5 ms·

My Stockholm apartment had multiple ISPs competing for service over fiber laid down by a state-owned company. In 2007 this meant symmetric 100mbit for about $30

My Stockholm apartment had multiple ISPs competing for service over fiber laid down by a state-owned company. In 2007 this meant symmetric 100mbit for about $30/month.

agumonkey 9y ago
Crazy how social structure distort reality.
mulletbum 9y ago
I live in the country and have this right now. 100mb for $50 or 1000mb for $100.
- m3Lith 9y ago
  Goddamn. In our area it's 10€ for 100 and 20€ for 1Gb.
- rglover 9y ago
  Buhhhhhhh. Lucky.
- nulagrithom 9y ago
  Where I'm at in the US, we have a Public Utility District that's "owned" by the city (top position is an elected position too). They've run fiber everywhere and leased it to local ISPs. I can get gigabit for under $90/mo. Lowest tier is 100x10 for under $50. One of our local ISPs even built a real nice wireless mesh network with a fiber "backbone". You can get low-latency 35x2 service way up in the hills of nowhere. It's amazing what happens when Internet is treated like a utility.
  - orthecreedence 9y ago
    Comcast HATES this one US city! (Sorry, had to) What area do you live in? I've heard of cities trying to do things like this and ISPs clamping down and suing the city to stop any sort of public infrastructure. I'd be interested to read about if/how the people in your area had to deal with this.
    - vec 9y ago
      Not the OP, but I'm guessing they live up the road from me in Longmont, CO. Comcast does indeed hate this, and spent roughly $300k on questionably ethical political ads[1] in a city with less than 100k residents. [1] https://muninetworks.org/content/longmont-votes-again-comcast-breaks-spending-record-opposing-referendum https://muninetworks.org/content/longmont-votes-again-comcas...
      - rch 9y ago
        A similar effort was just killed in Boulder a couple of weeks ago, by Comcast and others.
        jbuhl 9y ago
        What were the Comcast shills' arguments? It seems like a local politician could run on internet as a utility and win if publicized correctly.
        vec 9y ago
        "Mayor #{city_official} wants to raise YOUR TAXES to line the pockets of their friends at #{local_construction_firm}. Call your alderman and tell him to vote NO on Proposition #{proposition_id}!" "Mayor #{city_official} wants to pass JOB KILLING REGULATIONS that could put #{comcast_employees.count} of your neighbors out of work! Sign this petition opposing Proposition #{proposition_id}!" "Mayor #{city_official} wants the GOVERNMENT to take over YOUR INTERNET. Vote NO on Proposition #{proposition_id} to keep your internet free!" It's not that hard if you don't care about fairness or accuracy.
        pishpash 9y ago
        Until Americans get over the unnatural and hypocritical loathing of socialism, these ads will work. It's all very visceral and no rational education will counter it.
    - Jtsummers 9y ago
  - natemeier 9y ago
    Great to see that these projects are popping up all over --- I'm also in a town in the US with municipal fiber. I get bidirectional gigabit for $50/month (early adopter --- the normal rate is $100/month). Our ISP is also vocally pro-net neutrality.
    - arcticbull 9y ago
      Similar in SF with Monkeybrains -- for a one-time setup fee of $2500 about two years ago, I've been paying $35/mth for 600/600 microwave internet. They're also super pro-net neutrality. They even peer with SFMIX, a not-for-profit hipster internet exchange. The normal rate is $35/mth for 50/50.
      - girvo 9y ago
        What's latency like for microwave?
        quicklyfrozen 9y ago
        I doubt you'd notice a difference. Over a long distance it should be faster then fiber (hence the private networks set up by HFTs). Had an office in Boston with a microwave link; it normally worked great, but could be disrupted by extreme weather (like heavy snow).
        arcticbull 9y ago
        Currently, including some video conferencing on my laptop and a few others using the link too, I'm seeing 5-7ms ping times. It varies, but I think its fair to call it 'more than adequate'.
    - stil 9y ago
      I almost started planning a move based on internet service availability. I was considering only cities with Google fiber
  - kpil 9y ago
    I'm connected to one of those municipal networks in Sweden, and after paying about 1000 USD for getting the fiber laid to my house, I now pay $28/month for 100/100 mbit. 10 mbit costs $12, and 500/500 mbit costs $80, which is the fastest option. I don't really know what I would do with 500 mbit except host a lot of servers in my garage and use the heat for heating the house.
  - rayiner 9y ago
    In DC, gigabit is $70 and 50/50 is $40. 2 gbps is $150 per month. No public utility, just a city government that's enlightened enough to permit competition between multiple providers in different pockets of the city.
  - coldcode 9y ago
