NTIA: 35% Of U.S. Homes Without Broadband Either don't want it, can't afford it, or can't get it.... The NTIA today released a report (pdf) that more closely examines broadband in the United States, showing that 40% of Americans lack a broadband connection. The study was compiled from a Census Bureau survey of about 54,000 households and 129,000 consumers conducted in October of last year. The study found that 35 percent of all households and approximately 40 percent of all persons lacked access to broadband services -- some because they didn't want it -- and some because it wasn't available to them or it was too expensive. Those numbers of course vary whether we're talking about rural or urban markets. In Urban markets, just 1.1% of users without broadband stated it wasn't available, while 27.6% stated service was "too expensive." In rural markets, 11.1% of users without access claimed service was not available, while 22.3% stated service was too expensive (see graphic, right). The study also broke down usage patterns by ethnicity and income, finding that while 67 percent of Asian Americans and 66 percent of Caucasians used broadband at home in October, that number drops to 46 percent and 40 percent of Blacks and Hispanics, respectively. Broadband usage was higher among those aged 18 to 24, and lowest among people 55 and older. Unsurprisingly, broadband usage also differed drastically based on household income, with 89 percent of Americans with an annual household income greater than $150,000 using broadband, compared to 29 percent of Americans with a household income less than $15,000. Those interested can find the full raw data from the study here at the NTIA website.
|
 ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | 11% rural - no broadband because unavailable to them
That doesn't sound all that bad. So all this gov't money that may or may not be spent on pushing broadband to rural users may be overplayed and may need very little additional funding.
What may be needed based on this survey is a sales pitch to convince people they need broadband and what all the benefits can be. That would be a much less costly endeavor. | |
|  |  | | Re: 11% rural - no broadband because unavailable to them What it says is we need more competition in the market to drive down cost.
Of those rural people, did they consider satellite as a broadband source and then considered it too expensive? If so, then pushing broadband out does make sense... again competition. | |
|  |  |  | | Re: 11% rural - no broadband because unavailable to them "What it says is we need more competition in the market to drive down cost."
I would like to see a copy of the questions asked. Some of these poles have questions that can skew the results to meet the agenda of the pollster. | |
|  |  |  | | This means we need to use more of my tax money to get this number to 100%. Perhaps 105% | |
|  |  |  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
·T-Mobile US
·AT&T U-Verse
·Vonage
| Re: 11% rural - no broadband because unavailable to them said by dfs8jkasdf :
This means we need to use more of my tax money to get this number to 1000%. Perhaps 1050% fixed it for ya -- sbcglobal.net speedtest result 11/11/09 - 5256kbps | |
|
 |  |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 1 edit | said by Uncle Paul:Of those rural people, did they consider satellite as a broadband source Obviously you don't know what satellite is since you classed it as "broadband".
"A service inferior to dialup with the bonus of getting blocked by clouds, planes and assorted random bluejays" would be more like it. | |
|  |  |  |  | | Re: 11% rural - no broadband because unavailable to them said by DrModem:said by Uncle Paul:Of those rural people, did they consider satellite as a broadband source Obviously you don't know what satellite is since you classed it as "broadband". "A service inferior to dialup with the bonus of getting blocked by clouds, planes and assorted random bluejays" would be more like it. Actually, I'm not sure if the definition of record says anything about quality of connection or latency. My comment wasn't about my understanding of broadband, but the person in rural America's answers to the questions. | |
|
 |  |  VanPremium join:2009-07-08 New Orleans, LA | Amen. But the big companies will do their best to make sure that NEVER happens. Should be illegal to lock out competition, imo, completely | |
|
 |  BF69Premium join:2004-07-28 Camden, TN | Yeah unless you're one of the 11%. I think it higher than that. In my county it's closer to 60%. Also many people may be counting satellite or cell phone internet as broadband when we all know they don't count. Also mnay of those that say they don't want it may live in areas where they can't get it anyways. The REAL number of Americans that live in areas where no REAL broadband is available is closer to 20% or higher. | |
|  |  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: 11% rural - no broadband because unavailable to them said by BF69:The REAL number of Americans that live in areas where no REAL broadband is available is closer to 20% or higher. I'll stick to the Census Bureau report until you can show the results of your own poll that contacted 55,000 people. | |
|
 |  Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
| While good, I really hope Verizon's LTE and other 4G connections can offer people DSL like speeds and decent latencies. Sadly this is there only hope as DSL copper will not be put in, and fiber as well due to the costs and it generally being overkill. | |
|
 SabreDi relung hatiku bernyanyi bidadari join:2005-05-17 | How do they define urban vs. rural? Just curious, as I don't see a mention in the data of what makes the difference between rural and urban in their methodology. | |
|  |  ThrowDemsOutIf you can't convince 'em, confuse 'emPremium join:2002-03-03 Mullica Hill, NJ kudos:4 | Re: How do they define urban vs. rural? said by Sabre:Just curious, as I don't see a mention in the data of what makes the difference between rural and urban in their methodology. They use the Census Bureau definitions. They are here: »www.google.com/url?q=http://www.···vfVFkIlA | |
|
 | | Do not need, Not interested. There will be many people here that will no be able to grasp that concept. | |
|  | | Only 11.1% can't get it! That's great! I thought it was much much higher!
