From Data to Action: Mining the National Broadband Map to Improve Policy
J.M. Bauer†, T. Grubesic‡, R. LaRose†
with W. Ma†, S. Tsai†
† Michigan State University
‡ Drexel University
From data to action
• Although accurate and meaningful data is an important prerequisite for good policy, taken by itself it is insufficient • Good policy, first and foremost, needs a clear vision of the goals to be pursued
• It also needs a solid understanding of the working of the social system it seeks to improve
• Lastly, good policy needs regular monitoring and adaptation of measures
2
Modeling complex causation
Sufficient
F1
F1
F2
E
E
F3
F3
F4
Necessary
F2
Sufficient Constellation
F4
Fi … explanatory factors, E … effect
3
Download speeds: best case scenario
(number of block groups in each speed tier)
60000
50000
40000
30000
Rural‐Max
20000
Urban‐Max
10000
0
Not
known
Tier 1 ≥200 kbps
Tier 2
Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Tier 7 Tier 8 Tier 9 Tier 10 Tier 11 >200
≥768 ≥50 ≥1.5 ≥3 mbps ≥6 mbps ≥10 ≥100 ≥1 gbps
≥25 kbps to kbps to mbps to to <6 to <10 mbps to mbps to mbps to mbps to <768
<50 <1.5 <3 mbps mbps
<100 <1 gbps
mbps
<25 mbps
mbps
mbps
mbps
kbps
4
Download speeds: worst case scenario
(number of block groups in each speed tier)
60000
50000
40000
30000
Rural‐Min
Urban‐Min
20000
Rural‐Max
Urban‐Max
10000
0
Not
known
Tier 1 ≥200 kbps
Tier 2
>200
kbps to
<768
kbps
Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 ≥3 Tier 6 ≥6 Tier 7 ≥10 Tier 8 ≥25 Tier 9 ≥50 Tier 10 Tier 11 ≥1 gbps
≥768 ≥1.5 mbps to mbps to mbps to mbps to mbps to ≥100 kbps to mbps to <6 mbps <10 mbps <25 mbps <50 mbps <100 mbps to mbps <1 gbps
<1.5 <3 mbps
mbps
Urban‐rural differences
• Best‐case download speed scenario
– 3.5:1 urban‐rural gap for maximum download speeds of 100 Mbps or higher
– 2.3:1 urban‐rural gap for maximum download speeds of 50‐100 Mbps
• Worst‐case download speed scenario
– 1.5:1 urban rural gap for minimal download speeds >10 Mbps
• Considerably more inequality in high download speed tiers
6
Broadband intensity
7
Broadband competition index
8
Fixed and wireless availability
(Michigan, by speed tiers, in per cent)
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
768k‐1.5m
1.5‐3m
3‐6m
6‐10m
10‐25m
Fixed
Wireless
25‐50m
50‐100m
100m‐1g
9
Fixed and wireless joint availability
(Michigan, by speed tier, in per cent)
Maximum fixed download speed
Maximum wireless download speeds
768k‐1.5m
1.5‐3m
3‐6m
6‐10m
10‐25m
768k‐1.5m
0.44
0.40
1.32
0.01
0.00
1.5‐3m
0.53
0.51
1.77
0.01
0.00
3‐6m
0.67
0.74
2.36
0.06
0.00
6‐10m
6.40
6.31
23.70
0.36
0.01
10‐25m
8.50
10.01
31.09
0.15
0.01
25‐50m
0.83
0.46
2.01
0.01
0.00
50‐100m
0.16
0.30
0.78
0.00
0.00
100m‐1g
0.03
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.00
10
Factors affecting no. of providers
Model 1
(standardized coefficients)
Block group in urban area
Household median income
% of housing without vehicle
% without telephone service
% of adult population Hispanic or Latino
% education above high school
% of population 62+
Constant
N
Adj. R2
F
***0.193
(75.043)
***0.454
(196.309)
***‐0.176
(‐74.956)
***0.033
(13.759)
***0.097
(31.263)
***‐0.064
(‐31.463)
***0.490
(15.810)
209,978
0.182
***7,790.838
Model 2
(standardized coefficients)
***0.319
(155.335)
***0.151
(61.449)
***0.342
(148.612)
***‐0.125
(‐55.710)
***‐0.059
(‐25.134)
***0.043
(14.337)
***‐0.062
(‐32.096)
***0.446
(15.185)
209,978
0.266
***10,892.211
11
A wishlist
• Missing data
– Adoption rates
– Prices
• Integration with other data sources
– Census data
– Business activity data
• Time series – Maintenance of inter‐temporal consistency
• Explore other options to make confidential data available
12