    WOn't last long until the cable companies force votes to make these illegal. It's been done in many cities/states already. Big money talks sadly.
  - lilei 9y ago
    > It's amazing what happens when Internet is treated like a utility. It's not really like a utility though. A utility usually has a low fee and charge per use. Not that I encourage data or bandwidth limits, but there's a difference. Consider you could either get gigabit for $90 or you could get a fixed speed or data (say 10 mbit or 100gb) for $30 but full speed access to Netflix, YouTube, Windows Update etc. is included. How many people would pay $60 extra for unlimited access to the rest of the Internet? I think it's a fair question to ask why consumers are paying for both installation, the bandwidth itself and the services they access (in cash or ad revenue) while everyone else is making money. Edit: Not sure what the point of downvotes is. If you can't answer a basic argument like this you can't expect your views to be taken seriously. But hey, instead of actually doing something relevant let's talk about which Internet connection we all have.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      OK, so I get an unmetered symmetric 100 Mbps uplink for less than $50 per month. It happens to be through a private ISP, so I'm insulated from this bullshit, unless backbone ISPs play dirty. But anyway, I want Internet connectivity for many reasons, and they're constantly changing. The idea of getting hobbled general access plus full-speed access to some restricted set of services is insane. I mean, would you expect me to order access specifically for whatever I wanted? There's also the fact that I hit just about everything through VPNs, so ISPs wouldn't even know what I'm accessing. I don't get your question about "why consumers are paying for both installation, the bandwidth itself and the services they access". I don't pay for "installation", but rather for access, by month. I only pay for a few services, and never see ads. For the most part, I only pay for the unmetered 100 Mbps uplink.
      - lilei2 9y ago
        I realized that it's pretty fruitless to discuss these things on HN, but since you responded I will give you a response. This isn't something that is generally happening, at least not outside mobile connectivity where certain services are sometimes included. It's not really about what you, or other 'heavy' Internet users wants, but about consumers. People who want net neutrality have to have a response to normal people why it's relevant to them. More and more people are getting access to broadband, yet it's still quite expensive. The idea, which you will have to defend against if you ultimately want net neutrality, is that companies could pay for the bandwidth. So you as a consumer would pay for connectivity, say 10 mbit. But instead of you just having access to 10 mbit, other companies would be able to pay to deliver to you at full speed. So when you pay for Netflix part of that money might go back to the ISP. This is to some extent already happening, but through various transit and peering agreements. > I don't get your question about "why consumers are paying for both installation, the bandwidth itself and the services they access". I don't pay for "installation", but rather for access, by month. I only pay for a few services, and never see ads. For the most part, I only pay for the unmetered 100 Mbps uplink. You do (usually) pay for installation, it's just that it's "baked in" to contract time and fees of your connection. That's why you usually can't get a really cheap connection on a wired installation. A 1 mbit connection would still usually cost you a fair bit, if it's even available. With something like electricity you do also pay for installation, but since that is largely universal it's really part of the overall cost. Point being that a lot of people lack broadband because they can't afford the installation cost and that is a big different between Internet access and other utilities which are much more universal.
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    Austin TX?
Kholo 9y ago
Do you use the bandwidth? Just curious what you do with it.
- 8ytecoder 9y ago
  My TV alone uses 25Mbps (when playing 4k).
- MichaelApproved 9y ago
  Not OP but I live in NYC and have 200mb down and 20mb up for $70/month. 200mb down isn't so important. Even with a family of 5 streaming, 100mb would be plenty of bandwidth. For me, the more important part of the connection is the upstream. the larger that number is, the more I can move towards 100% real-time offsite backup. That's important in case of fire, theft or other catastrophic issue happening.
  - Kholo 9y ago
    For a family of 5 that sounds like a pretty good deal.
    - MichaelApproved 9y ago
      Sure but I'd rather have Verizon FIOS, if my building had it. 50mb up/down pipe. 50mb down is still plenty but I'd love to get my hands on the 50mb upstream connection.
VLM 9y ago
The same political and market forces have an equally interesting effect on your cost of medical care and lifespan.
- rayiner 9y ago
  To the extent you're implying that the public/private distinction is relevant, I'm not sure I agree. Our infrastructure (trains, subways, roads) is also generally inferior even though its mostly publicly owned and operated. It costs our public entities five times as much to build a mile of subway as it costs Spain's public entities. We're just bad at doing things.
  - barrkel 9y ago
    I think it's in large part because of American's low expectations, which feeds into the quality of people, and it becomes self fulfilling.
  - kpil 9y ago
    Edit: I ranted about publicly operated trains in Sweden on a post regarding US. Sorry for that. Since I spent 10 minutes ranting on the subject, I will keep the rest of the rant... The only subway in Sweden that I am aware of is operated by some company from Hong Kong. Or was that last week and we have now someone else? The "free market" muppets have had free reins for 30 years, and they are still claiming that an invisible hand will turn everything great. In reality, the invisible hand seems to be picking cookies out of our jar filled with tax money, while trains are falling apart, women are getting unnecessary gynecological surgeries since doctors get a bonus out of the publicly funded invoice (one even inexplicably got sterilized against her will), and some entrepreneurs in the refugee-industry are making millions by keeping refugees in sub par barracks for 200 USD per day. Many schools are privatized, and the only reason that is not a regarded as total disaster is that it they are a nice break from the schools run by the local municipalities. (To be fair, a lot of the privately operated hospitals seems to be doing a great job and delivers good services.) There is nothing inherently wrong with privately operated schools, hospitals, etc, but when turning away from a system where it was primarily seen as an obligation to take care of the ill and poor, and educate our children, it's very hard to set the economic incentives correctly. Even if the system and the incentives are not gamed, the effects are often not what you want on the macro level, as each transaction is optimized on the micro level.
amq 9y ago
Hard to believe, but in a certain Eastern European country, ISPs are competing to lay fiber to private houses, for about $10/month. That's a symmetric 100mbit to Frankfurt.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Rich European countries like Germany and France meanwhile have even less fiber than the US. I suspect much cheaper labor and less anti-development regulation is the big factor in the low cost of fiber in Eastern Europe.
  - matt4077 9y ago
    There may be technical reasons, as well. I remember that, after the Berlin Wall came down, large swaths of former East Germany got fibre lines (for telephony, mostly). Then, a decade or so later, DSL became the new standard. Which, as it happens, didn't work over fibre. I'm assuming they spent more on research into making copper faster because it was much wider deployed). For a long time, your best option for your fibre line was 128kbit/s analog-modem over digital-line. Eastern Europe's infrastructure may date from around the same time, which may make it easier to improve now. It's a second-mover advantage. Compare NTSC vs. PAL, or (maybe, not completely sure) 230V vs 110V mains. Also, in terms of "Government regulation" there really isn't anything stopping Deutsche Telekom from improving its network. They operate on a system where they just send a notice, and it's considered to be approved if not replied to within two weeks. I'd say it's mostly a curse of not enough competition (cable isn't much faster), and a network that's currently good enough for most people.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
rhblake 9y ago
We've progressed a bit since the days of the state telephone monopoly, eh? My mom in Stockholm has symmetric 100 Mb/s included in her rent. ~$12/month extra for 1 Gb/s (both ways!). In France I currently pay ~$40/month for 1 Gb/s down, 200 Mb/s up; a bit expensive, but it's getting better. Competition is cool.
- pbowyer 9y ago
  Here in the UK, the free market capital of Europe, things haven't progressed since the days of state ownership. In areas of private fibre 200 Mb/s down is available; otherwise you're lucky to get 75 Mb/s down and 35 Mb/s up. For ~$40/month unless you want bandwidth limits or an overloaded provider. UK speeds & pricing: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/packages https://www.thinkbroadband.com/packages
- Qantourisc 9y ago
  You need to compare how much the technology to get this speed got cheaper VS how much the price has changed.
insulanus 9y ago
In much of the Bay area, a stone's throw from Berkley, one of the original ARPANET nodes, your only choice is comcast 100 USD for 50mbits down/ 10 up. DSL operates as slowly as 3mbits on some older wires.

