That's an over-simplification. Some access technologies have different
modulations for downstream and upstream.
i.e. if a:b and a=b, and c:d and c>d, a+b<c+d.
In other words, you're denying the reality that people download a 3 to 4
times more than they upload and penalizing every in trying to attain a 1:1
So, is that actually true as a constant, or might there be some
cause->effect mixed in there?
For example, I know I'm not transferring any more than I absolutely must
if I'm connected via GPRS radio. Drawing any sort of conclusions about
my normal Internet usage from my GPRS stats would be ... skewed ... at
best. Trying to use that "reality" as proof would yield you an exceedingly
During those early years of the retail Internet scene, it was fairly easy
for users to migrate to usage patterns where they were mostly downloading
content; uploading content on a 14.4K modem would have been unreasonable.
There was a natural tendency towards eyeball networks and content networks.
However, these days, more people have "always on" Internet access, and may
be interested in downloading larger things, such as services that might
eventually allow users to download a DVD and burn it.
This means that they're leaving their PC on, and maybe they even have other
gizmos or gadgets besides a PC that are Internet-aware.
To remain doggedly fixated on the concept that an end-user is going to
download more than they upload ... well, sure, it's nice, and makes
certain things easier, but it doesn't necessarily meet up with some of
the realities. Verizon recently began offering a 20M symmetrical FiOS
product. There must be some people who feel differently.
So, do the "modulations" of your "access technologies" dictate what your
users are going to want to do with their Internet in the future, or is it
possible that you'll have to change things to accomodate different