Tunneling your way around ISP traffic manipulation

by on May 22, 2008 · 40 comments

Stuck with limited ISP choices, broadband users are increasingly angry with the growing number of providers that poke around in their customers’ traffic. From resetting Bittorrent sessions to sniffing packets for URLs, more and more providers are wielding their power as the “man in the middle” to monitor and manipulate traffic in unpopular and possibly illegal ways. While these practices can be beneficial, tech-savvy consumers are understandably agitated. Congress is now considering legislation that would outlaw these ISP practices.

Instead of urging lawmakers to enact sweeping new laws that would often do more harm than good, broadband users should look to the recent emergence of commercial secure tunneling services. These services remind us that the marketplace is perfectly capable of resolving skirmishes without government getting involved.

Numerous companies have begun to offer encrypted tunnels using Virtual Private Networks (VPNs). These networks have long been used for a variety of reasons, and are popular with network security experts because of how well they protect data from outside snooping. By tunneling traffic through secure links, broadband users can break free from the constraints imposed by ISPs on certain types of traffic. Routing peer to peer applications through these tunnels makes them almost entirely indistinguishable from other types of traffic—even to stateful packet inspection tools like Sandvine that are undeterred by header encryption.

Tunneling traffic via encrypted, remote servers is also one of the toughest targets for ISPs. Many corporate users and university students connect to VPNs for necessary reasons, and there’s no easy way for an ISP to distinguish “legitimate” VPN traffic from the other kind. And with new secure tunneling firms popping up all the time, simply blocking the IP-address ranges of known tunnels is no solution. Absent a VPN Whitelist—highly infeasible given the growing number of VPNs in the wild—ISPs will soon realize that, no matter how much they invest in packet inspection tools like Sandvine and Phorm, informed users will always find a way to stay a step ahead.

Despite being the freest nation on earth, the United States has a spotty track record when it comes to Internet privacy and anonymity. Fortunately, VPN services can be based anywhere on the planet. Data retention laws (like the one pending in the current Congress) have little effect on the privacy of users who tunnel their traffic through a nation that doesn’t force ISPs to retain data. Gleaning useful intelligence from a VPN connection between the user and the exit node is impossible — even if your ISP captures every last byte you transmit, as long as your VPN service doesn’t retain data, government snoops or would-be hackers will be left with nothing but indecipherable garbage.

VPN services typically charge a small monthly fee, but not all of them cost money. Some VPN services only offer PPTP encryption. That’s enough to deter casual snooping, but it can be cracked with some determination. Other services offer more sophisticated IPSec or SSL based encryption that relies on the highly secure AES cipher. All of the world’s supercomputers combined cannot crack data that has been properly encrypted via AES and a strong password. Of course, by using a VPN service, you are placing your trust in the tunneling service rather than your ISP—so verifying the service’s commitment to privacy and reliability is paramount.

Tunneling services can also circumvent region-locking techniques used by content portals like those offered by the major television networks. People living outside the United States often cannot access desired content because of exclusivity agreements with content owners. Portals typically block foreign residents by running a reverse DNS lookup on visitors’ IP addresses, which reveals the user’s country of origin. But offshore VPN services conceal their users’ true location, causing users to appear as if they are located in the country in which the VPN server is based.

Like many other goods and services, VPNs can be used for good or evil. Some of the uses discussed here may even violate laws in certain nations or run astray of terms of service agreements. Despite the potential for misuse, the secure tunnel is a promising tool that will likely grow more popular as ISPs increasingly turn to deep packet inspection for both network management and profit-seeking purposes.

  • Adam Thierer

    Ryan… I think you’ve set a new record for the number of hyperlinks in a single TLF post! God, it must of taken you a week to insert all that stuff.

  • http://felter.org/ Wes Felter

    So I should pay for a broken ISP, then pay more for a VPN to fix it? No way.

  • Ryan Radia

    Well, I have to do something to make it seem as if I have a clue what I’m talking about.

  • http://www.techliberation.com Adam Thierer

    Ryan… I think you’ve set a new record for the number of hyperlinks in a single TLF post! God, it must of taken you a week to insert all that stuff.

  • http://felter.org/ Wes Felter

    So I should pay for a broken ISP, then pay more for a VPN to fix it? No way.

  • Ryan Radia

    Well, I have to do something to make it seem as if I have a clue what I’m talking about.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    It strikes me that VPN tunneling isn’t a practical way to pirate movies and music because the servers would have to handle an awful lot of traffic for not much money, if any.

    It also strikes me that it’s trivial for an ISP to detect VPN tunneling in progress and de-prioritize it.

    And also, your statement about “resetting Bittorrent sessions” is a bit misleading. The BitTorrent session consists of dozens of TCP streams. Some of the streams were reset, but the BitTorrent session itself was not reset. There’s no way for an ISP to actually reset a BitTorrent session, since it constantly spawns new TCP streams and keeps running like the Energizer bunny.

    I wish people would get this little distinction right.

    Finally, the major problem with VPNs is that they prevent the ISP from using DPI in beneficial ways, especially for caching. When the whole world gets HDTV from the Internet, it’s going to be necessary to employ caches inside the ISP networks to prevent choking the whole system. VPNs defeat caching, and that is a very, very bad thing for The People.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    It strikes me that VPN tunneling isn’t a practical way to pirate movies and music because the servers would have to handle an awful lot of traffic for not much money, if any.

    It also strikes me that it’s trivial for an ISP to detect VPN tunneling in progress and de-prioritize it.

    And also, your statement about “resetting Bittorrent sessions” is a bit misleading. The BitTorrent session consists of dozens of TCP streams. Some of the streams were reset, but the BitTorrent session itself was not reset. There’s no way for an ISP to actually reset a BitTorrent session, since it constantly spawns new TCP streams and keeps running like the Energizer bunny.

    I wish people would get this little distinction right.

    Finally, the major problem with VPNs is that they prevent the ISP from using DPI in beneficial ways, especially for caching. When the whole world gets HDTV from the Internet, it’s going to be necessary to employ caches inside the ISP networks to prevent choking the whole system. VPNs defeat caching, and that is a very, very bad thing for The People.

  • Ryan Radia

    Amazon S3 charges 10 to 17 cents per GB transferred. VPN traffic would be somewhat more demanding from a CPU standpoint, but no more demanding in terms of bandwidth. I see no reason VPN servers could not charge reasonable rates. In fact, Steganos offers VPN service with unlimited bandwidth usage for a little over $30 a month. They also offer a 25GB tier for less than $10 per month.

    It is trivial to detect and throttle VPN traffic, but doing so would irritate lots of profitable customers. As I mentioned, corporate users and university students increasingly connect to VPNs from home and are not likely to put up with degraded traffic. I suppose ISPs could impose a surcharge for unthrottled VPN use, but even that would likely be a tough sell.

    My terminology on Bittorrent was imprecise and for that I apologise, although I think it is fairly clear that Comcast is resetting any TCP sessions that appear to be seeding Bittorrent, rather than completely blocking or preventing Bittorrent itself. How would you describe what Comcast is doing with Bittorrent in a concise, brief, simple way?

    And I agree with you that VPNs are the enemy of ISP-level caching. But what ISPs are caching at the present? Caching has often been discussed as a possible solution to the “exaflood” but it has yet to take off as far as I know. If ISPs want to cache data then they should encourage customers to not use VPNs—inspecting customer web browsing for keywords for use in advertising, however innocent and harmless, is not a good way to convince customers to communicate information out in the open.

  • Ryan Radia

    Amazon S3 charges 10 to 17 cents per GB transferred. VPN traffic would be somewhat more demanding from a CPU standpoint, but no more demanding in terms of bandwidth. I see no reason VPN servers could not charge reasonable rates. In fact, Steganos offers VPN service with unlimited bandwidth usage for a little over $30 a month. They also offer a 25GB tier for less than $10 per month.

    It is trivial to detect and throttle VPN traffic, but doing so would irritate lots of profitable customers. As I mentioned, corporate users and university students increasingly connect to VPNs from home and are not likely to put up with degraded traffic. I suppose ISPs could impose a surcharge for unthrottled VPN use, but even that would likely be a tough sell.

    My terminology on Bittorrent was imprecise and for that I apologise, although I think it is fairly clear that Comcast is resetting any TCP sessions that appear to be seeding Bittorrent, rather than completely blocking or preventing Bittorrent itself. How would you describe what Comcast is doing with Bittorrent in a concise, brief, simple way?

    And I agree with you that VPNs are the enemy of ISP-level caching. But what ISPs are caching at the present? Caching has often been discussed as a possible solution to the “exaflood” but it has yet to take off as far as I know. If ISPs want to cache data then they should encourage customers to not use VPNs—inspecting customer web browsing for keywords for use in advertising, however innocent and harmless, is not a good way to convince customers to communicate information out in the open.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    This isn’t correct, Ryan: “I think it is fairly clear that Comcast is resetting any TCP sessions that appear to be seeding Bittorrent, rather than completely blocking or preventing Bittorrent itself.”

    Even the harshest critics have only claimed to have seen Comcast resetting *some* of the TCP streams associated with a BitTorrent seeding session, not *any*. In this analysis, *some* has a value of around 50%. I describe this process as as “pruning;” it doesn’t kill the bush, but it does stop it from spreading like a weed.

    The argument against VPNs comes down to degraded performance. DPI is your friend, embrace it and be happy.

    Many ISPs have caching gear in use already, especially the smaller ones like LARIAT. It greatly reduces their bandwidth gear and provides a more satisfactory experience for the customers, most of whom can’t be bothered with hiding their identities. The ISP knows who they are anyway.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    This isn’t correct, Ryan: “I think it is fairly clear that Comcast is resetting any TCP sessions that appear to be seeding Bittorrent, rather than completely blocking or preventing Bittorrent itself.”

    Even the harshest critics have only claimed to have seen Comcast resetting *some* of the TCP streams associated with a BitTorrent seeding session, not *any*. In this analysis, *some* has a value of around 50%. I describe this process as as “pruning;” it doesn’t kill the bush, but it does stop it from spreading like a weed.

    The argument against VPNs comes down to degraded performance. DPI is your friend, embrace it and be happy.

    Many ISPs have caching gear in use already, especially the smaller ones like LARIAT. It greatly reduces their bandwidth gear and provides a more satisfactory experience for the customers, most of whom can’t be bothered with hiding their identities. The ISP knows who they are anyway.

  • http://www.openmarket.org Ryan Radia

    Got me again, Richard. When I said “any” I should have said (and meant) many. According to this report Comcast is interfering with anywhere from 30 to 80 percent of Bittorrent seeding traffic at various times of day. Again, my lack of clarity is regrettable and I thank you for keeping me technically precise.

    I checked out Lariat’s website and it looks like a pretty neat ISP. I couldn’t find any details about caching, though, either on their website or by doing a Google search. Exploring the benefits of ISP caching is of interest to me, so if you know of any sources that discuss actual implementations of caching, I’m all ears.

    DPI is often a good thing, but it isn’t always used in consumer-friendly ways. I do not think everybody needs to use VPN tunnels. The mission of my post was to give the run down on how to keep your online activities private and circumvent discriminatory traffic interference. It’s hard to see anything more than a small minority of users who happen to be the most paranoid and tech-savvy choosing to use VPN services, so I don’t think caching is at risk as long as VPN usage remains fairly low.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/the-riaa-loses-but-doesnt-realize-it-or-boycotting-the-riaa-has-never-made-more-sense-or-been-easier/ enigma_foundry

    Ryan:

    Thank you very much for the links, it’s good to see that.

    Regarding the caching, if it becomes useful, won’t the VPN servers themselves begin caching? It seems they would, if it was intelligently done, save them money in the long run?

  • Ryan Radia

    Got me again, Richard. When I said “any” I should have said (and meant) many. According to this report Comcast is interfering with anywhere from 30 to 80 percent of Bittorrent seeding traffic at various times of day. Again, my lack of clarity is regrettable and I thank you for keeping me technically precise.

    I checked out Lariat’s website and it looks like a pretty neat ISP. I couldn’t find any details about caching, though, either on their website or by doing a Google search. Exploring the benefits of ISP caching is of interest to me, so if you know of any sources that discuss actual implementations of caching, I’m all ears.

    DPI is often a good thing, but it isn’t always used in consumer-friendly ways. I do not think everybody needs to use VPN tunnels. The mission of my post was to give the run down on how to keep your online activities private and circumvent discriminatory traffic interference. It’s hard to see anything more than a small minority of users who happen to be the most paranoid and tech-savvy choosing to use VPN services, so I don’t think caching is at risk as long as VPN usage remains fairly low.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    Ryan:

    Thank you very much for the links, it’s good to see that.

    Regarding the caching, if it becomes useful, won’t the VPN servers themselves begin caching? It seems they would, if it was intelligently done, save them money in the long run?

  • http://www.ssokolow.com/ Stephan Sokolow

    Of course, there are limits to what market competition can do… as evidenced by the events here in eastern Canada.

    The cable companies now block encrypted connections by whitelisting, the telco (also an internet company) throttles in the local loop (so 3rd-party DSL ISPs get throttled) based on a whitelist that excludes anything encrypted, and both have implemented a 60GB monthly limit.

    For Rogers Cable, you get disconnected when your bandwidth runs out after having warnings injected into your HTTP sessions. For Bell Sympatico, you get charged $1.50/GB. (With the $30 cap on overage charges coming off at the end of either June or July… I forget which.)

    Thank goodness I could at least dodge the 60GB limit (and avoid being forced to rent a DSL modem) by switching to a 3rd-party ISP.

  • http://www.ssokolow.com/ Stephan Sokolow

    Of course, there are limits to what market competition can do… as evidenced by the events here in eastern Canada.

    The cable companies now block encrypted connections by whitelisting, the telco (also an internet company) throttles in the local loop (so 3rd-party DSL ISPs get throttled) based on a whitelist that excludes anything encrypted, and both have implemented a 60GB monthly limit.

    For Rogers Cable, you get disconnected when your bandwidth runs out after having warnings injected into your HTTP sessions. For Bell Sympatico, you get charged $1.50/GB. (With the $30 cap on overage charges coming off at the end of either June or July… I forget which.)

    Thank goodness I could at least dodge the 60GB limit (and avoid being forced to rent a DSL modem) by switching to a 3rd-party ISP.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    The German study has some major problems, which I’m trying to clarify with the professor who directs the student programmers who wrote the test program. Most reports on TCP RSTs on Comcast put the figure in the 25-50% range, depending on network conditions. I’ve also asked Comcast for their data and they haven’t been forthcoming.

    My personal experience with Comcast is that dedicated seeding was difficult a few months ago, but not today. But that’s just on my one connection. At no time have large numbers of Comcast customers been complaining, however; this is largely a cooked-up issue on the part of the Google sock-puppets.

    Brett Glass runs LARIAT, and he’ll be glad to talk to you about caching. If you don’t have his e-mail, I can get it for you, just drop me a note at richard at bennett dot com.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    The German study has some major problems, which I’m trying to clarify with the professor who directs the student programmers who wrote the test program. Most reports on TCP RSTs on Comcast put the figure in the 25-50% range, depending on network conditions. I’ve also asked Comcast for their data and they haven’t been forthcoming.

    My personal experience with Comcast is that dedicated seeding was difficult a few months ago, but not today. But that’s just on my one connection. At no time have large numbers of Comcast customers been complaining, however; this is largely a cooked-up issue on the part of the Google sock-puppets.

    Brett Glass runs LARIAT, and he’ll be glad to talk to you about caching. If you don’t have his e-mail, I can get it for you, just drop me a note at richard at bennett dot com.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/the-riaa-loses-but-doesnt-realize-it-or-boycotting-the-riaa-has-never-made-more-sense-or-been-easier/ enigma_foundry

    I would also like to here note the following fact:
    Jerry Brito is deleting my comments to his posts. I suppose when he can’t respond, he just deletes!
    E_F

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    I would also like to here note the following fact:
    Jerry Brito is deleting my comments to his posts. I suppose when he can’t respond, he just deletes!
    E_F

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/the-riaa-loses-but-doesnt-realize-it-or-boycotting-the-riaa-has-never-made-more-sense-or-been-easier/ enigma_foundry

    I’ve also asked Comcast for their data and they haven’t been forthcoming.

    what a surprise!

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    I’ve also asked Comcast for their data and they haven’t been forthcoming.

    what a surprise!

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    You should read my whole comment, in which you will see that Glasnost has also not been forthcoming with answers. I was promised some by Friday, and they didn’t come.

    Additional testing reveals that the Glasnost test results are inaccurate.

  • http://bennett.com/blog Richard Bennett

    You should read my whole comment, in which you will see that Glasnost has also not been forthcoming with answers. I was promised some by Friday, and they didn’t come.

    Additional testing reveals that the Glasnost test results are inaccurate.

  • Ryan Radia

    Enigma, VPN servers may well employ caching to reduce their bandwidth costs, but that does not address ISP bandwidth issues. Encryption prevents the ISP from knowing when, for example, ten users behind VPNs have requested the same file, so the ISP cannot cache that file and instead must transmit the same actual file ten times.

    My rudimentary understanding of ISP caching is that it is primarily intended to cut costs on bulk commercial bandwidth from backbone carriers. But it seems the most severe bandwidth crunch is between end users and their local node/DSLAM. How does caching alleviate last-mile congestion?

    Stephan, the ISP marketplace in Canada makes US ISPs look competitive by comparison. I’m amazed at what Rogers, Shaw, and Bell have been able to get away with. Throttling all encrypted traffic is an extreme measure and I would be surprised to see the practice adopted by any major U.S. ISP, but anything is possible. Wonder how corporate and educational VPN users feel about their encrypted traffic being degraded.

    Richard, of all the ISPs known to interfere with Bittorrent traffic in some way, Comcast’s method seems quite reasonable. I would agree that only a small minority of users actually suffer from slow seeding during peak hours. Compared to how some Canadian ISPs curb peer to peer applications, Comcast’s implementation of Sandvine seems downright docile.

    Enigma, if Jerry is deleting your comments, I am sure he has a very good reason. We certainly don’t censor discussions at TLF, barring inflammatory, obscene, or entirely irrelevant remarks. It’s possible our spam filter accidentally removed your comment, or the moderation system never posted your comment for some reason. I will look in to this. Right now, there’s a lengthy comment of yours on the ConnectKentucky post from 5/24 at 12:52am awaiting approval. I think the only person who can approve it is the original author of the post, which in this case is Jerry, so maybe he hasn’t had a chance yet to hit the approve button.

    Comcast hasn’t really been very forthcoming on the issue of Bittorrent and Sandvine, especially back when the matter surfaced, and I think perhaps that has been their greatest mistake in this whole episode. Of course, Comcast is not obligated to disclose details of its network management, but when you’re selling a service I think it reasonable for consumers to know what to expect. Since Comcast hasn’t simply said “here’s what we are doing from a technical standpoint” we are instead left with a bunch of third-party reports that offer conflicting information.

  • Ryan Radia

    Enigma, VPN servers may well employ caching to reduce their bandwidth costs, but that does not address ISP bandwidth issues. Encryption prevents the ISP from knowing when, for example, ten users behind VPNs have requested the same file, so the ISP cannot cache that file and instead must transmit the same actual file ten times.

    My rudimentary understanding of ISP caching is that it is primarily intended to cut costs on bulk commercial bandwidth from backbone carriers. But it seems the most severe bandwidth crunch is between end users and their local node/DSLAM. How does caching alleviate last-mile congestion?

    Stephan, the ISP marketplace in Canada makes US ISPs look competitive by comparison. I’m amazed at what Rogers, Shaw, and Bell have been able to get away with. Throttling all encrypted traffic is an extreme measure and I would be surprised to see the practice adopted by any major U.S. ISP, but anything is possible. Wonder how corporate and educational VPN users feel about their encrypted traffic being degraded.

    Richard, of all the ISPs known to interfere with Bittorrent traffic in some way, Comcast’s method seems quite reasonable. I would agree that only a small minority of users actually suffer from slow seeding during peak hours. Compared to how some Canadian ISPs curb peer to peer applications, Comcast’s implementation of Sandvine seems downright docile.

    Enigma, if Jerry is deleting your comments, I am sure he has a very good reason. We certainly don’t censor discussions at TLF, barring inflammatory, obscene, or entirely irrelevant remarks. It’s possible our spam filter accidentally removed your comment, or the moderation system never posted your comment for some reason. I will look in to this. Right now, there’s a lengthy comment of yours on the ConnectKentucky post from 5/24 at 12:52am awaiting approval. I think the only person who can approve it is the original author of the post, which in this case is Jerry, so maybe he hasn’t had a chance yet to hit the approve button.

