> Compare to the US where the entire middle of the country is covered in PoPs measured in terabits per second

A problem if you're Netflix. Less so if you're Claude, where giant clusters of RAM and compute generate a few kilobytes of text leaving the datacenter at a time.

But it's the lines between that matter, yeah?

Again, your map would say datacenters in the Australian outback would be insane, but there's huge dark fiber capacity passing through it.

> I also think you're massively underestimating the amount of ingress/egress traffic needed for one of these facilities.

Ingress/egress for AI compute is clearly different than some other use cases. One needs only to watch Claude's network activity for evidence of this.

(Like, it's the least problematic part of the in-space datacenter idea, versus cooling and maintenance.)

You keep trying to slice and dice the maps to say that there is in fact stuff in Canada. I'm not disputing that Canadians have the internet. I'm debating that it would be possible to put datacenters in northern Ontario and Quebec without doing massive infrastructure projects to run new fiber a significant distance, likely to Quebec City or to the northern US.

If you think that's incorrect, and that there's actually existing fiber that would support this, I would be curious for you to say so directly. Otherwise, the maps seem clear: there's some connectivity in the coastal and southern areas you'd expect, but nothing inland and northern and nothing at the scale of the US midwest.

But that's... already on the map, and you described it as "a major presence" upthread?

> nothing at the scale of the US midwest

Again, I note the very different ingress/egress requirements of AI compute. The main bottleneck has been power, not bandwidth.