Don't understand why the rest of us must fund the 11.1%. If you want it and can't get it, move to where you can.
I want open spaces. I am told I would need to move. Maybe the rest of you should pay to have my neighbor's houses moved away from me? | |
|  |  Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Only 11.1% can't get it! said by AstroBoy:If you want it and can't get it, move to where you can. That's not a solution. Broadband (while nice) isn't a sticking point if you're choosing to live somewhere (or if you have no choice where you live/work -- think farmers and school districts). There's a lot of rural America that could benefit from good quality broadband. Nobody wants to pay exorbitant prices for terrible satellite service. People want to pay decent prices for broadband, and with such a lack of competition in rural places this is not happening. | |
|  |  DrModemPremium join:2006-10-19 USA kudos:1 2 edits | said by AstroBoy:That's great! I thought it was much much higher! Don't understand why the rest of us must fund the 11.1%. If you want it and can't get it, move to where you can. I want open spaces. I am told I would need to move. Maybe the rest of you should pay to have my neighbor's houses moved away from me? Broadband service happens to be considerably easier to introduce than open spaces in a suburb are.
People who live in rural areas(like me) don't want ultrawtf500gigawattfibertothebrain internet(although it would be nice), we just want something that's fast enough to use the internet with, and isn't a crappy, debilitating satellite scam service.
Heck, I would be perfectly satisfied with even something low like a 128k/128k ISDN connection. At least then I could use VOIP and stuff. But I will probably never even see that speed where I live atm, and I'm not even that far away from civilization(3.5 miles from where comcast cable stops...) | |
|  |  old_dawg"I Know Noting..." join:2001-09-22 Westminster, MD Reviews:
·Comcast
| said by AstroBoy:If you want it and can't get it, move to where you can. Not to misunderstand your statement or harsh your mellow, but perhaps you are benefiting from a highway, park, stadium that those 11% helped pay for via taxes, bonds,etc. that they will never use. Just a thought. -- "Our network engineers are aware of the problem..." | |
|  |  |  | | Re: Only 11.1% can't get it! said by old_dawg:said by AstroBoy:If you want it and can't get it, move to where you can. Not to misunderstand your statement or harsh your mellow, but perhaps you are benefiting from a highway, park, stadium that those 11% helped pay for via taxes, bonds,etc. that they will never use. Just a thought. Since traffic is much higher where I live, I bet I paid more for their roads. I don't have a park within walking distance. And I will never go the the 2 stadiums built with school funding. In my state they passed the lottery promising to use the profits on the schools. The lottery paid for 1 or both stadiums. I feel like I was lied to.
I just think the rural and urban areas have pluses and minuses. Urban people should not pay for rural minuses unless rural people are going to pay for urban minuses.
