Broadband data often directly impacts which communities receive funding for infrastructure deployment, school and library connectivity, and telehealth initiatives. Additionally, data helps track whether broadband and digital equity policies have the desired impact, providing a critical reference point for programmatic evaluation. 

Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau sends an estimated 3.5 million households the American Community Survey (ACS), which has included three questions about residents’ home computer and Internet access since 2013. Following the Digital Equity Act of 2021, the Census Bureau released its Digital Equity Act Population Viewer, which maps ACS Computer and Internet data alongside demographic information.  

Compared to broadband availability data, which shows where providers offer broadband service, ACS data reflects whether residents subscribe to broadband as well as whether they have a home tablet or computer. With all 50 states, D.C., and U.S. territories preparing digital equity plans, ACS Computer and Internet data provides an important baseline for understanding community needs. As state leaders have realized, more granular data and qualitative community experiences are necessary to effectively address the range of barriers residents face when getting online. 

While ACS and Census data are a helpful start, several limitations make it difficult to understand the nuances of the digital divide’s impact on particular communities. 

1. Include US Territories in annual ACS estimates. 

Puerto Rico is the only US Territory that the Census Bureau includes in its ACS data collection. Though Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the District of Columbia are eligible entities for NTIA’s Digital Equity program, less information is readily accessible about Computer and Internet availability. While other states have ACS estimates from 2021 and 2022 about Computer and Internet access, Computer and Internet information from the 2020 Census was the most current data for Territories. Expanding ACS data to include Territories could help community leaders better address digital inequities.

2. Expanding municipality data to include smaller communities could inform the local leaders who need it most. 

Remote rural communities, particularly in areas with challenging topography for infrastructure deployment, persistently lag behind their urban peers in broadband availability. Likewise, local leaders from the most rural communities, those with populations below 5,000 residents, do not have the same ACS data as more densely populated cities, towns, and villages. 

The Census Bureau makes ACS data about all counties available, but only collects municipality-level statistics for communities of 5,000 or more. In more rural states, like Minnesota and Vermont, ACS Computer and Internet data are often not available at the town or city level, leaving local leaders to rely on county-level statistics or collect their own data. Smaller local governments are also less likely to have the staff, budget, and in-house expertise to embark on their own data collection. Incorporating smaller communities in the ACS data collection process could provide a much-needed baseline for researchers, community leaders, local officials, and state policymakers. 

3. Collecting neighborhood data could improve digital equity planning in urban communities. 

Unlike rural municipalities, which may lack data more granular than the county level, urban communities with large populations and multiple zip codes may face difficulties using the data to pinpoint problem areas. Several communities have investigated the digital divide and found significant disparities between federal datasets and community experiences. 

• The Greenlining Institute investigated residents’ experience with Internet access in Fresno and Oakland, California, finding that the same areas historically redlined by banks now lack high-quality, affordable broadband service. Researchers found that Latino households were ⅓ less likely to have home Internet access than white households. Notably, California’s wealthiest households were 16 times more likely to have a home Internet connection than the state’s lowest income families. 
• In 2022, the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, released its Internet Use Survey, which revealed that while Internet adoption increased since 2019, when the most recent ACS data was released, over 15% of residents still lacked a home Internet connection. Older residents, those who took the survey in Spanish, and households with incomes below $20,000 were disproportionately disconnected from home Internet. The research also revealed that 32% of households were subscription-vulnerable, meaning that they experienced a service disruption during the pandemic for economic reasons and rely on affordable Internet programs to maintain a home connection sustainably.
• The City of San Antonio, Texas, works alongside nonprofit, academic, and government partners to pinpoint the areas least connected to broadband and develop targeted policy solutions. In 2019, the City began surveying residents to identify which neighborhoods lacked adequate Internet. The data empowered local leaders to target areas in greatest need when the pandemic pushed most services online and provides a comparison point for measuring programmatic progress over time. 

4. Improve Computer and Internet ACS data to reflect minimum standards. 

The Census Bureau’s definitions of Computer and Internet data differ from the FCC’s minimum broadband standard and include devices that most digital equity practitioners do not consider adequate for many Internet uses. According to the Census Bureau’s ACS definitions, ““Access” refers to whether or not someone in the household uses or can connect to the internet,” including cellular service alongside fixed services. In comparison, the Federal Communications Commission separately maps fixed Internet, meaning wired or wireless in-home connections, from mobile services, which often include data caps and less reliable connections. 

Speed testing has become a primary way that residents and local and state leaders understand whether home connections match advertised service. Community-centered speed test projects like Speed Up America and Citizen Me have sought to empower local leaders with more accurate data about broadband quality. The Markup developed a tool to help broadband researchers and community advocates better understand the digital divide in their communities. 

5. Expand the ACS sample size. 

While ACS information is available for all counties and many local governments, the sample size includes “over 3.5 million housing unit addresses” interviewed over a 12 month period. In comparison, the Census Bureau collects information from over 330 million residents during the decennial census. While annual ACS data collection from every community may not be feasible, expanding the sample size could help community leaders and state broadband offices paint a more accurate picture of who does and does not have the Internet, skills, and devices necessary to participate in society. 

Explore Next Century Cities’ State Broadband Policy map to learn more. 

Additional Resources: 

• Comparing broadband access to adoption in urban, suburban, and rural America (Mike Conlow, 2022)
• Broadband Benefit Programs are Helping to Close the Digital Divide (John Horrigan, the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, Nov. 29, 2022) 
• Closing the digital divide in Black America (McKinsey & Company, Jan. 18, 2023)