Finland: Broadband Access is a Legal Right

[Steely Glint]

Yeah, that was me. Sorry, everyone. Typo.

[RandBlade]

This is true, I'm just trying to figure out why us Europeans have also had better DSL coverage than the US, nevermind the subsidised fibre-cables.

But I pay for ADSL through a private company, not a state one, so that logic doesn't work.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Do they also handle coverage?

[Aimless]

Because the US mostly goes with cable, although there is a shift to fiber-optic to-the-door happening. It's the nature of the technologies: for geographical reasons, DSL isn't as viable in the US as it is in Europe. DSL speeds degrade with distance from the station. Cable performance degrades with number of people on the node. The US has a lower population density on average, which means fewer people per node, and more average distance from stations. Cable is just a better technology for that situation. The reverse is true in Europe, where DSL is a better technology for that situation.

Thanks, this seems like a reasonable explanation I read somewhere that cable companies have had regional monopolies on cable internet and have been trying to take measures to protect their cable TV business, but I couldn't be sure of how true that claim was.

But I pay for ADSL through a private company, not a state one, so that logic doesn't work.

What I was trying to ask was why DSL, provided by private companies through existing phone-lines in both the US and Europe, differed so much between the two regions in terms of cost and quality.

Do they also handle coverage?

I always wondered who built the telephone network...

[RandBlade]

What I was trying to ask was why DSL, provided by private companies through existing phone-lines in both the US and Europe, differed so much between the two regions in terms of cost and quality.

Technology, geography, competition - not the fact that one continent is state-funded and one continent is private.