ISP Censorship
Comments
-
In theory, if they start looking to limit VPNs across the network in some mass way, that's homeworking, remote working, off-site working all scuppered - will other businesses/institutions put up with this? Of course not.... for example, I visit one of my employer's main sites with a direct connection onto the company network maybe 2-3 times a year, all the rest of the time i access by VPN...
I really think this could be the start of a very steep and slippery slope :mad:......Gettin' There, Wherever There is......
I have a dodgy "i" key, so ignore spelling errors due to "i" issues, ...I blame Apple0 -
I just asked an IPTV supplier .
Response not bothered we have multiple servers .0 -
^^ The point is that the ISP's have been given blanket authority to block these servers at will.
They dont have to apply for court order for each one .. Its up to them !!
So they could quite easily detect and block these multiple servers ..
It will be interesting to see how this pans out . It is a "test case" in the court. And if successful it could set a worrying precedent0 -
In theory, if they start looking to limit VPNs across the network in some mass way, that's homeworking, remote working, off-site working all scuppered
So just make VPN only allowable on (the more expensive) business lines/packages plus an extra monthly fee on top.
Payable of course against providing a company number at sign up.
Should 'sort out' the majority.
....and the blame for all for this
Firmly at the door of those who refuse to pay for copyrighted material and will seemingly do anything to get it for free no matter how cheap is the real thing .0 -
So just make VPN only allowable on (the more expensive) business lines/packages plus an extra monthly fee on top.
Payable of course against providing a company number at sign up.
Should 'sort out' the majority.
....and the blame for all for this
Firmly at the door of those who refuse to pay for copyrighted material and will seemingly do anything to get it for free no matter how cheap is the real thing .
Good to see that you are coming out in support of those who use VPN to highlight oppression to those outside their home countries. And the civil rights organisations who use VPN to check on the wellbeing of activists worldwide.
Oh wait.....you're not.0 -
I think this is worse when you realise that streaming is not illegal (at least for the users of the service) as ruled by the EU courts.
Why are the courts not also issuing bans on servers where scam websites are hosted or other crimes committed? Our system is effectively being used to protect profits over people.
And we're basically being censored from services that can be used legally (streaming, p2p etc) all because the industry won't evolve with the times.
The one problem they have is assuming everyone who uses these services would otherwise be a customer paying their premium prices. I suspect the actual cost to the industry is only a fraction of what is claimed.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means - Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride0 -
the cycle probably will be that the big players like Sky, BT will loose subscription to smaller, possibly more expensive players who have no invested interest in TV.
Unfortunately these small players will eventually be seen as a good investment by big players and get bought out.... a bit like BeThere, whom in their heyday were on the very pricey side of being cost effective, but operated a virtually faultless service, with no limits or bother and had happy customers - I was one.0 -
a bit like BeThere, whom in their heyday were on the very pricey side of being cost effective, but operated a virtually faultless service, with no limits or bother and had happy customers - I was one.
As was I ... and good times they were too. Yes it was ADSL2+, but I got 18 meg down and 1.3 meg up; not far off what TalkTalk and Plusnet fibre packages offer now.
I jumped ship after they were bought out by Sky but just before their service formally closed.0 -
unholyangel wrote: »The one problem they have is assuming everyone who uses these services would otherwise be a customer paying their premium prices. I suspect the actual cost to the industry is only a fraction of what is claimed.
And that's the logical fallacy that they keep perpetuating, and is probably what they made the judge believe.0 -
So just make VPN only allowable on (the more expensive) business lines/packages plus an extra monthly fee on top.
Payable of course against providing a company number at sign up.
Should 'sort out' the majority.
So are you saying I'd have to pay for a Business service at home, just to cover the times I work from home and need to use the Company-provided VPN??
Jog On..............Gettin' There, Wherever There is......
I have a dodgy "i" key, so ignore spelling errors due to "i" issues, ...I blame Apple0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.4K Spending & Discounts
- 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 172.8K Life & Family
- 247.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards