An interesting resource from LATINX Digital Leaders now…
Due to popular demand, we’re sharing the recording from our recent event, Advancing LatinX Tech Leadership, hosted in collaboration with the Institute of Design (ID) at Illinois Tech.
The presentations sparked important conversations and provided eye-opening insights as the 2 teams of graduate students showcased their research findings and pitched innovative solutions for advancing LatinX leadership in tech.
The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is sharing a new resources and accompanying webinar (Could It Be Me? Should It Be Me? Understanding What Makes Broadband Champions). I thought many reader would benefit from learning more and/or be interested in where they fit in the spectrum…
As a Marjorie and Charles Benton Opportunity Fund Fellow, Dr. Pierrette Renée Dagg examined the role community champions in community connectivity solutions and the factors that allow these leaders to succeed.
Building on Merit’s work with a number of Michigan communities, she developed in-depth profiles of eight community champions and a taxonomy of the different kinds of broadband champions:
- Connectors are adept at creating significant personal connections, acting as the social adhesive in communities.
- Multipliers are skilled strategists who leverage relationships, knowledge, and resources to methodically achieve their objectives.
- Visionaries stand out for their forward-looking plans, aiming for a clear goal and persistently moving towards it.
By understanding qualities and archetypes of champions, those who want to improve connectivity can understand context-specific strategies and tactics that are effective and adaptable to their local community. They can also, hopefully, see the many ways to be effective broadband champions and realize that yes, it could be them.
Read the Digital Beat Article, Understanding What Makes Broadband Champions, May 8th, 2024.
Download the full report.
And more on the webinar…
On May 22nd at 1 PM ET we will hold a webinar about the crucial role broadband champions play in addressing the connectivity needs in their communities. Dr. Dagg and some of the champions profiled will share their stories and the factors that contributed to their success.
Register for the webinar here.
The Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth (OICG) reports…
The ACCESS BROADBAND Act requires OICG to submit to relevant congressional committees and publish on its website an annual report that contains a description of OICG’s work for the previous year and the number of U.S. residents connected to broadband through federal broadband support programs and the Universal Service Fund Program.5 The OICG Annual Report describes the work of OICG, fulfilling the statutory requirement of the ACCESS BROADBAND Act.
Here is what they report for Minnesota…
Public Engagement
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development (MN OBD), the Association of Minnesota Counties, the League of Minnesota Cities, and the Minnesota Association of Townships co-hosted the Internet for All: Connecting One Minnesota Workshop in Prior Lake on January 25, 2023. Attendees included critical stakeholders, including local Tribal and government leaders, community anchor institutions, nonprofits and providers, all committed to furthering the border-to-border expansion of broadband across the state. The workshop provided an overview of available federal funding along with a focus on creative solutions to the broadband deployment challenges in rural Minnesota. There were over 360 attendees, with over 170 joining in-person and over 190 joining virtually.
Digital Equity Regional Events…
From August 29 through September 27, 2023, MN OBD hosted digital opportunity listening sessions in 16 cities and two online sessions. The state hosted this series of digital opportunity listening sessions to convene digital opportunity supporters, solicit feedback on their Digital Opportunity (Equity) draft, plan and hear about Minnesotans’ digital opportunity ideas, concerns, experiences and solutions.
Amplifying Investments
U.S. Department of Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, U.S. Senators Amy Klobuchar and Tina Smith, U.S. Representative Angie Craig (MN-2), and Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan held an Investing in America press conference to announce the Minnesota Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program allocation.
Connecting Communities through Technology, Training, and Certifications
NTIA’s Connecting Minority Communities (CMC) Pilot Program awarded a grant to Red Lake Nation College (RLNC). The project upgraded on-site Internet service and security, upgraded laptop and desktop computers, increased learning software options at RLNC and provided digital devices and broadband service plans for RLNC students to enable access on- and off-campus. The project also provided professional development and capacity building opportunities for RLNC IT staff, cybersecurity training for RLNC faculty, staff and students and drone training and certification for community members, including a youth drone camp.
Out of the adult participants, 16 became certified pilots after taking the drone pilot certification exam, one of which was hired by RLNC’s Tribal Engineering Department as their new Drone Specialist. Shortly after the program was completed, the drones (and newly certified specialists) were used to find a missing person who was lost in the woods.
They also listed tribal areas in Minnesota that will benefit from the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program:
The FCC reports on the status of broadband access…
Access to affordable, reliable broadband is essential to full participation in modern life. Consumers rely on both their fixed and mobile connections to work, learn, access health care, and connect with each other. Today, we issue this Report pursuant to our obligation under section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, concluding our inquiry into whether “advanced telecommunications capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.”1 We find that more work remains to ensure that all Americans have access to advanced telecommunications capability.
