Search the Community

I just noticed that I can no longer access the airvpn website from Sky UK broadband connection. Also, AirVPN Windows application can no longer login over a Sky UK broadband connection. I'm not sure if this legal for an ISP to do.

On Aug 30, exactly a week ago, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communication, BEREC, launched their Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules. The original document is quite long. Those who decide to read it will come to many conclusions, two of them are these: You as a provider are not allowed to apply advertisement blocking in your network (before the traffic reaches your customers). You as a provider are therefore allowed to implement traffic management based on the category of traffic - wrote this way it's perfectly possible to throttle VPNs or BitTorrent.

Hello everyone, I'm not sure if you have heard that Verizon (VZW) has been, for the past two years, inserting a perma-cookie into HTTP traffic headers via means of a UIDH. The UIDH ignores: private browsing, do not track, even Verizon's own opt-outs. I have assembled some links below to provide you some more information regarding this issue. AFAIK, AirVPN users are safe from VZW tracking. You are also safe on sites that use HTTPS. According to some comments in the various articles (links to articles below), it appears at least AT&T is doing the same thing as VZW. Reddit: /r/Privacy Verizon & ATT injecting UIDH Verizon adding UIDs: Hacker News Wired: Verizon's Perma Cookie kills privacy DSLreports: Verizon Perma Cookie WebPolicy: Verizon Tracking Header LessonsLearned: Test for Cellular tracking Beacons (must be on cellular network) This issue highlights the need for net neutrality and encryption! anonym

I have not seen much discussion here about the struggles going on between ISP-s (especially in the U.S.) and backbone providers. And the effect it is having on customers. Including (I think) AirVPN users. So I thought I would post a link to a recent blog post on the Level 3 web site: http://blog.level3.com/global-connectivity/observations-internet-middleman/ A note worthy bit: "That leaves the remaining six peers with congestion on almost all of the interconnect ports between us. Congestion that is permanent, has been in place for well over a year and where our peer refuses to augment capacity. They are deliberately harming the service they deliver to their paying customers. They are not allowing us to fulfill the requests their customers make for content. Five of those congested peers are in the United States and one is in Europe. There are none in any other part of the world. All six are large Broadband consumer networks with a dominant or exclusive market share in their local market. In countries or markets where consumers have multiple Broadband choices (like the UK) there are no congested peers." While Level 3 and other backbone providers (e.g. Cogent) are refusing to give in, some service providers (e.g. Netflix) have caved in and made private agreements with ISP-s to let their traffic through the blockade: http://www.forbes.com/sites/halsinger/2014/03/30/connections-between-communications-networks-should-the-fcc-breathe-life-into-internet-middlemen/ I know that people here are worried about the effect surveillance can have on the internet, but I think this should also very much be on people's minds. UPDATE: I changed the topic name to include "Net Neutrality", because it may not have been obvious that this falls into that general topic. See also this earlier post here by anonym: /topic/11519-united-states-fcc-now-accepting-public-comments-on-net-neutrality/ Hopefully my post will help people understand that Net Neutrality is not just about lofty ideals. It can have a very real effect on the quality of your internet experience, even if you are not an idealist.