[rmunn]

It appears the author lives in Germany. In my experience, Europeans who haven't visited the US (I don't know if he has or not) often have a hard time grasping just how HUGE the country is. It literally spans an entire continent east to west. In Europe, you can usually drive to another country's border, or the coast, within 4-6 hours (sometimes more depending on where you are). In parts of America, you can drive for 24 hours in the same direction without even crossing into a different state. I heard about one German auto engineer who was visiting Los Angeles. He looked at a map and thought it would be a fun drive to go to Portland and back on a Saturday. He was shocked when his American colleagues told him to look at the map's scale more closely, and that it would be more than 24 hours of driving just to get there and come back.

So yes. Regulations certainly play a part, but so does geography.

[lefra]

European here. Maybe I'm not typical, but I know that the contiguous US is about as large as the EU (around 4000 km from one side to the other). And if you need 24h to get to the other side if a state, you're either on dirt tracks in Alaska, or got stuck somewhere in the worst traffic jam ever. Texas is about 1000km wide, just like the larger european countries, that's a 10 to 12 hour drive.

[rmunn]

You're right, I was misremembering "it takes all day to drive across Texas from east to west" (or west to east) as 24 hours, when in fact it's about 12 hours: on Interstate 10 (going from the southeastern corner of Texas to the westernmost point) it takes about 12.5 hours according to Google Maps, and on Interstate 20 (which enters Texas in the northeast and heads to the westernmost point, joining up with I-10 along the way) it takes about 11.5 hours. So it's "all day" in the sense of taking from sunrise to sundown (more or less), rather than 24 hours.

(And if you drive across Texas's "panhandle", the squarish part in the north, from east to west, then it's only 2.5 hours. But most people are referring to the longest possible drive, not the shortest possible drive, when they say "it takes X hours to drive across (place).")

Anyway, thanks for the correction. I'll try to remember next time that it's "from sunrise to sunset" rather than 24 hours. As the (rather silly) poem goes,

"The sun has riz, the sun has set. And we still is, in Texas yet."

[GolfPopper]

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.

[hibikir]

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.

[Hikikomori]

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?

[danaris]

...For rural places in America, at least, they don't get sewer or water lines run to them. They have a septic tank and a well.

Power lines are significantly easier to run than water/sewer.

[Hikikomori]

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.

[esseph]

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.

[rmunn]

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.

[Nursie]

> In parts of America, you can drive for 24 hours in the same direction without even crossing into a different state

Which US states can you do this in? You can drive across Texas from El Paso to Port Arthur in 12 AFAICT. Alaska maybe?

Now Western Australia where I live ... 36 hours from Cape Leeuwin to Kununurra, and we only have 10% the population of Texas.

[carlosjobim]

> In parts of America, you can drive for 24 hours in the same direction without even crossing into a different state.

I used to have a car like that also.

[initramfs]

A slow one? Me too.

[yxhuvud]

If you can manage to have plumbing and electricity, you can manage to have proper broadband.

[kamranjon]

It takes longer to drive the length of Sweden than it does the length of California.

[SXX]

There are big countries with a good internet. Russia was one before it started turning back into totalitarian shithole.

[usrnm]

To be fair the situation with the Internet in deep rural Russia was never great. Not everyone lives in a city.