Saturday, January 24, 2015

Iowa is not Pennsylvania nor should it be.

A side-by-side comparison
Pennsylvania
Iowa
Restrictions on Municipal Broadband
Yes
No
Median Income (2009-2013)
$52.5K
$51.8K
Population (2010)
12.7M
3.1M
Population density (pp/sq. mile)
283.9
54.5
# of counties
67
99
% population -- rural
27%
36%
% of population served by __ providers
≥2
≥3
≥4

          95.4
86.9
52.0

          78.4
38.5
6.9
% of population with download speed greater than
Ø  100 mbps
Ø  50 mbps
Ø  25 mbps


74.4
89.9
90.4


64.3
77.7
79.1
# of towns (counties) with municipal broadband
2 (2)
23 (18)
Total population of municipal broadband towns
8.4K
132.5K
Sources: broadbandmap.gov, census.gov, and Community-based Broadband Solutions, Executive Office of the President, January 2015.


While the median income of the two states is similar, little else is, including broadband deployment and the legislative position on municipal broadband.  In Pennsylvania, the percentages of the population served by more than 2, 3, and 4 wireline providers and the quality of service offered (as measured by available download speeds), far exceed that found in Iowa.  The differences cannot be attributed to the presence of restrictions in Pennsylvania and the absence of them in Iowa.  The differences can only be attributed to the high costs of deploying wireline broadband into sparsely populated areas.  For these rural communities, it then becomes how do they get (pay for) high-speed broadband if that is something that they value?   They are tough decisions, for sure.   But, there shouldn't be any artificial (self-imposed) state barriers from preventing discussions from taking place.  In Iowa, 23 communities in 18 counties have implemented municipal broadband.  The remaining 81 counties, most of them rural, have chosen not to.  Rural communities in Pennsylvania should have that same right.

COUNTY -->




County
Town with Muni Broadband
County Pop.
Pop of Muni Towns
Muni Pop/Co. Pop
Wireline no>2
Wireline no>3
Wireline no>4
DL>100
DL>50
DL>25
Taylor
Lenox
       5,960
       1,359
22.8%
48.8%
0.0%
0.0%
23.9%
23.9%
47.7%
Pocahontas
Laurens
       6,738
       1,232
18.3%
53.9%
9.8%
0.0%
46.6%
46.6%
46.6%
Monona
Mapleton
       8,873
       1,235
13.9%
50.3%
0.0%
0.0%
8.5%
82.3%
82.3%
Keokuk
Webster City
    10,078
             73
0.7%
41.9%
22.9%
0.0%
14.4%
38.4%
38.4%
Mitchell
Osage
    10,661
       3,634
34.1%
53.5%
37.3%
0.0%
38.0%
38.0%
55.5%
Shelby
Harlan
    11,682
       5,027
43.0%
55.7%
45.2%
42.5%
45.0%
45.0%
45.0%
Grundy
Grundy Center Reinbeck
    12,424
       4,331
34.9%
70.1%
23.7%
0.0%
29.2%
62.2%
62.2%
O'Brien*
Hartley, Paullina, Primghar, Sanborn
    13,950
       4,912
35.2%
73.3%
3.6%
0.0%
6.4%
20.6%
23.3%
Kossuth
Algona
    14,877
       5,513
37.1%
61.5%
41.4%
0.0%
55.2%
55.2%
55.2%
Clay
Spencer
    16,421
    11,150
67.9%
74.3%
67.5%
0.0%
73.4%
78.6%
78.6%
Jackson
Bellevue
    19,652
       2,172
11.1%
61.7%
0.0%
0.0%
44.9%
44.9%
44.9%
Buena Vista
Alta
    20,232
       1,883
9.3%
72.4%
65.5%
0.0%
69.0%
69.1%
69.3%
Carroll
Coon Rapids, Manning
    20,659
       2,762
13.4%
73.0%
50.2%
1.0%
57.8%
57.8%
64.3%
Buchanan
Independence
    20,932
       5,968
28.5%
40.4%
27.4%
0.0%
33.3%
42.0%
42.0%
Sioux
Hawarden
    34,342
       2,551
7.4%
51.8%
19.1%
0.2%
4.4%
77.6%
77.6%
Muscatine
Muscatine
    43,252
    23,034
53.3%
74.6%
0.1%
0.0%
83.6%
84.5%
84.5%
Warren
Indianola
    48,367
    15,108
31.2%
72.1%
35.0%
0.0%
74.1%
75.9%
76.6%
Black Hawk
Cedar Falls
  132,848
    40,566
30.5%
90.0%
27.4%
0.0%
42.7%
95.1%
95.1%
* All provided by The Community Agency
   

No comments:

Post a Comment