Apologies to the op for getting off topic, I didn't know what your _motivations_ / underlying concerns were.
Sincere apologies for repeating myself: A static IP is always a good thing for reliability's sake as I mentioned earlier. If you get line instability problems / disconnects and you are in the middle of doing something then it's obviously far better if you can just reconnect, carry on undisturbed and not lose all your transport connections unnecessarily. If your ISP charges you extra for one static IPv4 and they are not using CGNAT anyway then they are just a rubbish ISP. If you don't reconnect for ages then your IPv4 address is as good as static anyway, please don't think that it is going to change all the time. (But then I'm sure you already knew that.) And when you do reconnect, then there is absolutely no guarantee that the IPv4 address assignment(s) will change anyway, in fact if they are any good they will keep it the same for the sake of maximising reliability. It's an open question for users of ISP x, how often does your IPv4 adddress assignment (or range) actually change on a reconnect, just saying that it's dynamic doesn't do it. I hear you about the point about listing IPs’ geographical locations in databases - obviously it is more difficult to do this if they keep changing.
I can see that people who don't absolutely need it or don't know of the reliability advantage will think it's just a waste of a small amount of money. ISPs such as AA, and also Demon and Zen iirc don't charge extra for a static IP, at least for some of their deals, unless it's buried inside other costs. Only you know what matters to you though. When I was with Zen I had a free block of 8 static IPv4 addresses, zero IPv6. When I was with Demon I firstly had a single IPv4 address, foc, and then I had a reasonable-sized block of static IPv4 addresses, zero IPv6.
And again, I just don't want you to be misled: Don't think solely about IPv4, it's yesterday's technology, although traces of it will obviously be around for many years to come. If you pick an ISP that hands out dynamic IPv4 addresses then what is happening in respect of your IPv6 address assignment? It's essential that you don't end up with IPv4 assignments doing 'the right thing' for you, only to find that your static IPv6 /64 or whatever is being listed somewhere. So only looking at IPv4 assignment policies would be a bad mistake. Now I have been with Andrews and Arnold for a long time and have always had a big block of static global IPv4 addresses and a static IPv6 /48. A few years ago, AA started only giving out a single IPv4 address (static, globally routable) per site because of IPv4 address exhaustion. It's free. But you can have lots of IPv6 space. As well as your initial /48, which is far more than enough anyway, you can simply get more space in the form of additional /64s by just hitting a button.
Certainly Andrews and Arnold don't report me to geolocation databases. So you would be quite safe there. If you feel let down by PN then do move. I just didn't want you to be disappointed or misled in other respects. :-) If you have any questions about policies privacy ethics just ask them, they claim to have a "no bull___" policy. You can chat with them on IRC and there's a web chat thingy, plus twitter, email, SMS. The boss of AA, RevK, is very much fired up about privacy and human rights, and you can chat to him directly eg @TheRealRevK. This is a topic that he would be very keen to discuss. You can even go and see them and extract free beer from them at the AAISPissup in a week or so's time.