They are using a new resource…
This Report also represents an important milestone with regard to the data that we use for our inquiry. For the first time, we use data from the Commission’s Broadband Data Collection (BDC). The Commission’s Section 706 Reports have for many years relied primarily on the FCC Form 477 deployment data to evaluate consumers’ broadband options for fixed and mobile services.3 The BDC data, unavailable for past section 706 inquiries, represent significant improvements over FCC Form 477 data, through the use of more precise location-by-location fixed data, mobile data based on standardized parameters, and the Commission’s ability to improve the data through public challenge processes and conducting verifications and audits of provider-reported data.
Based on our evaluation of the data, we find that our universal service goals for section 706 have not been met, and we therefore conclude that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion. Most significantly, at present, 100/20 Mbps terrestrial fixed broadband service4 has not been physically deployed to approximately 7% of Americans. Rural areas and Tribal lands significantly trail more urban areas, with approximately 28% of people living in rural areas and approximately 23% of people living on Tribal lands lacking access to 100/20 Mbps fixed broadband services.5 While we expect the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program and other federal and state programs will narrow these divides in the coming years, at this time, we find that these physical deployment shortcomings are sufficient to warrant a negative finding under section 706 before we even begin to consider our other universal service goals, for which we hope to have more comprehensive data available in future inquiries.
At a high level here’s how Minnesota stands:
| 25/3 Mbps | 100/20 Mbps | 940/500 Mbps | |
| Including Fixed Wireless | 76.5% | 32.1% | 8.3% |
| Excluding Fixed Wireless | 76.1% | 32.3% | 8.3% |
Here are the stats by county
| Pop Evaluated | % with fixed 100/20 | % with mobile 5G-NR 35/3 | % with fixed & mobile | Pop density | Per capita income | |
| Minnesota | 5,717,184 | 94.3% | 88.8% | 85.4% | 71.8 | $44,947 |
| Aitkin County | 16,126 | 69.5% | 48.5% | 38.5% | 8.9 | $32,980 |
| Anoka County | 368,864 | 97.5% | 97.0% | 94.8% | 874.2 | $43,106 |
| Becker County | 35,371 | 81.0% | 49.9% | 44.2% | 26.9 | $38,444 |
| Beltrami County | 46,799 | 99.2% | 54.5% | 54.4% | 18.7 | $32,055 |
| Benton County | 41,463 | 88.4% | 94.1% | 83.1% | 101.6 | $35,885 |
| Big Stone County | 5,144 | 98.9% | 24.3% | 24.0% | 10.3 | $35,797 |
| Blue Earth County | 69,631 | 97.0% | 82.9% | 80.4% | 93.1 | $35,182 |
| Brown County | 25,723 | 94.5% | 72.6% | 70.9% | 42.1 | $35,340 |
| Carlton County | 36,708 | 60.6% | 58.8% | 41.7% | 42.6 | $35,642 |
| Carver County | 110,034 | 98.9% | 99.0% | 98.0% | 310.8 | $55,216 |
| Cass County | 31,274 | 63.7% | 55.3% | 39.9% | 15.5 | $34,505 |
| Chippewa County | 12,284 | 99.1% | 66.4% | 65.9% | 21.1 | $32,772 |
| Chisago County | 57,988 | 76.2% | 92.4% | 72.4% | 139.8 | $41,814 |
| Clay County | 65,929 | 99.3% | 90.1% | 89.9% | 63.1 | $36,586 |
| Clearwater County | 8,649 | 99.2% | 53.3% | 53.0% | 8.7 | $31,879 |
| Cook County | 5,708 | 95.2% | 54.0% | 53.3% | 3.9 | $44,316 |
| Cottonwood County | 11,356 | 88.7% | 76.6% | 71.1% | 17.7 | $32,818 |
| Crow Wing County | 67,948 | 88.2% | 71.0% | 65.6% | 68.1 | $36,878 |
| Dakota County | 443,341 | 99.2% | 99.3% | 98.6% | 788.1 | $48,894 |
| Dodge County | 20,981 | 99.9% | 72.1% | 72.1% | 47.8 | $42,838 |
| Douglas County | 39,668 | 84.6% | 56.2% | 51.2% | 62.3 | $41,889 |
| Faribault County | 13,926 | 86.2% | 49.2% | 43.2% | 19.5 | $35,307 |
