[zelon88]

Trust me when I say that you don't want the ISP's to inspect web traffic. That is not how to solve this. That is costly for the ISP and will drive up costs. It also makes supporting a website impossible. The ISP is assumed by all parties to be impartial. That assumption is required for the internet to be operational. Sure it might function your way, but it would be impossible to support.

And maybe Facebook and Google are big enough to push around the ISP's, but they are the only ones. Nobody will bat an eyelash if 15,000 Comcast users in Phoenix AZ can access your hokey-pokey website. Comcast doesn't care. The users won't blame their ISP. They will blame you, or whoever owns the hokey-pokey website. If you want traffic, you need to be equipped to handle traffic. You are the one with the internet facing infrastructure.

You are the one blocking traffic. Not the ISP. That is how it should be. The ISP should be impartial. You pay for connectivity. Consider yourself connected. For better or for worse. You are responsible for what you put onto that connection.

[tristan9]

> Trust me when I say that you don't want the ISP's to inspect web traffic.

They do already. DPI on port 53 for DNS blocks or SNI inspection are common place. So are IP blocks.

> If you want traffic, you need to be equipped to handle traffic. You are the one with the internet facing infrastructure.

Slightly misleading wording here. More accurately your point is: « you want to run a website? Better have the infra to support traffic spikes comparable to that of a tech giant ». 400M rps would cost an unfathomable amount of money to be able to handle even just while dropping all packets.

> And maybe Facebook and Google are big enough to push around the ISP's, but they are the only ones. Nobody will bat an eyelash if 15,000 Comcast users in Phoenix AZ can access your hokey-pokey website.

Obviously yes. Too bad it’s better business for everyone to say nothing and just recommend you use their product.