The Density Dodge

Paul Krugman takes on the myth that the United States' low population density is primarily responsible for the country's woeful broadband coverage. As he says, there's obviously some truth to the idea that there's an objective difficulty in delivering high-quality broadband to low-density areas. But as Krugman points out, most Americans live in fairly high-density parts of the country -- the big empty parts are mostly empty, and while they form a legitimate policy challenge they're not the essence of the matter.

It's also worth noting that America does contain some very high-density areas and it's not as if New York City is light-years ahead of more typical suburbanized areas. What's more, NYC contains considerably more people than, for example, Denmark so it's not as if the high-density portions of the states are too pathetically small in terms of market size to get the job done. We don't have a high-quality broadband infrastructure because we haven't build a high-quality broadband infrastructure, much as many aspects of our infrastructure are sub-par. And, again, it's not because we're incapable of undertaking ambitious logistical projects -- say what you will about the military bases in Iraq, but it's an impressive engineering and logistical enterprise -- we simply haven't chosen to make it a priority.

Comments

You wonder if the time isn't right for local ballot initiatives that would bring universal free wifi access to cities and counties for a nominal tax or surcharge.

Posted by Linus | December 1, 2007 7:05 PM

Didn't a federal statute (named -- what else? -- the Broadband Investment and Consumer Choice Act) ban such municipal wifi projects? Or did that not get passed?

Posted by Julian Elson | December 1, 2007 7:21 PM

I always thought that a part of the asymetry in telecommunications between the US and a place like South Korea or parts of Europe was the lack of any legacy of a previous generation of telecommunications. For all its bureaucratic inefficiency, Ma Bell was the best in the world at what it did in 1975. Nothing like it even existed in many places in the world; many other places it was emulated poorly.

So, a place like South Korea, having skipped that generation of technology, is completely able to bypass any effects caused by a legacy carrier, no matter if the drag is due to economic, political, or technical reasons.

Posted by Kenny | December 1, 2007 7:28 PM

But if we had a high-quality broadband infrastructure, how would we stop poor people from using it?

Posted by jimbo | December 1, 2007 7:29 PM

I've never understood what's supposed to be wrong with the quality of our broadband. The cost and the quality of the customer service-- absolutely, they totally suck! But the technical aspects of the service seem to me to be entirely adequete. Such problems as I encounter are largely due to poorly designed websites (often traceable to a philosophy that privileges security over usability) or occasionally to local PC deficiencies.

Posted by Jonf | December 1, 2007 7:43 PM

I didn't catch this part the first time.

say what you will about the military bases in Iraq, but it's an impressive engineering and logistical enterprise

Military engineering is either state of the art or unbelievably archaic, and normally a combo of these even within the same program. (the reasons tie in with your previous defense spending post)

Military logistics is indeed impressive, and the ability to move a few tons of stuff and/or a few dozen people anywhere in the world within a day is something that needs to be sustained, and even expanded.

Both, however, are incredibly expensive, and a generally a very poor model for how to improve at the consumer retail level in any sphere. "Dual-use " is a nice buzzword but you wind up with things like the Hummer.

As a data point, when I was dealing with the roll-out of a new DOD computer system at the beginning of this decade, the cost to the government for an unclassified desktop system with network capabilities in a normal office environment (i.e. not out in the field where you are worried about battle ruggedness) was a little over $300 *per month*. And this was just after the tech boom implosion, when computer expertise could be purchased for a sandwich and coffee.

Posted by Kenny | December 1, 2007 8:00 PM

My home is in a mountain county with no incorporated city. I live 12 miles from town and at the end of a mile-long unpaved road. My local phone company provides faster broadband service there than I get in my Bay Area office. It can be done.

Posted by T DeVries | December 1, 2007 8:48 PM

I've never understood what's supposed to be wrong with the quality of our broadband. The cost and the quality of the customer service-- absolutely, they totally suck! But the technical aspects of the service seem to me to be entirely adequate.

I agree the technical aspects of high speed internet in the US are adequate, but I've heard (I could be wrong) that it's typically not absolute top-tier broadband, as it is in South Korea, Japan Israel, Finland, and a few other places. It would be nice to have the best.

Still, saying US broadband is hunky-dory other than the "cost" is a little like asking Mrs. Lincoln how she enjoyed the play "aside from the little incident." Cost of broadband directly affects its adoption rate. And as I understand it, the adoption rate of broadband in the US is decidedly mediocre.

Posted by Jasper | December 1, 2007 9:40 PM

Well, according to the latest Pew Internet surveys, about half of all Americans, and 70 percent of Internet users, have broadband. That sounds pretty good to me. I don't know how the cost compares to Europe or Asia, but I pay $25 a month for broadband and that seems pretty reasonable. What is it that I'm supposed to me complaining about?

