Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:43AM   Printer-friendly
from the sipping-from-a-firehose dept.

The FCC broadband privacy rules have now been repealed by both the Senate and the House, and the repeal is highly likely to be approved by President Trump. This has generated interest (and advertising) for VPN services:

The vote by the U.S. Congress to repeal rules that limit how internet service providers can use customer data has generated renewed interest in an old internet technology: virtual private networks, or VPNs.

[...] "Time to start using a VPN at home," Vijaya Gadde‏, general counsel of Twitter Inc, said in a tweet on Tuesday that was retweeted by Twitter Chief Executive Jack Dorsey. Gadde was not immediately available for comment. Twitter said she was commenting in her personal capacity and not on behalf of the company.

[...] Some smaller broadband providers are now seizing on privacy as a competitive advantage. Sonic, a California-based broadband provider, offers a free VPN service to its customers so they can connect to its network when they are not home. That ensures that when Sonic users log on to wi-fi at a coffee shop or hotel, for example, their data is not collected by that establishment's broadband provider. "We see VPN as being important for our customers when they're not on our network. They can take it with them on the road," CEO Dane Jasper said.

[...] Private Internet Access, a VPN provider, took a visible stand against the repeal measure when it bought a full-page ad in the New York Times on Sunday. But the company, which boasts about a million subscribers, potentially stands to benefit from the legislation, acknowledged marketing director Caleb Chen.

VPNs have drawbacks. They funnel all user traffic through one point, so they are an attractive target for hackers and spies. The biggest obstacle to their routine use as a privacy safeguard is that they can be too much of a hassle to set up for many customers. They also cost money.


Original Submission

Related Stories

Senate Votes Against FCC Internet Privacy Rules 33 comments

The Senate just voted to undo landmark rules covering your Internet privacy

U.S. senators voted 50 to 48 to approve a joint resolution from Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) that would prevent the Federal Communications Commission's privacy rules from going into effect. The resolution also would bar the FCC from ever enacting similar consumer protections. It now heads to the House.

takyon: Also at NPR, The Hill, Reuters, Ars Technica, and EFF.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:59AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:59AM (#486325)

    As a deplorable, do I get to see nazi cosplay paraphernalia ads? The uniforms are very smart.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:48AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:48AM (#486330)

      Just search once, you will not be able to stop the deluge of ads! (You alt-right perv!)

      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:11AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:11AM (#486337)

        I know Right, the rare Pepe collection needs a companion hobby.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:18AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:18AM (#486340)

    More than being a hassle to setup, my biggest problem with VPNs is that many of their IPs are blocked either completely or partially from a number of websites. So you either cannot login or comment, or are faced with numerous extra layers of captcha and other security measures. You end up either having to turn it off and be tracked again or providing additional personal information to various companies. Tracked it you do, tracked if you don't.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:29AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:29AM (#486367)

      On Android download OpenVPN from Play or other sources, install, load an ovpn file, enter username and password. Turn internet on. Done.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:55PM (#486485)

      That is a self-correcting problem. The more people who use VPNs the less websites will be able to pull that shit.

      I do agree that it is a hassle. I've been 100% VPN for years now myself. The one upside of that blocking is that it is kind of a time saver, it makes me re-evaluate if it is really worth my time to use a website that blocks me. Most of the time I decide it isn't worth it. Same with websites that want me to turn off my ad-blockers and other privacy tools. Like Ars Technica, their recent face-lift made it impossible to even read the comments without opening my browser up to all kinds of off-site crap. So now I barely even go there any more and I don't really miss it.

  • (Score: 0, Disagree) by jmorris on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:35AM (15 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:35AM (#486345)

    'Yall do know this whole story is #FakeNews, right?

    All the Congress is doing is revoking the Obama FCC's overreach and returning regulation of these privacy issues to the FTC where they belong.

