What's the best VPN in Thailand?

[SooKee]

You'd think most of the deals would be up by now but I guess there's still time.  Still no deals for TorGuard at $59 per year, Astrill 15 months for the price of 12 for $100 (nothing to write home about), Express with the same 15 months for the price of 12 with 49% off (at $100 for 15 months) and IP Vanish with 25% off at $59 per year.  In some cases I think the x% off prices aren't Black Friday deals, more like marketing hype to make you think your'e grabbing a great deal for something that would normally go for a lot more, in Astrill's case a 'normal' price of $238, yeah right.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Astrill never charges that inflated price... It's just fake marketing, of course. But others do the same kind of thing, so Astrill is not alone in that regard.

 

Meanwhile, my last post on IPVanish before giving them a FAIL and kicking them to the curb, despite their pricing.

 

Following up on my prior post on IPV, I took the advice of their tech support and connected to the ONE city server location that they suggested might work with Amazon Prime Video. It did NOT. Coughed up the same geo error.

 

So, while I was still connected, I figured I might as well give Hulu a try, since I hadn't tested them in my prior IPV testing. Ditto, failed to play and gave the error message that I was apparently trying to use an anonymous proxy service.

 

So Good Bye IPV... The Fire TV app was fun to play around with. But if the service won't work with Amazon Prime Video, won't work with Hulu, won't work well with other U.S. services I tried it with, they aren't going to get my business or cash -- regardless of their discounts.

 

[dr_lucas]

2 hours ago, Pib said:

Thanks dr lucas...another interesting way to find the IP Address for a domain name.    Now just to give more to others listing in and possibly confuse them, below is some more stuff on VPN server IP addresses.   I now for you below is just preaching to the choir stuff.  Here goes for the others.

 

I did some tests for PureVPN's San Francisco server of  "ussf.pointtoserver.com" which I currently have a manual Windows connection setup using Dedicated IP of 199.38.232.3.  That IP address works fine...makes a SF VPN connection.

 

OK, I do the "ping ussf.pointtoserver.com" using Dr Lucas' described method and the IP address does not come back as 199.38.232.3 but as 141.101.166.4.   I try this xxx.166.4 IP Address in my SF VPN connection setup...works fine...connects to SF.

 

I now do an ipconfig /flushdns command and rerun above ping test to ussf.pointtosever.com and get 162.211.177.3.  I try this xxx.177.3 in my SF VPN connection setup...works fine...connects to SF. 

 

I now use the Arul Hostname to IP address website for ussf.pointtoserver.com and it gives me a 162.211.176.130.  I try this xxx.130 in my SF VPN connection setup...works fine...connects to SF.   I remember this xxx.130 address as I use to use it before...but one day it stopped working....maybe the company that owns that IP address went offline for maintenance....I checked for a new IP address using Arul...got the xxx.232.3 first address I mention at the beginning of this post and I been using it for the last few months.

 

Wow, I'm now up to 4 possible IP addresses for ussf.pointtoserver.com....something must be fishy here---WRONG...no, nothing is fishy...they all connected to the PureVPN SF VPN server just fine....nothing is fishy.

 

That's because as I mentioned earlier VPN providers don't have their own servers at all their listed locations; instead, they contract/rent VPN services from other companies that provide all kinds of IT services like VPN, VOIP, lease lines, just all kinds of internet related services.  And PureVPN contracts/rents not just from one company at each location like at San Francisco but several companies so they have backup VPN server/fallback for additional capacity...in case one company's servers goes down for any reason such as routine maintenance....and maybe just to have enough VPN capacity at high use locations.  Plus, even when a company does have their own servers at a location each server may have a different IP address although using the same domain name.

 

Basically the PureVPN ussf.pointtoserver.com could end up connecting to one of PureVPN's several different contracted services/companies (or maybe their own servers) each time you make a VPN connection if using the ussf.pointtoserver.com VPN server name in your VPN connection setup.  Ditto for other VPN companies like IPVanish or whoever with their VPN server names.

 

But using the Dedicated IP approach it will only connect to whatever IT company "that owns the particular IP address.'  If the server with that IP address is maxed out you will "not" be automatically redirected to one of the other servers with a different IP address owned by a different company at that location or any other location...or at least I have not been.  That can be a drawback to using the Dedicated IP approach...get unlucky and be using a server IP address that is at 100% capacity when you try to make a connection and you can't make a connection...you then get pissed and call Donald Trump a name he well deserves like Idiot.

 

Now when using the Arul Host Name to IP Address website it will always just return "one" IP address....don't know why they only return one.  I use them because PureVPN recommended them once in a Chat session.   But if you use another Host Name to IP Address website like WhatIsMyIPAddress Host Name to IP Address website it may give you "multiple" IP address....all of which may work or some may not.   PureVPN also recommend them once in another Chat session.  

