6 ms·

Sprawl makes infrastructure investment orders of magnitude more expensive. For example, a small business [1] provides the fastest consumer access in the city of

Sprawl makes infrastructure investment orders of magnitude more expensive. For example, a small business [1] provides the fastest consumer access in the city of Seattle, but they refuse to do business outside of extremely high density buildings. There is no way a small business could do the same in McSuburbia. In the sprawly world outside of the US's dense cities, only municipal governments with a lot of political willpower have the resources to invest in the infrastructure needed for fast internet. [1] http://www.condointernet.net/ http://www.condointernet.net/

insuffi 13y ago
I don't have direct experience with the state of the internet in the U.S., but isn't it terrible in large, metropolitan cities as well? I'm really just using the anecdata I've been reading on HN. Furthermore, afaik many small towns even in eastern europe(while making great strides, no particularly huge cities) boast 100 mbit connections. Assuming both of those statements are true, It doesn't seem to me like the economies of scale argument is valid here. EDIT: 100 mbit/$20, 500 mbit/$30, checked my ISP.
- dublinben 13y ago
  You're absolutely correct. Population density is a red herring in this issue. The broadband situation is no better in the major cities of the U.S than it is in the rest of the country. Major cities in the rest of the developed world have much better connections somehow. One of the first deployments of gigabit fiber in the U.S. was in Chatanooga TN, with a population density of 471.9/km2. New York City has a population density of 10,640/km2. Romania's third largest city, Timișoara, with population density of only 2,446.58/km2 is considered the city with the fastest internet in the world. http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-city-comes-out-first-in-the-world-in-internet-download-speed-ranking/103102/ http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-city-comes-out-first...
  - saosebastiao 13y ago
    Density is not something that can be described adequately in a single number. It is entirely possible to have high residential densities in cities with remarkably low average densities. Moscow is a great example of this...their plazas and parks drive down average density way beyond the density that the average person experiences. Everybody talks about the last mile being the most expensive part of infrastructure, but if the last meter is 90% of the cost of the last mile (I don't know what the exact proportion is, but it is definitely close), then 100 houses in 10 sq km census block is going to be in a cost category that is orders of magnitude higher than 100 apartments in a tower with a 9.9 sq km park around it.
    - dublinben 13y ago
      Density either prevents better infrastructure in the US, or it doesn't. My use of statistics was merely to show that density has no relation to the existence of fiber internet infrastructure. The US cannot be too sprawling for fiber if areas with lower density in other countries have better internet. Major cities cannot also be too dense when cities with higher densities abroad also have better internet. This is a commonly repeated argument in favor of the status-quo in the US, and I'm just trying to refute it whenever possible.
      - saosebastiao 13y ago
        Your use of statistics is meaningless because average density is meaningless. It suffers from the same resolution problem as the coastline paradox [1]. I'm an example of this: If you measure density by the block, I live in a density of 120,000 persons/km2, but if you measure density by the city, I live in a density of 1720 persons/km2, and if you measure density by the MSA, I live in a density of 168 persons/km2. I have gigabit, and the fact that I live in an MSA with 168 persons/km2 is in no way a refutation of the fact that density matters for infrastructure costs. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
        brenschluss 13y ago
        Saying average density is meaningless is like saying, because of the coastline paradox, even a small island's coastline is the same length as a large continent's coastline -- they're both infinite!
- bluedino 13y ago
  >> I don't have direct experience with the state of the internet in the U.S., but isn't it terrible in large, metropolitan cities as well? It depends on where you are. Two different apartment buildings in DC or NYC could differn, one getting FIOS and the other on a congested cable network or low-speed phone company DSL circuit. But don't get the idea that the internet is generally terrible in the USA. I'd imagine my situation is similar to most others - I live in a smaller town (population < 50,000) and about 90 miles from the nearest 'big' city (Detroit), but for $39.99 I get 30mb cable internet which I'm more than happy with. They offer 60mb and 100mb packages but I don't see the sense in spending any more.
w1ntermute 13y ago
That doesn't explain why internet speeds suck in NYC.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Population density in NYC and SFO actually hurt new rollouts. That is why those places and Los Angeles will probably be dead last on a Google Fiber rollout (if ever). The old NYC infrastructure and all of the physical work (and permits, contracts, everything else) means a huge overhaul would most likely not be worth doing in dense and already wired places like these. Also rayiner pointed out in another thread that according to Akamai the US already is pretty high up in the list of overall bandwidth. Also I think the HN / Reddit / tech echo chamber overplays the demand for gigabit internet. Most of America has no need for this, nor the willingness to pay for a connection this fast. 10-25 Mb is fine for most people. Browse Facebook, surf the web, stream a couple of movies, play games.
  - fixed_input 13y ago
    I would be willing to pay for a gigabit connection if the prices were lower. In Japan and South Korea for instance, a consumer can get a gigabit connection for the equivalent of about 40USD. I currently pay more for a connection 1/20th the speed. If their telcos can do it, ours can too. However ours want us to pay more (much, much more) for gigabit, which is why there is the argument that Americans don't want to pay for gigabit. Yeah, charge a reasonable price and you'll have more demand for gigabit speeds.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Also: I know my dissent in pointing out that gigabit internet for $30/month everywhere in the USA isn't going to magically happen isn't popular around here, but you shouldn't down vote something you disagree with.
    - dublinben 13y ago
      You're being downvoted because you're wrong. Density is a red herring that can be easily demonstrated by looking at comparative examples.
dublinben 13y ago
Population density is a complete red herring in this context. It is the excuse that telecom and cable companies rely on for their lack of investment. See my comment below for the hard numbers of how this is simply not true.

