What's the best VPN in Thailand?

[SooKee]

3 hours ago, Pib said:

We've talked so many different deals on VPN & video streaming services, etc., I'm now confused more than usual.

 

Above you mentioned $10-12 per month for Netflix and Amazon Prime streaming.   If I look at the US prices say for the Netflix Standard Plan of $10.99/mo which includes HD (I would want HD) & can watch on 2 screens at the same time and Amazon Prime at $10.99/mo that totals almost $22/month.  But I realize annual membership and ongoing special deals (Black Friday/Cyber Monday) might impact the pricing.   And I know in your earlier posts you mentioned international plans, country plans, etc., which probably affects the pricing.

 

Summary: so how do you get the $10-12/mo total price for both Netflix and Amazon?  Thanks.

 

 

A highly inaccurate guess of the top of my head at the time I was typing - in baht:

 

Netflix:    350 pm

Amazon: 269 pm

VPN:       118  pm

 

Total 737

[Pib]

Sookee,

  Thanks for the costing clarification.  Now one more clarification if you have the time.  Now that you have a US Amazon Prime account can you access the full  video catalog with a Torguard shared/dynamic VPN US IP address (i.e., a regular VPN connection to the US) or must you use the Torguard static dedicated US IP. 

[SooKee]

Sookee,
  Thanks for the costing clarification.  Now one more clarification if you have the time.  Now that you have a US Amazon Prime account can you access the full  video catalog with a Torguard shared/dynamic VPN US IP address (i.e., a regular VPN connection to the US) or must you use the Torguard static dedicated US IP. 

Welcome. Only tried via the static TBH and I won't be around for a couple of days to try now. IIRC though TGJIB reported that the only time he hit a geo block using the TG VPN was when trying to use a regular server. I'll give it a try with a few of them for you when I get back.

Sent using Tapatalk

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

With this being the time of year when a number of folks change or sign up with new VPN providers, I thought it's worthwhile to remind that there's potentially a lot of different technical details/settings that go into getting the best performance out of your internet VPN -- even with the various companies providing their own apps for customers. Even within those, there's a lot of potential settings to be set.

 

For example, with the Torguard streaming static IP plan that SooKee and I just have signed up for, that plan gives you the choice of at least four or more different VPN protocols, including OpenVPN, PPTP and L2TP among others. And it's up to the end user, whether running the VPN via a router or a device program or app, to choose which one is best for their purposes.

 

In general, I believe I'm safe to say that the OpenVPN protocol is the higher encryption and security protocol of the three, but even within OpenVPN, there are various levels of encryption (AES numbers) that can be chosen. The more encryption, the more security for your data in transit, but it also may be somewhat slower because of that. On the other hand, L2TP is generally considered to have good security and often can be faster. And PPTP also will tend to be faster, but I believe its security has been compromised and some providers are gradually phasing it out.

 

So which is the best to choose kind of depends on one's intended uses -- are you just streaming legal (subscribed) video content with the VPN and not worried about security, or are you sending secret emails to the FBI or downloading illegal/copyright infringing material and want the highest encryption. With most VPNs these days, you have a range of choices to match those needs from one end to the other.

 

Here's just one example:

 

When I first set up the California VPN on my router, I set it up as standard OpenVPN and ran speedtests with Netflix's Fast.com. Here's the result I got at 1 am in the morning.

 

         

 

Then today, about 9 pm after the dust had settled at home a bit, I got around to setting up the same California VPN service as an L2TP protocol on my router instead of OpenVPN. And here's the results I got from the same Netflix Fast.com test site:

 

               

 

Now, some of that may be related to misc. time, date or internet vagaries. But bottom line: settings and configuration can make a big difference, and it pays to pay attention to such things, especially when you're setting up a new VPN service or reinstalling one. And do some testing of different configurations to see how they work for you.

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

16 minutes ago, SooKee said:

Welcome. Only tried via the static TBH and I won't be around for a couple of days to try now. IIRC though TGJIB reported that the only time he hit a geo block using the TG VPN was when trying to use a regular server. I'll give it a try with a few of them for you when I get back.
 

