original article link from DSL reports

ISPs Play Dumb In NebuAD Lawsuit
Claim they were ‘passive participants’ in user data sales…
08:54AM Thursday Feb 05 2009 by Karl Bode
tags: legal · business · privacy · consumers · Embarq · CableOne · Knology
Tipped by funchords See Profile

The broadband providers argue that they can’t be sued for violating federal or state privacy laws if they didn’t intercept any subscribers. In court papers filed late last week, they argue that NebuAd alone allegedly intercepted traffic, while they were merely passive participants in the plan.

By “passive participants,” they mean they took (or planned to take) money from NebuAD in exchange for allowing NebuAD to place deep packet inspection hardware on their networks. That hardware collected all browsing activity for all users, including what pages were visited, and how long each user stayed there. It’s true many of the the carriers were rather passive in failing to inform customers these trials were occurring — several simply tried to slip this through fine print in their terms of service or acceptable use policies.

NetEqualizer Bandwidth Control Tech Seminar Video Highlights

Tech Seminar, Eastern Michigan University, January 27, 2009

This 10-minute clip was professionally produced January 27, 2009. It  gives a nice quick overview of how the NetEqualizer does bandwidth control while providing priority for VoIP and video.

The video specifically covers:

1) Basic traffic shaping technology and NetEqualizer’s behavior-based methods

2) Internet congestion and gridlock avoidance on a network

3) How peer-to-peer file sharing operates

4) How to counter the effects of peer-to-peer file sharing

5) Providing QoS and priority for voice and video on a network

6) A short comparison by a user (a university admin) who prefers NetEqualizer to layer-7 deep packet inspection techniques

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 | | 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

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

By Art Reisman

Art Reisman CTO

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) 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

Can your ISP support Video for all?

By Art Reisman, CTO,

Art Reisman CTO

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.

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


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

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

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

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

Art Reisman
303-997-1300 extension 103
720-560-3568 cell

The True Cost of Bandwidth Monitoring

By Art Reisman

Art Reisman CTO

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.

Linux Tips
How to set up a monitor for free

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

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.

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

The Pros and Cons of Technology Showdowns (for traffic shapers and more)

This is my second re-write of this quick post discussing the pros and cons of a tech showdown (i.e., pitting two products head-to-head in a trial demo duel). In my first edition, I put together a big list with very politically correct pros and cons.  And then I tossed it. Instead, I am just going to really speak my mind and shorten it a bit.  So here goes. Pulling no punches this time…

1) Assuming you have two or more very high-end solutions to choose from, are truly undecided, and are planning to purchase one of them, then by all means get those vendors in there an make them show them your stuff. But if for some reason you can eliminate one of them early, try to do so.  A showdown should be a final tie breaker, not the first thing you try.

2) Try to avoid a showdown (for political reasons) if  you are pretty sure you know what you want already. Do some background checks on the product.  With the information available on the Internet today, a bad product can’t hide.  Then,  if everything checks out, settle with your first choice and purchase it.  Obviously, make sure you can return it if for some reason it does not live up to expectations.

3) If you are doing a showdown because you have  tech time and no capital budget right now, then please have your techs do something else with their time.

Showdowns drive up product costs for everybody: the vendor, yourself, and future buyers in the industry.  Yes they are a valid tool and necessary in many situations, but please use some discretion.  The time, money, and resources saved by foregoing an uneeded showdown will help the tide come in and raise all ships.

NetEqualizer Direct Sales and Restocking Fee

A customer recently stated that the restocking fee we charge gave the appearance of a lack of confidence in our product. I can appreciate that perception, especially with all the failed products many IT professionals have been burned with over the years.

However, here is the official reasoning behind why we charge a restocking fee.  As taken from my response to this customer:

The restocking fee has its roots based on a couple of factors

1) The restocking fee is designed to make sure we don’t get inundated with requests for free units from customers that are “just looking”. The other vendors  you mention charge much higher prices, sometimes four times as much,  and they typically use a channel that already purchases stock for the purposes of demo’s. All of this cost gets passed along to the customers that end up buying the product (basically covering the cost of dry wells).  We sell mostly direct and with  no local presence it is difficult to know a customer’s buying patterns.   You’d be surprised how many customers will trial something  without any intention to purchase.  But, many times it is not the immediate customers fault as the CIO might change the IT manager’s  budget, etc.

2) We are  not 100-percent certain that our unit will solve your issue. I’d  say we are closer to 80-percent certain based on what you described, but we will easily provide you with $200 of support helping you figure out what your issue is. You will have the chance to talk directly to our engineers who trouble shoot thousands of networks a year with similar problems. We do not want or pretend to be a consulting company, but we don’t want to consult without recouping some of our cost either — especially with our low margins which we are already passing along.

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

%d bloggers like this: