Editorial by Brian Boyko
Editor, Network Performance Daily

Ars Technica reported that a memo claiming that Time Warner was going to roll out a "pay-as-you-go" metered scheme for Internet access, rather than today's subscription-based unlimited bandwidth access plans was leaked to BroadbandReports.com. That memo, which since has been removed, claimed that Time Warner was going to try metered/limited access on a trial basis in Beaumont, Texas, and Time Warner representatives have confirmed this plan with Reuters.

As Ars Technica pointed out, Comcast has tried using bandwidth caps and traffic shaping to curb Internet usage among the customers that pay Comcast for Internet access. Comcast, however, has run into trouble because it has not revealed those policies to Comcast's customers. Time Warner will supposedly give customers online tools to monitor bandwidth usage.

Of course, it would be the best solution to increase the capability of the network - ISPs have to play by different rules than corporate networks as they are common carriers. But we don't know whether it is economically feasible for Time Warner's cable division to remain profitable while increasing the bandwidth, and if an unlimited-access plan is not feasible, a pay-as-you-go plan seems at first to be the fairest of the alternatives.

That said, there's something a little, well, strange about this, because the Internet is not a big truck that you just dump something on. It's a series of tubes.

Solving The Wrong Problem

That is, all Internet connections are merely the transfer of little positively and negatively charged electrical bits which stream down the wire. The limitations are not in the availability of the resource but in the capacity of distribution. We are not, in other words, "running out of bandwidth" like we run out of oil, run out of water, or run out of diapers.

What is limited is the capacity of the "pipe." To strain a metaphor, you could push Lake Michigan through a coffee stirring straw, but it would take a very, very long time.

Any pay-as-you-go plan has a fatal flaw - it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to bill people for the data they are downloading because data is not the limited resource!

What is limited is the capacity of the ISP's infrastructure at any particular moment in time, so it would be saner to limit the usage of the pipeline at a particular time. Perhaps to even out the usage of bandwidth, the ISP could provide different speeds for peak and off-peak usage times. Those unhappy with the slow speeds at peak times could pay a premium for a greater share of the pipe.

But wait a minute! ISPs already do this - I know that my Internet connection at home is capped at a certain speed. In fact I could get a faster speed simply by asking for it and paying a premium - no delay nor needed infrastructure upgrades. Just cash.

So the move to a pay-as-you-go plan seems, to be at best a case of solving the wrong problem, and at worst a case of "double dipping" by making people pay for data and bandwidth. (If there are network slowdowns, charging people per-gigabyte won't help much if people are still downloading that gigabyte at the same time of the day, after all.)

Your Experiences May Differ

Unfortunately, I've been on the receiving ends of one of these plans. Recently I was in New Zealand filming a movie about electoral reform. Bland stuff. While I was there, I was planning to upload film to the Internet - sort of a production blog. But I found that I couldn't - the ISP there, New Zealand Telecom, had placed my flatmates and myself on a pay-as-you-go program with a cap of only one gigabyte, and they would not increase the cap until the next billing period, which would have been after I left the country.

One gigabyte. Anything over that amount was downloaded at speeds that I hadn't seen since I bought my last 56.6k modem. That meant that even doing things like normal Web browsing was a particularly hard chore. Uploading film to YouTube was right out. I was even hoping to get some extra work done for Network Performance Daily during that time but found that I simply did not have the ability to do so. I was, in a word, ticked off and frustrated. It certainly made it quite a bit harder for me to use the network - I ended up getting a lot of iced mochas at the local Internet café, as patronage was a prerequisite for Internet service.

Now, I have no idea if Time Warner plans anything like New Zealand Telecom, and Time Warner has more competition - even in Beaumont, TX - than New Zealand Telecom did in Wellington. That may force them to abandon this plan if they find customers cancelling accounts and leaving for competitors.

It is rather important to notice that the last mainstream successful service that charged you based on how much you used it was 1996's AOL.

I've never been to Japan, France, or Korea but I'm told that all of these countries have broadband available at much greater speed, without having to worry about pay-as-you-go plans. So the question is not whether unlimited broadband is technically feasible as more people use broadband, the question is whether companies are willing to make the infrastructure investments necessary. And considering that there will be more competition, not less, as new technologies (like FIOS and WiMax) become available, investing in infrastructure rather than limiting customers seems to be the smarter move in the long term.

But let's say that this plan is a success in Beaumont, and catches on. What's the upshot for enterprise networking?

You Think You Have A Recreational Network Use Problem Now…

If people come to expect that every piece of data that goes through their network is going to cost them extra money, that may mean that all the large data that they were once downloading at home now ends up getting downloaded to the corporate network and taken home via flash drives. In addition to the spike in traffic use, there are also issues with copyright infringement liability, computer security (with flash drives from home possibly containing malware - not to mention that people will probably swap flash drives within the company, spreading infections,) and people looking for large files to download before they go home instead of doing work.

Now, in many ways, the problem with limited bandwidth availability from an ISP may seem similar to limited bandwidth availability on a corporate WAN. But a business has many more options for dealing with slow networks than an ISP does. Businesses can check their application performance and if necessary recode them (many legacy apps designed for a LAN are too "chatty" for the WAN.) They can set QoS policies to make sure certain types of traffic from certain types of applications get priority. Traffic can be rescheduled so that it goes through the system during off-peak times.

Businesses have all these options - including limiting the end-users in a number of different ways - because in a business, the network is there to serve the business. But in an ISP, the network is there to serve the subscribers by providing a common-carrier communications service.

As such, the subscribers of an ISP can and should determine what traffic should be on the network, when, where, and how much. Any methods to alter, curb, slow, or block traffic from the network should be disclosed to the end-user at the very least and should be avoided unless there are no other alternatives - to do otherwise is to create a value judgment on certain types of traffic and to endorse certain types of speech over others.

(Perhaps I'm wrong on this, but…) To my knowledge, no company uses a method similar to "pay-as-you-go" to curb recreational traffic on their networks. They may limit speeds to certain applications, they may block sites, but I don't believe that any company institutes a bandwidth cap on its own employees.

That to me suggests that this plan doesn't have much merit as a solution to ISP oversubscription.

What do you think about Time Warner's plan? Disagree with the author? Feel free to make your opinions heard in our comments section.

By Brian Boyko
Editor, Network Performance Daily

Slashdot recently linked to an article from MacWorld showing that the amount of time that people spend watching online video has steadily increased. (In other news, water is wet…) Google's YouTube and Google Video served up over a quarter of all internet videos.

I think we can assume that a fair percentage of them were watched from corporate networks. Not just because of recreational use but because video is a very compelling medium that can convey work-related information, sometimes more quickly and more accurately than text alone.

For example, our Whiteboard Series was created with the expectation that people would watch our videos on WAN Optimization and VoIP from work, where they would find the information most useful.

One really can't just block YouTube, or Veoh, or Yahoo Video and expect blocking it to solve the problem of tying up vital bandwidth, because video is increasing not just as a 'bandwidth hazard' but as a method of communication. And it's only going to get more bandwidth heavy - and more useful - as MPEG4+ACC "Moviestar" Flash Video, or WMV using Microsoft's Silverlight increase the quality of online streaming video.

Don't think there won't be content producers - like us - taking advantage of this as well. High definition full-fledged video cameras cost less than $1000 these days. A flash-video "YouTube camera" can record 720p HD for less than $200.

The way to prepare for this is to have good QoS policies in place, so that the day-to-day business data transactions aren't interrupted or slowed when people access online streaming video - which is quickly becoming a necessity.

One big thing that complicates this is hard shut-off date for the end of all analog TV transmissions in the U.S. on February 17, 2009. It is possible to use a converter box to use an older TV with the ATSC standard - but most people will probably get a high definition television instead. High-definition television will prompt high-definition content. That includes home movies.

Right now, High Definition home video cameras are sold to computer geeks, early adopters, and indie filmmakers. They will be more widely adopted when most families have a high definition TV set and want to play back home movies. And as many YouTube videos are harvested from the ranks of home movies, it is possible to then imply that there will be demand for a high definition video hosting service.

That's going to mean more bandwidth usage. QoS policies become crucial.

By Brian Boyko
Editor, Network Performance Daily

It seems that everyone is up in arms over Adblock, a FireFox plugin that enables users to block any ad with a right click or the downloading of a filter file that lists the most common advertisers. This has put fear into the hearts of Web content providers who make their living from advertising, with some calling it the "Nuclear Plug-in" - an "evil predator" that is "quietly eyeing all the businesses it would happily devour." - a plugin that is, even in the New York Times, regarded as an "extreme menace to the online-advertising business model."

One Web designer was so adamant about the Adblock plugin - he said that when you read the content without viewing the ads, you're "stealing" - that he blocked Firefox browsers entirely from his Web sites.

Criminy! Get some perspective.

