When ever ISPs come up people are so quick to ignore the obvious to entertain some absurd entrenched political opinion. The reality is that service is generall

When ever ISPs come up people are so quick to ignore the obvious to entertain some absurd entrenched political opinion. The reality is that service is generally pretty good when the cost of advancing infrastructure is lowest and horrid where it is most expensive. That generally means that suburbs have it best due to high population densities and physically segmented real estate. Rural areas have it worst where the most material is required between the population and the service provider. An additional factor is that service providers are more willing to provide new infrastructure at their own expense when the path to profit is shortest, which also appears to preference the suburbs. While a lack of competition might be a problem it is insignificant compared to the more obvious problem: a lack of incentive. In some areas service providers are eager to compete while in other areas they aren’t, which isn’t a monopoly problem.