Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
I hate to be the one defending companies but this time I have to align with the ISPs.
As a "fake fiber" client myself, there's virtually no performance difference between the two. But "fiber" has become such a marketing slang that most clients wouldn't signup for an ISP if they don't sell "fiber".
Alternatively the ISP would have to replace perfectly functional infrastructures purely for the sake of marketing, resulting in waste.
There's two arguments I have against your comment:
In my country it's illegal to call it full fiber if it isn't 100% fiber. That's why the ISPs found a loophole and now call it "dynamic fiber". They made me waste a shit ton of time troubleshooting why I wasn't getting the fiber speeds, only to see a tiny print on the bottom of some KB article that said "only for those who have full fiber" after which I had to waste even more time trying to figure out what type of connection I had. I literally bought the "fiber" pack.
When the 'last mile' is copper, the ISPs almost always use xDSL for the data delivery.
The extra equipment increases latency, decreases reliability, and often precludes high upload speeds.
I'm on true full fibre, and I get 500/500mbps, with the option of going to 2.5Gbps. A friend of mine on the same ISP who is limited to 'fibre to the neighborhood' maxes out at 300mbps down, 90 up.
Doesn't matter. The ISP lied to their customer. If there's no difference they're free to advertise it as a better way, but lying is fucking scummy, and it's all about saving money for them. They don't give a shit about the wasted materials.
The difference is packet loss.