First, from an enterprise network performance standpoint, there's absolutely no downside to not just encouraging Adblock in the name of both bandwidth conservation and network security - but to actually make it mandatory. The most annoying ads - flash banners, pop-ups, etc. are the ones that usually take up the most bandwidth and are more likely to have nasty malware payloads which cause more bandwidth and network security problems.

Relying on end-user action to prevent network performance problems can be futile, but encouraging users to use less bandwidth by doing something that they'd probably like anyway will do nothing but help.

So where does that leave people who earn a living, in part, from online advertising? Whatever the case, the Mozilla Foundation and Adblock does not "owe" advertisers a living. They didn't steal from advertisers any more than companies that make bank vault locks "steal" from bank robbers, or, more aptly, people who make earplugs steal from car-alarm manufacturers.

(Continued...)

Continue reading "Adblock: Adapt, or die." »

This phenomenon isn't limited to the Gummi Bears. There were protests in Mexico over the rising price of corn tortillas. German beers are feeling the pinch as farmers trade in hops and barley for the more lucrative rapeseed and corn. Jolly Time Popcorn isn't feeling so jolly after corn prices went up 70 percent. Between the double whammy of increased cost of corn and increased cost of every other crop because farmers are switching to growing corn instead, it's gotten to the point where it's cheaper to feed livestock, such as pigs, human snack food, according to the Wall Street Journal.

Back to network performance. Consider for the moment, that the path of the food we eat, from raw ingredients to our supermarket shelves consists of a "network" of sorts, this is a classic case of a sudden, unanticipated spike in demand from another endpoint in the network that is wreaking havoc on the network itself. Or, farmers switching to corn at the expense of other crops seems like a classic case of over provisioning one "application" on the network at the expense of all others.

These changes may have seemed insignificant at the time. Many disruptive changes do, which is why you need to have good visibility into your network - whether it's an enterprise network or a food distribution network.

Even a slight increase, for example, in network demand has a number of ancillary costs that many people don't look at. Greater demand of resources doesn't just require more bandwidth. It may necessitate greater processing power, which necessitates more hardware, which necessitates more power and more cooling.

I mean, when even the cost of alternative fuels are going up, many more people are going to be telecommuting from their homes instead of driving or flying in for business. If you're not prepared for a change like that by being aware of how your network is being used, and what changes are coming down the pipe, your network is in just as much trouble as the Gummi Bears are.

By Brian Boyko

In an early Network Performance Daily post, we spoke a bit about the impact that the Apple iPhone is likely to have on the company's IT department, and we thought that with some of the announcements of WWDC, it would be worth taking a look back and revisiting some of those ideas.

Back in January, we opined:

• People will use the iPhone at their jobs the way they use Blackberrys now.
• To the end-user, the iPhone is a personal cellphone, with no more need of IT scrutiny then their current phones. To the IT department, the iPhone is a mobile computer, increasing the complexity of the network and creating an additional demand of resources.
• The iPhone's rumored "phone over WiFi" capabilities means that even if you don't intend to roll out VoIP, you may still be dealing with converged traffic on your network.
• The iPhone's web browsing capability may draw additional bandwidth.
• The iPhone would be used as a gateway to SaaS software such as Google Docs and Salesforce.com.
• The iPhone is small enough to steal, requiring data to be secured.

Now that we know a little bit more about it, we can start to revise some of our predictions of how the IT department will have to deal with the new iPhone.

(Continued…)

Continue reading "I, Phone: Could the Apple iPhone's broad consumer appeal present a formidable threat to enterprise networks?" »

By Brian Boyko

"Jesus has come back, and he's a phone now."

The Apple iPhone might not be the second coming, but it will certainly be popular. Already the Web is being inundated by speculation, information, mis-information, rumor, innuendo, and anyone with an opinion on Apple writing about the iPhone.

So we thought: Why buck the trend?

The truth is that when this device comes out, many people are going to buy the iPhone, they will use it at their jobs - including those in a corporate IT environment - and that means it is going to become the responsibility of the IT manager.

(Continued...)

Continue reading "Why Apple's iPhone means more work for the IT department" »

by Jeff Hicks

Voice over IP (VoIP) is a hot topic in enterprise networking - mostly because it's a challenge. In implementation, VoIP employs a number of different protocols, and has a unique set of performance requirements that make it a challenge for any data network. Examining VoIP protocols should give someone a basic idea of the performance requirements that VoIP places on the network.

First, there's call setup, which sets up everything needed to make the telephone connection between the caller and the recipient (or “callee”). This requires protocols that enable dial tone, number lookup, ringing, and busy signals before the call even occurs. In addition, the call setup protocols handle things that happen after the call - any resource cleanup and statistic reporting.

Call setup protocols use either TCP or UDP to transfer data during the setup and takedown phases of a telephone call. The messages are sent back and forth between the caller, recipient, and call server using well-known ports. For calls that travel between the VoIP network and the Public Switched Telephone Network (PSTN), the call server will converse with a VoIP gateway using the call setup protocol. There are many different call setup protocols, some standardized and some proprietary. Let’s discuss a few of these.

(Continued...)

Continue reading "VoIP Protocol Basics, and Why VoIP Consumes More Bandwidth Than You Might Expect." »

Prof. Christopher Yoo, Vanderbilt University School of Law

Professor Christopher Yoo joined the faculty of the Vanderbilt University School of Law in 1999, and his research focuses primarily on how technological innovation and economic theories of imperfect competition are transforming the regulation of electronic communications.

In addition to clerking for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and working at the law firm of Hogan & Hartson under the supervision of now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., he has also published "Network Neutrality and the Economics of Congestion" [PDF] in Georgetown Law Journal, and "Beyond Network Neutrality" [PDF] in the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology.

Thanks to Network Performance Daily for giving me the chance to discuss some of my ideas and to the various readers on Network Performance Daily and Slashdot.com for their comments. The comments suggesting that QoS and optimizing networks have nothing to do with network neutrality are a testament to how much the network neutrality debate has changed over the last year and a half. For example, the network neutrality Policy Statement issued by the FCC in August 2005, which remains the focus of the network neutrality conditions in the AT&T-BellSouth, Verizon-MCI, and SBC-AT&T mergers, it focuses on providing differential service on the basis of application and devices as well as content source.

(Continued...)

Continue reading "Net Neutrality: Professor Yoo Responds to Comments" »

For more information on this topic, you can download our Tech Brief on Cisco WAAS, available here

by Steve Fulton

Users expect a ubiquitous and instantaneous network, as well as consistent application performance. This, combined with a proliferation of business critical, Web 2.0, (and recreational) applications that consume precious WAN bandwidth, forces IT to get very creative in squeezing more performance out of existing infrastructure.

Hence the red-hot market for application acceleration and WAN optimization products that address WAN performance problems caused by latency, congestion, and applications (such as WAFS and CIFS) that were designed for the LAN and now have to traverse the WAN due to data center consolidation.

Cisco shook things up in late 2006 with the introduction of WAAS-short for Wide Area Application Services-technology that is transparent to the underlying network infrastructure. According to Cisco, WAAS combines WAN optimization, acceleration of TCP-based applications, and Cisco's Wide Area File Services (WAFS) in a single appliance or blade.

WAAS addresses problems related to traffic congestion that need some sort of optimization done at the branch. It complements Cisco's Application Control Engine (ACE), which is a data center optimization product that integrates server load balancing, application security, and unique virtual partitioning capabilities.

(Continued...)

Continue reading "WAAS Up with Cisco's WAN Optimization Initiative?" »

Compiled by Brian Boyko

We (and many other experts) believe that there needs to be an industry discussion between developers and networking groups, because it seems that people - at least the people we come in contact with regularly - talk often about how applications designed and tested to run over a LAN perform horribly over a WAN.

Because this dialogue doesn't seem to be happening much yet, we've decided to try to take the initiative and help jump-start the discussion between appdev teams and networking groups.

Despite the fact that this blog deals with network performance, and as such would most likely appeal to IT managers, network engineers, and the occasional CTO/CIO, this blog's earliest success was an article by Carol Schiraldi speaking about games programming. That article made it on the front page of DZone - it's kind of like Digg for developers. While getting a developer audience was entirely unexpected, that article is what convinced us that we were starting to produce some compelling content, and caused us to set our sights very high. Over the past week, we've received over 15,000 unique visitors; which is not bad for a site that has been up less than 6 weeks!

On the other hand, some members of DZone had complained - fairly, in my opinion - that much of what we wrote didn't really affect developers. Although we got back on their front page again with an article by Russell Wilson regarding UI development, DZone has mostly remained a bit aloof to our offerings - and who can blame them. So we asked one of their editors, Lowell Heddings, how we could better serve the DZone community (and by extension, the developer community.) He had this to say:

"My main question for network engineers is... aren't routers boring? =P"

I'm pretty sure he was trying to blow us off. But he's got a point. Aren't routers boring? So I actually posed this question in a company-wide e-mail. Here are some of the best responses:

(Continued…)

Continue reading ""Aren't Routers Boring?" the developer asked." »