4 ms·
I realize that the cable monopoly is underinvesting in infrastructure and overcharging for service, but it's still unfair to compare the service of a country as
by jyrkesh 14y ago
I realize that the cable monopoly is underinvesting in infrastructure and overcharging for service, but it's still unfair to compare the service of a country as small as Finland to a country as large and sprawling as the US. There's simply that much more ground to cover, and coverage is definitely a higher priority than speed or cost.
- Sami_Lehtinen 14y agoErr, Finland is not that densely populated country at all. In Finland there are 17,6 people/km^2 and in US there are 33.7 people/km^2. Densely populated small? Netherlands (491p/km^2) or Belgium (353p/km^2) would be very different story. 50Mbit/s 4G connection seems to cost 19,96€/mo (including 24% tax, without data caps or prioritization limits) 100Mbit/s 4G connection seems to cost 40,13€/mo (inc tax). But with those connections you won't get full speed all the time, as you do get with fiber. Naturally our rural areas got whole different pricing policy and fiber connections aren't often available. In worst case you could get 1 Mbps ADSL or similar 3G connection.
- rdl 14y agoUS "rich people who can afford high speed Internet" tend to live in suburbs, which are low density. In places like SF where there is higher density of rich people, there are services like webpass who do 100M/$40/mo. In Europe, they tend to live in either cities or high-density towns (small population but very small area). The UK is an exception, but also has relatively crappy Internet, too.