3 ms·

> That's begging the question. The up/down ratios they choose determine what workloads are possible/typical. More upstream means there would be other workflows

> That's begging the question. The up/down ratios they choose determine what workloads are possible/typical. More upstream means there would be other workflows enabled. Not really, because the options exist at different tiers. If you have 5/1, 10/3, 25/5, and 100/20 as options, and you notice that people choose 10/3 and saturate their download but only use a third of their upload capacity, then turning that into a symmetric system would result in them having to pay more for the same usage. On the other hand, if you noticed that people were choosing the 100/20 but only peaking at 15 down and 15 up, then yes, it would be clear that customers would prefer a symmetric system. As it stands, P2P is a pretty rare use case for residential broadband, even when the capacity exists. Access to symmetric speeds is unlikely to increase P2P usage, because those aren't the main blockers.

narag 9y ago
Not really, because the options exist at different tiers. There are not so many options where I live, none in practice. Anyway, those tiers are, after all, commercial options. Is the cost for providers really different? If there isn't a substantial difference, then the upsell theory stands. If people doesn't want upload, why do they throttle it? It would be a nice selling point: you offer a plus that looks nice and costs you nothing. Access to symmetric speeds is unlikely to increase P2P usage, because those aren't the main blockers. That's backwards. What they're supposedly doing is discouraging usage. There is more usage than wanted (no matter if it's not common) so measures are put in place to shrink it even more. The measure does not affect most users so they can get away with it: "only those few freeloaders want more". Edit -> also consider this: upload limitation in P2P isn't obviously negative. You still can download at max speed so you could think the limitation as a bad thing for others. You need to think for a while to understand why it's also bad for you.

narag 9y ago

Not really, because the options exist at different tiers. There are not so many options where I live, none in practice. Anyway, those tiers are, after all, commercial options. Is the cost for providers really different? If there isn't a substantial difference, then the upsell theory stands. If people doesn't want upload, why do they throttle it? It would be a nice selling point: you offer a plus that looks nice and costs you nothing. Access to symmetric speeds is unlikely to increase P2P usage, because those aren't the main blockers. That's backwards. What they're supposedly doing is discouraging usage. There is more usage than wanted (no matter if it's not common) so measures are put in place to shrink it even more. The measure does not affect most users so they can get away with it: "only those few freeloaders want more". Edit -> also consider this: upload limitation in P2P isn't obviously negative. You still can download at max speed so you could think the limitation as a bad thing for others. You need to think for a while to understand why it's also bad for you.