    But do carry on with rage stroking, maybe a few of you 'smart' but of so ignorant folk will succeed.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by tonyPick on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:12AM (13 children)

      by tonyPick (1237) on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:12AM (#486353) Homepage Journal

      returning regulation of these privacy issues to the FTC

      No it won't, because the FTC can't: From Today's Ars Technica

      ... that's impossible under current regulations, because the FTC is barred from regulating common carriers such as ISPs and phone companies. The FCC would have to change its classification of ISPs—a step that would also eliminate net neutrality rules—in order to return jurisdiction to the FTC. Even if the FCC does that, further congressional action may be needed to give the FTC authority over ISPs because of a federal appeals court ruling in August 2016 that said AT&T was exempt from FTC oversight even when it offers non-common carrier services.

      https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2017/03/isps-and-fcc-chair-ajit-pai-celebrate-death-of-online-privacy-rules/ [arstechnica.co.uk]

      • (Score: 0, Disagree) by jmorris on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:28AM (4 children)

        by jmorris (4844) on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:28AM (#486356)

        Yea, about that network neutrality. You did know the current Chairman isn't a fan of Obama's antics in that department either. So don't you worry about that, all of it is being unwound. As for the courts, can't remember if that ruling depends on the FCC takeover of privacy (now reversed) or what, or if is just yet another insane court ruling but all this stuff is getting sorted out. Just be patient, eight years of lawlessness doesn't get fixed in a month or two abd there are lots of places that need attention beyond just the tech sector.

        And for the record, no I am not in any way tired of the winning yet.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:07AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:07AM (#486359)

          And for the record, no I am not in any way tired of the winning yet.

          Congratulations, another scumbag who despises the Constitution and freedom in general was elected! Trump has joined the ranks of his buddies Obama, Bush, and countless other politicians in support horrendous violations of our rights such as mass surveillance. What a win this is!

          I fail to see how any of this is a good thing. Whether a Republican or a Democrat wins, freedom ultimately loses. Fucking partisan retards.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:14AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @07:14AM (#486362)

          Network neutrality == antics?

          ... can't remember ... yet another insane court ruling

          Yup, you sound like somebody with a solid head on their shoulders!
          "And for the record, no I am not in any way tired of the winning yet."
          Per usual you fall for the ruse, yup, you're really "winning" here bud.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:28AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:28AM (#486387)

            Getting raped in the ass by monopolistic ISPs while the people who remove the regulations on said ISPs do absolutely nothing to fix the monopolies is winning!

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:08PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:08PM (#486447)

          mmmm oh yea. Take it. Take partisan cock up your asshole like the partisan cum guzzling whore you are! Ohhhh baby.... yea. I love how your loose anus swallows up that fat, long, veiny partisan monster like a champ! mmmmmm slide it in all the way, nice and slow. Oh and those grunts of sheer partisan ecstasy are titillating! You know you love it! Take it whore! Take it like the ignoramus you are!

      • (Score: 3, Disagree) by Hairyfeet on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:04PM (7 children)

        by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:04PM (#486432) Journal

        Uhhh unless I missed something I thought that ISPs are not common carriers [arstechnica.com] which is why the courts struck down huge chunks of Obama's FCC changes because with ISPs not being common carriers it was a job for the FTC.

        So it sounds like Trump is putting it back to where ISPs were before Obama changed it [dailytech.com] and I frankly have to wonder WTH is going through anyone's mind if they want MORE government intervention into the Internet after Wikileaks...seriously guys after all the shit that has come out these past couple of years you want to give the government more control over one of the last bastions of free expression we have left in this country...good God man why?

        Personally I don't think that is a good idea, especially since the common carrier law is from FDR's administration, the same guy that abused the commerce clause so damned badly we are still dealing with the fallout from it to this very day.

        --
        ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:40PM (3 children)

          by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:40PM (#486440) Homepage Journal

          So it sounds like Trump is putting it back to where ISPs were before Obama changed it and I frankly have to wonder WTH is going through anyone's mind if they want MORE government intervention into the Internet after Wikileaks...seriously guys after all the shit that has come out these past couple of years you want to give the government more control over one of the last bastions of free expression we have left in this country...good God man why?