The Pew stuff is here: http://www.pewinternet.org/reports.asp

Anyway, Pew says broadband Internet has reached 50% penetration 10 years after its debut, which is faster than cell phones, CD players, VCRs, color TVs, or the home computer.

Posted by too many steves | December 1, 2007 9:47 PM

But if we had a high-quality broadband infrastructure, how would we stop poor people from using it?
Posted by jimbo

We don't.

We subsidize broadband to the poor knowing they will mostly use it for music, porn, and gambling. Just add a 5 cents a minute surcharge when they are on music or adult content sites. It will pay for itself.
But before that, we should make it a top priority to have affordable broadband available to our most productive citizens, for the multiplier effect on the US economy.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 1, 2007 10:08 PM

I'm definitely not paying $25 a month. I have it bundled with cable and phone with Charter and I think I'm paying $42.95. On the positive side, I've been expensing my Internet costs for the last ten years.

Posted by mwg | December 1, 2007 10:15 PM

Well, according to the latest Pew Internet surveys, about half of all Americans, and 70 percent of Internet users, have broadband. ...What is it that I'm supposed to me complaining about?

Pew's numbers don't square with the exhaustive battery of statistics on broadband usage available at the OECD's braodband statistics portal:

http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_33703_38690102_1_1_1_1,00.html

According to them at least, broadband in America is mid to low end on penetration, mid to low end on speed, and among the most expensive.

Posted by Jasper | December 1, 2007 10:20 PM

Actually, I think another problem is that our "high-speed" broadband is pretty slow compared with what's the "high-speed" norm in much of the developed world, slower by 1-2 orders-of-magnitude or more I think.

Obviously, for blogging, it's plenty fast enough. But as additional high-bandwidth applications are developed, this could become much more of a bottleneck.

My impression is that we just have a huge patchwork of these different cable/phone/wireless companies, all doing their best to milk the consumer and maximize the profits on their already built systems, while spending their money on consumer advertising and stock-buybacks. Which obviously makes the financials look good in the short run, just like what happened to Sears.

But I'll admit that's just my impression...

Posted by RKU | December 1, 2007 10:22 PM

where can you find something like this in the US?:

connection speeds of up to 28 megabits per second, plus voice calls, TV, and Wi-Fi. They usually come for free with a monthly broadband subscription starting around €30 ($41).

How much does it cost in this country to get TV (many channels), phone including long distance and high-speed Internet access (at much higher speeds than available here)?

Posted by dc | December 1, 2007 10:39 PM

Forgot to mention: usability is effected by websites designed with security in mind? I don't buy that. Both security and usability are afterthoughts, I think, although security tends to get looked at before usability. I know a guy who's doing very well consulting on usability now, and most of what he does is to help people fix their sites after they've already designed them.

Posted by mwg | December 1, 2007 10:44 PM

I pay almost $100 a month for broadband+basic cable. It's too much. Of course, I realize I'm on a fixed income and not one of "our most productive citizens," but if Chris Ford would waterboard me, I might give up some valuable info and thus justify a lower rate.

Posted by Henderstock | December 1, 2007 10:56 PM

Dear Santa,

Can I have a new irony meter for Christmas?

Yours truly,

Chris Ford

Posted by jimbo | December 1, 2007 11:51 PM

Re: I agree the technical aspects of high speed internet in the US are adequate, but I've heard (I could be wrong) that it's typically not absolute top-tier broadband, as it is in South Korea, Japan Israel, Finland, and a few other places.

But isn't that a little like bemoaning the fact that US cars (unlike German cars) are not generally engineered to do 120mph, just 80mph? Granted a handful of super-geeks like the 120 option, but most people only need the 80 or less.

Posted by JonF | December 2, 2007 12:54 AM

But isn't that a little like bemoaning the fact that US cars (unlike German cars) are not generally engineered to do 120mph, just 80mph?

It would be if Koreans were paying a lot less for BMWs than we are for Pontiacs.

Posted by Jasper | December 2, 2007 1:00 AM

Three years ago when I arrived in the UK, I was surprised at the quality of the broadband, or rather, the non-existence of it, particularly free public access broadband.

I'd been in Baton Rouge for the prior month, which has free wireless in the downtown area, and then not only did my temporary flat in London not have broadband, there was no cheap or free access anywhere in the city. Even the libraries charge, and limit use to a half hour.

Things are slightly better now, but overall, the quality is terrible. Speed is slow and service, when your line goes out, is the worst I've ever experienced.

