If the federal government’s investments in broadband connectivity are to be effective, different programmatic pieces must work together. Broadband infrastructure funds are necessary to ensuring universal access, but not sufficient to achieve full digital equity. Equitable broadband adoption depends on people having the financial means to maintain service, which the Affordable Connectivity Plan (ACP) facilitates, as well as access to wrap-around digital inclusion services (such as tech support and skills training). Effective coordination between infrastructure and digital equity investments can ensure that people subscribe to new networks that the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program funds.

ACP enrollment data offers clues as to how well a community is positioned to take advantage of funds to promote digital equity. Abysmal ACP enrollment levels may indicate a capacity deficit; a community may have a dearth of institutions that can make people aware of ACP benefits and aid in enrollment. Strong ACP enrollment invites exploring why. Are particular places doing outreach that might explain high enrollment levels? If so, state policymakers would be wise to consult with digital inclusion advocates in these areas (as BEAD planning requires) and explore whether initiatives in high-enrollment areas might be replicated elsewhere. Understanding the geography of ACP adoption can therefore help states more effectively prioritize resources for digital equity. If, for instance, Digital Equity Act (DEA) funds will provide grants to entities providing digital inclusion services in cities and communities, wouldn’t it help to know which places have the greatest need? Patterns of ACP enrollment help answer that question.

There are three ways to think about ACP enrollment, which together can help policymakers and others understand digital inclusion needs in cities and communities.

1. Enrollment rates
2. Growth in enrollment
3. Enrollment performance in particular places

Enrollment Rates for the Affordable Connectivity Program

The federal government’s subsidization program for home internet subscriptions is just over a year old – the amount of time the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) and its successor program the Affordable Connectivity Plan (ACP) have been in operation. Since EBB’s inception in May 2021, some 11.3 million households have enrolled in either the EBB or ACP (through March of 2022).  ACP’s second year coincides with states beginning the planning process for using infrastructure and digital equity dollars that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will distribute pursuant to Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds.

Enrollment rates are a fairly straightforward calculation. ACP requires that applicants meet certain eligibility requirements, such as a household’s income being at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level. Knowing how many households in a city meet that criterion and how many have enrolled means it is possible to calculate the percent of eligible households that have signed up for the ACP benefit. Using 2016-2020 combined American Community Survey data on the share of households living at or below the 200 percent poverty level (roughly 37 million households total in the U.S.) and end-of-March enrollment date (11.3 million households) means 30% of eligible households have enrolled in ACP.[1] As the table below shows, this figure varies looking across different cities. Much – but not all – of this variation has to do with how many people live at or below the 200% poverty line in those cities.

TABLE 1

Detroit’s high enrollment rate tracks with its large share (51%) of households living at or below the 200% poverty threshold. Cleveland has a 50% enrollment rate, but 36% of households there have incomes at or below the 200% poverty threshold. At the other end of the spectrum, Austin’s and Nashville’s low enrollment rates unfold in places where fewer households live at or below the 200% poverty line (25% and 27%, respectively).

Across these four cities, Detroit seems to be performing as expected, while Cleveland is a bit better-than-expected; Austin and Nashville are behind the curve. These figures tell us something about performance, but not a lot about what might be behind it or where in a given city it may be better or worse. Looking at performance permits a more precise understanding of why ACP enrollment rates vary in different places.

Performance

Understanding ACP enrollment performance is a more nuanced topic even if the question is clear: Do some places do a better job at signing up households to ACP than others? To answer that requires disentangling actual enrollment from predicted enrollment. That, in turn, requires a statistical model that predicts how many households enroll in ACP.[3] Such a model uses a number of a place’s characteristics (racial/ethnic make-up, the age of the population, levels of educational attainment, existing patterns of technology adoption, and income[4]) to predict how many households should enroll in ACP. That prediction may vary from the actual number of enrollees. If more households in a particular area have signed up for ACP than the model predicts, then that area is a high performer with respect to ACP enrollment.

In Baltimore, for instance, the model shows that the Broadway East and Johnston Square neighborhoods (in the 21202 and 21213 zip codes, respectively) have enrolled about 25% more households in ACP than predicted. Both zip codes have high rates of ACP enrollment, but nonetheless Broadway East has signed up some 25% more households than predicted. Why? In Baltimore, ReBUILD Metro is a local coalition that has aimed to improve the housing stock in Broadway East and integrate internet access into trying to improve the lives of residents. The initiative tries to leverage the presence of nearby anchor institutions – Johns Hopkins Hospital and a public library branch – in its work. This suggests that investments in social infrastructure may matter.