| Fillmore County | 21,414 | 86.0% | 63.4% | 58.6% | 24.9 | $35,645 |
| Freeborn County | 30,718 | 99.4% | 70.6% | 70.2% | 43.4 | $36,751 |
| Goodhue County | 48,013 | 94.0% | 73.5% | 71.7% | 63.5 | $40,087 |
| Grant County | 6,136 | 82.2% | 39.1% | 36.7% | 11.2 | $36,750 |
| Hennepin County | 1,260,121 | 99.3% | 99.8% | 99.1% | 2,274.4 | $55,199 |
| Houston County | 18,800 | 84.5% | 49.1% | 46.9% | 34.1 | $39,340 |
| Hubbard County | 21,960 | 92.3% | 56.2% | 52.7% | 23.7 | $36,944 |
| Isanti County | 42,727 | 59.7% | 83.9% | 56.8% | 98.1 | $38,609 |
| Itasca County | 45,205 | 92.8% | 62.3% | 59.4% | 16.9 | $34,528 |
| Jackson County | 9,893 | 95.5% | 56.6% | 54.1% | 14.1 | $37,818 |
| Kanabec County | 16,463 | 27.4% | 59.8% | 25.1% | 31.6 | $33,805 |
| Kandiyohi County | 43,839 | 95.7% | 85.8% | 82.5% | 55.0 | $35,814 |
| Kittson County | 4,059 | 95.2% | 34.0% | 33.9% | 3.7 | $35,565 |
| Koochiching County | 11,844 | 83.1% | 52.0% | 49.2% | 3.8 | $36,515 |
| Lac qui Parle County | 6,689 | 100.0% | 43.7% | 43.7% | 8.7 | $37,520 |
| Lake County | 10,939 | 90.6% | 75.2% | 71.5% | 5.2 | $39,930 |
| Lake of the Woods County | 3,871 | 80.9% | 57.6% | 53.3% | 3.0 | $35,308 |
| Le Sueur County | 29,153 | 98.5% | 78.0% | 77.3% | 65.0 | $41,400 |
| Lincoln County | 5,580 | 99.1% | 41.6% | 41.1% | 10.4 | $35,638 |
| Lyon County | 25,262 | 99.9% | 78.0% | 77.9% | 35.4 | $35,256 |
| Mahnomen County | 5,328 | 71.3% | 38.0% | 32.8% | 9.6 | $24,710 |
| Marshall County | 8,861 | 94.6% | 45.3% | 44.7% | 5.0 | $35,920 |
| Martin County | 19,650 | 98.6% | 62.1% | 61.9% | 27.6 | $35,152 |
| McLeod County | 36,714 | 97.5% | 97.2% | 95.0% | 74.7 | $39,361 |
| Meeker County | 23,496 | 92.9% | 80.5% | 75.5% | 38.6 | $37,233 |
| Mille Lacs County | 27,280 | 81.7% | 76.8% | 65.9% | 47.7 | $33,933 |
| Morrison County | 34,246 | 82.0% | 63.8% | 54.0% | 30.4 | $34,269 |
| Mower County | 40,140 | 98.7% | 75.6% | 75.4% | 56.4 | $33,921 |
| Murray County | 8,060 | 98.8% | 61.3% | 60.8% | 11.4 | $38,783 |
| Nicollet County | 34,441 | 93.0% | 83.4% | 79.2% | 76.8 | $41,658 |
| Nobles County | 21,947 | 96.0% | 79.7% | 77.3% | 30.7 | $29,786 |
| Norman County | 6,377 | 87.7% | 50.2% | 46.9% | 7.3 | $36,245 |
| Olmsted County | 164,020 | 99.1% | 97.5% | 96.9% | 251.0 | $49,799 |
| Otter Tail County | 60,519 | 75.9% | 49.4% | 41.8% | 30.7 | $37,202 |
| Pennington County | 13,845 | 98.7% | 75.0% | 74.4% | 22.5 | $37,342 |
| Pine County | 29,446 | 48.8% | 57.7% | 37.6% | 20.9 | $32,335 |
| Pipestone County | 9,355 | 99.0% | 59.8% | 59.5% | 20.1 | $34,973 |
| Polk County | 30,731 | 99.0% | 66.9% | 66.7% | 15.6 | $34,273 |
| Pope County | 11,431 | 91.6% | 35.0% | 32.7% | 17.1 | $38,905 |
| Ramsey County | 536,413 | 99.6% | 99.9% | 99.5% | 3,523.3 | $43,203 |
| Red Lake County | 3,874 | 94.7% | 62.2% | 61.7% | 9.0 | $35,198 |
| Redwood County | 15,361 | 80.5% | 54.7% | 49.8% | 17.5 | $33,175 |
| Renville County | 14,525 | 97.9% | 61.4% | 60.7% | 14.8 | $34,554 |
| Rice County | 67,693 | 96.4% | 93.5% | 90.5% | 136.5 | $37,050 |
| Rock County | 9,537 | 97.7% | 22.9% | 21.9% | 19.8 | $38,472 |
| Roseau County | 15,292 | 94.8% | 61.3% | 58.8% | 9.1 | $36,125 |
| Scott County | 154,520 | 98.9% | 99.2% | 98.2% | 433.7 | $51,259 |
| Sherburne County | 100,824 | 89.1% | 95.7% | 85.9% | 232.9 | $41,412 |
| Sibley County | 14,955 | 94.6% | 73.1% | 71.3% | 25.4 | $37,919 |
| St. Louis County | 199,532 | 79.2% | 86.3% | 74.0% | 31.9 | $37,850 |
| Stearns County | 160,405 | 92.5% | 95.3% | 88.7% | 119.5 | $36,087 |
| Steele County | 37,398 | 100.0% | 68.8% | 68.8% | 87.0 | $40,146 |
| Stevens County | 9,637 | 98.2% | 24.3% | 24.2% | 17.1 | $38,425 |
| Swift County | 9,755 | 99.2% | 27.4% | 27.2% | 13.1 | $35,595 |
| Todd County | 25,538 | 63.9% | 52.8% | 39.9% | 27.0 | $30,812 |
| Traverse County | 3,275 | 82.3% | 45.5% | 43.3% | 5.7 | $36,023 |
| Wabasha County | 21,658 | 93.7% | 57.9% | 57.3% | 41.4 | $40,471 |
| Wadena County | 14,307 | 99.3% | 36.9% | 36.8% | 26.7 | $28,011 |
| Waseca County | 18,893 | 100.0% | 77.5% | 77.5% | 44.6 | $35,814 |
| Washington County | 275,912 | 94.8% | 97.7% | 93.2% | 717.2 | $54,418 |
| Watonwan County | 11,075 | 100.0% | 76.0% | 76.0% | 25.5 | $34,363 |
| Wilkin County | 6,350 | 84.5% | 63.6% | 58.8% | 8.5 | $38,317 |
| Winona County | 49,478 | 97.1% | 51.7% | 51.1% | 79.0 | $34,889 |
| Wright County | 148,003 | 86.9% | 98.8% | 86.5% | 223.9 | $43,067 |
| Yellow Medicine County | 9,486 | 99.5% | 56.3% | 56.0% | 12.5 | $36,737 |
| Tribal Areas | 39,095 | 78.7% | 41.3% | 31.7% |
And a deep dive into state stats…
Roberto Gallardo and Brian Whitacre haver released a new research report: An unexpected digital divide? A look at internet speeds and socioeconomic groups. It tracks broadband adoption across most of the US based on speeds and compares to census data. Most of their findings are similar to what we’ve been tracking for the last 20+ years, but there was once surprise…
This study attempted to see if existing disparities among demographic groups in terms of home broadband adoption remained when examining performance or internet quality – measured by average download and upload speed tests from Ookla. The analysis uses over 97% of all census tracts in the continental U.S. and accounts for a wide variety of social and technological factors hypothesized to impact broadband speeds. The results were mostly as anticipated, showing that disparities do exist when looking at internet performance or quality. For example, the share of rural residents has a strong negative impact on realized speed, as does the share of residents under the poverty line. These findings contribute to the digital equity literature and provide timely insights to states and territories going through a digital equity planning process. As additional policies and programs are being designed to address digital inclusion issues, recognition of the disparities that specific demographics face in terms of on-the-ground speed (and not simple availability) is an important part of the conversation. In other words, the assumption that certain covered populations require digital equity interventions may need to be revised when looking at the speeds actually experienced by on-the-ground users.
One surprising result is worth discussing further. The fact that white non-Hispanics were associated with slower average download and upload speeds was not expected. According to the Pew Research Center, as of 2021, 80% of whites subscribed to home internet compared to 71% of blacks and 61% of Hispanics (Pew Research Center, 2021). Similar racial and ethnic discrepancies were found in a recent subscription-focused analysis that incorporated a spatial error model like ours (Zahnd et al., 2022). Yet, the analysis here shows that whites were associated with slower download and upload speeds, controlling for other variables known to affect home internet subscriptions. This finding remains when interacting white non-Hispanic percentage with the percentage of the population that is rural. The estimated impact is not overly dramatic: evaluated at other variable means, the expected download speed would be 171 Mbps for a tract with 10% minorities but 181 Mbps for a tract with 90% minorities. Yet, this is roughly the same impact associated with moving from a tract with 40% of the population over the age of 65 to one with only 10%.
