Lots of distance between people out there Credit- public domain

This is just such a shame, such a one that we should all hang our heads in it. Rural broadband is slower than urban!

Broadband speeds in rural areas are up to three times slower than those in neighbouring cities, analysis has found.

That just is such a disaster, isn’t it? Do note the near obligatory Lake Wobegon reference:

Statistics published by the county councils network show that more than two-thirds of England’s counties are below the national average download speed of 45mbit/s.

Some areas are going to be below average. We’d rather think around and about half of them in fact. Which areas are those going to be?

Well, broadband is, essentially enough, putting a pipe to peoples’ houses. This is rather easier in urban areas as the pipe has less length to pay for per house. Further, the technology itself is length dependent. The further you are from a telephone exchange then the slower the speed is going to be for one technology, ADSL. If we move up to fibre, then the length of the fibre, and the trench to put it in, rises in rural areas.

So, some grouping is going to be below average, given the basics here it’s going to be the rural areas. As is also true of electricity and sewage connections which have the same basic engineering backgrounds.

Our correct response to the statement “Rural broadband is slower than urban” is therefore “And?” Even, “What in buggery did you expect?”