My Stockholm apartment had multiple ISPs competing for service over fiber laid down by a state-owned company. In 2007 this meant symmetric 100mbit for about $30/month.

agumonkey 9y ago

Crazy how social structure distort reality.

mulletbum 9y ago

I live in the country and have this right now. 100mb for $50 or 1000mb for $100.

m3Lith 9y ago
Goddamn. In our area it's 10€ for 100 and 20€ for 1Gb.
rglover 9y ago
Buhhhhhhh. Lucky.
nulagrithom 9y ago
Where I'm at in the US, we have a Public Utility District that's "owned" by the city (top position is an elected position too). They've run fiber everywhere and leased it to local ISPs. I can get gigabit for under $90/mo. Lowest tier is 100x10 for under $50. One of our local ISPs even built a real nice wireless mesh network with a fiber "backbone". You can get low-latency 35x2 service way up in the hills of nowhere. It's amazing what happens when Internet is treated like a utility.
- orthecreedence 9y ago
  Comcast HATES this one US city! (Sorry, had to) What area do you live in? I've heard of cities trying to do things like this and ISPs clamping down and suing the city to stop any sort of public infrastructure. I'd be interested to read about if/how the people in your area had to deal with this.
  - vec 9y ago
    Not the OP, but I'm guessing they live up the road from me in Longmont, CO. Comcast does indeed hate this, and spent roughly $300k on questionably ethical political ads[1] in a city with less than 100k residents. [1] https://muninetworks.org/content/longmont-votes-again-comcast-breaks-spending-record-opposing-referendum https://muninetworks.org/content/longmont-votes-again-comcas...
    - rch 9y ago
      A similar effort was just killed in Boulder a couple of weeks ago, by Comcast and others.
      - jbuhl 9y ago
        What were the Comcast shills' arguments? It seems like a local politician could run on internet as a utility and win if publicized correctly.
        vec 9y ago
        "Mayor #{city_official} wants to raise YOUR TAXES to line the pockets of their friends at #{local_construction_firm}. Call your alderman and tell him to vote NO on Proposition #{proposition_id}!" "Mayor #{city_official} wants to pass JOB KILLING REGULATIONS that could put #{comcast_employees.count} of your neighbors out of work! Sign this petition opposing Proposition #{proposition_id}!" "Mayor #{city_official} wants the GOVERNMENT to take over YOUR INTERNET. Vote NO on Proposition #{proposition_id} to keep your internet free!" It's not that hard if you don't care about fairness or accuracy.
        pishpash 9y ago
        Until Americans get over the unnatural and hypocritical loathing of socialism, these ads will work. It's all very visceral and no rational education will counter it.
  - Jtsummers 9y ago
- natemeier 9y ago
  Great to see that these projects are popping up all over --- I'm also in a town in the US with municipal fiber. I get bidirectional gigabit for $50/month (early adopter --- the normal rate is $100/month). Our ISP is also vocally pro-net neutrality.
  - arcticbull 9y ago
    Similar in SF with Monkeybrains -- for a one-time setup fee of $2500 about two years ago, I've been paying $35/mth for 600/600 microwave internet. They're also super pro-net neutrality. They even peer with SFMIX, a not-for-profit hipster internet exchange. The normal rate is $35/mth for 50/50.
    - girvo 9y ago
      What's latency like for microwave?
      - quicklyfrozen 9y ago
        I doubt you'd notice a difference. Over a long distance it should be faster then fiber (hence the private networks set up by HFTs). Had an office in Boston with a microwave link; it normally worked great, but could be disrupted by extreme weather (like heavy snow).
      - arcticbull 9y ago
        Currently, including some video conferencing on my laptop and a few others using the link too, I'm seeing 5-7ms ping times. It varies, but I think its fair to call it 'more than adequate'.
  - stil 9y ago
    I almost started planning a move based on internet service availability. I was considering only cities with Google fiber
- kpil 9y ago
  I'm connected to one of those municipal networks in Sweden, and after paying about 1000 USD for getting the fiber laid to my house, I now pay $28/month for 100/100 mbit. 10 mbit costs $12, and 500/500 mbit costs $80, which is the fastest option. I don't really know what I would do with 500 mbit except host a lot of servers in my garage and use the heat for heating the house.
