What's new
By:
Filters

blocked vpn needed

High traffic is expected at weekends. kids playing consoles people watching netflix etc i don't think that is a huge issue. I just think people are going to have to accept they are going to need a VPN if they wish to watch IPTV. I have been using virgin with a VPN and had no issues what so ever. I can understand why some people don't want to use a VPN as it will kill there speeds to the extentent they will not be able to watch the match etc but i think suppliers will insist on it. I would advise using a VPN when ever you watch IPTV that way you isp notices no real change in your behaviour. The trouble is sly and vermin think if they stop iptv they are going to get millions more customers that will certinaly not be the case with most of us. For me it is a nice to have but i can live without it i would just use a app for films and boxsets and match of the day.

Tobias said:
No issues with a VPN today, just the channel transition is slower with a VPN. Mine used to be so rapid you never saw the blue loading icon in the middle of the screen. Now its on 2/3 seconds each time you change
Click to expand...
i get that with nord. with pia still pretty much instant. although nord increases my download speed the ping rate is higher thats what causes the issue with slow channel change.
 
They can keep blocking due to high traffic and cause disruption.

But lets be honest that wont be enough as they believe to kill "IPTV". IPTV aint c/s.

mike123 said:
i get that with nord. with pia still pretty much instant. although nord increases my download speed the ping rate is higher thats what causes the issue with slow channel change.
Click to expand...

Nord is good VPN imo.

Use on PC for few things and have it as extension and browser and pretty good. Not downloaded app or anything.
 
channelking said:
They can keep blocking due to high traffic and cause disruption.

But lets be honest that wont be enough as they believe to kill "IPTV". IPTV aint c/s.
Click to expand...
They can throttle speeds but a vpn will deal with that. Don't forget ISPs have to offer a minimum speed even in peak times. if they throttled speeds to much the amount of compensation they would need to pay would send them bust.
 
Ye no doubt. I lose speeds at peak times anyway not huge amount but dont get full speed.

They arent legally allowed to slow you down so much so that it becomes detrimental to yourself.
 
mike123 said:
High traffic is expected at weekends. kids playing consoles people watching netflix etc i don't think that is a huge issue. I just think people are going to have to accept they are going to need a VPN if they wish to watch IPTV. I have been using virgin with a VPN and had no issues what so ever. I can understand why some people don't want to use a VPN as it will kill there speeds to the extentent they will not be able to watch the match etc but i think suppliers will insist on it. I would advise using a VPN when ever you watch IPTV that way you isp notices no real change in your behaviour. The trouble is sly and vermin think if they stop iptv they are going to get millions more customers that will certinaly not be the case with most of us. For me it is a nice to have but i can live without it i would just use a app for films and boxsets and match of the day.
Click to expand...
Top advice. I've set mine to auto connect. The firestick is only for IPTV. Don't use it for anything else.
 
i got a n email of my provider explaining about blocks and they said that they are working to fix the issue and fix it they have and im on vm how long for is any ones guess though but if my supplier has a fix there must be one out there
 
Surely the fix would be for the server to use a VPN, as it stands the blackouts are on big match days. Surely them using a VPN will change their IP therefor confusing the providers.
Please don't tell me their too tight to pay unlike us lot :)
 
loncell said:
Surely the fix would be for the server to use a VPN, as it stands the blackouts are on big match days. Surely them using a VPN will change their IP therefor confusing the providers.
Please don't tell me their too tight to pay unlike us lot :)
Click to expand...
Problem is bandwidth it would at leat double the price of iptv. It is cheaper for the end user to buy the VPN. somw suppliers are selling a VPN in with there service.
 
channelking said:
Not really. It works fine to bypass blocks etc.
Click to expand...
I have used it for iptv the ping rate is very high so it makes channel changeing very slow. With PIA i have found you loose speed which i can afford but the ping rate is low so channel change is unaffected
 
mike123 said:
I have used it for iptv the ping rate is very high so it makes channel changeing very slow. With PIA i have found you loose speed which i can afford but the ping rate is low so channel change is unaffected
Click to expand...