I would prefer to live in the middle of nowhere, but I need a job, so I live within a few miles of a major city. I get traffic noise 24/7, higher crime rates and 25/15Mb internet. Would you like to pay to have my land sound-proofed? Or pay for a 24/7 guard to protect my propriety? | |
|
 sativa join:2009-10-23 Beloit, WI | really!? this comes as no surprise to me. many homes do not even have a computer. and do not realize they need one. | |
|  natter join:2000-12-18 Littleton, CO | We need to raise this number We need to raise this number using my tax money to 100% and perhaps 105%. Probably through another jobs bill or stimulus. | |
|  | | Stop the lobbyists Simple.....just stop the lobbyists. Competition will go up and the price will go down. | |
|  Jim_in_VA join:2004-07-11 Cobbs Creek, VA kudos:3 | Put the USF fee's where they are needed Broadband - not POTS ... I mean come'on, POTS is antique -- ... need help? »evdo-tips.com/ | |
|  SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium join:2000-08-05 Mentor, OH kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·magicjack.com
| So what. Big deal peopke are without Broadband. I have been thinking of killing our service as you see more warnings about government wanting to track everything you do online.
IMO, Broadband is a luxury, an expensive one. Without it, a smart person could save at least 500 bucks or more a year. They wouldn't have to worry about their PC getting hacked or a virus, granted it would be hard getting updates for the software, but therer is always snail mail, or having a friend burn a disk for you.
-- Care Bear This: If anything I say offends you, then you have a problem. As I am a stranger to you, so my words should have zero emotional impact on you. If they do, please seek help from Dr. Phil. | |
|  |  | | Re: So what. A possible issue is the way news is not completely discussed, propagated using the media that has existed/been created since the late 1950s.
Giving people, in general, a few ways to gather information/news gives them a better chance to generate decisions for themselves.
"an educated population is the bane of government" and corporations. [some one say it long ago] | |
|  |  |  SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium join:2000-08-05 Mentor, OH kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·magicjack.com
| Re: So what. In that case they can use the public library computers. After all we will only see what we are allowed to see on the net. If certain powers that be have their way to gain control of the net.
But I AGREE, the net can be a great source for information and misinformation. -- Care Bear This: If anything I say offends you, then you have a problem. As I am a stranger to you, so my words should have zero emotional impact on you. If they do, please seek help from Dr. Phil. | |
|
 |  | | said by Snakeoil:Big deal peopke are without Broadband. The majority of my WISP customers get it because their kids need it for school. Its either paying $35 per month for my internet service, or driving the kids into town to use the public library after school or on weekends, or on special after-school-hours computer-lab days. | |
|  |  1 edit | I have friends in very rural areas that would be a lot better off if they had any REAL choice for broadband. Can you imagine if rural residents had no electricity or phone service? Those too in their day were considered luxury items. Internet service has risen to a higher status level than luxury IMO. Without reasonable cost and reliability these folks are at an economic disadvantage. | |
|  |  |  SnakeoilIgnore Button. The coward's feature.Premium join:2000-08-05 Mentor, OH kudos:1 Reviews:
·RoadRunner Cable
·magicjack.com
| Re: So what. I fail to see the need for internet. Electricity helps keep food fresh, homes warm or cool. Phone allows contact with EMS.
Research.. can go to local library and do research there. Shopping.. again go to local stores and shop there, save on shipping fees and hassles with exchanges. Entertainment.. Go to local movie theaters, watch over the air TV, rent movies from a video store, or get them for free from library.
Again, I see no dire need for internet, nor why people like it's a disadvantage if someone doesn't have access to it.
Besides.. maybe the homes they are talking about belong to the Amish or the other Amish like groups.
As much as I use the net, I still think it's a waste of money. I can do everything in a physical location that I can do on the net. Shopping, games, reading, news... -- Care Bear This: If anything I say offends you, then you have a problem. As I am a stranger to you, so my words should have zero emotional impact on you. If they do, please seek help from Dr. Phil. | |
|
 | | Census Bureau survey of about 54,000 households One thing I see people forgetting.... Census Bureau survey of about 54,000 households and 129,000 consumers
This is hardly "every household" that could, or SHOULD have broadband.
The sample taken is obviously skewed in favor of the broadband providers.
Hell, they sure didn't count me! I haven't gotten anything from the Census Bureau yet! | |
|
 | |
|
|