My comment was not meant to be argumentative, but rather tongue-in-cheek. However, I do believe when changing a default, it isn't about what is convenient for me. It's about what is best for the entire community and what are the real world ramifications. I'm not buying the "let's change the default because high bandwidth is pervasive argument".
I'll go out on a limb here and suggest:
1. Most people who can afford to pay the monthly recurring cost for a high speed bandwidth connection have multi-core machines.
2. People who are running Fedora on multiple machines possess the skill set to easily change the default and turn Presto off if they wish.
I can't speak for other countries, but in the USA low cost high speed bandwidth is not pervasive. We're fighting about net neutrality and the FCC is trying to change the definition of a broadband connection. The carriers are fighting it. They are constantly looking for ways to cut bandwidth, shape traffic. Most people would rather use their bandwidth to stream media than to get an update applied a little faster.
What about the repositories and mirrors? Do they all have unlimited, cheap bandwidth?
Who is the target demographic of Fedora? People with single-core machines and high speed broadband?
What about people with slow connections? Is our response to them "sucks to be you?"
Yes, not everyone can afford to buy a new machine - but neither can everyone afford to pay the monthly recurring cost for high speed broadband. The purpose of Presto is still sound. It was a good idea then, it remains a good idea now.
Full disclosure: Yes, I have a high speed broadband connection. I'd rather use it for streaming and other downloading than downloading full RPMs. It doesn't bother me if it takes a few more minutes to update my system. I do it when I'm sleeping anyway.