If net neutrality is abolished could a VPN be used to get around any ISP enforced slowdowns?

[Kablooie]

A VPN (Virtual Private Network) is a service that allows you to use a distant computer to access the internet.
Your data is encrypted in your computer then sent directly to a VPN computer somewhere in the world. The VPN computer decrypts the data and sends it out to the internet. Replies then return to the VPN computer who encrypts it and sends it directly back you to decrypt and view.

For all intents and purposes it looks like the data is coming from the VPN computer, which could be using a different ISP or even be in a different country. Since the data between you and the VPN is encrypted your ISP has no idea what websites you are connecting to. All they can see is that you are sending encrypted data to a distant computer so they can't slow you down based on the sites you are contacting.

Two points:

This doesn't matter if a company like Netflix pays the ransom to your ISP. They would be sent at full speed anyway but your monthly fee would probably go up because of the extra cost to Netflix.

The ISP might slow down all VPN connections to defeat the ability to transfer data at maximum rates.

Does anyone know if this would be legal under the proposed laws? Is an ISP free to slow down anything they want for any reason or are there rules? If they can affect anything they could slow down a competitor's site so none of their customers could effectively connect to them or they could allow Republican sites to transfer at full speed but slow down Democratic sites to a crawl. The damage to a free society could be breathtaking.

[snot]

1. Part of the problem is detection and enforcement.

They've already been caught censoring content; but it's hard to catch because you can't see what you're not seeing; and re- speeds, slow-downs can have a variety of causes.

I agree re- the potential damage.

[TexasProgresive]

2. My company's VPN is quite slow

Don't know if that's the norm.

[Kablooie]

9. It's slower than a non VPN but can be only a fraction slower.

I've just started trying out a commercial VPN to see what it's like and speedtest says it is very slightly slower than normal but many websites seem to load quicker than without VPN.

It depends on the service you use and the distance to the VPN server. Some services have only a few servers to choose from. The one I am trying, IPvanish, has a multitude of servers all over the US and world to choose from.

[Recursion]

3. Sigh. This still isn't what network neutrality is about. Your ISP wil filter your traffic

however it wants. Your ISP at home is Tier 3 or even "Tier 4" (that's a newer concept), and what they do isn't even a part of this question.

Network neutrality is about whether the IXP operators your ISP leases loops from can have their prices undercut by private fiber. To use your Netflix example, Netflix leased (actually, IIRC, built) a line directly to Comcast because it saved them money, and the big big data players don't like being cut out of that loop. This is a big fight between Tier 1 and Tier 2 providers, and Tier 2 is proving pretty good at getting public outrage stirred up, it's seeming.

ISPs have always been able to block or throttle any particular traffic they want; that has nothing to do with network neutrality per se.

But, given that, to answer your question, a VPN makes packet inspection essentially impossible for them, so it might mislead them as to the contents if they were throttling (though realistically they're just going to throttle based on rate, which a VPN increases).

[steve2470]

4. ok I guess I'm still a tad confused about NN

Example: Let's say DU continues to operate as normal, nothing special, no extra fees paid to ISP's, etc. How will a LACK of NN affect DU ?

Thanks in advance, kind sir.

Steve

[Recursion]

5. I don't know enough about DU's hosting to answer

But largely-text websites like this (DU doesn't even host its own images except for avatars) have never ever been what this was about.

DU leases some IP addresses and bandwidth from DCAN (if I'm reading that IP address right). I don't know about DCAN's set up, but I'm definitely sure they're not Tier 1 and about 99% sure they're not Tier 2. Given that, neither decision will change what the upstream providers are allowed to do with traffic to and from DU (in both cases; they can throttle it or expedite it as they wish).

Tier 1 networks have agreed to do transit-free peering with one another. So every Tier 1 network routes the traffic of every other Tier 1 network for free. How Tier 1 networks get their money is by selling bandwidth to Tier 2 networks (who then sell them to Tier 3, who then sell them to consumers). Some content providers are signing separate deals with (and building separate infrastructure to) Tier 2 networks individually rather than having their stuff routed over the normal Internet. This is a violation of "network neutrality", which is being taken to mean that a Tier 2 network shouldn't use a reserved portion of fiber for specific traffic. The whole thing actually has essentially nothing to do with anything that's being discussed about it, and is an example of two different kinds of huge companies trying to astroturf, IMO.

[steve2470]

6. ok one more question

If NN goes the way of the dinosaurs, will it become harder to access a text-based site (not DU, to keep this simple) ? My understanding is that, eventually, ISP's will charge you more to access certain sites because they are being forced to pay more for those sites. Do I have this right ? Thanks again.

[Recursion]

7. ISPs will continue raising prices no matter what happens

And I'm sure whichever way the decision goes, they will blame it on that.

