[rightbyte]

> When I go to a website I want to get the website from the webserver exactly as the server delivers it and not some other page that my ISP thinks is how the website should look.

You could have some hash check to prevent hijacking. The old method would be naive today.

There would be some privacy concerns I guess. But it could be opt-in on the site owners part. I think caching some videos and pictures would save a lot of power.

> Besides with global CDNs we have something very similar but better anyway.

Sure but they are some switches away.

[blahaj]

> You could have some hash check to prevent hijacking. The old method would be naive today.

But how do you know that the cached site is up to date? How does the ISP know that? What about dynamic content? What about consistency between different requests that are part of the same page load?

> Sure but they are some switches away.

My point is that this does not matter much. Usually, at least in non sparsely populated parts of the world with modern infrastructure, these switches are close and there is lots of bandwidth capacity.

I just don't think it makes sense for ISPs to save bandwidth on these links by building their own local data centers when they peer with a CDN data center anyway.

[rightbyte]

The root html would govern what caches are up to date with the hash for some non-dynamic payloads and the root html would not be cached. Etc.

It would be interesting to know how much bandwidth would be saved by caching X gb of the most downloaded films, pictures and textfiles at a neighbourhood level.

In the 90s early 00s I think the share was way bigger than it would be now.