4 ms·

You do have to consider that the US is a very large country consisting mostly of empty space. The prices are set so that you can use data in the middle of nowh

You do have to consider that the US is a very large country consisting mostly of empty space. The prices are set so that you can use data in the middle of nowhere (or more realistically, along a freeway that runs through the middle of nowhere), or inside a large city. I'm sure it could be cheaper if your constraint was "only works in the 5 boros of New York City" versus "everywhere in the country", but it doesn't seem like people would buy that plan.

thatfrenchguy 6y ago
the middle of nowhere is much cheaper to cover than New York City though, you need a lot less antennas ;-)
- tenebrisalietum 6y ago
  Cheaper to cover but you still need backhaul to the towers.
  - state_less 6y ago
    The backhaul can be wireless too.
- jrockway 6y ago
  It's more about utilization, though. If you have one person that uses an antenna once a month, it makes less money than an antenna that is used by thousands of people 24/7.
nikanj 6y ago
This explanation would make more sense if Finland was as expensive as the US.
akira2501 6y ago
> You do have to consider that the US is a very large country consisting mostly of empty space. With only three major carriers due to them all merging together. > The prices are set so that you can use data in the middle of nowhere (or more realistically, along a freeway that runs through the middle of nowhere), or inside a large city. Is that even the majority of use cases? > but it doesn't seem like people would buy that plan. If the pricing were similar to current plans, I doubt they would either.. but I also doubt the smaller carriers wouldn't be offering steep price competition in their particular markets. I think the reason doesn't happen is because internet service is similarly monopolized in America, often by the same wireless companies, so even if you could stand a smaller carrier up, you would get crushed on the back-end by your competition.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  > Is that even the majority of use cases? It's not, but consumers tend to insist on paying the same price no matter where. There used to be US carriers who offered rate plans with a low price in major metro areas, with a surcharge added for use in rural areas. The product made sense to me, but they ultimately didn't last long. I think it's similar to the psychology of choosing to pay $50/mo for a 15GB/mo rate plan in order to ensure you never pay an overage charge, when you could do $30/mo for a 5GB/mo plan but get dinged $15 for an extra GB every other month. Big picture, we're talking $600 per year vs $450 per year, but that's not how human psychology works. Instead, we react to those six extra gigabytes costing $15 apiece, and choose to instead buy a bunch of gigabytes we won't use because the lower unit price gives us warm fuzzy feelings. The numbers are (slightly) made up, but the situation isn't: My partner and I compulsively re-do this calculation in our heads 5 or 6 times a year, every time we get zinged with an overage charge and have another conversation about changing our rate plan. We know it's a waste of time, but we do it anyway, because dark patterns are powerful tools of manipulation.
theandrewbailey 6y ago
Countries with similar population densities[0] to the US have much lower prices. [0] places like Colombia, Mozambique, Latvia, Estonia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, and Brazil, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...
- ksec 6y ago
  Those countries also has a much lower cost of business and living.
kolencherry 6y ago
China has a similar land mass (3.705MM square miles) as the US (3.797MM square miles), but has data that is ~13x cheaper ($0.61/GB vs. $8.00/GB).
- ksec 6y ago
  China also has a population of ~1.4B people compared to about 330M in the US. 4.2x the difference.
abeppu 6y ago
Australia seems like a good point of comparison. Huge area/low population density, pretty high median income, and they're listed at $0.68

thatfrenchguy 6y ago

the middle of nowhere is much cheaper to cover than New York City though, you need a lot less antennas ;-)

tenebrisalietum 6y ago
Cheaper to cover but you still need backhaul to the towers.
- state_less 6y ago
  The backhaul can be wireless too.
jrockway 6y ago
It's more about utilization, though. If you have one person that uses an antenna once a month, it makes less money than an antenna that is used by thousands of people 24/7.

nikanj 6y ago

This explanation would make more sense if Finland was as expensive as the US.

akira2501 6y ago

> You do have to consider that the US is a very large country consisting mostly of empty space. With only three major carriers due to them all merging together. > The prices are set so that you can use data in the middle of nowhere (or more realistically, along a freeway that runs through the middle of nowhere), or inside a large city. Is that even the majority of use cases? > but it doesn't seem like people would buy that plan. If the pricing were similar to current plans, I doubt they would either.. but I also doubt the smaller carriers wouldn't be offering steep price competition in their particular markets. I think the reason doesn't happen is because internet service is similarly monopolized in America, often by the same wireless companies, so even if you could stand a smaller carrier up, you would get crushed on the back-end by your competition.

mumblemumble 6y ago
> Is that even the majority of use cases? It's not, but consumers tend to insist on paying the same price no matter where. There used to be US carriers who offered rate plans with a low price in major metro areas, with a surcharge added for use in rural areas. The product made sense to me, but they ultimately didn't last long. I think it's similar to the psychology of choosing to pay $50/mo for a 15GB/mo rate plan in order to ensure you never pay an overage charge, when you could do $30/mo for a 5GB/mo plan but get dinged $15 for an extra GB every other month. Big picture, we're talking $600 per year vs $450 per year, but that's not how human psychology works. Instead, we react to those six extra gigabytes costing $15 apiece, and choose to instead buy a bunch of gigabytes we won't use because the lower unit price gives us warm fuzzy feelings. The numbers are (slightly) made up, but the situation isn't: My partner and I compulsively re-do this calculation in our heads 5 or 6 times a year, every time we get zinged with an overage charge and have another conversation about changing our rate plan. We know it's a waste of time, but we do it anyway, because dark patterns are powerful tools of manipulation.

theandrewbailey 6y ago

Countries with similar population densities[0] to the US have much lower prices. [0] places like Colombia, Mozambique, Latvia, Estonia, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, and Brazil, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependen...

ksec 6y ago
Those countries also has a much lower cost of business and living.

kolencherry 6y ago

China has a similar land mass (3.705MM square miles) as the US (3.797MM square miles), but has data that is ~13x cheaper ($0.61/GB vs. $8.00/GB).

ksec 6y ago
China also has a population of ~1.4B people compared to about 330M in the US. 4.2x the difference.

abeppu 6y ago

Australia seems like a good point of comparison. Huge area/low population density, pretty high median income, and they're listed at $0.68