Why google WiFi in UK is more expensive than USA?

13
Posted 16th Nov
The google WiFi is just AC1200 Mesh WiFi, I would choose BT mesh wifi if I need faster wifi speed which is AC2600, or I would choose TP-Link Deco M5 which is AC1300 but with more functions like built-in Antivirus, better parental control.

Really curious about why people will choose google wifi. It's so expensive in UK compared with the price in US. I understand that the UK price will usually be more expensive than US, but it's usually same amount with different currency like iphone

Google WIFI on Amazon UK
3332994.jpg

Google WiFi on Amazon US
3332994.jpg
Community Updates
Buying From Abroad

Groups

13 Comments
Avatar
deleted1471098
For one, it’s rarely on sale on amazon, much cheaper on google store, Argos or Currys when on offer. Two it’s easy to setup and super stable. It’s the apple of WiFi. I get 385mb over WiFi, who needs faster!

Many people buy Apple Macs yet they are using very old tech and are actually twice the price of an equivalent laptop.
Edited by: "deleted1471098" 16th Nov
Obviously by 2030, we'll all have super fast fibre connections in the UK
Derek_Lancelot_Shatwell16/11/2019 18:07

Obviously by 2030, we'll all have super fast fibre connections in the UK …Obviously by 2030, we'll all have super fast fibre connections in the UK


If we're lucky it'll only overrun by five years, the claimed 2025 date is absurd. The previous scheme for Superfast Broadband, BDUK, took three years to organise everyone and has been going 6 years so far. That's delivered FTTC to about 5 million moderately hard to connect properties at a cost of 1.7 billion.

Openreach plan to commercially roll out full fibre to 15 million premises by 2025.

So 2-3 years actual construction for the 10 million most difficult to connect properties for a cost of 5 billion? Not going to happen.

Of course there is the election, but as we're not allowed to discuss politics the various election pledges that are coming out on broadband are a topic for elsewhere.
EndlessWaves16/11/2019 20:24

If we're lucky it'll only overrun by five years, the claimed 2025 date is …If we're lucky it'll only overrun by five years, the claimed 2025 date is absurd. The previous scheme for Superfast Broadband, BDUK, took three years to organise everyone and has been going 6 years so far. That's delivered FTTC to about 5 million moderately hard to connect properties at a cost of 1.7 billion.Openreach plan to commercially roll out full fibre to 15 million premises by 2025. So 2-3 years actual construction for the 10 million most difficult to connect properties for a cost of 5 billion? Not going to happen.Of course there is the election, but as we're not allowed to discuss politics the various election pledges that are coming out on broadband are a topic for elsewhere.


Let's hope not
Who even asked for this?
BT isn't even the future it's 5G l

Labour is stupid as a bag of peanuts and they will bankrupt this country

Are talking about labour's crazy plan which is gonna costs literally hundreds of billions (£100bil start up, £230 billion annual running cost) are so everyone including the Rich and those who share can get free WiFi
They don't understand how money lol
Damn they could make everyone a millionaire instead
Edited by: "Norseg" 16th Nov
Avatar
deleted2172605
1) US prices don't include VAT and local state sales taxes, so you have to add those to the price
2) The US likes to screw non-US customers.
Norseg16/11/2019 20:38

Let's hope notWho even asked for this? BT isn't even the future it's 5G …Let's hope notWho even asked for this? BT isn't even the future it's 5G lLabour is stupid as a bag of peanuts and they will bankrupt this countryAre talking about labour's crazy plan which is gonna costs literally hundreds of billions (£100bil start up, £230 billion annual running cost) are so everyone including the Rich and those who share can get free WiFiThey don't understand how money lol Damn they could make everyone a millionaire instead


5G isn't the future. I'm in a location with no superfast landline so I'm using mobile broadband right now and it just doesn't have the consistency to match up. A version of it with shorter range isn't going to do anything. I wouldn't expect 5G to end up being used beyond dense urban environments.

Plus a lot of the problem with the notspots is the backbone infrastructure. There's no fibre optic cables there at all. If you're going to install a web of them to connect lots of short range mobile phone masts then you may as well go the extra distance and connect them to all the properties in the area.


I was talking about the current government's plan to put everyone on full fibre by 2025, but labours pledge is rather unexpected too.

Labour's claimed running costs are actually £0.23 billion a year rather than £230 billion, a thousand fold difference. That's £1-2 a month per connection which does seem a little optimistic. I'd expect it could be done for a single digit figure a month though. Commercial services in FTTP-heavy European countries are often under £15.

It's generally reckoned to cost around £20-30 billion to cover the country in fibre and BT have assets of around £50 billion so £100 billion for the one-off cost sounds about right.

The main problem would be the disruption to the ISP businesses, the blow to what is presumably one of the UK's biggest consumer tech sectors.

But on the positive side you reduce the digital divide as you no longer have to have engineers focused on rolling out even faster connections to the profitable areas that are already well served. Plus free connections should boost computer literacy among the elderly. And these have economic benefits as it means you can shut down the parallel systems that have been kept running for those without access.
Here’s a little titbit of useless information. Back in the mid to late 1980’s BT wanted to replace its entire copper network with fibre, running a fibre to every single properly in Britain – it wasn’t just a concept either, they apparently had factories to manufacture the fibre on standby and infrastructure ready to roll out………..only to be stopped by Thatcher and some obscure competition rules.
EndlessWaves17/11/2019 00:11

5G isn't the future. I'm in a location with no superfast landline so I'm …5G isn't the future. I'm in a location with no superfast landline so I'm using mobile broadband right now and it just doesn't have the consistency to match up. A version of it with shorter range isn't going to do anything. I wouldn't expect 5G to end up being used beyond dense urban environments.Plus a lot of the problem with the notspots is the backbone infrastructure. There's no fibre optic cables there at all. If you're going to install a web of them to connect lots of short range mobile phone masts then you may as well go the extra distance and connect them to all the properties in the area.I was talking about the current government's plan to put everyone on full fibre by 2025, but labours pledge is rather unexpected too. Labour's claimed running costs are actually £0.23 billion a year rather than £230 billion, a thousand fold difference. That's £1-2 a month per connection which does seem a little optimistic. I'd expect it could be done for a single digit figure a month though. Commercial services in FTTP-heavy European countries are often under £15.It's generally reckoned to cost around £20-30 billion to cover the country in fibre and BT have assets of around £50 billion so £100 billion for the one-off cost sounds about right. The main problem would be the disruption to the ISP businesses, the blow to what is presumably one of the UK's biggest consumer tech sectors.But on the positive side you reduce the digital divide as you no longer have to have engineers focused on rolling out even faster connections to the profitable areas that are already well served. Plus free connections should boost computer literacy among the elderly. And these have economic benefits as it means you can shut down the parallel systems that have been kept running for those without access.



I know little about 5g but current infrastructure uses a microwave link for the backbone and not fibre to the mast. I would guess 5g will be similar.
EndlessWaves17/11/2019 00:11

5G isn't the future. I'm in a location with no superfast landline so I'm …5G isn't the future. I'm in a location with no superfast landline so I'm using mobile broadband right now and it just doesn't have the consistency to match up. A version of it with shorter range isn't going to do anything. I wouldn't expect 5G to end up being used beyond dense urban environments.Plus a lot of the problem with the notspots is the backbone infrastructure. There's no fibre optic cables there at all. If you're going to install a web of them to connect lots of short range mobile phone masts then you may as well go the extra distance and connect them to all the properties in the area.I was talking about the current government's plan to put everyone on full fibre by 2025, but labours pledge is rather unexpected too. Labour's claimed running costs are actually £0.23 billion a year rather than £230 billion, a thousand fold difference. That's £1-2 a month per connection which does seem a little optimistic. I'd expect it could be done for a single digit figure a month though. Commercial services in FTTP-heavy European countries are often under £15.It's generally reckoned to cost around £20-30 billion to cover the country in fibre and BT have assets of around £50 billion so £100 billion for the one-off cost sounds about right. The main problem would be the disruption to the ISP businesses, the blow to what is presumably one of the UK's biggest consumer tech sectors.But on the positive side you reduce the digital divide as you no longer have to have engineers focused on rolling out even faster connections to the profitable areas that are already well served. Plus free connections should boost computer literacy among the elderly. And these have economic benefits as it means you can shut down the parallel systems that have been kept running for those without access.


Nope the plan is stupid, BT says it will cost a lot more than Labour's claim
There's a reason why they aren't online
And Government controlled Internet? That's textbook fascism, no thanks I don't want to live in Labour Dystopia

When 5G starts covering areas theres Home Broadband which is much cheaper and faster than what any service provider offers right for customers
It's much cheaper easier to install 5G signals across the country than installing 1GB fibre cables iñ every home to compete
Your problem is just your location on 4G since when 5G drops to it's lowest
The lowest is still about 120mbps but they'll be fixing any problems like that

Why do you want the government to state control everything? Its so costly it will raiss country Debt massively, it doesn't work and if it does not for long, I don't want everything being controlled by the government, should be controlled by the people not British Politicians, both Tories and Labour are idiots who can't run a country
Edited by: "Norseg" 17th Nov
Freddy_uk17/11/2019 07:06

I know little about 5g but current infrastructure uses a microwave link …I know little about 5g but current infrastructure uses a microwave link for the backbone and not fibre to the mast. I would guess 5g will be similar.


Microwave links have less bandwidth than fibre optic and most of the articles I've read suggest fibre optic links are now the norm for new towers. It's only likely to swing more in that direction when talking about the possibility of mobile connections that can deliver a genuine gigabit connection to every home.

