> On Feb 27, 2015, at 21:15 , Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote: > > > > On 28/Feb/15 07:07, Owen DeLong wrote: >> Even in that case, Mark, you have a conference call where each person is >> sending a stream out to a rendezvous point that is then sending it back to N >> people where N is the number of people in the chat -1. So the downstream >> bandwidth will be N*upstream for each of them. > > But you're assuming the video chat is the only thing taking place in the > upward direction... > > When my wife is doing her iCloud backup, I can't log into a router to do > some work without gouging my eyes out.
No, I’m not assuming anything other than that you claimed the video chat justified a need for symmetry when in reality, it does not. I’m all for better upstream bandwidth to the home. I’d love to have everyone have 1G/1G capability even if it’s 100:1 oversubscribed on the upstream. However, I’d much rather have 384M/128M than 256M/256M to be honest. In general, I find my 30M/7M is not too terribly painful most of the time. Do I wish I had more upstream? Yes, but not as much as I wish I had more downstream. I think an ideal minimum that would probably be comfortable most of the time today would be 100M/30M. YMMV. Owen
