EXPLO

HOME ADOP

final cover 1 and 4.qxd 10/25/10 2:43 PM Page 1

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION:

Home Broadband Internet Adoption

in the United States 

Prepared by

ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION

and

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

in the

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

November 2010

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration i

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION:

Home Broadband Internet Adoption

in the United States 

FOREWORD

The Internet Age is here. The effective use of this technology and all that it can provide is a key to

success for businesses and individuals. Knowing this, the Obama Administration seeks to ensure that

all Americans have affordable access to broadband Internet services. Accomplishing that goal,

however, requires a set of facts about Internet use that can underpin and guide this policy objective.

In Exploring the Digital Nation: Home Broadband Internet Adoption in the United States, the Commerce

Department fulfills its promise to provide authoritative, nationally-comprehensive data on access to

the Internet throughout the United States. This new study follows the February 2010 NTIA research

preview, Digital Nation: 21st Century America’s Progress Toward Universal Broadband Internet Access.

Both studies draw on the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey Internet Use Supplement, a

survey of approximately 54,000 households conducted over one week in October 2009. The Census

data show increases in adoption of broadband services at home over time for virtually all demographic

groups. The data also reveal that demographic disparities among groups have tended to persist.

Persons with high incomes, those who are younger, Asians and Whites, the more highly-educated,

married couples, and the employed tend to have higher rates of broadband use at home. Conversely,

persons with low incomes, seniors, minorities, the less-educated, non-family households, and the nonemployed tend to lag behind other groups in home broadband use. The new study takes the analysis

to another level.

This report presents the most accurate statistical profile of U.S. broadband Internet adoption

currently available. The report features new analysis of “adoption gaps,” i.e., the differences in average

broadband Internet adoption at home among different groups after controlling for demographic and

geographic factors. There are certain groups in the population that have lower adoption rates even

after taking account of differences that typically affect broadband usage. For example, the home

broadband adoption gap between the lowest-income households and higher income brackets ranges

from 16 to 34 percentage points, even after controlling for differences in education, age, race,

ethnicity, household size, urban-rural location, foreign-born status, disability status and state of

residence. The gaps between Whites and Blacks registered at 10 percentage points and between
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

ii U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Whites and Hispanics at 14 percentage points, even after controlling for household characteristics. A

similar analysis found the urban-rural gap to be 7 percentage points. A special section presents our

findings on users with disabilities, who tend to be older and part of lower-income groups. 

We look forward to continuing our study of this important subject in the future. Most of all, we hope

that the data we make available to the public will be of use to the research community and policymakers around the United States in their quest to understand the nature of Internet access. Through

their research and ours, we hope to learn how to continue to make the benefits of this extraordinary

new platform available more widely throughout the country.

Rebecca M. Blank

Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

Economics and Statistics Administration

Lawrence E. Strickling 

Assistant Secretary and Administrator

National Telecommunications and Information Administration
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION:

Home Broadband Internet Adoption

in the United States

Economics &Statistics National Telecommunications 

Administration and Information Administration

Rebecca M. Blank Lawrence E. Strickling

Under Secretary for Assistant Secretary for 

Economic Affairs Communications & Information 

Joint Project Team:

ESA NTIA

Beethika Khan, Economist Daniel Weitzner, Associate Administrator,

Office of Policy Analysis & Development 

James McConnaughey, Chief Economist 

Office of Policy Analysis & Development

U.S. Census Bureau

■ Demographic Surveys Division

■ Technologies Management Office

■ Demographic Statistical Methods Division

■ Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division: Population Division

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Project Team would like to thank Mark Doms, Jane Molloy, Jane Callen, George McKittrick, Rebecca

Lehrman, and Sabrina Montes of the Economics and Statistics Administration; Anna Gomez, Tom Power,

Deena Shetler, Rochelle Cohen, Larry Atlas, Milton Brown, Dennis Amari, and Bart Forbes of NTIA;

David Johnson of the Census Bureau; Marc Berejka and Patricia Buckley of the Office of the Secretary;

Philip Weiser from the White House National Economic Council; Andrew McLaughlin and Scott

Deutchman of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy; Peter Stenberg and Christopher

Chapman of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Education, respectively; Ceci Rouse and Matthew

Magura of the Council of Economic Advisers; and John Horrigan of the Federal Communications

Commission, for their contributions to this report.

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration iii

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION:

Home Broadband Internet Adoption

in the United States

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Household use of broadband Internet service has risen dramatically during the first decade of the 21st

century as the Internet has become integral to the lives of most Americans. Nonetheless, not everyone

uses broadband Internet – either by choice or because they lack access. This report, prepared jointly

by the Commerce Department’s Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA) and National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), explores differences in broadband

Internet use among households. 

Earlier studies by NTIA and others have shown that broadband Internet use varies significantly across

households of different socio-economic backgrounds and in different geographic locations. This

report builds on the findings of an NTIA report published earlier in 2010 showing that while

broadband Internet access rose between 2007 and 2009 for most demographic groups and geographic

areas, persistent differences in levels and growth rates remained (NTIA, 2010). That report found

highest rates of home broadband Internet use among Asians and Whites, married couples, younger

people, urban residents, people with higher incomes, and people with more education. This report

expands the analysis presented in the earlier NTIA report to examine these differences in broadband

Internet use in greater detail. 

This report and the earlier NTIA report used data from a special 2009 supplement to the Census

Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS), which asked questions about broadband Internet use of

more than 50,000 households. 

The principal findings of this report are as follows:

General Broadband Internet Access

■ Seven out of ten American households used the Internet in 2009. The majority of these

households used broadband services to access the Internet at home. Almost one-fourth of all

households, however, did not have an Internet user. (Section 3, Figure 1) 

Determinants of Household Adoption of Broadband Internet

■ Income and education are strongly associated with broadband Internet use at home but are not

the sole determinants. (Section 4.1, Table 1; Section 4.2, Table 6)

■ Broadband Internet adoption was higher among White households than among Black and

Hispanic households in 2009. Differences in socio-economic attributes do not explain the entire

gap in broadband Internet adoption associated with race and ethnicity. (Section 4.2, Figure 2)

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration v
■ A similar pattern holds for urban and rural locations. Urban residents were more likely than

their rural counterparts to adopt broadband Internet, even after accounting for socio-economic

differences. (Section 4.2, Figures 3 and 4) 

■ Home broadband Internet use by people with disabilities lagged adoption by those with no

disability. Differences in socio-economic and geographic characteristics explain a substantial

portion of the adoption gap associated with disability. (Section 4.2, Figure 5) 

Main Reasons for Non-Adoption of Home Broadband Internet 

■ Lack of need or interest, lack of affordability, lack of an adequate computer, and lack of

availability were all stated as the main reason for not having home broadband Internet access.

The significance of these factors, however, varied across non-users, with affordability and

demand generally dominating. (Section 5, Figure 6)

■ Internet non-users reported lack of need or interest as their primary reason for not having home

broadband Internet access (Section 5.1, Figure 7). This group accounted for two-thirds of nonusers of home broadband Internet.

■ In contrast, households that did not use the Internet specifically at home but reported using the

Internet elsewhere ranked affordability as the primary deterrent to home broadband Internet use

(Section 5.2, Figure 8). This group represented almost one-fourth of non-users of broadband

at home.

■ Affordability was also reported as the major impediment to adopting broadband Internet

services in households that used dial-up services (Section 5.3, Figure 9). This group represented

about one-eighth of non-users of home broadband Internet services. Lack of broadband

availability was reported to be a significant factor for rural residents (Section 5.3, Table 13). 

■ The use of dial-up Internet service is shrinking among households that connect to the Internet

from home. Dial-up users, on average, were older, had lower levels of family income and

education, and were more likely to reside in rural areas. (Section 6, Tables 16 and 17)

Long-term Trends in Broadband Internet Use

■ Between 2001 and 2009, broadband Internet use among households rose sevenfold, from 9%

to 64% of American households utilizing broadband Internet. (Section 8.1, Table 23) 

■ Some of the demographic groups that had lower-than-average adoption rates in 2001 have since

exhibited impressive gains. However, sizeable adoption gaps still remain in broadband Internet

access among demographic groups defined by income, education, race, and ethnicity. (Section

8.1, Table 23)

■ Geographic areas such as states, as well as urban and rural locations, have experienced significant

growth in home broadband Internet use between 2001 and 2009. Significant gaps in adoption

still persist among the states, some regions, and between urban and rural locations. (Section 8.2,

Table 24; Section 8.3, Table 25)

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

vi U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION:

Home Broadband Internet Adoption

in the United States

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

3. Broadband Internet Use in 2007 and 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. Broadband Internet Use in 2009: Demographic and Geographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . 7

4.1 Broadband Internet Use by Household Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4.2 Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics on the

Likelihood that a Household Uses Broadband Internet at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5. Main Reason for Non-Adoption of Home Broadband Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5.1 Among Internet Non-Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

5.2 Among Households Using the Internet Outside of Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5.3 Among Households with Dial-up Internet Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

6. Demographic and Geographic Characteristics of Broadband versus

Dial-up Internet Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

7. Disability and Broadband Internet Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7.1 Profile of People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7.2 Internet Use by People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

7.3 Main Reason for Non-Adoption by People with Disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

8. Long-Term Comparisons: 2001 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

8.1 Broadband Internet Use by Demographic Characteristics: 2001 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . 35

8.2 Broadband Internet Use by Geographic Region, and Urban 

and Rural Locations: 2001 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

8.3 Broadband Internet Use by State: 2001 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

8.4 Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics on Adoption over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

8.4.1 Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood of Home Internet Use, 2001 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

8.4.2 Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood of Home Broadband Internet Use, 2007 versus 2009 . . . . 41

9. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration vii
Appendix

A1: Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

A2: Broadband Internet Use at the Individual Level, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

A3: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood that a Household Uses

Broadband Internet at Home, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

A4: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood that a Household Uses Broadband Internet at

Home, by Household Type, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

A5: People with Disabilities: Profile and Internet Use, 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

A6: Broadband Internet Use by State, 2001 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

A7: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood that a Household Uses Internet at Home,

2001 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

A8: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood that a Household Uses Broadband

Internet at Home, 2007 versus 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

viii U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION:

Home Broadband Internet Adoption

in the United States

Section 1: Introduction

The Internet has revolutionized the social and economic environment in which we live by providing

an alternative or supplemental channel for communication, gathering and disseminating information,

entertainment, commerce, and education. Household use of high-speed, or broadband, Internet

services has risen dramatically during this decade which demonstrates the key role the Internet plays

in the everyday lives of many individuals. Nonetheless, not everyone either uses the Internet or has

access to it. This report, prepared jointly by the Commerce Department’s Economics and Statistics

Administration (ESA) and National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA),

seeks to explain differences in broadband Internet use among households. 

