"Surprisingly, California didn't even make it into the top 10 states for broadband speeds."
Having lived in three of the aforementioned places it isn't surprising to me. Consider I went from a fair speed in NH at 5 Down/2 Up Mbps (3,000 people in 46 sq. miles) to RI at 7-8D/3U Mbps (3,500 people in 29 sq. miles) and now finally in the purgatory that is So Cal. at 2-3D/0.2U Mbps (50,000 people in 6 sq. miles) and each costing $49.99/mo. Wireless coverage is better here in SoCal but the speeds aren't worth crowing about. In short, as populations and population densities go up the network gets saturated and there isn't enough money in rolling out more bandwidth for the same price because both of my current choices are satisfied with the status quo. When I dumped one for the other, they didn't even ask why I was dropping them because they don't really care whereas in both NH and RI they were interested if I was switching carriers, moving or if they could provide a less costly option. Simple supply and demand really, when the supply of customers is high and suppliers low there isn't much demand to listen to customer complaints.