Methodology – Cities with the Fastest Internet

Welcome to our methodology page, where we break down how we determine the rankings for our “cities with the fastest internet” series of lists. The goal here is to provide a clear and detailed explanation of the methods and data behind our rankings.

A robust methodology is crucial for ensuring that our rankings are accurate and reliable. By sharing our approach, we aim to give you a deeper understanding of the processes and considerations involved in our analysis. We'll cover everything from our granular data analysis to how we define city boundaries, and explain why these details matter.

This page is designed to offer transparency and insight into our work, helping you see the effort and precision that go into creating our rankings. Whether you're a journalist, a consumer, or just curious about how we do things, you'll find all the details you need right here.

Full list of Cities with the Fastest Internet:

• Top 10 Metropolitan Cities with the Fastest Internet
• Top 10 Major Cities with the Fastest Internet (coming soon)
• Top 10 Large Cities with the Fastest Internet (coming soon)
• Top 10 Medium Cities with the Fastest Internet (coming soon)
• Top 10 Small Cities with the Fastest Internet (coming soon)
• Top 10 Suburban / Regional Cities with the Fastest Internet (coming soon)

Methodology Overview

1. Granular Data Analysis: Using block-level data to capture detailed variations in internet speeds.
2. Weighted Max Download Speed (WMD): Calculated by weighting maximum speeds by the population of each block, giving a realistic measure of what most residents can expect.
3. City Size Tiers: Categorizing cities into six tiers based on population for fair comparisons:
   • Metropolitan City: 1,000,000+ residents
   • Major City: 500,000 – 999,999 residents
   • Large City: 250,000 – 499,999 residents
   • Medium City: 100,000 – 249,999 residents
   • Small City: 50,000 – 99,999 residents
   • Suburban/Regional City: 25,000 – 49,999 residents
4. Sophisticated Boundary Definitions: Using precise urban boundaries and multiple levels of city definitions to avoid broad classifications like MSAs, providing accurate and meaningful comparisons.
5. Data Sources and Reliability: Utilizing FCC data reported by ISPs with statistical methods to address potential biases. Current ranking uses the May 28, 2024 FCC update, which is based on the Broadband Data Collection as of December 31, 2023.

Our Methodology in Detail

1. Granular Data Analysis

Our smallest data point is the city block, this is much more granular than using zip codes or cities in their totality. To illustrate this, here are a few examples:

• The US has roughly 33,000 physical zip codes and over 8.17 million blocks.
• The average population in a zip code is 10,128 people, in a block it’s 58 people.
• There are on average 246 blocks within a zip code.
• Metropolitan areas with over a million residents have an average of 47,800 blocks within them.
• Cities compared in our rankings (those with 25,000 or more residents) have an average of 1,245 blocks and 74 residents per block.

Our database includes every block in the country, which providers offer service in those blocks, and what their upload and download speeds are. This unparalleled data set allows us to aggregate and get a much more detailed and precise picture of a city.

2. Weighted Max Download Speed (WMD)

Our granular block level data allows us to get a more realistic picture of how fast internet in a city is, we’ve come up with the “Weighted Maximum Download Speed” to do this calculation. While there’s nothing complicated about the math here, it does provide a very strong baseline of comparison.

Weighted max down is calculated by what speed is available in the city multiplied by how many people can get that speed.

This calculation provides a more accurate representation of the overall internet speed experience in a city by considering both the speed available and the number of people who can access each speed. It helps to ensure our rankings reflect the true internet performance that residents can expect.

3. City Size Tiers

To provide fair and meaningful comparisons of internet speeds, we've categorized cities into size tiers. This approach ensures that our rankings account for the unique challenges and advantages associated with different city sizes. By grouping cities with similar characteristics, we can offer more accurate and relevant insights into their internet infrastructure.

• Metropolitan City: 1,000,000+ residents
• Major City: 500,000 – 999,999 residents
• Large City: 250,000 – 499,999 residents
• Medium City: 100,000 – 249,999 residents
• Small City: 50,000 – 99,999 residents
• Suburban/Regional City: 25,000 – 49,999 residents

Why City Size Tiers Matter

City size significantly influences various aspects of infrastructure, including internet services. Larger cities often have more complex and extensive networks, while smaller cities may benefit from concentrated investments in specific areas. Here's a closer look at why these categorizations are important:

• Economic Factors: Larger cities typically have more resources and a higher concentration of businesses, leading to greater investment in high-speed internet infrastructure. Smaller cities, on the other hand, might rely on fewer providers and have less competitive markets.
• Infrastructure Demands: The sheer scale of larger cities requires more extensive and robust infrastructure. This includes not just internet services but also transportation, utilities, and public services. Smaller cities have different infrastructure needs and may face fewer logistical challenges.
• Population Density: Higher population densities in larger cities can strain existing networks, requiring continuous upgrades and maintenance. Smaller cities may experience less congestion and can often deliver higher speeds to a smaller, more concentrated population.
• Service Availability and Competition: Large cities often have multiple internet service providers (ISPs) competing, which can drive improvements in speed and service quality. In smaller cities, fewer ISPs might mean less competition and slower adoption of new technologies.
• Regional Development: Larger cities often serve as regional hubs, influencing surrounding areas. The internet infrastructure in these cities can impact a broader region, whereas smaller cities primarily focus on serving their immediate populations.

Why We Separate Cities Like This

By separating cities into these size tiers, we ensure that comparisons are made between cities with similar infrastructure demands and capabilities. This approach avoids skewed results that might occur if smaller cities, which might have disproportionately high speeds due to focused investments, were compared directly to much larger cities with more complex challenges.

Ultimately, our city size tiers help to ensure that our rankings are relevant and useful for residents, businesses, and policymakers in cities of all sizes. By acknowledging the unique characteristics of different city sizes, we can deliver insights that truly reflect the internet infrastructure landscape across the country.

4. Sophisticated Boundary Definitions

When it comes to defining city boundaries for our rankings, we employ a sophisticated approach that goes beyond traditional Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). This allows us to provide more precise and meaningful comparisons between cities of varying sizes. Our methodology acknowledges that many smaller cities and towns are often considered part of a larger metropolitan area but have distinct characteristics and infrastructure needs.

Why Sophisticated Boundary Definitions Matter

Traditional methods often lump multiple cities and towns into a single MSA, which can obscure important differences in internet infrastructure and service quality. By using more granular definitions, we can:

• Highlight Unique Characteristics: Each city, even within the same metropolitan area, can have unique internet infrastructure, challenges, and advantages. Our approach allows us to capture these nuances.
• Provide Accurate Comparisons: Comparing cities of similar sizes and characteristics offers a more accurate and fair assessment of their internet speeds. This is crucial for residents, businesses, and policymakers who need reliable information to make informed decisions.
• Reflect Real-World Experiences: People often identify more closely with their specific city or town rather than the broader metropolitan area. Our rankings aim to reflect the real-world experiences of residents in these smaller, distinct areas.

Example: Greater Salt Lake City Area

Let's take the Greater Salt Lake City area as an example. While Salt Lake City itself falls into the Metropolitan City tier, there are several smaller cities within the same metropolitan area that belong to different tiers:

• Salt Lake City: Metropolitan City (1,000,000+ residents)
• West Valley City and Sandy: Medium City (100,000 – 249,999 residents)
• Murray: Small City (50,000 – 99,999 residents)
• Midvale: Suburban/Regional City (25,000 – 49,999 residents)

Each of these cities, while part of the greater Salt Lake City area, has its own unique infrastructure and internet service landscape. By categorizing them separately, we can provide a more accurate picture of internet speeds and service quality for each specific area

5. Data Sources and Reliability

The reliability of our rankings is rooted in the robust and comprehensive data sources we utilize. Our primary data source is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which provides detailed information on internet service availability and speeds across the United States.

