[This article was co-authored by, Jeff Tayman PhD, Retired Director of Research, San Diego Association of Governments and Lecturer, Dept. of Economics, University of California San Diego. Tayman, a former surfer, received his Ph.D. from Florida State University.]
Jon Humphrey has written extensively on internet issues for Northwest Citizen. As a supplement to his work, this piece looks at the 2020 census.
The U.S. Census is mandated under the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2.). Its goal is to count every person in the U.S once, only once, and in the right place. It has been conducted every 10 years since 1790. It is used to: (1) determine the number of representatives each state receives in the U.S. House of Representatives (“re-apportionment” of the U.S. House of Representatives); (2) distribute federal funds; and (3) draw legislative and other district boundaries for federal, state, and local elections.
Before 1970, census enumerators went door to door. However, by 1950, it became clear to Congress and the Census Bureau that the costs of conducting the census were becoming very high. To help contain these costs, the Census Bureau turned to “mail out/mail back” as the initial means of gathering data in the 1970 census. Census forms were mailed to households, completed by household members, and the completed forms were mailed back to the Census Bureau. By 2000, however, costs were again rising to the point that it became clear an alternative means of data collection was needed, one that would allow the Census Bureau to maintain its goal that every person be counted once, only once, and in the right place, but at a lower cost than was the case under the mail out/mail back system. In 2020, the Census turned to the Internet as the initial means of gathering data.
Not surprisingly, states with lower broadband access rates tended to be among those with the highest level of net coverage error in the 2020 census. The U.S. Census Bureau found that Mississippi, for example, had an undercount of 4.11%. It should not come as a surprise then, that Mississippi has the lowest broadband access rate among the 50 states. Compare this to Washington, which has one of the highest broadband access rates among the 50 states. Washington was not undercounted in the 2020 Census.
While Washington as a whole has a high internet self-response rate, it varies substantially among its 39 counties. Ferry County has the lowest internet response rate, at 20.1%, while King County has the highest, at 69.7%. The internet self-response was 64% in Whatcom County, which puts it in 7th place behind King County
Again, not surprisingly, the rate of household broadband access also varies among counties. In Ferry County, it is 49% (the lowest among the 39 counties,) and in King County, 86% (the highest among the 39 counties). The broadband access rate is 78% in Whatcom County, which puts it in 11th place behind King County.
The “scatterplot” below graphically shows the relationship between broadband access (the horizontal axis) and the internet self-response rate (the vertical access). Not surprisingly, the graph shows that there is a strong relationship between the broadband access rate in a county and its internet self-response rate: As a county’s broadband access rate increases, so does its internet self-response rate to the 2020 census.
In the graph below, King County is represented by the uppermost red dot in the upper right corner of the graph, (internet self-response rate = 69.7%; broadband access rate = 86%). Ferry County is represented by the lowermost red dot in the lower left corner of the graph, (internet self-response rate = 20.1%; broadband access rate = 49%). Whatcom County is identified by the red dot that is the sixth one below King County, (internet self-response rate = 64%; Broadband access rate = 78%).
Also, not surprisingly, there are factors underlying the relationship of broadband access and the internet self-response rate. Two key factors are income and the availability, including affordability, of broadband. While King County has the highest median household income, at $116,044, Ferry County ranks 37th among the state’s 39 counties with a median household income of $57,064. Whatcom County ranks 14th behind King County, with a median household income of $78,796
The scatterplot immediately below shows the relationship between median county income and each county’s broadband access rate. This scatterplot shows that as the median household income increases, so do county broadband access rate.
The next scatterplot, immediately below, shows the relationship between the percent of a county’s population that is rural and that county’s broadband access rate. The reader can see that as the rural percentage increases, the broadband access rates decrease. Ferry County, along with six other counties are classified as 100% rural, they are: Garfield, Lincoln, San Juan, Skamania, and Wahkiakum. Only 3.2% of King County’s population is rural, while 26% of Whatcom County’s population is rural. This puts Whatcom County in 27th place behind Ferry and the other six counties that are listed at 100% rural.
As these three scatterplots suggest, median household income and the percent of a county population that is rural have direct effects on the county’s internet self response rate and, importantly, indirect effects that are channeled through the broadband access rate.
Using a structural equation, I looked at direct and indirect effects on census internet self-response rates. I found that the size of a county’s rural population created a greater negative effect than the positive effect created by a higher median household income.
