Digital Divide Is Wider Than We Think, Study Says

Rural areas with poor broadband are likely to be similar to the rural areas in states that have rejected federally available Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. I don’t understand why the voters and their representatives feel they can push for federal assistance with broadband access and, at the same time, reject federal assistance with health care for poor and disabled people who lack access and insurance.

What the article doesn't cover is the status of efforts to make existing fiber available to residents in rural areas. Years ago the installed 'dark' (unused) fiber intended for future communications needs of the Bonneville Power Administration all over the Pacific Northwest was offered. Investor owned communications companies, afraid that their future profits might be eroded if the remote areas were ever settled, launched a million-dollar lobbying campaign to stop the offer. The for-profit companies did not want to provide broad band to those remote folks because it was too expensive at the time; but they DEFINITELY did not want a public utility to do it. Greed triumphed, and may still do.

"Ajit Pai buries 2-year-old speed test data in appendix of 762-page report Long-delayed report shows DSL ISPs are still bad at providing advertised speeds." He decided to hold off on releasing the 2017 report until he released the 2018 report. Anyway, this article discusses some of the measurements and some of the vendors' performance. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/12/ajit-pai-buries-2-year-old-speed-test-data-in-appendix-of-762-page-report/

Internet should be a public utility. Like water or sewer. The city does a great job delivering here here in Minneapolis. Every internet provider I have had is terrible. I find myself turning off wifi and using my data on my cell plan.

You don't need broadband for many of these things, and 5G will bring it to most everyone.

We live in rural Dane County, Wisconsin only 20 minutes from Madison. We have had very slow dsl for years. One problem with the FCC data is they use census blocks. In our neighborhood the cable runs up a state highway, and our neighbors a mile away can get cable internet since they live on the highway, so even though we will never get cable, the FCC says we have adequate high speed internet since our neighborhood is in that census block. One neighbor had to sell their house due to health concerns and lost at least one sale due to lack of decent internet speed. Our local legacy carrier Frontier got a huge FCC grant and they have been installing more hubs so that the dsl speed will increase somewhat, but coverage is still spotty and the customer service abominable, when you try to actually get connected to the newer, supposedly faster, speed no one knows anything, even though I drive by the hub many times a week. Poor infrastructure coupled with poor customer service makes one crazy at times.

My wish is that the city of New York will open CityNet, the broadband network that covers New York City to public use.

Another thing about WIFI and faster internet in your area is that it improves the value of your home because lots of people can work from home and live in a rural area and just fly to meetings every now and then. The same applies to individuals living in the city - they can work from home and only go into the office every now and then. I took the offered upgrade from traditional dial up internet, because it was free and I also know that it increases the sale price of your home.

50 miles from the White House in Washington DC, broadband in not available to residents of western Loudoun county VA. Despite the FCC maps that show multiple choices, there are no broadband choices at all for most residents. This illustrates the worthless methodology used for FCC availability mapping. This is not a "poor rural" problem. Loudoun VA is one of the richest counties in the country, however it signed contracts that allow Verizon and Comcast to wire only cities and leave all of the western county un-served. Any options for municipal sponsored solutions are refused by the majority of county supervisors from cities with broadband. This is not a unique problem in Virginia. Many areas outside of cities are un-served. Telecom providers have lobbied the state legislature to prevent municipal solutions.

Excellent article. But as I see it, the challenge is not just to bring broadband internet service to rural areas – it’s also to make that service more affordable for all Americans, rural and urban alike. Here in Providence, RI, I pay nearly $80/month for internet-only access (Rhode Islanders have only two options & I switch back & forth to take advantage of “special offers.”) I’m poor and that’s a big bite out of my monthly budget. I pay it because internet access is essential to my life in myriad ways I’m glad Microsoft has done this research and its proposals sound good, if self-interested. But I question how much we can or should count on a massive software company and monopolistic ISPs like Comcast,Verizon, & AT&T to do right by American consumers, wherever they live.