Despite dramatic growth in recent years, broadband Internet use varies significantly between

households with different socio-economic, demographic, and geographic characteristics. A number

of recent studies, using data from different surveys, have shown this pattern. For example, a report

published by NTIA earlier in 2010 using Census data found that broadband Internet access rose

between 2007 and 2009 for most demographic groups defined by income, education, age, race,

employment status, household type, and gender. Despite these gains, the report found the highest

rates of broadband Internet adoption in 2009 among Asians and Whites, married couples, younger

people, urban residents, people with higher incomes, and people with more education. The report

also found that the primary reasons given by survey respondents for not having broadband Internet

at home were related to affordability, demand, and availability. The Federal Communications

Commission (FCC), using data from an FCC survey conducted in 2009, found that people with

more education and higher income exhibit higher rates of broadband Internet use (Horrigan, 2010).

They also found that Blacks and Hispanics, as well as senior citizens, lag behind in broadband Internet

adoption. The Pew Internet Project, using data from a 2009 Pew survey, found that groups with

historically lower broadband Internet use—including households with incomes less than $30,000,

older people (50 and above), adults with only a high school degree, and rural Americans—exhibited

the greatest growth in broadband Internet adoption between 2008 and 2009 (Horrigan, 2009). The

most recent 2010 data from the Pew Internet Project show that Blacks experienced impressive growth

in broadband Internet adoption between 2009 and 2010, while most other demographic groups

experienced either moderate or no growth (Smith, 2010). 

This report builds on the findings of the NTIA report published earlier in 2010 in order to more fully

explore the differences in broadband Internet use among households with different characteristics. In

addition, this report analyzes the main reasons provided by households for non-adoption,

characteristics associated with a lag in technology adoption, and long-term growth in home

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 1
broadband Internet use across population subgroups and geographic locations. The next section

describes the data and methodology employed in this study. Section 3 looks at the pattern of

household Internet use in 2007 and 2009. Section 4 shows how demographic characteristics and

geographic location of households are associated with home broadband Internet adoption. Section 5

analyzes the main reasons provided by households for non-adoption. Section 6 analyzes who lags in

technology adoption by comparing users of dial-up Internet services with users of broadband Internet

services. Section 7 looks at broadband Internet adoption by people with disabilities. Finally, Section

8 studies long-term changes in home broadband and Internet use by comparing the most recent data

from 2009 with that from 2001, and Section 9 provides some concluding remarks. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

2 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
Section 2: Data and Methodology

This report uses data from a special supplement to the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey

(CPS). The CPS is a monthly survey of a representative sample of the U.S. population, and provides

data on labor force participation, income, and demographic characteristics of households. The special

supplement utilized in this report, the CPS Internet Use Supplement, periodically gathers information

on household Internet use. This report analyzes data from the most recent survey conducted in

October 2009, the eighth such Internet survey conducted since the early 1990s. The October 2009

CPS interviewed 54,324 households. For a more detailed description of the survey, see Section A1 of

the Appendix. 

The October 2009 Internet Use Supplement asked each household whether someone in that

household used the Internet and what kind of Internet connection technology was utilized at home

(the respondent was asked to choose from three options: “dial-up” telephone service, “broadband,”1

or “something else”). The survey also asked households in which no one used the Internet or where

a “dial-up” telephone service was utilized, to state their main reason for not using broadband Internet

services. Using these data, one can therefore identify households and individuals who use broadband

Internet at home to connect to the Internet. This report focuses on broadband Internet use at the

household level, as opposed to individual level, since the decision to adopt a particular type of Internet

service technology at home likely occurs at the household level.2 One would expect a household to

evaluate the cost of the technology relative to the collective benefit of the technology for all household

members. The outcome of this decision-making process, comparing the costs versus the collective

benefits, is likely to vary across household types. 

Our sample consists of all households where the age of the head of the household is 16 or above.

There are 54,280 household records in our sample, representing 119 million American households.

We analyze broadband Internet use at the household level and its association with household-level

characteristics. For characteristics like education, race, ethnicity, age, disability status, and foreignborn status, we use the information for the head of household. In this report we use the words

“adoption,” “use,” “utilization,” and “connectivity” interchangeably in order to indicate that a

household reported using a broadband service at home to connect to the Internet. 

As mentioned in the previous section, this report builds on the findings in NTIA (2010) which shows

that certain population subgroups, specifically people with higher incomes, those with more

education, Asians, Whites, married couples, those who are younger, and residents of urban areas

exhibit the highest rates of broadband Internet use. These findings point to several areas of inquiry,

particularly whether socio-economic differences among households explain the differences in

broadband Internet use. For instance, is the higher rate of broadband Internet use among urban

households explained by the differences in income and education between urban and rural

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 3

1 In the 2009 CPS Internet Use Supplement, a household with at least one of the following Internet services is considered to have

broadband: DSL, cable modem, fiber optics, satellite, wireless (such as Wi-Fi), mobile phone or PDA, or some other broadband Internet

connection (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). It is not possible to identify in the survey which particular broadband service a household uses.

2 Data on average broadband use at the individual level are presented in Appendix Section A2. The underlying trends do not

significantly change if persons, instead of households, are the unit of analysis.
households? Or, stated another way, how much of an urban-rural difference in broadband Internet

use remains if we compare urban and rural households with similar income, education, and other key

characteristics? Similarly, how much of a difference in broadband Internet use between White and

Hispanic households remains if we compare adoption between White and Hispanic households that

have similar income, education, geographic location, and other observed characteristics? 

A simple tabulation of the data by household characteristics does not allow the researcher to answer

such questions. By utilizing a regression analysis framework, we can estimate the marginal or

“isolated” association between broadband Internet use and a particular household attribute. For

example, the marginal effect of income on broadband Internet use can be estimated by comparing

broadband Internet use among households that have different income levels but which are otherwise

similar with respect to key attributes like education, race, ethnicity, age, geographic location, and

other possible determinants of broadband Internet use. The regression will tell us how much the

likelihood of broadband Internet use would rise for a given increase in income, holding key

demographic and geographic characteristics constant. 

The next section of this report (Section 3) looks at home broadband Internet usage patterns for 2007

and 2009, and Section 4 employs a regression analysis framework to analyze how much of the

observed differences in broadband Internet use across households is explained by differences in socioeconomic and geographic factors. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

4 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
Section 3: Broadband Internet Use in 2007 and 2009

The top half of Figure 1 shows the pattern of Internet use among American households in 2009.

Figure 1 shows that a significant portion of American households (64%) connected to the Internet

from home utilizing a broadband Internet service. Another 5% used dialup services at home to

connect to the Internet. This means that almost seven out of ten American households (69%)

connected to the Internet from home in 2009.3 Another 8% used the Internet at a location other than

home, implying that more than three-fourths of all American households (77%) had at least one

person who used the Internet in 2009. This was up from 71% in 2007 (the distribution for 2007 is

presented in the bottom half of Figure 1).

Broadband was by far the most frequently used technology for accessing the Internet from home. The

share of households subscribing to broadband Internet services rose from 51% in 2007 to 64% in

2009, implying that home broadband Internet use rose by one-fourth during the two year period.

Households with a dial-up Internet service accounted for a shrinking share of Internet users – down

from 11% in 2007 to 5% in 2009. The decline in dial-up users has been outweighed by the rise in

broadband users, resulting in a net increase in Internet use at home.

Despite this overall growth in Internet use, it is important to realize that a significant portion of

American households (36%) did not have a broadband Internet service at home. Almost one-fourth

of American households (23%) did not have any Internet user in 2009. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 5

3 A negligible fraction of households (0.4% in 2009) reported using the Internet from home using “something else”, that is, something

other than a dial-up telephone connection or broadband. As a result, the total share of households connecting to the Internet from

home is 68.6% = 63.5% (using broadband) + 4.7% (using dial-up) + 0.4% (using “something else”).
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

6 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Figure 1: Distribution of Internet Use by Households, 2007 and 2009

2009

2007

Use Internet at Home

(Broadband)

64%

Use Internet at Home

(Broadband)

51%

Use Internet at Home

(Dial-up)

5%

Use Internet at Home

(Dial-up)

11%

Use Internet,

not at Home

8%

Use Internet,

not at Home

9%

Don’t use Internet

23%

Don’t use Internet

29%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2007 and 

October 2009, and ESA calculations.
Section 4: Broadband Internet Use in 2009:

Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

This section will analyze how broadband Internet use varies across households of different

demographic and socio-economic backgrounds and in different geographic locations. Section 4.1

looks at average broadband Internet adoption rates by household characteristics and Section 4.2

utilizes a regression analysis framework that enables us to isolate the impact of any one factor or

characteristic on broadband Internet adoption. The results indicate that home broadband Internet

use is more prevalent among households with higher incomes and more education as well as among

Whites and urban households, and that the gaps in adoption between White and non-White

households or between urban and rural households are not entirely explained by differences in socioeconomic and demographic factors. 

Section 4.1: Broadband Internet Use by Household Characteristics

Table 1 shows average broadband Internet usage rates by demographic characteristics. According to

Table 1, home broadband Internet use is more prevalent among households with higher incomes,

more education, Asians, and Whites. For example, slightly more than a third (36%) of households

with annual family incomes less than $25,000 used broadband Internet at home in 2009, compared

to the majority of households with higher incomes. Slightly more than one-fourth (29%) of

households headed by someone with less than a high school degree used broadband Internet at home,

compared to the vast majority (85%) of their counterparts with a college degree or more. NonHispanic Asian households (77%) had the highest rate of broadband Internet use in 2009, followed

by non-Hispanic White households (68%). Hispanic (48%) and non-Hispanic Black (49%)

households lagged behind with adoption rates that were about 20 percentage points lower than their

non-Hispanic White counterparts. 

