The U.S. actually has similar weighted population density to most of Europe. Simply dividing the total population by total area is a very poor metric, especially for a country like the U.S. which just has an enormous amount of unpopulated land area.
An example of a weighted population density metric is the local density of the median household. Unfortunately, weighted metrics are rather new and last I looked I couldn't find population numbers using the same metric. The U.S. Census Bureau uses a metric based on census tract as the local area; EU uses square kilometer. For that and other reasons the published data isn't directly comparable (at least not easily). But to a first approximation the U.S. and Europe seem very similar--the U.S. is far more dense than commonly believed, and Europe less dense than commonly believed.
Of course, even with a better metric I presume South Korea is in another league entirely.
And how much of Sweden's population is concentrated in the southern quarter of the country? 80%? Dumb average density doesn't reflect the reality of population's distribution.
And how much of the US’s population is concentrated in and around cities?
Most people in the US doesn’t have fiber internet because the rent seeking monopolies have no reason to make capital investments to provide better internet, not because of the population density.
If anything, you’re more likely to find fiber in more suburban less dense areas with new developments. They will spend to put fiber down on new construction, but for existing urban areas, no one wants run fiber through existing buildings and pavement.
This is the sad part. I live in a suburb of Houston, and while it’s certainly nothing like NY, it’s still near a major city. Comcast is the only game in my apt building.
