Providers that want to block DoH or DoT are going to block providers based on destination IP or certificate fingerprints, not port numbers.

And running DoT on a non-standard port breaks all sorts of things because it will be ... non-standard.

Pretty much the whole of the internet has been jammed into tcp/443 now, and it can't much be helped. Internet engineering needs to cope with the world as it is, not how we wish it were.

I disagree, see the success of: letsencrypt, the wide spread use of 8.8.8.8 and 1.1.1.1; dkim/spf/dmarc; imaps, pop3s, tls ldap.

Why should a switch over to DoT be any different? If anything it should be easier. The general need for better security and privacy are much more widely understood and accepted concerns these days.

We’re also working on POCs of DoH support, but it’s mostly moot compared to our DoT offerings which cover the whole OS, not just the browser.

https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/using#an...

PS: I have been using it for a while and it works fine.

That's an interesting way to phrase it. The RFC for DoH is co-authored by Mozilla. They didn't buy in, they created it.

And your point is what, exactly? TLS allows for traffic redirection and for a time people were using this to circumvent firewalls but the big providers who looked the other way locked it down when their traffic started being blocked.