6 ms·

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

by mulletbum 9y ago

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
    For a time I lived in Wilson, NC which was like this. Time Warner did hate that city, eventually sponsoring legislation (via donations to legislators) to bar municipal broadband. The jackasses had the gall to do this, when the primary reason the municipal broadband was established was because Time Warner refused to build out their network in Wilson. I suppose they thought there was no business for them there, until the city proved there was.
    - pishpash 9y ago
      Sounds like your legislators hated the city. And the voters who put them in hated themselves.
      - state_less 9y ago
        The legislators probably liked the money, rubbing elbows with rich folks and cracking jokes about the proles. Behind their back of course. It's gotten so bad they'll joke right on the face. "I could shoot someone on 5th ave. and they'd still love me (Trump supporters)." Did supporters not realize how insulting that was? He is essentially making fun of their servile devotion right on the face and still it didn't break the spell.
      - stevenwoo 9y ago
        It's North Carolina, the rural dominated legislature punishes the urban areas continuously by passing rules that eliminate urban/municipal choices made democratically by imposing statewide majority rule when urban policies offend rural voters. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-transgender-bathrooms/475125/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/north-c... The same thing happened in Texas after Houston attempted and failed to pass an equal rights policy (so the state keeps trying to pass bathroom bills) and Austin forced Uber and Lyft to stop operating (so the state legislature overrode local jurisdiction).
- 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?

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
  For a time I lived in Wilson, NC which was like this. Time Warner did hate that city, eventually sponsoring legislation (via donations to legislators) to bar municipal broadband. The jackasses had the gall to do this, when the primary reason the municipal broadband was established was because Time Warner refused to build out their network in Wilson. I suppose they thought there was no business for them there, until the city proved there was.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Sounds like your legislators hated the city. And the voters who put them in hated themselves.
    - state_less 9y ago
      The legislators probably liked the money, rubbing elbows with rich folks and cracking jokes about the proles. Behind their back of course. It's gotten so bad they'll joke right on the face. "I could shoot someone on 5th ave. and they'd still love me (Trump supporters)." Did supporters not realize how insulting that was? He is essentially making fun of their servile devotion right on the face and still it didn't break the spell.
    - stevenwoo 9y ago
      It's North Carolina, the rural dominated legislature punishes the urban areas continuously by passing rules that eliminate urban/municipal choices made democratically by imposing statewide majority rule when urban policies offend rural voters. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/north-carolina-lgbt-discrimination-transgender-bathrooms/475125/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/north-c... The same thing happened in Texas after Houston attempted and failed to pass an equal rights policy (so the state keeps trying to pass bathroom bills) and Austin forced Uber and Lyft to stop operating (so the state legislature overrode local jurisdiction).
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?