9 ms·

“And I know my $50/mo rate will never rise.” Let’s hope they tie it to inflation or similar. Otherwise the system will die slowly due to underfunding.

beatgammit 7y ago
It could just be locked in for existing customers, but rise for new customers. Over time, people move or die, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.
- papaver 7y ago
  thats correct. its now $70 for new customers.
icebraining 7y ago
Well, they can presumably offer 1Gbps for $50/mo indefinitely.
virgilp 7y ago
Well, Romania is known for cheap internet prices, but for reference, here the largest _private_ operator is offering 1Gbps for $9.33/mo, taxes included (19% VAT). I kinda' doubt that $50/mo is really unsustainable, especially once the infrastructure is already built.
- voltagex_ 7y ago
  What's the actual bandwidth like? Where's the closest big exchange?
  - virgilp 7y ago
    I don't have the 1Gbps connection, I took the cheaper 400Mbps one. But they're fairly good at actually offering the promised bandwidth. Again, internet is one of the very few top-notch things here, better than most of the world.
    - pkaye 7y ago
      What is the effective speed you can get because of bandwidth throttling done by remote servers? Can you get close to 400Mbps to cloud storage for example? Currently I have 150Mbps and been wondering if increasing it would be worth the extra cost.
      - fragmede 7y ago
        It really depends on the cloud storage provider, and once you have gigabit, you can tell who's being cheap with their CDN/local POP. Some downloads scream along and gigabit is worth it. It's ridiculous to me that local disk can be the bottleneck. (This is with a spinning disk. An SSD, less so.) Others downloads... don't.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  You can't really compare sticker prices here. US percapita GDP is about 6 times higher. The average salary is about 8 times higher. So as a proportion of those things, cost is fairly similar.
  - virgilp 7y ago
    GDP doesn't matter here. Average salary might... presuming employees that maintain the system are paid average salary, AND the cost is overwhelmingly in the "salaries" category - which I sorta' doubt.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      GDP per capita is a proxy for local price level, and it absolutely matters. Running a fiber service is overwhelmingly a matter of labor costs. Everyone from employees who deal with permitting and approvals to guys who run the cable to network operators to customer support representatives. The stuff that’s made in China—the fiber and the equipment, is a small part of those costs.
      - rsj_hn 7y ago
        > GDP per capita is a proxy for local price level No, this is incorrect. GDP is a proxy for production in nominal terms. If it were just a proxy for local price level, then every place would have the same real income and would differ solely by relative prices. That the U.S. has a a GDP/capita that is 4x times some other nation does not mean that prices are 4x lower in the other nation.
        rayiner 7y ago
        GDP is a measure of production in nominal terms. It’s a rough proxy for labor prices (the kind of price I was talking about). That’s because a dominant component of GDP is personal incomes.
        rsj_hn 7y ago
DrJaws 7y ago
On Spain, I'm paying 25€ for 600/600, unlimited calls, a mobile phone line with 3gb of data and 10 hours of calls. $50 for just 1gbps, seems like they can even make profit from that.
- jeremyjh 7y ago
  How much of your taxes is being used to subsidize that rate?
  - konstmonst 7y ago
    None. Those are private companies that do this. It's the same in Germany. I have a 7 euros/month unlimited calls cell plan but only 500 mb data, which is enough for me. I pay around 25 Euros month for Internet at home. It's fast enough for Steam/Streaming, I don't even know the speed because I stopped caring a while ago.
  - anovikov 7y ago
    In Russia, 1gbps may be from $3 to $10 per month depending on the place, and it works as such at least throughout Russia maybe falling to 200-300mbps to far off places like the U.S. In Lithuania, i paid 15 EUR a month for 500/500 and it worked perfectly too. U.S. prices are super high - mostly a consequence of most people living in detached houses - long distances and high complexity of wiring. In Russia and Lithuania, most live in Soviet-style apartment blocks - high user density.
  - DrJaws 7y ago
    Nothing, those are private companies without subsidies
- rantwasp 7y ago
  50$ for 1Gps is amazing in the US. I would also suspect that most of this cost will go to running it, not the tech/actual internet bw
- nnq 7y ago
  with 3gb of data - maybe I'm a weird consumer, but I don't get it what's with this insanely low data caps... while in France I had a 100gb / month 4G data plan for ~20EUR, and couple times I even exceeded those 100 gb! how/what are most people using internet for that they tolerate such small caps?!
gamegoblin 7y ago
In general I agree, but in practice certain nominal prices can be monotonically decreasing due to improved technology lowering prices faster than inflation raises them. For instance, in terms of $/GB, data storage costs have been strictly decreasing in nominal terms even with the existence of inflation. That said, I am not sure how much innovation is going into the costs of maintaining a fiber network, so it’s possible that it won’t decrease as fast as 2-3% a year on average. I would be really interested if someone had those numbers!
- saagarjha 7y ago
  Of course, people are going to expect more as technology improves.
  - CameronNemo 7y ago
    Exactly this. I work at a research and education network (a regional ISP), and we are asked to perform upgrades and new deployments constantly. If it is just residential use, the upgrade path will be more predictable. However, business and municipal users can scale quite unpredictably and the 10GE links allocated in 2019 might need to be 100GE in 2025.
  - toomuchtodo 7y ago
    APM Marketplace [1] just had a researcher on the program the other day sharing that most Americans don’t use more than 20Mbps of bandwidth, and paying for anything above that as a typical internet user is throwing your money away. Power users, businesses, researchers, and others might expect more, but not the majority of residential users. Muni fiber investments will last quite a while. [1] https://www.marketplace.org/2019/08/27/for-faster-internet-do-you-really-get-what-you-pay-for/ https://www.marketplace.org/2019/08/27/for-faster-internet-d...
    - wlesieutre 7y ago
      One reason for getting a faster link is that most broadband connections in the US are not symmetric. Comcast in my area doesn't even make claims of upload speed anymore, but my recollection of when they used to is that it was about 10% of the download speed. If you want more than 2 Mbps upload, that 20 Mbps plan wouldn't cut it.
logfromblammo 7y ago
Not if they also fix the bandwidth allowance. Over time, I would expect the cost of provisioning a 1 Gbps link to drop faster than that $50 loses purchasing power. Your $50/mo for 1 Gbps can therefore remain stable, and the ISP might someday offer 10 Gbps for $70/mo as an upgrade offer. Clearly, by those prices, as long as the per-customer costs are less than $47.78, that $50 more than covers the cost of the 1 Gbps bandwidth. Everyone who doesn't upgrade ends up subsidizing further build-out.
paggle 7y ago
Eventually $50/1Gbps will seem like $1/1Kbps and they can sell higher priced packages.
parliament32 7y ago
IP transit rates drop by like 30% per year[1], you have to assume transit is a large portion of expenses. Further, all the hardware an ISP needs get cheaper year after year. There's no reason prices should ever need to rise, apart from greed. [1] https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-...
stusmall 7y ago
It isn't but the number of people who get that deal is limited. It was a limited time offer for people who signed up when the program was first getting started. I'm not worried about the funding level over time. Source: Longmont resident
polpo 7y ago
The $50/mo rate is for charter members who signed up within the first 3 months of it being available. New customers have to pay $70/mo, which drops to $60/mo after the first year. So not everyone is paying the $50/mo rate.
- schreiaj 7y ago
  Just moved to Longmont 3 weeks ago, signed up, paying $50/mo...