You need to get your central government to invest in economic development like our NZ government has done for bringing broadband to all our nations citizens and rural areas. Read this government article to see how our central government is investing in our nations future. (beehive is what our parliament is called) https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/accelerated-timetable-rural-broadband-and-mobile-coverage

Could hi speed internet and WiFi be part of an upcoming infrastructure bill?

What does “So we’re teeing up ideas for collecting more granular and standardized data.” - Ajit Pai - mean? Is there something wrong with the word "accurate?" Remembering that Mr. Pai is anti-net-neutrality -- he refuses to release data concerning Russian interference via public comment and the fact that the FCC has released no new data concerning broadband speeds in the two years he has been chairman -- is it possible his obfuscation is just another coverup?

Bayfield County in Wisconsin, about as rural as it gets, has a cooperative utility which has for years, maybe a decade, offered it's customers a fiber optic connection to any structure in the county. My son lives on 37 acres in Bayfield County and works as a development engineer for IBM. Members of his team work in IBM facilities in Cupertino, Sacramento, Austin, Eau Claire and other parts of the world (Brazil, Germany, Romania, India) on any given hour of any given day. They tell him constantly that he has the best connectivity of any on his team. Having high speed fiber optic internet service is a choice the citizens of Bayfield County made and continue to support.

"And according to the Federal Communications Commission, everyone in the sprawling county has access to broadband internet." The actions of the FCC, counter to its mandate, work for the benefit and betterment and protection of the telecommunications industry and the profits of its individual companies and chieftans. You can actually chart over the past 30 years how decision after decision after decision has worked against protecting the interests (read pocketbook) of the average American consumer. The FCC, like most national commissions, agencies and institutions are there to protect the bottom line of businesses, not consumers. But they will spin anything to obscure and obfuscate their machinations. Throwing confetti in my face doesn't make it a party.

The parts of the country that are rural are the same parts that shun technology and vote for no government intervention in their lives. Leave them alone.

I live in a small NZ city and have Wi-Fi broadband connected to my landline phone. When the company first introduced Wi-Fi to our city a couple of years ago they offered us everything for free, including the modem and installation, if we moved over from wireless to WIFI. Lots of areas in NZ that can't get WIFI have wireless dial up broadband. Broadband just means high speed internet access rather than dial up internet access. I haven't really noticed any increase in speed and I never thought wireless was slow - it's all a big marketing ploy just like people who buy cars with all the bells and whistles but it doesn't mean you'll use them. Also, how fast do you need to go? Honestly the internet is only as fast as your typing and it's a lot quicker than waiting for mail through the manual Post Office service. The original idea of the internet was that it was built for speed and not security. So one step forward and two steps backwards.

I wonder how much of the red/blue divide between urban and rural areas can actually be attributed to the no-broadband/broadband divide? It's hard enough to know what is going on in today's world even if you have a good Internet connection. But without a decent Internet connection, where do most people get their news? Fox News? How many people don't really get any form of news at all? Don't be surprised if Republicans fight against the expansion of broadband to rural areas.

I never understand how we can fund 'agencies' like the FCC via taxes and fees, but they can escape hard questions by 'declining' to comment. The press needs to buck up and press these public servants for answers.

Would someone explain to me what, exactly, constitutes "broadband" service? How many bps or kbps and how consistently those speeds have to achieved, nad how long, i.e.: uninterrupted, to make it true "broadband?" I live one house away from (inside) the city limits of a small city (30,000+) in north Texas, about 75 miles from the downtown skyscrapers of Dallas. My "broadband" is beamed at me from thousands of miles away by a satellite. I have no access to DSL, to cable, and you can just forget fiber optic technology. Dense cloud cover noticeably reduces response time for internet use. Lightning within 10 miles or so shuts it down, where it stays until there hasn't been any atmospheric electrical discharge for several minutes while my dish/modem and the satellite go through their ritual of re-establishing a working connection...and just as this is finished another jagged bolt from the blue starts the process all over. Ditto my TV service. I've never tried to use streaming to watch movies, on my TV or on my laptop. My wife and I watched a streamed movie at the home of some friends who live less than half a mile away and who have cable access. We endured multiple pauses during the course of the movie. So, what can I expect if I have true broadband?

