5 ms·

Israeli here, pay 7$ for 200GB of data (well I pay 14$ for 400GB and use one as home internet backup because it is cheap). It used to be quite expensive here a

by inglor 6y ago

Israeli here, pay 7$ for 200GB of data (well I pay 14$ for 400GB and use one as home internet backup because it is cheap). It used to be quite expensive here at around $100/mo for 10GB but the government broke up the monopoly and forced competition into the market by making existing players share infrastructure. We went up from main 3 providers to around 10 and prices dropped sharply. My government screws up quite a lot in my opinion but credit is due and that reform was quite successful.

brightball 6y ago
Amazing what competition does
- gingerlime 6y ago
  It didn't happen with competition alone though. There was competition before in Israel on the telecom market, but prices were very high. Then one of the ministers stepped-in and regulated to make it more consumer-friendly. disclaimer: I'm an ex-Israeli, so my knowledge about it is very limited, and I don't follow Israeli news. But that's broadly my understanding of what happened to drive prices down and improve consumer value. EDIT: found an article from 2014[0] that mentions it [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/israel-telecommunications-reform/israel-shakes-up-telecoms-market-to-lower-prices-for-consumers-idUSL6N0T82MB20141118 https://www.reuters.com/article/israel-telecommunications-re...
- yoavm 6y ago
  Competition didn't do it. For years. Regulation did, and in something like 2 months. The coolest part? All those threats about "companies will leave a highly regulated market" never materialized.
  - yuvalr1 6y ago
    The market was not really competitive because of a very high barrier for entrance (building the communication infrastructure). The regulation forced competition, then the prices fell of their own, when new players joined.
kovek 6y ago
That’s awesome! I wonder how people could achieve similar success in canada or the usa. In canada we have Bell, Videotron, Rogers.. there are some small companies that “sub-lease” the service. Also, there were mergers so I don’t remember if Rogers is still around. In any case, I believe politicians have ties with these companies (and probably own shares) and will not encourage movements trying to split the manypoly apart.
- tonyarkles 6y ago
  And then there’s Saskatchewan, where SaskTel is a gov’t owned telco. Their prices are not great, but they provide service through the vast majority of the inhabited portions of the province. Out here, Bell and Telus both peer from SaskTel’s towers. Back in the CDMA days, Rogers ran their own 3G network, but recently they have started partnering with SaskTel as well to provide LTE coverage to their customers outside of the two main cities. Edit: I missed the point! SaskTel exists as a government-owned pseudo-monopoly because it wouldn’t be profitable to provide the service level they provide to rural communities. There’s small WISPs that cover little parts of the province, but they all get backhaul from SaskTel.
spaetzleesser 6y ago
"It used to be quite expensive here at around $100/mo for 10GB but the government broke up the monopoly and forced competition into the market by making existing players share infrastructure. We went up from main 3 providers to around 10 and prices dropped sharply. " That's what the US should do too, especially for home internet. For mobile there are a few pretty OK MVNO like Mint but for home internet there is 0 competition in a lot of areas.
takeda 6y ago
> by making existing players share infrastructure. This is exactly what US needs to do to bring back competition. Sadly even Wheeler who reclassified Internet to Title II, excluded that part of it. Back in late 90s and early 2000, we had huge competition, exactly because of Title II (DSL, which ruled the net back then, because was under telecos automatically was under Title II, so your phone lines could be leased to other companies). In 2003 Internet was officially classified under Title I which ended this (including net neutrality) and here we are now.
- smabie 6y ago
  There are a lot of mobile players who lease towers though, and prices are still high.
  - takeda 6y ago
    I wasn't talking about mobile, although given that article is about mobile, my bad I didn't clarify. I meant about wired Internet access. Running 10 wires to your house to have access to 10 ISPs is expensive and it's also a nightmare for the city. It is extremely wasteful because most people will only use one of them at the time. That's why requirement to lease is essential (ideally it should be a different entity that does this, like it's typically done in data centers). Currently the incumbents won't lease, because that will open door to competition, so this needs to be mandated. Going back to mobile providers, actually I believe they are under Title II and this is mandated. Though, because wireless bandwidth is limited, they are in their right to prioritize their own consumers. So if you use providers that lease other towers usually your coverage is worse than if you were direct consumer, but at least it is possible, unlike wired ISPs.
    - zahma 6y ago