beatgammit 7y ago

It could just be locked in for existing customers, but rise for new customers. Over time, people move or die, so it shouldn't be much of an issue.

papaver 7y ago
thats correct. its now $70 for new customers.

icebraining 7y ago

Well, they can presumably offer 1Gbps for $50/mo indefinitely.

virgilp 7y ago

Well, Romania is known for cheap internet prices, but for reference, here the largest _private_ operator is offering 1Gbps for $9.33/mo, taxes included (19% VAT). I kinda' doubt that $50/mo is really unsustainable, especially once the infrastructure is already built.

voltagex_ 7y ago
What's the actual bandwidth like? Where's the closest big exchange?
- virgilp 7y ago
  I don't have the 1Gbps connection, I took the cheaper 400Mbps one. But they're fairly good at actually offering the promised bandwidth. Again, internet is one of the very few top-notch things here, better than most of the world.
  - pkaye 7y ago
    What is the effective speed you can get because of bandwidth throttling done by remote servers? Can you get close to 400Mbps to cloud storage for example? Currently I have 150Mbps and been wondering if increasing it would be worth the extra cost.
    - fragmede 7y ago
      It really depends on the cloud storage provider, and once you have gigabit, you can tell who's being cheap with their CDN/local POP. Some downloads scream along and gigabit is worth it. It's ridiculous to me that local disk can be the bottleneck. (This is with a spinning disk. An SSD, less so.) Others downloads... don't.
ineedasername 7y ago
You can't really compare sticker prices here. US percapita GDP is about 6 times higher. The average salary is about 8 times higher. So as a proportion of those things, cost is fairly similar.
- virgilp 7y ago
  GDP doesn't matter here. Average salary might... presuming employees that maintain the system are paid average salary, AND the cost is overwhelmingly in the "salaries" category - which I sorta' doubt.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    GDP per capita is a proxy for local price level, and it absolutely matters. Running a fiber service is overwhelmingly a matter of labor costs. Everyone from employees who deal with permitting and approvals to guys who run the cable to network operators to customer support representatives. The stuff that’s made in China—the fiber and the equipment, is a small part of those costs.
    - rsj_hn 7y ago
      > GDP per capita is a proxy for local price level No, this is incorrect. GDP is a proxy for production in nominal terms. If it were just a proxy for local price level, then every place would have the same real income and would differ solely by relative prices. That the U.S. has a a GDP/capita that is 4x times some other nation does not mean that prices are 4x lower in the other nation.
      - rayiner 7y ago
        GDP is a measure of production in nominal terms. It’s a rough proxy for labor prices (the kind of price I was talking about). That’s because a dominant component of GDP is personal incomes.
        rsj_hn 7y ago

