Pew has assessed and tracked the broadband-related data that is available in the US. They start with framing the importance…

Incomplete information can make it difficult for lawmakers to understand the effects of policy, and for government entities to enforce grant recipients’ program requirements. Because federal data focuses on information like the number of households with subscriptions, it lacks feedback on network quality and reliability, or on how consumers experience a broadband connection. Incomplete data can also make it challenging for researchers to evaluate how specific broadband policy changes affect consumers, and for people involved in broadband deployment and adoption at the state level to monitor whether ongoing and new programs are meeting their goals. Lack of data on broadband’s societal impact—such as effects on the economy, education, and health care—has led states to conduct their own baseline measurements to meet BEAD program requirements, including BEAD’s aim to “grow economic opportunities … provide increases in access to health care services … and enrich education experiences” nationwide. Additionally, NTIA’s BEAD Five-Year Action Plan guidance requires states to evaluate how program implementation affects economic and workforce development, education, health, civic and social engagement, and access to essential services.

Then they assessed the information available…

Pew’s review of broadband literature published from 2008 to 2024 (based on data that, in some cases, dates to the 1990s) showed that researchers had identified the following shortcomings with broadband data:

• Limitations in geographic and household data: Federal data on broadband access, adoption, and household characteristics is often reported by county, ZIP code, or census tract, rather than by household. And geographic and household characteristics—such as the regions used in data collection or the composition of households—are not standardized across data sources, making it difficult to combine datasets for evaluation. This lack of standardization has led to inaccuracies in measuring the impact of broadband and the gaps in coverage, which is particularly problematic for federally funded projects that rely on accurate mapping data for broadband investment; these projects could misappropriate funds because of the data’s shortcomings.

 

• Reliability of federal data for evaluation purposes: Federal data relies heavily on information from internet service providers (ISPs), leading to concerns in the literature that data on broadband availability and network performance may be affected by bias and lack of transparency. Also, federal data tends not to include price, making it difficult to assess how much broadband service costs and how affordable it is for customers throughout the country.

• Inconsistencies in definitions: Several federal sources do not specify which broadband technologies are available to consumers, making it difficult to correlate network performance and household use of the internet. Some sources have also been inconsistent in defining key components, ranging from what qualifies as a broadband connection to the meaning of the phrase “digital equity” to how to measure internet use and digital skills—and how consumers benefit from the connection.

• Lack of consistent impact assessments: The available data makes it difficult to determine the availability of affordable broadband connections or how to define affordability, and there is no uniform method of tracking broadband adoption patterns over time. Researchers need more information to gauge the value and impact in multiple areas (economic development, health care, education, civic life) of having a broadband internet connection.

The include a table of data sets and tools…