So, I think it 's safe to say that Net Neutrality is dead for this administration

[G+_Jason Brown]

So, I think it's safe to say that Net Neutrality is dead for this administration. But I had a thought. If Google really supports Net Neutrality, I'd like to see them incorporate a VPN client in their browser. Whenever I connect to open wifi on my Pixel, I immediately get the option to setup a secure link back to Google's servers. They've shown they can do it. That should be enough to obfuscate your traffic. As long as your ISP doesn't de-prioritize VPN traffic it could work. De-prioritization of VPN traffic is a touch subject for businesses, so I don't see that happening.

 

Of course that only covers the users, not the content providers themselves. But then, I could see Google again stepping in and providing a secure link for them as well. Think about it. They would get ALL the metrics on your usage. But in return you could get around any pesky anti-net neutrality bandwidth limiting.

 

Thoughts? Am I on to something? Or did I just illustrate how little I know about all things?

[G+_Paul Hutchinson]

It can work for some things but can also be a worse problem than limited bandwidth. An example of each situation.

 

ISP outright blocks Vonage to try to get you to switch to their phone service. A VPN will get around the block and it should work perfectly.

 

ISP slows your streaming provider (Netflix, Hulu, etc.) so that all you get is 720p, the VPN will get around the ISP limit but because most streaming services have to follow region restrictions for copyright permissions they can't give you anything because they can't reliably determine your location. So the VPN takes you from 720p down to 0p because you can't watch at all. :-)

[G+_Ben Reese]

I've got a widget on my home screen to connect to an OpenVPN server. Mine is running at home, but it could be anywhere - including a $5/mo Digital Ocean VPS.

 

And you hit the nail on the head: ISPs are unlikely to de-prioritize VPN traffic. Not that they won't, just unlikely to happen. The threat of VPN and losing complete visibility to traffic should be enough to scare ISPs into playing nice. It's extremely easy to setup shouldn't affect bandwidth too much.

 

Just my 2¢

[G+_Jason Marsh]

So, if a rather large ISP can de-anonymize VPN or Tor traffic by catching it on the way in and on it's way out (kind of) , what's to stop Centurylink from leveraging their ownership of Level3 to that end? Can a VPN be safe if it exits the tunnel within the US?

[G+_Ben Reese]

Jason Marsh define "safe". Any VPN provider could sell your data just as well as the dangerous (?) ISPs. And that's whether your termination point is inside or outside the US.

 

That's why I'd prefer to roll my own VPN service using DigitalOcean, AWS, Azure, etc VPS services if I was afraid of Spectrum selling my traffic data. No, it's still not anonymous because those hosting providers could be collecting stats. But at that point its assumed you're the customer and not the product. Plus, they all have a ton to lose if big customers caught wind of their traffic being sold.

[G+_Jason Marsh]

Ben Reese

...as in safe from tomfoolery (throttling by traffic type/website/protocol)

 

I'd just rather have all my bits treated equally. The internet and it's underlying protocols are by design a best-effort attempt to get the packets where they need to be. This means there is no mucking about with the datastream for upcharging, fast lanes, throttling, etc.

 

I use a good bit of youtube, and I would not like to see it slowed by my ISP so that they can sell me the YouTube FastLane for an additional charge per month.

 

Bits is bits; let's keep it that way.

[G+_Jason Brown]

"Bits is bits; let's keep it that way." This has got to be the single best pro-net neutrality quote ever.

 

...and I will be stealing it.

[G+_Jason Marsh]

Jason Brown You're welcome :)