Agree ping rate is high but using it to bypass geo blocks to access streaming services works fine for me with little to no issues
 
loncell said:
Surely the fix would be for the server to use a VPN, as it stands the blackouts are on big match days. Surely them using a VPN will change their IP therefor confusing the providers.
Please don't tell me their too tight to pay unlike us lot :)
Click to expand...
The ISP will block werever the traffic is heading, IMO, if the server uses vpn and we all head for that ip, it will red flag and they will block it .
 
plasterer said:
The ISP will block werever the traffic is heading, IMO, if the server uses vpn and we all head for that ip, it will red flag and they will block it .
Click to expand...
I have a feeling it will go the way of pay by download.
Indeed they may well have steered it that way purposely.
They have no chance of stopping iptv, - attempting to stop or curtail it will cost more than running the entire sky operation.
These costs will multiply year on year.
That is not a viable business model.
If the isp''s charge by the gigabyte and all isp''s have to follow suit then sky etc will get paid that way.
Constantly chasing down end users and providers is not viable in the long term.

Why not have all isp set up so that users pay (for example) 50p per gig.
Anyone using 25g a month just emails, browsing and the odd YouTube video would pay £12.50
Anyone watching 20 FHD prem league games in a month would pay a bit more.
If they wanted to reduce that they could watch in SD and just put FHD on for their own team games.
If they were happy to watch freesat and freeview 90% of the time and just watch the occasional film or sport channel in FHD for a few hours then their bill would be moderate. Those who want to watch everything in FHD or HD for 16 hours a day would pay the most.
The details would need to be ironed out.
Some people download 500gb of music each week and never use iptv but this would be renumeration.
Total downloads paid for would have to be split by all concerned parties
 
What your saying will cost £100s of pounds a month to customers. No one in their right mind will pay such amounts.

They would take a huge risk changing to such a business model and losing customers in droves.
 
pabloescaban said:
I have a feeling it will go the way of pay by download.
Indeed they may well have steered it that way purposely.
They have no chance of stopping iptv, - attempting to stop or curtail it will cost more than running the entire sky operation.
These costs will multiply year on year.
That is not a viable business model.
If the isp''s charge by the gigabyte and all isp''s have to follow suit then sky etc will get paid that way.
Constantly chasing down end users and providers is not viable in the long term.

Why not have all isp set up so that users pay (for example) 50p per gig.
Anyone using 25g a month just emails, browsing and the odd YouTube video would pay £12.50
Anyone watching 20 FHD prem league games in a month would pay a bit more.
If they wanted to reduce that they could watch in SD and just put FHD on for their own team games.
If they were happy to watch freesat and freeview 90% of the time and just watch the occasional film or sport channel in FHD for a few hours then their bill would be moderate. Those who want to watch everything in FHD or HD for 16 hours a day would pay the most.
The details would need to be ironed out.
Some people download 500gb of music each week and never use iptv but this would be renumeration.
Total downloads paid for would have to be split by all concerned parties
Click to expand...
So you are saying you pay by your internet usage. Unfortunately that will never work it will cost small businesses a fortune. Plus there will always be one provider to disrupt the market.
 
Dont kid yourself 90% who watch premium tv pay for it legitimately. I would never pay the full price sly and vermin charge.
 
I can't see any other way forward for sky.
Other than folding and there being nothing worth watching on any channel.
Pointless staying in business if no one is paying for the product.
Obviously there would be incentives to paying them direct, - true 4k, full support and what not but unless they cash in on the black market either via pay by download or some other way their days are numbered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dummer
Fire stick & vpn
Replies
7
Views
1K
IrishMarty
IrishMarty
S
Have I been blocked?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
cumu2003
C
P
BT Box Pro 1TB updated and blocked access
Replies
8
Views
539
mikeyeah
mikeyeah
T
VPN with Belarus Server
Replies
3
Views
303
Aristotle
Aristotle
T
Vpn deals vpn stopped working?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
thegunners
T
Back
Top