Digital Divide

Despite the continued proliferation of the internet and new digital devices, many low-income communities still lack internet access. Slightly less than half of all households with incomes under $20,000 reported having internet access in the Census Bureau’s most recent American Community Survey. By comparison, about 93 percent of wealthier households with annual incomes exceeding $75,000 were connected. Places where low-income households are least connected are most common throughout rural regions of the South and Appalachia. Higher costs of living might explain differences in other regions of the country, where housing or utility expenses leave households with little income to spare. Demographics further contribute to regional disparities as families of Hispanic immigrants have lower internet adoption rates, as do heads of households over age 65.

On August 8, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission launched a new assessment of “whether advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion,” (otherwise known as the “706 Report”). This report is long overdue, as the report is supposed to be issued annually, but the last 706 Report was released on January 29, 2016. The Notice of Inquiry (NOI) properly seeks comment on both fixed and mobile broadband connections. It acknowledges that the two technologies have different technical characteristics and limitations, and that broadband providers choose to market their fixed and mobile products in different ways. As Commissioner Clyburn notes in her concurring statement, fixed and mobile services are complements, not substitutes.

While some press accounts suggested that the FCC reached a tentative conclusion to equate the two technologies, it only sought comment on this question. The FCC also sought comment on how the markets for fixed and mobile services differ, and it did not say that mobile broadband access is a replacement for fixed broadband. To be clear, the SHLB Coalition does not believe fixed and mobile services are substitutes. Students cannot complete homework and seniors cannot apply for government services with just smartphones. While smartphones can help bridge the digital divide for individuals, they do not replace the gigabit speeds provided by fiber or fixed wireless technologies that anchor institutions need.

Household internet access via a mobile-only connection increased from 8.86% in 2011 to 20.00% in 2015. This paper uses national data to model the propensity of a mobile-only connection via logistic regressions. An inter-temporal non-linear Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition is then used to determine the driving factors behind this trend. The results show that while changing characteristics over time account for less than 1% of the trend, behavioral relationships changed dramatically as specific groups were much more likely to be adopters of mobile-only in 2015. The primary behavioral relationships leading to increased mobile-only connections are those associated with age (50.55%), race/ethnic background (4.75%), and non-metro status (1.88%). The finding that these demographic groups are becoming more willing to adopt the internet via the mobile-only connection can have important implications for future broadband policy.

Discourse and interest in the digital divide research community is steadily shifting beyond access and adoption to utilization, impact, and outcomes of information and communications technologies (ICTs), particularly the internet. In the United States, studies and surveys conducted by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) indicate increase in internet use in every corner of the country over the last two decades. However, recent surveys on ICT use indicate significant disparities in dimensions of internet use. For example Americans’ use of the internet to pursue e-education, e-health, e-commerce, e-entertainment, and telecommuting has varied significantly – longitudinally as well as geographically. Additionally, internet use habits are rapidly expanding, providing new insights into the emerging internet of things, wearable technologies, and new forms of social media usage. As novel technologies and lifestyles emerge, analysis of new disparities and dimensions of the “usage digital divide” stemming from social, economic, societal, and environmental factors becomes important. This research examines spatial clusters, geographic disparities, and socio-economic dimensions of existing and emerging dimensions of internet use among the 50 U.S. states.

[Commentary] Twelve senators wrote to the Federal Communications Commission expressing concern regarding the agency’s latest Notice of Inquiry. The senators’ letter echoes many arguments pressed by various interest groups which seem misguided, or at least premature, given that the agency is simply asking questions to get better information about the state of the industry. But congressional opposition to the Notice of Inquiry is especially odd, given that the proceeding is, well, required by Congress. They are concerned that the agency might conclude that some Americans access internet-based services on mobile networks rather than fixed broadband networks. And while this would give the agency a more complete view of how Americans access “advanced telecommunications capability,” their unstated concern is that it might also show that fewer of us are internet-impoverished, which undermines the case for regulation.

As students across the country head back to school this week, you might imagine their school leaders consumed by last-minute hiring decisions, meetings with principals and other school leaders, and ongoing management of the district’s finances and facilities. But for Pam Moran, superintendent of Albemarle County Public Schools in Virginia, there’s another topic weighing on her mind: the district’s broadband infrastructure—or the network of equipment and technologies needed to provide high-speed internet service to Albemarle’s classrooms.