Another possible difference-maker is the public library. The statistical model shows a correlation between the presence of public libraries in a 5-digit zip code and ACP enrollment. The “library effect” is associated with 6% higher ACP enrollment in 5-digit zip codes with a public library compared to those without.

None of this demonstrates causation. Places with public libraries may have other characteristics that lend themselves to ACP uptake, although it is also true that many public libraries have sought to publicize the ACP program. From a planner’s perspective, however, causation may not be important. Knowing where ACP performance is strong (for whatever the reason) can spark a search for models that hold promise. If such models are found, these promising practices can be adapted to other places that may be underperforming. Findings from performance-based analysis of ACP enrollment can offer more targeted allocation of DEA funds, thereby helping to increase the chance that they pay off.

Comparing performance to enrollment rate shows several consistencies in outcomes across cities, but a number of cases where there is a disconnect between enrollment rate and performance. The high enrollment rates in Detroit and Cleveland track with high-performance indicators. Portland and Denver are two places where enrollment rates trail the average in cities sampled (and the nation at large) but whose performance is above expectations. Yet some cities—such as Jacksonville, Chicago, and Dallas—have ACP enrollment rates that do not differ greatly from the norm, but their performance is significantly below par. On the other side of the coin, there are cities whose enrollment rates are near the average (San Antonio, San Diego, Tucson, and Miami-Dade) but whose performance metrics are very good. Finally, there are a group of cities – Boston, Austin, Minneapolis, Houston, and Nashville – with below-average enrollment and poor performance.

TABLE 2

What are the sources of performance variation? As noted, the presence of a public library has a positive, if modest, association with performance. But there are other drivers, each of which digital equity planners should note:

• African American households are more likely to have enrolled in ACP (even when accounting for income, age, and educational attainment levels).
• Hispanic and White households are significantly less likely to have enrolled in ACP.
• Rural households are less likely to have signed up for ACP.[5]

A goal of Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act broadband investments is to improve digital equity. The findings of inequity in these categories suggest which groups warrant special attention and, importantly, where they are. Note that San Antonio and Miami – areas with a high share of Hispanic households – fell into the category with average enrollment rates but high performance. Given the negative association between the share of Hispanics in an area and ACP uptake, it seems like something in the digital inclusion environment there has overcome the downward pressure the Hispanic variable has on ACP enrollment.

Growth

A final metric to consider is growth. Stakeholders in some cities who might be disappointed by their enrollment rates can potentially take heart if growth in ACP enrollment is strong. A simple comparison of EBB enrollment at the end of 2021 (when approximately 9 million households nationally had enrolled in the program) and March 2022 is helpful. During that time period, there was a 23% increase in enrollment in the federal government’s connectivity subsidy program. As table 2 shows, growth rates varied in the top 30 cities.

Looking at December to March growth does offer comfort to cities with low enrollment rates and poor performance metrics, such as Boston, Nashville, Austin, and Minneapolis. The strong growth rates for Miami, Los Angeles, and (to a lesser extent) San Antonio accompany strong enrollment and performance findings for those cities. In light of the fact that places with high shares of Hispanic households are generally less likely to enroll in ACP, the findings are striking. It is worth exploring if there were specific strategies to reach Hispanic households in those cities. Another takeaway from this table (in combination with Tables 1 and 2) is that the phrase “Houston, we’ve got a problem” clearly applies when it comes to ACP enrollment for that city.

TABLE 3

A final point about looking at growth rate is how cities that seemed to do well with EBB enrollment in its early months – such as Detroit, Baltimore, and Cleveland – experienced below-average ACP growth between December 2021 and March 2022.

What does this mean for planners?

Perhaps nothing could be a more frustrating outcome from BEAD network investments than a persisting gap between deployment and subscription. Understanding where there are ACP enrollment shortfalls can help address this “if you build it, will they log on?” concern. Looking at the performance of ACP uptake at a granular level can help avoid “networks to nowhere” for state broadband planners:

1. Examining ACP enrollment in 5-digit zip codes can help target resources to places with the most need, e.g., places within cities where, for whatever reason, households are unaware of ACP.
2. ACP enrollment can serve as a proxy for local capacity to foster digital inclusion. Understanding where enrollment is over-performing can launch productive inquiry into models that may be effective – and replicable.
3. Findings on ACP enrollment can help structure community outreach initiatives that BEAD requires. Although focusing on promising practices for digital inclusion in areas with high ACP enrollment is an attractive avenue, community outreach in low-performing ACP areas has merit.

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration has emphasized that a key goal of BEAD investments is digital equity. State planners will need all the tools they can find to work toward that goal – and analysis of ACP performance is one such tool.

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2022. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-328-3040
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities