#Rural2pt0: You can build, but will they subscribe?
In my last story, I outlined what a rural renaissance could look like assuming there is digital parity between urban and rural regarding digital connectivity, skills and mindset.
In this story, I look at broadband adoption, an element related to the digital connectivity dimension.
Most of the discussions around broadband focus on access and availability. A well-documented disparity exists between urban and rural areas regarding broadband access and availability. While these are critical, adoption and use is often overlooked. This is not good considering that the first step toward digital parity is a robust digital inclusion strategy that focuses on both access and availability as well as adoption and use.
So, are there urban-rural adoption disparities?
To get a clearer picture, I replicated the Brookings Institution Signs of Digital Distress analysis, but instead of looking at metropolitan area neighborhoods or Census tracts and their socioeconomic characteristics, I grouped the more than 72,000 neighborhoods in the country based on their rural population and looked at their broadband connection levels.
Brookings defined two types of neighborhoods: those with low adoption and those with high adoption based on residential connections of at least 10 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload, or 10/1 for short. Low adoption neighborhoods have less than 40 percent of homes with a 10/1 connection while high adoption neighborhoods have more than 80 percent of homes with a 10/1 connection.
Aside from the fact that this is the only dataset available, it is useful for analysis since 99.9 percent of the area in the U.S. had access to advertised 10/1 according to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Form 477. Yes, I know. This dataset is not accurate and 10/1 is an inadequate speed. However, given that these speeds are virtually universally available, it allows focusing on adoption disparities.
First, I looked at the number of neighborhoods (Census tracts) where subscription levels changed between 2015 and 2016. According to the analysis, 10/1 adoption levels dropped in 2.4 percent or 1,700 of the neighborhoods analyzed. On the other hand, 10/1 connections increased in almost a quarter or 23.6 percent of neighborhoods. Three-quarters of neighborhoods experienced no change in 10/1 residential connections. Keep in mind that the data is measured in six groups ranging from zero residential connections to more than 80 percent with four 20 percentage point groups in between (0.1 to 20 percent; 20.1 to 40 percent, etc.) Therefore, no change could mean levels did not surpass the 20-percentage points range but there may have been some movement, up or down.
Next, I divided neighborhoods into three groups based on their 2010 rural population: urban had less than 25 percent of its population living in rural areas; suburban neighborhoods had between 25 and 75 percent of their population living in rural areas; and lastly, rural had more than 75 percent of its population living in rural areas.
So, what did we find?
In 2016, 15.4 percent or 48.9 million people lived in low adoption neighborhoods, down from almost one-fifth in 2015. So, yes an improvement.
However, when looking at the share of folks living in low adoption neighborhoods by rurality, interesting dynamics surface. As seen in Figure 1, the share of urban and suburban living in low adoption neighborhoods decreased between 2015 and 2016 while the share of rural increased, from 48.6 percent to 55 percent a year later. In other words, in 2016 more than half or 55 percent of those living in low adoption neighborhoods were rural folks.
Figure 1. Percent Population in Low Adoption Neighborhoods by Rurality
What about high adoption neighborhoods? Well, there are also interesting — and worrisome patterns. Figure 2 shows that more than 90 percent of people living in high adoption neighborhoods were urban in 2015 and 2016. This is a stark difference to the shares of suburban and rural folks living in high adoption neighborhoods: less than six percent suburban and a shocking less than two percent rural.
Figure 2. Percent Population in High Adoption Neighborhoods by Rurality
Now remember, access supposedly is not an issue since 99.9 percent of the U.S. had access to these speeds. There are obviously other factors at play, but regardless this disparity in adoption and more worrisome, an increasing disparity, is not good. Rather than going toward digital parity, it seems we are heading the other way.
Consider that a little more than one-fifth or about six million of rural folks living in low adoption neighborhoods were children, potentially falling behind on homework and improving their digital skills, so vital today. Moreover, 31.6 percent or 5.3 million of rural folks ages 16 to 64 living in these neighborhoods were not in the labor force. Folks that perhaps are missing out on starting a business that leverages digital platforms or searching and applying for jobs online or learning digital skills to become more employable.
Great improvements have occurred over the past 18 years regarding internet use among U.S. adults. According to a survey conducted earlier this year, only 11 percent did not use the internet compared to 48 percent in the year 2000. A decrease of 37 percentage points!
The message is clear: digital parity can be achieved. Efforts like subsidized broadband connections coupled with aggressive training and educational campaigns should move the needle and point the ship toward digital parity and a rural renaissance.
I cannot help but wonder: are we overlooking adoption?
This article reflects my views, not those of my employer.
