Oh, I absolutely believe this. My example of Hawaii being 70ms away from Google was something that I knew about on paper but didn't truly appreciate until I wa

Oh, I absolutely believe this. My example of Hawaii being 70ms away from Google was something that I knew about on paper but didn't truly appreciate until I was there on vacation a few years back (where the hotel wifi injected another 30-50ms on unloaded connections). Moving interconnectivity to rural areas is tricky because most peering is where you can convince other network operators to meet you. This is a bit of a catch-22, where if you're not big enough then most network operators won't bother, and you can't get big enough unless you get these network operators on board. There's a secondary issue where just having peering isn't useful without servers (or vice versa), and you often don't have the economies of scale to justify spending millions on routing equipment, servers, etc. if you don't expect to serve many users there. The compromise that some of these big operators (Google, Facebook, Netflix off the top of my head) make is to install cache nodes inside ISP deployments for last-mile delivery. My understanding is that this is generally a win-win for all parties involved: ISPs don't have to build out as much backbone / peering capacity, Google and co can get away with smaller deployments and piggyback off of the ISP's existing network presence, and end users have better quality of experience. That said, for the most part, Google's cache nodes don't serve www.google.com because we generally view them as less secure, and we would have a very bad day if we had a compromise of any high-value TLS certs. (We mostly use them to serve YouTube videos, since that's where we derive the most value from bandwidth offload.)