I'm torn here, because the US is a special case. Of the contiguous 48, there are huge tracts of land where the population density declines to functionally zero (looking at you Iowa). Likewise, the internet service there sucks hard. Alternatively, densely packed areas generally have access to decent speed internet. It's a function of ISPs not having much competition, and a complete lack of investment into infrastructure that "isn't necessary." In my time I've been on a 28.8 phone line, and experienced the AOL massive disconnect policy of traffic management. I've seen cheap high speed connections in Germany, in the small town of Luebeck. I've also seen decently priced 100/20 cable lines in areas surrounding decent sized cities. The only rhyme and reason to the internet being as expensive as it is in the US is that nobody is investing in it. The telecoms are happy to offer faster plans, but instead of adding capacity they price faster plans so that fewer people pay for them. So you've got an idea, Charter is my provider. Their plans are: 104.99: 100/20 69.99: 50/15 39.99: 30/10 19.99: 10/10 The prices change if you bundle with other crap, but the price for decent TV service (Cartoon Network, Comedy Central, Nickelodeon, FX, and a few others) and basic internet is about the same as the upper tier internet packages. That's before the "deal" rates stop applying, and your bill can nearly double for no apparent reason. Edit: To the OP, faster is better until you reach a minimum quality level. That minimum quality is dictated by how much data is being pumped through, and how acceptable variable rates are. If you've got a lot of devices then pay more to get better service. If it's just a few devices save the money, and know that any large downloads may take a while.