I'm not being glib; I really mean this is one of a million components that go in to how much web hosting and internet service costs. Should DU (or, more realistically, DU's ISP) be able to cut a separate side deal with Comcast like Netflix did? I can see the arguments either way. But I can't remotely come up with a simple cause and effect about what a decision either way would do in terms of prices.

[steve2470]

8. I'm gathering you are a networking professional

It seems what I've read about NN is far divorced from the technical reality. I'm starting to think it's not that big a deal. If my ISP goes crazy and starts charging me a la carte for every popular site, then I would raise hell. I'd even consider satellite if I had to. To me, it's not smart for an ISP to even consider a la carte pricing. As long as I can access sites with a reasonable wait time, etc , I'm good.

[Recursion]

12. Back in the pleistocene I was

There's a reason people tend to burn out of that field, though I still do consulting.

I'm starting to think it's not that big a deal.

Well it could be a huge deal; if we wind up with essentially no peered infrastructure anymore (which is one possible way this could go) it would be horrible. My complaint about "network neutrality" is that there are a million things that can mean, some of which are awful and some of which are great, and the situation is a lot more complex than people make it out to be, and regulators and industry need some time to figure this out (the Open Internet rules were only tossed out in court a year and a half ago).

If my ISP goes crazy and starts charging me a la carte for every popular site, then I would raise hell.

I just want to be clear: your ISP is 100% free to do that right now if they want to. There is no law or regulation against it. That would be a really bad outcome, but it has nothing to do with the FCC's proposed changes.

[steve2470]

13. thanks for your patience

If you could do a Q&A for everyone in an OP, I think that would be vastly informative. Thank you for your time also, kind sir.

Steve

[steve2470]

18. kick for visibility and informed discussion nt

[Kablooie]

10. Hmm. It sound like the media isn't giving us the right story.

I was led to believe it was about censoring the internet by legally allowing throttling of any site a private ISP wishes and the ISP could use that to extort money from web sites.

If throttling and blocking at whim is legal right now why haven't we heard about it?
Since most of our public information relies on the internet, giving private companies the right to legally affect which info people have access to seems very dangerous.

[Recursion]

11. Throttling and blocking is 100% legal, always has been

And, in fact, some of the professional throttling services actually do turn a bit darkside and extort money from people to get them to stop.

If throttling and blocking at whim is legal right now why haven't we heard about it?

Because you're not (I assume) a sysadmin. If you have one at work, ask him about Spamhaus and see how he reacts (that's one of those just-this-side-of-extortion services I mentioned).

I was led to believe it was about censoring the internet by legally allowing throttling of any site a private ISP wishes and the ISP could use that to extort money from web sites.

Amazingly, people with an ax to grind often find a way to put their argument in a favorable light. This has to do with whether content providers and Tier 2 networks can run private pipelines between each other for money without other providers free-riding that.

[MohRokTah]

14. My ISP at home is a tier 2 provider that also operates in the tier 3 space.

Comcast Xfinity is a tier 2 provider, and that's where the beef with Netflix comes in, but it also operates in the tier 3 space without being considered a common carrier in that space.

And that's what drives the entire net neutrality issue.

If the FCC simply regulated cable and wireless ISPs as if they were common carriers, the entire issue would mostly go away. The threat of a Comcast/Time Warner merger is a huge issue for tier 1 providers because that behemoth would mostly not be regulated as a common carrier.

This is a big money issue. Comcast is out to get a de facto tier 1 status while still being a tier 2 provider operating in the tier 3 space by leveraging it's unregulated status in the tier 3 space.

[Recursion]

15. Comcast has Tier 2 and Tier 3 networks; that's part of the problem

There used to be a much brighter line between the operators of these networks, before the Great Dying-off of network companies in the early 2000s.

If any of their Tier 2 networks sell directly to residential consumers, that's a new thing in the past 4 years or so.

[MohRokTah]

16. Right, but the unregulated status of those tier 3 networks gives Comcast huge leverage.

The problem is that Comcast has never been considered a common carrier in the tier 3 space, and they leverage that in the peering arrangements it has within the tier 2 space.

The problem is compounded with Verizon in the tier 1 space leveraging its clout in tier 3 wireless space, which is also not regulated as a common carrier.

Which providers are pushing an end to net neutrality the most and stand to make the most money if it happens?

Comcast and Verizon.

[Recursion]

17. Right, that's what worries me too. Even 10 years ago these were separate groups of companies

You had, say, XO and Verizon up in Tier 1, then Comcast and RCN, then whatever small-time local ISP you got your service from. The problems here started when companies started buying up and down different tiers.

That said, common carrier isn't applicable to network operators, for absurd and pedantic reasons; "net neutrality" as a concept was invented to try to shoehorn some common carrier concepts into the network world.

[steve2470]

19. kick again for informed discussion nt