Why We Use FCC Data

1. Comprehensive Coverage
   • Nationwide Data: The FCC collects data from internet service providers (ISPs) across the entire country, ensuring that we have access to extensive and consistent information for all regions.
   • Detailed Reporting: The FCC data includes granular details on internet speeds and service availability at the block level, allowing us to perform precise and accurate analyses.
2. Regulatory Standards
   • Mandated Reporting: ISPs are required to report their service data to the FCC, which helps maintain a high level of accuracy and accountability. This regulatory oversight ensures that the data is both reliable and up-to-date.
   • Consistency: The FCC's standardized reporting requirements mean that data from different providers and regions can be compared fairly and accurately.

Our Approach to Ensuring Data Reliability

While the FCC data forms the backbone of our analysis, we take additional steps to ensure the reliability and accuracy of our rankings:

• Granular Analysis: By working with block-level data, we can capture detailed variations in internet speeds within cities, providing a more accurate picture than broader, less precise measures.
• Sophisticated Boundary Definitions: Our methodology includes precise city boundary definitions, ensuring that our comparisons reflect the true characteristics of each area.
• City Size Tiers: By categorizing cities into different size tiers, we can compare cities with similar infrastructure and service demands, leading to fairer and more meaningful rankings.

Data Update Frequency

To maintain the relevance and accuracy of our rankings, we regularly update our data:

• ISP Data Updates: The ISP database is updated frequently, with minor updates occurring about every two weeks and more significant updates twice a year. This ensures that our information on service availability and speeds is as current as possible.
• Annual Rankings Update: Our rankings are updated yearly to reflect the latest changes in ISP data from the FCC and demographic shifts from the Census Bureau. This annual update process allows us to account for both technological advancements and population changes, providing a comprehensive view of internet performance in each city.

Transparency and Commitment to Accuracy

We are committed to transparency in our data reporting and methodology. By using reliable data sources like the FCC and applying rigorous analytical methods, we ensure that our rankings are accurate and trustworthy. Our goal is to provide clear and reliable insights into internet performance across cities of all sizes, helping consumers, businesses, and policymakers make informed decisions.

In summary, the combination of comprehensive FCC data, regular updates, and our detailed analytical approach allows us to deliver reliable and insightful rankings of internet speeds across the United States.

Comparative Analysis

Our methodology goes beyond simply ranking cities based on internet speeds. By categorizing cities into size tiers and using sophisticated boundary definitions, we ensure that our comparisons are both fair and meaningful. This approach allows us to provide a more accurate picture of internet performance across different types of cities.

1. Within-Tier Comparisons
   By comparing cities within the same size tier, we ensure that each city's internet infrastructure is evaluated against others with similar characteristics. This avoids the skewed results that can occur when small cities are compared directly to large metropolitan areas.
2. Cross-Tier Insights
   While our primary comparisons are within tiers, we also derive insights from looking at trends and performance across different tiers. This helps us understand how city size impacts internet speeds and infrastructure quality.
3. Accurate Representations
   By using precise boundary definitions, we capture the true internet performance of each city, rather than relying on broader, less accurate MSAs. This provides a clearer, more detailed understanding of how internet speeds vary within and between metropolitan areas.

Example: Greater Salt Lake City Area

In the Greater Salt Lake City area, we consider not just Salt Lake City itself but also surrounding cities like West Valley City, Sandy, Murray, and Midvale. Each of these cities falls into a different size tier:

• Salt Lake City: Metropolitan City
• West Valley City and Sandy: Medium City
• Murray: Small City
• Midvale: Suburban/Regional City

By categorizing and comparing these cities separately, we can provide a more nuanced and accurate assessment of internet speeds and infrastructure within the broader metropolitan area. This approach highlights the specific strengths and challenges of each city, ensuring that our rankings are both fair and relevant.

Our comparative analysis strengthens our overall rankings, offering a detailed, accurate, and fair representation of internet performance across cities of all sizes. By using this approach, we ensure that our data is both meaningful and useful for a wide range of audiences.