It got me thinking about the state of high-speed internet in North America – specifically how some of the biggest issues are still the same as they were years ago.

There are two real problems: unavailability and overcrowding. I’m sure industry experts have fancy names for these, but in the end, many people have limited or no access to high-speed internet because of these issues.

In the countryside, there is not enough to go around. It costs a lot of money to bring a service to an area, and service providers are reluctant to do it without enough customers to pay for it (and then provide huge profits). You have to remember that businesses are in it to get rich, not to provide a service.

The other side is in places where there are a lot of people. Fast, reliable service has a user limit, and when that limit is exceeded, quality starts to go downhill. Usually, this is only an inconvenience at certain times of the day or on certain days, but Internet providers are like airlines and will sell, sell, sell, regardless of actual capacity.

Nutrition labels won’t fix it. Maybe nothing can fix it. We can’t let that stop us from demanding more from companies that send us huge bills every month.

Rural areas are still poor.

In rural parts of North America, there are two types of Internet service – poor and none. In 2024, it’s almost impossible to take advantage of the technology age or the latest new phone when the internet is in this state.

It’s getting better, but just barely. Take for example where I live. I’m in one of those weird areas where rural isn’t really rural—I live in the mountains 43 miles from Washington, DC. It’s a cool place to live but it used to be a place where the internet died.

Until a few years ago, “fast” wasn’t a thing. In 2012, the Obama administration Started an initiative Enabling high speed internet access on all federal highways. It’s off the highway, and I now have 5G wireless and fiber internet at the same address I had to pay Comcast to bring cable to in 2007.

Not everyone, especially those far from a major city, is so lucky. There are areas with no internet service at all, but they are few and far between. The problem becomes clear when you look for high-speed coverage.

Companies like Starlink make things better, but Starlink is expensive and requires a lot of maintenance. It’s not like DirecTV, where it just works.

I understand the problem – there aren’t enough people to justify it. But that’s not what we believed high-speed wireless would be like in 2024.

A lot of people can be that bad.

Everyone has heard stories about how poor connectivity is at a venue like Google I/O or a New York Giants football game. When you have a lot of people moving around in one place at a time, it’s very difficult to service them all.

The thing is, it doesn’t take a big tech conference or football game to screw up service. It requires only one user that can handle the total capacity.

I will use another fictional example here. I have some friends who live in DC, and all day Saturday and Sunday at lunchtime, their service gets slow. This happens because everyone checks their phones at lunchtime and a million extra people are in DC on the weekends to see the sights.

AT&T provided the infrastructure based on the people who actually lived there. Quadruple that number, and things get worse. This could improve the use of portable cell towers during ball games or DC’s Cherry Blossom Festival when crowds are heavy, so more infrastructure is warranted.

Nutrition labels are fine for telling us how the service we’re paying for will work. It’s the only way to fix anything. Throw money at the problemAlthough.

You probably don’t see these issues – I admit these are fringe cases. However, they are the same fringe cases that have affected the same customers for a decade. Before we move on. 6 gthey must be addressed, or North America will fall further behind when it comes to high-speed connectivity.