Table 1 also shows that broadband Internet use is strongly correlated with age, household type, and

disability status. Seventy-one percent of households where the head of the household was between 16

and 44 years of age had broadband Internet at home, compared to 40% of their counterparts aged 65

years or more. The majority of married-couple families with children used broadband Internet

services at home (80%), compared to about two-thirds of family households without children (68%)

and half of non-family households (51%). Households headed by someone with a disability were

almost half as likely as households headed by someone with no disability to have broadband Internet

(38% compared to 68%).4 Finally, foreign-born non-U.S. citizens were less likely than American

citizens to utilize broadband Internet at home (51% compared to 64%).5

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 7

4 In the CPS, a person with at least one of the following conditions is considered to have a disability: hearing impairment; blindness;

impaired vision despite wearing glasses; physical, mental, or emotional condition that impairs the ability to concentrate, remember, or

make decisions; difficulty in walking or climbing stairs; difficulty in dressing or bathing; physical, mental, or emotional condition that

impairs the ability to do errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). 

5 American citizens include both native-born American citizens as well as foreign-born persons who are naturalized U.S. citizens.
Table 2 shows average broadband Internet

usage rates by geographic location of

households (by urban-rural status and by size

of urban area). Note that this report uses the

terms “urban” and “rural” to refer to

metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas,

respectively.6 According to Table 2, broadband

Internet adoption, on average, was 15

percentage points higher among urban dwellers

than among their rural-area counterparts (66%

versus 51%). Urban areas with populations

between 2.5 million and 5 million displayed

the highest broadband Internet adoption rate

with 71% of households living in these areas

subscribing to broadband Internet services. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

8 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table 1: Household Broadband Internet Use

by Demographic Characteristics, 2009

63.5

35.8

61.0

79.3

87.6

94.1

28.8

50.9

69.5

84.5

68.0

49.4

77.3

48.3

47.9

71.2

68.2

39.9

66.7

60.2

79.8

60.1

56.9

67.7

50.8

37.8

67.6

64.4

51.0

54,280

119,267,400

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS 

School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: *Sample includes all households with the head of the household at 

least 16 years of age. The information for the head of the household is 

used for education, race, ethnicity, age, gender, foreign-born status, and 

disability.

Household Broadband Internet Use: Percent of households

connecting to the Internet at home using broadband

All Households*

Household Income

 Less than $25,000

 $25,000-$50,000

 $50,000-$75,000

 $75,000-$100,000

 More than $100,000

Education

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Race and Ethnicity

 White, Non-Hispanic

 Black, Non-Hispanic

 Asian, Non-Hispanic

 American Indian or Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic

 Hispanic

Age

 16 to 44 years 

 45 to 64 years

 65 years and over

Gender

 Male

 Female

Household Type

 Married-couple with children

 Single parent (male)

 Single parent (female)

 Family without children

 Non-family household

Disability Status

 Has a disability 

 No disability

Foreign-Born Status

 Citizens (including foreign born)

 Non-Citizen

 

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

Table 2: Household Broadband Internet

Use by Geographic Characteristics, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and 

CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 

2009, and ESA calculations.

Household Broadband Internet Use: Percent of households

connecting to the Internet at home using broadband

All Households

Urban-Rural Status

 Urban (Metropolitan)

 Rural (Nonmetropolitan)

Metropolitan Area (CBSA) Size

 Under 1,000,000

 1,000,000-2,499,999

 2,500,000-4,999,999

 5,000,000 or more

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

63.5

65.9

51.0

63.1

66.1

70.5

66.9

54,280

119,267,400

6 The geographic variable for identifying a household’s location as

urban or rural is not available in the CPS public use files. This

report uses the terms “urban” and “rural” to refer to metropolitan

and nonmetropolitan areas, respectively. The definition of a

metropolitan area (effective since 2000) is based on “core based

statistical area” (CBSA), which includes both metropolitan and

micropolitan statistical areas. According to the 2000 standards,

each CBSA must have at least one urban area with at least 10,000

inhabitants. Each metropolitan statistical area must contain at

least one urbanized area with population 50,000 or more. Each

micropolitan statistical area must contain at least one urban cluster

with population between 10,000 and 50,000. As of June 6, 2003,

there are 362 metropolitan statistical areas and 560 micropolitan

statistical areas in the U.S. For more information, see U.S. Census

Bureau (2010a) and Office of Management and Budget (2010). 
The next three tables dig deeper into the data by

looking at average broadband Internet usage rates

by race, ethnicity, income, and education within

urban and rural areas (Table 3) and then by cross

tabulating broadband Internet usage data by race

and income, and by race and education for urban

and rural areas separately (Tables 4 and 5). Table 3

shows that rural households with lower incomes,

lower levels of education, and Black rural

households had particularly low broadband Internet

adoption rates. Only about 28% of rural dwellers

with incomes less than $25,000 had broadband

Internet at home, compared to 38% of their urban

counterparts and 86% of their high-income

rural counterparts. A similar pattern holds for

demographic groups defined by race, ethnicity,

and education. 

Table 4 shows the cross-tabulated data on average

broadband Internet usage rates by race and income,

and by urban-rural location. The lowest rates of

broadband Internet use (in this three-way urbanrural/race and ethnicity/income split) were among

the lowest income Black and Hispanic households

living in rural areas (17% and 19%, respectively).

Hispanic households in the lowest income category

(less than $25,000) living in urban areas displayed

the next lowest level (27%) of home broadband

Internet utilization. 

A similar pattern is displayed in Table 5, which

shows the cross-tabulated data on average

broadband Internet use by race and educational

attainment, and by urban-rural location. Black

households headed by someone with less than a

high school degree and living in rural areas

exhibited the lowest level of broadband Internet use

(11%). They were followed by White rural

households headed by someone with less than a

high school degree (23%), Black rural households

headed by someone with a high school degree

(24%), Hispanic households headed by someone

with less than a high school degree (both urban and

rural) (26% and 25%, respectively), and Black

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 9

Table 3: Household Broadband

Internet Use by Metropolitan Status,

Race, and Income, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) 

and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, 

October 2009, and ESA calculations.

Household Broadband Internet Use: Percent of households

connecting to the Internet at home using broadband

All Households

Race and Ethnicity

 Non-Hispanic White

 Non-Hispanic Black

 Hispanic

Household Income

 Less than $25,000

 $25,000-$50,000

 $50,000-$75,000

 $75,000-$100,000

 More than $100,000

Education

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Urban

65.9

71.2

52.1

48.6

38.0

62.8

80.2

88.6

94.8

30.5

52.8

70.8

85.5

Rural

51.0

54.2

28.7

36.9

28.0

52.4

73.6

81.3

86.1

21.7

43.6

62.0

74.7

Table 4: Household Broadband

Internet Use by Metropolitan Status,

Race, and Income, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) 

and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, 

October 2009, and ESA calculations.

Household Broadband Internet Use: Percent of households

connecting to the Internet at home using broadband

Race and Income

Non-Hispanic White

 Household Income: Less than $25,000

 Household Income: $25,000-$50,000

 Household Income: $50,000-$75,000

 Household Income: More than $75,000

Non-Hispanic Black

 Household Income: Less than $25,000

 Household Income: $25,000-$50,000

 Household Income: $50,000-$75,000

 Household Income: More than $75,000

Hispanic

 Household Income: Less than $25,000

 Household Income: $25,000-$50,000

 Household Income: $50,000-$75,000

 Household Income: More than $75,000

Urban

42.6

66.3

81.7

92.8

33.1

59.6

76.4

88.2

27.4

49.3

71.3

88.7

Rural

31.3

53.8

74.6

84.2

16.8

36.9

61.5

71.9

18.5

39.6

70.0

73.1
urban households headed by someone with less

than a high school degree (27%). 

Section 4.2: Marginal Effects of

Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics on the Likelihood

that a Household Uses Broadband

Internet at Home 

The finding that socio-economic characteristics, as

well as race, ethnicity, and geographic location are

highly correlated with adoption of home broadband

Internet services has important implications. These

household attributes are themselves correlated with

each other. For instance, income and education are

likely to be higher in urban areas if employment

opportunities requiring high levels of skills and

specialization are disproportionately located in urban

areas. As a result, it is not clear from the tabulations

we have seen so far how much of the urban-rural gap in adoption is driven by differences in income

and education between urban and rural residents. The same issue applies for race and ethnicity, that

is, looking at average adoption levels by race and ethnicity does not tell us how much of the adoption

gap associated with race and ethnicity is explained by differences in socio-economic factors.

The rest of this section will utilize a regression analysis framework that estimates the impact of

multiple factors together on the probability that a household adopts broadband Internet services at

home. The results allow us to isolate or distinguish the effect of any one factor while holding all other

factors constant. We refer to these results as the marginal effect of selected demographic and

geographic characteristics on household broadband Internet use. The factors that we control for in

this analysis include household income, education, age, race, ethnicity, foreign-born status, household

size (total number of persons in household), disability status, and geographic location (urban-rural

location and state). Note that the CPS data do not provide information on broadband Internet

availability and price in a household’s immediate location, which is why we are unable to directly

control for these factors. Both price and availability are important determinants of adoption. The

regression analysis, however, accounts for a household’s geographic location (urban versus rural

location, the size of the urban area a household lives in, and state).7 As a result, these household

geographic characteristics would capture some of the variation in broadband Internet price and

availability along these geographic dimensions. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

10 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table 5: Household Broadband

Internet Use by Metropolitan Status,

Race, and Education, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) 

and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, 

October 2009, and ESA calculations.

Household Broadband Internet Use: Percent of households

connecting to the Internet at home using broadband

Race and Education

Non-Hispanic White

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Non-Hispanic Black

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Hispanic

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Urban

34.4

56.6

74.1

86.9

26.9

42.4

57.0

76.9

26.0

45.4

67.0

77.9

Rural

23.3

46.4

64.3

75.6

10.7

24.0

43.0

55.8

25.0

30.8

56.0

68.8

7 Table 6 and Figure 3 show the adoption gap between urban and rural households without controlling for urban area size. Figure 4

and Appendix Table A3 (column 2) show the urban-rural gap by urban area size. 
The full set of regression results from this analysis is presented in Section A3 of the Appendix. Table

6 presents the estimated marginal effects of selected demographic and geographic factors on the

probability of broadband Internet adoption at home. The marginal effect of a particular household

characteristic, for instance, the impact of living in an urban location, is the isolated effect of an urban

location on the likelihood of broadband Internet use, after holding constant the above mentioned

characteristics. In other words, the marginal effect of living in an urban location is the gap in average

broadband Internet adoption between urban and rural households, after accounting for differences

between urban and rural households in income, education, age, race, ethnicity, household size,

foreign-born status, disability status, and state of residence. 

According to the results in Table 6, the likelihood of broadband Internet adoption among households

with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000 is 16 percentage points higher than that among

households with incomes less than $25,000, after accounting for differences in other characteristics

(education, age, race, ethnicity, household size, foreign-born status, disability status, urban-rural

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 11

Table 6: Marginal Effects of Selected Demographic and Geographic Characteristics on

the Likelihood that a Household Uses Broadband Internet at Home, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: Sample includes all households with the head of the household at least 16 years of age and with non-missing data on household income. The 

sample size declines from 54,280 for tabulations to 43,662 for regressions because of excluding observations with missing data on household 

income. Controls for age, household size and state of residence are included. See Appendix Table A3 (column 1) for the full set of regression 

results. *This category includes Native Americans, Hawaiian/Pacific Islanders, and those who report two or more races. 

Adoption Gap: Difference in average broadband Internet adoption after controlling for demographic and geographic factors 

Adoption Gap

(Percentage point)

16

27

31

34

11

23

29

10

14

0

5

7

6

5

43,662

94,963,684

Household Characteristic

Household Income

 Gap between households with incomes $25,000 to $50,000 and households with incomes less than $25,000

 Gap between households with incomes $50,000 to $75,000 and households with incomes less than $25,000

 Gap between households with incomes $75,000 to $100,000 and households with incomes less than $25,000

 Gap between households with incomes more than $100,000 and households with incomes less than $25,000

Education

 Gap between those with a high school degree and those with less than high school degree

 Gap between those with some college and those with less than high school degree

 Gap between those with college degree or more and those with less than high school degree

Race and Ethnicity

 Gap between Non-Hispanic White and Non-Hispanic Black

 Gap between Non-Hispanic White and Hispanic

 Gap between Non-Hispanic White and Non-Hispanic Asian

 Gap between Non-Hispanic White and Other*

Urban-Rural

 Gap between urban and rural households

Foreign-born Status

 Gap between U.S. citizens and foreign-born non-citizens

Disability

 Gap between those with no disability and with disability

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households
status, and state of residence). Note that Table 1 showed average broadband Internet usage rates of

61% and 36% for these two groups, implying an adoption gap of 25 percentage points before

controlling for these other factors. This means that differences in other characteristics like education,

race, ethnicity, age, geographic location, household size, foreign-born status, and disability explain

some of the differences in broadband Internet adoption between these two groups. Therefore, the

adoption gap declines from 25 percentage points to 16 percentage points once we account for these

attributes. 

Relative to households in the lowest income category (less than $25,000), the increased likelihood of

adoption, or adoption gap, is 27 percentage points for households with family incomes between

$50,000 and $75,000; 31 percentage points for households with family incomes between $75,000

and $100,000; and 34 percentage points for households with family incomes exceeding $100,000.

Two implications are apparent. First, income is strongly associated with broadband Internet use. The

positive association between income and broadband connectivity persists even after accounting for

differences in a large number of key characteristics including education, age race, ethnicity, and

geography. Second, the rising effect of income diminishes as income grows.

A similar phenomenon is apparent for education. According to Table 6, the likelihood of broadband

Internet use, on average, is 11 percentage points higher among households that are headed by

someone with a high school degree compared to households that are headed by someone with less than

a high school degree, again holding all other factors equal. The adoption gap is 23 percentage points

between those with some college and those without a high school diploma, and 29 percentage points

between those with at least a college degree and those without a high school diploma. As with income,

this suggests that education is strongly associated with broadband Internet adoption, even after

accounting for differences in income, age, race, ethnicity, and a number of other key characteristics.

Households with higher levels of income and education are more likely to have the necessary resources

and skills to obtain and use broadband Internet services at home.

Table 1 showed average broadband Internet usage rates of 68% for non-Hispanic White households,

49% for non-Hispanic Black households, and 48% for Hispanic households, implying that the gap

in average adoption was 19 percentage points between White and Black households, and

20 percentage points between White and Hispanic households. Table 6 shows that, once we have

controlled for socio-economic and geographic attributes, the White-Black adoption gap declines to 10

percentage points and the White-Hispanic adoption gap declines to 14 percentage points. Figure 2

plots these White-Black and White-Hispanic adoption gaps. Figure 2 uses two bars to display the

adoption gap between any two groups of people. The bottom bar of each pair (which is also the

longer bar) shows the gap in average adoption from Table 1. The top bar of each pair (which is also

the shorter bar) shows the remaining unexplained adoption gap after accounting for differences in

household demographic, socio-economic, and geographic characteristics (from Table 6). The

remaining gap suggests that the broadband Internet adoption gap associated with race and ethnicity

is not entirely explained by differences in income or other non-income attributes. Income, education,

age, foreign-born status, and other demographic and geographic characteristics explain about one-half

of the White-Black gap and one-fourth of the White-Hispanic gap in broadband Internet usage.

As a result, a sizeable gap in adoption remains after controlling for socio-economic and

geographic factors.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

12 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
Table 2 showed average broadband Internet usage rates of 66% for urban households and 51% for

rural households, reflecting a 15 percentage point urban-rural gap in broadband Internet usage. Our

analysis shows that differences in socio-economic and demographic characteristics explain about half

of this urban-rural adoption gap. In other words, an adoption gap of 7 percentage points remains

between urban and rural dwellers even after controlling for differences in income, education, race,

ethnicity, age, household size, foreign-born status, disability status, and state of residence. Figure 3

shows the urban-rural adoption gap. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 13

Figure 2: Race and Ethnicity-related Gap in Broadband Internet Adoption

Before and After Controlling for Household Characteristics, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and 

ESA calculations.

20

19

14

10

0 5 10 15 20 25

Percentage Point Gap in Average Adoption 

Remaining Adoption Gap After Controlling for Household Characteristics 

Gap in Average Broadband Adoption

Gap between 

non-Hispanic White 

and non-Hispanic 

Black

Gap between 

non-Hispanic White 

and Hispanic
Our analysis also shows that the urban-rural gap in broadband Internet adoption varies with the size

of the urban area. Compared to rural residents, the likelihood of broadband Internet use is 9

percentage points higher for households residing in urban areas with populations exceeding two and

half million, and 6 to 7 percentage points higher for households living in urban areas with populations

less than two and half million (Appendix Table A3, Column 2). According to Table 2, the urban-rural

gap in adoption, before controlling for socio-economic factors and state of residence, ranged from 12

percentage points to 20 percentage points depending on the size of the urban area. Figure 4 plots

these adoption gaps by the size of the urban area. This again implies that socio-economic factors

explain a substantial, but not the entire, urban-rural broadband Internet adoption gap. Broadband

Internet price and availability are likely to explain some of the remaining urban-rural gap—the higher

adoption rates in larger urban areas may be driven by lower prices and more availability of broadband

Internet services in these areas. 

Table 1 showed average broadband Internet adoption rates of 38% for households headed by someone

with a disability and 68% for households headed by someone with no disability, implying a 30

percentage point adoption gap. The gap in adoption declines to 5 percentage points after controlling

for socio-economic and geographic characteristics (Table 6), implying that the vast majority of the

adoption gap associated with disability is explained by differences in these factors. This was not the

case for race and ethnicity where a sizeable gap in adoption remained. Figure 5 shows the adoption

gap associated with disability. 

Table 6 also shows that foreign-born non-citizen households were, on average, 6 percentage points less

likely than their U.S. citizen counterparts to subscribe to broadband Internet. This means that income,

education, race, ethnicity and other observed characteristics explain more than half of the initial 13

percentage point gap in adoption between foreign-born non-citizens and American citizens (Table 1). 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

14 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Figure 3: Urban-Rural Gap in Broadband Internet Adoption

Before and After Controlling for Household Characteristics, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and 

ESA calculations.

Remaining Adoption Gap After Controlling for Household Characteristics 

Gap in Average Broadband Adoption

15

7

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Gap between Urban

and Rural

Percentage Point Gap in Average Adoption 
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 15

Figure 4: Urban-Rural Gap in Broadband Internet Adoption Before and After

Controlling for Household Characteristics, by Urban Area Size, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and 

ESA calculations.

Remaining Adoption Gap After Controlling for Household Characteristics 

Gap in Average Broadband Adoption

Percentage Point Gap in Average Adoption 

16

20

15

12

9

9

7

6

0 5 10 15 20 25

Gap between Urban (with 

population less than 1 

million) and Rural

Gap between Urban (with 

population between 1 and 

2.5 million) and Rural

Gap between Urban (with 

population between 2.5 

and 5 million) and Rural

Gap between Urban (with 

population more than 5 

million) and Rural

Figure 5: Disability-related Gap in Broadband Internet Adoption

Before and After Controlling for Household Characteristics, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and 

ESA calculations.

Remaining Adoption Gap After Controlling for Household Characteristics 

Gap in Average Broadband Adoption

Percentage Point Gap in Average Adoption 

30

5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Gap between People 

with no disability and 

with disability
In addition, our estimates show that the likelihood of broadband Internet use increases with age up

to about age 30 to 35, after which it declines as age increases (not shown here). The state indicator

variable accounts for a separate state-specific effect (these are not reported) and shows that significant

differences exist in broadband Internet use across states, even after accounting for differences in

income, education, urban-rural status, and other household characteristics. Finally, our analysis shows

that the likelihood of home broadband Internet use increases with household size. 

In summary, the regression results presented in this section suggest that income and education are

strongly associated with broadband Internet use at home but are not the sole determinants. Other

factors, particularly race, ethnicity, and urban-rural location, are also independently associated with

home broadband Internet adoption. The adoption gaps associated with race and ethnicity, or urban

and rural locations, are not entirely explained by socio-economic characteristics, i.e., these gaps do not

disappear after accounting for differences in income, education, and a number of other key household

attributes. Socio-economic factors, however, explain a substantial portion of the adoption gap

associated with disability. 

