Comment by marcus_holmes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by marcus_holmes | Hacker News Reader

This is such a weird thing. After spending time in SE Asia, where bandwidth is cheap and plentiful (in the cities), it's painful coming back to Europe (and Australia). I'm in Berlin atm, and the wifi is shit, bandwidth is expensive and unreliable. And the phone plans suck. I was in Perth (Australia) before that, and access there is terrible.

In Cambodia, 120Gb (per week) of download cost me US$1 (per week) over good-quality 4G connections anywhere in the city (but almost nothing outside the cities). In Berlin, it's 40 euros a month for 5Gb, and coverage is a bit patchy, and very patchy if I go a few Km's out of the city.

In Bali, a $5 SIM card got me a month of effectively-unlimited download over decent connections. Nepal, Malaysia, all good. Phillipines was tricky to get decent coverage, but when it was there it was cheap.

Cafes in SE Asia offer free wifi with a coffee. Berlin nope.

I get the price differences are a function of relative GDP. But the performance differences should be the other way around. Tech should work better in developed countries, not worse.

I understand there are some specifics going on in Germany. While I've never quite understood, I've seen many German posters call out a national broadband backbone based on Copper as the root cause. I don't know if this is true, but I am in Ireland and know that also the UK did a rollout of a Fibre backbone network, and in both there's widespread availability of 1GB+ consumer connections.

I think what's happened is in many or some European countries there was a rush to increase Broadband adoption and speeds, where being the first mover left them with now outdated backbone infrastructure. Those who moved later, more gradually, or chose a more future proof backbone network benefited. The sunk cost and possibly inflexibility of the network to upgrades holds back the push for better speeds. If the service is good enough, the push from consumers for more is lessened.

> I think what's happened is in many or some European countries there was a rush to increase Broadband adoption and speeds, where being the first mover left them with now outdated backbone infrastructure.

If you are referring to the copper network built in the 80s under Kohl, that is not what happened. Some call it "conflict of interest", some blatant corruption.

Don't confuse the internet situation in Germany for the internet situation in the whole of Europe. Some countries have cheap data, others are unreasonably expensive. European internet infrastructure isn't as homogeneous as people seem to think.

Here in the Netherlands, you've got national coverage with unlimited data for €25 per month (practically unlimited, not theoretically unlimited, of couse, because fair use policies exist everywhere).

One country to the south is Belgium, where even the landlines have data caps, something that would be unthinkable here.

There's some connection between GDP/purchasing power and the price of data, but there's much more going on. Things like nationalised internet connections, government investment in public internet infrastructure and geography are more important than how much money someone in a certain country makes on average.

>effectively-unlimited

I mean, that's what everyone in the US has.

I've heard enough stories of people in SE Asia having to pay by the megabyte to know that it's not the same everywhere.

In 10-15 major cities, or a handful of high-throughput areas (if mobile). The US's internet quality is not great.

In Cambodia, your 4G is subsidized by the low cost of living. The household income per capita in Cambodia is ~$1,400. Also infrastructure in SE Asia doesn't seem to regulated, seeing as there are cables everywhere, which also cuts costs.

You're absolutely right, not sure why you're being downvoted. As I said, I get that the cost is a function of GDP, so the cheapness is kinda expected. Though I'm doubtful that the driving force behind broadband costs is labour, so I'm not sure why the costs are a function of GDP. Even with the ability to string cable everywhere at will.

But I still expect that the tech would work better in a developed country.

Maybe all those NIMBYs objecting to mobile towers near schools are the problem.

Why is it so hard for people to arrive at the conclusion that companies increase the price of products and services up to where the customers can handle it? The primary motivation for companies is profit. Broadband and mobile data prices are high because customers can afford to pay for them and they do.

> In Berlin, it's 40 euros a month for 5Gb,

What network? I pay 12 euros for 5gb (aldi talk, running off o2, so i can still use my phone in the u-bahn)

There's also lidl connect runnning off telekom if you like that network

In fact, I think your comment is actually disingenuous and you've not researched the market properly if you're paying that much and not receiving a phone included.

you're right, it's nearer 20 euros. I can't edit any more or I'd correct it.

European cafes won't even give you tap water (even if you have bought other stuff) for free, let alone free wifi.

I'm not sure what you're basing this off of, but it's largely not true.

My limited experience of European cafes is:

1. No place would dare to serve you tap water - it is basically considered a health hazard, and many guests would be offended by being offered it.

2. Bottled water is an item on the menu and will cost you money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com