the Full Report

Transcription

the Full Report

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT
Dear Stakeholder,
Since 2010, Connected Texas has been narrowing the divide between those who have access to
broadband and those who do not. Connected Texas has created the forum for a variety of
leaders and entities to unite behind common goals and a shared vision. This teamwork has
made Texas a better place for business and an even better place to live in large measure by
addressing the technology needs of education and business.
Connected Texas provides statewide technology leadership and advocacy through robust,
public-private partnerships that expand broadband access and enhance technology adoption
and use to grow economies, retain and attract talent, and create jobs. Fueled by
unprecedented data and research, Connected Texas’ ability to facilitate and organize a diverse
cross-section of stakeholders has resulted in numerous efforts across the state to expand the
life-changing benefits of broadband to all.
These efforts were continued and maintained in part due to the receipt of the State Broadband
Initiative (SBI) grant funded by the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA).
While Connected Texas’ impact has been substantial, the need for ongoing improvement in
broadband access and adoption remains. The Federal Communications Commission’s recent
announcement of its new “advanced broadband” benchmark of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps
upload has ignited a renewed urgency to both meet this target and exceed those speeds in
order to solidify Texas’ stance in the cutting-edge interconnected economy.
The following report is designed to memorialize the efforts of Connected Texas as well as
showcase examples of the thousands of stakeholders impacted by our work to date. By
examining our technology past, we can better plan for our connected future.
Sincerely,
Tom Ferree
President and COO
Connected Nation
Connected Texas Final Grant Report
Page|2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Since 2010, Connected Texas has been the “voice of broadband” in the Lone Star State. Offering a
neutral perspective on broadband access, adoption, and use, Connected Texas has worked closely with
communities, providers, government officials, and anchor institutions to accelerate technology in the
state.
Connected Texas served as the state’s designated entity for broadband mapping, research, technical
assistance, and local technology planning. The following report summarizes advances made in
broadband access, adoption, and use over the past five years, as well as outstanding challenges and
opportunities for continued growth to ensure that all Texas communities, residents, institutions, and
businesses are connected to twenty-first century technology and equipped with the skills and support to
utilize it to its fullest.
According to Connected Texas’ broadband maps, the state continued strong growth in broadband
infrastructure and deployment, as well as increased competition among the higher broadband speed
tiers over the last five years. Despite progress, significant connectivity gaps persist in the state,
particularly in the state’s rural areas.
While expanding broadband access to these areas is important, without corresponding broadband
adoption among Texas’ consumers and businesses, further investment and build-out could be deterred.
To provide information on the people, businesses, and communities that are taking advantage – and
more importantly, not yet taking advantage – of the expansive opportunities provided through
broadband, Connected Texas conducts annual statewide residential and business broadband surveys.
In Connected Texas’ 2014 Residential Technology Assessment, these surveys revealed that 74% of
Texans have adopted broadband at home, and 80% of businesses in the state utilize broadband. Yet,
with nearly 5 million adults and 105,000 businesses statewide still without broadband, there remains
much to do.
Within individual communities, Connected Texas facilitated broadband and technology outreach,
education, and dissemination through its Connected Community Engagement Program (“Connected”).
The Connected program coalesces and trains regional leaders and forms community broadband
planning teams to assess the local technology landscape. Each community is then provided a step-bystep action plan to meet their local technology needs. Since 2011, twenty-nine Texas communities have
successfully completed local technology assessments and received technology action plans through this
program. Connected teams are working to address a wide variety of technology-related issues across
community sectors. From addressing rural infrastructure gaps, improving the online presence and use of
technology among businesses, or expanding tele-health opportunities at rural institutions, to expanding
e-government services, hosting local technology summits, or developing, implementing, and support
one-to-one device programs and connectivity for schools, the Connected program offers a direct
intervention for accelerating the access, adoption, and use of technology across Texas.
Page|3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Letter from the President ............................................................................................................... 2
Executive Summary......................................................................................................................... 3
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 5
Broadband Access in Texas ............................................................................................................. 7
Mapping ....................................................................................................................................... 7
The Broadband Availability Gap in Texas................................................................................ 9
Connect America Fund Implications for Texas ..................................................................... 13
Validation .............................................................................................................................. 14
Broadband Adoption in Texas ....................................................................................................... 17
Trends in Broadband Adoption Among Texas Homes and Businesses ..................................... 17
Residential Broadband Trends .............................................................................................. 17
Business Broadband Trends .................................................................................................. 18
Topical Reports ..................................................................................................................... 18
Texas’ Broadband Conference ................................................................................................... 21
Connected Community Engagement Program ............................................................................. 24
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 30
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix 1: Provider’s Engaged by Connected Texas ................................................................. 32
Appendix 2: My ConnectViewTM Interactive Map Screenshot Example ....................................... 38
Appendix 3: Connected Texas Maps ............................................................................................. 39
Appendix 4: Rural Broadband Experiments in Texas .................................................................... 53
Appendix 5: Engineering & Technical Services Field Validation Techniques ................................ 55
Appendix 6: Residential Survey Methodology .............................................................................. 66
Appendix 7: Logistic Regression Model for Home Broadband Adoption ..................................... 68
Appendix 8: Connected Community Engagement Program Process ........................................... 70
Appendix 9: FCC Broadband Availability, 2015 FCC Broadband Program Progress Report ......... 78
Appendix 10: FCC Announces Provisional Winners in RBE Auction ............................................. 80
Appendix 11: Research Reports .................................................................................................... 83
Page|4
BACKGROUND
Since 2010, Connected Texas, under the direction of
the state, has served as the broadband resource
providing information, insight, and expertise to
various stakeholders throughout the state. Support
provided to stakeholders has varied based on the
specific stakeholder group and need, but Connected
Texas has been able to share its resources and
expertise in an effort to improve the broadband
landscape across the state. The number of
stakeholders supported is vast and includes the
Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Public
Utilities Commission, Texas State Library and
Archives Commission, Texas Department of Public
Safety, Texas Education Agency, Texas Computer
Education Association, Texas Workforce
Commission, Texas Economic Development Council,
Texas Department of Information Resources, the
University of Texas, and many more.
The program office, established in Austin, served as
a go-to resource and primary champion of
broadband as it related to adoption, access, and use
within the state. Updates were provided to program
partners and stakeholders throughout the state
through periodic status reports, continual direct
interactions, addressing requests for information or
data, and raising awareness of broadband‐related
news and information through a variety of media.
Outreach staff distributed 64 press releases
statewide, maintained a program blog and social
media pages, and distributed regular e-newsletters
to subscribers.
Throughout the project, representatives served as
subject matter experts in the areas of impacting
broadband access, adoption, and use, while program
data was often highlighted by media outlets in
pieces related to technological advancement efforts.
The program manager testified at the Texas State
Senate Hearing on Virtual Education conducted on
October 8, 2012, as requested by the state
legislature (senate committee on education). The
testimony was in response to an apparent disparity
in broadband availability between rural and metro K12 facilities. The result of this testimony and related
commendations, including the call for the drafting of
a bill (House Bill 1926), can be found in the
Committee Report to the 83rd Legislature,
specifically pages 9 and 10. H.B. 1926, later signed
into law, required the Texas Education Agency to
conduct a thorough statewide assessment of
broadband availability to all K-12 facilities by the end
of year 2015.
In September 2013, the program manager
participated in the first (of three) panel series
presented by The Texas Tribune named
"Demographic Change and the Digital Divide." The
focus of the three-part series was the impact of the
digital divide in a state with a fast-growing and
rapidly changing population. Co-Panelists included:
a former state representative who is also the head of
Google Fiber in Austin, a current state
representative, and the executive director of Austin
Free-Net. The event was held at the Lyndon B.
Johnson School of Public Affairs on the University of
Texas at Austin campus. The conversation was live
streamed through, and later archived, on The Texas
Tribune’s website.
On March 14, 2014, program representatives
conducted an informational webinar regarding the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rural
Broadband Experiments. The webinar drew
substantial interest from stakeholders and
representatives of partner organizations and entities
in the state. In addition, staff supported over a
dozen organizations including municipalities,
providers, and regional entities with more specific
information on the FCC Rural Broadband
Experiments in order for the organizations to pursue
funding.
Data was also used to support programs such as the
Texas Connects Coalition, FirstNet, Connect America
Fund, and more. Texas Connects Coalition, a
Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
(BTOP) awardee, used SBI program broadband
information to add value to their Internet and
computer training classes and locations, while staff
and program data also lent support to the Texas
Department of Public Safety’s FirstNet Grant
Application.
Page|5
Page|6
BROADBAND ACCESS IN TEXAS
Mapping
Since 2010, Connected Texas has researched and
mapped growth and gaps in Texas broadband access
in accordance with the Department of Commerce
and Federal Communications Commission
broadband definition changes.
This project was originally funded for two years of
data collection and five years of broadband planning
activities. In September of 2010, this project was
amended to extend data collection activities for an
additional three years and to identify and implement
best practices. The first submission of mapping data
under the State Broadband Data and Development
grant program represented 75.5% provider
participation in Texas. In each subsequent
submission, staff was able to increase provider
participation in the voluntary program. The final
data update, submitted in September 2014, included
datasets for 94.2% of the provider community. One
hundred ninety-four (194) participating providers
were represented with 17 additional providers
whose coverage area was estimated.
This dataset was further used to evaluate the
broadband landscape across Texas by comparing
availability and speed tier(s) against that of the data
collected by the program since 2010. Based on the
October 2014 data, 98.55% of households statewide
have access to fixed broadband at speeds of at least
768 kilobits per second (Kbps) download/200 Kbps
upload. In fact, 267,109 more households have
access to fixed broadband services of 3 megabits per
second (Mbps) download/768 Kbps upload now than
3 years ago. This data was submitted in April and
October each year.
In June 2010, the program launched its first online,
interactive mapping tool for viewing and validating
broadband data, BroadbandStat. The interactive
mapping application, featured on the program
website, allowed consumers to locate their
residence and identify providers that offer Internet
service to that location. Internet service areas were
depicted based on the latest data collected and
prepared for submission to the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA).
In an effort to provide further broadband mapping
analysis tools, the program introduced a new
TM
mapping application called My ConnectView on
April 2, 2012. Compared to BroadbandStat, the
interactive map featured more interactive data
layers, additional tools to explore data, and the
ability to create, print, and share custom maps.
Additional enhancements to the application were
made in 2013, including: 1) upgrading the server to
ArcGIS for Server 10.1; 2) adding a button to create
permanent links which allowed users to develop a
customized display with various data layers turned
on with a specific zoom level and then allowed them
to send the permanent link to another user, who
would then get the same display in the interactive
map setting; 3) adding a date display to the legend
to inform the user of the current nature of the
broadband data; and 4) enhancing the featured popup windows to allow users to scroll through multiple
record selections.
Page|7
Users can select data layers that they wish to view
on the map display. Data layers are broken down
into three main sections: access, adoption, and
use. These sections contain broadband coverage
information, the density of unserved households,
maximum advertised download speeds, links to
adoption programs, and Community Anchor
Institutions (CAI). CAIs can be trusted resources for
broadband connectivity to citizens that are unserved
Community Anchor
Institution Type
K-12 Schools
or underserved at their homes. Connected Texas
realized that CAI connectivity was an important
component of the state’s overall connectivity, and
over the course of the grant, captured CAI
connectivity data through direct outreach, surveys,
and partnerships with statewide organizations. The
program received information for 21% of identified
CAI (percentage based on submitted download
speeds).
10,826
142
Download
Speed
2,671
Libraries
902
112
368
263
Healthcare
877
104
186
104
4,412
261
548
259
456
54
121
53
1,517
480
113
65
28
8
8
8
19,018
1,161
4,015
3,400
Identified CAI
Public Safety
Higher Ed Institutions
Other Government
Other Non-Government
Total
Type of
Connectivity
Upload Speed
2,648
Both applications have been housed in a highly available, monitored, and managed environment with a focus on
TM
being multi-functional and user-friendly. To date the program’s interactive map, My ConnectView , has received
27,461 visits and has served as a way to encourage and solicit consumer feedback.
Page|8
Consumer feedback has played an important role in the data collection project. In addition to consumer e-mails
received via the interactive map, the project has received 588 broadband inquiries over the life of the grant.
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) staff and Engineering and Technical Services (ETS) staff utilized the inquiries
for verification purposes by overlaying the feedback with the broadband availability information collected through
the program. As a result of consumer feedback, Connected Texas has provided the consumer with broadband
service options available to him/her, analyzed areas of unmet broadband demand, and improved the accuracy of
the state maps.
The data composed by Connected Texas is also submitted for additional analysis and use in the National
Broadband Map, the first searchable inventory of broadband services across the country. The National Broadband
Map is released and maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), in collaboration with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and in
partnership with 50 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia.
The Broadband Availability Gap in Texas
Texas’ 2014 broadband landscape demonstrates strong growth in infrastructure and deployment. Since October
2011, 159,702 additional households have gained access to broadband service statewide at speeds of 768 Kbps
download/200 Kbps upload.
Page|9
In addition to the above speed and provider details,
since 2011, broadband service at 50 Mbps
download/1.5 Mbps upload has increased 18.45
percentage points and service at 100 Mbps
download/1.5 Mbps upload has increased 17.7
percentage points (both excluding mobile wireless
and satellite services). Further, the number of fiber
broadband providers increased from 24 in 2011 to
32 in 2014.
As of October 2014, 97.05% of Texas households had
broadband access at 3 Mbps download/768 Kbps
upload and 267,109 fewer households were
unserved by this speed than in 2011 (excluding
mobile wireless and satellite services). Further, rural
broadband availability at 3 Mbps download/768
Kbps upload increased from 85.05% in 2011 to
91.53% in 2014.
The state has also shown increased access and
competition among the higher broadband speed
tiers.
Households Served by Speed Tier
3 Mbps/768 Kbps
3 Mbps/768 Kbps (Percent)
10 Mbps/1.5 Mbps
10 Mbps/1.5 Mbps (Percent)
25 Mbps/3 Mbps
25 Mbps/3 Mbps (Percent)
Number of Facilities-Based Broadband Providers
4+
3
2
1
Unserved
Providers
Providers Providers Provider
3,933,561 2,113,180 1,755,476
857,908
262,808
44.08%
23.68%
19.67%
9.62%
2.95%
1,197,657
1,961,709
2,768,957 2,166,510
828,101
13.42%
21.99%
31.03%
24.28%
9.28%
295
61,153
919,728 3,989,343
3,952,413
0.00%
0.68%
10.31%
44.71%
44.30%
Page|10
Despite this positive progress,
significant gaps persist in Texas,
particularly throughout rural regions.
Further, broadband availability and
competition in Texas decreases as
speeds increase.
As Internet and web applications
continue to develop, along with the
number of connected devices in a
typical household or business, there is
an increasing need for faster, more
robust broadband speeds. The National
Broadband Plan, released in 2010,
recommended a national broadband
speed target for households and small
businesses of 4 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload. The
National Broadband Plan also recommended that
the FCC reassess this target every four years. As
such, in January 2015, the FCC adjusted the
definition of “advanced broadband” to 25 Mbps
download/3 Mbps upload.
In adopting this target, the FCC found that 17
percent of the U.S. population did not have access to
25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband, but, when available,
consumers were subscribing to broadband at these
higher speeds. The FCC also determined that over
half of rural Americans did have not access to 25
Mbps down/3 Mbps up connectivity.
Broadband availability in Texas is significantly under
the national average. According to the most recent
Connected Texas data, 55.7% of households in Texas
have access to 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload
broadband networks. However, 3,952,413
households continue to be marginalized with
broadband speeds below this national benchmark.
The vast majority of the areas in Texas without
access are located in rural regions of the state.
Broadband access, and the applications it supports,
is a transformative technology that is having an
immediate and comprehensive impact on virtually
every sector of the Texas economy, every level of
the government, and overall social welfare. Texas
residents and businesses are becoming increasingly
reliant and dependent upon this technology.
However, communities and vulnerable populations
without such access are unable to take full
advantage of the benefits of technology and are at
risk of being further isolated by the digital divide.
Ongoing infrastructure assessments and state policy
that promotes widespread availability would be
instrumental to achieving equitable, ubiquitous
access.
Page|11
Efforts to bridge the broadband availability gap in
Texas need to continue, especially as consumers,
businesses, and policymakers seek ever-increasing
broadband speeds. Texas should continue to track
and monitor broadband availability and
infrastructure in the state at various speed and
quality levels. The FCC has begun collecting data on
the availability of retail fixed and mobile broadband,
with plans to publish those findings twice annually.
However, while that data will be useful, the FCC will
not directly map infrastructure facilities and will not
necessarily provide information on various speed
tiers and network technologies. Instead, the FCC will
collect data only relating to the retail maximum
offered peed for residential and business fixed
broadband services. For mobile broadband services,
the FCC will only collect “minimum advertised”
speed, portions of which might not be publicly
released. In rural areas, the FCC data will only be
1
collected at the census block level.
Over the last five years, Connected Texas has
mapped broadband infrastructure in a manner that
allows for the matching of broadband infrastructure
to state institutional needs. Because the FCC will
only collect advertised retail service availability, even
if that data were to be made available to Texas, it
would not support those important state needs for
infrastructure planning and economic development.
In addition, with regard to retail broadband
availability, the Connected Texas project collected
multiple speed tiers for both fixed and mobile
technology and independently validates those
capabilities. In rural areas, Connected Texas
collected broadband retail service availability at a
sub-census block level, which is more granular than
the current FCC data process, and regularly
processes inquiries from citizens, communities, and
providers on service availability. This type of handson, local engagement allows for and encourages
solutions-driven collaboration between providers
and communities.
1
Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Federal
Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 11-10,
Report and Order, 28 FCC Red 9887, 2013. The FCC was to
have started collecting this data on October 1, 2014, but
the FCC suspended that data collection due to difficulties
with its electronic filing Interface. See Form 477 Filing
Interface Remains Closed as Technical Improvements are
Implemented, Federal Communications Commission,
Wireline Competition Bureau, WC Docket No. 11-10, Public
Notice, DA 14·1458, Oct. 2014.
Page|12
Connect America Fund Implications for
Texas
As the previous maps identify, Texas has made a
significant impact in broadband availability over the last
five years; however, opportunities remain to improve
access to advanced broadband speeds and ensure that
all Texas businesses, governments, and residents have
equitable connectivity.
Connected Texas has used the broadband
infrastructure information it has collected and
validated to work directly with communities and
providers to solve access gaps in their communities.
One important example is the overwhelming effort
many Texas communities made to participate in an
FCC experimental program that would provide direct
funding for network upgrades.
In January 2014 the FCC created the Rural
Broadband Experiment program (RBE). The launch of
the program marked the first time that the FCC had
considered investing a portion of its $4 billion per
year telecommunications network subsidy program
determine how the FCC could allocate broadband
network subsidies to rural communities in a costeffective way.
Eligible areas for the RBE program were defined as
any area without access to fixed broadband at the 3
Mbps download/768 Kbps upload speed. In those
areas within the service territories of larger, price
cap local telephone companies (AT&T, CenturyLink,
Frontier), the FCC sought projects that would serve
entire census tracts that include unserved census
blocks.
In early 2014, the FCC solicited “expressions of
interest” from providers, communities, institutions,
and public-private partnerships regarding their ideas
and proposals on how they could use CAF subsidies
to support broadband infrastructure build-out in
currently unserved areas. The FCC received nearly
1,000 expressions of interest from applicants across
the country, 51 of which were from Texas.
into an application-based, competitive bidding
framework. Part of the Connect America Fund (CAF),
the Rural Broadband Experiment program sought to
In December 2014, the FCC Wireline Competition
Bureau announced the provisional winners including
broadband projects in 25 states and Puerto Rico.
There were three categories of RBE projects that
received provisional awards – 19 projects building
networks capable of 100 Mbps download/25 Mbps
Page|13
upload; 12 projects building networks capable of 10
Mbps download/1 Mbps upload in eligible unserved
areas; and 9 projects building networks capable of
10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload in extremely
high, unserved cost areas. Four projects in Texas
were given funding. This was great news for state
teams and partners (Please see Appendix 10).
All told, 15 of the 40 provisionally winning projects
are located in the Connected Nation State
Broadband Initiative footprint. Connected Nation
provided a wide variety of information and support
to prospective bidders and stakeholders in these
states, including webinars to states and with FCC
staff, regularly-updated FAQs, mapping of eligible
areas and corresponding analysis, Policy Briefs, and
application assistance. These fifteen projects in
Connected Nation jurisdictions account for $41.7
million of all of the subsidies provisionally awarded,
or approximately 42% of the nearly $100 million in
provisional awards.
Validation Case Study
Douglass, Texas - Through efforts of Connected Texas
and other stakeholders, two new wireless broadband
towers brought broadband to more than a hundred
homes in the Douglass, Texas area. The first tower
provides broadband service to approximately forty
homes in the East Lake Estates just outside Douglass.
The second tower has more than sixty homes already
on the subscription list in the greater Douglass area.
Most of the early subscriptions have come from
discounted orders offered through the local school
district. One Douglass resident summed up the
general thankfulness of the community saying thanks
to his new home high-speed Internet service, he no
longer has to drive his family to Nacogdoches three
times a week to allow his daughter to complete her
high school homework assignments.
Validation
Provider engagement and validation are essential to
gathering meaningful, accurate data regarding
Texas’ broadband ecosystem. Over the past five
years, Connected Texas has developed strong
relationships with commercial and residential
broadband providers across Texas to collect the
extensive datasets that populate the state
broadband maps.
To ensure its accuracy, Connected Texas validates all
data received from participating providers.
Connected Texas’ validation process is informed
with, among other methods, broadband inquiries
provided by consumers and local stakeholders. In
areas of the state in which providers are unable to
supply broadband data, Connected Texas employs
several techniques to estimate the service territory.
Connected Texas uses this data to build consumer
awareness regarding service options available in
their area and encourage provider infrastructure
build-out in localities without coverage.
Detailed, accurate broadband data enables more
than informed decision making. Connected Texas’
mapping and validation helps bring broadband to
rural areas of the state and eliminates the
connectivity gap. Connected Texas validates all data
received from participating providers. Testing was
completed against 204 companies out of 224 viable
providers totaling 91.07% within the state.
Connected Texas developed on-the-ground
Page|14
validation processes that it implemented in an effort
to reach the most accurate depiction of broadband
technology data available. ETS staff traveled 75,042
miles for the purpose of conducting field
verifications in Texas. Staff utilized a variety of
resources for validation support such as provider
coverage maps, Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) databases, volunteered provider
data submissions and broadband inquiries.
In some instances providers were unable or
unwilling to participate in the voluntary data
submission process. In such instances, program staff
completed a process by which desktop research into
the public sources of data combined with in-field
techniques listed above and sound engineering
practices were used to estimate the coverage area
for these providers. This methodology was
presented as a best practice to the FCC in June 2011.
For further information on Connected Texas’
validation processes, see Appendix 5.
Page|15
Page|16
BROADBAND ADOPTION IN TEXAS
Broadband access is important, but future investments and build-out in the state could be deterred if broadband
adoption among Texas businesses and residents does not grow as well. Therefore, it is in the interest of all leaders
in Texas to collaborate and bridge the remaining broadband adoption gaps to ensure that all Texans are able to
participate and compete in the twenty-first century interconnected global economy.
Trends in Broadband Adoption Among Texas Homes and Businesses
Connected Texas’ innovative research on broadband access, adoption, and use is unprecedented. Connected Texas
conducts annual statewide residential and business surveys. These surveys provide information about the people,
businesses, and communities that are taking advantage – and more importantly, not yet taking advantage – of the
opportunities provided through broadband adoption.
Residential Broadband Trends
Connected Texas’ 2014 Residential Technology Assessment revealed that 26% of Texans have not adopted
broadband at home, down from 38% in 2010. While 74% of adults in the state subscribe to home broadband
service, this leaves nearly 5 million adults statewide who still do not subscribe to home broadband service.
The barriers to home broadband adoption are consistently delineated into three main categories: (1) a belief that
having home broadband service is not important or relevant; (2) affordability of service and/or devices; and (3) a
lack of digital skills to fully benefit from the devices and broadband connectivity. Since 2012, the belief that home
broadband service is not relevant or worthwhile has been the top barrier to home broadband adoption, cited by
three out of ten Texas non-adopters (30%) in 2014. Cost is another significant barrier to home broadband
adoption, reported by nearly one-quarter of non-adopters (23%). The lack of digital literacy skills has declined as a
barrier to home broadband adoption since 2011, from 14% to 12% of non-adopters in 2014; this represents more
than 820,000 fewer adults who said that their lack of digital literacy skills prevented them from subscribing to
broadband.
Home Broadband Adoption in Texas
Page|17
Business Broadband Trends
Because of the impact that broadband has on
businesses and the workforce, Connected Texas
surveyed businesses in the state about their
broadband adoption and usage.
residents and businesses benefit from broadband
adoption.
Broadband is a transformative tool that helps Texas
businesses increase their revenues and productivity.
According to Connected Texas’ Business Technology
Assessments, Texas businesses earned an estimated
$194.6 billion in revenue from online sales in 2013,
the equivalent of 13% of Texas’ Gross Domestic
2
Product (GDP) for that year.
Texas Goes Mobile: Mobile Broadband Adoption and
Satisfaction Across Texas (2012) reported that nearly
one-half of Texas adults (48%, representing 8.9
million Texans) used mobile broadband at that time.
Of those, 2.1 million used mobile broadband instead
of subscribing to home Internet service. More than
one-half of Texans who accessed broadband on their
cell phones (53%) said they were satisfied with their
mobile service, with Texans giving the highest marks
to service reliability and customer satisfaction.
Connected Texas’ 2014 Business Technology
Assessment, released in summer 2014, revealed that
four out of five businesses in the state (80%) use
broadband, up from 73% of businesses in 2010.
Broadband Adoption Among Texas Businesses
*Connected Texas did not conduct a Business Technology Assessment in 2012
Despite this increase, approximately 105,000 Texas
businesses still do not use broadband. Additionally,
over one in five Texas businesses (22%) have
difficulty finding employees with the necessary
technological skills, suggesting that technology
training can help empower Texas’ workforce.
Topical Reports
In addition to statewide research surveys, Connected
Texas published several reports that explored
broadband issues in the state, ranging from online
shopping to e-learning applications. These reports
uncover and highlight broadband successes and
opportunities within the state and show how Texas
Among these studies:
The Texas Digital Divide: An Assessment of
Rural and Non-Rural Texans (2012) showed
that home broadband adoption was 16
percentage points lower among rural Texans
than among those living in non-rural parts of
the state (48% of rural adults, compared to
64% of those in urban and suburban portions
of the state). Rural Texans who did subscribe
to home broadband service or use mobile
broadband were also less likely than their
non-rural peers to use many online
applications (one exception was that rural
mobile users were just as likely to use their
mobile service to search or apply for jobs as
non-rural Texans). More than one in four
rural Texans who did not subscribe to broadband
(27%) said that cost was their main barrier to
adopting broadband, while a lack of available service
was the main barrier to adoption for approximately
145,000 rural Texans.
Making the Connection Through Digital Literacy
(2012) revealed that approximately 1.4 million, or
20% of Texans who did not have broadband at
home, cited the lack of digital literacy skills as their
main barrier to subscribing. Statewide,
approximately 600,000 Hispanics, 544,000
Caucasians, and 198,000 African Americans living in
Texas cited digital literacy as a barrier to home
broadband adoption.
2
2013 GDP in real dollars = $1.533 trillion (source: United
States Bureau of Economic Analysis).
Page|18
Page|19
BROADBAND USE IN TEXAS
Connected Texas’ mapping and research has
provided data-driven analyses of the challenges and
opportunities to enhance statewide broadband
deployment and adoption. As access and adoption
rates increased over the last five years, so has the
need for digital skills.
Digital literacy, or the knowledge of how to use a
computer and the Internet, is growing in importance
as today’s workforce becomes more closely tied to
technology. The United States Department of
Commerce notes that 62% of all employed adults in
3
the United States use the Internet for their jobs. Yet
even with this widespread use, the Federal
Communications Commission reports that 66 million
Americans do not have sufficient computer or
4
Internet skills, representing one in five Americans.
Teaching Texans these skills is vital to ensure that
those who are employed today, as well as those
looking for employment, have the ability to compete
with workers from around the world. The need for
digital literacy skills is reshaping the old mantra in
education of teaching reading, writing, and
arithmetic. Embracing information and
communications technologies in the curriculum are
5
important in the twenty-first century.
Providing Learning Anywhere: K-12 Education in
Texas (2012) showed that one-half (50%) of Texas
households with children said that their children
used home Internet service for schoolwork. In
addition, more than six out of ten adults with
children at home (61%) said that children were using
the Internet at school for schoolwork. Statewide,
approximately one million Texas parents subscribed
to home broadband service because someone
needed the service for school.
that, thanks to broadband, they made an average of
2.4 fewer trips to the doctor per year, they drove an
average of 165.6 fewer miles per month, they saved
an average of 15.36 hours per month, and saved an
average of $3,161 annually in fuel and maintenance
costs as a result of driving less. The combined
savings of broadband adoption on the Texas
economy was $40.9 billion per year.
Online Shopping in Texas (2013) reported that
approximately 11.4 million Texas adults made some
sort of purchase online over the previous 12 months.
The median household income of online shoppers
was nearly $17,000 higher than the state average; in
addition, nine out of ten online shoppers (90%) lived
in urban or suburban portions of the state, while
80% had a college education. Approximately 7.1
million Texas adults used the Internet to order goods
or services from businesses located within the state,
and 8.4 million went online to place orders from
American businesses outside of Texas. This
translated into an estimated $4.4 billion spent
annually for Texas businesses and $6.4 billion per
year for American businesses in states other than
Texas.
Broadband and Education – Connecting Students in
Texas (2014) showed that more than 950,000
students in the state did not have broadband at
home at that time. One in five Texas parents of K-12
students (20%) said their children’s school provided
students with laptop or tablet computers, yet 25% of
rural parents said their children do not use the
Internet at school at all. Many parents saw the value
of technology in education, though; over one-half of
parents of K-12 students whose schools provided
computers said that those computers helped their
children’s grades, and six out of ten parents who did
not have broadband at home agreed that having
Internet service at home would make it easier for
their child to do homework.
How Broadband Impacts the Texas Economy (2013)
revealed that Texas broadband subscribers reported
3
http://www.commerce.gov/news/factsheets/2011/05/13/fact-sheet-digital-literacy#_edn4
4
http://factfinder2.census.gov/ and
http://www.connect2compete.org/news/07-2312/getting-past-catch-22-digital-literacy
5
http://www.reading.org/Libraries/Position_Statements_a
nd_Resolutions/ps1067_NewLiteracies21stCentury.sflb.as
hx
Page|20
Texas’ Broadband Conference
Throughout the grant, technology trends were
presented to state stakeholders at various meetings
and events, such as broadband summits.
The state’s first-ever broadband summit, themed
Getting Every Community Online, drew stakeholders
from across the state to the Gaylord Texan Hotel on
June 5-7, 2012. Attendees representing a range of
sectors – from education to agriculture – discussed
many topics including job creation and the economic
development that comes from expanding broadband
access, adoption, and use. Texas Agriculture
Commissioner Todd Staples delivered the event’s
keynote address highlighting the important role of
broadband in rural development and gave
encouraging news about the government’s efforts to
expand broadband use. One of the key focuses of
the summit was on growing broadband adoption
particularly in rural areas. Connected Texas released
a new rural broadband adoption report to kick-off
the event revealing technology adoption and usage
is lower among rural Texans than among those living
in suburban and urban counties, including computer
ownership, broadband adoption, and mobile
broadband usage. This means that approximately 1.2
million rural Texans do not have broadband service
at home for a variety of reasons. More than one in
four rural Texans who do not subscribe to
broadband (27%) say that cost is their main barrier
to adopting high-speed Internet.
importance of connecting all students to broadband
and the steps to follow to overcome various
obstacles toward statewide implementation.
The event began with the announcement of
Connected Texas’ release of the Broadband and
Education – Connecting Students in Texas report,
and followed with panel sessions on challenges at
the state and national level, historical and present
funding of broadband access, success stories from
around the state, approaches from other states, and
school and community connections.
Our compliments to TCEA for holding a great
symposium and it’s clear that we collectively in
Texas owe it to every child, and ultimately every
citizen, to be able to provide the technological
and computer support in schools around Texas.
Hopefully what we’ve come out of this
symposium with are some great ideas on how to
move forward and achieve those results.
Judge John E. Firth
Coryell County
Connected Texas and TCEA co-hosted the Texas
Broadband Symposium October 7-8, 2014 at TCEA’s
headquarters in Austin, concentrating on the
Speakers included Don Shirley and Tom Koutsky
from Connected Texas and Connected Nation; Dr.
Walt Magnussen, director of telecommunications at
Texas A&M University; Dr. Mickey Slimp, executive
director, Northeast Texas Consortium of Colleges
and Universities (NETnet); Gloria Meraz, director of
communications of the Texas Library Association;
and Jeff Mao, senior director of learning solutions
programs at Common Sense Media, to name a few.
Page|21
Attendees were divided into groups and were given the opportunity to collaborate on the identification of key
barriers to providing broadband access to Texas schools, categorizing strategies that policymakers and
practitioners can support to overcome barriers, as well as solutions and next steps.
The event helped provided a better understanding of the challenges and best practices of providing broadband
access to school districts across the state.
Page|22
Page|23
CONNECTED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM
Since 2011, Connected Texas has provided communities and their multitude of
stakeholders with facilitated broadband and technology outreach and education
through the Connected Community Engagement Program (Connected). Supported
by data gathered through Connected Texas’ broadband mapping and research, the
Connected program examines local technology conditions and benchmarking
deficiencies and successes and creates a plan for expanding broadband and
technology access, adoption, and use throughout a community. This is a
comprehensive report to cover work completed and best practices from technical
assistance projects in Texas.
Connected leverages state-based, public-private partnerships to engage residents at the local level. The program
coalesces and trains regional leaders and supports the formation of community broadband planning teams
comprised of various cross-sector representatives. These teams work with Connected Texas to assess the existing
broadband and technology landscape using criteria developed as part of a national community certification model.
The assessment is separated into three distinct broadband measures: access, adoption, and use. Each criteria has a
maximum of 40 points, with 120 points available overall. This scoring rubric enables Connected Texas to identify
previously unrealized community needs; the goal of the program is to then empower informed and collaborative
local strategies and initiatives that target the specific technology
gaps in the community.












