All Comcast has to do is block the ports that Web 3 blockchain tech uses and it's done.

That's not how it works. And Comcast has no reason to care about Web 3. Web 3 isn't a threat to big ISPs. It is a threat to some aspects of ad revenue business models though.

And it will be competition for cloud service providers. Consider it a public web-scale cloud provider that is eventually just going to be a really cheap public compute layer for anyone who wants to deploy some random little utility or concept without having to go through private interests to do it.

If Web 3 isn't an alternative to big ISPs, then it has nothing to do with net neutrality. If it is an alternative which can save net neutrality, then it is a threat and will be blocked if it gets big enough.

Not sure about the alternative to ad revenue either, as the first site you linked to was illegally storing tracking cookies without even an opt out.

Finally, nothing whatsoever suggests that blockchains could ever compete with cloud providers on price. Everything about running a program on Ethereum for example is much more complex and requires much more CPU than running it on an EC2 instance.

> That's not how it works.

Can you tell me how it works if there isn't a port or a dns name or an ip that can be blocked?

There are open standards for browsers to communicate with software deployed in web 3, regardless of what an isp would care about doing. For an ISP to fiddle with that goes far beyond sneaking around net neutrality as a principle. It would entail blatant violations of existing laws. In broad daylight.

Not to mention it would accelerate the adoption of Starlink and other alternatives, as well as community-deployed mesh networks that are already covering cities in the United States of America as we speak. And this hardware will get cheaper and better with time and be deployed at larger and larger scales.

It is not in any way illegal for an ISP to block or throttle access to a certain hostname or IP it doesn't like, now that Net Neutrality is dead in the USA.

Also, there is no reason to think that Starlink (even if it could ever hope to have the capacity to compete with broadband and fiber at the national level, which it can't) wouldn't also become censorius. Musk is notoriously censorius of any competitor or detractor, so all it takes is him souring on Web 3 for it to become banned from Starlink. ATT and others at least care more about the money than any personal grudges of their CEOs.

I really don't buy this and I will explain:

> There are open standards for browsers to communicate with software deployed in web 3, regardless of what an isp would care about doing.

There are older, and more widely open standards for browsers to communicate with web servers.

Doesn't prevent isps from meddling which is the whole point of this discussion.