DrJaws 7y ago

On Spain, I'm paying 25€ for 600/600, unlimited calls, a mobile phone line with 3gb of data and 10 hours of calls. $50 for just 1gbps, seems like they can even make profit from that.

jeremyjh 7y ago
How much of your taxes is being used to subsidize that rate?
- konstmonst 7y ago
  None. Those are private companies that do this. It's the same in Germany. I have a 7 euros/month unlimited calls cell plan but only 500 mb data, which is enough for me. I pay around 25 Euros month for Internet at home. It's fast enough for Steam/Streaming, I don't even know the speed because I stopped caring a while ago.
- anovikov 7y ago
  In Russia, 1gbps may be from $3 to $10 per month depending on the place, and it works as such at least throughout Russia maybe falling to 200-300mbps to far off places like the U.S. In Lithuania, i paid 15 EUR a month for 500/500 and it worked perfectly too. U.S. prices are super high - mostly a consequence of most people living in detached houses - long distances and high complexity of wiring. In Russia and Lithuania, most live in Soviet-style apartment blocks - high user density.
- DrJaws 7y ago
  Nothing, those are private companies without subsidies
rantwasp 7y ago
50$ for 1Gps is amazing in the US. I would also suspect that most of this cost will go to running it, not the tech/actual internet bw
nnq 7y ago
with 3gb of data - maybe I'm a weird consumer, but I don't get it what's with this insanely low data caps... while in France I had a 100gb / month 4G data plan for ~20EUR, and couple times I even exceeded those 100 gb! how/what are most people using internet for that they tolerate such small caps?!

gamegoblin 7y ago

In general I agree, but in practice certain nominal prices can be monotonically decreasing due to improved technology lowering prices faster than inflation raises them. For instance, in terms of $/GB, data storage costs have been strictly decreasing in nominal terms even with the existence of inflation. That said, I am not sure how much innovation is going into the costs of maintaining a fiber network, so it’s possible that it won’t decrease as fast as 2-3% a year on average. I would be really interested if someone had those numbers!

saagarjha 7y ago
Of course, people are going to expect more as technology improves.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  Exactly this. I work at a research and education network (a regional ISP), and we are asked to perform upgrades and new deployments constantly. If it is just residential use, the upgrade path will be more predictable. However, business and municipal users can scale quite unpredictably and the 10GE links allocated in 2019 might need to be 100GE in 2025.
- toomuchtodo 7y ago
  APM Marketplace [1] just had a researcher on the program the other day sharing that most Americans don’t use more than 20Mbps of bandwidth, and paying for anything above that as a typical internet user is throwing your money away. Power users, businesses, researchers, and others might expect more, but not the majority of residential users. Muni fiber investments will last quite a while. [1] https://www.marketplace.org/2019/08/27/for-faster-internet-do-you-really-get-what-you-pay-for/ https://www.marketplace.org/2019/08/27/for-faster-internet-d...
  - wlesieutre 7y ago
    One reason for getting a faster link is that most broadband connections in the US are not symmetric. Comcast in my area doesn't even make claims of upload speed anymore, but my recollection of when they used to is that it was about 10% of the download speed. If you want more than 2 Mbps upload, that 20 Mbps plan wouldn't cut it.

logfromblammo 7y ago

Not if they also fix the bandwidth allowance. Over time, I would expect the cost of provisioning a 1 Gbps link to drop faster than that $50 loses purchasing power. Your $50/mo for 1 Gbps can therefore remain stable, and the ISP might someday offer 10 Gbps for $70/mo as an upgrade offer. Clearly, by those prices, as long as the per-customer costs are less than $47.78, that $50 more than covers the cost of the 1 Gbps bandwidth. Everyone who doesn't upgrade ends up subsidizing further build-out.

paggle 7y ago

Eventually $50/1Gbps will seem like $1/1Kbps and they can sell higher priced packages.

parliament32 7y ago

IP transit rates drop by like 30% per year[1], you have to assume transit is a large portion of expenses. Further, all the hardware an ISP needs get cheaper year after year. There's no reason prices should ever need to rise, apart from greed. [1] https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-Historical-And-Projected.php https://drpeering.net/white-papers/Internet-Transit-Pricing-...

stusmall 7y ago

It isn't but the number of people who get that deal is limited. It was a limited time offer for people who signed up when the program was first getting started. I'm not worried about the funding level over time. Source: Longmont resident

polpo 7y ago

The $50/mo rate is for charter members who signed up within the first 3 months of it being available. New customers have to pay $70/mo, which drops to $60/mo after the first year. So not everyone is paying the $50/mo rate.

schreiaj 7y ago
Just moved to Longmont 3 weeks ago, signed up, paying $50/mo...