 

Like WhatIsMyIpAddress returns below answer for the IP Address for ussf.pointtoserver.com....a total of six  possible IP addresses....the four I already mentioned above plus two more.  I didn't check to confirm these additional two work also.  Some may not work "not" because they are bogus/invalid; it's just because that server may be offline for a couple hours of maintenance or something when you attempt a connection.

 

I clicked on each of below six IP addresses to see what IT company actually owns them.   Secure Internet LLC owned the first one,  WAN Security the next four, and PureVPN the last one.  So, PureVPN only owned one of the six VPN servers it uses at its SF location....the other five are contracted/rented which is all transparent to the PureVPN customer.  Once again, this is common practice with VPN providers....they do not use only their own employees and hardware at the many, many locations/countries around the world they will offer a VPN connection to--that would be way too expensive for them.

 

 

And what I have done in the past is actually Speedtest the different IP Addresses offered for a VPN server location because some of the servers can be significantly faster than the others.. Like maybe one company's server(s) are faster than the other company's servers...maybe WANSecurity servers are faster than Secure Internet LLC servers...or maybe the server PureVPN actually owns is the fastest.  Only speed testing will tell...and with speed testing you know a server's speed can change through the day/week due to different factors. 

 

I know all of this Dedicated IP stuff sounds complicated (it did initially to me....but really it's not).  Kinda like learning to ride a bicycle...really hard at first but once you learn you wonder why you had such a hard time learning as it's easy.  

 

Wow....my fingers are now tired.  Bye.

 

Sure, my pleasure, Pib. 

 

The multiple IP addresses  (A records) for that domain name is what's called "Round Robin" (aka "a poor man's load balancing").

You wondered why Arul returns only 1 IP. It's because that's how it's configured, I guess for simplicity reasons.

Which IP it returns at a specific time - RFC 1794 covers that Round Robin question.

As far as the answers go, Most DNS clients will use the first IP address in the list, some do subnet calculations to figure out which is closer, others choose randomly, but most depend on the DNS server to send the list.

You can see more detailed information about any domain here:

https://centralops.net/co/

 

There is a difference between an IP and a server.

One server can host multiple IPs (even IPs from multiple providers), while a single IP can only reside on one server at any given time.

 

I am not sure what you meant by the term "owning" a server vs "renting" a server. And also what's the relevance/importance of it to the end users?

 

The only important factor in the real world, IMHO, is just the speed tests results (I'd do single threaded to my desired destination/city first, especially for media streaming purposes).

And yes, there are downsides to use fixed IP instead of domain names. One additional possible downside is that on certain configurations - if you have a remote computer or entire network (through router's client) connected to a VPN via the IP and that IP fails, you may be unable to access your PC/entire network until you are on site to fix this.

The advantages of using a specific provider (the direct IP) may definitely outweigh the disadvantages tho, in cases a VPN domain resolves to several IPs with different loads, providers and routing policies.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 hours ago, SooKee said:

You'd think most of the deals would be up by now but I guess there's still time.  Still no deals for TorGuard at $59 per year,

Actually, as it turns out, Torguard IS offering some pretty decent Black Friday specials, but oddly, they're just not posting/advertising them on their main webpage.

 

I found the details of their promotion in a recent blog post on their website, and the promotions involve having to enter a promo code when you sign up. So it's not just a matter of choosing to sign up for an advertised special pricing shown on the regular website.

 

Here's what the special are, according to their blog post:

 

https://torguard.net/blog/torguard-2017-blackfriday-sale-annoucement/

 

 

They're also cutting the regular price on an add-on feature to their basic VPN service, which is what they call streaming compatible dedicated IPs.  Which, from a chat with them online, seems to be a dedicated IP you'd pay extra for and they promise will work with all streaming services in the target country you desire (among those where they offer that service) such as the U.S.  And their rep said, under that add-on, if your IP with them ever gets blocked by a streaming service in your designated country, they'll change you to a new IP to get one that works. Interesting approach and service. I'm intrigued....

 

[SooKee]

32 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Actually, as it turns out, Torguard IS offering some pretty decent Black Friday specials, but oddly, they're just not posting/advertising them on their main webpage.

 

I found the details of their promotion in a recent blog post on their website, and the promotions involve having to enter a promo code when you sign up. So it's not just a matter of choosing to sign up for an advertised special pricing shown on the regular website.

 

Here's what the special are, according to their blog post:

 

https://torguard.net/blog/torguard-2017-blackfriday-sale-annoucement/

 

 

They're also cutting the regular price on an add-on feature to their basic VPN service, which is what they call streaming compatible dedicated IPs.  Which, from a chat with them online, seems to be a dedicated IP you'd pay extra for and they promise will work with all streaming services in the target country you desire (among those where they offer that service) such as the U.S.  And their rep said, under that add-on, if your IP with them ever gets blocked by a streaming service in your designated country, they'll change you to a new IP to get one that works. Interesting approach and service. I'm intrigued....

 

Well spotted!!!  I'm not sure their approach to marketing by burying the promotion in a blog is such a well conceived idea, maybe they're not so bothered whether people find the promotions or not, you'd have thought they'd be front and centre of the site if they were.

 

I've read a lot of good things about Torguard ranging from 'paid reviews' through (seemingly) independent sites to user comments on forums.  They all have issues I guess and I see Torguard is criticised for asking for too much personal info when you sign up (if that's still the case) and for its very aggressive marketing with paid reviews.  Interestingly though it does seem to be highly regarded for streaming.

 

I'll look more closely and likely take the plunge tomorrow.  Currently I've whittled down the shortlist to:

 

Torguard

Express

Astrill

Pure

[Pib]

Thought I would look at what telecommunication companies PIA VPN and PureVPN use for their Singapore VPN location.   Do they use servers IP addresses assigned to themselves on contract/rent them for another company?  As you will see below they either totally or predominately use other companies.  Wonder if those other companies key logs? 

 

Just another example of how VPN providers use other companies around the world so that these VPN providers can provider VPN servers around the world and not have to use their own people or servers.

 

- PIA VPN Singapore Servers

  --All 13 IP Addresses Assigned to Softlayer Technologies

 

-PureVPN--8 IP addresses

 --4 assigned to Secure Internet, 2 PureVPN, 1 Gaditek Associates, and 1 Times Square

 

[Pib]

For my PureVPN Singapore manual connection setup I was using the IP Address to the Gaditek Associates VPN IP address (a supporting/partner company providing PureVPN server IP address support at Singapore)...got around 50Mb in a speedtest.  I changed it to one of the PureVPN IP addresses and the speedtest gave me around 100Mb.

 

Then I decided to check to set if my manual connection setups for Seattle and SF were using a PureVPN IP address or one of their other companies providing them VPN support at those locations because I was making an assumption using a PureVPN IP address versus one of their partners would give me faster speed.   

 

One location was using a PureVPN IP address and the other using one of  their supporting/partner companies so I changed that location to the PureVPN IP address assuming I might get faster speed although I didn't confirm with a speedtest....maybe tomorrow I will play more with some speed testing.   I just confirmed I could make a VPN connection when updating the IP address and I could.

 

Kinda interesting in checking a couple of VPN providers server locations like the PIA and Pure Singapore location talked about in above post to see who they might be contracting/partnering with to help provide VPN IP addresses/servers.

 

 

 

  

[Pib]

Well, I did some follow-on speedtesting with my PureVPN dedicated IP manual connections to Singapore, San Francisco, and Seattle paying particular attention to ping time, download speed, and repeatability.   

 

With the PureVPN-owned IP addresses and PureVPN's partner companies-owned IP addresses  at each of these three locations based on the speed testing I decided to use the following companies IP address/server at each location.  

 

For Singapore VPN Connection: Gaditek

For Seattle  VPN Connection: Secure Internet

For SF VPN Connection: PureVPN

 

Remember, I'm still using PureVPN even when connecting to one of their partner companies providing server/IP VPN addresses at the locations.

 

Now if I just use the domain name for each location (i.e., the layman's name versus IP address number) each time I connect I could end up getting a PureVPN-owned IP address/server or one of their partner companies owned IP address/server....all depends on where the round robin wheel stops/connects to.  

 

If one (or more) of these servers is on the slow side I get low speed for that connection....if I disconnect and reconnect I might get another server which is much faster.   But by individually testing the different IP addresses/servers to see which one(s) might stand out speedwise a person should be able to get a better, faster connection each time you connect since you are using a Dedicate IP approach to a specific IP address/server.  Or that's the theory.

 

 

[GuiseppeD]

Pib, what about the small issue of your five / six year VPN provider cosying up to the FBI? You seem to have avoided this very salient point.

 

And don’t give me the usual if you’ve nothing to hide spiel either as that doesn’t cut the mustard.

 

You’re either invisible or you aren’t.

 

[maxpower]

1 hour ago, GuiseppeD said:

Pib, what about the small issue of your five / six year VPN provider cosying up to the FBI? You seem to have avoided this very salient point.

 

And don’t give me the usual if you’ve nothing to hide spiel either as that doesn’t cut the mustard.

 

You’re either invisible or you aren’t.

 

I stopped using home connection after watching FBI TV show now only use free hotspot at coffee bar and noodle shop.

[Pib]

10 hours ago, GuiseppeD said:

Pib, what about the small issue of your five / six year VPN provider cosying up to the FBI? You seem to have avoided this very salient point.

 

And don’t give me the usual if you’ve nothing to hide spiel either as that doesn’t cut the mustard.

 

You’re either invisible or you aren’t.

 

Like I said earlier for my stalking and other illegal activities I'll use a different VPN provider to play it safe....that will make me 100% invisible to law enforcement agencies because other VPN providers are 100% safe because their advertisements say no logs, their superduper encryption prevents any eavesdropping, and other great things that all VPN providers say.

