My original assumption was that IP addresses, headers, and request sizes were good enough to monitor users, and that ISPs wouldn't care about DoH because of tha

My original assumption was that IP addresses, headers, and request sizes were good enough to monitor users, and that ISPs wouldn't care about DoH because of that. But the amount of effort they're putting into blocking DoH makes me question my assumption. There is something about plain-text DNS that they value a lot. Bear in mind, I could always change my DNS server from my ISP's. They weren't going out of their way to stop me before. And if I'm already sending your DNS queries to Google, Cloudflare, or a local Raspberry Pi, I'm already robbing my ISP of the ability to redirect those queries or decide which websites have which IP addresses, or redirect them to pages with ads. So the control angle feels odd to me, because I don't see how DoH robs them of any more control than my Raspberry Pi already does. Of course, having DoH be the default might change things, maybe ISPs were just assuming people like me would be a minority. I dunno. But Google isn't even changing the default, it's just supporting DoH if it's available on the DNS server that clients already are connecting to. The only change right now for most people using Chrome will be that a few of them that set their DNS server to something other than the ISP default will have their queries encrypted. From the article: > Chrome will check if the user’s DNS provider is among a list of participating DoH-compatible providers and if so, it will enable DoH. If the DNS provider is not on the list, Chrome won’t enable DoH and will continue to operate as it does today. Maybe it's that ISPs see that this is going to get worse for them in the future, and eventually the default will change? I could buy that argument. Maybe they see this as an important moment to nip it in the bud before every browser is using a different DNS resolver than the router and they lose control that way. I've seen a few people propose that this could have implications for Net Neutrality, because ISPs won't be able to claim they do the same level of filtering. Regardless, the idea that this is a small change that doesn't matter for the Internet as a whole or that it won't change anything for ordinary users -- that idea does not match up with the reactions I'm seeing from the stakeholders who are affected by it. And since ISPs are primarily motivated by money, I don't think it's a crazy leap to assume there is something in non-encrypted DNS; whether it be data, or website access, or ad injections, that they are looking to monetize. > Mozilla, Google and Cloudflare are no better than ISPs here either. They don't want you to know all of the above. Mozilla wants money from Cloudflare, Cloudflare wants to control critical piece of infrastructure pretty much all competing CDNs rely on, Google probably doesn't need it, but just can't help itself to get its hands on that data. You kind of lost me here, this doesn't make sense to me. DoH is no more centralized than normal DNS, it's just a protocol. You can have whatever DoH resolver you want, you can even run your own on an internal network. What new data is Google getting from DoH that they weren't already getting from normal DNS? Cloudflare is already one the biggest DNS providers on the web. I agree that's worth being concerned about, but how does DoH cement their position?