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, c

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.