I want to see a side-by-side map showing (a) population density and (b) GDP, either statewide or per capita. Louisiana and New Mexico ought to be ashamed of themselves, and what's North Dakota's secret?, but otherwise no real surprises.
There's no doubt the population density is greater is sq/m smaller states, particularly to the east coast. Add to the mix that the majority of "broadband" is ADSL/DSL and their inherent "cable lengths" from point of delivery to user and it makes sense that some states with LOW population, large sq/m do poorly.
More than anything is the BUSINESS model in use by ISPs in the USA... bill for everything and the SLOWEST speed we can do so we can charge extra for better access. This multi-tiered pricing is what keeps the USA slow on the web... but is just fast enough that Tom, Dick, or Harry aren't completely and totally pissed at the service.
(After all, these are tele-communication companies which are NOT currently operating under Title II and are fighting it tooth and nail ... ie. Net Neutrality).
I want to see a side-by-side map showing (a) population density...
That would help but I don't know if it's going to tell the whole story. The small community it's 1 person per 4 acres. Nearly everyone has access to cable because the main roads are relatively well populated.
Yes, agree with the pop density and GDP angle. The sheer mileage involved in network infrastructure in North America must mean the rising tide takes a while to lift all ships.
I notice a pretty big price difference in mobile phone and data transfer in Canada compared to the UK. I guess twice as many people in 40 times the land mass has a bit to do with it. Even taking into account most of Canada is on the rim of the U.S. border, still a huge distance.
I wonder what's an 'acceptable' speed nowadays, for the general population. We do OK with 5 Mbps in our home, though there's the choice of fibre optic which leads right up to the house.