 

I just tried one regular TG server, with a random U.S. city selection, and got a geo block error while I was waiting from my streaming static IP to be set up. I didn't take the time, and haven't as yet, to start cycling thru their other various server/cities in the regular mode to see what results.

 

[dr_lucas]

58 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

When I first set up the California VPN on my router, I set it up as standard OpenVPN and ran speedtests with Netflix's Fast.com. Here's the result I got at 1 am in the morning.

 

         

 

Then today, about 9 pm after the dust had settled at home a bit, I got around to setting up the same California VPN service as an L2TP protocol on my router instead of OpenVPN. And here's the results I got from the same Netflix Fast.com test site:

 

               

 

Now, some of that may be related to misc. time, date or internet vagaries. But bottom line: settings and configuration can make a big difference, and it pays to pay attention to such things, especially when you're setting up a new VPN service or reinstalling one. And do some testing of different configurations to see how they work for you.

 

 

 

 

Unlike L2TP, OpenVPN is CPU bound and can utilize only a single core.

IIRC you own Asus ACRH13 router with a quad core 717Mhz CPU, which is a very very weak CPU for OpenVPN performance (when enabled directly on the router).

Your router can typically max out at around 20Mbit using OpenVPN, which matches the above results.

 

I explained this earlier in the thread:  https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/941564-whats-the-best-vpn-in-thailand/?do=findComment&comment=12382676

 

Quote:

TL;DR

In most cases, the general advice is to not use PPTP: (link)

PPTP is an insecure protocol which normally doesn't really offer any performance benefit over the very secure OpenVPN, except for cases where OpenVPN is being used directly on routers (or other devices) with a weak CPU that limits OpenVPN performance, ie. the bottleneck is the CPU.

Latest routers, such as Linksys' WRT3200ACM and Asus' RT-AC86U come with quite powerful 1.8 GHz CPU, which are capable of handling very high OpenVPN speeds, even up to 200Mbit/200Mbit (link)

 

I understand some people use the VPN only for streaming, so don't really care much about security, but bear in mind that PPTP can also be easily detected by the ISPs and throttled if and when they will choose to do that (I know of at least one local ISP that already does).

 

Full technical details:

OpenVPN is a single-threaded protocol. ie. it can only use one CPU core and just 1 thread. There is no benefit to multi-core CPUs and no benefit to CPU multi-threading.

Routers are small devices with limited CPU capacity. Usually they are around 400MHz, while most better ones currently at users homes go to 1GHz. This is fairly little compared to e.g. quad-core 2.4GHz CPU you may find on your PC. Furthermore, these chips are usually cheap ARM or Broadcom models that do not support AES-NI instruction set - an instruction set implemented by Intel for fast hardware AES encryption. AES-NI instruction set support on CPU has dramatic influence on overall encryption computation capabilities of the machine. You can find further information at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AES_instruction_set 

 

You can confirm that the cap is caused by your router's CPU by telnet or SSHing into router and running "top" command while performing speedtest. You will see your CPU is at 100% and its OpenVPN process eating all the power. 

If you connect with OpenVPN using your PC but get better performance on the PC when using PPTP, that's normally because the VPN provider assigns a different server for PPTP connections or does some other behind the scene configuration changes to prioritize PPTP, otherwise, if it is the same server - you'll normally get the same or even better speeds with OpenVPN when using a modern PC.

 

Another example:

My internet package is 200/100 fiber. With my AC86U I am able to get the full 200/100 on OpenVPN to Singapore, with encryption disabled.

With 128bit/256bit encryption turned on, I can get around 130/100.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, dr_lucas said:

Another example:

My internet package is 200/100 fiber. With my AC86U I am able to get the full 200/100 on OpenVPN to Singapore, with encryption disabled.

With 128bit/256bit encryption turned on, I can get around 130/100.

 

 

That's quite a telling indicator of how much of a performance hit encryption can take on one's bandwidth -- even more than I would have guessed. And yet, I suspect, most folks on ThaiVisa probably have little idea what AES128 or AES256 is.

 

So tonight, I asked that very question of the tech support folks at TG -- what if all I really want to use your service for is streaming legal (non-copyright infringing) video?  What's the optimum setting for that use.

