That is technically true but usually companies don't invest the kind of resources to support fiber just to service a handful of residences. Once the infrastructure is in place, you usually try to deploy it to as many homes as possible.
If further expansion is seen as unlikely to recoup costs then what's to say an entire neighborhood has service when fiber has only been run to a single apartment?
I've seen complaints amounting to this exact scenario for years.
My friend has the opposite problem. The ISP's map claims to offer fiber service on his whole block, and if you type in your address they'll even offer service at that specific address. The problem is his block is at least 80% multi-tenant dwellings, and they'll only do new installs if everyone in the building subscribes. They don't just want permission from the landlord to wire the whole building at once to save time if future tenants subscribe, they're just not gonna do it unless everyone pays. In my friend's case, they didn't even tell him this ahead of time, despite explicitly saying he was in an apartment on the form he filled out when he attempted to sign up. They just "helpfully" change it to a request for DSL service. This was explained to my friend by the technician that showed up with DSL hardware only capable of a faction of the speed he was currently getting on coax. Obviously, he refused service. Then he got to fight AT&T for a few months over bills for DSL services he never requested, and rental for hardware he never accepted.
Is this solution to every issue in the US? Like if something is shit then instead of fixing just run from the problem? I guess that’s why you are stuck choosing between republicans and democrats every 4 years lol.
The reason Republicans and Democrats win all the time is partly because the US generally doesn't have ranked choice voting when it comes to something like presidential elections [0]. People are afraid of voting for a third party because it is unlikely they would win, so they vote as if betting or hedging, choosing the least bad and yet still likely to win against the worse option. With ranked choice voting, voters could choose their preferred candidate first, and their backup second, and this would introduce some dynamism into the political system.