          Actually, it's Trump putting it back where ISPs were before Obama put right the change that the Baby Bush FCC put into effect in 2002.

          You're being really disingenuous about "giving the government more control" here.

          Common Carrier status (and the privacy rules that are being revoked) keep *corporations* from usurping control over PII and browsing metadata (not to mention the competition/innovation killing and barriers to entry potential of rolling back net neutrality) from U.S. persons.

          Your fantasy about the evil gub'mint which, I'm sure is quite satisfying and has given you dozens of orgasms, doesn't represent realty.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:41PM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 30 2017, @12:41PM (#486441) Homepage Journal

            Your fantasy about the evil gub'mint which, I'm sure is quite satisfying and has given you dozens of orgasms, doesn't represent realty.

            Or reality, for that matter.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:06PM (1 child)

            by Immerman (3985) on Thursday March 30 2017, @01:06PM (#486446)

            To be fair, you've got to be pretty naive, even willfully blind, to *not* recognize that our government is pretty thoroughly woven through with evil.

            It's just that it's *also* our only real defense against the long-proven evil of corporate control (a.k.a. robber barons, merchant princes, etc.)

            Personally, until someone figures out some way to actually not be ruled by evil, I'd rather not start by eliminating the only evil that has an incentive to at least pretend to represent our interests, rather than just using private armies to gun us down in the streets any time we try to resist - which was pretty much exactly what happened during the robber baron days.

            • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:39PM

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:39PM (#486627) Homepage Journal

              To be fair, you've got to be pretty naive, even willfully blind, to *not* recognize that our government is pretty thoroughly woven through with evil.

              Yes, for some parts of the government that's true. And both the banality of it and the rationalization as to why it's "okay" is quite striking. There are quite a few things (Section 702 spying [eff.org], PRISM [wikipedia.org], Targeted Assassination programs [aclu.org] and a raft of other issues) that U.S. government does that disgust me.

              However, when it actually does something beneficial, we should loudly support it, just as we should loudly protest the deleterious actions of the government.

              Supporting net neutrality and the privacy of customers' sensitive, private data (browsing history, data transfers, PII, etc., etc., etc.) are most certainly beneficial to U.S. persons.

              Braying "gub'mint bad! bad gub'mint!" and rejoicing when other bad actors are given a free pass to screw us over is moronic at best.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 4, Informative) by tonyPick on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:19PM (2 children)

          by tonyPick (1237) on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:19PM (#486464) Homepage Journal

          Uhhh unless I missed something I thought that ISPs are not common carriers

          From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier [wikipedia.org]

          The FCC classified Internet Service Providers as common carriers, effective June 12, 2015, for the purpose of enforcing net neutrality.[

          The carriers appealed, and lost in 2016: https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/06/us-net-neutrality-and-title-ii-win-in-court-isps-lose-case-against-fcc/ [arstechnica.co.uk]

          There may be later appeals, but I haven't got a reference to them to hand...

          • (Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:42PM (1 child)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:42PM (#486630) Homepage Journal

            The ISPs were common carriers until 2002 and then reclassified

            The reclassification back to common carrier status in 2015 fixed that, even if only briefly.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:54PM

              by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:54PM (#486645) Journal

              Thanks to you and others for injecting some reason (and facts) into this thread. I don't get why so many people seem to want to defend this action or pretend it did nothing wrong or even nothing significant.

              Yes, the new rules hadn't gone into effect yet, but they were designed to offer greater privacy protection for ISP data than you'd expect to get in many other circumstances. Those claiming this would just revert to FTC jurisdiction don't realize (or aren't being honest in admitting) that the default protections afforded there wouldn't have been as strong as these rules were. Given recent court rulings about regulation, it's even a greater mess now.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:11PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:11PM (#486600) Journal

      I already pointed out that the rules were not in effect on the last article's comments. But none of the details in this summary are incorrect. The rules were repealed. They were snuffed out before they could go in effect.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by tibman on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:09PM (8 children)

    by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:09PM (#486462)

    Just set up my own VPN using Linode's 5$ vm option. Used https://github.com/shadowsocks/shadowsocks/wiki/Setting-Up-Shadowsocks-on-Linode [github.com]
    Debian 7 didn't work for me but Ubuntu 12.04 TLS did. Then you can get a client here: https://shadowsocks.org/en/download/clients.html [shadowsocks.org]

    I'll be in there tonight cutting out services and doing fine tuning before making a backup image. Might even turn SSH off, lol.