 

Oh, did I mention I have VPN service for the next five to six years for $1.15/month....oh yea, I just remembered, I did.   By the way, J. Edgar Hoover was my great-great grandfather and I have a descendant get-out-of-jail-free pass from the FBI.

[SooKee]

Had a fair amount of time with NordVPN and it's off the shopping list for me.  They claim that their servers work with Netflix / Amazon and that you will be able to select any location based server without problem.  I didn't find that to be the case with Amazon though Netflix did work.  

 

I contacted their support telling them what I was doing and they mailed me back suggesting I clear caches and turned off any location services.  Also stated that I needed to be connected to UK servers to access UK services and US for the US.  All fine, but I'd already explained I was doing ALL of that in the contact email?  Next up they asked me to provide details of visible IP addresses and to check IPLeak for WebRTC and DNS info.  Again, all was fine, it should have been working but wasn't. Then they replied to me again and told me to do all the things I'd already explained I was doing in the first email.  

 

Not sure what it's down to but as TGJIB pointed out something may have changed with Amazon where some VPN servers are no longer working.  Maybe Nord haven't caught up with it yet but they certainly didn't seem to be that bothered about investigating the issue and certainly didn't engage with me to resolve it beyond the stock reply, quite the opposite of Express who, last year, were very prompt and did manage to identify working servers.  I shyed away from Express at the time as I thought it was reasonable to assume that their servers might stop working altogether but, given the current state of affairs, that could happen with any vpn dependant on what extra technology the service providers deploy in their crusade to block VPN access.  Suffice it to say though, Nord didn't impress and if they can't be bothered, neither can I.  Nord off the list.

 

Will try today with Express, Astrill, Pure and TorGuard if I can. 

[Pib]

3 minutes ago, SooKee said:

Not sure what it's down to but as TGJIB pointed out something may have changed with Amazon where some VPN servers are no longer working.  Maybe Nord haven't caught up with it yet but they certainly didn't seem to be that bothered about investigating the issue and certainly didn't engage with me to resolve it beyond the stock reply, quite the opposite of Express who, last year, were very prompt and did manage to identify working servers.  I shyed away from Express at the time as I thought it was reasonable to assume that their servers might stop working altogether but, given the current state of affairs, that could happen with any vpn dependant on what extra technology the service providers deploy in their crusade to block VPN access.  Suffice it to say though, Nord didn't impress and if they can't be bothered, neither can I.  Nord off the list.

 

And the part I bolded in your partial quote above is a key statement. It seems all the VPN providers advertise how they can get around geo-blocking for video streaming services but we see customer after customer reporting otherwise.

 

 

[SooKee]

Just now, Pib said:

 

And the part I bolded in your partial quote above is a key statement. It seems all the VPN providers advertise how they can get around geo-blocking for video streaming services but we see customer after customer reporting otherwise.

 

 

Indeed, and in that regard I'm looking for a service that works currently AND, more importantly, where I don't flush too much money down the tubes if it suddenly stops.  In that case, your deal with Pure seems to be the best followed by the others at around the $60 mark.  

 

I personally don't put much stock in any of them being 'reassuringly expensive' unless they can offer more reassuring guarantees in the event that their servers suddenly stop working with the services you indicate you need them to provide access to.  In the absence of that, they're just expensive, without the reassurance.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

Actually, as it turns out, Torguard IS offering some pretty decent Black Friday specials, but oddly, they're just not posting/advertising them on their main webpage.

 

I found the details of their promotion in a recent blog post on their website, and the promotions involve having to enter a promo code when you sign up. So it's not just a matter of choosing to sign up for an advertised special pricing shown on the regular website.

 

Here's what the special are, according to their blog post:

 

https://torguard.net/blog/torguard-2017-blackfriday-sale-annoucement/

 

 

They're also cutting the regular price on an add-on feature to their basic VPN service, which is what they call streaming compatible dedicated IPs.  Which, from a chat with them online, seems to be a dedicated IP you'd pay extra for and they promise will work with all streaming services in the target country you desire (among those where they offer that service) such as the U.S.  And their rep said, under that add-on, if your IP with them ever gets blocked by a streaming service in your designated country, they'll change you to a new IP to get one that works. Interesting approach and service. I'm intrigued....

 

So, last night signed up for a one-year plan with TorGuard, and I must say, based on initial experience, I'm VERY impressed.

 

First reason: took advantage of what they call their dedicated IP streaming add-on, which with the Black Friday basically half-off discount brought my annual plan cost to a very reasonable $57. As the name suggests, instead of the normal dynamic shared IP that typical VPN services provides, this one provides you a custom, static IP address to use for streaming in the country of your choice (among the half dozen or so they offer). Last night, once I had it set up, I tested it against pretty much every streaming service I use, and it worked flawlessly with every single one. And, their commitment as part of the plan is, if the custom IP they give you ever ends up getting geo-blocked, they'll issue you a new one that works.