 

Their guidance was either to run L2TP or OpenVPN with no encryption.

 

I checked their Windows app and couldn't find any setting for no encryption in OpenVPN, so I got back to TG with a second query. Turns out, for whatever reason, to get no encryption, I also had to select a different port for the VPN from the default one in the app. So I changed to the port they suggested, and bingo, the no encryption option surfaced in the OpenVPN settings.

 

But for right now, I've set the router to run L2TP, and will evaluate how that performs in the coming days.

 

 

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Pib]

Yeap, a person run a VPN connection "without" encryption in many setups.  The VPN service provider app may (or may not) have settings which will allow selection of either no encryption (basically you are just getting the IP address in another country), AES128, AES256, etc.

 

I'm with PureVPN and on their app you can turn off 256 bit encryption but what is misleading is that implies you have no encryption but it just really means turn off "maximum" encryption and uses 128 bit encryption instead.  I chatted to PureVPN tech support to confirm this.   

 

Plus, I can actually see how the Pure app makes this happen by how the Pure app is interfacing/adjusting the setting of the Windows network adapter setting created for the PureVPN app.  When the Pure app starts up it sets/ensures the Windows adapter for Pure is set to "Require Encryption."   If you manually change that setting in the Windows adapter to "No Encryption Req'd" the Pure app will change it back to "Require Encryption" when the app makes the connection.   So, if using the Pure app either 128 or 256 bit encryption will always be used.

 

However, since I rarely use the app and use Windows manual connections instead (just faster to use) I have setup for Singapore, San Francisco and Seattle PPTP & L2TP I can change the encryption level desired by just adjusting the Security Level of each connection (called "adapters" in the Windows Network menu).     

 

See below snapshot of a manaul VPN connection (adapter) I have setup for my VPN PPTP connection for San Francisco....note the different security levels (i.e., encryption levels) you can select from no encryption to max strength which say for L2TP would be AES 256 bit max strength and PPTP AES128 bit max strength.  For my PPTP connections I use the "Require Encryption" setting which for PPTP means 128 bit; for L2TP I use Maximum Strength Protection which would be 256 bit...don't want it to downshift to 128 bit.   I could use the Max Strength selection also for PPTP since PPTP max strength is 128 bit.

 

 

Early today I did some Speedtest.net tests to their San Francisco Fastmetics server.  Wanted to use the same server for the tests to get the best apple-to-apple comparison as possible since different servers at different Speedtest.net locations can give widely different results.  Also did all these tests within about 15 minutes.   I have an AIS Fibre 200/50 plan.  Tests done on my Lenovo i7 CPU based laptop.

 

I tested four connection types:  1) No VPN connection, 2) VPN PPTP Connection Without Encryption, 3) VPN PPTP Connection with AES128 Encryption, and 4) VPN L2TP Connection With AES256 Encryption.  Did three speed tests with each connection and then averaged those results.  Below are the results and you can see how stronger encryption impacts the speed.  Remember, these results are to San Francisco.

 

No VPN Connection (just a regular connection...still have  a Thailand IP address)

115Mb down / 55Mb up

 

VPN PPTP Connection "Without Encryption" (basically acting as a proxy server just giving me a US IP address)

73Mb down / 30Mb up

Note: notice the speed rolloff from a regular/no VPN connection

 

VPN PPTP Connection "With 128 Bit" Encryption

50Mb down / 17 Mb up

Note: notice a further speed rolloff as is encryption is now being used.

 

VPN L2TP Connection "With 256 Bit" Encryption

41Mb down / 43 Mb up.

Note: notice a further download speed rolloff as the encryption got stronger.

 

 

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

1 hour ago, Pib said:

Early today I did some Speedtest.net tests to their San Francisco Fastmetics server.

 Pib, can you post a link to the particular site/specific link you were using for that?

 

And, is that a single or multi-threaded test?

 

So, I'm assuming you're just using the regular Speedtest beta site and then choosing that particular S.F. server to test?

 

This is my 3BB ethernet direct as of about 4 pm today. I'd say that's certainly NOT a single threaded test...

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[Pib]

Speedtest.net (it's a multi-thread tester).