I'd give anything for Comcast cable, and customer service that answers the phone, and fixes problems within a month.

In other words, quit your complaining!

Posted by KathyF | December 2, 2007 2:59 AM

Kathy, I think you're with the wrong provider, check out Be (https://www.bethere.co.uk/) which is unbundled and thus doesn't rely on crappy BT, or have a look here http://www.thinkbroadband.com/ for more options.

Cheers

Posted by novakant | December 2, 2007 4:30 AM

novakant, I checked that out--looks like they rely on crappy BT landlines in my area. I wish the BBC would give as much coverage of the way BT is screwing its customers as they do to the latest Labour scandal.

Posted by KathyF | December 2, 2007 6:55 AM

Kathy, just to avert a possible misunderstanding: you do need a BT landline for using BE, but the service itself is operated independently of BT. Unbundled ISPs are thus not affected by the traffic shaping or technical hickups that ISPs just leasing lines from BT have to cope with. It all depends on whether your nearest exchange is enabled for BE or other unbundled services and you can check that byt typing in your postcode here:

http://www.samknows.com/broadband/search.php

The maximum speed will depend on the distance between your house and the exchange, anything under 2km is usually fine, BE will tell you what to expect.

I used to be with Zen, which was famous for its service and speed. After a while though, speeds dropped drastically during peak hours, which was very likely due to BT traffic shaping. Rather deal endlessly with support, I just switched to BE, which was very simple and took about ten days and haven't had a problem since. Obviously I can't give any guarantees, but BE or one of the other unbundled providers might be worth a shot in your case, if your exchange is enabled.

Cheers

Posted by novakant | December 2, 2007 7:49 AM

Hyper-regulation of telecom networks in the late 90s and early 2000s blocked investment and helped cause the telecom/tech crash. America fell far behind Korea and other Asian and European nations, with Korea by 2003 boasting some 40 times the per capita bandwidth of the U.S. Then the U.S. wised up, the FCC and state utility commissions relaxed or eliminated many of our dumb anti-investment regulations, and fiber-optic and wireless broadband investment is now BOOMING. Verizon and AT&T are in the midst of a massive fiber-optic buildout that might approach $50 billion. Verizon's FiOS service offers speeds up to 50 Mbps, with plans to offer 100 Mbps. AT&T is offering a 25 Mbps service. The cable companies -- who were always less regulated and thus took the broadband lead over the last decade -- are now responding in kind, increasing their 3 and 5 Mbps services up to 15 and even 30 Mbps in many areas. After a disastrous decade of regulatory paralysis, we are now in a virtuous upward spiral of competition, and American broadband is now hitting on all cylinders, with worldclass speeds and services either being delivered right now or just around the corner. Virtually the only thing that could stop these positive developments are the very actions Krugman et al call for: net neutrality regulation, re-regulation of cable now being sought inexplicably by FCC chair Martin, and more government involvement in general.

Bret Swanson

Posted by Bret Swanson | December 2, 2007 11:20 AM

Hyper-regulation of telecom networks in the late 90s and early 2000s blocked investment and helped cause the telecom/tech crash.

I dispute this assertion. Can you provide evidence to support it?

Posted by dob | December 2, 2007 1:32 PM

we simply haven't chosen to make it a priority

If America has such low broadband coverage at such a high price, and the solution is that this nonspecific "we" just needs to do something about it (presumably by Care Bear Stare), why don't Mr. Yglesias and Mr. Krugman take some responsibility for their theories and start a company that blankets every square inch of the country with broadband at Korean prices. Maybe you become billionaires ;)

Hyper-regulation of telecom networks in the late 90s and early 2000s blocked investment and helped cause the telecom/tech crash.

In all seriousness, regulation was an absolute impediment to broadband, but a cause of the tech crash? I don't follow.

Posted by Shinyk | December 2, 2007 4:02 PM

Hyper-regulation of telecom networks in the late 90s and early 2000s blocked investment and helped cause the telecom/tech crash. America fell far behind Korea and other Asian and European nations, with Korea by 2003 boasting some 40 times the per capita bandwidth of the U.S. Then the U.S. wised up, the FCC and state utility commissions relaxed or eliminated many of our dumb anti-investment regulations, and fiber-optic and wireless broadband investment is now BOOMING.

I was a telecom analyst during the bubble years. It's not over-regulation that did us in, but a combination of under-regulation and corruption. As a result, the U.S. lags Asia in broadband, and the lag will become increasingly apparent.

The East Asian countries, including the Koreans, required competition, while the United States under the Bush administration turned the Telecom Act of 1996 into a dead letter and allowed the re-monopolization of the telecom infrastructure.