Over the past decade since she began leading Albemarle’s schools, she’s been at the helm of the digital transformation reshaping the district. The tools, then, exist to help districts to bridge the digital divide for their students. The problem is that many districts don’t have access to these tools. Places like Albemarle Schools provide a clear example of how school districts can close the digital divide; now we need to address the barriers that keep other districts from following suit.

Mapping analyses of AT&T’s 2016 broadband deployment data reported to the Federal Communications Commission for Wayne County, MI, (Detroit) and Lucas County, OH, (Toledo) show the same pattern of “digital redlining” of low income neighborhoods as National Digital Inclusion Alliance research has previously revealed in the Cleveland and Dayton areas.

The new maps, showing Census blocks in the two counties where AT&T offers fast fiber-enhanced “VDSL” broadband service — and blocks where it doesn’t — are part of NDIA’s ongoing research into the FCC’s Form 477 Fixed Broadband Deployment data for June 2016. NDIA has found a high correlation between neighborhoods where AT&T has chosen not to deploy the newer fiber-to-the-neighborhood technology, and those with poverty rates of 35 percent or more. In areas where the company hasn’t installed VDSL capacity, households as well as small businesses are still dependent on older, slower, all-copper ADSL2 service with maximum downloads speeds as low as 1.5 mbps or even 768 kbps.

Can the “smart” and the “inclusive” come together in a way to make our cities better places to live for everyone? An answer in the affirmative is possible, but not inevitable.

For this to happen, stakeholders—mayors, businesspeople, and community leaders—must have an appreciation of three things:

1. The smart city and the inclusive city are very different
2. One (inclusiveness) does not follow necessarily from the other (a smart city).
3. Action is necessary to bridge the gap between a smart and an inclusive

Modernizing Lifeline for broadband is critical for poor people and people of color, who are more likely to be on the wrong side of the digital divide and who cite cost as a major barrier to adoption. Lifeline is the only federal program poised to increase broadband adoption and provide a pathway out of poverty for millions of people. When talking about Lifeline, we hear a lot about waste, fraud and abuse. But this narrative is overblown and frankly offensive.

I have long been troubled by the tenor of the Lifeline debate: There’s a tendency to wage war on the poor, to demonize and assume the worst about Lifeline recipients. And I cannot sit here today, especially as white supremacy is on the rise around the country and in the White House, without directly confronting the racist undertones of these assumptions. We should avoid inflated stories of waste, fraud and abuse at the expense of poor people and people of color, who rely on Lifeline to meet basic needs. The first priority should be expedient implementation of the 2016 Order. We should reject radical measures such as moving Universal Service funds to the U.S. Treasury “to offset other national debts,” as the FCC Chair’s office evidently suggested to the GAO. This could undermine all USF programs, including Lifeline and others designed to connect rural Americans, schools and libraries.

Blacks and Hispanics remain less likely than whites to own a traditional computer or have high-speed internet at home, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted in fall 2016. But mobile devices are playing important roles in helping to bridge these differences.

Roughly eight-in-ten whites (83%) report owning a desktop or laptop computer, compared with 66% of blacks and 60% of Hispanics. There are also substantial racial or ethnic differences in broadband adoption, with whites more likely than either blacks or Hispanics to report having a broadband connection at home. (There were not enough Asian respondents in the sample to be broken out into a separate analysis.) But despite these inequalities, blacks and Hispanics have mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers in shares similar to whites. There are differences between Hispanics born inside and outside the U.S.: 88% of native-born Hispanics own a smartphone, compared with 62% of Hispanics born abroad. About three-quarters of whites and blacks own a smartphone. Mobile devices play an outsize role for blacks and Hispanics when it comes to their online access options. About two-in-ten Hispanics (22%) and 15% of blacks are “smartphone only” internet users – meaning they lack traditional home broadband service but do own a smartphone. By comparison, 9% of whites fall into this category. In addition, blacks and Hispanics are also more likely than whites to rely on their smartphones for a number of activities, such as looking up health information or looking for work.