 

Second reason: really impressed by their technical support service. I had a typical pre-purchase online chat with one of their regular agents that was pretty generic but fine. The rep answered all my general questions. And they do have live chat via their website, unlike another provider like say IPVanish.

 

But where TorGuard really shined in my view was the after purchase support that was handled via emails back and forth with their advanced tech support staff. With their normal dynamic VPN plan, you just get your password and log-in ID, install their software and go. But with the static streaming IP add-on, you have to create a support ticket to in effect tell them what geo area you want your server address to be located. Obviously, they have IPs available for the U.S. and for specific areas/cities. They didn't have my first choice city, but they did have my 2nd choice city, so that was fine.

 

But the email conversation back and forth a few times with one rep was terrific. Almost before I had finished submitting the original support ticket, I got a response email back re my request. And every time I replied back by email, I'd get an answer within literally a few minutes. The instructions to follow were clear, specific and complete, easy to complete the process. And when I had additional questions, like how to set up their static IP OpenVPN on my router, those were answered with dispatch.

 

I should also add -- once I had created my basic account, while I was waiting for the streaming IP instructions, I went ahead and installed and set up their regular Windows OpenVPN application. (Even with the static streaming IP add-on, you still have access to all their regular dynamic IP servers in the event to want to use any of them instead.) So I connected with one major city often used as a streaming connection, and that NON-streaming server was geoblocked by a couple of the major streaming services as I tested it. But then later switched to my static streaming IP, and everything was flawless.

 

One last thing: I ran some speed tests last night as well using Netflix FAST and TestMy.net while connected to their/my static streaming IP. And the results were not speedy, usually only in the 1.5 to 2 Mbps range via the OpenVPN connection. But when I actually used the connection to stream on a half dozen or so difference services, the video playback was smooth, no buffering, and the video resolution was clear, not blurry. So, nonetheless, I may work with them some more to see if I can tweak their OpenVPN encryption settings on my end to bump up the speed some.

 

Thus far, the one thing I really like about their streaming IP add-on plan is that I no longer have to worry if the servers used by my other VPN end up getting geo-blocked at some point, and then having to search thru their available servers to find one that hopefully works for my purposes. The TorGuard dedicated streaming IP worked out of the gate for everything I threw at it, and I assume they're good for their promise that if mine ever should get blocked, they'll provide me a new custom IP that will still work.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

24 minutes ago, SooKee said:

Not sure what it's down to but as TGJIB pointed out something may have changed with Amazon where some VPN servers are no longer working.

 

Dunno what's going on with Amazon, but something is. I had been using the same server connections just fine for many months, and then suddenly, in the past few weeks, those stopped working. So, tested and found a couple different servers with my same provider that were working, and started using those. Now in the past week or so, those stopped working as well. So just in the past day or two did a new round of testing with my same provider, and found a couple other servers that are still working, so switched to those.

 

But playing that kind of cat and mouse game gets tiring and time-consuming and annoying, at some point. The provider typically can't accurately answer those kinds of service-specific questions, so the user has to try connection-by-connection to find one/some that will still work properly. And of course, also depends on just how broad a selection of server choices your particular provider has in the area(s) you need them to be.  Thus, as I mentioned, I was pleased last night when TorGuard's static streaming IP service seems to have provided a nice solution to that challenge.

 

[Pib]

To supplement TG's great post on TorGuard's "Dedicated IP add-0n," here's TorGuard's explanation of  how/why it works, etc.

https://torguard.net/blog/advantages-of-using-a-dedicated-ip-vpn/

 

TG, 

   By the way, what is the regular monthly cost of this "Dedicated IP add-on" and its current Black Friday cost.  I'm kinda unclear on that part from your earlier post.  Thanks.

 

[Pib]

I wonder how many of the other VPN providers provide a static Dedicated IP add-on?   

 

As you guys know, I'm with PureVPN but I never noticed until just now by searching on their website that they also sell a Dedicated IP add-on for $1.99/month.  Sounds the same as the TorGuard Dedicate IP add-on. This is different from the Dedicated IP approach I been talking in my earlier posts which is using a "shared IP" versus a static IP assigned just to you.  More info here on the PureVPN Dedicated IP add-on which cost $1.99/month.

 

Yea, I wonder how many other VPN providers also sell a static Dedicated IP add-on, but are low key on the advertising of it.  But if they all start selling static Dedicated IPs I would assume the streaming services will figure out a way to geo-block them also at some point....then again, maybe not....then again,....

[Pib]

I just had a Chat session with Pure regarding their Dedicated IP add-on.  The two things I wanted to find out was if/when the static Dedicated IP might get geo-blocked by a streaming service, how/when do I get issued a new one?  And the answer to that was basically "monthly."  And what was the current price considering the ongoing Black Friday/Cyber Week sales?  Answer was basically no sale price, just the regular $1.99/month price.   Here's a redacted version of our chat.

