4 ms·

It's true. I'll never stop being amazed at how in Helsinki 10 years ago I had a 500/500Mbps connection for $29/mo and in Seattle I have a 200/10Mbps connection

It's true. I'll never stop being amazed at how in Helsinki 10 years ago I had a 500/500Mbps connection for $29/mo and in Seattle I have a 200/10Mbps connection for $59/mo. I won't even get to mobile plans since at least there it's somewhat plausible that I must subside the rural cellphone towers since it's a huge (in area) network.

commandlinefan 6y ago
And for the most part, it doesn't matter how much money you have to spend on it. If I were inclined to offer twice as much for double the bandwidth, that's just not an option. (Not that I feel like I'm getting the bandwidth I pay for in the first place...)
- MivLives 6y ago
  The worst is the highly one directional connections too. Sure I have a gig down. I have 25mbps up though. The upload is the same for every package from 300mbps down and above. I'd happily have less download for more upload.
  - lotsofpulp 6y ago
    That's because they don't actually have capacity. The internet coming via coaxial cables is sharing the road with TV service. TV service earns Comcast/Spectrum/Cox/etc more money than internet service, so they don't necessarily want people to consume via internet yet (at least not until they own the media companies like Comcast). So they probably only have a tiny amount of bandwidth available for an entire neighborhood, and then they sell you 100s of Mb in download, except that if you read the fine print, it's only burst speeds, so it's not like you get 300Mbps sustained download bandwidth. It's just a temporary boost while they take it from others in the neighborhood. And the upload, who knows how little is allocated for that, they don't even bother advertising upload bandwidth.
    - inetknght 6y ago
      20 years ago maybe. Today Comcast has indeed migrated to IPTV and has bought out those media companies. You remember NBC and Universal are now owned by Comcast, right? Do you remember Comcast before it had Xfinity? I do.
lotsofpulp 6y ago
>It's true. I'll never stop being amazed at how in Helsinki 10 years ago I had a 500/500Mbps connection for $29/mo and in Seattle I have a 200/10Mbps connection for $59/mo. There isn't sufficient voter interest to force politicians to go after the existing cable company monopolies and overturn laws preventing government owned fiber networks. And there isn't sufficient voter interest in spending taxpayer funds to build out government owned fiber networks.
gnopgnip 6y ago
There are at least 5 ISPs that offer gigabit service in Seattle. Wave is as low as $50. Atlas is $59. Century link is $65 as a promotional period. Google Fiber is $70, Comcast is $100+.
- techsupporter 6y ago
  Not all in the same place. WaveG and Atlas and Google (WebPass, not Google Fiber) buildings do not overlap. Nor do WaveCopper-not-WaveG and Comcast except for a small part of Beacon Hill and Lower Queen Anne. And CenturyLink does not offer fiber-to-the-home, or fiber-to-the-node-with-gigabit (and FTTN upload is limited to a paltry 10Mbps) in about 35% of the city, including places like Ballard, most of the Central District, Hillman City, or Crown Hill.
- yftsui 6y ago
  Condo Internet and the other two are available in very limited apartment buildings. Century link is the only one that provide real Gigabit service to homes outside those apartment buildings. Comcast? Well you can enjoy the speed for 5 hours before hitting the data cap.
mooman219 6y ago
A large number of buildings in Seattle still have Comcast contracts such that Comcast is the only provider allowed. I find it strange that my hometown of Rochester has better better Fiber options than the tech hub that is Seattle.
yftsui 6y ago
I pay $89 a month for a 600Mbps Comcast. If I am ever able to download at full speed, my data cap hit within 5 hours.
Ekaros 6y ago
In Finland I think I rent in some grandfathered building. 9,95€ a month for 100Mbs VDSL... And this same price has probably being here for much longer than 3 years I have lived... And these prices have been around for long long time.

commandlinefan 6y ago

And for the most part, it doesn't matter how much money you have to spend on it. If I were inclined to offer twice as much for double the bandwidth, that's just not an option. (Not that I feel like I'm getting the bandwidth I pay for in the first place...)

MivLives 6y ago
The worst is the highly one directional connections too. Sure I have a gig down. I have 25mbps up though. The upload is the same for every package from 300mbps down and above. I'd happily have less download for more upload.
- lotsofpulp 6y ago
  That's because they don't actually have capacity. The internet coming via coaxial cables is sharing the road with TV service. TV service earns Comcast/Spectrum/Cox/etc more money than internet service, so they don't necessarily want people to consume via internet yet (at least not until they own the media companies like Comcast). So they probably only have a tiny amount of bandwidth available for an entire neighborhood, and then they sell you 100s of Mb in download, except that if you read the fine print, it's only burst speeds, so it's not like you get 300Mbps sustained download bandwidth. It's just a temporary boost while they take it from others in the neighborhood. And the upload, who knows how little is allocated for that, they don't even bother advertising upload bandwidth.
  - inetknght 6y ago
    20 years ago maybe. Today Comcast has indeed migrated to IPTV and has bought out those media companies. You remember NBC and Universal are now owned by Comcast, right? Do you remember Comcast before it had Xfinity? I do.

lotsofpulp 6y ago

>It's true. I'll never stop being amazed at how in Helsinki 10 years ago I had a 500/500Mbps connection for $29/mo and in Seattle I have a 200/10Mbps connection for $59/mo. There isn't sufficient voter interest to force politicians to go after the existing cable company monopolies and overturn laws preventing government owned fiber networks. And there isn't sufficient voter interest in spending taxpayer funds to build out government owned fiber networks.

gnopgnip 6y ago

There are at least 5 ISPs that offer gigabit service in Seattle. Wave is as low as $50. Atlas is $59. Century link is $65 as a promotional period. Google Fiber is $70, Comcast is $100+.

techsupporter 6y ago
Not all in the same place. WaveG and Atlas and Google (WebPass, not Google Fiber) buildings do not overlap. Nor do WaveCopper-not-WaveG and Comcast except for a small part of Beacon Hill and Lower Queen Anne. And CenturyLink does not offer fiber-to-the-home, or fiber-to-the-node-with-gigabit (and FTTN upload is limited to a paltry 10Mbps) in about 35% of the city, including places like Ballard, most of the Central District, Hillman City, or Crown Hill.
yftsui 6y ago
Condo Internet and the other two are available in very limited apartment buildings. Century link is the only one that provide real Gigabit service to homes outside those apartment buildings. Comcast? Well you can enjoy the speed for 5 hours before hitting the data cap.

mooman219 6y ago

A large number of buildings in Seattle still have Comcast contracts such that Comcast is the only provider allowed. I find it strange that my hometown of Rochester has better better Fiber options than the tech hub that is Seattle.

yftsui 6y ago

I pay $89 a month for a 600Mbps Comcast. If I am ever able to download at full speed, my data cap hit within 5 hours.

Ekaros 6y ago

In Finland I think I rent in some grandfathered building. 9,95€ a month for 100Mbs VDSL... And this same price has probably being here for much longer than 3 years I have lived... And these prices have been around for long long time.