Connected Teams
Include:
Local government officials
Business owners
Schools
Libraries
Chambers of commerce
Economic development
corporations
Farm Bureau members
Healthcare institutions
Emergency management
Native tribes
Internet service providers
Higher education
And many others
Each community is provided with a step-by-step action plan to
meet their goals. The plan also supports future broadband
expansion and programs that will help ensure that the
community maintains widespread Internet access, adoption, and
use.
The entire assessment – from formation of the Connected Team
to the completion of a technology action plan – lasts between 8
to 24 months, depending on the size of the team, the champion
leading the effort, and other community-specific factors.
Connected communities have made great strides in addressing
regional-specific issues. The program has helped communities
implement projects to address connectivity and technology issues
that include, but are not limited to, broadband infrastructure
expansion, provider identification, digital literacy training to
increase small business Internet use, and technology adoption.
For example, in coordination with the TDA State Broadband
Coordinator and Texas Broadband Task Force, Connected Texas
will establish approximately 29 planning teams at a regional or local level. The teams will conduct meetings
throughout the project to benchmark technology use across relevant community sectors; set goals for improved
technology use within each sector; and develop a plan for achieving its goals, with specific recommendations for
web-based application development and demand creation. Both planning teams and the Texas Broadband Task
Force will participate in an annual statewide strategic planning meeting to share best practices and identify and
resolve any new barriers or challenges.
Page|24
The Connected Texas Community Engagement Program was able to produce only 12 technology action plans
during the first two years of operation, but in the fall of 2013 a new two-fold strategy was implemented to both
increase the number of communities engaged and the number of technology actions plans developed. The first
strategy was to engage and develop relationships with the regional council of governments and the Texas
Department of Agriculture (TDA) Regional Field Staff in order to gain regional support for the Community
Engagement Program. Once the first strategy was launched, three new Community Technology Advisors were
hired to increase the presence of the program in the field and to handle the rapidly increasing number of
community engagements.
The program quickly gained the support of four regional councils of government and the TDA Regional Field Staff
that resulted in 36 additional new community engagements and 29 new technology action plans by end of the
program in January of 2015.
Page|25
To date, in Texas 250 community planning meetings were held across the state by a total of 65 engaged
communities and collaborated with local, cross-sectorial stakeholders. Four Texas communities have achieved
Connected certified community status and 26 completed a technology action plan. Program staff assisted these
communities in planning, scheduling, and facilitating local and regional planning sessions through the creation of
meeting agendas and documentation of the work accomplished. Support was further provided to train community
members to develop technology action plans. The progress of each community involved in the Connected program
was tracked and monitored so that staff were able to provide support where needed and report to stakeholders on
the progress of each community. The SBI program also offers expertise to the community team through detailed
broadband mapping and analysis, technical services and data validation, and community outreach and awareness
support.
Access
Score
22
Adoption
Score
12
Use
Score
40
Total
Score
74
Action Plan
Date
Published
1/22/2015
Bastrop County
37
38
40
Bosque County
19
20
31
115
Certified
11/13/2013
70
Action Plan
9/15/2013
Brewster County
25
34
38
97
Action Plan
12/3/2014
Cameron County
38
24
40
102
Action Plan
1/2/2015
Cass County
20
20
35
75
Action Plan
1/24/2014
City of Jacksboro
19
32
40
91
Action Plan
10/21/2014
City of Marfa
24
26
36
86
Action Plan
11/12/2014
City of Sealy
22
22
37
81
Action Plan
7/24/2014
City of Stamford
20
24
20
64
Action Plan
6/4/2013
City of Valentine
6
24
36
66
Action Plan
9/24/2014
Comanche County
14
8
29
51
Action Plan
2/12/2015
Coryell County
22
32
37
91
Action Plan
9/28/2014
Fayette County
27
38
37
102
Action Plan
2/16/2015
Fort Bend County
40
38
40
118
Certified
11/25/2014
Gillespie County
22
36
40
98
Action Plan
1/23/2013
Hidalgo County
38
40
34
112
Certified
1/2/2015
Jim Hogg County
29
2
20
51
Action Plan
1/29/2015
Kleberg County
40
22
28
90
Action Plan
1/29/2015
Lamar County
34
18
40
92
Action Plan
1/22/2015
McMullen County
19
0
18
37
Action Plan
5/22/2013
Mitchell County
30
4
16
50
Action Plan
9/12/2013
Montague County
27
32
33
92
Action Plan
12/16/2014
Sabine County
6
32
21
59
Action Plan
6/11/2013
San Augustine County
15
22
29
66
Action Plan
5/14/2013
Titus County
16
6
40
62
Action Plan
1/27/2015
Wharton County
11
36
35
82
Action Plan
9/9/2013
Willacy County
Community Name
Anderson County
Status
31
32
32
95
Action Plan
12/22/2014
st
29
36
37
102
Action Plan
6/25/2013
nd
32
38
37
107
Certified
8/19/2014
Young County (1 time)
Young County (2 time)
Page|26
th
Bastrop County became the first certified Connected community in the state and 16 in the nation. Through the
program community members were able to assess the local broadband landscape, identify gaps, and establish
actionable goals and objectives to increase broadband access, adoption, and use for families, organizations, and
businesses throughout Bastrop County. Seven priority projects were detailed within Bastrop County’s Technology
Action Plan:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Complete a Vertical Asset Inventory
Develop or Identify a Broadband Training and
Awareness Program for Small and Medium Businesses
Establish a “Digital Factory”
Identify, Map, and Validate Broadband Demand
Implement a Community-Based Technology Awareness
Program
Improve Online Business Services Offered by
Government
Pursue Next Generation 911 Upgrades
We are excited that Bastrop County has
achieved the Connected certification. As one
of the fastest growing counties in the state,
we embrace what technology can do for our
citizens. Connectivity helps us do everything
more efficiently, whether it’s healthcare,
education, agriculture, or business.
Judge Paul Pape
Bastrop County
This Connected Texas team worked hard with partners
and providers across the state to expand affordable,
high-speed access to communities. The efforts paid off in
2013 when LiveAir Networks made 1 Gbps download
speeds available to residents in Smithville and La Grange;
Smithville is located in Bastrop County.
Young County became the second county in Texas to
attain the distinction of being a certified Connected
community, and was the first previously uncertified
Texas community to implement specific projects in order
to obtain certification. Young County completed a technology action plan in June 2013; however, the county
missed certification by three access points. Over the next year, the community began to implement some of the
recommended projects, resulting in certification in July 2014.
The Young County Technology Action Plan includes projects to
expand digital literacy, including a commitment by the Graham
Chamber of Commerce to host “Techie Tuesday” classes once per
month, build awareness for the benefits of broadband, and assist
businesses with technological training, as well as improving the
online presence of local governments, among other entities.
“Young County being certified by Connected Texas is probably
one of the biggest rural advantages a community can have in
bringing and finding quality residents and quality businesses.
There is no reason that the charm of rural life changes because
we have high technology,” said County Commissioner, Mike
Sipes.
The East Texas Council of Governments and its fourteen counties in the East Texas region joined the ArkansasTexas Council of Governments and its nine Texas counties to develop and implement separate Regional Broadband
plans that could be funded and completed in phases. Through a partnership with Connected Texas, an initial data
research phase was launched to benchmark each community and determine the gaps and low points of broadband
access, adoption, and use. After the initial data research phase of the project, the data was used to determine gaps
in broadband service within the region in order to develop a strategic plan which included specific equipment and
Page|27
cost requirements. At the time of the termination of the Connected Texas program, 4 of the communities had
developed their technology action plan with the remaining 19 communities in some phase of completion.
The Rio Grande Council of Governments recognized the lack of broadband access was a key deterrent to economic
expansion in the six counties that comprise the region. One of the key recommendations that began to emerge
from the community engagements was for teams to conduct research surveys and market analyses to validate a
business case for providers to expand services in their community. Using a survey template provided by the
Connected Texas staff, several communities launched broadband survey projects and the GIS staff of the Rio
Grande Council of Governments mapped the tabulated data in order to assist the communities in the development
of a business case. At the time of the termination of the Connected Texas program three of the communities had
developed their technology action plan with the remaining three communities in some phase of completion.
Broadband and related technologies are essential for success in the twenty-first century connected global
economy. Rural areas without adequate infrastructure, populations lacking digital literacy skills and businesses
unaware of the benefits of technology use will continue to be left behind without targeted programs to address
these gaps. Connected Texas’ mapping and research uncovers the persisting access and adoption needs
throughout the state, while its Connected Community Engagement Program ensures that communities have the
knowledge, support, and resources to close these divides and leverage broadband for improved community and
economic development.
While this report has highlighted successes under this collaboration, it is evident that additional work remains in
order to ensure that all Texas communities and residents are connected to twenty-first century technology and
have the skills and support to use it to its fullest.
Page|28
Page|29
CONCLUSION
Connected Texas has successfully worked over the last five years to accelerate broadband technology access,
adoption, and use. In partnership with Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), Connected Texas has worked
closely with rural communities across the state to identify community broadband needs and advance a meaningful
technology initiative.
While Connected Texas’ impact has been significant, the challenges remain. More and faster broadband is needed
across Texas, and Connected Texas needs your help. There’s never been a more important time. As technology
evolves, the “digital divide” between urban and rural communities grows wider. Rural communities are left behind.
For example, while multiple providers in Austin announced rolling out gigabit (1,000 Mbps) Internet connections,
many rural communities are lucky if they have 3 Mbps service. Some communities in Texas still have no broadband
at all.
Moreover, based on the new broadband benchmark 25 Mbps speeds, almost half of Texas households are left
behind. Texas will not be able to maintain its economic edge in the world without making advanced broadband a
priority for the entire state. Connected Texas is proud of the progress Texans have made over the last five years,
and our commitment to improving broadband technology is steadfast.
Page|30
APPENDIX
Page|31
APPENDIX 1: PROVIDER’S ENGAGED BY CONNECTED TEXAS
PROVIDER
PLATFORM
WEBSITE
ACI
DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless
http://www.aciglobal.com/
Air Net, LLC
Fixed Wireless
http://www.airnetllc.com
Airplexus, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
Alamo Broadband, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.burlesoncountytx.com/airplex
usinc.htm
http://www.alamobroadband.com
Aledo Broadband
Fixed Wireless
http://www.aledobroadband.com
Allegiance CATV
Cable
http://allegiance.tv
Alliance Communications
Network
AMA Communications LLC
Cable
http://www.alliancecable.net/
Fixed Wireless
http://www.amatechtel.com/
Amarillo Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.amarillowireless.net
Anvil Communications
Fixed Wireless
http://www.anvilcom.com
Argon Technologies
Fixed Wireless
http://www.argontech.net/
AT&T Mobility LLC
Mobile Wireless
http://www.wireless.att.com/
AT&T Southwest
DSL, Fiber
http://www.att.com
AwesomeNet
Fixed Wireless
http://www.awesomenet.net
Balatize Broadband Services
Fixed Wireless
http://balatize.com/
Basin 2 Way
Fixed Wireless
http://www.basin-net.net/
Basin Broadband, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.basinbroadband.com/
Bee Creek Communications, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://beecreek.net
Big Bend Telephone Company
DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless, Satellite
http://www.bigbend.net/
Blossom Telephone Company,
Inc.
Border to Border
Communications, Inc.
Brazoria Telephone Company
DSL, Fixed Wireless
http://www.blossomtel.net
http://www.border2border.com
DSL
http://btel.com
Brazos Internet
DSL
http://www.brazostelephone.com
Brazos WiFi
Fixed Wireless
http://www.brazoswifi.com/
Broadcomm.Us
Fixed Wireless
http://www.broadcomm.us
Broadwaves
Fixed Wireless
http://www.broadwaves.net
Buffalo Cable Television
Cable
http://www.buffalocabletv.com
Cable ONE
Cable
http://www.cableone.net
Cameron Communications
DSL
http://www.camtel.com
Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative
http://www.caprock-spur.com
Cascom
Fixed Wireless
http://www.castrovillecomputers.com
CCWIP
Fixed Wireless
http://www.ccwip.net/
Central Link Broadband
Fixed Wireless
http://www.centrallink.com
Central Texas Telephone
Cooperative, Inc.
Centrovision, Inc.
DSL, Fixed Wireless
http://www.centex.net/
Cable
http://www.centrovision.net/
Page|32
PROVIDER
PLATFORM
WEBSITE
CenturyLink
DSL
http://www.centurylink.com/
CG Communications, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.cgcomm.biz
Charter Communications, Inc.
Cable
http://www.charter.com
CKS Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.ckswireless.com
Coastal-Link Communications
Cable
http://btel.com/coastal-link/
Cogent
Fiber
http://www.cogentco.com
Coleman County Telephone
Cooperative
Colorado Valley
Communications, Inc.
Comcast
DSL
http://www.web-access.net
DSL, Fixed Wireless
http://www.cvctx.com/
Cable
http://www.comcast.com
Comcell
DSL
http://comcell.net
Communications Etc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.communications-etc.com
Connextions Telcom
DSL, Fiber
http://www.cnext.com
Consolidated Communications
DSL, Fiber
http://www.consolidated.com
CPUonsite
Fixed Wireless
http://www.plainscomputing.com
Cricket Wireless
Mobile Wireless
http://www.mycricket.com/broadband
Cybercom Corporation
Fixed Wireless
http://www.txcyber.com
DCTexas Internet
Fixed Wireless
http://www.dctexas.com
Deep East Texas
Communications
Dell Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.det-com.com
DSL, Fixed Wireless, Fiber
http://www.delltelephone.com/
Digital Passage, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.digitalpassage.com
Digitex.com
Fixed Wireless
http://digitex.com
East Texas Broadband
Fixed Wireless
http://www.etbroadband.net
East Texas Cable
Cable
http://www.etcable.net
East Texas DSL
Fixed Wireless
http://www.eastexas.net
East Texas WiFi
Fixed Wireless
http://www.easttexaswifi.com
Eastex Telephone Cooperative,
Inc.
Echo Wireless Broadband
DSL
http://www.eastex.com/
Fixed Wireless
http://www.echowibb.com
ECTISP, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.ectisp.net
Electra Telephone Company
DSL
http://www.electratel.com/
En-Touch Systems, Inc.
Cable, Fiber
http://www.entouch.net/
ERF Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.erfwireless.net
ETEX Communications, LP
DSL, Fiber
http://www.etex.net
Evolve Broadband
Mobile Wireless
http://www.evolvebroadband.com
Farm to Market Broadband
Fixed Wireless
http://www.farm-market.net
Fidelity Communications Inc.
Cable
http://www.fidelitycommunications.com/
Ganado Telephone Company,
Inc.
Gecko Inter.Net
DSL
http://www.ganadotel.com
Fixed Wireless
http://www.geckointer.net
GEUS
Cable
http://www.geus.org
Page|33
PROVIDER
PLATFORM
WEBSITE
GHz Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.ghzwireless.com
GOCO Wireless, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://gocowireless.net
Gower Net
Fixed Wireless
http://www.gower.net
GoZoe Wireless, LLP
Fixed Wireless
http://www.gozoe.com/
Grande Communications
Cable
http://www.grandecom.com/
Gtek Computers and Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.gtek.biz
GVEC.net
Fixed Wireless
http://www.gvec.net
GVTC Communications
Cable, DSL, Fiber
http://www.gvtc.com/
Hallettsville Communications
Fixed Wireless
http://www.hal-comm.com
Harris Broadband LLP
Fiber
http://www.harrisbb.com
Hill Country Telephone
Cooperative, Inc.
Hillcountry Networks
DSL, Fixed Wireless
http://www.hctc.coop
Fixed Wireless
http://www.hillcountrytx.net
Hometown Computing
Fixed Wireless
http://www.htcomp.com/
Hughes Network Systems, LLC
Satellite
http://www.hughesnet.com/
IguanaNet
Fixed Wireless
http://iguananet.com
Indian Creek Internet Services,
Inc.
Industry Telephone Company
Fixed Wireless
http://www.indian-creek.net
DSL
http://www.industrytelco.com
Internet America, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.internetamerica.com
Kilgore Cable Television, Inc.
Cable
http://www.longviewcabletv.com/
La Ward Telephone Exchange,
Inc.
Lake Livingston Telephone
Company, Inc.
Leaco Wireless, LLC
DSL
http://www2.laward.net
DSL
http://lakelivingstontel.com
Fixed Wireless
http://www.leaco.net
Level 3 Communications, LLC
Fiber
http://www.level3.com/
Lipan Telephone Company
DSL
http://www.lipan.net
LiveAir Networks
Fiber, Fixed Wireless
http://www.liveair.net
Livingston Telephone Company,
Inc.
Local Choice Internet
DSL
http://www.livingston.net
Fixed Wireless
http://www.localchoiceinternet.com
Longview Cable Television, Inc.
Cable
http://www.longviewcabletv.com/
Los Guys Wireless
Fixed Wireless
N/A
LVWifi.com
Fixed Wireless
http://www.lvwifi.com
Mediastream
Cable, Fixed Wireless
http://www.mediastreamus.com
MegaPath Corporation
DSL
http://www.megapath.com
MetroPCS Wireless, Inc.
Mobile Wireless
http://www.metropcs.com
MEXUS
Fixed Wireless
http://www.mexus.net
Mid-Plains Rural Telephone
Cooperative, Inc.
MobiNet, LLC
DSL, Fiber
http://www.midplains.coop
Fixed Wireless
http://www.mobinetllc.com/
Mountain Zone TV Systems
http://www.mzbroadband.com/
Page|34
PROVIDER
PLATFORM
WEBSITE
MVC Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.mvcwireless.com/
NDemand
Fixed Wireless
http://www.ndemand.com
NetWest Online, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.airocom.net
New Source Broadband
Fixed Wireless
http://www.newsourcebroadband.com/
NewWave Communications
Cable
http://www.newwavecom.com/
NextLink Broadband
Fixed Wireless
http://www.nxlink.com
Nortex Communications
Cable, DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless
http://www.nortex.com
North Texas Broadband
Cable
http://www.northtxbroadband.com
North Texas Telephone Company
DSL
http://www.northtextel.net/
Northland Cable Television
Cable
http://www.yournorthland.com
NTS Communications, Inc.
DSL, Fiber
http://ntscom.com/
OneSource Communications
Cabld, DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless
http://www.1scom.com
Our-Town Internet Services
Fixed Wireless
http://www.our-town.com/
Pathway Com-Tel, Inc.
Fiber
http://www.usapathway.com/
Pathwayz Communications
DSL, Fixed Wireless
http://www.pathwayz.com
Peoples Telephone Cooperative,
Inc.
Personal Touch Communications
http://www.peoplescom.net
DSL, Fiber
http://www.cumbytel.com/
Phoenix Broadband, LLC
Fixed Wireless
http://www.iatascosa.com/
Plateau Telecommunications,
Inc.
Poka Lambro Telephone
Cooperative, Inc.
Prompt Technology
DSL, Fiber
http://plateautel.com/
http://www.poka.com/
Fixed Wireless
http://www.prompt-tech.com/
PTCI
Cable, DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless,
Mobile Wireless
http://www.ptci.net/
Ranch Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.ranchwireless.com/
Reach Broadband
http://reachbroadband.net
Reveille Broadband
Cable
http://www.reveillebroadband.com
Ridgewood Cable
Fixed Wireless
http://www.ridgewoodcable.com
Rioplex Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.rioplexwireless.com
Riviera Telephone Company, Inc.
DSL
http://www.rivnet.com
rNetworks Wireless Broadband
Fixed Wireless
https://www.facebook.com/rNetworksllc
Rock Solid Internet & Telephone
Fixed Wireless
http://www.getrsi.com
Rodzoo Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://www.razerwireless.com/
Rural Texas Broadband
Fixed Wireless
http://www.rtxbb.net
Santa Rosa Telephone
Cooperative, Inc.
Skybeam
http://www.santarosatelco.com
Fixed Wireless
http://skybeam.com/
Skycasters
Satellite
http://www.skycasters.com
Skynet Communications
Fixed Wireless
http://www.skynetwisp.com/
Skynet Country, LLC
Fixed Wireless
http://www.skynetcountry.com
SmartBurst, LLC
Fixed Wireless
http://www.smartburst.com
Page|35
PROVIDER
PLATFORM
WEBSITE
SmartCom
Fixed Wireless
http://www.sc2000.net
Smithville.net
Fixed Wireless
http://www.smithsys.net
SOS Communications
Fixed Wireless
http://www.soscomm.com/
South Plains Telephone
Cooperative
Southwest Arkansas Telephone
Cooperative
Southwest Texas Telephone
Company
Speed of Light Broadband
DSL, Fiber
http://www.sptc.net
DSL, Fiber
http://www.swat.coop
http://my.swtexas.com
Fixed Wireless
http://solbroadband.com
Sprint
Mobile Wireless
http://www.sprint.com
StarBand Communications
Satellite
http://starband.com/
Starnet Online Systems
Fixed Wireless
http://www.1starnet.com
Suddenlink Communications, LLC
Cable
http://www.suddenlink.com/
Tatum Telephone Company
DSL
http://www.tatumtel.net/
Taylor Telephone Cooperative,
Inc.
TDS Telecom
DSL, Fiber
http://online.taylortel.net/
Cable
http://www.bajabroadband.com
TekWav
Fixed Wireless
http://tekwav.com/
Telecom Cable, LLC
Cable
http://www.telecomcable.net
TetCoBiz
Fixed Wireless
http://www.tetcobiz.com/
Texas Broadband, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.texasbb.com/
Texas CellNet
Fixed Wireless
http://www.texascellnet.com/
Texas Communications
Fixed Wireless
http://www.texascom.com/
Texas Wireless Internet
Fixed Wireless
http://www.txwinet.com
TexasData
Fixed Wireless
http://www.texasdata.net/
Texhoma Wireless
Fixed Wireless
http://texhomawireless.com/
TGM Pinnacle Network Solutions
Fixed Wireless
http://pinnaclenetworksolutions.com
theSPECnet
Fixed Wireless
http://thespecnet.com
TierOne Networks
Fixed Wireless
http://www.tocn.com
Time Warner Cable
Cable
http://www.timewarnercable.com
TISD, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.tisd.net/
T-Mobile
Mobile Wireless
http://www.t-mobile.com
Totelcom Communications, LLC
DSL, Fixed Wireless
http://www.totelcom.net/
Transworld Network, Corp.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.twncorp.com
TV Cable of Grayson County
Cable
http://www.graysoncable.com/
tw telecom of texas, llc
DSL, Fiber
http://www.twtelecom.com
Twin Wireless, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.twin.net/
TXOL Internet Inc
Fixed Wireless
http://www.txol.net/
U.S. Cellular
Mobile Wireless
http://www.uscellular.com
Verizon
DSL, Fiber
http://www22.verizon.com/
Verizon Wireless
Mobile Wireless
http://www.verizonwireless.com/
Page|36
PROVIDER
PLATFORM
WEBSITE
VersaLink
Cable
http://versalinkus.com/media.html
ViaSat
Satellite
http://www.viasat.com/
VOWnet
Fixed Wireless
http://www.vownet.net/
VRFuturenet
Fixed Wireless
http://www.cirranet.net/
VTX1
http://www.vtci.net
WaveDirect Telecommunications
LLC
Wavelinx
Fixed Wireless
http://www.wavedirect.net/
Fixed Wireless
http://www.wavelinx.net
Web Fire Communications
DSL
http://www.wf.net
Web-Access
Fixed Wireless
http://www.web-access.net
West Central Net
Fixed Wireless
http://www.wcsonline.net/
West Plains
Telecommunications, Inc.
West Texas Rural Telephone
Cooperative
Western Broadband
DSL, Fiber
http://www.fivearea.com/
Cable, DSL, Fiber
http://www.wtrt.net
Fixed Wireless
http://www.westernbroadband.com
WesTex
http://www.westex.coop
WesTex Connect Internet
Services
Wharton County Electric
Cooperative, Inc.
Windstream Corporation
Fixed Wireless
http://www.wtconnect.com
Fixed Wireless
http://www.wcecnet.net
DSL
http://www.windstream.com
XIT Communications
DSL, Fiber
http://www.xit.net/
Zeecon Wireless Internet, LLC
Fixed Wireless
http://zeecon.com
ZipLink Internet.com
Fixed Wireless
http://www.ziplinkinternet.com
Zipnet.us
Fixed Wireless
http://zipnet.us
Zito Media
Cable
http://www.zitomedia.com/
Zochnet
Fixed Wireless
http://www.zochnet.com/
Zulu Internet, Inc.
Fixed Wireless
http://www.zuluinternet.com
Page|37
APPENDIX 2: MY CONNECTVIEWTM INTERACTIVE MAP SCREENSHOT EXAMPLE
The following provides a screenshot of My ConnectView TM with focus on broadband service
types available in the Austin, Texas area. The full map is available at
http://www.connectedtx.org/interactive-map.
Page|38
APPENDIX 3: CONNECTED TEXAS MAPS
Page|39
Page|40
Page|41
Page|42
Page|43
Page|44
Page|45
Page|46
Page|47
Page|48
Page|49
Page|50
Page|51
Page|52
APPENDIX 4: RURAL BROADBAND EXPERIMENTS IN TEXAS
The following is a comprehensive list of expressions of interest filed in Texas as of April 1, 2014:
Name of Filer
Expression Filed
4ip Technology & Media, LLC
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089727
Alenco Communications, Inc. (ACI)
Ranch Wireless, Inc.
Ark-Tex & East Texas Councils of
Governments
Big Bend Telephone Company (3/10/14)
Big Bend Telephone Company (3/7/14)
Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative
Border to Border Communications, Inc.
Brazoria Telephone Company, Inc.
Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
CD Networks, LLC
Coleman County Telephone Cooperative
Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (CLEC)
Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (ILEC)
Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Electronic Corporate Pages, Inc.
Etex Telecom
Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Fidelity Communications Co.
GCEC Telecom
Harris Broadband LLP
Hill Country Telecommunications, LLC
JAB Wireless, Inc.
Texas Lone Star Network
LiveAir Networks
Livingston Telephone Company
Mid-Plains Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
NDemand, Inc.
Neu Ventures dba Mountain Zone TV Systems
New Source Broadband I LLC
North Texas Telephone Company
Panhandle Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Pedernales Electric Cooperative
Peoples Wireless Services & Peoples
Communication, Inc.
Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Page|53
Riviera Telephone Company, Inc.
Rural Texas Broadband
Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
South Plains Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
Southwest Arkansas Telephone Cooperative,
Inc.
Suddenlink Communications
Texas 10, LLC d/b/a Cellular One and Central
Louisiana Cellular
Totelcom Networks, LLC
TWIN, Inc.
Unified Communications Inc. D.B.A. ZochNet
VTX Telecom, LLC
W. T. Services, Inc.
Wes-Tex Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
West Texas Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.
WSSP Inc./Matt Wallace
XIT Telecommunication & Technology, Ltd.
Page|54
APPENDIX 5: ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES FIELD VALIDATION TECHNIQUES
Introduction
Connected Nation, Inc. is a not-for-profit working across states and with the federal government to
implement the State Broadband Data and Development (SBDD) program created by the Broadband Data
Improvement Act of 2008 and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and is
managed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the
Department of Commerce. One of the main components of the SBDD program is the creation of a
detailed, nationwide map of broadband coverage in order to accurately pinpoint remaining gaps in
broadband availability across the nation. Connected Nation is the largest mapping agent across the
nation supporting the SBDD program, working in Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nevada, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas to collect, process, integrate, and
validate provider data, and map the broadband inventory across these jurisdictions.
Connected Nation’s methodology for fulfilling the charge of the SBDD program starts with first
establishing a trustworthy relationship with the dozens and sometimes hundreds of providers in each
jurisdiction. Our mapping and engineering experts work with the providers to understand what data
they have or can develop in-house describing their service territory by speed tier. Connected Nation
then processes these data through a validation process that helps ensure the accuracy of the mapping
data. This validation process is informed by, among other methods, broadband inquiries provided by
consumers and local stakeholders about the information depicted through Connected Nation’s
interactive broadband maps. This crowdsourcing approach is instrumental in helping to guide our
validation process. Where providers are unable or unwilling to participate in the program and share
data about their service territory, Connected Nation implements an estimation of their service territory
using various techniques.
This white paper provides an overview of Connected Nation’s methodology for provider outreach and
relationship management, consumer data collection, and analysis to leverage crowdsourcing data
stemming from broadband inquiries, and field validation of data volunteered by thousands of
participating broadband providers. The memorandum also describes Connected Nation’s methodology
for estimating the broadband coverage of providers who do not choose to participate in the SBDD
program and volunteer estimates of their service territory.
Provider Relationship Management
Over the past two years, Connected Nation’s Engineering & Technical Services (“ETS”) team has created
a strong rapport with broadband providers on a local and national level. The goal was to develop
trustworthy relations with thousands of providers across the jurisdictions where we are charged with
completing a broadband inventory map: Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada,
Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Beginning with an initial database of several
thousand potential providers two years ago, the ETS team has contacted every known provider of
broadband services in 12 U.S. states and territories, spoken with provider executives and broadband
technicians, identified that the companies were viable providers of backhaul and residential broadband
services, and learned about each of the 1,400 viable broadband service businesses. The ETS team has
worked with providers, large and small, to understand what data they had available or could develop
within the allotted time; it has collected these data and in tandem with Connected Nation’s mapping
team of GIS technicians, validated, integrated, and ultimately mapped the service territory of
approximately 1,400 providers.
Page|55
The NITA requires two annual updates to the SBDD mapping data – one in the spring and one in the fall.
During these biannual mapping cycles, each provider is contacted at least three times by ETS team
members by e-mail or telephone. Each year, providers rely on Connected Nation’s ETS team members
as well for information about mapping updates or federal programs. While in the field, ETS team
members also meet and talk face-to-face with broadband business owners, ask questions, and learn a
variety of useful information:









