Interesting. I've not noticed performance issues beyond those expected due to signal quality when using work's VPN over a tethered phone using EE. That VPN is using OpenVPN with a UDP transport. Then again it doesn't get used for anything with high throughput so perhaps they only throttle when it looks like bulk transfers are happening or the effect of the throttle just isn't apparent for my interactive use-cases.

> or have you found a way around this?

If they are throttling UDP for your use case then you could try a TCP based VPN (OpenVPN supports this), though there are potential issues with layering TCP inside TCP particularly on high-latency connections so this is not usually recommended. Might be worth a try to compare/contrast though.

I have a play with mine both ways when I finally get round to adding it to my current phone (mainly to use the network level ad-blocker running at home) and see if I can see a measurable difference with each variant.

To copy and paste another reply I just made:

"I ran some tests with the guys in WireGuard IRC which seemed to confirm that the issue is specifically EE limiting UDP whether by QoS or otherwise."

I'll give OpenVPN a go over TCP once I have a chance to set it up and I might even consider contacting EE for info.

I would mind the fact that it limits my throughout to, at best 12Mb down, but when on WG it typically approaches 0 making my device unusable and I've already ruled out the rest of my network.

If you run the server side of the VPN as well as the client, you can test that possibility by trying other known ports (1194 that OpenVPN usually lives on, 433 if that isn't already directed elsewhere on the target address, ...).

That being said, have you attempted to discuss the issue with them? Have you considered a non-default UDP port? Also, did you compare the usage with OpenVPN? I ran OpenVPN before, the roaming, network speed, and latency is quite terrible.

I think the trick to bypass this kind of nonsense is to use port 443/1194/53 so QoS + firewall rules will still allow the VPN to pass through.

Haven't tested it yet, but in my experience non-default ports only make the problem worse. Most filtering/QoS services are pretty dumb and will just match source and destination ports; most firewalls will just plain ignore everything targeted at port 443 because the moment you start messing with HTTPS, you're in for a world of pain. Because WireGuard uses UDP, it's possible to listen on port 443 even if you're already hosting an HTTPS website. Sadly, you won't be able to use QUIC or HTTP3 if you do, but I don't think that's much of an issue these days.

Should still be possible. Xs4all had port 80 set up so that if you'd SSH to it, you'd get connected to their shell while with a browser (the normal modus operandi) you'd end up on their website. It worked very well in some of the more oppressive regimes where traffic to port 22 was blocked.

I also don't serve HTTP(S) content on my home connection. I only host WireGuard, that's part of the point.

I haven't contacted EE about it or tested other VPNs yet. I want to run WireGuard for various reasons so switching to OpenVPN might confirm they issue but not solve my problems (I don't run the VPN for the reasons in the OP)