[Dylan16807]

> They block ports on dynamic IPs, but if you pay +2€/mo for static, this is unlocked. This seems reasonable.

Why does that seem reasonable to you? Why should dynamic IPs not be able to receive incoming connections? It costs them nothing to let those packets through.

> disingenuous

Bad.

> Would you also say your mobile phone operator is violating net neutrality by putting you behind CGNAT that you can't forward arbitrary ports through?

CGNAT is pretty awful, but at least there's a reason for connections to fail.

But sure, if I had control I would mandate that CGNAT lets you forward ports. Maybe you don't always control the external port, but there shouldn't be any other compromises.

> You can pay a bunch of money to get a private APN and get public IPv4 addresses. Would you call that an unblock fee?

That's a workaround to get a different connection, not an unblock, so no.

[franga2000]

Firstly, dynamic IPs are quickly reused, so if one customer get an IP onto a bunch of firewall blocklists because they were operating services that got exploited (like an open relay for spam, email backscatter generator, dns that was used for amplification, smb that hosted on-click executable windows malware...), this means some random unrelatimg customer will now have problems with their internet connection. After a while, you could poison a large chunk of the pool, then they have to not just deal with you, but also a bunch of other angry customers as well as beg all the firewall vendors to unblock those IPs.

If you get static, you keep that IP for a while. You suffer the consequences of your bad setup, you have to deal with FW vendors and after you leave, the IP will be offline for long enough that it will probably "cool off".

And secondly, while I don't like it, we need to keep in mind net neutrality was not written for selfhosters. It was written so an ISP can't zero-rate their own streaming service, or block their competitors. It was about internet access, not internet participation. The ownerwhelmimg majority of people are not and don't care to be "on" the internet, they want to "access" things that are on the internet. That's why NAT is still everywhere.

[Dylan16807]

> Firstly, dynamic IPs are quickly reused

Define quickly? My modem stays attached on the same IP for months at a time.

> so if one customer get an IP onto a bunch of firewall blocklists

That can happen anyway! Most of those are based on outgoing connections!

> a bunch of other angry customers as well as beg all the firewall vendors to unblock those IPs

Does this happen today on the huge number of ISPs that let you open ports on a dynamic IP? I'm not aware of it.

> we need to keep in mind net neutrality was not written for selfhosters

Well I'm not really focused on the idea of net neutrality, just whether it's reasonable to make customers unconnectable, and I say it's not reasonable.