VPN Service Provider recommendation?


moose

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 years later...

Now it is more easy to understand for a user like me to know which is the best vpn service in 2016. because there are many useful features which every vpn software is not offering but after a group research work I found some useful points.

 

Following are the measure effective features.

 

No logs

 

High encryption

 

Fastest speed

 

Anonymity

 

Country servers

 

P2P enable servers

 

perfect for traveling

 

Live Streaming

 

Compatible on all devices

 

These are the most Important factors I found in Canada vpn which makes it more attractive for me to continue it without any problem. I also request others to please share their information about best vpn software's.

 

Link to comment

I picked up a 512MB RAM/500GB bandwidth VPS for $15 a year and installed OpenVPN (via a premade script, which handed the key creation for me).  Cheapest VPN ever, but I am limited to one IP address/location.

This sounds interesting you have anymore details?

Link to comment

Now it is more easy to understand for a user like me to know which is the best vpn service in 2016. because there are many useful features which every vpn software is not offering but after a group research work I found some useful points.

...

 

Moderator:  Your post appears suspiciously like spam, you have been reported 4 times elsewhere for spamming, and your IP is in Pakistan and reported once for spamming.  You have shown no involvement or interest in unRAID yet.  Yet you spent more time here than spammers do, and made your post relevant to the subject and tone of the topic, so I'm giving you a brief chance.  Please respond soon about your motivations here or I'll have to remove you as a spammer.

 

Edit: user removed links, so clearly a human (not a spammer) and responsive, cooperative!

Link to comment
  • 10 months later...

Personally I'm very happy with iVPN, not US based, and they do have servers in a variety of countries. Speed maxes out my internet connection. Also have clients with a kill switch feature for a variety of platforms.

 

I would also recommend looking at https://thatoneprivacysite.net/ - the guy there has undertaken to display info about a variety of different providers, with various criteria that you can sort by. 

 

The only thing I would add was that iVPN were very reasonable about my requirements in terms of simultaneous connections. In my experience many aren't willing to allow extra connections without taking out a second or third subscription. I contacted iVPN detailing each use case for each simultaneous connection and they upped my limit without debate. I know they're not the cheapest but when you factor this in I do find that their pricing is VERY competitive.

 

For what it's worth I have no affiliation with iVPN other than being a customer.

 

Hope this helps! ?

Edited by jack0w
Link to comment
9 hours ago, jack0w said:

Personally I'm very happy with iVPN, not US based, and they do have servers in a variety of countries. Speed maxes out my internet connection. Also have clients with a kill switch feature for a variety of platforms.

 

I would also recommend looking at https://thatoneprivacysite.net/ - the guy there has undertaken to display info about a variety of different providers, with various criteria that you can sort by. 

 

The only thing I would add was that iVPN were very reasonable about my requirements in terms of simultaneous connections. In my experience many aren't willing to allow extra connections without taking out a second or third subscription. I contacted iVPN detailing each use case for each simultaneous connection and they upped my limit without debate. I know they're not the cheapest but when you factor this in I do find that their pricing is VERY competitive.

 

For what it's worth I have no affiliation with iVPN other than being a customer.

 

Hope this helps! ?

3

 

interesting what's your download and upload speeds?

Link to comment
On 3/28/2017 at 5:19 PM, c3 said:

I am going to necromancer this thread due to the recent actions in the US by congress

 

I figure more than a few people will be seeking a VPN provider recommendation.

 

That law prohibiting ISPs from sharing/selling your information without your consent had not gone in effect yet.  The ISPs are already able to sell your info and since it got nixed nothing changes regarding your privacy and your ISP.  It is a non-event, but what is interesting is why the repubs want it nixed and the dems wanted it.  Seems backwards based on the face value interpretation of the law as covered by the Drive-By media so should be worth a read to see what it really is/was about and why it was nixed.

Edited by unevent
Link to comment
 
That law prohibiting ISPs from sharing/selling your information without your consent had not gone in effect yet.  The ISPs are already able to sell your info and since it got nixed nothing changes regarding your privacy and your ISP.  It is a non-event, but what is interesting is why the repubs want it nixed and the dems wanted it.  Seems backwards based on the face value interpretation of the law as covered by the Drive-By media so should be worth a read to see what it really is/was about and why it was nixed.


Well, to me it seems the Republicans in Congress only look out for the highest bidder (lobbyists) rather than their constituents. This time they didn't even use national security as an excuse to violate privacy, it was purely commercial.

The reason they gave was that companies like Google and Facebook and the like collect info and can sell it, so it was unfair that ISPs would be unable to do so.

Well, the difference between Facebook and Comcast is that Facebook has whatever info I give them, and if I wish to, I can avoid Facebook and not give them any info (in fact I haven't logged into Facebook in months). So the consumer has a choice. Whereas Comcast has access to every single bit that flows in and out of my house as they control the pipes and I have no other choice because it is the only provider of broadband Internet.

By the way, I got an annual subscription to PIA during black Friday. I just ordered a J1900 based router from aliexpress. I'll put pfsense on it and run everything through PIA and my ISP can stuck it
Link to comment

I am going to try to avoid being political, if I fail, please call me out so I can edit. I am not a politician or legal expert. The thoughts, ideas, and opinion are mine, not my employer. I do work for a company in the wider field.

 

There are at least three things going on. First the collection of data, second the FCC rules and this week's congressional action, and then the FTC exclusion. This article in WP may provide some background.

 

The first part was the growing data collection happening at the ISP level. Twenty-five years ago, ISP had their hands full trying to keep the physical infrastructure working. To do that they collected a lot of data, think packet loss. ISPs also collected data on usage, because they wanted to be profitable. ISPs need this data to accurately price services. If their average customer used a line 8 hours a day and or peak demand was 1000 modems or 10mbit. In order to modify the average customer, price was the single knob. That is not a very good model. So caps were put in place, caps on the connected hours, caps on the data rate, and caps on the data transfer. More knobs made for a better model.  Roll forward to this century, always on, fiber to the neighborhood/house, etc, some of these knobs became less useful/pointless. But more/better data collection enabled a better understanding of the traffic flows, and the model was improved. The improve was to look at both sides of the traffic flow as sources of revenue, peering became a knob. Leading to net neutrality thing. Traffic flow shifted to data flow (deeper packet inspection), potentially ballooning the data collection, privacy concerns.

 

Second part, rules on what must be collected, can be collected, who does the collecting, how the collected can be used. What is neutral? What is privacy? All valid discussions. See that first part, must be collected, Twenty-five years ago, ISPs single knob, money was the only data must be collected and that was for paying taxes. But more recently, much more became must be collected, for security.

 

The recent action, as mentioned above, can be claimed to address some unfairness between business models. The mentioned difference between Facebook(content provider) and Comcast(ISP/carrier) is far greater to me than mentioned above. One I pay money to, the other I don't. So, fundamentally, they must be different business models. One is doing business with me, and the other is not.

 

The line between ISP and carrier is often crossed in these discussions, who must/can do what. I am not going to try and split them correctly, just a poor model. The carrier was simple, a means of delivery this to there, a river, or man made, a road. The ISP, more like a news paper boy doing home delivery. They didn't read the paper, they threw them. But what if the paper was dangerous, seditious, treason? The boy was asked where he got it and off to the source. But the source and destination pay the paper boy not to read, or answer questions about the delivery. The boy is in a bind. Governance is raised to require the boy (users of public roads) to know what he is delivering and be forth coming with details. Now, bill of laden is required at source and available as required along the way. When the requirement scales to deep packet inspection and record retention by the ISP, the cost of delivery goes up. Rather than raise prices the paper boy wants to sell the details of his delivery to news paper for headline news. Now public security is being used for financial gain.

 

Entities outside this realm had different rules, and different business models. The reasons for collection are completely different, the scope is completely different, and the service provided is completely different. Why do these business models need to the same rules? But do they? Non carriers have to follow the privacy rules of the FTC, carriers are excluded. The repeal is not a repeal of the data collection, but a repeal of the privacy rules on carriers.


 

 

 

Edited by c3
Link to comment

Howdy c3!  We meet again!

 

If that was all the paper boy wanted to do, what you presented above, there probably wouldn't be much of an issue.  But the problem is that the paper boy doesn't want to just toss the paper, and he doesn't want to just come to the door and knock and seek permission.  The paperboy wants to walk right in with a huge notebook and wander around the rooms.  He looks in on Father, and writes down that he's looking at a replacement for the TV.  He looks in on Mother and writes down she's checking on shoes.  He checks on big sister, and notes she's reading up on STD's.  He checks up on the son, and notes he's reading about bomb making (I threw that in for a curve ball).  Then he leaves and walks into the neighbor's house and repeats.  At the end of the day, he goes online and advertises that he has some huge notebooks for sale!

Link to comment

I am not sure we agree on who/what is a paper boy. In my poor model, that is the ISP/carrier. They don't enter homes without permission, but all data entering or leaving is closely inspected, as required by governance under the banner of security. And then let go to profit.

 

Loyalty programs are another example. That grocery discount card, yup nice big data on your diet, health, spending, income, location, travel, etc. But you get a discount, and they are covered by the FTC. Anyone getting a discount from Comcast because they sniff all your packets?

 

 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, c3 said:

The recent action, as mentioned above, can be claimed to address some unfairness between business models. The mentioned difference between Facebook(content provider) and Comcast(ISP/carrier) is far greater to me than mentioned above. One I pay money to, the other I don't. So, fundamentally, they must be different business models. One is doing business with me, and the other is not.

To Facebook, you are their product that their customers are paying for. Same for other "free" things like broadcast TV.

 

To Comcast, you are a paying customer. Now Comcast wants you to also be their product for other paying customers.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.