85% of Americans can also get 100 Mbps. It sounds like you might be in some place like Zurich, where the local power company deployed fiber and allows ISP to provide services over it. That’s a good model, but it’s not legally required. For the most part, Swiss telecom regulation is very similar to that in the United States.
Most 100 Mbps service in the US is cable, so asymmetric. But I think fiber is the only widely deployed technology that can give you 100 Mbps symmetric. Fiber coverage in Switzerland is about 30%: https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=47090 (see page 30). So if most households can get 100 Mbps, it’s probably not symmetric, but asymmetric VDSL2 or cable.
Where are you? Swisscom charges $80/month for 100 Mbps symmetric fiber, which is a typical price for gigabit fiber in the US. https://www.swisscom.ch/en/residential/internet-television-f.... Gigabit plus TV plus phone is about $140/month, which is the same as I pay for the same package here in Maryland. Comcast offers 100 down plus TV for $60/month here in MD.
The UK, but my point was that just because people have access to something doesn't mean they can actually access it - if it's way too expensive for most people, for example. Similar thing with healthcare in the US I guess.
I pay $50 a month for the internet and two mobile contracts, with 4GB data each and unlimited texts/minutes, from BT.
TV is free (freeview, with hundreds of channels). You can pay for Sky or Virgin and get every channel ever, but why would you.
It looks like BT is over $50 per month for 76/19 fiber alone: https://www.products.bt.com/broadband. That’s not a great deal compared to any US metro with fiber. Verizon offers 50/50 for $40, and AT&T offers 100/10 for $60. Am I missing something?