 

Quote

 

Me: Regarding your Dedicated IP add-on for around $1.99/month. If I'm using that to access a streaming service in the US but that static Dedicated IP address also get geo-blocked, does Pure issue me another one?

 

Pure Response:  Dedicated Ip can only be changed at the end of your billing cycle.

 

Me: What is the current Black Friday price for your Dedicate IP add-on?

 

Pure Response: Dedicated IP will be additional $1.99/month.

 

 

[dr_lucas]

Sounds reasonable and the likelihood of a dedicated IP to get blocked is very very small, unless they do some real stupid things like assigning a block of dedicated IPs from the same subnet as their public VPN IPs, so the entire range might get black listed.

Still a slim chance tho.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

55 minutes ago, Pib said:

To supplement TG's great post on TorGuard's "Dedicated IP add-0n," here's TorGuard's explanation of  how/why it works, etc.

https://torguard.net/blog/advantages-of-using-a-dedicated-ip-vpn/

 

TG, 

   By the way, what is the regular monthly cost of this "Dedicated IP add-on" and its current Black Friday cost.  I'm kinda unclear on that part from your earlier post.  Thanks.

 

 

Pib, very roughly without going back to their website, the NORMAL price for the ONE YEAR subscription to their regular VPN service is $50+, and then the NORMAL add-on price to also get the static streaming IP is another $50+.  So I think the regular total of the two together for one year was going to be about $116.

 

But with their Black Friday promotion, they cut the price of both by 50%. So my total end cost for one year of their regular VPN service plus static streaming IP in the area of my choice was about $56.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

By the way, re Torguard, if you dig into the service offerings on their website, you'll find they have TWO different kinds of static IP add-ons, both at very similar prices.

 

--1. They offer the static IP streaming add-on for servers in a select group of countries including the U.S., and then have servers you can pick from in various areas. When I inquired about California, they responded that had streaming IPs available in two different cities. And of course, the promise there is, if you're ever blocked, they'll simply give you a new IP that will work. I like that feature.

 

--2. But separate from that, they also seem to offer regular static IPs (not streaming IPs) in a group of a half dozen big city locations at pretty much the same pricing. Originally, I was confused about the distinction between the two different add-ons. But now I gather, the main difference with the regular static IP add-on is, they'll give you a static IP in the city you choose. But they make no guarantee of its suitability for streaming use or any special recourse in the event your IP happens to get up getting geo-blocked.

 

I can't say for certain, maybe someone else here would know better. Perhaps just obtaining a static IP, as opposed to a generic dynamic IP from the various providers, would mean your address is less likely to end up on someone's geo-block lists. But either way, I like the promised peace of mind with the static streaming IP approach that hopefully, makes it something I won't have to worry about too much.

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

BTW, with TorGuard, here's how the static IP setup process went, and I assume it would be similar with other providers.

 

--For the setup in their regular Windows OpenVPN app, the app itself has a submenu for creating a custom IP address entry. So I just went to that tab in the Windows app, typed in the static IP address I received from tech support, gave it a name, and saved it into the program. At that point, the custom static IP simply showed up at the top of the list of all the regular server choices within the app. And then I could choose that profile, or any other regular one, at will.

 

--For the router, they gave me instructions for going to a part of their website where you can create custom OpenVPN profile files, a file with a .ovpn extension. Entered in the same custom IP address into the website form, a few other things, and it spit out the custom .ovpn file to download to my computer. Then log-into my ASUS router and its VPN section in firmware. Choose to create a new OpenVPN profile, then upload the custom .ovpn file for my static streaming IP, then simply choose to activate that profile for VPN use.

 

Also, here's a screen cap of Torguard's add-ons menu and the normal prices for those add-ons. But with the Black Friday promo, the prices for their regular VPN and the add-ons are both 50% off...  So you can see what countries they offer static streaming IPs for, as well as what U.S. cities they offer static IPs for.

 

 

But as I said above, for a one year service plan under the Black Friday promotion, the cost of their regular VPN service PLUS the streaming static IP add-on ended up being $57.49 to be exact (sorry, I said $56 above...)

 

And supposedly, the plan pricing I mention above is supposed to be recurring. So come a year from now, according to TorGuard, I should be able to renew/extend the same two plans at the same promotion price -- not have it double to the regular price after the end of the first year.

 

 

 

[SooKee]

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Dunno what's going on with Amazon, but something is. I had been using the same server connections just fine for many months, and then suddenly, in the past few weeks, those stopped working. So, tested and found a couple different servers with my same provider that were working, and started using those. Now in the past week or so, those stopped working as well. So just in the past day or two did a new round of testing with my same provider, and found a couple other servers that are still working, so switched to those.

