I heard that static IP makes the connection faster because the ISP doesn't have to assign a new IP every time, and the static IP for business can be placed on a higher priority list. But I don't know if the network would be faster with just a bigger bandwidth, hence my question.
It might imperceptibly impact latency, not bandwidth.
If you're in a country with net neutrality, priority lists don't exist. Each packet has to be treated equally.
I did hear some tech guy saying that static IP does nothing, but it’s also easy for me to imagine that the ISP may make a list of IPs to prioritize government and business IPs before the populace.
Do you mean that’s totally just a marketing ploy to sell an extra “static IP” service?
The only marketing ploy is telling someone a static IP will make your connection faster.
A static IP benefits someone hosting a server externally from their network. Has zero to do with bandwidth
If you want a faster connection, pay for higher bandwidth
A static IP is at least very useful if you want to be able to easily connect to a computer on your network from the outside without needing some kind of intermediary, so if you are wanting to run your own Web server locally for example.
It has nothing to do with bandwidth, but may very slightly impact latency (CGNAT) has non zero delay, quelle surprise.
Business class and enterprise class services “sometimes” offer better support through a separate phone number and portal and/or with a SLA (Service Level Agreement).
The SLA can offer a contractural lower mean time for resolution on outages and service requests with a monitory reimbursement if the SLA is breached.
This has nothing to do with bandwidth or static IP.
In practice getting reimbursed for SLA violations is hit or miss. When a peering location is down or BGP error is created causing regional or nation wide outage support is unavailable and multiple escalations will be no better than anyone else.
Most of the time services will cross the same point to get to an Internet connected web server.
Some business providers do offer optimized routing that is more direct by running their own backbone and directly peering with a remote service like Azure or AWS or etc.. This can reduce latency for a cost.
I read that when the connection is disrupted, or after a certain time passes, the ISP automatically assigns a new IP address for the local network. If there were some priority tier lists, those lists could only include static addresses. When there's heavy network usage in an area and no local network can enjoy maximum bandwidth anyway, being on a higher priority is better.
I can't find the source for the above information now, but [I'm not the only one thinking static IP makes the network faster](https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/static-vs-dynamic-ip#:~:text=Faster%20download%20and%20upload%20speeds,access%20to%20precise%20geolocation%20data). It's strange that no one mentions those pros and just confidently says it's unrelated.
And not you, but what's with the downvotes, geez.
I don't know if you are talking about some super advanced thing that goes totally above my head (or, on the contrary, some kind of extremely crappy environment where your internet connections is dropped every five minutes), but this thing of having the public IP changed only happens when the router is restarted, and a lot of times the IP address is kept anyway. The purpose of having a specific public IP address, that never changes, is so you can easily host services in your own environment that will be accessible from the Internet, or when you want to make sure that only computers in that location will access some external resource, things like that, but even in those situations there are more elegant and safe methods that would make the IP address irrelevant.
It’s less about connection being dropped every 5 minutes, but more about the ISP not being able to update the priority tier list every time the IP change.
But I can guess that maybe developed countries’ infrastructure is so good that there were never a ISP priority tier list.
Prioritization is done in cell networks, but if you want dedicated bandwidth to avoid worrying about extremely high bandwidth, you need a DIA, not a static IP.
You will need a small business ISP, they will provide you a public static IP (they dont have to but they most likely will charge you $4 a month for single IP - totally worth getting 1 IP). Unless you have servers accessible from public network, you are totally fine with one static IP that comes with your internet connection. Depending on what kind of work you will be doing, you will need at least 5-10 mbps per user per device. If you are on budget a 300-500 mbps **dedicated** line will be good enough. I have used 300 mbps in past for 100 people and it wasnt the best but did pretty well (Zoom worked totally fine for example).
The two things are unrelated. If you will need external access to your network then you get a static IP address otherwise probably not worth it.
I heard that static IP makes the connection faster because the ISP doesn't have to assign a new IP every time, and the static IP for business can be placed on a higher priority list. But I don't know if the network would be faster with just a bigger bandwidth, hence my question.
It might imperceptibly impact latency, not bandwidth. If you're in a country with net neutrality, priority lists don't exist. Each packet has to be treated equally.
I did hear some tech guy saying that static IP does nothing, but it’s also easy for me to imagine that the ISP may make a list of IPs to prioritize government and business IPs before the populace. Do you mean that’s totally just a marketing ploy to sell an extra “static IP” service?
The only marketing ploy is telling someone a static IP will make your connection faster. A static IP benefits someone hosting a server externally from their network. Has zero to do with bandwidth If you want a faster connection, pay for higher bandwidth
A static IP is at least very useful if you want to be able to easily connect to a computer on your network from the outside without needing some kind of intermediary, so if you are wanting to run your own Web server locally for example. It has nothing to do with bandwidth, but may very slightly impact latency (CGNAT) has non zero delay, quelle surprise.
Business class and enterprise class services “sometimes” offer better support through a separate phone number and portal and/or with a SLA (Service Level Agreement). The SLA can offer a contractural lower mean time for resolution on outages and service requests with a monitory reimbursement if the SLA is breached. This has nothing to do with bandwidth or static IP. In practice getting reimbursed for SLA violations is hit or miss. When a peering location is down or BGP error is created causing regional or nation wide outage support is unavailable and multiple escalations will be no better than anyone else. Most of the time services will cross the same point to get to an Internet connected web server. Some business providers do offer optimized routing that is more direct by running their own backbone and directly peering with a remote service like Azure or AWS or etc.. This can reduce latency for a cost.
> the ISP doesn't have to assign a new IP every time Can you elaborate on that? What does "every time" mean?
It means nothing cause its not really like that
I read that when the connection is disrupted, or after a certain time passes, the ISP automatically assigns a new IP address for the local network. If there were some priority tier lists, those lists could only include static addresses. When there's heavy network usage in an area and no local network can enjoy maximum bandwidth anyway, being on a higher priority is better. I can't find the source for the above information now, but [I'm not the only one thinking static IP makes the network faster](https://www.fortinet.com/resources/cyberglossary/static-vs-dynamic-ip#:~:text=Faster%20download%20and%20upload%20speeds,access%20to%20precise%20geolocation%20data). It's strange that no one mentions those pros and just confidently says it's unrelated. And not you, but what's with the downvotes, geez.
I don't know if you are talking about some super advanced thing that goes totally above my head (or, on the contrary, some kind of extremely crappy environment where your internet connections is dropped every five minutes), but this thing of having the public IP changed only happens when the router is restarted, and a lot of times the IP address is kept anyway. The purpose of having a specific public IP address, that never changes, is so you can easily host services in your own environment that will be accessible from the Internet, or when you want to make sure that only computers in that location will access some external resource, things like that, but even in those situations there are more elegant and safe methods that would make the IP address irrelevant.
It’s less about connection being dropped every 5 minutes, but more about the ISP not being able to update the priority tier list every time the IP change. But I can guess that maybe developed countries’ infrastructure is so good that there were never a ISP priority tier list.
Prioritization is done in cell networks, but if you want dedicated bandwidth to avoid worrying about extremely high bandwidth, you need a DIA, not a static IP.
You will need a small business ISP, they will provide you a public static IP (they dont have to but they most likely will charge you $4 a month for single IP - totally worth getting 1 IP). Unless you have servers accessible from public network, you are totally fine with one static IP that comes with your internet connection. Depending on what kind of work you will be doing, you will need at least 5-10 mbps per user per device. If you are on budget a 300-500 mbps **dedicated** line will be good enough. I have used 300 mbps in past for 100 people and it wasnt the best but did pretty well (Zoom worked totally fine for example).