On 28/Feb/15 07:48, Owen DeLong wrote: > 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.
Limitations by technology are things we can't do anything about. ADSL, GPON, e.t.c. If one is taking Ethernet into the home, then a limitation on the uplink is a function of a direct or implicit rate limit imposed by the operator, and not by the hardware. In such cases, competition will ensure a reasonable level playing field for the consumer. With limitations in hardware, every operator has the same problem, so the issue is a non-starter. You're right, I do not necessarily need 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. I just need enough to get me by. GPON gives you (what one would say) reasonable bandwidth upward, but then the uplink from the OLT to the BRAS becomes a choke point because GPON is, well, asymmetric. So then, some would ask, "What is the point of my 30Mbps up, 100Mbps down GPON?" YMM will really V, of course. Active-E is 1Gbps up, 1Gbps down. Uplink to the BRAS is 10Gbps/100Gbps up, 10Gbps/100Gbps down. Any limitations in upward (or downward) performance are not constructs of the hardware, but of how the network operator runs it. Mark.