Plus putting everyone on the same technology makes it easier and cheaper for the difficult areas to be modernised in a decade or two. The links may stay, but the equipment around them will need updating as the bandwidth use grows. Using the same equipment and knowledge as the rest of the network will make that more likely to happen than using a different technology for a few percent of links.

Norseg17/11/2019 10:47

Your problem is just your location on 4G since when 5G drops to it's …Your problem is just your location on 4G since when 5G drops to it's lowest The lowest is still about 120mbps but they'll be fixing any problems like that


Nope, the location is ideal. I'm a few hundred meters from the tower with nothing but two sheets of window glass between the router and the mast.

And this is 3G. 4G wasn't available when I signed up to my current contract earlier this year. Although I did notice vans at the tower a few months ago so maybe it'll be available on a different network when this contract runs out.


As for 5G, 120Mbps is just too slow to be building alongside FTTP. That's 1/8th of the gigabit speed being installed as a minimum for everyone else. If we translate that into current figures and call today's average broadband speed somewhere around 40Mbps then that'll be the equivalent of 5Mbps now.

From a notspot perspective the 5G proposals look like just another decade of a sixth rate connection. Maybe it'll develop fast enough to actually work, but when there's a proven alternative in fibre for a bit more money it just looks like a bad investment.

There's a reason community schemes like B4RN are almost universally opting for laying fibre cables rather than erecting masts. Sadly BDUK's shotgun approach has made it difficult for that model to work in a lot of areas.


We haven't heard what the lib dems propose yet, theirs could easily be the most sensible plan.
EndlessWaves17/11/2019 13:34

Microwave links have less bandwidth than fibre optic and most of the …Microwave links have less bandwidth than fibre optic and most of the articles I've read suggest fibre optic links are now the norm for new towers. It's only likely to swing more in that direction when talking about the possibility of mobile connections that can deliver a genuine gigabit connection to every home. Plus putting everyone on the same technology makes it easier and cheaper for the difficult areas to be modernised in a decade or two. The links may stay, but the equipment around them will need updating as the bandwidth use grows. Using the same equipment and knowledge as the rest of the network will make that more likely to happen than using a different technology for a few percent of links.Nope, the location is ideal. I'm a few hundred meters from the tower with nothing but two sheets of window glass between the router and the mast. And this is 3G. 4G wasn't available when I signed up to my current contract earlier this year. Although I did notice vans at the tower a few months ago so maybe it'll be available on a different network when this contract runs out.As for 5G, 120Mbps is just too slow to be building alongside FTTP. That's 1/8th of the gigabit speed being installed as a minimum for everyone else. If we translate that into current figures and call today's average broadband speed somewhere around 40Mbps then that'll be the equivalent of 5Mbps now.From a notspot perspective the 5G proposals look like just another decade of a sixth rate connection. Maybe it'll develop fast enough to actually work, but when there's a proven alternative in fibre for a bit more money it just looks like a bad investment.There's a reason community schemes like B4RN are almost universally opting for laying fibre cables rather than erecting masts. Sadly BDUK's shotgun approach has made it difficult for that model to work in a lot of areas.We haven't heard what the lib dems propose yet, theirs could easily be the most sensible plan.


5G speeds are actually 1-2gbs

But I was just mentioning a article what said it dropped to 120mbps.as the lowest but it's new tech so when it's nation wide and stable it would be unbeatable for Broadband at there current prices

Also do you honestly think they'll make a gigabit standard for everyone? Nah don't live In a fantasy of Free Everything, no work and every home having gigabit wifi
The fibre most homes have isnt 1 gb, it's just standard, that's even if the homes have fibre
Edited by: "Norseg" 17th Nov
Pretty much all of the 4-5 million premises on full fibre can get 1Gbps, and as mentioned above even if absolutely nothing changes that'll expand to over 15 million premises by 2025. It isn't at all unreasonable to expect any attempt to address the digital divide over the next ten years to set a 1Gbps target.

Otherwise it just ends up a laughing stock like the 10Mbps USO with 100GB download limits due to be introduced in 2020.

Both conservative and labour's current plans are to make gigabit capable connections available to everyone. It may seem fast now, but big infrastructure projects move slowly and it won't seem anything like as quick in a decade's time when the last connections are being installed.


Vodafone's 5G page says to expect average speeds of 150-200Mbps, so 120Mbps is a reasonable estimate for the speed you can rely on the connection to deliver. Maybe future developments will deliver 1-2Gbps to every user but building the infrastructure on a maybe is risky.
deleted217260516/11/2019 22:45

1) US prices don't include VAT and local state sales taxes, so you have to …1) US prices don't include VAT and local state sales taxes, so you have to add those to the price 2) The US likes to screw non-US customers.


Lol, thanks for the first point.:)
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Discussions