Use their  "Fastmetrics" server selection at San Francisco.   I use that simply because from past testing to San Francisco it seems to give fast and more repeatable results compared to some of the others at SF.   Plus, I've done a bunch of speed testing over the past few months due to my recent AIS Fibre problem (fixed 16 Nov) and I wanted to use the same server from day to day for tests...Fastmetrics is just the one I happened to use.  

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's what TestMy.net says for San Francisco, via a single threaded test with 3BB ethernet direct:

 

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

BTW, there's a few other VPN-related things I've noticed the past couple days when doing a lot of geo testing with Android mobile devices, specifically in this case, a variety of tablets.

 

I noticed that in order to get accurate results when you're testing a new VPN connection profile, before connecting, it's a good idea to clear the data cache for whatever streaming or other usage app you're testing and then force close the app before proceeding to test the new VPN profile for access.

 

Through the process of trial and error, I discovered that a lot of connection profiles/streaming app combinations that I initially thought were not going to work in fact did work, once I cleared out the memory in the particular streaming app of whatever had come before, and allowed the app to start fresh with the new/current VPN profile I'm testing.

 

In the same vein, under Android Setting and the Location tab, there's usually a Mode or similar selection that has choices like High Accuracy (that uses GPS, wifi, Bluetooth and cell site info), Battery Saving, or GPS only. At least in my cases, I found that changing the Location mode setting to GPS only seemed to work better in terms of gaining access via VPN.

 

Lastly for Amazon Fire tablets, which don't have GPS hardware, they do however have a Location Services section under Settings / Wireless. In that section, there's choices to turn on/off Location services at large, and then a list of apps on the device for which you can enable or disable Location services. In my case, I found disabling Location services for particular apps produced better access results.

[Pib]

Via AIS Fibre....Wifi connection.

 

31 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Here's what TestMy.net says for San Francisco, via a single threaded test with 3BB ethernet direct:

 

 

 

And here's my AIS Fibre result via Wifi connection about 30 minutes later.  Basically, same-same as your 3BB.

 

[MuntyC0re]

I prefer to use proxy, recently bought fineproxy package, https://buy.fineproxy.org/eng/3000proxy.html . I got 3000 IP, they work without authorization or via login/password system. It suits my needs + high speed of work.

[Pib]

27 minutes ago, MuntyC0re said:

I prefer to use proxy, recently bought fineproxy package, https://buy.fineproxy.org/eng/3000proxy.html . I got 3000 IP, they work without authorization or via login/password system. It suits my needs + high speed of work.

Must be my browser translation or something....prices are HIGH!!!!  It says one month cost almost $88?   Even when clicking the one that says $87.9 per month, going to checkout, clicking PayPal to get to the PayPal logon screen (but I didn't log on) it says $87.90 USD.     Heck, you can get a year's worth of VPN service for $87.90 or less.

 

[MuntyC0re]

21 hours ago, Pib said:

Must be my browser translation or something....prices are HIGH!!!!  It says one month cost almost $88?   Even when clicking the one that says $87.9 per month, going to checkout, clicking PayPal to get to the PayPal logon screen (but I didn't log on) it says $87.90 USD.     Heck, you can get a year's worth of VPN service for $87.90 or less.

 

yeah it's a bit expensive but the service is great

[SooKee]

On 27/11/2017 at 8:43 PM, Pib said:

Sookee,

  Thanks for the costing clarification.  Now one more clarification if you have the time.  Now that you have a US Amazon Prime account can you access the full  video catalog with a Torguard shared/dynamic VPN US IP address (i.e., a regular VPN connection to the US) or must you use the Torguard static dedicated US IP. 

Further on this.  Tried all the US vanilla servers.  Geo bloc with Amazon, need the dedicated streaming IP for it to work.

[Pib]

Thanks to Sookee and TallGuyJohninBKK regarding the success of accessing Netflix/Amazon Prime via normal VPN connection (shared IP) and Dedicated IP.  

 

Just as FYI, over the last 10 days or so during the the Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales I asked PureVPN via chat session four times (2 sales staff and 2 tech support staff) about their Dedicated IP add-on (cost $1.99/month) to access streaming services like Netflix/Amazon.   The chats were more curiosity/info gathering on my side in case I did decided to get Dedicated IP.   