- rayiner 9y ago
  In DC, gigabit is $70 and 50/50 is $40. 2 gbps is $150 per month. No public utility, just a city government that's enlightened enough to permit competition between multiple providers in different pockets of the city.
- coldcode 9y ago
  WOn't last long until the cable companies force votes to make these illegal. It's been done in many cities/states already. Big money talks sadly.
- lilei 9y ago
  > It's amazing what happens when Internet is treated like a utility. It's not really like a utility though. A utility usually has a low fee and charge per use. Not that I encourage data or bandwidth limits, but there's a difference. Consider you could either get gigabit for $90 or you could get a fixed speed or data (say 10 mbit or 100gb) for $30 but full speed access to Netflix, YouTube, Windows Update etc. is included. How many people would pay $60 extra for unlimited access to the rest of the Internet? I think it's a fair question to ask why consumers are paying for both installation, the bandwidth itself and the services they access (in cash or ad revenue) while everyone else is making money. Edit: Not sure what the point of downvotes is. If you can't answer a basic argument like this you can't expect your views to be taken seriously. But hey, instead of actually doing something relevant let's talk about which Internet connection we all have.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    OK, so I get an unmetered symmetric 100 Mbps uplink for less than $50 per month. It happens to be through a private ISP, so I'm insulated from this bullshit, unless backbone ISPs play dirty. But anyway, I want Internet connectivity for many reasons, and they're constantly changing. The idea of getting hobbled general access plus full-speed access to some restricted set of services is insane. I mean, would you expect me to order access specifically for whatever I wanted? There's also the fact that I hit just about everything through VPNs, so ISPs wouldn't even know what I'm accessing. I don't get your question about "why consumers are paying for both installation, the bandwidth itself and the services they access". I don't pay for "installation", but rather for access, by month. I only pay for a few services, and never see ads. For the most part, I only pay for the unmetered 100 Mbps uplink.
    - lilei2 9y ago
      I realized that it's pretty fruitless to discuss these things on HN, but since you responded I will give you a response. This isn't something that is generally happening, at least not outside mobile connectivity where certain services are sometimes included. It's not really about what you, or other 'heavy' Internet users wants, but about consumers. People who want net neutrality have to have a response to normal people why it's relevant to them. More and more people are getting access to broadband, yet it's still quite expensive. The idea, which you will have to defend against if you ultimately want net neutrality, is that companies could pay for the bandwidth. So you as a consumer would pay for connectivity, say 10 mbit. But instead of you just having access to 10 mbit, other companies would be able to pay to deliver to you at full speed. So when you pay for Netflix part of that money might go back to the ISP. This is to some extent already happening, but through various transit and peering agreements. > I don't get your question about "why consumers are paying for both installation, the bandwidth itself and the services they access". I don't pay for "installation", but rather for access, by month. I only pay for a few services, and never see ads. For the most part, I only pay for the unmetered 100 Mbps uplink. You do (usually) pay for installation, it's just that it's "baked in" to contract time and fees of your connection. That's why you usually can't get a really cheap connection on a wired installation. A 1 mbit connection would still usually cost you a fair bit, if it's even available. With something like electricity you do also pay for installation, but since that is largely universal it's really part of the overall cost. Point being that a lot of people lack broadband because they can't afford the installation cost and that is a big different between Internet access and other utilities which are much more universal.
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  Austin TX?

