[jlokier]

> You might have a business/profit motive to disable HTTP and that's fine. But most cases are not profit motivated

No, it was a community group non-profit (non-profits have directors too!) and the site was a static site with public information and no tracking. Exactly the sort of friendly hobbyist site you are probably thinking should use HTTP. I was an unpaid volunteer, and the group did not pay for hosting.

> The benefits far outweigh the downsides in most cases

There were no identifiable benefits to HTTP or downsides to HTTPS for us. The switch was almost trivial. The ISP issue hurried the conversion though.

> I've tunneled to various VPSes for web surfing.

If you have to use a VPS to use HTTP safely, with its extra cost and latency, why are you down on HTTPS? Having to use a VPS with your HTTP is basically the same thing as HTTPS but with higher cost, higher latency and more security centralisation.

That's not a positive advert for HTTP, if you feel you have to use a VPS to use it safely.

[xlrepl]

Still, there should be a law (wire fraud?) that is applied to the ISPs who engage in forgery.

If applied, they'd stop and HTTP would be safe for static sites.