To say Connectivity by itself defines the Digital Divide is to not understand the Digital Divide at all. There are gaping valleys of digital divide throughout URBAN AMERICA, where connectivity is abundant. Digital Divide, the other half of the equation, is also defined by relevancy and the availability of Training. Can folks currently not using the Internet be guided to key resources on-line for improved quality of life? @OneMillionNIU the answer is yes.

Wish I could agree and say internet is a luxury commodity as previous comments, but I lived on my farm for three years in a rural town just outside of where I am now. There we paid anywhere from $300-800/mo for “high-speed” internet. It was a major problem for both of us since we worked from home much of the time, or were supposed to be getting work done. The internet, first WildBlue, then Excede, then ViaStat, could never give us solid explanation as to the fluctuation in data useage that was highest when we were asleep. We also could not make cell phone calls, and we tried AT&T and Verizon with boosters. This was the final blow, as not being able to hold conversations for more than a minute directly outside in the high plains wind resulted in losing a lot of money on business deals. Driving into town? An hour, often an issue bc of miles and miles of dirt road, not to mention the cost of gas for a truck or suv. Sure, buying a small awd vehicle was on the to-do-list, but we never made it that far.

Rural electrification and free postal services were critical events in the development of the whole United States. They were not profitable so the government took those projects on, sometimes with massive infrastructure projects and long term employment. The benefits have been undeniable and profound. Urban transit spending does not resonate with rural people or translate into votes. Perhaps universal access to broadband in rural areas is something whose time has come politically. Combine spending for the two into infrastructure bills that would have the support of rural and urban voters alike.

As many rural readers have commented, there is very limited high speed internet service in central VA. The situation is similar to rural electrification in the 1930's-40's in that the Federal Govt assistance is required to overcome the costs. And no surprise, NYC residents say "so what, you choose to live there". Meanwhile, NY gets Federal Funds for a new Hudson River bridge and asks for increased money for subways and new tunnels under the Hudson. We all need help but now it should be the turn for rural Americans to get usable internet access and join the modern world! It could help join us together!

Recently visited beautiful Nebraska and South Dakota. Coming from California, I was blown away by how little WiFi and mobile phone coverage was available over much of the area. Read the NYT? Not available in even the high priced hotels. Check your email or make a phone call? Only in the larger towns. Isolation was apparent. The easiest way to receive news was television, most probably fox news. Hopefully Microsoft will be able to mitigate this digital divide.

"The Microsoft data is much more detailed than the official government statistics, said John Kahan, Microsoft’s chief data analytics officer for external affairs." If this is true it's a disgrace. Our government should be able to collect the statistics and work on our behalf to see that prices are reasonable, the service is excellent, and that nearly everyone has access. Maybe internet accessibility should be treated like the utilities are: as a necessity because it is. People are now expected to apply online for jobs. People will be expected to file their taxes online. We're being forced to pay bills online even though there are regular data breaches that we aren't told about. That's another area where the government could do some good. Data protection and privacy so that our personal information can't be hijacked without the perpetrators (and the ones who hide the facts from us) being penalized. Alas, none of this will come to pass. Our politicians believe too much in capitalism to understand that with internet access capitalism is of no value. Verizon, Spectrum, etc., charge way too much for poor service. We could return to snail mail.

Most people understand that if you live in the middle of nowhere, your "quality of life" may be somewhat downscale in relation to wealthy urban dwellers. There are trade-offs in life. One cannot always have it all. Having said that, if it's in the best interest of private industry to build competitive and profitable networks and businesses in remote rural areas, they will certainly do so, hopefully at their own expense and not through government corporate-welfare schemes. Is it worth a billion government dollars to provide broadband service to ten families in the Utah desert? When presented with the bill, most taxpayers would say no. If there's a "digital divide," then there is also a hospital "divide," a dentist, restaurant, movie theater and library "divide." I drive an old car that is not equipped with GPS navigation. I might not be able to find a new employer, condemning me to poverty. I must be a victim of the automobile "divide."