This unexpected finding supports other emerging research. Digital equity surveys in Indiana and Missouri found that whites lag or subscribe at the same rate as racial/ethnic minorities when it comes to paying for home internet for all previous 12 months, after controlling for urban and rural locations (Gallardo, 2023; Spell, 2023). In addition, another study that also used internet speeds across 12 states in the southeastern United States found that the share of whites was associated with slower download and upload speeds, after also controlling for urban and rural locations (Gallardo & Whitacre, 2022). Similarly, a recent study using Ookla data found that majority-Black neighborhoods had higher download speeds during the 2019–2021 period, but slightly slower upload speeds (Rodriguez-Elliott & Vachuska, 2023). Lastly, another study found that while fiber-optic broadband—associated with faster download and upload speeds—increased urban and rural home values in Wisconsin, it also decreased the likelihood of homebuyers being white in urban areas of the state (Wolf & Irwin, 2023). This suggests that minority homeowners place more of a value on faster speed availability—at least in urban Wisconsin. This general hypothesis is supported by our research, but for a much broader geography (i.e. the entire continental U.S.).
It is difficult to explain why slower speeds occur in tracts with more white non-Hispanics. One possible explanation is that this demographic may tend to subscribe to slower speeds when compared to nonwhite consumers, despite potentially having faster connections available. This is not testable with our dataset and remains an area for future research. It may also be the case that some areas that have more internet connectivity issues (e.g., rural) and that conduct more speed tests may also have a higher share of white non-Hispanics. A study conducted in the United Kingdom concluded that rural areas had a higher propensity for speed testing due to network performance issues (Riddlesden & Singleton, 2014). However, the fact that the number of speed tests was associated with higher—not lower—speeds does not support the premise that more speed tests are conducted in areas with unreliable or slower service.
Connectivity Trends for Senior Living in the United States (2024-2029), a report by Maravedit, reports…
The U.S. population continues to age rapidly, and this aging boom has a multifold impact on the senior housing industry. Baby Boomers make up an increasingly large share of the senior population and they are living longer and healthier lives than the generations before them. After the heavy drop experienced during the pandemic, senior housing occupancy rates are back to healthier levels. The National Investment Center estimates over 600,000
additional units will be needed by 2029 to maintain the current penetration rate.
Contrary to popular belief, seniors have become increasingly technology-savvy and are enthusiastic internet users. While senior residents continue to consume mainly
linear/cable television, online streaming is on the rise. Seniors also increasingly use mobile applications for banking, video chatting, gaming and engaging with their local community.
As active seniors move around their apartments and common areas, Wi-Fi roaming becomes important to maintain connectivity throughout the property, whether it be independent or assisted living. In short, senior residents’ expectations are rapidly changing.
The senior living industry has its share of challenges. It is marked by staff shortages, increased medical costs and low digitalization. The staff shortages create a domino effect,
leading to an overly taxed workforce and an increase in labor costs. Senior housing leaders are continuously asked to do more with less. This state of affairs represents an opportunity for technology and connectivity to play a vital role in improving operational efficiency through automation and better integration of legacy systems and facility IoT.
For caregivers and administrative staff, managed Wi-Fi is the foundational layer that enables them to serve the residents and better accomplish their duties. Wi-Fi makes it
possible to reduce residents’ isolation while facilitating the staff’s work in senior living.
Video calls, telemedicine, home automation systems — the list of innovations that improve the well-being of senior residents while optimizing the working conditions of care staff is growing.
On March 5, 2024, during the production of this report, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) made a statement that may negatively impact bulk-managed Wi-Fi.
This is causing concern and uncertainty among the stakeholders, but it is too early to know the impact.
No matter what the FCC decides, it only makes sense for property operators to invest in a better connectivity experience for their residents and outsource their IT operations and WiFi to specialized managed service providers. We remain bullish that we are only at the
dawn of this emerging sector.
US News and World Report reports…
In late 2023, U.S. News & World Report surveyed 2,500 Americans about their internet bill costs over time, their internet service reliability, and how satisfied they are with the internet service they get for their money.
Not surprisingly, the cost of internet service – like that of many other basic expenses, including groceries and utilities – has been rising, and the price users pay tends to increase over time. According to our latest survey, the average current cost of a U.S. internet bill is $89, compared to an average bill of $77 when the customer first signed up for internet service.
That upward cost trend was also apparent in our late 2023 survey report, as more than half of respondents (53%) said they were originally paying between $20 and $60 per month for internet service when they initially signed up with their current internet provider.