These findings suggest that Jon Humphrey’s assertions regarding improved broadband access would be advantageous to our county and state. With increased broadband access, Whatcom’s rural populations will have higher internet self-response rates in the 2030 census, which will result in higher census accuracy levels. In turn, the increased accuracy in these counts will affect: (1) the number of seats the state receives in the U.S. House of Representatives; (2) the amount of federal funding Washington receives, as well as how it is distributed; and (3) how legislative and district boundaries are drawn for federal, state, and local elections.
Satpal Sidhu
Oct 21, 2024The article by Mr. Swanson is correct in showcasing that internet access makes a huge difference in the life quality, economic opportunity, educational opportunity and impacts people many other ways for all age groups and socio-economic groups. However, Jon has been writing about “How” to provide the internet, while its benefits are undisputed.
Randy Petty
Oct 21, 2024Were the figures based on the new FCC definition of “broadband,” which became 100mbps down and 20 mbps up this year?
I speak with Europeans on a regular basis and even some in rural areas have immense bandwidth. The only thing I can say in our defense is that our country is so large. I’ve seen estimates of $20k per mile to lay fiber.
I never thought I’d say it but this disparity makes me wonder about us footing the world’s military bill.
Randy Petty
Oct 21, 2024https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-401205A1.pdf
David A. Swanson
Oct 21, 2024Hi Randy,
The broadband data are found in:
DeSalvo, B., M. Frame, H. King, M. Martin, D. Mejia, S. Robinson, J. Scurry, and S. Szelpka (2024). Local Estimates of internet adoption: Feasibility report. U.S Census Bureau (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/technical-documentation/community-resilience/leia/2022_LEIA_Feasibility_Report.pdf).
Randy Petty
Oct 21, 2024Thanks David. I’m glad to see this issue being analyzed. If it isn’t already there, broadband is moving close to water and power as far as being required for anything to be called civilized living.
That article showed this: “We restrict our analysis only to services
offered to residential customers for any wired Internet technologies. We consider both the share of broadband serviceable locations that have at least one service with 25 Mbps download / 3 Mbps upload speed as well as those with at least one 100 Mbps download / 20 Mbps upload speed. The latter speeds reflect the current FCC broadband benchmark while the former is the previous benchmark.”
( my service is 60/5 )
Scott Wicklund
Oct 21, 2024560/520 here with Quantum Fiber. $50/Mo (1/2 gbps service). Too bad whole City and County can’t have what I got. MOUNT Vernon and Anacortes have it too. But then MV has three hour free parking in the downtown core! Thanks Eric Johnson and Michael Lilliquist!
David A. Swanson
Oct 23, 2024Hi Mr. SIdhu,
While you may believe that broadband access is a benefit to all, there are more than a few who believe otherwise. In fact, there appears to be an anti-broadband movement that is gaining traction (Frank, 2018).
As a supplementary observation, it also may be the case that privacy concerns and declining levels of public interest in census and survey data collection efforts (see, e.g., McGeeney et al., 2019) have reached the point that any attempt to increase census response rates beyond increasing broadband access will yield at best only meager gains.
You may want your staff to do a more thorough job reasearching a topic before you put your name on a universal statement such as “...its benefits are undisputed.”
References
Frank, B. (2018). Don’t want 4G or 5G small towers near your home? Activists take the fight to Washington. Activist Post (https://www.activistpost.com/2018/10/dont-want-4g-or-5g-small-cell-towers-near-your-home-activists-take-the-fight-to-washington.html).
McGeeney, K., B. Kris, S. Mullenax, L. Kall, G. Walejko, M. Vines, N. Bates, and Y. G. Trejo. (2019) 2020 census barriers, attitudes, and motivators study survey report. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial/2020/program-management/final-analysis-reports/2020-report-cbams-study-survey.pdf.
My very best regards,
David A. Swanson
Jon Humphrey
Oct 24, 2024Excellent article David! Thank you for looking out for our community. Historically, you never want to be the country that is behind when it comes to technology and this highlights why.
I’ll give resposes by comment.
Satpal: Uses the keywords “internet access” instead of fiber here. Saying “internet access” or “broadband” instead of fiber is intentional. It is part of the double-speak politicians use to keep us from putting in the critical fiber infrastructure we need to get ahead. For example, it allows them to purchase decades old, obsolete, coax cable tech from defunct cable compaies owned by donors instead of just running fiber as they should.