What challenges do providers face in the current business environment?
Which providers are growing and which are contracting?
Which providers seek help and which have received assistance?
Which providers are reluctant to participate in special programs?
Which providers have compelling success stories that can be shared?
Who is pushing the envelope to extend broadband services in new ways and to more remote
locations?
How is new broadband deployment financed in different regions and for different platforms?
How have federal stimulus funding programs impacted the business?
Do providers find the annual RUS funds accessible and practical to manage?
Members of the ETS team regularly attend provider conferences and trade shows to stay abreast of
ever-changing regulatory and technical advances. On many occasions, the attending ETS team member
is participating as one of the defining speakers to share knowledge on broadband mapping, digital
literacy, broadband adoption and sustainability programs, and to report on real-time research analysis
conducted by Connected Nation.
Consumer Data Collection and Analysis
Broadband inquiries (“BBIs”) are submitted frequently by consumers via Connected Nation’s state-level
websites. Inquirers often seek help to identify local broadband provider options, or to learn when a
specific provider may be able to provide service at a particular location. Consumer comments also
provide information which may help validate the underlying mapping data.
To date, Connected Nation has received more than 20,000 BBIs, representing a large crowdsourcing
database of service information and consumer experiences. The primary objectives of Connected
Nation regarding these inquiries are to 1) improve the accuracy of the state maps with submitted
consumer information and follow-up field research, 2) provide broadband options to consumers through
cooperation with mapped providers and by facilitating new broadband service options, and 3) map and
analyze information from consumers about areas of unmet broadband demand and alternatives to
currently mapped services.
The process for responding to a BBI is straightforward, while the tools used by the ETS team are varied.
Tools include the state BroadbandStat maps, ArcGIS Explorer for reviewing (i) confidential provider
inventory maps, (ii) geocoded BBIs; and (iii) geocoded tower location maps, provider data submission
updates, provider websites, QuickBase, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Spectrum
Dashboard, FCC Universal Licensing System and Antenna Structure Registration databases, and a
plethora of other useful resources.
Following completion of desktop research and a provider inventory for the BBI address, an ETS team
member speaks directly to the BBI consumer to gather more specific information, with the objective of
Page|56
either: a) confirming or revising the BBI’s provider inventory, or b) gathering information about possible
broadband options near the BBI address.
While the mapping engine is designed to capture the supply of broadband services in any particular
state, the BBI process has the ability to capture demand information, and measure that demand against
the available supply. Examples of questions that may be answered by a completed BBI dataset:






Where are there concentrations of unmet demand (e.g., neighborhoods, lakeshores, school
district boundaries)?
Where are areas where consumers say price is a barrier for broadband adoption?
Which providers are most often reported as mapped, but not providing service?
How many unserved consumers are close to a wireless tower, and how many might be able to
receive wireless broadband with installation of a signal repeater?
What service platform is most requested by BBI consumers?
Which service providers are most often requested by BBI consumers?
The answers to these and other questions present opportunities to Connected Nation for identifying and
participating in broadband expansion opportunities and challenges.
Following the completion of the provider inventory with the consumer, the ETS team member can offer
the consumer location-specific options for obtaining service, such as providing contact information for
providers that the consumer was unaware were available, including satellite providers offering service
and equipment assistance in certain situations. Potentially, the BBI process can capture information
related to satellite referrals and other data points. Further, in instances where the provider inventory
indicates a mapping discrepancy, the GIS department can potentially capture information related to
census-block and road-segment reporting. Such information can yield other information, such as which
platform is more likely to be overstated due to these issues, or what percentage of the mapped
population is affected by use of these reporting blocks.
Although Connected Nation’s GIS department
could have simply created a “pin-point polygon”
around the customer’s home demonstrating no
service on the Connected Nation online
broadband mapping platform, follow-up calls to
the consumer indicated a larger potential
problem: the consumer commented on the
mapped area stating that cable modem service is
“generally unavailable for several miles on my
road.” The ETS team elected to conduct on-site
research, and the results of the field validation
effort produced a fairly noticeable mapping
refinement (the pink shading at right represents
the provider service area while the dark red line
indicates where there is no cable plant).
Page|57
Mapping discrepancies similar to the example above
are certainly to be expected in areas where
providers submit census-block data. At left, the redline polygon indicates an unserved area within the
orange-shaded service region. This discussion drives
home the importance of BBI, crowdsourcing
information and the field validation effort as a way
of resolving broadband inquiries, improving the
broadband maps, and responding more fully to
clients, the general public demanding broadband,
and other stakeholders.
Field Data Collection
Connected Nation’s ETS team has driven nearly
100,000 miles and completed thousands of on-site
validations of data submitted by the thousands of broadband providers included in Connected Nation
broadband maps. Provider field validations are performed throughout the calendar year to meet NTIA
requirements, as well as to test and confirm provider service boundaries, deployed assets, broadband
speeds, and delivery platforms. ETS team members utilize a variety of resources for validation support,
including provider coverage maps, FCC databases, and volunteered provider data submissions.
Validation locations are selected based on a broad set of criteria, and include all platform types. A
significant benefit to field work is that the ETS team gains a better understanding of the local broadband
environment while on-site and can identify previously unknown broadband providers – particularly,
fixed wireless providers. Such first-hand knowledge can be an important asset in informing future
programs.
Various tools, visual inspections, and tests provide the basis for a validation report. ETS engineers utilize
spectrum analyzers and frequency-tuned antennas, GPS devices, cameras, and mapping programs to
test, capture, and record validation information. All validation information can now be recorded directly
into Connected Nation’s QuickBase tool for geocoding, review, analysis, and reporting. Using common
laptop computer software, ETS engineers can access open broadband connections, determine the first-,
middle-, and last-mile providers for an Internet connection, and complete speed tests through
Connected Nation’s online speed test tools or through other speed-test utilities.
Visual confirmation of a provider’s presence in a community includes visiting provider offices and
network operations centers, identifying and inspecting overhead (utility pole) and underground
(pedestals and cabinets) gear labeled with provider names, seeking print-media listings and outdoor
advertisements, researching federal licenses and local franchises, and testing wireless frequencies for
transmissions and signal strengths. Validations may also include direct communication with broadband
consumers in the provider’s service area.
Page|58
Data Validation of Participating Provider
Field validations on data volunteered by broadband
providers begin weeks in advance of the field trips
as members of the ETS team work to prioritize an
area of the state for field visitation. As described
above, this process is also informed by
crowdsourcing data collected through broadband
inquiries from the general public. The next task
involves identifying all viable providers in the
defined area and determining their current level of
participation in the broadband mapping program.
Contact attempts are made to schedule on-site
visits with providers to engage active participation in the validation process and to further the
relationship. Lastly, ETS specialists will research the FCC Spectrum Dashboard to identify licensed
mobile and fixed wireless spectrum users in the area. Armed with relevant data, provider appointments
and an arsenal of test equipment (as shown below), the ETS team member sets out to determine how
closely the actual broadband environment matches the graphic depiction displayed on the Connected
Nation state-level interactive broadband map.
The video available at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNMEQKHbDls provides an example
of a typical Connected Nation field validation performed by ETS member Dwayne Goodman in
Midlothian, a community south of Dallas, Texas.
Another typical field validation exercise was conducted on broadband data provided to Connected
Nation by a fixed wireless provider in Michigan using licensed BRS spectrum to deliver broadband
services across mostly rural areas in the upper portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula.
The ETS member is armed with a propagation map such as the one depicted below displaying coverage
in Alden, MI, which is 21.5 miles from the wireless provider’s transmit site west of Traverse City, MI.
Using the data submitted by the provider, the ETS team conducting this field validation calculated a
receiver threshold at the test point of approximately -81dBm using a 9dBi gain receive antenna, and an
actual field reading of -83.2dBm, as depicted in the chart on the following page.
Page|59
Page|60
Occasionally, field validations uncover information
that is contrary to data submitted by a provider.
One such instance involved a Michigan
Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) that
had provided coordinates for a remote terminal, a
field enclosure that houses DSL distribution
equipment (see picture below).
The CLEC affirmed they provided DSL services to
the surrounding community over copper owned
by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC),
but from equipment owned by the CLEC.
An ETS team member drove to the listed
coordinates and located underground telephone
pedestals belonging to the ILEC, but there was no remote terminal enclosure belonging to the CLEC.
What was found at that location was a concrete pad with empty conduit. This suggests that someone
prepared for an enclosure to be installed, but no equipment is in place and no wires have been installed.
Such field validation is then used to make relevant corrections to that provider’s estimated broadband
service territory.
Page|61
Data Submission of Non-Participating Provider
In instances where providers are unable or unwilling to participate in the data collection process,
Connected Nation has developed an internal “play book” of best practices necessary for extraction of
data from a combination of field validation techniques paired with publically available data. One such
example includes Connected Nation’s estimation of San Juan Cable, LLC’s or OneLink Communications’
service territory for the cable broadband provider in the greater San Juan area in Puerto Rico. Connect
Puerto Rico, a wholly owned subsidiary of Connected Nation, is working for the Office of the Chief
Information Officer of Puerto Rico (OCIO) to implement the SBDD program across Puerto Rico.
Background: Following the protocols described in this memorandum, from September 2009 to the
present, Connected Nation’s staff, as well as staff from OCIO, have reached out to OneLink
Communications on numerous occasions to inform them about the SBDD mapping program goals and
processes and engage the company in a secure, trustworthy partnership to ensure accurate mapping of
its broadband service territory. Despite Connected Nation’s and OCIO’s best efforts, to date we have
been unable to engage OneLink Communications in meaningful discussions about its broadband service
coverage.
Identification of Provider’s Legal Name, d.b.a., and FRN: Connected Nation began building a file of
OneLink’s profile based on anecdotal information and, as time progressed, enriched the file with
information obtained through the public domain. For example, Connected Nation received information
from the Junta Reglamentadora de Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico (“JRT”) indicating that territory
once operated by Adelphia was the same territory now operated by OneLink. A search for a Federal
Registration Number (“FRN”) on the FCC COmmission REgistration System (“CORES”) system did not
yield results. It was later discovered that the entity of record with the JRT was, in fact, San Juan Cable,
LLC. A new search on the FCC CORES site yielded an FRN of 0013778857 and additional contact data.
Identification of Provider’s Coverage Area: Connected Nation extracted the municipality boundaries
where the company operates from OneLink’s publicly available website and used the company’s
published boundaries to create a GIS shapefile of the greatest advertised broadband package offered
across OneLink’s service area.
Page|62
These polygons were then compared against generic data supplied by OneLink during the course of
attempted communication (see comparative illustration below). The purple shaded area is Connected
Nation’s coverage polygon extracted from OneLink’s website and the red outlines illustrate the
franchisee boundaries submitted by OneLink.
Using this combined coverage polygon as the basis for further investigation, Connected Nation set out
on an exploratory “drive test” to determine where cable plant existed and estimate where cable modem
likely existed in the greater San Juan area. During the period of February 7 - 11, 2011, Connected Nation
deployed five ETS members (all highly trained former telecommunications operators) to conduct a
thorough analysis of OneLink’s “alleged” coverage area.
Page|63
At the conclusion of this week-long exercise, Connected
Nation had driven through several hundred miles of the
OneLink franchise area, located above-ground and
underground plant (consisting of both fiber and coaxial
cable), visited with and surveyed numerous local residents
inquiring about their broadband service, obtained
collateral material from OneLink’s local offices (to
determine maximum advertised connection speeds), and
created a polygon that illustrates the identified and likely
coverage area of OneLink.
The image below shows the results of the validation
efforts in terms of the revisions made to the advertised
cable broadband availability in the greater San Juan area.
Polygons in red, demonstrate areas where Connected Nation reasonably believes broadband “gaps”
exist in OneLink’s franchise area. Connected Nation submitted the purple-shaded areas, along with full
attributes, as the estimate of OneLink’s broadband service territory to the NTIA in the Puerto Rico SBDD
broadband data submission of April 1, 2011.
Validation Achievements
In-field validations have proven to be the most reliable verification method of local broadband
landscapes across jurisdictions mapped by Connected Nation. No other methodology can ascertain
deployed asset coordinates, wireless broadband frequency and signal strength attributes, and physical
plant locations as accurately as being there in person. The Connected Nation ETS team has discovered
cable broadband services where they were not reported to exist, no cable broadband where it was
reported to exist, missing DSL equipment, and wireless broadband towers at locations other than
reported, which directly affects signal coverage area. All of this information is used to revise, refine, and
reconfirm the mapping database that ultimately feeds the National Broadband Map.
Page|64
Additionally, many fixed wireless providers operate “below the radar,” meaning they are not a member
of any association, and typically do not advertise their services, but they still offer a viable service with
broadband speeds often exceeding those of DSL providers. The only dependable process to certify there
is no fixed wireless broadband coverage in a given area is to conduct a frequency analysis with a
spectrum analyzer across all available frequencies.
Page|65
APPENDIX 6: RESIDENTIAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Connected Texas estimated broadband adoption and barriers to adoption through a series of random digit dial
telephone surveys conducted from 2010 through 2014. The samples for each residential survey, as well as the
margins of error, are as follows:
Year
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
All respondents
1,221
1,197
1,202
1,200
1,000
Effective sample size (post-weighting)
1,024
797
850
789
734
Margin of error ( percentage point +/-)*
3.06%
3.47%
3.36%
3.49%
3.62%
400
398
402
398
247
Rural respondents
Effective sample size (post-weighting)
Margin of error (percentage point +/-)*
395
281
167
118
173
4.93%
5.85%
7.58%
9.02%
7.45%
*Margins of error reported at the 95% CI, based on the post-weighting effective sample size
The statewide and rural broadband adoption estimates for 2014 are the result of a random digit dial telephone
survey of 1,009 adults in Texas between September 19 and November 6, 2014. Of the 1,000 respondents randomly
contacted statewide, 200 were called on their cellular phones and 800 were contacted via landline telephone.
Once the respondent agreed to participate, surveys took approximately ten (10) minutes to complete.
To ensure that each sample was representative of the state's adult population for each survey, Connected Texas
set quotas by age, gender, and county of residence, then weighted the results to coincide with the most recent
United States Census population estimates for each year. As with any survey, question wording and the practical
challenges of data collection may have introduced an element of error or bias that is not reflected in the reported
margins of error.
Connected Texas applied rim weighting to correct for minor variations and to ensure that the samples matched the
most recent U.S. Census estimates of the state's adult population by age, gender, and the urban/rural classification
of each respondent's county of residence. For the purpose of setting quotas and weighting, Connected Texas
defines "rural" respondents as adults living in a county that is not a part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA),
as designated by the United States Office of Management and Budget. Connected Texas defines “low-income
households” as those reporting annual household incomes less than $25,000.
Thoroughbred Research Group, located in Louisville, Kentucky, conducted the surveys in English and Spanish on
behalf of Connected Texas. Lucidity Research, LLC, of Westminster, Maryland, provided weighting and research
consultation. Connected Texas calculated cross-tabulations using WinCross 11.0 and used SPSS Statistics v. 20 for
weighting and regression analyses. Starting in 2011, surveys and survey methodologies were peer reviewed by
experts in the fields of data collection and analysis. Dr. Sharon Strover of the University of Texas at Austin reviewed
the results and survey methodology used in the most recent (2014) residential survey.
As part of the State Broadband Initiative grant program, Connected Nation, Inc. and its subsidiaries have been
surveying broadband adoption and use in eight states since 2010 using the same survey questions and
methodologies.
In any given year in any one particular state, small sample sizes among respondents in the cross-tabulated portions
of the state samples can result in wide variations in observed results and wide margins of error. For this reason,
Connected Texas employed a logistic regression model to estimate broadband adoption and mobile adoption rates
for Hispanics, African Americans, low-income households, households with children, and adults age 65 and older
Page|66
from 2010-2014. Connected Texas calculated these estimates based on a number of demographic factors that
have historically been studied as having impacts on home broadband adoption rates (including age, employment,
race, ethnicity, household income, the presence of children at home, education level, state of residence, and
whether the household was in a rural portion of the state), as well as a time element.
The estimated results as well as the observed results can be found in Appendix 11. The model used in the
calculation of the estimated samples can be found in Appendix 7.
Connected Texas conducted these residential surveys as part of the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant program,
funded by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The SBI grant program was
created by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), unanimously passed by Congress in 2008 and funded by
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009.
Page|67
APPENDIX 7: LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL FOR HOME BROADBAND ADOPTION
Data
Data were collected through random digit dial surveys of adults in eight states: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The dataset includes 46,613 cases from Connected Nation’s
2010-2014 Residential Technology Assessments in those eight states.
This dataset has a binary response dependent variable called “Broadband” which is equal to 1 if a respondent
reported that s/he subscribed to broadband at home, and 0 if the respondent said that s/he did not subscribe to
any home Internet service or only subscribed to dial-up Internet service. The independent variables were chosen
as those that have historically been studied as linked to home broadband adoption and are as follows: sample
(indicating whether a respondent was contacted by landline or cell phone), age, employment status, educational
attainment, survey year, state of residence, presence of children at home, race/ethnicity, annual household
income, and home computer ownership.
Model Summaries
The overall test for the model gives chi-square test of 18900.762 with p-value of 0 indicates that the model as a
whole fits significantly better than a null model (a model with no independent variable); 87.5% of respondents
have been accurately classified as being a home broadband adopter or not by this model; The Hosmer and
Lemeshow's goodness of fit test gives a p-value of 0.27 to reflect that this model adequately fit the data.
Page|68
Model6
Independent variable
Sample(ref: contacted by Landline)
Age(ref:18-34)
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 or older
Employment status (ref: employed)
Educational attainment
(ref: college degree or above)
No high school diploma
High school diploma
Some college
Year(ref: 2014)
2010
2011
2012
2013
State(ref: Texas)
Iowa
Michigan
Minnesota
Nevada
Ohio
South Carolina
Tennessee
Number of children at home
Race/ethnicity (ref: white non-Hispanic)
African Americans
Hispanics
Other races or ethnicities
Household income (ref: $75,000 or more)
Less than $25,000
$25,000 to less than $35,000
$35,000 to less than $50,000
$50,000 to less than $75,000
Computer ownership
(ref: no computer at home)
Constant
B
-.406
S.E.
.035
0.018
-0.236
-0.298
-0.74
-0.086
0.057
0.053
0.057
0.061
0.039
Wald
138.252
180.456
0.099
19.991
27.593
148.369
4.802
df
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
Sig.
Odds Ratio
.666
0
0
0.753
0
0
0
0.028
295.116
3
0
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.193
0.237
0
0.371
0.9
0.61
0.001
0.884
0.501
0.18
0
0
0
0
0.81
0
0
0
0
0
0.375
0.536
0.783
1.018
0.79
0.742
0.477
0.918
-0.98
-0.624
-0.245
0.072
0.045
0.045
-0.585
-0.501
-0.075
0.069
0.056
0.056
0.058
0.058
-0.059
0.008
0.035
0.229
0.01
-0.045
-0.09
0.121
0.066
0.066
0.068
0.068
0.066
0.066
0.067
0.031
-0.29
-0.342
0.025
0.06
0.072
0.106
-1.342
-1.025
-0.816
-0.447
0.055
0.059
0.055
0.054
185.352
195.47
30.165
263.199
109.149
78.825
1.697
1.401
28.184
0.799
0.016
0.261
11.319
0.021
0.453
1.794
14.977
41.979
23.639
22.422
0.058
658.832
589.801
299.919
218.832
68.285
4.115
0.062
4413.038
1
0
61.225
-0.68
0.047
211.602
1
0
0.507
0.557
0.606
0.927
1.071
0.943
1.008
1.035
1.258
1.01
0.956
0.914
1.129
0.748
0.711
1.026
0.261
0.359
0.442
0.639
6
B- These are values of bi in the equation of log(p/1-p)=b0+b1x1+ b2x2+ b3x3+...+bixi, where p is the probability of individuals
subscribing to home broadband service, and xi are demographical variables such as age and household income;
S.E.- These are standard errors associated with the coefficient of B;
Wald and Sig- Wald chi-square value and 2-tailed p-value are used to test the null hypothesis that the coefficient of B is 0. At
the level of 0.05, the p-value of 0.05 or less indicates that the coefficient of B is significantly different from 0;
df- Degrees of freedom for each test of B;
Odds Ratio- These are the exponentiations of B, indicating each group’s likelihood of subscribing to home broadband service
when compared to the reference group.
Page|69
APPENDIX 8: CONNECTED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM PROCESS
The Connected Community Engagement Program planning framework provides a clear path
for the sustainable acceleration of broadband access, adoption, and use.
Step 1: Engage.
Successful strategies to bridge the local digital divide and increase broadband access, adoption,
and use are predicated on broad and sustained stakeholder participation. A successful local
technology planning team should include people from multiple sectors, including:
 State and Local Government
 Public Safety
 Education (K-12, Higher Ed)
 Library
 Business & Industry
 Agriculture
 Recreation and Tourism
 Healthcare
 Community Organizations
 Technology Providers
Step 2: Assess.
The Connected planning process guides the local technology planning team through an
assessment of community technology resources, strengths, assets, needs, and gaps in order to
identify and develop strategies to address specific technology gaps and opportunities in the
community. The Connected assessment framework is separated into three distinct broadband
Page|70
measures: access, adoption, and use. Each area has a maximum of 40 points. To achieve
Connected certification, the community must have a minimum of 32 points within each section
and 100 out of the 120 points total overall.
The ACCESS criteria determine whether a broadband and technology foundation exists within a
community. The measurement seeks to identify gaps in the local broadband ecosystem, such as
last and middle mile issues, cost barriers, and competition needs. Access scores are determined
by evaluating:

Broadband Availability – is measured by analyzing provider availability of at least 3
Mbps download and 768 Kbps upload broadband service gathered by Connected
Nation’s broadband mapping program. In communities that may have broadband data
missing, community teams were able to improve the quality of data to ensure all
providers are included.

Broadband Speed – is measured by analyzing the speed tiers available within a
community. Connected Nation will analyze broadband data submitted through its
broadband mapping program. Specifically, Connected Nation will break down the
coverage by the highest speed tier with at least 75% of households covered. In
communities that may have broadband data missing, community teams were able to
improve the quality of data to ensure all providers are included.

Broadband Competition – is measured by analyzing the number of broadband providers
available in a particular community and the percentage of that community’s residents
with more than one broadband provider available. Connected Nation performed this
analysis by reviewing the data collected through the broadband mapping program. In
communities that may have broadband data missing, community teams were able to
improve the quality of data to ensure all providers are included.

Middle Mile Access – is measured based on a community’s availability to fiber. Three
aspects of availability exist: proximity to fiber middle mile points of presence (POPs),
number of fiber middle mile providers available, and available bandwidth. Data was
collected by the community in coordination with Connected Nation.

Mobile Broadband Availability – is measured by analyzing provider availability of
mobile broadband service gathered by Connected Nation’s broadband mapping
program. In communities that may have mobile broadband data missing, community
teams were able to improve the quality of data to ensure all providers are included.
The ADOPTION component seeks to ensure that all local residents have access to and the ability
to use broadband. Broadband adoption scores are comprised of:

Digital Literacy – is measured by first identifying all digital literacy programs in the
community. Once the programs are determined, a calculation of program graduates will
Page|71
be made on a per capita basis. A digital literacy program includes any digital literacy
course offered for free or at very low cost through a library, seniors center, community
college, K-12 school, or other group serving the local community. A graduate is a person
who has completed the curriculum offered by any organization within the community.
The duration of individual courses may vary.

Public Computer Centers – is measured based on the number of hours computers are
available each week per 1,000 low-income residents. Available computer hours is
calculated by taking the overall number of computers multiplied by the number of hours
open to a community during the course of the week.

Broadband Awareness – is measured based on the percentage of the population
reached. All community broadband awareness programs are first identified, and then
each program’s community reach is compiled and combined with other campaigns.

Vulnerable Population Focus – A community tallies each program or ability within the
community to encourage technology adoption among vulnerable groups. Methods of
focusing on vulnerable groups may vary, but explicitly encourage technology use among
vulnerable groups. Example opportunities include offering online GED classes, English as
a Second Language (ESL) classes, video-based applications for the deaf, homework
assistance for students, and job-finding assistance. Communities receive points for each
group on which they focus. Groups may vary by community, but include low-income,
minority, senior, children, etc.
The USE measurement seeks to realize the value of broadband on the community. As defined by
the National Broadband Plan, meaningful use of broadband benefits individuals, organizations,
and communities through economic, education, government, and healthcare opportunities.
Use scores are comprised of:

Economic Opportunity – A community receives one point per basic use of broadband
and two points per advanced use of broadband. Categories within economic
opportunity include: economic development, business development, tourism, and
agriculture.

Education – A community receives one point per basic use of broadband and two points
per advanced use of broadband. Categories within education include K-12, higher
education, and libraries.

Government – A community receives one point per basic use of broadband and two
points per advanced use of broadband. Categories within government include general
government, public safety, energy, and the environment.
Page|72

Healthcare – A community receives one point per basic use of broadband and two
points per advanced use of broadband. Entities within healthcare can include, but are
not limited to, hospitals, medical and dental clinics, health departments, nursing homes,
assisted living facilities, and pharmacies.
Step 3: Plan.
Once community resources and needs are identified, the community planning team begins to
identify local priorities and policies, programs, and technical solutions that will accelerate
broadband access, adoption, and use. Connected Nation provides recommended actions based
on best practices from communities across the United States.
Step 4: Act.
The technology planning team works together to ensure that selected policies, programs, and
technical solutions are adopted, implemented, improved, and maintained. The Connected
program also provides a platform for collaboration and the sharing of best practices between
communities. Connected Nation provides communications support to raise awareness of your
community’s efforts. For communities that measurably demonstrate proficiency in broadband
access, adoption, and use in the Connected Assessment, Connected Nation offers Connected
certification, a nationally recognized certification that provides an avenue for pursuing
opportunities as a recognized, technologically advanced community. For more information
about the Connected program, visit: www.connectmycommunity.org.
ACCESS
1. Broadband Availability
2. Broadband Speeds
3. Broadband Competition
4. Middle Mile Access
5. Mobile Broadband Availability
ADOPTION
6. Digital Literacy
7. Public Computer Centers
8. Broadband Awareness
9. Vulnerable Population Focus
USE
10. Economic Opportunity
11. Education
12. Government
13. Healthcare
Page|73
County Name
Anderson County
Bastrop County
Bosque County
Brewster County
Cameron County
Cass County
City of Jacksboro
City of Marfa
City of Sealy
City of Stamford
City of Valentine
Comanche County
Coryell County
Fayette County
Fort Bend County
Gillespie County
Hidalgo County
Jim Hogg County
Kleberg County
Lamar County
McMullen County
Mitchell County
Montague County
Sabine County
San Augustine County
Titus County
Wharton County
Willacy County
Young County (6/25/13)
Young County (8/19/14)
Broadband
Availability
Score
Broadband
Speed
Score
Broadband
Competition
Score
Middle-Mile
Score
Mobile
Score
10
10
2
8
10
0
6
6
4
0
0
2
6
2
10
2
10
8
10
8
8
8
4
0
4
0
0
10
10
8
1
2
1
3
3
0
1
1
3
0
0
0
3
0
5
1
3
1
5
3
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
3
1
4
1
5
0
2
5
0
2
3
5
0
0
2
3
5
5
3
5
4
5
3
4
5
2
0
0
0
1
2
2
4
6
10
6
10
10
10
0
6
0
10
6
0
0
10
10
10
10
6
10
10
6
6
10
6
10
6
0
6
6
6
10
10
10
2
10
10
10
8
10
10
0
10
10
10
10
6
10
10
10
10
0
10
10
0
0
10
10
10
10
10
Total
Access
Score
22
37
19
25
38
20
19
24
22
20
6
14
22
27
40
22
38
29
40
34
19
30
27
6
15
16
11
31
29
32
Page|74
Page|75
Page|76
Page|77
APPENDIX 9: FCC BROADBAND AVAILABILITY, 2015 FCC BROADBAND PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT
Fixed Broadband Availability, 2015 FCC Broadband Progress Report
State/Territory
United States
Alabama
Alaska
American Samoa
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Guam
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
3 Mbps Download/
768 Kbps Upload
96%
87%
87%
74%
96%
87%
99%
98%
99%
98%
99%
97%
93%
99%
97%
96%
99%
96%
94%
95%
88%
88%
91%
98%
99%
98%
96%
81%
93%
86%
99%
99%
94%
99%
92%
98%
25 Mbps Download/
3 Mbps Upload
83%
65%
62%
0%
83%
41%
93%
82%
99%
97%
98%
93%
86%
0%
96%
50%
95%
86%
75%
73%
60%
71%
78%
93%
96%
87%
87%
60%
71%
13%
73%
94%
83%
98%
70%
97%
Page|78
Fixed Broadband Availability, 2015 FCC Broadband Progress Report
State/Territory
North Carolina
North Dakota
Northern Mariana Islands
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
U.S. Virgin Islands
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
3 Mbps Download/
768 Kbps Upload
93%
95%
62%
97%
93%
98%
98%
73%
100%
93%
90%
92%
97%
57%
99%
78%
93%
98%
85%
95%
90%
25 Mbps Download/
3 Mbps Upload
86%
85%
0%
83%
51%
93%
87%
39%
99%
77%
81%
82%
62%
55%
95%
20%
79%
96%
44%
83%
70%
Page|79
APPENDIX 10: FCC ANNOUNCES PROVISIONAL WINNERS IN RBE AUCTION
A CONNECTED NATION POLICY BRIEF
December 5, 2014
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau today announced a list of 40
“provisional” winners in the Rural Broadband Experiment (RBE) network subsidy auction. As noted in prior Policy
Briefs, the FCC’s Rural Broadband Experiment is the first attempt by the FCC to award fixed broadband network
subsidies through a competitive bidding mechanism. Collectively, the 40 funded projects could receive nearly $100
million in Connect America Fund subsidies to build broadband networks in over 26,000 unserved census blocks
identified on the National Broadband Map.
As we have previously noted, the FCC received nearly 600 project bids to serve over 76,000 census blocks by a
November 7, 2014 auction deadline. The FCC analyzed these bids based upon a cost-effectiveness analysis, which
used information from the National Broadband Map collected by Connected Nation and other broadband mapping
agents and the Connect America Fund cost model.
The Rural Broadband Experiment project is notable because it is the first time the FCC has sought to award
Connect America Fund subsidies for fixed broadband network upgrades from non-incumbent providers. There has
been a great deal of provider interest in the program – when first announced earlier this year, the FCC received
over 1000 “expressions of interest” in the program, and the final bids collectively requested funding of over $880
million, well over the $100 million program budget. The FCC is seeking to fund a wide variety of network speeds
and technologies in the project, including many fixed wireless projects.
The next step is a technical and operational review by the FCC of each of the winning projects. This review will
include financial statements, technology descriptions, designs and network diagrams. Only after the completion of
this review and submission of letter of credit and eligible telecommunications certifications will the FCC finalize the
list of winning projects.
Wide Geographic Scope of Provisional Awards
Provisional winners include broadband projects in in 25 states and Puerto Rico. The following table lists all winning
projects. Projects in states in which Connected Nation administers or supports the State Broadband Initiative
program are highlighted. There were three categories of RBE projects that received provisional awards – 19
projects building networks capable of 100 Mbps download/25 Mbps upload; 12 projects building networks capable
of 10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload in eligible unserved areas; and 9 projects building networks capable of 10
Mbps download/1 Mbps upload in extremely high, unserved cost areas.
Page|80
Bidder
State
Annual Subsidy
Networks Capable of Delivering 100 Mbps download/25 Mbps upload
Airnorth Communications, Inc.
Brainstorm Valley Micro Fiber Networks, Inc.
Broad Valley Micro Fiber Networks, Inc.
Cricelli, Inc.
Donnell (d/b/a San Joaquin Broadband)
Halstad Telephone Company
Lake County d/b/a Lake Connections
Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, LLC
LTD Broadband LLC
NCRESA
New Lisbon Telephone Company
Northeast Rural Services, Inc.
Rural Broadband Services Corporation, Inc.
Skybeam, LLC
Southwest Arkansas Telephone Cooperative
Terastream Broadband (USA), Inc.
Tower Communications LLC
Valley Electric Association, Inc.
Wichita Online, Inc.
MI
CO
DE
CA
CA
ND
MN
PR
IA, MN
MI
IN
OK
OK
IA, NE, IL, KS, TX
AR
NM
AR
NV
OK
$1,990,400.00
$1,737,648.00
$110,000.00
$522,300.00
$14,833,187.00
$303,760.00
$3,499,965.00
$41,831.15
$20,000,000.00
$500,000.00
$37,695.00
$1,029,274.00
$17,500,648.00
$8,839,194.00
$17,420.00
$1.00
$3,191,090.40
$527,326.00
$314,633.00
Networks Capable of 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up in Eligible Unserved Areas
Agile Network Builders, LLC
Airnorth Communications, Inc.
Allamakee-Clayton Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Big Bend Telecom, LTD
Chaffee County Telecom, LLC
Cloudwyze Inc.
Crystal Broadband Networks, Inc.
Declaration Networks Group, Inc.
First Step Internet, LLC
Giant Communications, Inc.
Mercury Wireless, Inc.
Meriweather Lewis Electric Cooperative
OH
MI
IA
TX
CO
NC
KY
VA
ID, WA
KS
KS
TN
$3,324,400.00
$420,000.00
$1,453,593.00
$14,800.00
$2,586,882.00
$23,000.00
$428,361.00
$1,246,052.00
$415,855.00
$650,000.00
$4,450,000.00
$41,600.00
Networks Capable of 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up in Extremely High Cost Areas
Big Bend Telecom, LTD
Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc.
De Novo Group
Delta Communications LLC
Last Mile Broadband LLC
Lennon Telephone Company
Mercury Wireless Inc.
Northern Valley Communications, LLC
Worldcall Interconnect Inc.
TX
ND
CA
IL
MD
MI
KS
SD
TX
$163,625.00
$3,096,810.00
$609,600.00
$2,196,000.00
$260,000.00
$60,000.00
$250,000.00
$2,022,120.00
$850,000.00
Page|81
All told, 15 of the 40 provisionally winning projects are located in the Connected Nation State Broadband Initiative
footprint. Connected Nation provided a wide variety of information and support to prospective bidders and
stakeholders in these states, including webinars to states and with FCC staff, regularly-updated FAQs, mapping of
eligible areas and corresponding analysis, Policy Briefs, and application assistance. These fifteen projects in
Connected Nation jurisdictions account for $41.7 million of all of the subsidies provisionally awarded, or
approximately 42% of the nearly $100 million in provisional awards.
---------------------------For more information about the Connect America Fund and the Rural Broadband Experiment program, as well as
other broadband policy issues, please contact Connected Nation at [email protected].
Page|82
APPENDIX 11: RESEARCH REPORTS
Connected Texas 2010-2014 Residential Technology Assessment Survey Trends (first 17 pages)
Connected Texas Annual Technology Assessment which covers 2010-2014 (next 73 pages)
Page|83
CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS
2010
2011
Statewide
2012
2013
2014
DO YOU HAVE A CELLULAR PHONE?
Base: Respondents Contacted Via Landline
Unweighted Sample Size (n=)
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1027
76%
23%
1%
1001
78%
22%
<1%
1,002
81%
19%
<1%
1,000
85%
15%
<1%
800
81%
18%
<1%
DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD ALSO HAVE A LAND LINE TELEPHONE CONNECTION?
Base: Respondents Contacted Via Cell Phone
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
194
43%
56%
1%
196
31%
68%
1%
200
27%
72%
2%
200
29%
71%
<1%
200
23%
77%
0%
DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A COMPUTER?
Base: All Respondents Surveyed
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1,221
81%
19%
0%
1,197
82%
18%
<1%
1,202
80%
19%
<1%
1,200
85%
14%
<1%
1,000
84%
15%
<1%
WHAT TYPE OF COMPUTER DO YOU HAVE AT HOME?
Base: Households With Computers
Desktop computer
Laptop computer
A tablet computer, such as an iPad
Don't know/refused
965
77%
60%
0%
<1%
954
71%
65%
10%
1%
969
68%
68%
25%
1%
1009
64%
70%
34%
1%
828
61%
69%
36%
1%
Page 1 of 17
2010
2011
Statewide
2012
2013
2014
DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE INTERNET AT HOME?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1,221
77%
23%
1%
1,197
73%
26%
<1%
1,202
76%
23%
1%
1,200
82%
17%
<1%
1,000
80%
20%
<1%
DO YOU USE THE INTERNET FROM ANY LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1,221
60%
39%
1%
1,197
53%
47%
<1%
1,202
59%
40%
<1%
1,200
64%
36%
<1%
1,000
61%
39%
<1%
Page 2 of 17
2010
2011
Statewide
2012
2013
2014
AT WHAT LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME DO YOU USE THE INTERNET?
Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Someplace Other Than Home
At work
At the library
At someone else's home
Restaurants or coffee shops
At school
On cell phone or handheld device
Hotels
At a community center
Airports
Through wifi or an aircard
At the store/while shopping
While traveling/on vacation
In the car/while driving
In a hospital or doctor's office
At a second home/cabin
At church
Other (specify)
Don't know/refused
724
56%
21%
10%
9%
9%
12%
3%
3%
2%
9%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
13%
3%
593
53%
17%
11%
16%
14%
27%
7%
3%
4%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
1%
633
56%
13%
14%
20%
15%
33%
12%
4%
8%
13%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
3%
701
60%
8%
11%
20%
10%
29%
6%
5%
4%
12%
<1%
<1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
*%
2%
565
53%
8%
12%
22%
11%
31%
7%
3%
5%
9%
1%
<1%
1%
<1%
0%
1%
2%
2%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF INTERNET SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?
Base: Households With Internet Service
Dial-up service through your telephone line
Broadband or high-speed Internet service
Don't know/refused
911
12%
81%
8%
860
10%
84%
6%
917
5%
91%
4%
971
5%
93%
2%
792
5%
93%
3%
Page 3 of 17
2010
2011
Statewide
2012
2013
2014
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE BROADBAND SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?
Base: Respondents Who Subscribe To Home Broadband Service
DSL service, usually provided by a telephone company
Cable modem, usually provided by a cable TV company
Fixed wireless broadband, connecting to the Internet through an outdoor antenna
Fiber to the home
Satellite broadband
Wireless/wifi
Broadband over power lines through your electric company, also known as BPL
Other (specify)
None of these
Don't know/refused
720
35%
39%
8%
9%
4%
0%
0%
1%
0%
8%
673
33%
42%
6%
11%
5%
3%
5%
1%
<1%
6%
798
33%
46%
7%
12%
7%
4%
4%
<1%
<1%
5%
878
30%
48%
4%
10%
7%
5%
3%
0%
0%
3%
644
29%
45%
6%
9%
5%
5%
1%
0%
<1%
5%
DO YOU USE WI-FI ZONES, SOMETIMES CALLED 'HOTSPOTS' TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?
Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Outside Of Home And Have A Laptop Or Tablet Computer
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
426
61%
37%
2%
409
64%
33%
2%
452
73%
27%
<1%
504
68%
31%
1%
422
75%
24%
1%
Page 4 of 17
AT WHAT LOCATIONS DO YOU NORMALLY USE WI-FI HOTSPOTS?
Base: Use Wi-Fi Hotspots
Hotels
Airports
At work
At the library
Outdoor public zones, such as in parks
At school
At the store
At home
While traveling/ on vacation
At church
At a hospital or doctor's office
In the car/ while driving
Other (specify)
None of these
Don't know/refused
Page 5 of 17
2010
2011
Statewide
2012
2013
2014
256
57%
57%
39%
41%
30%
21%
16%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
8%
1%
266
64%
64%
50%
48%
39%
25%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
6%
1%
308
71%
71%
51%
55%
37%
31%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
5%
0%
331
14%
63%
13%
19%
8%
9%
5%
9%
3%
4%
1%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
8%
308
12%
51%
9%
22%
5%
12%
3%
12%
3%
8%
2%
1%
2%
<1%
2%
2%
0%
5%
2010
2011
Statewide
2012
2013
2014
ON YOUR LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A MOBILE WIRELESS SERVICE
THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET THROUGH A CELLULAR NETWORK?
Base: Households With A Laptop Or Tablet Computer
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
575
22%
73%
5%
606
29%
68%
3%
676
21%
78%
1%
720
16%
82%
2%
613
17%
79%
4%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE WAY YOU WORK FROM HOME, WHEN YOU DO SO?
Base: Employed Adults
You work at home, often using the Internet, but typically outside of normal business hours
You work at home using an Internet connection, instead of commuting to your usual work place
You own and operate a business out of your home
Other (specify)
Don't know/refused
764
22%
17%
10%
4%
1%
692
25%
21%
6%
4%
2%
677
25%
21%
12%
1%
4%
697
31%
21%
10%
1%
3%
519
28%
21%
10%
2%
2%
Page 6 of 17
2010
2011
Rural
2012
2013
2014
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
355
71%
29%
0%
361
74%
26%
0%
382
79%
21%
0%
368
83%
17%
0%
220
83%
17%
<1%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
45
40%
60%
0%
37
27%
73%
0%
20
23%
77%
0%
30
23%
77%
0%
27
20%
80%
0%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
400
72%
28%
0%
398
71%
29%
<1%
402
74%
26%
0%
398
81%
18%
1%
247
81%
19%
<1%
Desktop computer
Laptop computer
Don't know/refused
287
79%
58%
0%
0%
272
72%
60%
5%
1%
317
61%
67%
15%
1%
314
54%
70%
32%
<1%
193
57%
67%
27%
5%
Page 7 of 17
2010
2011
Rural
2012
2013
2014
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
400
67%
33%
<1%
398
62%
37%
<1%
402
67%
32%
<1%
398
78%
21%
1%
247
76%
23%
<1%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
400
56%
41%
2%
398
46%
53%
1%
402
51%
48%
1%
398
59%
41%
<1%
247
56%
44%
<1%
Page 8 of 17
2010
2011
Rural
2012
2013
2014
At work
At the library
At school
Hotels
Airports
At the store/ while shopping
At a second home/ cabin
At church
Other (specify)
Don't know/refused
225
51%
29%
14%
9%
10%
11%
6%
2%
6%
4%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
11%
2%
153
51%
22%
12%
12%
12%
19%
6%
2%
4%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
10%
1%
184
46%
20%
20%
13%
14%
22%
9%
2%
20%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
194
59%
5%
17%
18%
17%
32%
6%
3%
12%
2%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
0%
<1%
<1%
1%
127
50%
12%
17%
20%
12%
25%
8%
5%
9%
3%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
2%
4%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE TYPE OF INTERNET SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?
Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service
Don't know/refused
241
19%
77%
4%
231
15%
82%
5%
278
11%
85%
5%
379
9%
89%
2%
190
10%
88%
3%
Page 9 of 17
2010
2011
Rural
2012
2013
2014
Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service
Satellite broadband
Fiber to the home
Wireless/wifi
Other (specify)
None of these
Don't know/refused
196
37%
28%
12%
4%
10%
0%
0%
1%
0%
9%
180
38%
33%
9%
6%
5%
2%
4%
4%
2%
7%
243
54%
22%
17%
3%
8%
5%
1%
0%
1%
3%
261
40%
34%
15%
5%
7%
8%
<1%
0%
0%
4%
154
41%
24%
14%
4%
11%
4%
2%
0%
0%
5%
Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Outside Of Home And Have A Laptop Or Tablet Computer
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
121
57%
39%
3%
102
67%
33%
0%
127
66%
34%
<1%
141
59%
40%
<1%
91
60%
37%
3%
Page 10 of 17
2010
2011
Rural
2012
2013
2014
AT WHAT LOCATIONS DO YOU NORMALLY USE WI-FI HOTSPOTS?
Base: Use Wi-Fi Hotspots
Hotels
Airports
At work
At the library
Outdoor public zones, such as in parks
At school
At the store
At home
At church
At a hospital or doctor's office
Other (specify)
None of these
Don't know/refused
69
60%
54%
36%
40%
32%
20%
17%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
9%
3%
70
61%
64%
39%
59%
43%
30%
20%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
1%
7%
2%
74
60%
73%
29%
41%
25%
40%
8%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
0%
83
9%
56%
6%
25%
10%
12%
7%
14%
<1%
2%
<1%
<1%
<1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
13%
58
13%
48%
4%
25%
4%
6%
1%
15%
0%
5%
1%
0%
1%
1%
3%
0%
0%
9%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
167
20%
77%
3%
154
33%
63%
3%
220
17%
80%
3%
221
21%
78%
1%
133
9%
87%
4%
Page 11 of 17
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE WAY YOU WORK FROM HOME, WHEN YOU DO SO?
Other (specify)
Don't know/refused
Page 12 of 17
2010
2011
Rural
2012
2013
2014
235
17%
10%
10%
6%
2%
190
17%
12%
9%
7%
3%
207
19%
9%
22%
2%
5%
219
25%
12%
12%
1%
2%
118
25%
9%
16%
5%
3%
Low-Income
2012
2013
2010
2011
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
189
46%
54%
0%
188
55%
45%
0%
216
62%
38%
0%
172
68%
32%
0%
143
55%
44%
1%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
39
19%
79%
3%
55
15%
83%
3%
52
14%
85%
1%
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
27
n/a
n/a
n/a
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
228
48%
52%
0%
243
70%
30%
0%
268
53%
47%
0%
197
62%
37%
1%
170
57%
43%
1%
Desktop computer
Laptop computer
Don't know/refused
107
71%
54%
0%
1%
141
58%
53%
5%
2%
151
54%
59%
6%
<1%
123
60%
52%
15%
<1%
91
49%
53%
14%
3%
Page 13 of 17
2014
Low-Income
2012
2013
2010
2011
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
228
40%
58%
1%
243
55%
45%
0%
268
48%
52%
0%
197
60%
39%
1%
170
56%
44%
1%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
228
38%
61%
2%
243
41%
59%
0%
268
36%
63%
1%
197
42%
58%
<1%
170
35%
64%
1%
Page 14 of 17
2014
Low-Income
2012
2013
2010
2011
At the library
At work
At school
Airports
Hotels
At the store/while shopping
While traveling/on vacation
In the car/while driving
At a second home/cabin
At church
Other (specify)
Don't know/refused
83
40%
16%
30%
18%
7%
2%
3%
2%
5%
7%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
21%
5%
72
37%
12%
29%
33%
25%
3%
19%
0%
1%
5%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
8%
5%
80
31%
20%
29%
42%
21%
7%
17%
2%
5%
14%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
3%
1%
63
22%
13%
39%
20%
15%
3%
26%
<1%
3%
7%
1%
0%
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
3%
47
16%
17%
26%
20%
15%
3%
22%
0%
0%
11%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
4%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF INTERNET SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?
Don't know/refused
91
29%
53%
18%
113
19%
71%
11%
138
14%
77%
9%
114
7%
91%
2%
88
7%
91%
2%
Page 15 of 17
2014
Low-Income
2012
2013
2010
2011
Fiber to the home
Satellite broadband
Wireless/wifi
Other (specify)
None of these
Don't know/refused
50
36%
50%
3%
6%
3%
0%
0%
3%
0%
8%
77
25%
40%
7%
8%
7%
6%
10%
3%
<1%
11%
106
30%
41%
16%
9%
10%
8%
9%
0%
<1%
6%
96
41%
48%
8%
2%
4%
8%
4%
0%
0%
2%
78
21%
53%
5%
5%
7%
8%
1%
0%
0%
9%
Base: Use Internet Outside Of Home And Have A Laptop Or Tablet Computer
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
30
43%
48%
9%
37
55%
37%
8%
39
76%
24%
0%
31
74%
26%
0%
18
n/a
n/a
n/a
Page 16 of 17
2014
Low-Income
2012
2013
2010
2011
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
55
12%
82%
6%
74
21%
74%
5%
88
19%
79%
2%
70
16%
76%
9%
52
10%
87%
4%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBE THE WAY YOU WORK FROM HOME, WHEN YOU DO SO?
Other (specify)
Don't know/refused
84
2%
6%
4%
2%
0%
95
3%
1%
7%
1%
<1%
88
7%
6%
<1%
2%
6%
65
16%
3%
10%
5%
<1%
41
23%
6%
6%
0%
1%
Low-Income households = annual household income less than $25,000
Cells marked as "n/a" are not reported due to small sample sizes
Page 17 of 17
2014
CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PURCHASED A HOME COMPUTER?
Within the past 12 months
Between one and two years ago
Between three and four years ago
More than four years ago
Don't know/refused
965
36%
27%
17%
17%
3%
287
32%
29%
19%
16%
4%
107
34%
28%
17%
16%
5%
WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A COMPUTER AT HOME?
Base: Households Without Computers
Too expensive
You don't need a computer
Computers are too complicated/don't know how to use one
You use a computer at a different location
Have access on cell phone
Any other reason?
Don't know/refused
256
35%
33%
18%
8%
8%
18%
1%
113
24%
42%
17%
10%
5%
17%
1%
121
41%
32%
16%
7%
5%
17%
0%
WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE INTERNET AT HOME?
Base: No Internet Access In Household
You don't own a computer
You don't need the Internet
Too expensive
You can get Internet access somewhere else
Concerns about fraud or identity theft
Broadband isn't available in your area, and you don't want dial-up
Any other reason?
Don't know/refused
304
45%
26%
23%
11%
5%
5%
12%
1%
132
36%
31%
20%
5%
5%
5%
16%
2%
134
52%
28%
21%
7%
6%
3%
12%
1%
Page 1 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
310
59%
13%
28%
133
55%
18%
26%
137
52%
11%
37%
Less than $10
Between $10 and $19
Between $20 and $29
Between $30 and $39
Between $40 and $49
$50 or more
Don't know/refused
911
3%
7%
20%
17%
12%
19%
23%
267
3%
10%
21%
17%
7%
22%
20%
91
3%
16%
20%
10%
14%
19%
17%
DOES YOUR INTERNET PROVIDER ALSO PROVIDE YOUR HOME WITH OTHER SERVICES, SUCH AS YOUR
TELEPHONE, CELL PHONE SERVICE, OR TELEVISION? THIS IS OFTEN CALLED 'BUNDLING.'
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
911
77%
22%
1%
267
64%
36%
<1%
91
67%
31%
2%
TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE
AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?
Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
* Including don't know/refused
WHAT DO YOU PAY EACH MONTH FOR YOUR INTERNET SERVICE?
Page 2 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
674
76%
63%
14%
1%
2%
170
80%
47%
11%
4%
2%
60
74%
57%
21%
1%
1%
911
35%
18%
8%
7%
4%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
16%
267
25%
7%
2%
5%
8%
5%
<1%
2%
1%
3%
<1%
2%
1%
2%
1%
3%
<1%
1%
1%
31%
91
37%
13%
6%
6%
6%
2%
0%
3%
1%
3%
2%
0%
<1%
<1%
0%
0%
1%
2%
0%
18%
WHAT OTHER SERVICES ARE BUNDLED WITH YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE?
Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service Bundled With Other Services
Home phone service (land line)
Television
Cellular phone service
Other
Don't know/refused
WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY THAT PROVIDES YOUR INTERNET ACCESS?
AT&T (or Southwestern Bell)
Time Warner
Comcast
Verizon
Suddenlink
Windstream
Charter
Sprint
Grande Communications
AOL
Cricket
CenturyLink
Earthlink
HughesNet
NetZero
WildBlue
PeoplePC
Consolidated Communications
Embarq
Other including don't know/refused
Page 3 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
721
8%
6%
14%
15%
23%
17%
14%
2%
196
11%
8%
17%
19%
22%
11%
9%
4%
50
15%
9%
16%
21%
20%
8%
12%
0%
721
30%
27%
26%
25%
21%
18%
14%
14%
3%
196
31%
29%
29%
26%
17%
15%
15%
19%
6%
50
13%
21%
21%
29%
11%
18%
15%
18%
12%
721
68%
29%
3%
<1%
196
69%
26%
5%
1%
50
62%
35%
0%
3%
WHEN DID YOU FIRST BEGIN SUBSCRIBING TO BROADBAND SERVICE?
Within the last six months
Between 7 and 12 months ago
Between 1 and 2 years ago
More than 7 years ago
Don't know/refused
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR DECISION TO SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND SERVICE?
You learned that broadband became available in your area
You realized broadband was worth the extra money
The cost of broadband became affordable
You got a computer in your home
You needed to conduct business online
You heard about the benefits of broadband in the news or through your community
A friend or family member convinced you to subscribe
Other
Don't know/refused
OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR BROADBAND SERVICE? ARE YOU...
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied
Don't know/refused
Page 4 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
721
14%
19%
23%
9%
12%
23%
196
25%
19%
16%
7%
5%
28%
50
21%
13%
16%
5%
13%
31%
721
3%
4%
8%
7%
7%
4%
9%
<1%
58%
196
6%
8%
9%
8%
4%
2%
3%
0%
61%
50
1%
3%
8%
7%
6%
0%
13%
2%
61%
TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HOW MANY BROADBAND PROVIDERS DO YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM,
IN YOUR AREA?
One
Two
Three
Four
Five or more
Don't know/refused
TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE DOWNLOAD SPEED PROVIDED BY YOUR
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER?
Less than 768 kilobits per second
About 768 kilobits per second
About 1.5 megabits per second
Over 10.0 megabits per second
Refused
Don't know/remember
Page 5 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
721
23%
60%
6%
11%
196
21%
61%
6%
11%
50
14%
66%
12%
9%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
190
45%
22%
33%
71
28%
33%
39%
41
38%
21%
42%
WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE?
Base: Using Dial-Up, But Broadband Is Available
Broadband is too expensive
You don't need broadband
The broadband service offered where you live is not fast enough to be worthwhile
You can get broadband access somewhere else
Another reason?
Don't know/refused
81
31%
23%
8%
5%
14%
24%
21
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
16
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
115
41%
30%
29%
51
51%
21%
28%
28
31%
27%
42%
TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD YOU SAY THE ACTUAL SPEEDS YOU RECEIVE COMPARE TO THE SPEEDS
ADVERTISED BY THE INTERNET PROVIDER YOU USE? WOULD YOU SAY THE ACTUAL SPEED YOU RECEIVE ARE
…
Less than or slower that what is advertised
About the same as what is advertised
Faster than advertised
Don't know/remember
IS BROADBAND SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?
Base: Households That Subscribe To Dial-Up Service Or Do Not Know What Type Of Internet Service They Have
WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR BROADBAND SERVICE IF IT WERE AVAILABLE IN YOUR AREA?
Base: Households With Dial-Up Service Who Say Broadband Is Not Available
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
Page 6 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHY WOULDN'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE?
Base: Households With Dial-Up That Wouldn't Get Broadband Even If It Were Available
Don't know anything about it
You don't need broadband
Broadband is too expensive
Another reason?
Don't know/refused
64
41%
23%
11%
13%
24%
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
19
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
DO YOU ACCESS THE INTERNET THROUGH A CELLULAR PHONE OR OTHER MOBILE DEVICE?
Base: All Adults Who Use The Internet
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1043
37%
62%
1%
323
32%
67%
1%
135
23%
76%
1%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF INFORMATION DO YOU USE THE INTERNET TO LOOK FOR ONLINE?
Product or service information
Health or medical information
Information about events in your community
Information about government services or policies
Jobs or employment
Research for schoolwork
None of the above
1043
81%
68%
61%
57%
51%
44%
6%
323
80%
65%
50%
52%
45%
44%
9%
135
56%
54%
42%
40%
56%
45%
15%
Page 7 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
1043
89%
55%
44%
33%
19%
16%
15%
8%
323
86%
55%
44%
31%
14%
14%
15%
11%
135
67%
44%
35%
18%
13%
15%
17%
25%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
721
18%
81%
1%
196
16%
84%
1%
50
11%
89%
0%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS DO YOU INTERACT WITH ONLINE, BY
VISITING A WEBSITE OR COMMUNICATING ONLINE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION?
Friends or family
Companies you do business with
People you work with
Your health insurance company
Teachers for yourself or someone else
Doctors or other healthcare professionals
State government
Your local government
Elected officials or candidates
None of the above
1043
84%
57%
53%
40%
39%
37%
31%
27%
22%
9%
323
76%
53%
45%
31%
39%
27%
28%
21%
21%
11%
135
71%
21%
26%
20%
30%
22%
20%
19%
11%
21%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS OF COMMUNICATING WITH OTHERS DO YOU USE?
E-mail
Through a profile on a social or professional networking site such as Facebook, MySpace, or LinkedIn
Instant messages
Posting content to a website
Posting content to a blog
Posting content to a microblog such as Twitter
Chatting in chat rooms
None of the above
DO YOU MAKE OR RECEIVE HOME TELEPHONE CALLS THROUGH YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION?
Page 8 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS HAVE YOU COMPLETED ONLINE?
Purchasing a product or service online
Paying bills
Online Banking
Booking travel arrangements
Online transactions with government (such as e-filing for taxes)
Selling a product or service online
Buying, selling, or trading investments
None of the above
1043
73%
66%
65%
63%
45%
28%
21%
14%
323
76%
62%
63%
56%
36%
25%
21%
14%
135
42%
38%
29%
29%
22%
10%
7%
37%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT ONLINE?
Using a search engine
Sending or receiving photos
Reading online newspapers or other news sources
Downloading music
Watching videos, movies, or TV shows online
Playing games online
Working from home
Reading blogs
Taking online classes
None of the above
1043
80%
72%
67%
52%
50%
47%
34%
29%
24%
8%
323
75%
71%
65%
49%
43%
48%
22%
24%
26%
9%
135
55%
48%
51%
38%
39%
46%
8%
23%
12%
20%
Page 9 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PURCHASED A HOME COMPUTER?
Within the past 12 months
Between three and four yeas ago
Don't know/refused
954
29%
30%
15%
21%
4%
272
31%
28%
18%
20%
3%
141
21%
30%
16%
25%
8%
Too expensive
Computers are too complicated
Your computer is broken, and you have not had it fixed or repaired yet
Any other reason?
Have access on cell phone
Don't know/Refused
242
33%
25%
23%
15%
11%
28%
1%
3%
125
40%
25%
31%
12%
6%
22%
0%
4%
102
23%
41%
39%
13%
13%
23%
0%
3%
DO YOU USE A COMPUTER ANYPLACE OTHER THAN AT HOME?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
243
33%
67%
<1%
126
22%
77%
<1%
102
33%
67%
0%
Page 10 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE FROM HOME?
Every day
Several times per week
Once per week or less
Never
Don't know/refused
860
83%
10%
3%
4%
0%
238
76%
13%
7%
3%
0%
113
80%
8%
6%
6%
0%
WHEN YOU ARE AT YOUR HOME, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DEVICES DO YOU USE
TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?
Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet At Home
A desktop computer
A laptop computer
A cell phone
A game console, like an Xbox 360 or Nintendo Wii
A tablet computer, like an iPad
Other
None of the above or don't know
829
62%
59%
31%
21%
9%
1%
<1%
229
62%
52%
23%
12%
4%
2%
2%
103
54%
50%
28%
22%
4%
1%
<1%
Yes
No
Don't know/Refused
337
65%
18%
17%
160
49%
22%
29%
130
67%
17%
16%
Page 11 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHAT DO YOU PAY EACH MONTH FOR YOUR INTERNET SERVICE?
Less than $10
Between $10 and $19
Between $20 and $29
Between $30 and $39
Between $40 and $49
Between $50 and $74
$75 or more
Don't know/refused
860
1%
7%
19%
19%
12%
11%
9%
22%
238
3%
8%
23%
17%
10%
12%
7%
19%
113
3%
10%
26%
15%
5%
13%
5%
23%
DOES YOUR INTERNET PROVIDER ALSO PROVIDE YOUR HOME WITH OTHER SERVICES, SUCH AS YOUR
TELEPHONE, CELL PHONE SERVICE, OR TELEVISION? THIS IS OFTEN CALLED 'BUNDLING.'
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
860
74%
24%
1%
238
68%
31%
1%
113
67%
30%
3%
WHAT OTHER SERVICES ARE BUNDLED WITH YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE?
Base: Internet Subscription Is Part Of A Bundle
Home phone service (land line)
Television
Cellular phone service
Other
Don't know/refused
647
73%
63%
18%
4%
2%
162
72%
43%
19%
0%
2%
77
68%
59%
19%
1%
3%
Page 12 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHEN DID YOU FIRST BEGIN SUBSCRIBING TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE?
Within the last six months
Between 7 and 12 months ago
More than 10 years ago
Don't know/refused
713
7%
6%
11%
11%
12%
10%
12%
17%
12%
3%
180
8%
5%
13%
17%
12%
9%
17%
11%
6%
1%
77
7%
8%
22%
14%
15%
6%
15%
4%
7%
2%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR DECISION TO SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND SERVICE?
Broadband became available in your area
Someone in your home needed broadband for school
You bought or received a computer for your home
Broadband services now cost less than they used to
A friend or family member convinced you
You learned about an application that required broadband
You took a class on how to use broadband
Dial-up was too slow
Other
Don't know/refused
713
36%
34%
27%
26%
26%
21%
21%
13%
8%
3%
2%
5%
2%
180
38%
30%
22%
24%
22%
26%
20%
14%
7%
6%
4%
4%
3%
77
32%
22%
11%
37%
26%
23%
27%
17%
14%
2%
3%
10%
5%
Page 13 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DECIDED TO SUBSCRIBE
TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE?
Broadband became available in your area
Someone in your home needed broadband for school
You bought or received a computer for your home
Broadband services now cost less than they used to
A friend or family member convinced you
You learned about an application that required broadband
You took a class on how to use broadband
Dial-up was too slow
Other
Don't know/refused
713
18%
16%
13%
13%
8%
7%
7%
6%
1%
<1%
2%
5%
3%
180
20%
16%
9%
12%
6%
5%
11%
7%
2%
<1%
4%
4%
4%
77
14%
24%
9%
4%
15%
8%
7%
5%
<1%
0%
3%
6%
5%
OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR BROADBAND SERVICE? ARE YOU...
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied
Don't know/refused
713
66%
31%
3%
1%
180
62%
35%
3%
1%
77
61%
39%
<1%
0%
Page 14 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
NOW THINKING ABOUT YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR SATISFACTION
WITH... YOUR AVERAGE DOWNLOAD SPEED?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Not satisfied at all (1)
Don't know/refused
713
34%
38%
18%
4%
4%
2%
180
30%
38%
21%
5%
3%
3%
77
41%
22%
26%
6%
3%
1%
WITH... YOUR AVERAGE UPLOAD SPEED?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
713
33%
37%
19%
4%
3%
4%
180
29%
27%
31%
6%
2%
4%
77
34%
37%
23%
3%
<1%
2%
WITH... YOUR VIDEO QUALITY
Base: Have Broadband Service
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
713
54%
28%
12%
2%
2%
3%
180
45%
36%
14%
2%
1%
2%
77
54%
21%
18%
2%
0%
4%
Page 15 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
713
52%
30%
12%
4%
1%
<1%
180
47%
35%
12%
4%
1%
1%
77
47%
26%
22%
4%
0%
1%
WITH... YOUR PROVIDER'S CUSTOMER SERVICE?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
713
43%
29%
17%
4%
4%
3%
180
39%
31%
20%
3%
3%
3%
77
49%
23%
16%
5%
7%
0%
WITH... THE MONTHLY PRICE YOU PAY FOR YOUR CURRENT BROADBAND SERVICE
Base: Have Broadband Service
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
713
27%
26%
28%
9%
7%
3%
180
25%
27%
28%
11%
6%
3%
77
36%
15%
34%
10%
3%
1%
WITH... THE RELIABILITY OF YOUR SERVICE, BEING ABLE TO ACCESS IT WHEN YOU WANT TO?
Page 16 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WITH... YOUR CONTRACT WITH YOUR CURRENT BROADBAND PROVIDER AND THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
713
40%
30%
16%
5%
4%
5%
180
41%
31%
15%
6%
5%
2%
77
44%
33%
15%
4%
2%
3%
TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE DOWNLOAD SPEED PROVIDED BY YOUR
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER?
Less than 768 kilobits per second
About 768 kilobits per second
Over 10.0 megabits per second per second
Refused
Don't know/remember
713
4%
4%
13%
7%
4%
6%
2%
6%
4%
49%
180
7%
3%
11%
9%
5%
1%
3%
5%
4%
53%
77
3%
0%
13%
8%
4%
<1%
5%
11%
<1%
55%
Page 17 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
713
28%
59%
4%
<1%
7%
180
28%
60%
5%
1%
7%
77
27%
62%
5%
0%
5%
Communicating through e-mail or other ways of sending messages
Researching or purchasing goods or services
Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests
Online banking or paying bills
Searching for medical information, or communicating with healthcare professionals like doctors or insurance offices
Taking online classes or conducting research for schoolwork
Searching or applying for jobs
Interacting with government offices or elected officials
None of the above
Don't know/refused
930
83%
70%
70%
69%
61%
52%
50%
43%
28%
2%
<1%
266
78%
56%
64%
56%
51%
41%
40%
35%
19%
3%
1%
132
75%
58%
62%
55%
56%
42%
53%
50%
16%
7%
1%
DO YOU MAKE OR RECEIVE HOME TELEPHONE CALLS THROUGH YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
713
22%
77%
1%
180
22%
77%
1%
77
22%
78%
0%
TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD YOU SAY THE ACTUAL SPEEDS YOU RECEIVE COMPARE TO THE SPEEDS
ADVERTISED BY THE INTERNET PROVIDER YOU USE? WOULD YOU SAY THE ACTUAL SPEEDS YOU RECEIVE
ARE …
Less than or slower that what is advertised
About the same as what is advertised
Faster than advertised
Refused
Don't know/remember
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT USING THE INTERNET?
Page 18 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE
Base: Households That Subscribe To Dial-Up Service Or Do Not Know What Type Of Internet Service They Have
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
147
62%
23%
15%
58
47%
35%
18%
36
68%
15%
17%
ON YOUR CELL PHONE, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A PLAN THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?
Base: Respondents Who Own Cell Phones
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
973
56%
43%
1%
297
47%
52%
1%
154
52%
48%
<1%
HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE USING YOUR CELL PHONE?
Base: Respondents Who Own Cell Phones That Allow Internet Access
Every day
Never
Don't know/refusd
502
59%
16%
13%
11%
<1%
124
56%
12%
14%
17%
1%
65
61%
14%
15%
11%
<1%
Page 19 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT ON YOUR CELL PHONE USING YOUR MOBILE
BROADBAND SERVICE?
Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones
Searching for medical information, or communicating with doctors or other healthcare professionals
None of the above
Don't know/refused
424
82%
58%
46%
42%
37%
27%
18%
16%
10%
3%
<1%
96
73%
51%
34%
20%
32%
18%
12%
16%
8%
4%
0%
54
80%
63%
42%
38%
36%
27%
34%
21%
10%
1%
0%
OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE? ARE
YOU...
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Not satisfied
Don't know/refused
424
53%
42%
4%
1%
96
56%
39%
4%
0%
54
51%
46%
3%
0%
Page 20 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE...
YOUR AVERAGE DOWNLOAD SPEED?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
424
26%
30%
22%
11%
4%
7%
96
22%
27%
34%
6%
2%
8%
54
37%
31%
12%
9%
10%
1%
YOUR AVERAGE UPLOAD SPEED?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
424
23%
32%
25%
10%
4%
7%
96
18%
33%
31%
10%
1%
6%
54
36%
33%
15%
10%
7%
<1%
YOUR VIDEO QUALITY?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
424
34%
31%
21%
4%
6%
4%
96
29%
28%
22%
10%
6%
5%
54
35%
34%
16%
1%
13%
1%
Page 21 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
THE RELIABILITY OF YOUR SERVICE, BEING ABLE TO ACCESS IT WHEN YOU WANT TO?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
424
37%
35%
17%
9%
2%
1%
96
44%
27%
19%
7%
2%
1%
54
45%
30%
11%
13%
<1%
0%
YOUR PROVIDER'S CUSTOMER SERVICE?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
424
39%
34%
17%
5%
3%
2%
96
30%
32%
28%
3%
6%
2%
54
42%
30%
10%
4%
11%
3%
THE MONTHLY PRICE YOU PAY?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
424
26%
25%
27%
12%
8%
2%
96
27%
23%
26%
9%
12%
3%
54
33%
30%
24%
9%
4%
1%
Page 22 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
YOUR CURRENT CONTRACT AND ITS TERMS OF SERVICE?
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
424
35%
29%
23%
8%
4%
1%
96
33%
40%
20%
2%
4%
1%
54
47%
32%
17%
3%
1%
0%
THE SERVICE AREA WHERE YOU CAN ACCESS BORADBAND ON YOUR CELL PHONE
Very satisfied (5)
4
3
2
Don't know/refused
424
34%
35%
21%
6%
2%
1%
96
26%
32%
30%
7%
5%
0%
54
47%
34%
10%
1%
7%
0%
Page 23 of 73
CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
Base: Respondents Contacted On Their Landline Phones
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
2,200
64%
36%
<1%
598
70%
30%
0%
792
50%
50%
0%
DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD ALSO HAVE A LANDLINE TELEPHONE CONNECTION?
Base: Respondents Contacted On Their Cellular Phones
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
200
35%
64%
1%
60
31%
69%
0%
86
34%
64%
2%
Base: All Non-Adopters Surveyed
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
2,400
57%
43%
<1%
658
53%
47%
<1%
878
47%
53%
<1%
Desktop computer
Laptop computer
Don't know/refused
1,318
68%
49%
5%
2%
342
66%
53%
4%
2%
372
70%
40%
4%
2%
Page 24 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
2,400
36%
64%
<1%
658
39%
61%
0%
878
28%
71%
<1%
At work
At the library
At school
Through cell phone or handheld device
Through wi-fi or an aircard
Hotels
Airports
Other
Don't know/refused
711
39%
28%
15%
13%
12%
10%
5%
4%
2%
1%
6%
2%
184
41%
27%
20%
13%
11%
9%
6%
3%
1%
1%
5%
4%
178
23%
37%
22%
16%
16%
14%
6%
5%
2%
<1%
7%
3%
DO YOU USE WI-FI ZONES, SOMETIMES CALLED "HOTSPOTS" TO ACCESS THE INTERNET SOMEPLACE OTHER
THAN AT HOME?
Base: Respondents Who Own A Laptop Or Tablet Computer And Use The Internet
Someplace Other Than Home
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
294
56%
44%
1%
79
50%
48%
2%
56
57%
41%
2%
Page 25 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
ON YOUR LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A MOBILE WIRELESS SERVICE THAT
ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET THROUGH A CELLULAR NETWORK?
Base: Respondents Who Own A Laptop Or Tablet Computer
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
629
23%
71%
6%
166
23%
74%
3%
148
23%
71%
6%
The monthly cost of Internet service is too expensive
The cost of a computer is too expensive
The activation and installation fees are too expensive
The Internet is too complicated
There is nothing on the Internet that you want to see or use
You don't feel comfortable using a computer
You don't own a computer or my computer doesn't work
You don't want or need the Internet
Any other reason?
Don't know/refused
1,521
29%
25%
21%
21%
20%
18%
18%
15%
11%
5%
4%
19%
4%
428
23%
22%
18%
19%
14%
14%
15%
16%
14%
6%
4%
16%
5%
651
37%
34%
27%
22%
25%
25%
19%
17%
10%
6%
3%
14%
3%
Page 26 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
1,521
18%
10%
9%
7%
7%
5%
5%
4%
4%
4%
4%
18%
4%
428
14%
9%
12%
6%
9%
5%
6%
3%
4%
8%
4%
15%
5%
651
23%
9%
13%
9%
6%
6%
4%
4%
3%
3%
3%
13%
3%
WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO HOME INTERNET SERVICE?
You don't feel comfortable using a computer
You don't own a computer or my computer doesn't work
You don't want or need the Internet
Other
Don't know/refused
Page 27 of 73
WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE AT HOME?
Base: Households That Subscribe To Dial-Up Internet Service
The monthly cost of broadband service is too expensive
Broadband service is not available where you live
You do not use the Internet very often from home
Broadband is too complicated
Available broadband service is not fast enough to be worthwhile
There is nothing you want to see or do online that requires broadband
You don't want/need broadband
You are satisfied with my current (dial-up) service
You don't own a computer, or your computer is broken
You don't know what it is, or anything about it
Any other reason?
Don't know/refused
Page 28 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
879
26%
16%
15%
15%
15%
12%
12%
11%
10%
2%
2%
1%
14%
20%
3%
230
25%
25%
14%
16%
14%
7%
13%
9%
8%
4%
2%
1%
15%
15%
3%
227
30%
15%
16%
16%
16%
19%
13%
10%
9%
3%
2%
1%
10%
19%
4%
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE
TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE?
Base: Households That Subscribe To Dial-Up Internet Service
Broadband service is not available where you live
You do not use the Internet very often from home
You are satisfied with my current (dial-up) service
You don't want/need broadband
You don't own a computer or your computer is broken
You don't know what it is or anything about it
Other
Don't know/refused
879
18%
11%
7%
5%
5%
5%
4%
3%
3%
2%
2%
<1%
14%
19%
3%
230
18%
20%
8%
1%
5%
2%
3%
4%
1%
2%
4%
1%
15%
14%
3%
227
18%
8%
6%
8%
5%
5%
4%
6%
3%
2%
2%
1%
10%
18%
4%
HAVE YOU EVER SUBSCRIBED TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
2,400
16%
80%
4%
658
15%
80%
4%
878
12%
86%
2%
Page 29 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHEN DID YOU STOP SUBSCRIBING TO BROADBAND SERVICE?
Base: Households That Subscribed To Broadband In The Past
Within the past twelve months
Between two and three years ago
Between three and four years ago
Don't know/refused
325
33%
22%
9%
9%
14%
13%
83
30%
28%
5%
8%
11%
18%
81
31%
22%
9%
14%
10%
13%
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
2,400
54%
25%
22%
658
45%
35%
21%
878
50%
25%
25%
IF YOU COULD SUBSCRIBE TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE AT A PRICE YOU CONSIDER ACCEPTABLE, WOULD
YOU DO SO?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
2,400
45%
48%
7%
658
51%
44%
5%
878
47%
47%
6%
Page 30 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
AT WHAT MONTHLY PRICE WOULD YOU CONSIDER A HOME BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTION TO BE 'TOO
EXPENSIVE TO CONSIDER'?
Base: Respondents Willing To Subscribe At A Price They Deemed "Acceptable"
Under $5
$5 to $9
$10 to $14
$15 to $19
$20 to $24
$25 to $29
$30 to $34
$35 to $39
$40 to $44
$45 to $49
$50 or more
Don't know/Refused
718
0%
<1%
2%
2%
7%
7%
19%
4%
12%
2%
45%
0%
195
0%
0%
2%
1%
5%
10%
19%
2%
13%
2%
46%
0%
262
0%
0%
3%
3%
8%
6%
17%
5%
14%
3%
42%
0%
AND AT WHAT MONTHLY PRICE WOULD YOU CONSIDER A HOME BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTION TO BE 'GETTING
EXPENSIVE, BUT STILL WORTH THE COST?'
Under $5
$5 to $9
$10 to $14
$15 to $19
$20 to $24
$25 to $29
$30 to $34
$35 to $39
$40 to $44
$45 to $49
$50 or more
Don't know/Refused
718
<1%
2%
5%
10%
15%
15%
15%
8%
8%
4%
16%
0%
195
1%
2%
2%
10%
14%
16%
11%
11%
11%
5%
16%
0%
262
0%
2%
8%
11%
15%
13%
14%
9%
11%
4%
12%
0%
Page 31 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
NOW, AT WHAT MONTHLY PRICE WOULD YOU CONSIDER A HOME BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTION TO BE 'A
BARGAIN, DEFINITELY WORTH THE MONEY?'
Under $5
$5 to $9
$10 to $14
$15 to $19
$20 to $24
$25 to $29
$30 to $34
$35 to $39
$40 to $44
$45 to $49
$50 or more
Don't know/Refused
718
2%
6%
16%
23%
20%
12%
7%
4%
3%
2%
5%
0%
195
1%
5%
19%
17%
24%
10%
9%
5%
2%
1%
7%
0%
262
1%
8%
18%
22%
21%
13%
7%
3%
3%
1%
3%
0%
AND AT WHAT MONTHLY PRICE WOULD YOU CONSIDER A HOME BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTION TO BE 'SO
INEXPENSIVE THAT YOU WOULD QUESTION THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICE AND NOT CONSIDER
SUBSCRIBING?'
Under $5
$5 to $9
$10 to $14
$15 to $19
$20 to $24
$25 to $29
$30 to $34
$35 to $39
$40 to $44
$45 to $49
$50 or more
718
9%
19%
34%
17%
11%
4%
2%
1%
1%
<1%
2%
195
9%
19%
29%
26%
10%
3%
0%
1%
<1%
0%
3%
262
8%
23%
35%
18%
9%
2%
2%
<1%
1%
0%
3%
Page 32 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
Base: Respondents Who Own Cell Phones
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1,611
47%
51%
2%
461
46%
51%
3%
478
47%
50%
3%
Base: Respondents Who Own Cell Phones That Allow Internet Access
Every day
Never
Don't know/refused
651
51%
13%
16%
20%
1%
173
50%
14%
14%
23%
0%
188
46%
9%
23%
22%
0%
HOW INTERESTED WOULD YOU BE IN HAVING ACCESS TO THE INTERNET ON YOUR CELL PHONE IF YOU
COULD PRE-PAY A FEE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU SPEND ONLINE OR THE AMOUNT OF DATA YOU
ACCESS INSTEAD OF HAVING A MONTHLY CONTRACT WITH YOUR PROVIDER?
Base: Cell Phone Users Who Don't Use Phone For Internet Access
Very interested
Somewhat interested
Not interested at all
Don't know/refused
1,138
4%
14%
80%
2%
340
6%
20%
72%
1%
353
6%
15%
76%
2%
Page 33 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
Base: Households That Do Not Own Computers
Too expensive
Computers are too complicated
You have a cell phone that you use instead of a computer
Your computer is broken, and you have not had it fixed or repaired yet
You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use a computer
Any other reason? (specify)
Don't know/refused
232
53%
33%
22%
19%
18%
9%
9%
2%
4%
85
58%
27%
12%
18%
19%
2%
3%
2%
3%
117
53%
39%
25%
15%
17%
7%
8%
1%
5%
DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A TELEVISION?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1202
98%
2%
0%
402
97%
3%
0%
268
95%
5%
0%
HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE FROM HOME?
Several times per day
Once per day
Never
Don't know/refused
917
68%
16%
8%
5%
3%
<1%
291
62%
12%
11%
12%
2%
0%
138
63%
15%
9%
8%
5%
0%
Page 34 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
Or Don't Know If They Subscribe To Home Internet Service
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
285
55%
12%
33%
111
56%
20%
24%
130
54%
10%
35%
WHAT DO YOU PAY EACH MONTH FOR YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE?
Less than $10
Between $10 and $19
Between $20 and $29
Between $30 and $39
Between $40 and $49
Between $50 and $74
Between $75 and $99
Between $100 and $124
$150 or more
Don't know/refused
917
1%
5%
11%
15%
14%
19%
4%
3%
<1%
1%
28%
291
<1%
5%
17%
15%
12%
17%
5%
5%
1%
1%
22%
138
3%
12%
12%
9%
11%
22%
5%
6%
0%
1%
19%
OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE? ARE YOU…
Very satisfied
Mostly satisfied
Mostly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Don't know/refused
813
43%
50%
5%
1%
1%
243
38%
51%
8%
3%
<1%
106
38%
51%
8%
1%
2%
Page 35 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet
Using social networking sites like Facebook
Searching for medical information, or communicating with healthcare professionals like doctors or insurance offices
Advertising or selling products or services
None of the above
Don't know/refused
975
87%
73%
73%
70%
69%
66%
53%
43%
38%
30%
16%
1%
<1%
315
81%
63%
64%
60%
70%
56%
44%
39%
33%
18%
13%
1%
2%
160
72%
53%
60%
51%
66%
53%
39%
36%
46%
18%
11%
3%
0%
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, DID YOU USE THE INTERNET TO ORDER GOODS OR SERVICES FROM VENDORS IN
TEXAS?
Base: Residents Who Research Or Purchase Goods Or Services Online
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
714
62%
31%
7%
216
61%
33%
6%
85
41%
50%
9%
Page 36 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO VENDORS
IN TEXAS?
Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From In-State Vendors
1 or 2 orders
3 to 6 orders
7 to 10 orders
11 to 20 orders
More than 20 orders
Don't know/refused
463
19%
41%
14%
12%
13%
2%
147
19%
43%
18%
8%
12%
1%
36
41%
44%
8%
3%
3%
0%
OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WHAT WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THE TOTAL COST OF GOODS AND SERVICES YOU
ORDERED FROM TEXAS VENDORS TO BE?
Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From In-State Vendors
Less than $20
Between $20 and $49
Between $50 and $99
$1,000 or more
Don't know/refused
463
3%
4%
6%
27%
15%
12%
4%
24%
6%
147
2%
<1%
7%
32%
15%
14%
6%
17%
7%
36
<1%
16%
3%
45%
12%
10%
0%
13%
0%
N THE PAST 12 MONTHS, DID YOU USE THE INTERNET TO ORDER GOODS OR SERVICES FROM AMERICAN
VENDORS IN STATES OTHER THAN TEXAS?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
714
74%
22%
4%
216
74%
20%
5%
85
54%
45%
1%
Page 37 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO THESE VENDORS
LOCATED OUTSIDE OF TEXAS?
Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From U.S. Vendors Located Outside Of Texas
1 or 2 orders
3 to 6 orders
7 to 10 orders
11 to 20 orders
More than 20 orders
Don't know/refused
531
11%
32%
18%
16%
20%
2%
157
16%
40%
15%
14%
13%
2%
49
15%
47%
12%
16%
11%
0%
ORDERED FROM AMERICAN VENDORS IN STATES OTHER THAN TEXAS TO BE?
Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From U.S. Vendors Located Outside Of Texas
Less than $20
Between $20 and $49
Between $50 and $99
$1,000 or more
Don't know/refused
531
1%
3%
4%
20%
16%
11%
4%
33%
8%
157
0%
6%
3%
29%
17%
11%
2%
27%
4%
49
3%
2%
5%
41%
22%
1%
0%
21%
5%
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, DID YOU USE THE INTERNET TO ORDER GOODS OR SERVICES FROM VENDORS
LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
714
14%
85%
1%
216
10%
87%
2%
85
6%
94%