A little bit about speeds…
After asking respondents to complete an internet speed test, we found the most common download speed for U.S. consumers is 101 megabits per second (Mbps) to 300 Mbps. This is followed by 301 Mbps to 1 gigabit per second (Gbps) as the second most common range and 25 Mbps to 100 Mbps as third.
Next Century Cities supports local officials in cities of all sizes as they work to improve broadband. Recently they created 1-sheet write-ups on each state, including details from cities in that state who are Next Century Cities members. Here’s what they said about Minnesota and local member communities…
Statewide
Population: 5,714,300
Households without a computer:
5.5% Households without Internet:
10.3% Persons in Poverty: 9.6%
Mower County
Population: 40,140
Households without a computer: 6.9%
Households without Internet: 13.1%
Persons in Poverty: 9.5%
Monticello City
Population: 14,804
Households without a computer: 5.4%
Households without Internet: 10.5%
Persons in Poverty: 9.2%
Duluth City
Population: 86,619
Households without a computer: 6.3%
Households without Internet: 12.2%
Persons in Poverty: 17.5%
Sibley County
Population: 14,955
Households without a computer: 9.8%
Households without Internet: 17.6%
Persons in Poverty: 8%
Cottonwood County
Population: 11,356
Households without a computer: 9.3%
Households without Internet: 17%
Persons in Poverty: 13.2%
A recent survey revealed that 81 percent of households with schoolchildren receiving a monthly broadband subsidy are worried about the prospect of losing this assistance and its potential effects on their children’s education, according to the Universal Service Administrative Company.
These metrics “demonstrate with incredible clarity just how important it is to stay connected in modern life and how dangerous it is to threaten disconnection,” said Federal Communications Commission Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, speaking during a Tuesday keynote at the Net Inclusion 2024 event convened by the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.
Rosenworcel further reported that 75 percent of households receiving broadband internet subsidies use their broadband connection for telemedicine purposes.
You can watch the session from the conference below:
(You can watch the conference in progress today and tomorrow on YouTube.)
It’s all over the news, including this blog, there is a danger of money running out for the Affordable Connectivity Plan (ACP). This means many households would lose their broadband subsidies. The Benton Institute for Internet & Society recently posted an article (from John B. Horrigan , Angela Siefer and Blair Levin) on the dangers of letting the ACP go, including concrete economic and healthcare examples. I’ve turned some of their examples into bullet points:
According to the Digital Advancement Institute website…
The Muni index is based on the premise that expansion in the availability, affordability, adoption, and quality of digital tools is essential to building a strong foundation for a vibrant and growing city. Yet digital access alone will not lead to better outcomes. The Muni Index demonstrates that how cities invest in technology works jointly alongside other factors that influence quality of life.
The tool looks at 16 indicators to determine a city’s muni index score. (Outlined below.)
Here are the top 11 cities in Minnesota based on 2021 data.
I like the holistic view on digital advancement as well as the intersectionality of technology and all aspects of life and community. The downside of the index is that the smallest population they track is 65,000. That being said, with knowledge of the indicators a smaller community might be able to find and/or track indicators to help gauge their own standing or at least progress.
Here are the indicators used to determine score:
Technology
Socioeconomic
Education
Housing
C|Net reports on the best, fastest and cheapest broadband providers in Minnesota. Here is their methodology…
CNET considers speeds, pricing, customer service and overall value to recommend the best internet service in Minnesota across many categories. Our evaluation includes referencing a proprietary database built over years of reviewing internet services. We validate that against provider information by spot-checking local addresses for service availability. We also do a close read of providers’ terms and conditions and, when needed, will call ISPs to verify the details.
But there is a caveat…
Internet service providers are numerous and regional. Unlike the latest smartphone, laptop, router or kitchen tool, it’s impractical to personally test every ISP in a given city. What’s our approach? We start by researching the pricing, availability and speed information, drawing on our own historical ISP data, the provider sites and mapping information from the Federal Communications Commission at FCC.gov.
And high level results…
Quantum Fiber is Minnesota’s best internet service provider overall. The largest fiber internet provider in the state stands out for its fast, symmetrical speeds, competitive pricing and favorable service terms such as unlimited data and free equipment rental.
Quantum Fiber isn’t the fastest or cheapest ISP in Minnesota. US Internet has the fastest multi-gigabit speeds, up to 10,000 megabits per second (10 gigabits per second), while Frontier Fiber and Midco offer up to 5Gbps.