      > I meant about wired Internet access. Running 10 wires to your house to have access to 10 ISPs is expensive and it's also a nightmare for the city. It is extremely wasteful because most people will only use one of them at the time. In Paris, you don't need to run separate cables into a building for each ISP. Orange Telecom owns the infrastructure and leases it out to the different ISPs. They then share the cables but have different end point hardware where the main trunk lines hook into the apartment buildings. Perhaps this is different in other residential communities, but from what I gather, once the infrastructure and wiring is in place, consumers can switch between ISPs and need only switch modems. Switching from Orange to another ISP would not need rewiring. My only problem with this "natural monopoly" method is it ensures a minimum price, which is not really decided by competition, but more likely on the return on cost to wire the country for fiber as agreed on with the government who owns 23% of the company. Then there's a lot of skullduggery with contracts (e.g. first 3 months for $19.99 then it shoots up to $50, some ISPs have 6-month contracts, others are month to month with no penalty if you disconnect). France does a lot of things like this, which makes sense when dealing with national infrastructure, but it doesn't quite do the consumer justice when the ISPs are rentiers selling bandwidth. I can only imagine how quickly it will take them to recoup their costs of wiring fiber. I bet the US could benefit a lot by sharing infrastructure, but it doesn't necessarily mean all will be perfect.
ars 6y ago
In Israel the caller pays for a mobile call, while in other countries the owner of the mobile pays. This one change alone is enough to explain quite a bit of the disparity in prices. I'm actually surprised the source article makes no mention of this.
- JanisL 6y ago
  I always feel as though having the calling party cover the costs of the call is one of the most effective ways to get rid of phone spam. When the receiving party has to pay it seems to create all the wrong sorts of financial incentives for the carriers to deal with phone spam calls.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  > while in other countries the owner of the mobile pays. Which other countries? The US did this, and I guess it's possible Canada was obliged to do the same but it's certainly not widespread. The article is about Internet access not how much you're ripped off for calls.
- andi999 6y ago
  I do not understand this. Does that mean in israel the callee pays (as well, or completely) and in other countries (only) the caller? Or does it mean you share mobile phones and in other countries the owner of the mobile phone pays while in Israel the callers somehow identify on the phone?
  - gingerlime 6y ago
    I'm not sure I understand what the GP is trying to say (especially since the article focuses on mobile Internet, rather than calls). Just to clarify: only the caller pays for outbound calls in Israel. The receiver never pays for receiving a call. This is also true to all EU countries as far as I'm aware.
- llimos 6y ago
  I think this is the case in most countries besides the US. And (at least in Israel and the UK, and probably others, but not the US), you can identify a mobile number by the prefix, so you know what you're getting yourself into by placing the call.
ekianjo 6y ago
> It used to be quite expensive here at around $100/mo for 10GB but the government broke up the monopoly and forced competition into the market by making existing players share infrastructure. We went up from main 3 providers to around 10 and prices dropped sharply. Exact same thing happened in France when the opened up phone operators for regular lines (not mobile). They made competitors rent the existing infrastructure and then compete on pricing/services. We went from paying for every call minute to unlimited phone plans very quickly.
- ajuc 6y ago
  Also in Poland in 00s. Huge improvement.
gingerlime 6y ago
ex-Israeli here (currently living in Berlin). It's truly amazing how cheap mobile internet access became in Israel. I'm guessing home broadband as well. Here in Germany it feels like a cartel. Prices are pretty homogeneous and quite expensive (I pay 10EUR/4weeks for 2.5Gb + 200 call min or SMS, pay-as-you-go). The home broadband is worse in terms of competition. Contracts are typically 24 months or more with draconian cancellation options. At least pretty much everything else here (apart from Internet) is cheaper in Berlin than it is in Israel ;-)
- distances 6y ago
  Just as a tip, you can get cheaper in Germany. I have 7GB with unlimited calls+sms for ~8€ per month, and no tie-in so I can terminate monthly. This was a Black Friday offer from PremiumSIM, but you can find other discounts providers too.
  - gingerlime 6y ago
    Yeah, there are some cheaper options, but switching is a hassle, especially if you want to keep your number. $14 for 400Gb is an order of magnitude cheaper.
    - distances 6y ago
      A small hassle, but the new provider will take care of the paperwork. You'll just have to sign. Depends of course on how frustrated you're with the current contract.
mderazon 6y ago
ex-Israeli here (currently living in Portugal). This was perhaps the biggest step that was take to reduce the prices in Israel, but not the only one. Other notable ones: 1. Ban plan cancellation fees - You can cancel your plan anytime you want without any fees, always. There isn't even an option to choose between plans with cancellation fees and without, it's just not allowed. 2. Reducing the complexity to move to a different carrier - All you have to do is tell the new carrier and they will do the rest, and you get to keep the number if you choose to Unfortunately in Portugal cancellation fees are still a thing, I think this is a big factor for competition
assafmo 6y ago
> the government broke up the monopoly and forced competition into the market by making existing players share infrastructure. Yeah, this was excellent for 4G prices (I'm paying $8/mo for 40 GB), but now telecom companies are wary of installing 5G infrastructure, because they are forced to share it with other service providers who did not have to invest millions in new 5G infrastructure.
- oldgradstudent 6y ago
  The same exact claims were made about 4G. Even if it delayed 4G by a year or two, it was well worth it.

