> But it falls flat in a second, because broadband in US cities (which are very dense) still mostly sucks. No excuse for that.
The U.S. is unusual in making telecom construction and licensing a largely municipal issue, which subjects it to local NIMBY-ism. Philadelphia, D.C., New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Austin, etc., have broadband that's quite competitive with Europe. They also tend to be places that are laissez faire in general about development in general. The Bay Area, in contrast, is anti-development about everything, apparently including broadband. There's a reason Google chose to build fiber in Atlanta, but not in its own back yard.
The U.S. is unusual in making telecom construction and licensing a largely municipal issue, which subjects it to local NIMBY-ism. Philadelphia, D.C., New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Austin, etc., have broadband that's quite competitive with Europe. They also tend to be places that are laissez faire in general about development in general. The Bay Area, in contrast, is anti-development about everything, apparently including broadband. There's a reason Google chose to build fiber in Atlanta, but not in its own back yard.