As mentioned previously, the decision to adopt broadband or any other type of Internet service

technology at home likely occurs at the household level after evaluating the cost of the technology

relative to the collective benefit of the technology for all household members. This suggests that the

decision-making process is likely to vary across household types. We looked at the marginal effects of

socio-economic and geographic attributes for four different household types—married couples with

children, single parents with children, family households without children, and non-family

households. The association between broadband Internet use and socio-economic and geographic

attributes was quite robust across different household types. A brief discussion of these results is

presented in Section A4 of the Appendix.

The CPS data do not provide information on price and availability of broadband Internet in a

household’s immediate location, which is why we are unable to account for these factors and therefore

unable to distinguish how much of the variation across socio-economic and geographic dimensions is

likely driven by demand versus supply-related factors. Part of the non-adoption may result from lower

demand for broadband Internet, related to affordability or cost. But some non-adoption may occur

because of lack of supply or availability of broadband Internet services. For instance, are rural

residents less likely to adopt because they have lower demand for broadband Internet or because

broadband Internet availability is limited in their location? 

The CPS Internet Use Supplement does ask households to state their main reason for not using home

broadband Internet services. The next section will analyze these reasons. We will see that factors like

affordability, perceived need or interest, complementary equipment, and availability all play

significant roles in a household’s adoption decision. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

16 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
Section 5: Main Reason for Non-Adoption

of Home Broadband Internet 

This section will analyze the principal reason for not having broadband Internet access at home. The

CPS asks three types of non-users to state their main reason for not using home broadband Internet

services—households that do not use the Internet generally, households that do not use the Internet

specifically at home but report using the Internet elsewhere, and households that use a dial-up

Internet service at home. Figure 6 tabulates the responses from all households without broadband

Internet access, whereas Sections 5.1-5.3 separately analyze the responses from each group in order to

understand whether adoption decisions of different groups are impacted by different factors. Note

that the reasons provided by households reflect their subjective opinion since a household may not

have full information on pricing, availability, or the benefit of using broadband Internet. For instance,

a household may believe that broadband Internet is not available in its area, but be misinformed. As

a result, any comparison across households, while informative, needs to be done with caution. 

Figure 6 shows that the most commonly cited reason for not having broadband Internet access at

home was “don’t need” (38%), followed by “too expensive”(26%) and “inadequate computer” (18%).

The next three sections, however, will show that the relative significance of these factors varies across

different types of non-users. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 17

Figure 6: Main Reason for Non-Adoption of Home Broadband Internet, 2009

Don’t need it - not interested

38%

Not available in area

4%

Lack of confidence or skill

3%

No computer or

computer inadequate

18%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and 

ESA calculations.

Note: The figure does not include the categories that were reported as the main reason by less than 1% of non-users. 

Other reasons

6%

Can use it somewhere else

4%

Too expensive

26%
Section 5.1: Among Internet Non-Users 

Figure 1 in Section 3 showed that almost one-fourth of American households (23%) in 2009 reported

that no one in those households used the Internet at any location. This section will analyze the reasons

given by these households for not having broadband Internet access at home. This group accounts

for 65% of all those that do not access broadband Internet at home.

Lack of need or interest was the most commonly cited reason for not using broadband Internet

services at home. Figure 7 shows that 47% of households who did not use the Internet cited “don’t

need it—not interested” as their principal reason for not subscribing to home broadband Internet

services. Another 22% cited lack of an adequate computer. Only 19% cited affordability or cost.

This means that a perceived lack of value or need was a more significant factor than affordability for

non-use of broadband Internet services.

Table 7 shows the results for the overall sample as well as for urban and rural households. The two

right columns of Table 7 show that the rankings are largely unchanged for urban and rural households.

A larger share of rural households than their urban counterparts, however, stated lack of need as the

major reason (52% compared to 46%), while a smaller share of rural households stated affordability

as the major deterrent (16% compared to 20%). Lack of availability was not a significant impediment

for either group. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

18 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Figure 7: Main Reason Provided by Internet Non-Users, 2009

Don’t need it - not interested

47%

Lack of confidence

or skill

4%

No computer or

computer inadequate

22%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and 

ESA calculations.

Note: The figure does not include the categories that were reported as the main reason by less than 1% of non-users. See column 1 of Table 7 for 

the full set of results.

Other reasons

5%

Can use it 

somewhere else

1%

Too expensive

19%
Table 8 shows the reasons by income categories. A lack of need or interest was the primary reason for

non-use in every income group. Affordability was much more important for low-income households,

however. Lack of an adequate computer played an important role for all households.

Table 9 identifies the reasons for non-use by race and ethnicity. The most important factor for all groups

was need, although more White households than Black and Hispanic households gave this as the primary

reason. In addition, affordability was a more significant factor for Black and Hispanic households.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 19

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 7: Main Reason Provided by Internet Non-Users, by Metropolitan Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations..

Note: The sample size for urban and rural households does not add up to the total sample size because metropolitan-nonmetropolitan status is not 

identified for a small number of households. The share of households not using the Internet in 2009 was 23% for all households, 22% for urban 

households, and 32% for rural households.

All

47.2

18.6

1.4

0.7

22.3

0.3

0.1

4.3

5.1

12,467

27,821,275

Rural

51.5

15.6

0.7

1.1

23.0

0.3

0.1

3.7

4.1

3,469

6,042,974

Urban

46.0

19.5

1.6

0.5

22.1

0.3

0.1

4.5

5.4

8,902

21,585,515

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 8: Main Reason Provided by Internet Non-Users, by Income, 2009 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The share of households not using the Internet in 2009 was 23% for all households, 47% for households with incomes less than $25,000, 22% 

for households with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000, 8% for households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000, and 4% for households 

with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000. The highest income category (income exceeding $100,000) was omitted because only a small 

minority, 2%, of households in this category did not use the Internet. 

Income

$25,000-$50,000

48.3

17.9

2.2

0.8

21.0

0.4

0.2

3.6

5.6

2,619

5,738,875 

Income

$75,000-$100,000

54.0

7.4

4.4

2.8

19.4

0.8

0.7

4.3

6.2

183

399,577 

Income

$50,000-$75,000

47.7

14.8

2.5

1.4

22.6

1.1

0

4.5

5.3

643

1,416,225

All

47.2

18.6

1.4

0.7

22.3

0.3

0.1

4.3

5.1

12,467

27,821,275

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

Income Less

than $25,000

42.0

22.2

1.0

0.5

24.4

0.2

0

4.8

5.0

5,550

12,410,004 
Section 5.2: Among Households Using the Internet Outside of Home 

Figure 1 showed that 8% of American households in 2009 did not access the Internet from home but

used it elsewhere. This section will analyze the reasons given by these households for not subscribing

to home broadband Internet services. This group represents 22% of those that do not use broadband

Internet at home.

Unlike the primary reason provided by Internet non-users (lack of need or interest), the most

commonly cited reason by households that did not use the Internet specifically at home was related

to affordability or cost. This is not surprising since these persons used the Internet, but not at home,

demonstrating their perceived interest and need for high-speed Internet. Figure 8 shows that 40% of

households that used the Internet at a place other than home cited “too expensive” as the main

impediment to using broadband Internet at home. Another 17% cited lack of need or interest, 17%

cited lack of an adequate computer, and 15% cited the ability to use it somewhere else. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

20 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 9: Main Reason Provided by Internet Non-Users, by Race and Ethnicity, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations..

Note: The share of households not using the Internet in 2009 was 23% for all households, 20% for White households, 32% for Black 

households, and 36% for Hispanic households. 

Non-Hispanic

Black

40.7

23.5

1.8

0.4

23.6

0.3

0.1

3.9

5.7

1,778

4,774,134

Hispanic

35.0

29.4

1.9

0.5

26.0

0.1

0.2

3.2

3.7

1,824

4,978,057

All

47.2

18.6

1.4

0.7

22.3

0.3

0.1

4.3

5.1

12,467

27,821,275

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

Non-Hispanic

White

53.0

14.1

1.1

0.7

21.1

0.3

0.1

4.3

5.3

8,259

16,862,626
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 21

Figure 8: Main Reason Provided by Households Using the Internet Outside of Home, 

2009

Too expensive

40%

Not available in area

3% Don’t need it - not interested

17%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and 

ESA calculations.

Note: The figure does not include the categories that were reported as the main reason by less than 1% of non-users. See column 1 of Table 10 

for the full set of results.

No computer or

computer inadequate

17%

Other reasons

8%

Can use it 

somewhere else

15%

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 10: Main Reason Provided by Households Using the

Internet Outside of Home, by Metropolitan Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations..

Note: The sample size for urban and rural households does not add up to the total sample size because metropolitan-nonmetropolitan status is not 

identified for a small number of households. The share of households using the Internet at a location other than home in 2009 was 8% for all 

households, 8% for urban households, and 10% for rural households.

All

16.7

39.7

14.8

2.7

16.9

0.3

0.4

0.4

8.2

4,295

9,522,716

Rural

17.9

36.5

14.9

5.0

16.5

0.1

1.1

0.3

7.8

1,097

1,851,736

Urban

16.5

40.6

14.7

2.1

16.9

0.3

0.2

0.5

8.3

3,158

7,582,552

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households
Table 10 shows the results for the overall sample as well as for urban and rural households. The two

right columns of Table 10 show that urban and rural households rank these factors in a similar

manner. Lack of availability, cited by 5% of rural households and 2% of urban households, was not

a major deterrent to home broadband Internet use. As we will see in the next section, this is not the

case for households using a dial-up Internet service. 

Table 11 identifies the major reasons for not using broadband Internet at home by income categories.

Affordability was the primary factor for households in the two lower income categories whereas other

factors, like lack of demand, availability somewhere else, and lack of an adequate computer, were at

least as important as affordability for households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000. This

suggests that affordability was among the top issues for Internet users that did not purchase home

broadband Internet services, and this is true across a broad range of incomes. 

Table 12 shows the primary reasons for not using broadband Internet at home by race and ethnicity.

The most important reason was once again related to expense. However, a larger share of Black and

Hispanic households (46% and 47%, respectively) than White households (35%) cited expense as the

primary deterrent. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

22 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 11: Main Reason Provided by Households Using

the Internet Outside of Home, by Income, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The share of households using the Internet at a location other than home in 2009 was 8% for all households, 12% for households with 

incomes less than $25,000, 10% for households with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000, 6% for households with incomes between $50,000 

and $75,000, and 4% for households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000. The highest income category (income exceeding $100,000) was 

omitted because only a small minority, 2%, of households in this category used the Internet at a location other than home.