 

But playing that kind of cat and mouse game gets tiring and time-consuming and annoying, at some point. The provider typically can't accurately answer those kinds of service-specific questions, so the user has to try connection-by-connection to find one/some that will still work properly. And of course, also depends on just how broad a selection of server choices your particular provider has in the area(s) you need them to be.  Thus, as I mentioned, I was pleased last night when TorGuard's static streaming IP service seems to have provided a nice solution to that challenge.

 

Indeed!  

 

I have just tried Express and was quite impressed with the fact that it connected straight away to Netflix and Amazon such that I was tempted to go with them and not bother with trying the rest I was interested in.  I did have problems last year however and had to play the cat & mouse game with the finding the working servers.  I was however interested in TorGuard from the outset of my current research regarding VPNs and particularly following the posts by dr_lucas.  Interestingly the post from TGJIB about TG came up just as I was about to give TorGuard a spin and, along with PIB, TGJIB seems to have a fairly in depth knowledge of and experience with VPNs here so it was interesting to see him going with TG over Astrill.  

 

I had several questions specific to my needs which I found TorGuard's live chat support answered immediately, and way more comprehensively than the stock emails, fired out in reply at least a day later (not that great when the service suddenly stops working), from Nord.  Upshot, I've signed up with TorGuard including a dedicated streaming IP which for $91 for 2 years I may as well have than not have, particularly as some programmes I am interested in aren't available internationally yet.  I've yet to try TorGuard with BBC iPlayer for some of the documentary stuff but as yet, streaming is not my main motivation for taking the plunge and if it doesn't work with the BBC UK, so be it.  Their dedicated streaming IP at 50% off though was too good to decline.

 

I will likely install the service on my Asus router with Open VPN given that I can turn it on / off at the router (particularly when doing internet banking) as I need using the router's phone app  if it starts to slow other devices on the network too much.  Apart from all the things that TGJIB listed as plus points I also really like that they have apps which are compatible with Android TV devices (in my case the Shield and Mi Box) should I wish to go the per device route.  In the case of other VPN providers you can usually side-load their apps to ATV devices but I find these rarely work as well as designed for ATV apps and frequently need an air-mouse which I've become very adverse to using over recent months as all of my services are now ATV compatible.  I have kept my Amazon Fire TV for when I travel to Malaysia and I connect that to a mobile broadband router (Huawei 5877) with a broadband SIM for Netflix and iFlix.  As yet there's no Fire TV app so I'd be interested to see if they plan to develop one.  If not, I'll try a side loaded APK.

 

Glad the hunt is over in way.  I normally find pre-purchase research interesting, can't say I feel the same about VPNs, particularly when trying to filter out the claims that turn out not to be correct, particularly if the response from the CS deskss either slow or smacks of "can't be bothered", neither of which was the case with Torguard.  If I had one issue with TorGuard it's the fact that the UI on their desktop client and apps is a bit dated and clunky compared to the more visually appealing offerings from the likes of Nord and Express but it's the service you pay for, not the wrapper, it could still benefit from an overhaul IMO though.  Still, happy now, job done.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

15 minutes ago, SooKee said:

 so it was interesting to see him going with TG over Astrill. 

 

Well, I'm not quite there yet. I still have the second year of a two-year service plan with Astrill upcoming. And I don't think they're going to refund my 2nd year of service, even if I wanted them to. So I'm going to have and keep Astrill for another year. And I'm fine for that, because it will give me time to see how TorGuard works over the long haul. I always like to have a backup plan just in case something goes south.

 

But, based on very initial experience, I've found TorGuard's customer service support to be the best that I've ever received from any VPN I've dealt with thru the years. It's been quite a refreshing change. Not only are they very prompt to respond. But the staff person responding in my case clearly knew what he was doing and talking about, and was giving me correct and accurate instructions to follow. So I was very appreciative for that.

 

In the case of Astrill, their U.S. connections for me are quite speedy. And as long as I'm willing to take the time to hunt among their different server choices when geo-blocking arises, I'm still able to find and use working connections for all my needs. As might be expected, Astrill's customer support is really of little help if you approach them with a question like, which of your servers are currently working with XXX service... And frankly, customer service has never been Astrill's strong suit, I'll be the first to admit.

 

So if TorGuard can spare me from that kind of server hunting annoyance and simply give me a service that works, I'll be fine to stick with that come next year. Time will tell...  I would have had to give it some serious thought if the pricing was going to be close to $120 for the year. But at $57+, that wasn't hard to decide.

 

BTW, I thought about pulling the trigger on a two-year service plan, but decided to just go with a one-year plan, mainly because this is my first experience with them as a customer. If this coming year goes well, I'd certainly consider that when next year's Black Friday comes along.

 

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 hours ago, Pib said:

To supplement TG's great post on TorGuard's "Dedicated IP add-0n," here's TorGuard's explanation of  how/why it works, etc.

https://torguard.net/blog/advantages-of-using-a-dedicated-ip-vpn/

 

 

Thanks for that link, Pib. I hadn't read it before making my decision, but it reinforces some of the things I had already considered. I particularly liked and concurred with the following two sections:

 

Quote

 

• Streaming Services

One of the biggest reasons we recommend a dedicated IP is to unblock and watch streaming services with TorGuard active.