by inglor 6y ago

brightball 6y ago

Amazing what competition does

gingerlime 6y ago
It didn't happen with competition alone though. There was competition before in Israel on the telecom market, but prices were very high. Then one of the ministers stepped-in and regulated to make it more consumer-friendly. disclaimer: I'm an ex-Israeli, so my knowledge about it is very limited, and I don't follow Israeli news. But that's broadly my understanding of what happened to drive prices down and improve consumer value. EDIT: found an article from 2014[0] that mentions it [0] https://www.reuters.com/article/israel-telecommunications-reform/israel-shakes-up-telecoms-market-to-lower-prices-for-consumers-idUSL6N0T82MB20141118 https://www.reuters.com/article/israel-telecommunications-re...
yoavm 6y ago
Competition didn't do it. For years. Regulation did, and in something like 2 months. The coolest part? All those threats about "companies will leave a highly regulated market" never materialized.
- yuvalr1 6y ago
  The market was not really competitive because of a very high barrier for entrance (building the communication infrastructure). The regulation forced competition, then the prices fell of their own, when new players joined.

kovek 6y ago

That’s awesome! I wonder how people could achieve similar success in canada or the usa. In canada we have Bell, Videotron, Rogers.. there are some small companies that “sub-lease” the service. Also, there were mergers so I don’t remember if Rogers is still around. In any case, I believe politicians have ties with these companies (and probably own shares) and will not encourage movements trying to split the manypoly apart.

tonyarkles 6y ago
And then there’s Saskatchewan, where SaskTel is a gov’t owned telco. Their prices are not great, but they provide service through the vast majority of the inhabited portions of the province. Out here, Bell and Telus both peer from SaskTel’s towers. Back in the CDMA days, Rogers ran their own 3G network, but recently they have started partnering with SaskTel as well to provide LTE coverage to their customers outside of the two main cities. Edit: I missed the point! SaskTel exists as a government-owned pseudo-monopoly because it wouldn’t be profitable to provide the service level they provide to rural communities. There’s small WISPs that cover little parts of the province, but they all get backhaul from SaskTel.

spaetzleesser 6y ago

"It used to be quite expensive here at around $100/mo for 10GB but the government broke up the monopoly and forced competition into the market by making existing players share infrastructure. We went up from main 3 providers to around 10 and prices dropped sharply. " That's what the US should do too, especially for home internet. For mobile there are a few pretty OK MVNO like Mint but for home internet there is 0 competition in a lot of areas.

takeda 6y ago

> by making existing players share infrastructure. This is exactly what US needs to do to bring back competition. Sadly even Wheeler who reclassified Internet to Title II, excluded that part of it. Back in late 90s and early 2000, we had huge competition, exactly because of Title II (DSL, which ruled the net back then, because was under telecos automatically was under Title II, so your phone lines could be leased to other companies). In 2003 Internet was officially classified under Title I which ended this (including net neutrality) and here we are now.

smabie 6y ago
There are a lot of mobile players who lease towers though, and prices are still high.
- takeda 6y ago
  I wasn't talking about mobile, although given that article is about mobile, my bad I didn't clarify. I meant about wired Internet access. Running 10 wires to your house to have access to 10 ISPs is expensive and it's also a nightmare for the city. It is extremely wasteful because most people will only use one of them at the time. That's why requirement to lease is essential (ideally it should be a different entity that does this, like it's typically done in data centers). Currently the incumbents won't lease, because that will open door to competition, so this needs to be mandated. Going back to mobile providers, actually I believe they are under Title II and this is mandated. Though, because wireless bandwidth is limited, they are in their right to prioritize their own consumers. So if you use providers that lease other towers usually your coverage is worse than if you were direct consumer, but at least it is possible, unlike wired ISPs.
  - zahma 6y ago
    > I meant about wired Internet access. Running 10 wires to your house to have access to 10 ISPs is expensive and it's also a nightmare for the city. It is extremely wasteful because most people will only use one of them at the time. In Paris, you don't need to run separate cables into a building for each ISP. Orange Telecom owns the infrastructure and leases it out to the different ISPs. They then share the cables but have different end point hardware where the main trunk lines hook into the apartment buildings. Perhaps this is different in other residential communities, but from what I gather, once the infrastructure and wiring is in place, consumers can switch between ISPs and need only switch modems. Switching from Orange to another ISP would not need rewiring. My only problem with this "natural monopoly" method is it ensures a minimum price, which is not really decided by competition, but more likely on the return on cost to wire the country for fiber as agreed on with the government who owns 23% of the company. Then there's a lot of skullduggery with contracts (e.g. first 3 months for $19.99 then it shoots up to $50, some ISPs have 6-month contracts, others are month to month with no penalty if you disconnect). France does a lot of things like this, which makes sense when dealing with national infrastructure, but it doesn't quite do the consumer justice when the ISPs are rentiers selling bandwidth. I can only imagine how quickly it will take them to recoup their costs of wiring fiber. I bet the US could benefit a lot by sharing infrastructure, but it doesn't necessarily mean all will be perfect.

