I won't address the specifics on the $200bn spending that happened as I'm sure there are many complexities. I will however argue that the issue seems to be how the companies are leveraging the infrastructure / what they're doing with it.

Sometime in the early 2000's all the below-ground cable lines in my parent's neighborhood (in southern Florida) were dug up and new ones put in. Shortly thereafter they were able to get cable internet at the blazing speed of 3mbps/128kbps. Now, 8-9 years later, with no wiring changes, they get 16mbps down. I live 250 miles away in Central Florida and I get 15mbps constant with a "power boost" to 30mbps, 2mbps up. Realistically it's closer to 10-15 down.

The point is - all that internet bandwidth is on top of all of the "on demand" features the cable companies like to push, which is also consuming bandwidth, which is of course on top of all the multi-cast content they offer (30-50 analog channels + hundreds of QAM channels with varying levels of quality & encryption). In this case, the bandwidth is making it through the last mile, and it becomes an issue of utilization / allocation. Would I be willing to give up ESPN HD in Spanish (which I don't pay for, but do receive, albeit encrypted) or 50 on-demand listings to get another 5-25 mbps out of my internet? Absolutely. Move analog channels to clear QAM? Again, sure. But since the cable company doesn't offer that I assume it's either not popular or not profitable.

Neither area is "rural" by any means, but this is definitely not a "metro" area in either case.

I think the question is after $200bn in spending (works out to about $660pp for every man woman & child in the US), why does basic cable + basic internet cost over $100 a month, with premium packages & other features easily taking it into the $200+ range?

The way I see it this is no different than drilling for oil. 100 years ago people didn't understand the source of this "cheap, limitless energy source" and didn't really think about it until our energy demands grew exponentially, supplies became short, and they were faced with numerous problems they didn't foresee. Who's to say this technology will be ANY different? Just because you can't foresee any potential problems doesn't mean there won't be any - you're still mining a limited natural resource, albeit one much more abundant than oil.

Hell, in the FIRST experimental well, they already managed to cause an earthquake! Have humans even managed to do that before (besides shock waves from really big explosions)? You can make all the arguments about specific heat or "scratching the shell of the egg", but we don't really know exactly how the inner earth operates. The way I see it is there is too much potential risk considering the other options we have for energy.

IMO, we, as a society / species need to focus on energies that are completely renewable and that we are very sure we can predict the results of, such as wind and solar... not to mention trying to reduce our energy demands... As populations continue to grow exponentially, and energy demands grow even faster (what happens when everyone in China and India wants to buy a plasma screen 10-20 years from now, like people in the west today) - Finding solutions to help minimize demand might be the real answer.