How do they not understand the technology? They clearly compared the theoretical max to each technology as options for last mile connectivity.

If you have last mile fiber into your home, then you're capable if receiving 10Tbps. Yes a PON setup won't actually provide that, but they never state that someone would offer those speeds, only the theoretical last mile capacity.

The point of the article is to counter lobbyist claims that we don't need fibre investment because cable and 5g are fast enough. This article points out that even in their best case that is not true.

They don't understand how PON works, think of it like FDDI or even DOCSIS; You'd never be capable of receiving 10Tbps due to fiber topology... The 10Tbps number requires DWDM anyways, its like saying a Kia is a Lamborghini.

The Cable/Wireless carriers will use this misdetermination to undermine what these guys are saying so in the end its unhelpful.

They'd have a much better time pointing out that existing cableco's have mismanaged their DOCSIS networks and that Comcast is considered the WORST company in this country (even worse than Monsanto) because of how poorly they manage their networks. There's also so little adoption for "Wireless to the Home" that its pointless to consider that a reasonable option.

I'm not sure I really understand your alternative. It's not like in practical terms, providers will achieve the theoretical max of RF or cable either. What are you suggesting instead?

What I'm saying is they're talking out of their behinds, which will ultimately hurt us all.

You clearly know about this, but your comments are not very substantive. It might be more valuable to explain what the article is getting wrong. Many HN readers are fairly technical and interested in stuff like this.

Based on the downvoting, I'm unconvinced they're actually interested in this :)

I can tell you this -> Any time anything network/internet infrastructure gets posted here on HN, its a mess. My friends in NANOG have stopped bothering.