    Comcast hasn’t really been very forthcoming on the issue of Bittorrent and Sandvine, especially back when the matter surfaced, and I think perhaps that has been their greatest mistake in this whole episode. Of course, Comcast is not obligated to disclose details of its network management, but when you’re selling a service I think it reasonable for consumers to know what to expect. Since Comcast hasn’t simply said “here’s what we are doing from a technical standpoint” we are instead left with a bunch of third-party reports that offer conflicting information.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2007/10/04/the-riaa-loses-but-doesnt-realize-it-or-boycotting-the-riaa-has-never-made-more-sense-or-been-easier/ enigma_foundry

    @ Ryan:

    Enigma, VPN servers may well employ caching to reduce their bandwidth costs, but that does not address ISP bandwidth issues. Encryption prevents the ISP from knowing when, for example, ten users behind VPNs have requested the same file, so the ISP cannot cache that file and instead must transmit the same actual file ten times.

    I understand that much about the implications of encryption; when I said save “them money” I meant the VPN service, not the ISP, I should have been more clear. Where I was going with that: the VPN saves, but not the ISP. Incentive for VPN provider to cache is there, but not for ISP.

    Re: my disappearing comments on Jerry Brito’s posts: This is the second time any comments at all that I make to one of Jerry Brito’s posts get deleted. I am having a hard time thinking that these deletions are accidental. Why would it only happen on Jerry Brito’s posts, and not others?

    Re: the current incident, I also had a post on 5/23 which showed up, for about half and hour, but then got deleted. I would prefer that the one from 5/23 just get restored.

    The earlier incident was the same: posts would appear, (even on other computers) but then disappear.

    Here’s screenshots, etc. showing my comments appearring, then disappearing from Jerry Brito’s April 11, 2008 post:

    http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/jerry-brito-getting-upset-at-e_f-comments/

    I have also sent email to Jerry, but have not yet recvd a response.

  • http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com eee_eff

    @ Ryan:

    Enigma, VPN servers may well employ caching to reduce their bandwidth costs, but that does not address ISP bandwidth issues. Encryption prevents the ISP from knowing when, for example, ten users behind VPNs have requested the same file, so the ISP cannot cache that file and instead must transmit the same actual file ten times.

    I understand that much about the implications of encryption; when I said save “them money” I meant the VPN service, not the ISP, I should have been more clear. Where I was going with that: the VPN saves, but not the ISP. Incentive for VPN provider to cache is there, but not for ISP.

    Re: my disappearing comments on Jerry Brito’s posts: This is the second time any comments at all that I make to one of Jerry Brito’s posts get deleted. I am having a hard time thinking that these deletions are accidental. Why would it only happen on Jerry Brito’s posts, and not others?

    Re: the current incident, I also had a post on 5/23 which showed up, for about half and hour, but then got deleted. I would prefer that the one from 5/23 just get restored.

    The earlier incident was the same: posts would appear, (even on other computers) but then disappear.

    Here’s screenshots, etc. showing my comments appearring, then disappearing from Jerry Brito’s April 11, 2008 post:

    http://enigmafoundry.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/j

    I have also sent email to Jerry, but have not yet recvd a response.

  • http://vpnprivacy.com vpn service

    Regarding the caching, if it becomes useful, won’t the VPN servers themselves begin caching? It seems they would, if it was intelligently done, save them money in the long run?

  • http://vpnprivacy.com vpn service

    Regarding the caching, if it becomes useful, won’t the VPN servers themselves begin caching? It seems they would, if it was intelligently done, save them money in the long run?

  • Hero

    The cable companies now block encrypted connections by whitelisting, the telco (also an internet company) throttles in the local loop (so 3rd-party DSL ISPs get throttled) based on a whitelist that excludes anything encrypted, and both have implemented a 60GB monthly limit. uk vpn

  • Ryan Radia

    This is pretty absurd. I doubt any major US ISP could get away with this without massive consumer outrage. Unfortunately, the situation in many foreign countries is from a competition standpoint makes the US look good by comparison.

  • Ryan Radia

    This is pretty absurd. I doubt any major US ISP could get away with this without massive consumer outrage. Unfortunately, the situation in many foreign countries is from a competition standpoint makes the US look good by comparison.

  • Pingback: Privacy Solutions (Part 1): Introduction | The Technology Liberation Front

  • Pingback: Why Google won’t do evil | The Technology Liberation Front

  • Pingback: Net Neutrality Rules = Price Controls | The Technology Liberation Front

  • roberthedges

    Google Search: Internet Coup

    Help out maybe?

  • roberthedges

    Google Search: Internet Coup

    Help out maybe?

Previous post:

Next post: