The immense geography doesn't matter as much as you might think, because very few people one lives there. The Mountain West and Great Plains are largely empty and most of the people who do live in them live in a small number of urban and suburban areas. I think geography is an overused excuse for America's poor delivery of residential internet.
It's a geographical difference, but it has little to do with the deserts, and more to do with the actual density of where people live, where the US is also among the least dense in the world. Those suburbs with 0.3-0.5 acre lots, roads that need to be everywhere and quite wide, extending every distance, just aren't standard worldwide, and increase bespoke infrastructure costs. In a denser place you need more capacity in the fiber bundle, or larger pipes on a sewer, but that's a much smaller problem than the miles of infra. Go look at a density map by the square km, and compare any American metro to, say, a Spanish metro. You find denser square miles in Spanish towns under 500k than you would in Kansas City, Phoenix, Houston... and that lowers all kinds of infra costs. It's not really the miles of desert, farmland or anything like that.
Yeah that sounds impossible. How are these places able to get power, sewage or water? Do they all just have solar panels in their huge backyard or something? Did they just get the Internet with starlink?
The guy I responded to didn't describe something rural though.
Heard about every excuse possible in this thread. Cities are too dense, can't put fiber in the ground. Suburb yards are too big so not enough density. Rural have too much distance.
As if these things doesn't exist in Europe at all. In reality they do, we don't have fiber everywhere but we for certain have a lot more of it in areas that matches all excuses given.
Guess what makes it real easy to build out fiber? Whenever you're already digging for power, water, sewage, roadwork, whatever, you put some fiber down. But "efficient" capitalism doesn't work like that I guess.
Now thing about all the single houses on multiple sq mile plots and the fact that a $40-$100 subscription is never going to pay back the millions it took to get to each of those homes. There are tons of those. I've lived in several states like that.
That's the most important thing, really. The geography — that America extends the width of a continent — is secondary. BUT the geography is, in part, what allows all those single houses on large plots of land. Because American suburbs can sprawl out without meaningfully cutting into the amount of available farmland in the country, which isn't the case in most smaller countries (where suburban sprawl, at least to the same proportional extent that it happens in the US, would have a meaningful impact on available farmland). Hence why America's average population density, total population divided by total country area, is so much lower than other countries. We have megacities where the population is highly concentrated — New York City's population density is over 11,000 people per square kilometer, comparable to Geneva's 12,000 people/km². But America's overall population density is one of the lowest in the world. (Not the lowest: both Canada's and Australia's are lower, for example, in both cases due to having so much land that nearly nobody lives on, either tundra or desert).
But those suburbs that sprawl all over the place? That's a WHOLE lot of capital investment, far more than other countries (on average) to hook each home up because you have to lay down so much more fiber. Hence why fiber rollout has been relatively slow: I remember in 2006 reading about fiber going in in certain cities, and looking up whether it was available in the suburb where I live, and the computer lookup system giving a very polite "LOL, no, not for years" (not that they said "not for years" but I could read between the lines). But now it's available. Not anywhere close to 25 Gbps, though.
