How does you MN County rank for broadband adoption?

Earlier today I wrote about BroadbandClusters.org, it tracks broadband adoption by state, zip and county. Actually, it tracks a number of socioeconomic factors as well, which is helpful but looking at their drivers for broadband adoption, I found that there were two factors that were more technology based:

  • No access to a device
  • Percentage of large screen device

So, I have tracked three things from the research – to make for easy ranking and to help counties figure out what they might be able to change:

  • Weighted broadband Adoption
  • Weighted Large Screen Availability
  • Weighted without Computer/Device

Below the ranking is based on broadband adoption, but I’ve kept the other factors as well. (You can access the spreadsheet.) It’s worth nothing that this is different than broadband access, which I track at the end of the year. These numbers look at how many subscribe to the service.

county rank of broadband adoption Weighted BB Adoption weighted Large Screen Availability Weighted without compute Device
Dakota 1 83.6 92.8 2.6
Washington 2 83.2 93.3 2.3
Anoka 3 83.1 90.8 3.03
Cook 4 83.1 91 1.8
Hennepin 5 82.1 91.4 3.1
Scott 6 81.3 93.2 2.5
Carver 7 81 93.9 2.2
Sherburne 8 79.9 92.4 2.4
Olmsted 9 79.6 91.6 3.4
Winona 10 79 87.6 4.5
Ramsey 11 78.5 88.5 3.7
Big Stone 12 78.3 85.3 6.5
Rock 13 78.1 87.4 4
Beltrami 14 78 85 5.7
Grant 15 77.3 83.9 6.5
Benton 16 77 88.5 4.1
Itasca 17 77 83.5 5.7
Jackson 18 77 81.7 7.4
McLeod 19 77 84.8 6.8
Murray 20 77 88.5 4.1
Nobles 21 77 81.1 6.4
Pennington 22 77 81.8 6
Renville 23 77 80.4 8.7
Stevens 24 75.6 87.5 3
Houston 25 74.5 83.3 6.8
Clay 26 74.2 86.4 4.3
Kittson 27 74.2 82.4 7.9
Crow Wing 28 74.1 87.1 3.6
Norman 29 73.7 81.1 7.5
Lyon 30 73.6 86.5 5.2
Chisago 31 73.5 87.3 4.5
Rice 32 73.5 86.6 4.8
Blue Earth 33 73.4 89.9 3.3
Polk 34 73.4 82.8 5.6
Isanti 35 73.2 85.8 4.5
Lincoln 36 73.2 84 6.3
Red Lake 37 73.2 81.4 9.1
Wright 38 72.9 89.4 3.7
Clearwater 39 72.6 79.4 11.1
Faribault 40 72.5 81.8 7.4
Hubbard 41 72.4 84.3 6.1
Nicollet 42 72.2 86.7 7.1
Stearns 43 72.1 84.7 4.8
Brown 44 71.6 83.6 7.9
Dodge 45 71.5 87.2 5.1
Koochiching 46 71.5 80.8 6.6
Douglas 47 71.4 84.7 4.9
Roseau 48 71.2 79.3 5.8
Pope 49 70.6 85.9 5.7
Steele 50 70.4 84.6 6.7
Goodhue 51 69.6 86.2 5.6
Lac qui Parle 52 69.6 81.3 10
Otter Tail 53 69.5 83.8 6.5
Marshall 54 69.3 79.9 7.8
Cottonwood 55 69.2 81.1 7.2
Fillmore 56 69.2 82.9 9.4
St. Louis 57 69.1 83.7 5.8
Chippewa 58 68.9 79.6 6.6
Lake 59 68.7 84 8.6
Swift 60 68.7 82.2 8.2
Cass 61 68.1 83.4 5.8
Lake of the Woods 62 68 80.1 9.7
Waseca 63 67.3 86.1 6.9
Wilkin 64 67.3 81.5 8.9
Mower 65 67.1 82.6 5.5
Pipestone 66 67.1 83.1 5.8
Yellow Medicine 67 66.9 82.8 7.1
Becker 68 66.8 82 5.3
Wadena 69 66.6 75.7 7.4
Freeborn 70 66.5 81.4 8.1
Mille Lacs 71 66.4 81.8 5.8
Wabasha 72 66.2 82.7 7.4
Kandiyohi 73 65.9 83.7 4.5
Le Sueur 74 65.6 84 5.5
Meeker 75 65.6 82.7 6.7
Morrison 76 64.7 80.9 8.6
Redwood 77 64 82.8 6.8
Traverse 78 63.6 74.3 12.2
Martin 79 62.9 81.3 7.1
Sibley 80 61.4 80.3 6.6
Mahnomen 81 61.1 75.9 8.7
Watonwan 82 60.7 76.2 8.6
Aitkin 83 59.9 80.5 6.4
Carlton 84 58.6 80.9 5.4
Todd 85 53.6 73.7 10.1
Pine 86 52.8 78.8 8.1
Kanabec 87 52.3 78 9.3

 

This entry was posted in Digital Divide, MN, Research by Ann Treacy. Bookmark the permalink.

About Ann Treacy

Librarian who follows rural broadband in MN and good uses of new technology (blandinonbroadband.org), hosts a radio show on MN music (mostlyminnesota.com), supports people experiencing homelessness in Minnesota (elimstrongtowershelters.org) and helps with social justice issues through Women’s March MN.

Leave a Reply