It's interesting that this is always the american response whenever the broadband comparisons are made. I don't mean this in a negative way, but it's a very persistent argument and I wonder if there's some external factor that pushes it (telcos/media/other).
I think this is definitely a factor - but it's vastly overstated. The USA is more urbanised than many European countries at 80%, so there's definitely quick wins for the vast majority of the population.
The big difference I see is the way these services are regulated. In the UK for example, the physical infrastructure associated with the last mile is owned by a company that just manages this, with regulated prices linked to asset investment required. Services are then resold to Internet Service Providers who provide the IP services and compete on price and other factors.
The capital costs of providing the infrastructure are restrictive and the advantage of competition does not outweigh the cost of having multiple last-mile infra.
Note - I've used some simplifications on the ownership and extents of infraco/telco ownership, but the concept holds.
The effect of density is not overstated. States' average bandwidth in the Akamai rankings line up closely with population density. I live in Maryland (one of the most densely populated states, though half the density of the U.K.) and most of the urban areas have fiber available (the exception being Baltimore city, for political reasons).
Even if you live in an urban area, the prevalence of rural areas (and poor urban areas), has an impact on you, because the US supports rural telecommunications through various internal cross-subsidies instead of direct support.
The regulatory regime plays a role too, but it's more complicated than your simplistic presentation. In the U.K., the last mile infrastructure is owned by a single company (BT Openreach), but equally importantly, the government ensures it is a quite profitable company. Much more so than American utilities. That was a conscious part of the BT privatization: designing a rate structure that would ensure prices high enough to create adequate incentives for investment.
We do have some examples of this kind of structure in the US - for example, in Manhattan, NYC, a company called "Empire City Subway" has maintained general telecommunications conduit an a license from the state for over a hundred years. http://www.empirecitysubway.com/
Their rates are surprisingly reasonable. For example, I mentioned that leasing conduit from the utility here is $3/ft/yr; those rates are as low as $0.6909/ft/yr, significantly cheaper.
I think this is definitely a factor - but it's vastly overstated. The USA is more urbanised than many European countries at 80%, so there's definitely quick wins for the vast majority of the population.
The big difference I see is the way these services are regulated. In the UK for example, the physical infrastructure associated with the last mile is owned by a company that just manages this, with regulated prices linked to asset investment required. Services are then resold to Internet Service Providers who provide the IP services and compete on price and other factors.
The capital costs of providing the infrastructure are restrictive and the advantage of competition does not outweigh the cost of having multiple last-mile infra.
Note - I've used some simplifications on the ownership and extents of infraco/telco ownership, but the concept holds.