This is more “home networking” than “homelab,” but I imagine the people here might be familiar with what in talking about.

I’m trying to understand the logic behind ISPs offering asymmetrical connections. From a usage standpoint, the vast majority of traffic goes to the end-user instead of from the end-user. From a technical standpoint, though, it seems like it would be more difficult and more expensive to offer an asymmetrical connection.

While consumers may be connected via fiber, cable, DSL, etc, I assume that the ISP has a number of fiber links to “the internet.” Those links are almost surely some symmetrical standard (maybe 40 or 100Gb). So if they assume that they can support 1000 users at a certain download speed, what is the advantage of limiting the upload? If their incoming trunks can support 1000 users at 100Mb download, shouldn’t it also support 1000 users at 100Mb upload since the trunks themselves are symmetrical?

Limiting the upload speed to a different rate than download seems like it would just add a layer of complexity. I don’t see a financial benefit either; if their links are already saturated for download, reducing upload speed doesn’t help them add additional users. Upload bandwidth doesn’t magically turn into download bandwidth.

Obviously there’s some reason for this, but I can’t think of one.

  • poVoq@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    A factor I noticed here with my fiber ISP that hasn’t been mentioned: total bandwidth of the router that comes with the contract.

    While this is finally changing now, the cheap SoCs that where used for building these mass produced routers topped out at about 1.5gbit total throughput.

    So to avoid people complaining about false advertisement and still sell ”1gbit" fiber, the maximum they are offering is a 1000/400 Mbit connection.