|

NewEconomy
Index.org Home
Metro Index Home
Introduction
Overview &
Methodology
The Rankings
Summary of Results
THE
INDICATORS
PART
I: KNOWLEDGE JOBS
Managerial,
Professional, and Technical Jobs

Workforce
Education
PART II: GLOBALIZATION
Export Focus
of Manufacturing
PART III: ECONOMIC
DYNAMISM
"Gazelle"
Jobs

Job Churning

New Publicly
Traded Companies
PART IV: THE DIGITAL
ECONOMY
Online Population

Broadband Telecommunications
Capacity

Computer Use
in Schools

Commercial Internet
Domain Names

Internet
Backbone
PART V: INNOVATION
CAPACITY
High-Tech Jobs

Degrees Granted
in Science and Engineering

Patents

Academic Research
and Development Funding

Venture Capital
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
STRATEGIES
Data Sources
The Metropolitan
Areas and their Major Cities
Weighting Methodology
Endnotes
The Authors

|
 |
Internet Backbone
Total capacity of all Internet backbone links to other metropolitan
areas as share of employment.
Why Is
This Important?
Internet backbone is the physical network (usually relying on fiber optic
cable) that carries Internet traffic between different networks and is
measured in megabits per second.21
It is true that, because data travel at the speed of light, any place
connected to any of the backbone networks should be as accessible as any
other place. In reality, however, congestion at network hubs and junctions
makes places with high levels of capacity better positioned to be home
to companies that distribute large amounts of data via the Internet. If
the "pipes" are not big enough relative to the amount of data
going through them, data transmission speeds will slow. This is not so
much an issue for individuals, where their modem speed and the "last
mile" of connections usually cause the bottleneck. However, it can
be an issue for companies, especially companies that are hosting and transiting
large amounts of data. As a result, having a high capacity of Internet
backbone in a metropolitan area relative to demand is a competitive advantage.
The Rankings:
Backbone capacity has gradually diffused throughout the nation. In
1997, over 60 percent of backbone capacity originated in seven metropolitan
areas (e.g., New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago). But by 1999, the same
seven accounted for only 41 percent.22
Places with the most backbone capacity relative to demand tend to be located
in the middle of the nation. Some metros that score high (e.g., Salt Lake
City, St. Louis) may be stops on the "information highway" as
backbone links cross the nation. Still others, such as Kansas City, Dallas,
and Denver, score high because they are home to companies that are backbone
providers. Nevertheless, all these places have high levels of capacity
relative to demand.

 |
 |
100th-76th
Percentile |
 |
 |
75th-51st
Percentile |
 |
 |
50th-26th
Percentile |
 |
 |
25th-1st
Percentile |
| METRO
AREAS BY RANK |
| Rank |
Metro Area |
Score |
| 1 |
Salt
Lake City |
103 |
| 2 |
Kansas City |
78 |
| 3 |
Atlanta |
59 |
| 4 |
Denver |
57 |
| 5 |
Dallas |
57 |
| 6 |
Las Vegas |
52 |
| 7 |
Portland |
51 |
| 8 |
Seattle |
49 |
| 9 |
Orlando |
46 |
| 10 |
San Francisco |
45 |
| 11 |
Richmond |
44 |
| 12 |
St. Louis |
44 |
| 13 |
Washington |
43 |
| 14 |
Austin |
43 |
| 15 |
New Orleans |
43 |
| 16 |
Sacramento |
42 |
| 17 |
Chicago |
41 |
| 18 |
Indianapolis |
39 |
| 19 |
Charlotte |
38 |
| 20 |
Jacksonville |
36 |
| 21 |
Cleveland |
35 |
| 22 |
Houston |
30 |
| 23 |
Oklahoma City |
28 |
| 24 |
Buffalo |
27 |
| 25 |
San Diego |
26 |
| 26 |
Phoenix |
26 |
| 27 |
Hartford |
25 |
| 28 |
Rochester |
25 |
| 29 |
Milwaukee |
24 |
| 30 |
Tampa |
23 |
| 31 |
Greensboro |
22 |
| 32 |
Philadelphia |
21 |
| 33 |
Miami |
21 |
| 34 |
Nashville |
21 |
| 35 |
New York |
21 |
| 36 |
Raleigh-Durham |
20 |
| 37 |
Boston |
20 |
| 38 |
Norfolk |
20 |
| 39 |
Pittsburgh |
19 |
| 40 |
San Antonio |
18 |
| 41 |
Detroit |
18 |
| 42 |
Memphis |
17 |
| 43 |
Los Angeles |
16 |
| 44 |
Minneapolis |
15 |
| 45 |
Dayton |
11 |
| 46 |
West Palm Beach |
10 |
| 47 |
Cincinnati |
7 |
| 48 |
Columbus |
7 |
| 49 |
Louisville |
2 |
| 50 |
Grand Rapids |
0.5 |
|
U.S. Average |
NA |
|
Top 50 Metro Average |
31 |
|
|
| ALPHABETICALLY |
| Metro Area |
Rank |
Score |
| Atlanta |
3 |
59 |
| Austin |
14 |
43 |
| Boston |
37 |
20 |
| Buffalo |
24 |
27 |
| Charlotte |
19 |
38 |
| Chicago |
17 |
41 |
| Cincinnati |
47 |
7 |
| Cleveland |
21 |
35 |
| Columbus |
48 |
7 |
| Dallas |
5 |
57 |
| Dayton |
45 |
11 |
| Denver |
4 |
57 |
| Detroit |
41 |
18 |
| Grand Rapids |
50 |
0.5 |
| Greensboro |
31 |
22 |
| Hartford |
27 |
25 |
| Houston |
22 |
30 |
| Indianapolis |
18 |
39 |
| Jacksonville |
20 |
36 |
| Kansas City |
2 |
78 |
| Las Vegas |
6 |
52 |
| Los Angeles |
43 |
16 |
| Louisville |
49 |
2 |
| Memphis |
42 |
17 |
| Miami |
33 |
21 |
| Milwaukee |
29 |
24 |
| Minneapolis |
44 |
15 |
| Nashville |
34 |
21 |
| New Orleans |
15 |
43 |
| New York |
35 |
21 |
| Norfolk |
38 |
20 |
| Oklahoma City |
23 |
28 |
| Orlando |
9 |
46 |
| Philadelphia |
32 |
21 |
| Phoenix |
26 |
26 |
| Pittsburgh |
39 |
19 |
| Portland |
7 |
51 |
| Raleigh-Durham |
36 |
20 |
| Richmond |
11 |
44 |
| Rochester |
28 |
25 |
| Sacramento |
16 |
42 |
| Salt Lake City |
1 |
103 |
| San Antonio |
40 |
18 |
| San Diego |
25 |
26 |
| San Francisco |
10 |
45 |
| Seattle |
8 |
49 |
| St. Louis |
12 |
44 |
| Tampa |
30 |
23 |
| Washington |
13 |
43 |
| West Palm Beach |
46 |
10 |
|
Go
to next indicator >>
Metro Index Home | Introduction
| Overview &
Methodology | The Rankings |
Summary of Results
Development Strategies | Data Sources
Metro Areas | Endnotes
| The Authors
The Progressive
Policy Institute (PPI)
Technology, Innovation, and New Economy Project
600 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E., Suite 400, Washington DC 20003
Phone: (202) 547-0001
www.ppionline.org
Website design by OnlineWorkshop.
|