insuffi 13y ago

I don't have direct experience with the state of the internet in the U.S., but isn't it terrible in large, metropolitan cities as well? I'm really just using the anecdata I've been reading on HN. Furthermore, afaik many small towns even in eastern europe(while making great strides, no particularly huge cities) boast 100 mbit connections. Assuming both of those statements are true, It doesn't seem to me like the economies of scale argument is valid here. EDIT: 100 mbit/$20, 500 mbit/$30, checked my ISP.

dublinben 13y ago
You're absolutely correct. Population density is a red herring in this issue. The broadband situation is no better in the major cities of the U.S than it is in the rest of the country. Major cities in the rest of the developed world have much better connections somehow. One of the first deployments of gigabit fiber in the U.S. was in Chatanooga TN, with a population density of 471.9/km2. New York City has a population density of 10,640/km2. Romania's third largest city, Timișoara, with population density of only 2,446.58/km2 is considered the city with the fastest internet in the world. http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-city-comes-out-first-in-the-world-in-internet-download-speed-ranking/103102/ http://www.romania-insider.com/romanian-city-comes-out-first...
- saosebastiao 13y ago
  Density is not something that can be described adequately in a single number. It is entirely possible to have high residential densities in cities with remarkably low average densities. Moscow is a great example of this...their plazas and parks drive down average density way beyond the density that the average person experiences. Everybody talks about the last mile being the most expensive part of infrastructure, but if the last meter is 90% of the cost of the last mile (I don't know what the exact proportion is, but it is definitely close), then 100 houses in 10 sq km census block is going to be in a cost category that is orders of magnitude higher than 100 apartments in a tower with a 9.9 sq km park around it.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    Density either prevents better infrastructure in the US, or it doesn't. My use of statistics was merely to show that density has no relation to the existence of fiber internet infrastructure. The US cannot be too sprawling for fiber if areas with lower density in other countries have better internet. Major cities cannot also be too dense when cities with higher densities abroad also have better internet. This is a commonly repeated argument in favor of the status-quo in the US, and I'm just trying to refute it whenever possible.
    - saosebastiao 13y ago
      Your use of statistics is meaningless because average density is meaningless. It suffers from the same resolution problem as the coastline paradox [1]. I'm an example of this: If you measure density by the block, I live in a density of 120,000 persons/km2, but if you measure density by the city, I live in a density of 1720 persons/km2, and if you measure density by the MSA, I live in a density of 168 persons/km2. I have gigabit, and the fact that I live in an MSA with 168 persons/km2 is in no way a refutation of the fact that density matters for infrastructure costs. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
      - brenschluss 13y ago
        Saying average density is meaningless is like saying, because of the coastline paradox, even a small island's coastline is the same length as a large continent's coastline -- they're both infinite!
bluedino 13y ago
>> I don't have direct experience with the state of the internet in the U.S., but isn't it terrible in large, metropolitan cities as well? It depends on where you are. Two different apartment buildings in DC or NYC could differn, one getting FIOS and the other on a congested cable network or low-speed phone company DSL circuit. But don't get the idea that the internet is generally terrible in the USA. I'd imagine my situation is similar to most others - I live in a smaller town (population < 50,000) and about 90 miles from the nearest 'big' city (Detroit), but for $39.99 I get 30mb cable internet which I'm more than happy with. They offer 60mb and 100mb packages but I don't see the sense in spending any more.

w1ntermute 13y ago

That doesn't explain why internet speeds suck in NYC.

res0nat0r 13y ago
Population density in NYC and SFO actually hurt new rollouts. That is why those places and Los Angeles will probably be dead last on a Google Fiber rollout (if ever). The old NYC infrastructure and all of the physical work (and permits, contracts, everything else) means a huge overhaul would most likely not be worth doing in dense and already wired places like these. Also rayiner pointed out in another thread that according to Akamai the US already is pretty high up in the list of overall bandwidth. Also I think the HN / Reddit / tech echo chamber overplays the demand for gigabit internet. Most of America has no need for this, nor the willingness to pay for a connection this fast. 10-25 Mb is fine for most people. Browse Facebook, surf the web, stream a couple of movies, play games.
- fixed_input 13y ago
  I would be willing to pay for a gigabit connection if the prices were lower. In Japan and South Korea for instance, a consumer can get a gigabit connection for the equivalent of about 40USD. I currently pay more for a connection 1/20th the speed. If their telcos can do it, ours can too. However ours want us to pay more (much, much more) for gigabit, which is why there is the argument that Americans don't want to pay for gigabit. Yeah, charge a reasonable price and you'll have more demand for gigabit speeds.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Also: I know my dissent in pointing out that gigabit internet for $30/month everywhere in the USA isn't going to magically happen isn't popular around here, but you shouldn't down vote something you disagree with.
  - dublinben 13y ago
    You're being downvoted because you're wrong. Density is a red herring that can be easily demonstrated by looking at comparative examples.

dublinben 13y ago

Population density is a complete red herring in this context. It is the excuse that telecom and cable companies rely on for their lack of investment. See my comment below for the hard numbers of how this is simply not true.