Xfinity has the cheapest internet plan in Minnesota, starting at $20 per month for download speeds up to 75Mbps. Mediacom, Metronet and Midco are decent choices for cheap internet in Minnesota, as all have starting prices under $40 per month for max speeds of 100Mbps or higher.
They compare a number of providers:
The Daily Yonder looks at the rural-urban broadband gap…
The most recent data we have show dramatic rural – urban gaps in both broadband access (simple availability) and adoption (percent of households signing up for broadband). It’s widely recognized that affordability plays a large role in why households remain offline. But because there is no federally collected data on broadband price that includes both rural and urban areas, very few studies have been able to quantify the price differences across these geographies.
Thankfully, BroadbandNow (an independent broadband availability website) went through the painstaking process of gathering pricing data from over 4,000 terrestrial broadband providers in late 2020 and compiled them into a Zipcode-level database that is publicly available. Their pricing data is for the lowest-priced terrestrial (wired or fixed wireless) residential standalone internet package for 25 / 3 service and contains entries for over 26,000 Zip codes in the continental U.S.
The BroadbandNow dataset also includes the number of wired providers at different speed thresholds (25/3 and 100/3) as well as the number of fixed wireless providers. This is all taken from the slightly outdated June 2019 FCC Form 477 dataset, but it still represents a reasonably accurate portrait of the availability situation when the pricing data was collected. When this data is combined with a Zipcode-level measure of rurality, it allows for examination of how broadband price varies by both rurality and number of providers.
The data show that in late 2020, the average monthly cost of a 25/3 broadband connection was nearly $13 higher in rural Zip codes. In many ways, this is expected. After all, rural areas tend to have dramatically fewer options for connecting – and there is a good argument that this “competition gap” is driving higher prices. But the BroadbandNow data also allows us to break out urban vs. rural prices based on the number of providers available in a Zip code.
This breakout shows us a few different things. First, the “competition gap” is real – for both urban and rural locations. Urban Zip codes with just a single provider are paying nearly $25 more per month (!) than those with two or more providers, and this gap is nearly $10 for rural Zips. Second, rural and urban monthly prices are about the same in Zip codes with either 0 or 1 high-speed provider (only a few urban Zips have 0 high-speed providers). But, in Zip codes with multiple high-speed providers, a significant rural-urban gap of more than $10 exists. Some of this is because “2 or more providers” typically means a higher number in urban (4) than in rural (2) Zips. Some of it is also likely because infrastructure is more costly to provide in less densely-populated areas – and rural providers may need to charge higher prices to recover that investment.
This leads us to the BEAD funding’s affordability requirements. States are generally going to be spending this money in locations without another viable high-speed option, which by itself should decrease consumer costs in those locations (i.e. help them move from $88.44 to $64.90 in the above figure). Beyond this, all BEAD funding recipients are required to “offer at least one low-cost broadband service option for eligible subscribers.” Many states are interpreting this as offering an option for $30 per month or less, so that it would be fully covered by the Affordable Connectivity Program monthly subsidy. Notably, most Zip codes with 2+ high-speed providers will not be getting BEAD funds, so we shouldn’t expect many $30 or less options to pop up in these locations.
We know that money will be coming to Minnesota for digital equity based on the BEAD Digital Equity Plan that the Office of Broadband Develop has created That money will be doled out to local digital equity organizations. The Digital Equity Research Center has just release a report (Developing a Digital Equity Theory of Change with Tech Goes Home) that looks at how to measure the impact of digital equity work in a meaningful way…
The purpose of the project was to understand how participatory action research could be used to develop a theory of change and an evaluation framework to benefit Tech Goes Home, its community, and the larger digital equity field. To inform the project, the research sought insights from digital inclusion and digital equity organizations across the United States to understand how they articulated what success looks like to them and their communities. The research team examined how these theories of change help organizations use data to evaluate their programs and services. The ultimate goal of the project was to gather data to assist Tech Goes Home in developing a theory of change for the organization that could inform how the organization measures the outcomes and impacts of their digital equity work.
I thought that their recommendations might be helpful for the local digital equity community as well as researchers and policymakers…
For Digital Equity Organizations
- Allocate time, money, and intentional effort to capture insights and expertise from community members. Recent discussions in the digital equity field, both at practitioner conferences and in other spaces where digital equity researchers are gathering, have argued that organizations must pay community members to gain their expertise and participation in program evaluations.
- Engage evaluation participants in their native languages. Digital equity organizations that serve learners who speak multiple languages should work to ensure that their needs are considered in program evaluation efforts. These populations are likely to face compounded barriers to both digital inclusion and survey participation, and their experiences are therefore crucial to accurately understand the impact of programs.