Income

$25,000-$50,000

17.8

35.3

15.9

3.4

17.4

0.5

0.4

0.6

8.7

1,229

2,675,640

Income

$75,000-$100,000

26.2

17.6

21.6

8.6

15.6

0

0

0.1

10.4

193

397,588

Income

$50,000-$75,000

27.3

26.6

17.8

2.6

13.5

0.3

0.6

0.5

10.8

535

1,119,851

All

16.7

39.7

14.8

2.7

16.9

0.3

0.4

0.4

8.2

4,295

9,522,716

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

Income Less

than $25,000

8.5

53.6

10.3

1.0

19.2

0

0.4

0.4

6.5

1,452

3,282,895
Section 5.3: Among Households with Dial-up Internet Access 

Figure 1 showed that 5% of American households in 2009 used a dial-up telephone service to access

the Internet from home. This group comprises the underlying sample for Figure 9 and Tables 13

through 15 (representing 13% of those that do not access broadband Internet at home), and their

responses for why they use a dial-up service, as opposed to a broadband Internet connection, are

tabulated in these tables. 

Figure 9 shows that the most commonly cited reason among dial-up users for not subscribing to

broadband Internet at home in 2009 was “too expensive” (41%), followed by “don’t need it – not

interested” (27%), and lack of availability (20%).

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 23

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 12: Main Reason Provided by Households Using

the Internet Outside of Home, by Race and Ethnicity, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The share of households using the Internet at a location other than home in 2009 was 8.0% for all households, 7% for White households, 14% 

for Black households, and 11% for Hispanic households. 

Non-Hispanic

Black

13.6

45.5

12.3

1.2

20.6

0.2

0.5

0.3

5.7

747

2,026,284

Hispanic

13.8

47.0

12.2

0.9

17.4

0.4

0.5

0.6

7.2

579

1,533,738

All

16.7

39.7

14.8

2.7

16.9

0.3

0.4

0.4

8.2

4,295

9,522,716

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

Non-Hispanic

White

18.5

35.4

16.3

3.8

15.5

0.2

0.4

0.4

9.3

2,714

5,500,807
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

24 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Figure 9: Main Reason Provided by Households with Dial-up Internet Access, 2009

Too expensive

41%

Can use it somewhere else

2%

Don’t need it - not interested

27%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and 

ESA calculations.

Note: The figure does not include the categories that were reported as the main reason by less than 1% of non-users. See column 1 of Table 13 

for the full set of results.

No computer or

computer inadequate

1%

Other reasons

8%

Not available in area

20%

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 13: Main Reason Provided by Households with

Dial-up Internet Access, by Metropolitan Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The sample size for urban and rural households does not add up to the total sample size because metropolitan-nonmetropolitan status is not 

identified for a small number of households.The share of households using a dial-up Internet access in 2009 was 5% for all households, 4% for 

urban households, and 7% for rural households.

All

27.3

41.3

1.6

19.9

1.1

0.3

0.1

0.8

7.6

2,639

5,648,799

Rural

18.8

37.1

1.0

36.1

0.2

0.4

0

0.4

6.1

799

1,341,764

Urban

29.9

42.7

1.8

14.7

1.4

0.2

0.2

0.9

8.2

1817

4,263,953

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households
Table 13 shows the results for the overall sample as well as for urban and rural households. The two

right columns of Table 13 show that urban and rural dial-up users weighted these reasons differently,

however. Lack of availability was as important as affordability for rural dial-up users. Slightly more

than one-third (36%) of rural households with dial-up said that lack of broadband availability was

their primary reason for not using broadband Internet services, compared to a much smaller share

(15%) of their urban counterparts. This implies that lack of availability (or at least a perceived lack

of availability) is a more significant deterrent in rural areas than urban areas. 

Table 14 identifies the reasons for not purchasing broadband Internet service by income levels. The

most important reason, once again, was related to affordability for all but the group of households

with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000 (lack of demand, expense, and lack of availability were

reported by approximately the same share of households in this group). This means that affordability

is a major concern for households across a broad range of incomes. A perceived lack of demand was

equally important across the income groups, whereas lack of availability was more important for

higher income households.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 25

Table 14: Main Reason Provided by Households

with Dial-up Internet Access, by Income, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The share of households using dial-up Internet access in 2009 was 5% for all households, 4% for households with incomes less than $25,000, 

6% for households with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000, 6% for households with incomes between $50,000 and $75,000, and 4% for 

households with incomes between $75,000 and $100,000. The highest income category (income exceeding $100,000) was omitted because only a 

small minority, 2%, of households in this category had a dial-up Internet access. 

Income

$25,000-$50,000

25.4

44.0

1.0

18.9

0.8

0.2

0.3

0.9

8.6

783

1,608,936

Income

$75,000-$100,000

25.5

30.7

3.6

25.9

0.7

0.4

0.8

0

12.4

192

413,788

Income

$50,000-$75,000

27.1

36.7

1.9

25.3

1.9

0.3

0

1.0

5.7

472

993,354

All

27.3

41.3

1.6

19.9

1.1

0.3

0.1

0.8

7.6

2,639

5,648,799

Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

Income Less

than $25,000

25.9

49.5

1.3

14.7

1.4

0.2

0

0.6

6.5

532

1,155,790

Distribution of main reason by households (%)
Table 15 shows similar trends, looking at separate race and ethnic groups. The most important reason

for not using broadband Internet was related to expense, although a larger share of Hispanic and Black

households (56% and 50%, respectively) than White households (38%) reported “too expensive” as

their primary impediment. Lack of availability was more important for White and Black households

than Hispanic households. This means a much smaller share of Hispanic households felt impacted

by a perceived lack of availability than White and Black households. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

26 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 15: Main Reason Provided by Households with

Dial-up Internet Access, by Race and Ethnicity, 2009 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The share of households using dial-up Internet access in 2009 was 5% for all households, 5% for White households, 4% for Black households, 

and 4% for Hispanic households. 

Non-Hispanic

Black

28.8

50.0

1.3

13.5

0.5

0.5

0

1.1

4.3

265

653,916

Hispanic

22.0

55.5

4.7

6.2

1.1

0

0

0.7

9.8

229

600,717

All

27.3

41.3

1.6

19.9

1.1

0.2

0.1

0.8

7.6

2,639

5,648,799

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

Non-Hispanic

White

27.5

37.8

1.3

23.3

1.2

0.3

0.2

0.7

7.8

2,033

4,147,090
Section 6: Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

of Broadband versus Dial-up Internet Users

This section compares household-level attributes among broadband-using and dial-up-using

households. Households that utilized a dial-up Internet service in 2009 accounted for a small

minority (7%) of households using the Internet at home, whereas broadband users accounted for the

vast majority (93%). The share of dial-up Internet users is shrinking, and the decline in dial-up users

has been more than offset by the expansion in broadband-Internet-using households. It is still useful

to analyze how dial-up-using households differ from their broadband-using counterparts because such

a comparison can help to explain lags in technology adoption. 

Tables 16 and 17 show the distributions of income, education, and a number of other demographic

and geographic characteristics by dial-up-using and broadband-using households. According to these

tables, dial-up users in 2009 were, on average, older, had lower levels of family income and education,

and were more likely to reside in rural areas.

Dial-up Internet users were, on average, less affluent than broadband Internet users. Compared to

households that subscribed to broadband Internet service, a larger share of dial-up users had family

incomes less than $25,000 and a smaller share had incomes exceeding $100,000 (Table 16). Dial-up

Internet users also obtained less education than broadband Internet users. Compared to broadband

Internet users, a lower fraction of dial-up users had a college degree and a higher share had less than

a high school degree. 

Dial-up Internet users were older with an average age of 54, compared to 47 among broadband

Internet users. A larger share of dial-up-using households was headed by someone with a disability,

16%, compared to half of that (8%) among their broadband-Internet-using counterparts.

Table 17 looks at geographic attributes and shows that households using dial-up Internet services were

more likely to be rural dwellers. Almost one in four (24%) dial-up Internet users lived in rural areas,

compared to about one in eight broadband Internet users (13%). Compared to dial-up users,

broadband Internet users were more likely to live in large urban areas with populations exceeding one

million (57% of broadband users, compared to 43% of dial-up users, lived in urban areas with

populations exceeding one million). 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 27
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

28 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table 16: Household Demographic Attributes:

Dial-up versus Broadband Internet Users, 2009 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The distributions across the income categories do not sum to 100% since income data are not reported by some households. 

Percent of All Households

Percent of Households connecting to the Internet from home

Family Income

 Less than $25,000

 $25,000-$50,000

 $50,000-$75,000

 $75,000-$100,000

 More than $100,000

Education

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Race and Ethnicity

 White, Non-Hispanic

 Black, Non-Hispanic

 Asian, Non-Hispanic

 American Indian or Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic

 Hispanic

Foreign-Born Status

 Citizens (including foreign born)

 Non-Citizen

Age (mean years)

Gender

 Male

 Female

Household Type

 Married-couple with children

 Single parents (male)

 Single parents (female)

 Family without children

 Non-family households

Disability Status

 Has a disability 

 No disability

 

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

Distribution by Households

using Dial-up Internet (%)

4.7

6.9

20.5

28.5

17.6

7.3

4.7

10.8

36.4

29.7

23.1

73.4

11.6

2.4

0.6

10.6

93.9

6.1

54.4

41.4

49.3

50.7

20.0

2.1

7.1

41.6

29.3

15.7

84.2

2,639

5,648,799 

Distribution by Households

using Broadband Internet (%)

63.5

92.5

12.5

20.9

18.4

11.7

18.6

5.6

23.5

30.9

40.0 

75.2

 9.7

 4.7

 0.5

 8.7

94.8

5.2

46.8

24.1

53.6

46.4

27.4

2.3

7.3

36.1

27.0

8.4

91.1

34,633

75,776,370 
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 29

Table 17: Household Geographic Attributes:

Dial-up versus Broadband Internet Users, 2009 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Region

 Northeast

 Midwest 

 South 

 West 

Urban-Rural Status

 Urban

 Rural

Metropolitan Area (CBSA) Size

 Under 1,000,000

 1,000,000-2,499,999

 2,500,000-4,999,999

 5,000,000 or more 

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households 

Distribution by Households

using Dial-up Internet (%) 

17.1

24.6

35.8

22.5

75.5

23.8

28.0

14.6

12.4

16.2

2,639

5,648,799 

Distribution by Households

using Broadband Internet (%)

19.2

22.0

34.9

23.9

86.6

12.8

26.9

18.1

19.1

19.5

34,633

75,776,370 
Section 7: Disability and Broadband Internet Use

This section analyzes broadband Internet adoption by people with disabilities. The disability

community is a key population group that presents special challenges for adoption of broadband

Internet and other modes of communications. “Disability” is defined by the Americans with

Disabilities Act as "a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity"

(U.S. Department of Justice, 2010).8 There were 36.1 million people with disabilities in 2008, or

about 12.1% of the population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010(b)). More than half have severe

disabilities (Lyle, 2010). 

The analysis presented in Section 4 of this report showed that people with disabilities were less likely

than people with no disabilities to use broadband Internet at home, and that differences in socioeconomic characteristics explain the majority of the adoption gap associated with disability. This

section first looks at the profile of people with disabilities and their Internet and broadband Internet

usage patterns. We then study their main reasons for non-use. In order to be consistent with the rest

of the report, this section looks at broadband Internet (or Internet) adoption at home and its

association with disability status of the head of household. Note that people with disabilities in this

section refer to household heads with disabilities.9

Section 7.1: Profile of People with Disabilities

Table 18 presents data on income, education, age, and geographic location for the entire population,

and separately by disability status of the head of the household. Fourteen percent of household heads,

representing almost 17 million people, had a disability in 2009.10 People with disabilities, on average,

were older with an average age of 63, compared to 48 among householders with no disability. People

with disabilities also had lower levels of household income and obtained less education. Almost half

of all householders with disabilities (45%) had family incomes less than $25,000, compared to a fifth

(19%) of the population with no disability. One in four people with disabilities (25%) did not have

a high school degree, compared to one in ten among people with no disability (10%). People with

disabilities were also more likely to live in rural areas—22% of households where the householder had

a disability lived in rural areas, compared to 15% of those with no disability. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

30 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

8 In the CPS, a person with at least one of the following conditions is considered to have a disability: hearing impairment; blindness;

impaired vision despite wearing glasses; physical, mental, or emotional condition that impairs the ability to concentrate, remember, or

make decisions; difficulty in walking or climbing stairs; difficulty in dressing or bathing; physical, mental, or emotional condition that

impairs the ability to do errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009).

9 Changing the unit of analysis from household level to individual level does not change the underlying patterns (the person-level data

are presented in Section A5 of the Appendix).

10 According to the October 2009 Current Population Survey, which collected information on disability only for adult civilian household

members, there were about 27 million adults with disabilities.
Section 7.2: Internet Use by People with Disabilities

Given that people with disabilities have lower levels of income and education, are older, and are more

likely to reside in rural areas, it is not surprising that they display lower broadband and Internet usage

rates. Table 19 shows Internet and broadband Internet usage rates for the entire population, and

separately by disability status of the household head. Only half of all households (51%) headed by

someone with a disability had an Internet user, compared to the majority of households (81%) headed

by someone without a disability. Only four out of ten households (43%) headed by someone with a

disability subscribed to Internet services at home, compared to seven out of ten households (73%)

where the householder has no disability. Broadband Internet subscription at home showed a similar

pattern (38% compared to 68%).

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 31

Table 18: Household Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics by Disability Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The distributions across the income categories do not sum to 100% since income data are not reported by some households.

Percent of All Households

Family Income

 Less than $25,000

 $25,000-$50,000

 $50,000-$75,000

 $75,000-$100,000

 More than $100,000

Education

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Age (mean years)

Geographic Location

 Urban

 Rural

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

All

Households

100

22.1

21.8

14.7

8.5

12.5

12.3

29.3

28.3

30.1

49.7

83.4

15.9

54,280

119,267,400

Distribution by Households/Householder

where the householder has a disability (%)

14.1

44.9

19.3

8.6

3.4

3.6

24.7

34.4

25.5

15.4

63.0

77.2

22.1

7,935

16,768,677

Distribution by Households/Householder

where the Householder has no disability (%)

85.6

18.5

22.1

15.7

9.3

14.0

10.3

28.5

28.6

32.5

47.6

84.4

14.9

46,140

102,062,153
Section 7.3: Main Reason for Non-Adoption by People with Disabilities

Section 4 of this report showed that socio-economic and geographic characteristics explained most of

the adoption gap associated with disability. This report now looks at the main reason for nonadoption for people with disabilities. Tables 20, 21 and 22 analyze the main reasons for not having

broadband Internet access at home for three types of non-users – households that do not use the

Internet at any location, households that do not use the Internet specifically at home, and households

that use dial-up Internet at home. These tables show that the primary reasons for non-adoption are

largely similar for people with and without disabilities.

Table 20 shows that the main reason provided by Internet non-users was lack of demand, regardless

of disability status. Compared to people with no disabilities, a smaller share of people with disabilities

gave cost as the major reason (14% compared to 21%) and a slightly larger share of people with

disabilities gave lack of confidence or skill as the major reason (6% compared to 4%). 

Unlike Internet non-users, affordability was the biggest impediment to home broadband Internet

access for households that did not use the Internet specifically at home (Table 21). A larger share of

households headed by someone with a disability provided affordability as the principal reason (47%

compared to 39%).

Affordability was among the top concerns for households with dial-up Internet access and was selected

by the same share of such households, regardless of disability status.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

32 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table 19: Average Internet Use by Disability Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Percent of All Households

Internet Use (%)

 At any location

 At home

 Use broadband Internet at home

 Use dialup Internet at home

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

All

Households

100

76.7

68.7

63.5

4.7

54,280

119,267,400

Households where the

Householder has a disability

14.1

50.6

43.4

37.8

5.3

7,935

16,768,677

Households where the

Householder has no disability

85.6

80.9

72.7

67.6

4.7

46,140

102,062,153
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 33

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 20: Main Reason Provided by Internet Non-Users, by Disability Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The share of households not using the Internet in 2009 was 23% for all households, 49% for households headed by someone with a disability, 

and 19% for households headed by someone with no disability. 

No Disability

46.6

20.7

1.8

0.8

21.6

0.3

0.1

3.6

4.6

8,548

19,520,186

All

47.2

18.6

1.4

0.7

22.3

0.3

0.1

4.3

5.1

12,467

27,821,275

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

With Disability

48.8

13.6

0.5

0.4

24.0

0.4

0.0

6.0

6.4

3,912

8,287,550

Distribution of main reason by households (%)

Table 21: Main Reason Provided by Households Using

the Internet Outside of Home, by Disability Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The share of households using the Internet at a location other than home in 2009 was 8% for all households, 7% for households headed by 

someone with a disability, and 8% for households headed by someone with no disability. 

No Disability

17.0

38.6

15.4

2.7

16.8

0.2

0.4

0.5

8.4

3,740

8,309,436

All

16.5

39.7

14.8

2.7

16.9

0.3

0.4

0.4

8.2

4,295

9,522,716

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

With Disability

14.6

47.4

10.3

2.7

17.5

0.5

0.4

0.3

6.4

552

1,205,891
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

34 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table 22: Main Reason Provided by Households with

Dial-up Internet Access, by Disability Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The share of households using dial-up Internet access in 2009 was 5% for all households, 5% for households headed by someone with a 

disability, and 5% for households headed by someone with no disability. 

No Disability

27.3

41.6

1.7

19.7

1.0

0.3

0.2

0.7

7.6

2,212

4,754,852

All

27.3

41.3

1.6

19.9

1.1

0.3

0.1

0.8

7.6

2,639

5,648,799

 Don’t need it – not interested

 Too expensive

 Can use it somewhere else

 Not available in area

 No computer or computer inadequate

 Privacy and security

 Concern for children’s access

 Lack of confidence or skill

 Other reasons

Sample size

Estimated number of households

With Disability

27.4

39.6

1.5

21.0

1.5

0

0

1.2

7.8

425

888,070

Distribution of main reason by households (%)
Section 8: Long-Term Comparisons: 2001 versus 2009

The last section of this report will analyze the change in home broadband Internet adoption over this

decade by comparing the most recent data from 2009 with that collected in 2001.11 Sections 8.1, 8.2,

and 8.3 analyze the growth in broadband Internet adoption over this decade by household

demographic and geographic characteristics. Section 8.4 compares the marginal effects over time of

selected demographic and geographic characteristics on the likelihood of home Internet use (Section

8.4.1) and broadband Internet use (Section 8.4.2).

Section 8.1: Broadband Internet Use by Demographic Characteristics:

2001 versus 2009 

Table 23 presents data on average broadband Internet usage rates by demographic characteristics in

2001 and 2009. Table 23 shows that the share of households with broadband Internet service has

risen sevenfold between 2001 and 2009, from 9% to 64% of households using broadband Internet

services at home. Some of the groups which began with much lower adoption rates in 2001 have since

exhibited significant gains. These impressive gains, however, have not eliminated the gaps within

demographic groups defined by income, education, race, ethnicity, and age. For example, households

in the lowest income group, with annual incomes less than $25,000, exhibited a twelvefold rise in

broadband Internet adoption, from 3% to 36%, while households with incomes exceeding $75,000

saw more than a fourfold rise, from 21% to 92%. Despite the faster rise in the share of lower-income

households with broadband Internet, a sizeable gap in average connectivity between these two groups,

36% compared to 92%, still persisted in 2009. 

A similar pattern holds for other demographic groups. For instance, households where the

householder had at least a college degree were much more likely in 2009 to have broadband Internet

than their counterparts with a high school degree or less, even though households headed by someone

with a high school degree or less experienced faster growth in broadband Internet use. Similarly,

Hispanic households and non-Hispanic Black households had broadband Internet adoption rates

which were half of non-Hispanic White adoption rates in 2001. Both Hispanic households and Black

non-Hispanic households exhibited large gains in connectivity, but substantial gaps in adoption

persisted across the race and ethnic groups in 2009. In 2001, the broadband Internet adoption rate

for seniors (3%) was about one-fourth of the average rate for those between 16 and 44 years of age

(11%). In 2009, the average senior adoption rate was slightly more than half of that for the 16-44

year old group (40% and 71%, respectively). 

