Comcast advertising “10G” in hopes to confuse consumers to accept slower speeds::Comcast says Xfinity offers 10G home internet, but the term “10G” is hazy and potentially misleading—especially because it has no relation to 5G for cell phones.

  • reallynotnick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    139
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Xfinity’s 10G network is technically slower than 5G. Peak theoretical throughput on an uncongested 5G network offers up to 20Gbps download and 10Gbps upload. Xfinity caps out at 10Gbps down and up.

    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.

    • CeeBee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      37
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      In what world are people getting that kind of speed on 5G? In like a lab with perfect conditions and non-consumer equipment?

      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.

      • Bobert@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • whatsarefoogee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      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!

    • ohemgeeste7en@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • PurpleReign@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • deranger@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        That hasn’t been my experience with it at all. I quite enjoy the >500Mbps and 19 ms ping, and reliability is fine now.