That's comparing apples and oranges. American metro areas are shaped very differently than European ones. Only 10% of people in the D.C. metro area live within city limits, versus 40% of people in Stockholm's metro area. That inner city population skews much poorer than the metro area as a whole, with a quarter of households making under $25,000 annually. That notwithstanding the city itself is very well wired. If you live in Anacostia (one of the poorest neighborhoods) you can choose from two gigabit fiber providers and two gigabit cable providers.

And as far as I can tell the difference in uptake is not really because broadband is cheaper in Stockholm Internet. Telia charges 990 SEK ($122) for gigabit. Comcast charges $150 for 2 gig, while Verizon charges $70-100 for 1 gig. At the low end, Telia charges $50 for 100/100, versus $40 for Verizon's 50/50 plan.

DC also is a good example of what I mean about population-weighted density. The D.C. metro area has about the same density as the Stockholm metro area, and the municipalities have about the same density too. But in Stockholm 40% of people live in the denser core city versus only 10% of people in D.C. So even though the metro areas have the same density, the distribution makes DC harder to wire (all else being equal).

> That inner city population skews much poorer than the metro area as a whole, with a quarter of households making under $25,000 annually. That notwithstanding the city itself is very well wired. If you live in Anacostia (one of the poorest neighborhoods) you can choose from two gigabit fiber providers and two gigabit cable providers.

Ah so the internet is good in theory, it's only in practice that internet connectivity is poor.

No in practice the Internet is great (see the Akamai stats above). And at least for fiber the price is comparable (see my edit above). The US just has more income inequality, and segregated poor people into inner cities. While lamentable, that is an orthogonal issue that has nothing to do with broadband policy.

That still doesn't explain New York. The density and shape of New York is more like what you describe for European cities due to the fact that it was developed before the car was invented. So why does the internet connectivity suck in Manhattan?

> American metro areas are shaped very differently than European ones.

Oi.

So many excuses for why in so many large cities of the US you can struggle to find anything above 5mbps connections.

"Oh, the US has such a unique density, unlike anywhere else!" - well, actually ...

"Oh, well, the cities are shaped differently!"

Come on now.

> versus $40 for Verizon's 50/50 plan.

You mean with FIOS? That they are not selling any more because it wasn't profitable enough for them once they had had to build any notable infrastructure?

Oh, not to mention that that $40/mo 50/50 plan actually went up to as high as $99/mo after year one, depending on your area....

You're arguing from a false premise that excuses need to be made. As the data shows, US Internet, on average, is very competitive, no excuses needed. To use France as an example: According to OECD data, fiber deployment is higher in the US than in France (11% of broadband connections versus 8%). But if you want to know why they built fiber in Paris first then the surrounding communes, while in DC the suburbs got it before the city, well shape and demographics has a lot to do with it.

As to FIOS, they're not only still selling it, but upgrading the whole footprint to gigabit. And in much of the footprint (e.g. the D.C. suburbs), Comcast is offering multi-gig for $150/month. I don't know why my redneck neighborhood in exurban Maryland apparently has better internet choices than the Bay Area. Chalk that up to another major difference between the US and Europe: in the US, actual broadband construction is driven by state and local policy, not national policy.