What is concerning is the fcc's apparent indifference to getting this fixed. FDR gave us rea. Past time for its Wi-Fi equivalent. That is something Democrats can do for the rural folks who insist on voting republican.

There is a big difference between not having service available and not being willing or able to pay for it. Anyone will cell service can buy a hotspot or turn their phone into one. That is an expensive connection, however.

Interesting article and update on technology and what is happening or not happening in rural areas. I think all the ideas should be used in order to get these people full access. Satellites, white space channels, etc. This will only serve to help out their economy as well which is suffering and possibly one reason is their lack of continuous service. It has to impact their jobs or creation thereof.

The article would be more helpful to me if it contained a definition of 'broadband service."

Given the billions of dollars handed to telecoms in subsidies by several administrations for services and improvements that were never implemented, but instead used for empire building and reduction of services, is it any wonder that the United States lags behind Lithuania in internet service speed and 29th in the world (behind South Korea) in general internet penetration among the population? Ajit Pai is just a culminating symptom of the problem, much like his boss, rather than the root cause.

No surprise that the FCC obtained their flawed data from ISPs. The FCC’s mission is to maximize the ISP’s profits regardless of how that affects service to consumers, so naturally they want to present findings that put the ISPs in a good light. The head of the FCC is former telecom industry lobbyist. So long as the revolving door exists between industries and the governmental regulatory agencies, we’ll be behind the rest of the developed world in consumer advocacy and protection. Internet speeds in the US are slower than Europe’s and, of course, we pay more. The 1996 Telecom Act saw to that, giving the giant telecoms their own geographic monopolies. Basically, our government exists to aid corporate America in the upward transfer of wealth. Any politician or candidate that openly talks about the need to change this rotten system faces an uphill battle, the corporate-media will come to the rescue of the status quo - as we recently saw with the Times piece on Bernie Sanders, declaring his 2020 prospects as dead, despite polls showing him running second in the field of candidates,

It’s all about the buck. I live in the country and for years I’ve been saying we can put a man on the moon send things to another solar system but we can get a decent internet signal in the country. Why? Because it’s not profitable. This is where we need government involvement but as always the little things that matter don’t score political points. And so we in the rural area sit and hope the cloud doesn’t drop our call or block our signal.

Even on Long Island (6000 people per square mile, 18th most populated in the world) there are lots of people forced to access internet by satellite because of spotty coverage.

Just imagine Microsoft, Google, Facebook and Apple devoting a portion of their profits to establish broadband access in GOP dominated states that at this moment lack reliable internet service. We could see a veritable revolution.

I live 20 minutes by car from metro Memphis, and this is my life. Though the story doesn’t say which states are working with Microsoft to solve this problem, I cannot imagine TN is on the list. The GOP rules the rural counties in this state, and the party that was once of Lincoln has no demonstrable interest in helping the little guy, even those they lean in for votes. Am I annoyed? Yes. To not take active steps to provide equal access to the internet is an act of sabotage. We are being held back by politicians who fear us going forward.

From the perspective of rural West Virginia, this article strikes a resonant chord. Where I live, the only terrestrial internet on offer is dial-up; satellite internet at $150 per month advertises 25 meg speeds, but we usually get between 1 and 3, with rainy day speeds closer to 250K. And once we have hit our limit of 25 gig/month, the speed throttles way back - or we have to buy more bandwidth at $5 per gig. So we don't watch videos except in the "safety zone" from 2 AM to 7 AM (just turned off CSNY in concert at Fillmore East 1970). Since the school system got Google-ized with a wholesale purchase of Chromebooks, many kids are at a real disadvantage when it comes to doing their homework. I could go on and on.....

The claim of who has “access” to broadband is a measurement of the ability to get it, the claim of who “uses broadband” is an entirely different measurement. The Times should not conflate these as they are a material difference. Adoption rates of usage and availabilty are seperate issues.