There is no longer any meaningful open access to local phone networks in the United States, and the Internet backbone was acquired by a duopoly of Verizon and SBC, since renamed AT&T.

All of this was facilitated by American political and financial systems that no longer notice, much less stigmatize or criminalize, bribery and its handmaidens, theft and inefficiency.

In additional to political corruption, we saw a tidal wave of corporate corruption surrounding the telecom business. Corporations at every level simply stole hundreds of billions of dollars from customers, suppliers, competitors, and investors as regulators and the media cheered them on. This situation continues unabated, not just in telecom but in other areas of the economy, such as housing finance.

Hyper regulation is the problem? Sorry, but it's exactly the opposite. What we've seen is nothing less than the Brazilianization of the U.S. economy, with all that this implies.

Posted by Charles Pluckhahn | December 2, 2007 5:02 PM

But before that, we should make it a top priority to have affordable broadband available to our most productive citizens, for the multiplier effect on the US economy.

Ummm, the 'most productive' elements of society almost invariably have broadband access, so your point is moot...'though judging by the ever-increasing anitpathy displayed in your posts, its become obvious your only goal in commenting is churlish contrarianism, amirite?

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | December 2, 2007 5:45 PM

But as Krugman points out, most Americans live in fairly high-density parts of the country

Krugman may have been trying to say this, but doesn't really get there krugman's blog entry:
In 2000, a sizable majority of Americans — 58% — lived in metropolitan areas with populations of more than a million people. Two thirds of us live in metro areas with more than half a million people.

i don't think Krugman's statement takes into account land area and thus actual population density. his statement essentially says that people live near people in arbitrary land masses dubbed 'metropolitan areas'. [and of course, Krugman cites no sources. seriously Paul, there's a whole world wide web outside the NYT web archive.] Krugman even includes some contradictory statements
This is true in a literal sense, but largely irrelevant [snip] The density issue isn’t entirely irrelevant
and ends with the oxymoronish "fairly dense sprawl" which appear to undercut himself ( if something is sprawling, it's probably not that dense)

according to demographia's
ranking of int'l urban areas ranked by pop density (warning 1MB pdf-relevant info @table 6~p77),
~30 million--or 60%--S Koreans live in urban areas at higher density than the top US urban area.

certainly, the regulatory environment and oligopoly market contribute to the broadband lag, but population density must be acknowledged as a primary factor, not downplayed as Krugman maintains.

Posted by nitish | December 2, 2007 7:49 PM

Hyper regulation is the problem? Sorry, but it's exactly the opposite.

True. It has taken a lot of regulation in the EU to break up telecom monopolies and the job is far from finished and it will take regulation to do so in the US. It's odd how anyone could come to the opposite conclusion.

Posted by novakant | December 3, 2007 7:36 AM

Is it possible that there just isn't a large market for faster broadband? Most people in this country use the Internet for e-mail, web browsing and music. All of these needs are adequately addressed by our current broadband connections. The cost is fairly high, but there is more an more competition which seems to be driving it down. DSL prices are cheaper in my area, but most don't use it because it requires zero thought or shopping to grab cable internet.

Posted by JordanT | December 3, 2007 10:56 AM

Dang, wish I'd seen this topic when it was first posted. This is one of the major issues I work on for a living.

According to the Census Bureau, 80% of the US population lives in just 3% of the land area. That's the urban population (222 million), in urbanized areas (and clusters) (97,500 sq. miles) as defined by the Census Bureau. That is density of 2,400 people per sq. mile. That's plenty of people to support really fast broadband. If you exclude the urban clusters, which are lower population than urban areas, you get density of about 2,700 people per sq. mile.

This is an apples to oranges comparison but, the Netherlands as a whole has less density than the urban areas of the US (1260 people/sq. mile vs. the 2400 people/sq. mile). Heck, Belgium only has 890 people per sq. mile.

If you don't believe me, see this Census Bureau table:

United States -- Urban/Rural and Inside/Outside Metropolitan Area

Posted by SteveH | December 3, 2007 3:28 PM

I think the statistics being used here, even by Krugman, are obscuring the point.

The question is, "Why can I get an $X/mo 50Mbps line in Tokyo/Seoul/Amsterdam, but not Manhattan?"

If the answer is "population density", then it must be the case that even the densest areas of the US are substantially less dense than any of the foreign cities/areas with good access.

The comparison to be made is between the densest cities/areas in the US and the least dense cities/areas elsewhere in which a given level of high-speed access is provided.

Obviously no one has really come up with those numbers. I find it kind of implausible that there is absolutely nowhere in the US with high enough population density though.

Posted by Jack Lecou | December 5, 2007 3:37 PM