    --
    SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:33PM (7 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @02:33PM (#486472)

      What good is that going to do you if the place you are hosting your VPN end point spies on your traffic?

      Besides, why should I pay Linode $60/yr for a single VPN end-point that I have to manage myself when a place like PIA gives me thousands of VPN end points for $40/yr and I don't have to get my hands dirty?

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:19PM (6 children)

        by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30 2017, @03:19PM (#486503)

        What good is that going to do you if the place you are hosting your VPN end point spies on your traffic?

        That applies to all VPNs in existence. Even PIA.

        why should I pay Linode $60/yr for a single VPN end-point that I have to manage myself when a place like PIA gives me thousands of VPN end points for $40/yr and I don't have to get my hands dirty?

        It's not just a VPN end-point. It's a linux server. You get to decide the level of logging (if any at all). You can also provide VPN service to other people, if you want. Potentially splitting that 60$ cost.

        --
        SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:55PM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @04:55PM (#486589)

          > That applies to all VPNs in existence. Even PIA.

          Yes it does. But shielding the contents of your network traffic is rarely even a bullet point on the list of features of hosting companies. While it is the primary selling point of all serious VPN services. So if the hosting companies decides to spy on their users' traffic it won't hurt their business all that much. While if a VPN does it, they will face mass desertion. In the specifics, PIA has already had their no-logging policy validated in court. [torrentfreak.com]

          > You get to decide the level of logging (if any at all).

          Not if the hosting company decides to do logging. Its trivial to log the traffic of a VM, it all goes through a virtual interface anyway.

          • (Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:32PM (4 children)

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 30 2017, @06:32PM (#486671)

            Is your argument that trusting someone else to run your VPN is safer than trusting yourself to run your VPN? Or is this specifically about hosting your own VPN in a VM though Linode?

            So if the hosting companies decides to spy on their users' traffic it won't hurt their business all that much.

            Are you suggesting that normal datacenter customers wouldn't be pissed? Only VPN customers would be pissed? Because privateinternetaccess hosts their machines in other company's data centers: http://www.vpn-providers.net/private-internet-access-vpn-network.php [vpn-providers.net]

            Most of the cons you list for running my own VPN apply to your favorite VPN provider (pia). The only difference i am seeing is price, maintenance, end-points, and extra utility. PIA is cheaper, has zero maintenance, lots of end-points, but zero extra utility. For privacy i argue that running your own server is better. Assuming that you know how to update and manage linux remotely. The less you have to trust other people the better. The less middle-men the better. Though ease of use is a really good trading point for security. Suggesting that a mass VPN provider is more private than your own private VPN is a tough sell. I'm not buying it.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:24PM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:24PM (#486725)

              > Or is this specifically about hosting your own VPN in a VM

              This is specifically about out-sourcing the hosting of your VPN, full stop.

              > Are you suggesting that normal datacenter customers wouldn't be pissed? Only VPN customers would be pissed?

              I am saying that normal datacenter customers do not care as much as VPN customers.
              Obviously some care a lot. But for most, it does not even register.

              > The only difference i am seeing is price, maintenance, end-points, and extra utility. PIA is cheaper, has zero maintenance, lots of end-points, but zero extra utility.

              Yes, exactly. For the overwhelming majority of ISP users all that stuff except "extra utility" is important.
              Recognize that you are a severe outlier.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:58PM (2 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @08:58PM (#486742)

                Allow another AC to add to other AC in pros/cons of rolling your own vs PIA-type services.

