Yes, but that [1] is done elsewhere too, yet I do not see this problem. Just replacing the central office equipment is enough to improve speeds for a larger an

Yes, but that [1] is done elsewhere too, yet I do not see this problem. Just replacing the central office equipment is enough to improve speeds for a larger and larger percentage of users served by the DSLAM in the telephone exchange. The USA, being a technological superpower for decades, surely has enough resources to replace a few pieces of equipment in the CO and offer users something better. This is very strange because the new equipment can actually lower costs for the ISP because it is more efficient, easier to manage, more reliable and more compact. I do not have insight to understand the regulatory landscape and market conditions, however the more I think about it the less of a point I have. I think you are right about the answer [2], I keep trying to find technical excuses but can't. This is a sad thing really. Especially since it costs the same [3] to run the networks in .. [eastern european countries], USA, Russia, Germany, France, Belgium, Australia. No matter the diversity of terrain, the vast scale of the territory, the weather conditions, population density, there is an analogue to USA somewhere, and they don't have it that bad. [1] neglecting copper in favor of fiber [2] "because the telecom companies are rabidly anti-consumer." [3] in general the maintenance and personnel costs may differ due to regulation and market conditions but the equipment costs the same everywhere, and where there is a higher market baseline cost for labor, the ISP can raise the price of services