Kholo 9y ago

Do you use the bandwidth? Just curious what you do with it.

8ytecoder 9y ago
My TV alone uses 25Mbps (when playing 4k).
MichaelApproved 9y ago
Not OP but I live in NYC and have 200mb down and 20mb up for $70/month. 200mb down isn't so important. Even with a family of 5 streaming, 100mb would be plenty of bandwidth. For me, the more important part of the connection is the upstream. the larger that number is, the more I can move towards 100% real-time offsite backup. That's important in case of fire, theft or other catastrophic issue happening.
- Kholo 9y ago
  For a family of 5 that sounds like a pretty good deal.
  - MichaelApproved 9y ago
    Sure but I'd rather have Verizon FIOS, if my building had it. 50mb up/down pipe. 50mb down is still plenty but I'd love to get my hands on the 50mb upstream connection.

VLM 9y ago

The same political and market forces have an equally interesting effect on your cost of medical care and lifespan.

rayiner 9y ago
To the extent you're implying that the public/private distinction is relevant, I'm not sure I agree. Our infrastructure (trains, subways, roads) is also generally inferior even though its mostly publicly owned and operated. It costs our public entities five times as much to build a mile of subway as it costs Spain's public entities. We're just bad at doing things.
- barrkel 9y ago
  I think it's in large part because of American's low expectations, which feeds into the quality of people, and it becomes self fulfilling.
- kpil 9y ago
  Edit: I ranted about publicly operated trains in Sweden on a post regarding US. Sorry for that. Since I spent 10 minutes ranting on the subject, I will keep the rest of the rant... The only subway in Sweden that I am aware of is operated by some company from Hong Kong. Or was that last week and we have now someone else? The "free market" muppets have had free reins for 30 years, and they are still claiming that an invisible hand will turn everything great. In reality, the invisible hand seems to be picking cookies out of our jar filled with tax money, while trains are falling apart, women are getting unnecessary gynecological surgeries since doctors get a bonus out of the publicly funded invoice (one even inexplicably got sterilized against her will), and some entrepreneurs in the refugee-industry are making millions by keeping refugees in sub par barracks for 200 USD per day. Many schools are privatized, and the only reason that is not a regarded as total disaster is that it they are a nice break from the schools run by the local municipalities. (To be fair, a lot of the privately operated hospitals seems to be doing a great job and delivers good services.) There is nothing inherently wrong with privately operated schools, hospitals, etc, but when turning away from a system where it was primarily seen as an obligation to take care of the ill and poor, and educate our children, it's very hard to set the economic incentives correctly. Even if the system and the incentives are not gamed, the effects are often not what you want on the macro level, as each transaction is optimized on the micro level.

amq 9y ago

Hard to believe, but in a certain Eastern European country, ISPs are competing to lay fiber to private houses, for about $10/month. That's a symmetric 100mbit to Frankfurt.

rayiner 9y ago
Rich European countries like Germany and France meanwhile have even less fiber than the US. I suspect much cheaper labor and less anti-development regulation is the big factor in the low cost of fiber in Eastern Europe.
- matt4077 9y ago
  There may be technical reasons, as well. I remember that, after the Berlin Wall came down, large swaths of former East Germany got fibre lines (for telephony, mostly). Then, a decade or so later, DSL became the new standard. Which, as it happens, didn't work over fibre. I'm assuming they spent more on research into making copper faster because it was much wider deployed). For a long time, your best option for your fibre line was 128kbit/s analog-modem over digital-line. Eastern Europe's infrastructure may date from around the same time, which may make it easier to improve now. It's a second-mover advantage. Compare NTSC vs. PAL, or (maybe, not completely sure) 230V vs 110V mains. Also, in terms of "Government regulation" there really isn't anything stopping Deutsche Telekom from improving its network. They operate on a system where they just send a notice, and it's considered to be approved if not replied to within two weeks. I'd say it's mostly a curse of not enough competition (cable isn't much faster), and a network that's currently good enough for most people.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

rhblake 9y ago

We've progressed a bit since the days of the state telephone monopoly, eh? My mom in Stockholm has symmetric 100 Mb/s included in her rent. ~$12/month extra for 1 Gb/s (both ways!). In France I currently pay ~$40/month for 1 Gb/s down, 200 Mb/s up; a bit expensive, but it's getting better. Competition is cool.

pbowyer 9y ago
Here in the UK, the free market capital of Europe, things haven't progressed since the days of state ownership. In areas of private fibre 200 Mb/s down is available; otherwise you're lucky to get 75 Mb/s down and 35 Mb/s up. For ~$40/month unless you want bandwidth limits or an overloaded provider. UK speeds & pricing: https://www.thinkbroadband.com/packages https://www.thinkbroadband.com/packages
Qantourisc 9y ago
You need to compare how much the technology to get this speed got cheaper VS how much the price has changed.

insulanus 9y ago

In much of the Bay area, a stone's throw from Berkley, one of the original ARPANET nodes, your only choice is comcast 100 USD for 50mbits down/ 10 up. DSL operates as slowly as 3mbits on some older wires.