Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it's not. Finland has vast, vast areas with no one. Texas has people thinly spread throughout. You can cover only parts of Finland, because people only live in parts of Finland. You have to cover pretty much all of Texas. So, once again, the size of Texas is a negative factor. The so-called "average density" is not the key factor here, the amount of fiber you have to lay to reach everyone is.
The above is an invalid comparison. A better, more objective measure is linear population density. Miles of roads in Texas: 152,054 miles Miles of roads in Finland: 65,617 miles ( ) Population of Texas: 25,674,681 Population of Finland: 5,375,276 Linear population density of Texas: ~169 persons per miles of road Linear population density of Finland: ~82 persons per miles of road Ergo, it is cheaper per head to provid…
But beside that, the public road mileage for Texas is off by a factor of two. This DOT document lists 303,176 miles of public road in Texas. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs04/htm/hm10.htm