Comcast says it represents a 10 Gigabit cable internet network they are building (it doesn’t exist) so they are basically changing the meaning of the g from generation to gig to act like 10g is 5 generations better (or twice as fast)…or that they have a 10 gigabit network. Neither is accurate. It’s still just cable internet that people have to use because they have no other option.

Fuck Comcast.

I read online they are abandoning the “confusing” 10g branding but I just saw a commercial for it. They think all of their customers are morons and count on folks having no other choices in a lot of cases.

Apologies to anyone outside the United States, this is just complaining about our poor internet options and deceptive advertising by greedy corporations.

  • @[email protected]English
    10•10 months ago

    Wireless “G” labeling has always mostly been marketing wank anyway.

    The actual technology has used more pragmatic (if less marketing friendly) terminology.

    • GhostalmediaEnglish
      7•10 months ago

      Absolutely. 3G, 4G, 5G - they’re all a mess. Each G is a wild mix of specs with wildly varying speeds. And many parts of a next generation network are a glorified version of the previous generation network with no large generational speed bumps.

      Government organizations like the FCC should force telecoms to advertise speeds as bits per second.

      • @linearchaosEnglish
        3•10 months ago

        It’s tricky though, do they advertise their maximum speed in all areas? Or the minimum speed? Or the average speed?

        If you have 50 megabit service in New York City with multiple millions of people can you then offer 3G speeds to the rest of the state and still advertise it is 5G?

        I get 45 in town, is it a birthday party the other day and I could barely get 1.

        • GhostalmediaEnglish
          2•10 months ago

          The same problem exist today with access to 4G, LTE, 5G or 5G mm wave coverage in an area. Service is going to change based upon your exact location.

          Regulators should just tell telecoms do to exactly what they do today - provide customers a coverage heat map. But base it average bandwidth at the network node, not what technology their marketing department has decided to call the node’s hardware.