                1. PIA is a HUGE target for both hackers and law enforcement (and potentially lawmakers). It's like using lastpass for passwords which I also think is dumb. All it takes is a quietly discovered vulnerability to be pwned. Security through obscurity with a roll your own option.

                2. You are guaranteed to be sharing IP addresses with people doing very NOT legal things on PIA. This can be both a pro and con. Pro is nobody can prove it was you. Con is someone might say it was you when it wasn't.

                3. I don't see why the logging and retention policy matter between a VPS and PIA. You choose to use a service that claims they do or don't do what they say and that you are in agreement with. And you pretty much have to blindly trust that regardless of the service. VPS services normally have very clear logging, retention, and privacy policies and there are many of them are just as *favorable* as what PIA's are.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @01:46AM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @01:46AM (#486874)

                  The most overlooked benefit is that your traffic through the VPN endpoint is combined with the traffic of many users whereas the hosted VM option is going to be limited to only yours. Also, you can pay many VPN providers anonymously which can be useful. Also, the best VPN can be overcome with a few lines of JavaScript. So if you've been unwilling to give up JavaScript/Facebook/whatever thus far, you can probably skip the VPN at this point...

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:04AM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31 2017, @07:04AM (#486972)

                    > Also, the best VPN can be overcome with a few lines of JavaScript.

                    Not if you do it right.
                    PIA's client uses iptables to lock it up tight.
                    So tight that I had to manually add my own iptables rules just to talk to other machines on my local subnet.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:32PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30 2017, @05:32PM (#486620)

    Ok, what are the steps in starting an ISP?

    • (Score: 2) by nobu_the_bard on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:00PM

      by nobu_the_bard (6373) on Thursday March 30 2017, @09:00PM (#486744)

      Very rough outline, understanding I am not an expert:
      1. You need to plan out the physicalities, taking into account the following steps' requirements. Many of the specific actions you take to achieve these objectives will depend on your plan.
      2. You need to be sure you actually can (it is not legal everywhere) and if there are any other legalities you need to deal with, such as business registration. You may be required to guarantee some minimum number of clients or something.
      3. You need some financial capital. It doesn't necessarily have to be billions; the amount you need depends on the scale you want to operate on and so forth. You might have enough to do it yourself. Wiring up one block is much cheaper than a whole city.
      4. You need one or more upstream bandwidth suppliers; most ISPs are "last mile" providers and rent resources from bigger networks like Level 3 that don't sell directly to ordinary users.
      5. You may need to provide some degree of hardware to manage hookups; wireless systems, fiber cables, routing/switching hardware, and whatever else gets your upstream providers' bandwidth to the end users as per your business plan. You might be able to rent some of this stuff from other companies. You'll probably have the "heart" of your system at a local data center you rent space at; someplace you can connect to your upstream providers.
      6. Depending on how you're getting your services to the end users, you may need permits to install cables or install radio antennas or so forth. For example, if you are a wireless provider, you may need to negotiate with people that own tall buildings or radio towers.
      7. Staffwise, at a bare minimum, you'll need maintenance people (perhaps just yourself) and sales/retention people (again perhaps just yourself) and possibly retain the services of accountant and/or lawyer to keep an eye out for trouble (wouldn't suggest also doing this yourself). Staff may require office equipment as well but maybe they can work from home to save on renting an office.

      Just my thoughts on the barest of minimums.

  • (Score: 2) by gidds on Friday March 31 2017, @12:26PM (1 child)

    by gidds (589) on Friday March 31 2017, @12:26PM (#487049)

    Surely a VPN only shifts the problem, from your ISP to your VPN provider?

    After all, your traffic will have to reach the open Internet from somewhere, and unless a VPN provider is doing onion routing or whatever (which I've not heard of), then someone will be able to see all your traffic.

    If you don't trust your ISP, why would you trust any other telecom provider any more?

    --
    [sig redacted]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 02 2017, @04:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 02 2017, @04:41PM (#487962)

      Because there is lots of competition between VPN services, so those who fuck with their customers have a real risk of losing those customers.

      That's not the case with ISPs.

(1)