Even Elon Musk said in Fiere Wireless that he needs more fiber on the ground for Starlink to work well. As Susan Crawford points out in “Fiber”, and the FOA (Fiber-Optic Association) points out all of the time, all networks are extensions of fiber-optics. So the more fiber the better and the faster you can get your singal back to fiber the better. So using fiber directly is the best idea whenever you can. So of course we have to talk about HOW we’re providing service to begin to discuss any other aspect of it. As Leslie Shankman points out in this article NO other connections are equivalent to fiber and public fiber is the best solution.
https://nwcitizen.com/entry/fiber-vs-cable-vs-wireless/search/c5fdd6d122a4f386fa5e1e8e9777215a
Randy: Yes, it’s good that we got a small speed bump. However, I’ve written about the issues in using browser based tests to determine speed. We need to set a load test standard for speeds. The justifications are here in the RRUL document.
https://www.bufferbloat.net/projects/bloat/wiki/RRUL_Spec/
As far as the cost goes, fiber pays for itself in many ways including more reliable communications that use less power than any other medium, new economic opportunities, educational opportunities, telehealth, and more. So the real issue is that the grand majority of connetions in Whatcom County, like Comcast Cable, etc. are based on obsolete technology, do not provide consistnet speeds and throttle way down to the base level speeds shortly after their initial “speed burst.” So the claimed speeds are greatly overstated. The reality is that we’re lucky to have 25/3 after a few seconds.
Scott: Yes, Quantum is the best thing tested in Bellingham so far. HOWEVER, it is nothing like a proper fiber network, see especailly Chatanooga, TN, and does not hold up to load testing. It performs slightly better than Comcast. Meaning their stated speeds, determined by a biased browser based test, are well above their load tested speeds over a longer duration. So they’re also overstated. This is important especailly for HD videoconferencing, etc.
David: If Satpal really cared about broadband he would have funded public fiber years ago. He had more than enough public money to do so, was in a position of power, and COVID gave him the justification. He simply chose not to do the right thing and lined the pockets of Verizon, T-Mobile, Starlink, etc. instead for virtually worthless infrastructure.
Just like how the COB’s pretend plan, written about here https://nwcitizen.com/entry/how-to-get-nothing-done
intentionally excluded successful WA state public fiber projects, like the OpenAccess network in Mount Vernon, the municipal network in Anacortes, the public network in Leavenworth (CPUD), etc. Satpal intentionally changes his wording so he can give millions to big telecom for virtually worthless wireless connections, as he did during the pandemic but the County Council was in on that too and has largely tried to kill further discussion on the issue by producing their own “plan” in name only, ike the COB did.
The bottom line remains what it always has been. Everyone needs FTTP (Fiber to the Premises) and the more fiber the better. The best way to do fiber is to establish a Dig Once Policy, make it public, and treat it as a utility. No Satpal, that is not my opinion. It’s what all of the best networks world-wide do. And I’ve written about that as well.
Randy Petty
Oct 24, 2024I believe this state government site helps identify where broadband is needed. There is an application process to obtain funding. I suppose a neighborhood could organize and try that but it seems like it is municipalities, port authorities, native organizations etc that are the most common applicants.
“The BEAD program is working to get all Americans online by funding partnerships between states or territories, tribal nations, communities, internet providers and other stakeholders to build infrastructure where needed and increase high-speed internet adoption. The federal program provides over $42 billion for infrastructure planning and implementation nationwide. Washington will receive more than $1.23 billion in funding.
Please continue to monitor Washington’s Internet for All website for the most up-to-date information on the BEAD process. On the same webpage, you can also subscribe to email updates.”
https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/WADOC/bulletins/3bda216
https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-programs/broadband-equity-access-and-deployment-bead-program
Jon Humphrey
Oct 24, 2024Good points Randy. I would just add that the state’s map has significant problems.
1. Much of the data for the map comes from voluntary responses. Which is one of the least accurate ways to get information.
2. The tester the state used is a less accurate browser based tester.
So, while the map (which is what the PUD is using, btw) may be good for locating complete broadband deserts, it is not a good map for developing a long-term plan of action.
Also, we should be shooting for Gigabit as a standard to everyone. 100/20 for high speed and 25/3 for a baseline is too low especailly when we apply Nielsen’s Law of Internet Bandwidth.