6 ms·

> the fact that someone has actually gone ahead and done this[...] Well it's not exactly a novel idea. China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Oman, Turkey and others

by dabber 9y ago

> the fact that someone has actually gone ahead and done this[...] Well it's not exactly a novel idea. China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Oman, Turkey and others have implemented bans or heavy restrictions for quite some time now.

Spooky23 9y ago
I'm sure it's coming to the US to ensure that subscribers aren't avoiding ISP rate limits.
- codefined 9y ago
  I saw an article from about 15 years ago that said Comcast blocked VPNs for a few weeks as a "test". Apparently the test was stopped because a large amount of businesses complained that they required VPNs to access their internal data. I imagine it might be trickier for the US to implement such a plan vs. a country like Russia.
  - throwaway7645 9y ago
    Yea...VPN is a pretty basic security measure no?
    - wmf 9y ago
      On random public Wi-Fi, yes. On home broadband, no.
      - Matt3o12_ 9y ago
        Unless a VPN is required to access the intranet of your employee, then it is used for security at your home.
      - manicdee 9y ago
        Why do you think VPNs aren't needed for home broadband connections?
- strictnein 9y ago
  First, no, this isn't coming to the US. Second, this doesn't make any sense. How would you avoid rate limits by using a VPN? The ISP is still sending and receiving all of that data for you.
  - ac29 9y ago
    Step 1) Rate limit high bandwidth use sites to discourage use Step 2) Block VPNs to prevent circumvention of your rate limts Step 3) Profit? I don't see this happening, but I think that's what the comment you were responding to is suggesting.
    - toomanybeersies 9y ago
      Why not just rate limit VPNs?
      - toyg 9y ago
        You are not thinking politically enough. If I rate-limit VPN outright, I'm an ugly dictator bent on destroying privacy. If I rate-limit popular bandwidth-intensive traffic, I'm just a guy trying to keep network usage fair for every user. If that involves limiting VPNs as well, they are simply collateral damage, the end justifies the means, and I'm still a good guy.
    - derefr 9y ago
      They're using the wrong terminology, then; "ISP rate limits" refers to artificial bandwidth restrictions placed—at the data-link layer—on the last mile of a connection, to either upsell better plans or as proactive, aggressive form of QoS traffic-shaping to prevent oversubscribed head-end nodes from actually having to deal with multiple saturated downstream links they don't have the capacity to multiplex. You're talking here more about avoiding the preferential site-by-site traffic-class-based shaping that goes on when Net Neutrality is not enforced. Which doesn't really happen, because it's far easier to just have a thinner peerage link between the ISP and the content-provider in the first place, and then do regular QoSing on that thin pipe with priority to the people on better plans. (The result is exactly like telephone service on New Year's Eve: local calls go through just fine, but long-distance calls mostly fail because the POTS peerage links are saturated.)
- codedokode 9y ago
  US doesn't need to block anything because many Internet companies' headquarters (domain name registrars, SSL certificate providers, cloud providers, OS developers, messengers, search engines, video publishing platforms) are located in USA and therefore are the subject of US laws. For example, US doesn't have to block access to online casinos - they just order the banks and financial institutions not to work with such sites. But Russia doesn't have such authority over Facebook or Skype. It cannot issue a NSL to Google for example. Therefore they are looking for other methods of controlling those companies (such as laws requiring to keep russian users' data in Russia). China blocks many foreign web services and as a result they have their national messengers, search engine, social networks that will comply with national laws. I do not approve Russian or China (especially China) policies, I just want to notice that Internet being an international medium without borders and customs creates new problems for applying national legislation (like taxation or spreading information violationg the laws).
  - Spooky23 9y ago
    I was referring to the act of interference, not the motivation behind it. The government may not need to decrypt or block most traffic, but telcos will want to extract a levy for various uses of their circuits. Using the argument used against Netflix, why should your employer just be able to benefit from pushing ActiveSync down to your phone without paying Verizon?

by dabber 9y ago

Spooky23 9y ago

I'm sure it's coming to the US to ensure that subscribers aren't avoiding ISP rate limits.

codefined 9y ago
I saw an article from about 15 years ago that said Comcast blocked VPNs for a few weeks as a "test". Apparently the test was stopped because a large amount of businesses complained that they required VPNs to access their internal data. I imagine it might be trickier for the US to implement such a plan vs. a country like Russia.
- throwaway7645 9y ago
  Yea...VPN is a pretty basic security measure no?
  - wmf 9y ago
    On random public Wi-Fi, yes. On home broadband, no.
    - Matt3o12_ 9y ago
      Unless a VPN is required to access the intranet of your employee, then it is used for security at your home.
    - manicdee 9y ago
      Why do you think VPNs aren't needed for home broadband connections?
strictnein 9y ago
First, no, this isn't coming to the US. Second, this doesn't make any sense. How would you avoid rate limits by using a VPN? The ISP is still sending and receiving all of that data for you.
- ac29 9y ago
  Step 1) Rate limit high bandwidth use sites to discourage use Step 2) Block VPNs to prevent circumvention of your rate limts Step 3) Profit? I don't see this happening, but I think that's what the comment you were responding to is suggesting.
  - toomanybeersies 9y ago
    Why not just rate limit VPNs?
    - toyg 9y ago
      You are not thinking politically enough. If I rate-limit VPN outright, I'm an ugly dictator bent on destroying privacy. If I rate-limit popular bandwidth-intensive traffic, I'm just a guy trying to keep network usage fair for every user. If that involves limiting VPNs as well, they are simply collateral damage, the end justifies the means, and I'm still a good guy.
  - derefr 9y ago
    They're using the wrong terminology, then; "ISP rate limits" refers to artificial bandwidth restrictions placed—at the data-link layer—on the last mile of a connection, to either upsell better plans or as proactive, aggressive form of QoS traffic-shaping to prevent oversubscribed head-end nodes from actually having to deal with multiple saturated downstream links they don't have the capacity to multiplex. You're talking here more about avoiding the preferential site-by-site traffic-class-based shaping that goes on when Net Neutrality is not enforced. Which doesn't really happen, because it's far easier to just have a thinner peerage link between the ISP and the content-provider in the first place, and then do regular QoSing on that thin pipe with priority to the people on better plans. (The result is exactly like telephone service on New Year's Eve: local calls go through just fine, but long-distance calls mostly fail because the POTS peerage links are saturated.)
codedokode 9y ago
US doesn't need to block anything because many Internet companies' headquarters (domain name registrars, SSL certificate providers, cloud providers, OS developers, messengers, search engines, video publishing platforms) are located in USA and therefore are the subject of US laws. For example, US doesn't have to block access to online casinos - they just order the banks and financial institutions not to work with such sites. But Russia doesn't have such authority over Facebook or Skype. It cannot issue a NSL to Google for example. Therefore they are looking for other methods of controlling those companies (such as laws requiring to keep russian users' data in Russia). China blocks many foreign web services and as a result they have their national messengers, search engine, social networks that will comply with national laws. I do not approve Russian or China (especially China) policies, I just want to notice that Internet being an international medium without borders and customs creates new problems for applying national legislation (like taxation or spreading information violationg the laws).
- Spooky23 9y ago
  I was referring to the act of interference, not the motivation behind it. The government may not need to decrypt or block most traffic, but telcos will want to extract a levy for various uses of their circuits. Using the argument used against Netflix, why should your employer just be able to benefit from pushing ActiveSync down to your phone without paying Verizon?