<1%
Page 38 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO THESE VENDORS
LOCATED IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES?
Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From Vendors Located Outside Of The United States
1 or 2 orders
3 to 6 orders
7 to 10 orders
11 to 20 orders
More than 20 orders
Don't know/refused
94
49%
40%
6%
0%
6%
0%
26
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
ORDERED FROM VENDORS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE?
Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From Vendors Located Outside Of The United States
Less than $20
Between $20 and $49
Between $50 and $99
$1,000 or more
Don't know/refused
94
14%
10%
14%
20%
16%
6%
0%
16%
4%
26
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Page 39 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MUCH REVENUE DO YOU ESTIMATE THAT YOU GENERATED FROM SELLING
PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ONLINE?
Base: Residents Who Advertise Or Sell Goods Or Services Online
Less than $20
Between $20 and $49
Between $50 and $99
$1,000 or more
Don't know/refused
151
33%
2%
4%
8%
4%
6%
1%
12%
29%
41
33%
0%
7%
3%
9%
1%
0%
4%
43%
17
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT DOING THINGS ONLINE HAS SAVED YOU TIME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?
Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet For One Or More Purposes
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
946
90%
9%
1%
300
87%
12%
1%
154
80%
19%
1%
Page 40 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU ESTIMATE YOU SAVE YOURSELF EACH MONTH BY HAVING HOME
INTERNET SERVICE? (RECORD IN HOURS)
Base: Texas Residents Who Believe Doing Things Online Has Saved Them Time
Less than 1 hour
Between 1 and 4 hours
More than 40 hours
Don't know/refused
832
4%
28%
27%
12%
11%
14%
4%
248
6%
31%
25%
6%
10%
19%
3%
122
4%
24%
24%
14%
11%
20%
5%
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU DRIVE FEWER MILES OR LESS OFTEN BECAUSE OF THE THINGS YOU ARE ABLE
TO DO ONLINE?
Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
946
76%
22%
1%
300
69%
31%
<1%
154
70%
30%
1%
ABOUT HOW MANY MILES OF DRIVING PER MONTH DO YOU SAVE BY HAVING INTERNET SERVICE
AT HOME?
Base: Texas Residents Who Believe Doing Things Online Resulted In Less Driving
Less than 1 mile
Between 1 and 10 miles
500 miles or more
Don't know/refused
693
1%
10%
28%
18%
17%
14%
8%
4%
199
<1%
7%
18%
17%
18%
25%
15%
<1%
105
1%
12%
43%
10%
14%
7%
9%
4%
Page 41 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR ONLINE JOB SEARCH CONTRIBUTED TO YOU FINDING A JOB IN THE PAST 12
MONTHS?
Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet To Search Or Apply For Jobs
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
300
46%
53%
1%
66
47%
52%
<1%
55
64%
36%
<1%
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ACCESSING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION ONLINE PREVENTED TRIPS TO THE DOCTOR
OR MEDICAL CENTER IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?
Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet To Access Medical Information
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
526
45%
55%
1%
155
33%
66%
1%
68
57%
43%
0%
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, ABOUT HOW MANY TRIPS TO A DOCTOR OR MEDICAL CENTER HAVE YOU SAVED BY
FINDING INFORMATION ONLINE?
Base: Texas Residents Who Believe Finding Medical Information Online Has Saved A Trip To A Doctor
Or Medical Center
1
2
3 or 4
5 or more
Don't know/refused
214
13%
23%
30%
22%
11%
55
13%
39%
19%
21%
8%
36
9%
19%
19%
35%
17%
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ACCESSING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION ONLINE PREVENTED TRIPS TO A HOSPITAL
EMERGENCY ROOM IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?
Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet To Access Medical Information
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
526
23%
77%
1%
155
17%
80%
3%
68
39%
57%
3%
Page 42 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, ABOUT HOW MANY TRIPS TO A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM HAVE YOU SAVED BY
FINDING INFORMATION ONLINE?
Base: Texas Residents Who Believe Finding Medical Information Online Has Saved A Trip To An Emergency Room
1
2
3 or 4
5 or more
Don't know/refused
100
36%
21%
18%
12%
13%
26
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
23
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Base: Household Internet Service Is Not A Broadband Connection
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
104
62%
23%
15%
48
21%
56%
23%
32
62%
22%
16%
WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR BROADBAND SERVICE IF IT WERE AVAILABLE IN YOUR AREA?
Base: Dial-Up Users Who Do Not Have Access To Broadband
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
51
57%
22%
21%
33
69%
22%
9%
14
n/a
n/a
n/a
Base: All Adult Residents With A Cell Phone
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1016
64%
35%
1%
328
61%
39%
1%
190
50%
49%
1%
Page 43 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
Base: Respondents Who Subscribe To A Data Plan On Their Cell Phones
Once per day
Never
Don't know/refused
596
65%
7%
9%
10%
9%
<1%
167
53%
9%
12%
14%
11%
0%
82
54%
8%
7%
16%
14%
1%
DO YOU EVER USE YOUR CELL PHONE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET WHILE YOU ARE AT HOME?
Base: Respondents Who Use Their Cell Phones To Access The Internet
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
521
76%
24%
0%
139
76%
24%
0%
64
82%
18%
0%
BROADBAND SERVICE?
Searching for medical information, or communicating with doctors or other healthcare professionals
None of the above
Don't know/refused
521
83%
67%
59%
53%
49%
46%
32%
13%
13%
10%
2%
<1%
139
78%
64%
57%
36%
46%
45%
28%
16%
12%
5%
3%
<1%
64
71%
67%
50%
35%
41%
32%
38%
28%
22%
4%
5%
0%
Page 44 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE? ARE
YOU…
Very satisfied
Mostly satisfied
Mostly dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Don't know/refused
521
41%
51%
5%
2%
<1%
139
38%
55%
6%
1%
<1%
64
33%
58%
6%
3%
0%
NOW THAT YOU CAN ACCESS THE INTERNET USING YOUR CELL PHONE, DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU USE YOUR
HOME BROADBAND SERVICE LESS OFTEN, MORE OFTEN, OR ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT?
Base: Respondents With A Home Broadband Subscription And Also Use The Internet Via Vell Phone
More often
Less often
About the same
Don't know/refused
431
10%
14%
76%
0%
103
6%
24%
70%
0%
32
5%
28%
68%
0%
Page 45 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PURCHASED OR RECEIVED A DESKTOP COMPUTER FOR YOUR HOME?
Base: Households With A Desktop Computer
Less than 6 months ago
6 months to less than one year ago
One year to less than two years ago
Two years to less than four years ago
Four years ago or longer
Don't know/refused
669
9%
10%
12%
27%
38%
3%
196
10%
9%
16%
34%
27%
4%
77
9%
9%
11%
26%
40%
6%
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD PURCHASED OR RECEIVED
A LAPTOP COMPUTER?
Base: Households With A Laptop Computer
Don't know/refused
686
17%
19%
20%
27%
14%
3%
206
27%
18%
16%
17%
17%
6%
65
16%
11%
18%
34%
17%
4%
WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD PURCHASED OR RECEIVED
A TABLET COMPUTER?
Base: Households With A Tablet Computer
Don't know/refused
305
40%
27%
20%
9%
2%
1%
77
60%
13%
12%
10%
5%
0%
14
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Page 46 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE OR USE THE INTERNET FROM HOME?
Once per day
Never
Don't know/refused
971
76%
11%
6%
4%
2%
1%
297
78%
10%
4%
4%
4%
<1%
114
66%
15%
8%
7%
2%
2%
Base: Cell Phone Users
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
1056
74%
25%
1%
342
73%
26%
<1%
138
53%
45%
2%
HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE OR ACCESS THE INTERNET USING YOUR CELL PHONE?
Base: Respondents Who Have A Data Plan That Allows Internet Access On Their Cell Phone
Once per day
Never
Don't know/refused
712
72%
7%
9%
7%
5%
<1%
205
76%
7%
4%
9%
4%
0%
64
74%
6%
3%
10%
6%
0%
Page 47 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
DO YOU EVER USE YOUR CELL PHONE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET WHILE YOU ARE AT HOME?
Base: Adults Who Use The Internet Via Cell Phone
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
659
81%
19%
<1%
185
77%
22%
<1%
58
79%
19%
2%
Base: Respondents Who Do Not Subscribe To Broadband Service At Home
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
311
64%
15%
21%
137
48%
27%
25%
101
60%
13%
27%
Page 48 of 73
Base: Adults Who Use The Internet
Purchasing goods or services
Searching for medical or healthcare information
Conducting research for schoolwork
Searching for information about government services
Applying for services or filling out forms at government websites
Communicating with your doctor or other healthcare professionals
None of these
Don't know/refused
Page 49 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
1023
90%
77%
75%
72%
72%
65%
60%
47%
46%
40%
39%
30%
28%
17%
1%
<1%
312
87%
78%
76%
80%
66%
69%
60%
55%
42%
45%
39%
23%
35%
11%
<1%
0%
128
82%
61%
54%
68%
51%
53%
52%
47%
46%
45%
38%
29%
24%
17%
4%
1%
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
BROADBAND SERVICE?
None of these
Don't know/refused
659
88%
77%
69%
56%
56%
52%
37%
30%
28%
25%
21%
16%
13%
8%
4%
<1%
185
91%
87%
73%
64%
52%
58%
46%
31%
40%
28%
24%
20%
14%
14%
4%
<1%
58
89%
83%
56%
55%
46%
43%
47%
42%
23%
32%
35%
23%
18%
14%
4%
0%
LOCATED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES?
Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases In The Past 12 Months
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
756
92%
8%
<1%
215
89%
11%
0%
71
82%
18%
0%
Page 50 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO VENDORS LOCATED IN
THE UNITED STATES?
Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases From U.S. Vendors
1 or 2 orders
3 to 6 orders
7 to 10 orders
11 to 20 orders
More than 20 orders
Don't know/refused
699
5%
27%
18%
21%
27%
2%
198
6%
23%
25%
23%
20%
3%
60
18%
33%
34%
6%
9%
0%
ORDERED FROM VENDORS IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE?
Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases From U.S. Vendors
Less than $20
Between $20 and $49
Between $50 and $99
Between $1,000 and $4,999
$5,000 or more
Don't know/refused
699
1%
<1%
3%
14%
14%
14%
4%
29%
9%
10%
198
6%
<1%
4%
22%
8%
16%
6%
26%
7%
7%
60
2%
4%
15%
24%
20%
10%
8%
7%
4%
6%
LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES?
Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases In The Past 12 Months
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
756
19%
80%
1%
215
13%
84%
3%
71
16%
82%
1%
Page 51 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO VENDORS LOCATED IN
COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES?
Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases From Foreign Vendors
1 or 2 orders
3 to 6 orders
7 to 10 orders
11 to 20 orders
More than 20 orders
Don't know/refused
122
45%
34%
9%
4%
7%
1%
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
ORDERED FROM VENDORS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE?
Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases From Foreign Vendors
Less than $20
Between $20 and $49
Between $50 and $99
$5,000 or more
Don't know/refused
122
7%
14%
18%
29%
8%
4%
2%
9%
6%
3%
25
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
8
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Page 52 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MUCH REVENUE DO YOU ESTIMATE THAT YOU GENERATED FROM SELLING
PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ONLINE?
Base: Adults Who Have Sold Goods Or Services Online In The Past 12 Months
Less than $20
Between $20 and $49
Between $50 and $99
$5,000 or more
Don't know/refused
176
29%
1%
1%
10%
6%
5%
1%
16%
7%
24%
50
33%
1%
2%
14%
1%
<1%
<1%
21%
10%
18%
19
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO
ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?
...SENDING OR RECEIVING AN E-MAIL
Base: All Respondents
Very difficult
Difficult
Easy
Very easy
Refused
Don't know
1200
3%
3%
49%
43%
<1%
2%
398
3%
4%
47%
44%
0%
2%
197
8%
5%
57%
26%
0%
4%
Page 53 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
...WRITING A LETTER USING WORD PROCESSING SOFTWARE LIKE MICROSOFT WORD
Very difficult
Difficult
Easy
Very easy
Refused
Don't know
1200
5%
7%
46%
40%
<1%
2%
398
5%
6%
42%
45%
<1%
2%
197
9%
13%
48%
26%
<1%
4%
...CREATING OR EDITING A SPREADSHEET
Very difficult
Difficult
Easy
Very easy
Refused
Don't know
1200
10%
17%
43%
26%
<1%
5%
398
9%
16%
46%
27%
<1%
2%
197
21%
22%
40%
10%
<1%
7%
Page 54 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
...ACCESSING THE INTERNET ON A MOBILE DEVICE LIKE A TABLET OR CELL PHONE
Very difficult
Difficult
Easy
Very easy
Refused
Don't know
1200
5%
8%
44%
38%
<1%
4%
398
4%
6%
46%
41%
<1%
2%
197
11%
13%
45%
25%
<1%
5%
DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 LIVING AT HOME?
Yes
No
Refused
1200
37%
62%
<1%
398
46%
53%
1%
197
34%
66%
0%
AND HOW MANY OF THOSE CHILDREN ARE CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH THE 12TH
GRADE AT SCHOOL?
Base: Households With Children Under 18
0
1
2
3 or more
Don't know/refused
376
16%
36%
30%
17%
1%
112
22%
31%
28%
18%
<1%
49
19%
28%
24%
28%
0%
Page 55 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
GRADE AT SCHOOL?
Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 School
1
2
3
3 or more
324
43%
37%
14%
21%
93
40%
36%
13%
23%
43
35%
30%
14%
35%
HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET AT SCHOOL FOR THEIR CLASS ASSIGNMENTS?
0
1
2
3 or more
Don't know/refused
324
8%
44%
30%
14%
4%
93
18%
27%
29%
18%
7%
43
12%
40%
14%
29%
5%
DO YOUR CHILDREN USE YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?
Yes
No
No home Internet service in household
Refused
324
78%
13%
9%
0%
93
59%
29%
12%
0%
43
63%
14%
23%
0%
DO YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET ANYPLACE OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOME FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?
Yes
No
Refused
324
44%
55%
1%
93
33%
67%
0%
43
29%
66%
4%
Page 56 of 73
WHERE DO YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?
Base: Households Where Children Use The Internet For Schoolwork Someplace Other Than Home
At school
At the library
Through wi-fi or an aircard
At work
Through a tablet computer supplied by the school
Through a laptop computer supplied by the school
Other (specify)
Don't know/refused
Page 57 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
152
69%
22%
18%
9%
8%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1%
2%
2%
38
77%
20%
20%
0%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
<1%
0%
0%
17
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
DO YOUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS PROVIDE THEM WITH A LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER TO USE?
Base: Children In Household Enrolled In K-12 School
Yes
No
Refused
324
26%
73%
<1%
93
34%
65%
1%
43
34%
66%
0%
HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN HAVE A LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER THAT IS PROVIDED TO THEM BY
THEIR SCHOOL?
0
1
2
3 or more
Don't know/refused
324
5%
12%
5%
4%
1%
93
4%
15%
7%
8%
0%
43
2%
16%
5%
9%
2%
SINCE THE SCHOOL SUPPLIED A COMPUTER FOR SCHOOLWORK, HOW HAS THAT AFFECTED YOUR
CHILDREN'S GRADES? WOULD YOU SAY IT HAD...?
Base: Households Where Children's Schools Provide Laptop or Tablet Computers
A positive impact
A negative impact
No impact as far as you can tell
Don't know/refused
89
54%
4%
42%
<1%
30
64%
1%
34%
1%
14
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Page 58 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
AND WOULD YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING
STATEMENTS?
...HOME INTERNET SERVICE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO SEEK OUT HEALTHCARE INFORMATION
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Refused
Don't know
229
18%
51%
20%
6%
<1%
5%
101
8%
51%
25%
3%
<1%
14%
83
20%
50%
17%
6%
0%
7%
STATEMENTS?
...HOME INTERNET SERVICE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO RESEARCH OR BUY GOODS AND SERVICES
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Refused
Don't know
229
18%
47%
24%
3%
1%
6%
101
15%
49%
24%
1%
<1%
11%
83
15%
49%
29%
3%
0%
4%
Page 59 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
STATEMENTS?
...HOME INTERNET SERVICE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO INTERACT WITH LOCAL, STATE,
OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICES
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Refused
Don't know
229
15%
48%
24%
8%
1%
4%
101
12%
53%
24%
6%
<1%
5%
83
14%
47%
27%
7%
0%
4%
STATEMENTS?
HOME INTERNET SERVICE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR MY CHILD TO DO HOMEWORK.
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Refused
Don't know
30
22%
37%
29%
11%
0%
<1%
12
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Page 60 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE OR USE THE INTERNET FROM HOME?
Ever personally use
Once per day
Never
Don't know/refused
792
98%
72%
12%
9%
5%
2%
<1%
187
97%
67%
16%
6%
8%
2%
<1%
88
93%
62%
12%
7%
12%
7%
0%
AND WHAT DO YOU PAY EACH MONTH FOR YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE?
Less than $10
Between $10 and $19
Between $20 and $29
Between $30 and $39
Between $40 and $49
Between $50 and $74
Between $75 and $99
$250 or more
Don't know/refused
792
2%
4%
9%
13%
13%
26%
8%
5%
1%
1%
<1
1%
0%
<1%
17%
187
0%
2%
13%
12%
11%
31%
7%
2%
0%
2%
0%
1%
0%
1%
19%
88
1%
4%
16%
11%
18%
26%
2%
3%
3%
0%
1%
2%
0%
0%
15%
Base: Cell Phone Owners
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
858
76%
22%
2%
204
68%
29%
3%
110
57%
39%
4%
Page 61 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE OR ACCESS THE INTERNET USING YOUR CELL PHONE?
Base: Cell Phone Owners Who Have A Data Plan
Once per day
Never
Don't know/refused
601
68%
9%
9%
8%
6%
0%
132
59%
11%
9%
10%
12%
0%
50
48%
15%
11%
8%
17%
0%
DO YOU USE YOUR CELL PHONE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET WHILE YOU ARE AT HOME, WHILE YOU ARE AWAY
FROM HOME OR BOTH?
At home
Away from home
Both
Don't know/refused
546
80%
96%
77%
1%
116
85%
93%
79%
1%
36
84%
87%
70%
0%
ARE THERE LIMITS TO THE AMOUNT OF DATA YOU CAN ACCESS ON YOUR CELL PHONE EACH MONTH BEFORE
YOUR SPEED IS REDUCED OR YOU ARE CHARGED MORE?
Base: Cell Phone Users Who Have A Data Plan
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
601
53%
41%
6%
132
57%
37%
6%
50
62%
33%
5%
IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU REACHED OR EXCEEDED THAT
MONTHLY DATA CAP?
Base: Adults Whose Cell Phone Data Plan Limits Data Usage
Never
1 or 2 times
3 or 4 times
5 or more times
Don't know/refused
306
52%
23%
7%
12%
5%
72
36%
29%
10%
8%
17%
28
n/a
Page 62 of 73
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Base: Adults Who Do Not Subscribe To The Internet At Home
You don't need Internet access at your home
You can get Internet access someplace else
You wouldn't use the Internet enough to make it worth the cost
You don't know how to use a computer well enough to access the Internet
You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use the Internet
You don't want internet service at home
Any other reason?
Don't know/refused
Page 63 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
208
22%
23%
31%
18%
24%
25%
19%
19%
14%
11%
10%
6%
12%
5%
5%
2%
60
28%
25%
22%
22%
27%
26%
13%
21%
21%
10%
5%
4%
10%
8%
11%
4%
82
20%
28%
42%
31%
21%
34%
18%
25%
16%
15%
16%
5%
11%
2%
1%
0%
WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO
HOME INTERNET SERVICE?
Base: Adults Who Do Not Subscribe To The Internet At Home
You don't need Internet access at your home
You don't know how to use a computer well enough to access the Internet
You wouldn't use the Internet enough to make it worth the cost
You can get Internet access someplace else
You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use the Internet
You don't want internet service at home
Any other reason?
Don't know/refused
AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT IS THE ADVERTISED BANDWIDTH OR DOWNLOAD SPEED
PROVIDED TO YOUR HOME BY YOUR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER?
Base: Households With Internet Service At Home
Less than 768 kbps
At least 768 kbps, but less than 1.5 Mbps
At least 1.5 Mbps, but less than 4 Mbps
At least 4 Mbps, but less than 6 Mbps
At least 100 Mbps, but less than 1 Gbps
1 Gbps or more
Don't know/remember
Page 64 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
208
11%
9%
21%
7%
5%
8%
3%
4%
2%
6%
0%
2%
2%
10%
5%
5%
60
12%
7%
9%
10%
2%
6%
0%
11%
2%
5%
0%
2%
6%
12%
11%
7%
82
8%
12%
30%
10%
7%
13%
1%
2%
3%
4%
0%
2%
2%
5%
1%
2%
792
1%
3%
5%
3%
3%
6%
5%
3%
4%
4%
1%
2%
3%
187
5%
3%
5%
3%
3%
6%
4%
2%
*%
1%
1%
1%
2%
88
6%
2%
1%
0%
2%
9%
4%
1%
1%
1%
1%
<1%
0%
58%
66%
72%
WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE AT HOME?
Base: Respondents Who Subscribe To Dial-Up Or Don't Know What Type Of Internet Service They Have
You don't need home broadband service
You do not know enough about broadband, or you don't know what it is
Broadband service is not available in your area
You do not use the Internet often enough to make it worth the extra cost
Your computer is too old or too slow to access broadband
You don't want broadband service at home
You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use broadband
Any other reason?
Don't know/refused
Page 65 of 73
Statewide
Rural
78
17%
28%
11%
28%
16%
12%
12%
13%
5%
5%
11%
12%
6%
3%
1%
6%
33
23%
30%
17%
39%
22%
12%
12%
24%
10%
3%
10%
19%
0%
7%
0%
6%
Low-Income
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Statewide
Rural
WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO
HOME BROADBAND SERVICE?
Base: Respondents Who Subscribe To Dial-Up Or Don't Know What Type Of Internet Service They Have
Broadband service is not available in your area
You do not know enough about broadband, or you Don't know/refused what it is
You don't need home broadband service
You do not use the Internet often enough to make it worth the extra cost
You don't want broadband service at home
Your computer is too old or too slow to access broadband
You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use broadband
Any other reason?
Don't know/refused
78
20%
17%
10%
9%
5%
1%
5%
4%
7%
4%
1%
1%
2%
4%
1%
8%
33
32%
15%
11%
5%
5%
0%
0%
6%
3%
15%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
9%
Base: Households Without Broadband Service
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
286
57%
23%
20%
93
48%
33%
20%
Page 66 of 73
Low-Income
10
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
92
58%
19%
24%
Base: Adults Who Use The Internet At Home Or Outside The Home
Communicating through e-Mail or other ways of sending messages
None of these
Don't know/refused
Page 67 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
838
88%
77%
73%
71%
69%
68%
62%
47%
47%
41%
44%
36%
26%
20%
1%
1%
204
82%
72%
67%
67%
59%
54%
48%
36%
42%
25%
28%
25%
14%
20%
2%
1%
98
79%
61%
47%
68%
51%
48%
48%
41%
51%
39%
39%
24%
28%
14%
2%
0%
WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT ON YOUR CELL PHONE USING YOUR
MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE?
Communicating through e-Mail or other ways of sending messages
None of these
Don't know/refused
Page 68 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
546
86%
76%
70%
65%
52%
56%
41%
28%
31%
24%
31%
15%
17%
8%
3%
1%
116
79%
75%
62%
50%
53%
50%
34%
31%
36%
17%
33%
15%
16%
5%
4%
1%
36
82%
75%
56%
49%
27%
31%
34%
39%
57%
34%
23%
8%
8%
9%
2%
0%
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY
FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?
SENDING OR OPENING FILES ATTACHED TO AN E-MAIL
Very difficult
Difficult
Easy
Very easy
Don't know
1000
4%
8%
52%
32%
3%
247
4%
10%
61%
19%
5%
170
9%
19%
48%
16%
5%
USING A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE TO DESIGN OR EDIT SOFTWARE
Very difficult
Difficult
Easy
Very easy
Don't know
1000
27%
40%
22%
3%
7%
247
26%
36%
25%
2%
10%
170
22%
44%
20%
4%
7%
CREATING OR EDITING A MOBILE APPLICATION OR APP
Very difficult
Difficult
Easy
Very easy
Don't know
1000
21%
37%
27%
6%
7%
247
19%
42%
24%
5%
8%
170
24%
35%
26%
5%
7%
Page 69 of 73
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
USING OR MANAGING INFORMATION USING DATABASE SOFTWARE
Very difficult
Difficult
Easy
Very easy
Don't know
1000
8%
27%
46%
11%
6%
247
9%
30%
38%
10%
11%
170
15%
34%
34%
6%
8%
HOW MANY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 LIVE AT YOUR HOME?
0
1
2
3 or more
Don't know/refused
1000
57%
14%
15%
13%
2%
247
62%
10%
14%
13%
1%
170
61%
8%
16%
15%
0%
336
18%
34%
28%
19%
72
13%
28%
32%
26%
1%
54
7%
35%
29%
29%
0%
GRADE AT SCHOOL?
Base: Households With Children Under 18
0
1
2
3 or more
Don't know/refused
Page 70 of 73
<1%
Statewide
Rural
Low-Income
HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET AT SCHOOL FOR THEIR CLASS ASSIGNMENTS?
0
1
2
3 or more
Don't know/refused
282
11%
42%
28%
15%
5%
64
22%
26%
31%
14%
7%
50
16%
33%
25%
14%
12%
DO YOUR CHILDREN USE YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?
Yes
No
No home Internet service in household
282
69%
13%
17%
64
64%
16%
20%
50
44%
21%
30%
DO YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET ANYPLACE OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOME FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?
Yes
No
Don't know/refused
282
48%
50%
2%
64
41%
58%
1%
50
45%
50%
5%
Page 71 of 73
Statewide
WHERE DO YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?
Base: Households Where Childeren Use The Internet For Schoolwork At Locations Outside Of Home
At school
At the library
At work
Through a laptop computer supplied by the school
Through a tablet computer supplied by the school
Other
Don't know/refused
Low-Income
25
20
n/a
n/a
3%
4%
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
DO YOUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS PROVIDE THEM WITH A LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER TO USE?
Base: Households With Children In K-12 School
Yes
No
282
30%
69%
64
31%
68%
50
37%
62%
HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN HAVE A LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER
THAT IS PROVIDED TO THEM BY THEIR SCHOOL?
Base: Households Where Children's Schools Provide Laptops Or Tablets
0
1
2
3 or more
Don't know/refused
82
19%
41%
15%
13%
11%
Page 72 of 73
132
62%
37%
18%
8%
8%
2%
0%
1%
1%
Rural
<1%
19
16
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Statewide
SINCE THE SCHOOL SUPPLIED A COMPUTER FOR SCHOOLWORK, HOW HAS THAT AFFECTED YOUR
CHILDREN'S GRADES? WOULD YOU SAY IT HAD...?
Base: Households Where Children's Schools Provide Laptops Or Tablets
A positive impact
A negative impact
No impact as far as you can tell
Don't know/refused
Page 73 of 73
82
53%
3%
40%
5%
Rural
Low-Income
19
16
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a

the Full Report

Transcription

Similar documents

PDF

Manager Accounts - Jobs in Pakistan

Cabinet Level Body

san juan bayamón carolina guaynabo gurabo trujillo alto loíza toa

neflin>

Call 0800 954 1402 Visit o2.co.uk/niggles or any ø shop

THE TEXAS HEAD START DIRECTORS` ROUNDTABLE

Atlantic Broadband going to all-digital video network

América Móvil Global Wireless Customers

Businesses - Broadband Communities Magazine