Indeed classic: talking about the form of my comment instead of the content it addresses: that many ISP are incomplete because of CGNAT and do not provide real internet access (ie, being able to receive connections to tcp ports). These incomplete ISP without ability to participate in the internet should not be called ISP because of this lack. Your objection to the term itself is inconsequential. Do you deny the original posts claims? Is this just insult time?

As for incorrect? How so? Perhaps "web service providers" is a bit glib and incomplete too, but it gets to the core of the issue here: ISP not providing internet service and only providing a limited subset. if the 'web' works that's all that really matters for advertising and getting people to pay them. Meanwhile most people aren't even aware of what they're missing and their inability to participate in the internet; but they, and especially their kids', educations are stunted by the lack of being able to participate, etc. And all of society is worse for it.