>you're looking at the intersection of people needing access to fast internet who can't somehow take advantage of existing infra, _and_ who won't eventually get covered by ground infra (and I guess don't have trees around their house).
Ground infra can suck. It will probably be stuck at 6Mbps down forever since it is not economical to upgrade it. I would literally cut down trees by hand if it meant I could have fast internet.
> Ground infra can suck. It will probably be stuck at 6Mbps down forever since it is not economical to upgrade it.
Having competition changes the economics, at least somewhat. Look how fast AT&T rolled out fibers to all the cities Google announced they were going to do fiber in. It's still expensive to do new runs everywhere, but it may be worthwhile to keep some business. In some areas, as some customers leave, staying customers may be able to have better access to bonded lines. In other areas, the carrier just needs a kick in the pants to use more flexible/generous profiles to let customers use the speed that's available.
Ground infra can suck. It will probably be stuck at 6Mbps down forever since it is not economical to upgrade it. I would literally cut down trees by hand if it meant I could have fast internet.