[darksaga]

Also keep in mind this is in a country with around 5 million people and an area of around 330K sq miles. By contrast, Texas has 25 million people in roughly the same sq mile area.

Making such promises shouldn't be hard considering the size of the population and the area you're dealing with in terms of having to lay fibre.

[hartror]

Surely in your example it is actually more economical for Texas than for Finland as the greater concentration of people makes it easier to deliver the service? Sure it would cost more but on a per head basis it should be cheaper . . .

[waterlesscloud]

It costs as much to lay the fiber to one person as it does to 2000 in the same place, so a greater area is a disadvantage.

[jarospisak]

He said "on a per-head basis". On a per-head basis it's 5 times cheaper for Texas to lay fiber than for Finland (greatly simplifying, of course).

[waterlesscloud]

No.

If you bunch everyone up, it's cheaper per head.

But if you spread everyone out, it's more expensive per head, because on average you're laying more fiber per person.

[sirclueless]

I think you misread. Texas is 5 times more dense than Finland, and hence should be cheaper per head to lay fiber.

[waterlesscloud]

But it's not.

Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread throughout.

You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas.

So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor.

The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.

[Tuna-Fish]

A very important point is that while Finland has an area of 330K km^2, almost all of the population is concentrated on the coasts and a few in-land cities. You can probably get 95% penetration with less than 30K km^2 coverage. The rest will likely be served with wireless broadband.