- Work with funders to balance reporting requirements with sensitivity to participants’ privacy and attention to self-defined measures of success. Other digital equity organizations identified that one of the significant challenges they face is the need to gather data to show funders the outcomes and impacts of their financial support, while also showing community members why these activities are mutually beneficial. There can also be challenges in marrying what a funder requests and what the organization knows is perhaps a more representative indicator of success. Organizations should work with funders to establish respectful guidelines that ensure program evaluation is compelling, representative, and responsive to community needs.
Advice from Peer Organizations
- Digital equity organizations should stay focused on what they do well. Because the priority of funders can change over time, thus making program evaluation a moving target, we heard from our interviewees that it’s important for organizations in the digital equity field to stay true to their mission and the communities they serve.
- Provide support to community partners when they are asked to gather sensitive information. Digital equity organizations–like Tech Goes Home and others who we interviewed for this project who work with community partners to provide their programs and services–should co-create meaningful and respectful ways to address privacy concerns mentioned above. One way to do this is to take the lead on gathering this information and avoid placing the burden on community partners.
- Listen to your community, ask them for advice. Most of the people from peer organizations who we interviewed for this study relied on the knowledge, expertise, and wisdom of their community members and partners. Particularly in helping to define what success of their digital equity programs look like. Therefore, it’s essential that digital equity organizations develop deep ties and connections with people and leaders in their communities to ensure that digital equity programs address their needs and inform further opportunities to work towards digital equity and social justice.
For State and Federal Policymakers
The success of broadband infrastructure programs relies on digital equity funding. Community members cannot access the digital world without affordable and reliable internet service, internet-equipped hardware, and hands-on support in making use of it. When evaluating the success of broadband deployment, administering entities must also consider whether communities have access to the digital equity programs necessary to make use of broadband access.
Set aside funding that organizations can use to conduct program evaluation. Digital equity organizations have been arguing for years that if funders expect them to show the outcomes and impacts of their investments, the organizations should be compensated to do this work. Because program evaluation is time-intensive particularly when engaging covered populations, state and federal entities should allocate funding that can be used by digital equity organizations to measure the success of their state or federally funded programs as part of contracts.
Provide technical assistance on program evaluation for digital equity organizations. In addition to funding, state and federal entities should provide technical assistance to support digital equity organizations in conducting outcomes[1]based evaluation. Counting outputs, such as numbers of digital skills classes offered or numbers of computers distributed, is a much easier task for organizations. However, if digital equity organizations are required to show the mid and longer[1]term outcomes, as detailed in the Tech Goes Home logic model in this report, then technical assistance must be provided by state and federal entities to help local organizations, particularly under-funded nonprofits, with this work
Allow and encourage organizations to use government funding to compensate community members for their expertise. State and federal agencies should require grantees that receive funding to implement and evaluate digital equity programs to provide evidence that community members were engaged in determining what the success of these programs look like. State and federal agencies should also ensure that compensating community members for their expertise be allowable as a budgetable expense. If this unprecedented federal funding is truly to make an impact, then those most impacted by digital inequalities must be included as partners in the creation, implementation, and evaluation of these programs.
Colin Rhinesmith recently published a report on how library hotspot checkout programs can support people experiencing homelessness. The report is behind a pay wall but the abstract gets to the gist…
Previous studies have examined the benefits and challenges of using mobile phones to support people experiencing homelessness. However, few studies have considered how mobile Wi-Fi hotspots support unhoused individuals and couples through public library lending programs. This paper seeks to address a gap in mobile communication scholarship by contributing insights from a qualitative study of library patrons who checked out mobile hotspots from the Boston Public Library in Massachusetts, USA. The findings show that although mobile hotspots provided many benefits for public library patrons in general, these devices facilitated mobile communication with a different sense of urgency for six people experiencing homelessness who also happened to be in romantic relationships. More concretely, the study found that mobile Wi-Fi hotspots reduced stress and anxiety for unhoused patrons because without the devices, patrons without fixed residences worried they could not be found; that hotspots kept unhoused patrons more connected, and therefore safer, in their tents despite the cold weather and a lack of electricity; and that unhoused patrons were concerned about their devices getting stolen because of their precarious situation. Although the unhoused patrons who participated in this study also shared their recommendations regarding how mobile hotspot lending programs in public libraries could be improved, they also mentioned that the benefits of hotspot availability far outweighed their challenges. The findings have implications for those working to address homelessness, including community-based organizations, government agencies, and policymakers who seek further insights into the positive role that mobile hotspot devices can play in supporting positive health outcomes for individuals and couples experiencing homelessness.
Blandin on Broadband 