Without a dedicated IP, many popular streaming services like to block shared IP addresses and it’s easy to blacklist them. The reason is that with TorGuard, you can unblock geo-restrictions and access content worldwide.

With a shared IP this is still possible in most cases, but with a dedicated IP, your IP is unique to you and not used by thousands of other users. This way, you can stream and watch content without worrying about interruptions that could be caused by services blocking our shared IPs.

 

 

Quote

• Online Banking

Similar to video game services like Battle.net or other gaming apps, online banking services tend to get suspicious when you use different IP addresses. Banking sites don’t want account theft either, and when you use different IPs, that shows the site that you might be logging in from an unsecure location or someone else might be trying to access your account.

This means that you will have to go through more security questions and verifications, but if you use a dedicated IP, the website will soon recognize you and not cause you any extra hassle.

 

Perhaps if I was into torrenting and related downloading, I would have a different perspective. But since my main use cases are the two categories mentioned above, the dedicated IP seems the right fit for me, particularly as the geo-blocking campaigns seem to be getting more aggressive/pervasive.

 

 

[SooKee]

Interestingly I've tried just a few of the USA servers for Netflix and Amazon with the TorGuard app installed on the phone and the laptop, no go!  Now, I bought into TorGuard for the dedicated streaming IP (for the occasions I'd need to do that) so it's how the service performs once I have the dedicated IP address that will count.  I do hope though that, unlike Express where the servers I tried DID work with both Amazon and Netflix straight out the box, the failure of the TorGuard default servers is not ominous.  Will see once I get the dedicated IP.  I'm just waiting for it now, they offered me two locations and suggested the closest one would be better, not much in it I guess where both are 8,000 miles plus away with only a few hundred miles between them.

 

Some interesting comments here from folks trying TorGuard's default service / servers with Netflix where going the dedicated IP address route seems to have solved the problem.  While on the face of it Express could seem like the best service to use given its servers work straight out the box I think I'd still be happier going with the dedicated IP option from TorGuard if works OK.  In the event that it pack up working you'd likely have more chance of a refund given their 'promise' at the purchase stage vs Express where it might work now but may not work in 6 months time.

 

Torguard / Netflix: https://www.reddit.com/r/NetflixByProxy/comments/4mcgvt/torguard_has_thrown_in_the_towel/

 

I'll give the service a hammering over the next two days once I get the dedicated IP to see how it holds up at different times, still have time (just) to switch back to Express if I need.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

14 minutes ago, SooKee said:

Interestingly I've tried just a few of the USA servers for Netflix and Amazon with the TorGuard app installed on the phone and the laptop, no go!  Now, I bought into TorGuard for the dedicated streaming IP (for the occasions I'd need to do that) so it's how the service performs once I have the dedicated IP address that will count.  I do hope though that, unlike Express where the servers I tried DID work with both Amazon and Netflix straight out the box, the failure of the TorGuard default servers is not ominous.  Will see once I get the dedicated IP.

 As I mentioned above, when I first tried one of their just regular OpenVPN connections last night, it did NOT work for Amazon or Hulu. I didn't proceed to go thru various of the other regular servers on the list, because I knew my own dedicated IP was coming.

 

Once I set up the dedicated streaming IP, as I said above, it worked for everything I tried from the U.S. and not a single geo-block.

 

[maxpower]

Streaming servers are not geo location blocking local VPN addresses they are usage blocking the address along with a few other sneaky moves. They will continue to become more aggressive and reach a point where a new solution is required for those wanting to access content from outside a zone. The first layer of strategy is simple and effective. This local IP address is not allocated to a service that can request a stream from our server.

 

The personal IP solution can't provide for everyone and can't guarantee uninterrupted access once the streaming server gets a good hold on allocation. As a new IP system slowly rolls out we will probably see a lot more allocation detection.

 

There's lots of unrest in them VPN sales camps.

 

[SooKee]

37 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 As I mentioned above, when I first tried one of their just regular OpenVPN connections last night, it did NOT work for Amazon or Hulu. I didn't proceed to go thru various of the other regular servers on the list, because I knew my own dedicated IP was coming.

 

Once I set up the dedicated streaming IP, as I said above, it worked for everything I tried from the U.S. and not a single geo-block.

 

Yah, I'm also not that keen on trying from too many in case I get some account block problems.  Interestingly they offered me two locations for the dedicated IP address but being only a few hundred miles apart I wasn't sure there would be much in.  In this case they suggested turning off the VPN and testing speeds to the locations using Speedtest.net which I would have thought was unreliable at least.  I find server selection using that a real pig with it's map based approach.  Very clunky.  Pity you can't select a server by text input.  Currently looking to see if there's any more reliable speed test that I can use with servers based in the two locations to try the two.