618
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2023
618 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
60140 readers
2761 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In what world are people getting that kind of speed on 5G? In like a lab with perfect conditions and non-consumer equipment? Is this article written by T-Mobile home internet or something? I'll take Comcast 10G over 5G wireless any day and I hate Comcast.
I automatically assumed 10G was short for 10Gb/s, so I guess I found nothing confusing about the name? They literally are advertising the speed in the name, I think that's great compared to when they called shit "Blast" and other weird names.
It's right in your quote: "Peak theoretical throughput on an uncongested 5G network"
It's the theoretical limit of the technology, not real-world numbers.
Theoretical limit is actually 70 Gbps which is even more laughable.
Honestly this article is for the less tech savvy, which I doubt much, if any, of the current Lemmy user base qualify as. It's not a horrible one as far as that goes.
The author of this article is a grade A dumbass, or it's a paid smear piece. Honestly I can't tell.
If he's comparing theoreticals, why not include the theoretical 44000Gbps of a fiber optic connection? If the author is somehow reading this: 44000 is more than 20!
The network is capable of 10Gbps, but are those speeds being offered? That bit might be a bit disingenuous, if you called the network by its max capable speeds, confusing people on lower tiers? I don't know. Easier to talk about fibre to the home and its impact on ubiquity and reliability without getting into the names that imply speeds, to my tastes. Hear you on the rest and the name's meaning too.
Yeah if Comcast wants to refer to their asymmetrical 1.2Gbps connection using its theoretical maximum, why can't others compare it to other network's theoretical maximums?
Their network isn't 10Gbps either. I just had them send me a message last week saying our internet will be out for a day because they're upgrading their 10G network. Guess what the max speed available is? 1.2Gbps. I was severely disappointed as I desperately need better upload speeds.
It wasn't until a lot of googling later that I realized their "10G" means nothing and is just a marketing term a la AT&Ts "5Ge" they added to people's phones to make them think they were getting faster speeds. They state they have future plans to upgrade which means I could get it in a year or 50 years from now.
I detest defending Comcast, but are you positive it was 1.2 Gbps and not 1.2 GBps? Because 1.2GBps is about 10 Gbps
It’s 1.2 Gbps.
I have the same plan. “Speeds up to 1.2Gbps (but you’ll never see more than 800Mbps)!”
Yes I am positive. ISPs never list their speeds in bytes. Pretend to be a new customer signing up for service to see what they really offer if you want confirmation.
It's all that Millimeter Wave 5G garbage that drops coverage like a fart in the wind, hardly ever works, requires more expensive phone plans, and requires a special radio on your phone in addition to the normal 5g one.
That hasn’t been my experience with it at all. I quite enjoy the >500Mbps and 19 ms ping, and reliability is fine now.