 

All four times they said I do "not" need a Dedicated IP to access those streaming services...I would then stress I'm not in the US but Thailand...they still said I don't need Dedicated IP.....just use their normal VPN service/Chrome extension using their server sites focused on streaming.   There is a setting in their app where you can pick your main purpose is Streaming which then shows you their recommended server locations to choose from for your VPN connection

 

It was if they had zero effort/desire to sell me the Dedicated IP add-on....almost felt like they did not want to sell it to me if I was going to use it for streaming although their add or Dedicated IP advertised used that among others as pros.   

 

And maybe, just maybe, they really felt as some point I would get geo-blocked even with the Dedicated IP and really didn't want to have to issue me a new one, listen to my complaining, just generate more stuff on social media (like this post), etc.   Yea, I thought it strange none of the reps thought I needed Dedicated IP to stream and made no effort to sell it to me to add-on to my current VPN package.

 

[SooKee]

3 hours ago, Pib said:

Thanks to Sookee and TallGuyJohninBKK regarding the success of accessing Netflix/Amazon Prime via normal VPN connection (shared IP) and Dedicated IP.  

 

Just as FYI, over the last 10 days or so during the the Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales I asked PureVPN via chat session four times (2 sales staff and 2 tech support staff) about their Dedicated IP add-on (cost $1.99/month) to access streaming services like Netflix/Amazon.   The chats were more curiosity/info gathering on my side in case I did decided to get Dedicated IP.   

 

All four times they said I do "not" need a Dedicated IP to access those streaming services...I would then stress I'm not in the US but Thailand...they still said I don't need Dedicated IP.....just use their normal VPN service/Chrome extension using their server sites focused on streaming.   There is a setting in their app where you can pick your main purpose is Streaming which then shows you their recommended server locations to choose from for your VPN connection

 

It was if they had zero effort/desire to sell me the Dedicated IP add-on....almost felt like they did not want to sell it to me if I was going to use it for streaming although their add or Dedicated IP advertised used that among others as pros.   

 

And maybe, just maybe, they really felt as some point I would get geo-blocked even with the Dedicated IP and really didn't want to have to issue me a new one, listen to my complaining, just generate more stuff on social media (like this post), etc.   Yea, I thought it strange none of the reps thought I needed Dedicated IP to stream and made no effort to sell it to me to add-on to my current VPN package.

 

I guess it all comes down to what you need.  Another aspect maybe their ability (or not) to guarantee you that you'll be provided with a dedicated streaming IP that works for the duration you are paying for it.  Not much point in surmising what they 'feel' (unless it's specifically what they said / wrote), any more than it's worth listening to a provider telling you what you need / don't need (unless of course they are prepared to put their money where there mouth is and guarantee that they will be able to give you access to what you need via their shared servers).  I'm not sure why, for instance, they might think a dedicated IP might eventually get blocked?  It's much, MUCH harder (I'd say borderline impossible) for a provider to isolate a specific IP address than it is for them to pick up repeated access attempts from shared servers all flashing up within a certain IP range.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

fyi, just a bit of an update:

 

The Astrill servers that I'd used for a long time, and then stopped working with Amazon last month, are back to working fine again with Amazon now.

 

The change appears to have been one on Astrill's end of things, as when I compared the assigned IP address ranges from November (when Amazon stopped working) and now (when it works fine again), Astrill seems to have changed to an entirely different IP range for the named/city servers I'd been using. As best as I can tell, back to a range that they'd been using before in the past when everything was fine.

 

Meanwhile, having had some experience with both services now, I can say that Astrill definitely is generally faster with its U.S. connections compared to Torguard and its static IP streaming option. However, true to their promise, the Torguard streaming IP has performed flawlessly -- if a bit laggy when used for general surfing -- in the time I've had it, with not a single geo-block being encountered.

 

[SooKee]

34 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

fyi, just a bit of an update:

 

The Astrill servers that I'd used for a long time, and then stopped working with Amazon last month, are back to working fine again with Amazon now.

 

The change appears to have been one on Astrill's end of things, as when I compared the assigned IP address ranges from November (when Amazon stopped working) and now (when it works fine again), Astrill seems to have changed to an entirely different IP range for the named/city servers I'd been using. As best as I can tell, back to a range that they'd been using before in the past when everything was fine.

 

Meanwhile, having had some experience with both services now, I can say that Astrill definitely is generally faster with its U.S. connections compared to Torguard and its static IP streaming option. However, true to their promise, the Torguard streaming IP has performed flawlessly -- if a bit laggy when used for general surfing -- in the time I've had it, with not a single geo-block being encountered.

 

Same here insofar as Torguard is concerned.

[Pib]

39 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Meanwhile, having had some experience with both services now, I can say that Astrill definitely is generally faster with its U.S. connections compared to Torguard and its static IP streaming option. 

What kind of VPN speed to the US do you get on your 3BB 200Mb plan?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

7 hours ago, Pib said:

What kind of VPN speed to the US do you get on your 3BB 200Mb plan?

Via Astrill or Torguard?

 

[Pib]

3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Via Astrill or Torguard?

 

Both.  But just one test of each say to SF or LA using PPTP would be fine.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

On 12/19/2017 at 8:46 PM, Pib said:

Both.  But just one test of each say to SF or LA using PPTP would be fine.

 

Here you go, Pib. I ran all these tests about 1 am today using the Windows desktop apps of the two services, direct Ethernet connection, 100 MB download samples, and three tests in succession.

 

Astrill OpenVPN L.A. connection to TestMy.net's L.A. server

79.7 / 86.6 / 104.2 Mbps

 

Torguard Open VPN streaming IP connection in S.F. to TestMy.net's S.F. server

10.4 / 9.1 / 11.5 Mbps

 

Torguard's desktop app doesn't have a PPTP profile, but Astrill's does.

 

Astrill PPTP L.A. connection to TestMy.net's L.A. server

71.3 / 69.7 / 59.9 Mbps

 

As I mentioned earlier, when I used the Torguard streaming IP for general web browsing and such, I definitely noticed the slow-down. But at the same time, when using it for streaming, I haven't experienced any buffering or lagging. But most of the streaming I do is SD or regular HD video, which isn't going to demand any more than 5 Mbps generally speaking.

 

[Pib]

Thanks.  Assuming you meant your "Dedicated IP add-on" when saying "Streaming IP,"  interesting that the TorGuard Dedicated IP appears to be throttled but still more than good enough for streaming HD video. 

 

If "not" using the Dedicated IP to SF/LA does TorGuard give significantly faster speeds to SF/LA?  I think that is what you are saying in your last paragraph but I'm not sure.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 hours ago, Pib said:

Thanks.  Assuming you meant your "Dedicated IP add-on" when saying "Streaming IP,"  interesting that the TorGuard Dedicated IP appears to be throttled but still more than good enough for streaming HD video. 

Yes, the tests above were with Torguard's dedicated/static Streaming IP service.

 

5 hours ago, Pib said:

If "not" using the Dedicated IP to SF/LA does TorGuard give significantly faster speeds to SF/LA?  I think that is what you are saying in your last paragraph but I'm not sure.

 

Don't know the answer to your question in the first sentence, since I've only dealt with their static streaming IP thus far -- though I also have access to all their regular servers as well.

 

So, I have no idea whether their regular servers are faster or slower than their static streaming servers. Haven't done any of those comparisons thus far. BTW, in California, AFAIR, their static streaming IPs are only available for San Francisco and San Diego, not L.A.

 

[Pib]

If you get the time it would be nice to know if TorGuard's regular VPN connection is significantly faster/slower/same as their Dedicated IP VPN connections.   If you decided to test, just test to San Francisco with whatever VPN protocol.

 

I don't hardly do anything via LA as SF connections have always been significantly faster for me on AIS Fibre when doing some StrongVPN and PureVPN speed testing.

 

It's just if I go with a Dedicated IP add-on from PureVPN (they also have a SF dedicated IP server) in helping to make that decision it would be nice to know how the TorGuard regular and dedicated connection work speedwise....like maybe having a Dedicated IP means slow VPN speed compared to a regular VPN connection.  

 

Thanks and Happy Holidays