ars 6y ago

In Israel the caller pays for a mobile call, while in other countries the owner of the mobile pays. This one change alone is enough to explain quite a bit of the disparity in prices. I'm actually surprised the source article makes no mention of this.

JanisL 6y ago
I always feel as though having the calling party cover the costs of the call is one of the most effective ways to get rid of phone spam. When the receiving party has to pay it seems to create all the wrong sorts of financial incentives for the carriers to deal with phone spam calls.
tialaramex 6y ago
> while in other countries the owner of the mobile pays. Which other countries? The US did this, and I guess it's possible Canada was obliged to do the same but it's certainly not widespread. The article is about Internet access not how much you're ripped off for calls.
andi999 6y ago
I do not understand this. Does that mean in israel the callee pays (as well, or completely) and in other countries (only) the caller? Or does it mean you share mobile phones and in other countries the owner of the mobile phone pays while in Israel the callers somehow identify on the phone?
- gingerlime 6y ago
  I'm not sure I understand what the GP is trying to say (especially since the article focuses on mobile Internet, rather than calls). Just to clarify: only the caller pays for outbound calls in Israel. The receiver never pays for receiving a call. This is also true to all EU countries as far as I'm aware.
llimos 6y ago
I think this is the case in most countries besides the US. And (at least in Israel and the UK, and probably others, but not the US), you can identify a mobile number by the prefix, so you know what you're getting yourself into by placing the call.

ekianjo 6y ago

> It used to be quite expensive here at around $100/mo for 10GB but the government broke up the monopoly and forced competition into the market by making existing players share infrastructure. We went up from main 3 providers to around 10 and prices dropped sharply. Exact same thing happened in France when the opened up phone operators for regular lines (not mobile). They made competitors rent the existing infrastructure and then compete on pricing/services. We went from paying for every call minute to unlimited phone plans very quickly.

ajuc 6y ago
Also in Poland in 00s. Huge improvement.

gingerlime 6y ago

ex-Israeli here (currently living in Berlin). It's truly amazing how cheap mobile internet access became in Israel. I'm guessing home broadband as well. Here in Germany it feels like a cartel. Prices are pretty homogeneous and quite expensive (I pay 10EUR/4weeks for 2.5Gb + 200 call min or SMS, pay-as-you-go). The home broadband is worse in terms of competition. Contracts are typically 24 months or more with draconian cancellation options. At least pretty much everything else here (apart from Internet) is cheaper in Berlin than it is in Israel ;-)

distances 6y ago
Just as a tip, you can get cheaper in Germany. I have 7GB with unlimited calls+sms for ~8€ per month, and no tie-in so I can terminate monthly. This was a Black Friday offer from PremiumSIM, but you can find other discounts providers too.
- gingerlime 6y ago
  Yeah, there are some cheaper options, but switching is a hassle, especially if you want to keep your number. $14 for 400Gb is an order of magnitude cheaper.
  - distances 6y ago
    A small hassle, but the new provider will take care of the paperwork. You'll just have to sign. Depends of course on how frustrated you're with the current contract.

mderazon 6y ago

ex-Israeli here (currently living in Portugal). This was perhaps the biggest step that was take to reduce the prices in Israel, but not the only one. Other notable ones: 1. Ban plan cancellation fees - You can cancel your plan anytime you want without any fees, always. There isn't even an option to choose between plans with cancellation fees and without, it's just not allowed. 2. Reducing the complexity to move to a different carrier - All you have to do is tell the new carrier and they will do the rest, and you get to keep the number if you choose to Unfortunately in Portugal cancellation fees are still a thing, I think this is a big factor for competition

assafmo 6y ago

> the government broke up the monopoly and forced competition into the market by making existing players share infrastructure. Yeah, this was excellent for 4G prices (I'm paying $8/mo for 40 GB), but now telecom companies are wary of installing 5G infrastructure, because they are forced to share it with other service providers who did not have to invest millions in new 5G infrastructure.

oldgradstudent 6y ago
The same exact claims were made about 4G. Even if it delayed 4G by a year or two, it was well worth it.