All groups have seen impressive growth during this decade in the use of home broadband Internet

services, which has resulted in a “catching-up” between low adopters and high adopters over time.

However, significant adoption gaps persist along demographic and socio-economic dimensions. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 35

11 Broadband refers to a Digital Subscriber Line (DSL) or a cable modem, the two dominant technologies of choice, in the 2001 CPS

Internet Supplement data. In the 2009 CPS Supplement data, broadband refers to DSL, cable modem, fiber optics, satellite, wireless

(such as Wi-Fi), mobile phone or PDA, or some other broadband Internet connection. 
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

36 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table 23: Household Broadband Internet Use

by Demographic Characteristics, 2001 and 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, CPS and 

CPS Computer and Internet Use Supplement, September 2001, and ESA calculations.

Note: *Contrary to 2009, the race and ethnicity indicators in 2001 do not separately identify multi-race categories. As a result, the race and ethnicity 

categories are not strictly comparable between 2001 and 2009.

All

Family Income

 Less than $25,000

 $25,000-$50,000

 $50,000-$75,000

 More than $75,000

Education

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Race and Ethnicity*

 White, Non-Hispanic

 Black, Non-Hispanic

 Asian, Non-Hispanic

 American Indian or Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic

 Hispanic

Foreign-Born Status

 Citizens (including foreign born)

 Non-citizen

Age

 16 to 44 years

 45 to 64 years

 65 years and over

Gender

 Male

 Female

Household Type

 Married-couple with Children

 Single parents (male)

 Single parents (female)

 Family without children

 Non-family households

Sample Size 

Estimated Number of Households

2001

9.2

3.1

7.3

12.2

20.8

2.4

5.7

10.3

16.3

10.2

4.7

15.1

7.6

5.3

9.3

7.7

11.3

10.1

3.1

10.7

7.6

13.9

7.2

5.6

9.1

7.0

56,573

107,064,178

2009

63.5

35.8

61.0

79.3

91.5

28.8

50.9

69.5

84.5

68.0

49.4

77.3

48.3

47.9

64.4

51.0

71.2

68.2

39.9

66.7

60.2

79.8

60.1

56.9

67.7

50.8

54,280

119,267,400

Percent of households connecting to the Internet at home using broadband
Section 8.2: Broadband Internet Use by Geographic Region, and Urban

and Rural Locations: 2001 versus 2009

Table 24 presents average broadband Internet

usage rates by geographic location (region and

urban-rural location) in 2001 and 2009. Table 24

portrays a picture very similar to the one seen in

the previous section --- broadband Internet use

among households living in geographic areas with

historically low adoption rates rose faster than

among their counterparts in high adoption areas

but some differences, particularly between urban

and rural locations, were still present in 2009.

According to Table 24, average broadband

Internet usage rates in the South and the Midwest

were about two-thirds of the average rates in the

Northeast and the West in 2001. Households in

all four regions have seen gains in broadband

Internet adoption, with those in the Midwest and

the South experiencing faster gains and therefore

narrowing the gap with their counterparts in the

Northeast and the West. A similar pattern holds

for urban and rural locations, although there

remained a 15 percentage point urban-rural gap in

home broadband Internet use in 2009.

Section 8.3: Broadband Internet Use by State: 2001 versus 2009

Table 25 ranks the states in descending order by their average broadband Internet adoption rates in

2001 and 2009. The analysis from Section 4 of this report noted that broadband Internet usage varied

significantly across states, even after controlling for household demographic characteristics and urban

and rural locations. It is therefore not surprising that average state-level broadband Internet adoption

rates varied from 42% to 73% in 2009 and from 2% to 18% in 2001. Table 25 shows that the states

in the Northeast and West regions generally exhibited higher broadband Internet access than those in

the South and the Midwest. The state rankings were relatively constant between 2001 and 2009. For

instance, out of the top 15 broadband-Internet-using states in 2001, 11 were still among the top 15

in 2009. The states in the bottom were somewhat unchanged also—out of the bottom 15 states in

2001, 9 states were still among the bottom 15 in 2009.

According to the findings in Section 4, demographic and geographic characteristics - primarily

income, education, race, ethnicity, and the extent of urbanization - explain some but not all of the

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 37

Table 24: Household Broadband Internet

Use by Geographic Location, 2001 & 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and 

CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, 

CPS and CPS Computer and Internet Use Supplement, September 

2001, and ESA calculations.

Note: The terms “urban” and “rural” refer to metropolitan and 

nonmetropolitan areas, respectively. Metropolitan area identifier in 

the 2001 CPS is based on Office of Management and Budget’s 

1990/1993 standards. According to definitions adopted in 1990, the 

term “metropolitan area” collectively referred to metropolitan 

statistical areas (MSAs), consolidated metropolitan statistical areas 

(CMSAs), and primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs). 

Metropolitan area identifier for 2009 is based on “core based 

statistical area” (CBSA) which refers collectively to metropolitan and 

micropolitan statistical areas.

Percent of households connecting to the Internet at home

using broadband

All Households

Region

 Northeast

 Midwest

 South

 West

Urban-Rural Status

 Urban

 Rural

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

2001

9.2

11.3

7.2

7.9

11.7

10.5

3.8

56,573

107,064,178

2009

63.5

67.0

62.2

60.0

68.0

65.9

51.0

54,280

119,267,400
variation in broadband Internet adoption rates

across states. This raises the following

question: how much of the variation in

adoption across states is driven by variation in

broadband Internet availability? The CPS does

not provide information on availability of

broadband Internet services at the household’s

location. In order to compare adoption with

availability, we utilized state-level data from the

Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

The FCC collects data on high-speed Internet

access services – both on adoption (number of

high-speed Internet connections by type and

speed of technology and by state) and

availability (number of high-speed Internet

service providers, by census tract level and

state) (FCC, 2010). In order to compare the

adoption measure used in this report with that

from the FCC, we compared average state-level

broadband Internet adoption from the CPS

with FCC’s data on the number of high-speed

residential connections by state. We found that

the two independent measures of adoption

were highly positively correlated, validating the

reliability of the home broadband Internet

adoption measure from the CPS. In order to

compare adoption with availability, we utilized

three measures of availability at the state level

from the FCC: total number of high-speed

Internet service providers by state, percent of

residences where the local telephone service

providers provide DSL, and percent of

residences where cable TV service providers

provide cable modem Internet services. We

found only a weak positive association between

our estimated broadband Internet adoption

and the data on availability. This weak

correlation between adoption and availability

at the state level is not surprising. Section 5 on

main reasons for non-adoption showed that

lack of availability primarily impacted rural

households that did not subscribe to a highspeed broadband Internet service at home and

used a slower dial-up service instead. This

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

38 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table 25: Ranking of States by Average Home

Broadband Internet Adoption, 2001 and 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS 

School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, CPS and 

CPS Computer and Internet Use Supplement, September 2001, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The numbers in parentheses next to the 2009 data refer to the 2001 

adoption rate for the state. Because of sampling variability, average 

adoption rates for two states may not be different from one another in a 

statistically significant way. Tables A7 and A8 in Appendix Section A6 

provide the standard error and 90% confidence interval for each state.

Percent of Households

Using Broadband

Internet at Home

73 (12)

73 (14)

73 (13)

73 (14)

72 (12)

72 (11)

71 (11)

70 (9)

70 (18)

70 (9)

69 (11)

69 (10)

68 (7)

68 (13)

67 (6)

67 (12)

67 (6)

67 (8)

67 (10)

67 (6)

67 (10)

66 (7)

66 (12)

66 (6)

65 (8)

64 (7)

64 (10)

63 (6)

63 (5)

62 (9)

62 (9)

62 (8)

61 (8)

61 (10)

61 (8)

60 (9)

60 (9)

59 (7)

58 (3)

57 (7)

57 (5)

56 (4)

56 (8)

55 (10)

55 (2)

54 (3)

53 (8)

52 (4)

51 (4)

48 (5)

42 (6)

State

UT

NH

AK

MA

NJ

WA

CT

OR

HI

MD

RI

CO

NV

CA

ID

AZ

WI

MN

KS

DE

FL

DC

NY

WY

VA

GA

NE

IL

ND

MI

IA

PA

OH

ME

VT

TX

SD

NC

MT

MO

LA

IN

OK

TN

NM

KY

SC

WV

AR

AL

MS

2009 Ranking

Percent of Households

Using Broadband

Internet at Home

18

14

14

13

13

12

12

12

12

11

11

11

10

10

10

10

10

10

9

9

9

9

9

9

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

7

7

7

6

6

6

6

6

6

5

5

5

4

4

4

3

3

2

State

HI

MA

NH

CA

AK

NJ

AZ

NY

UT

CT

WA

RI

TN

CO

FL

KS

NE

ME

OR

TX

MD

MI

SD

IA

SC

PA

VT

MN

OK

VA

OH

DC

MO

NV

GA

NC

ID

IL

DE

WI

WY

MS

LA

AL

ND

WV

AR

IN

MT

KY

NM

2001 Ranking
suggests that one is likely to find a stronger association between adoption and availability only when

using more granular geographic data. State-level data are aggregated across urban and rural areas and

are therefore likely to show little correlation between adoption and availability.

Section 8.4: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics on Adoption Over Time

Given the results of this section, one must ask how the adoption gaps, after accounting for differences

in demographic and geographic characteristics, have changed over the decade. In other words, how

robust are the marginal effects of household characteristics on adoption? Section 4.2 of this report

utilized a regression analysis framework that estimated the impact of multiple factors together on the

probability that a household adopted broadband Internet services at home. The analysis allowed us

to isolate the effect of any one factor, holding everything else constant. We referred to these results as

the marginal effects of selected demographic and geographic characteristics on household broadband

Internet use. The factors that we controlled for included family income, education, age, race,

ethnicity, foreign-born status, household size (total number of persons in household), disability status,

and geographic location (urban-rural location and state). 

In this section we will apply a similar regression analysis framework to estimate the marginal effects of

demographic and geographic factors on home Internet use in 2001 and 2009, and the marginal effects

of demographic and geographic factors on home broadband Internet use in 2007 and 2009. Why do

we focus on home Internet use generally in lieu of home broadband Internet use for the comparative

analysis for 2001 and 2009? Broadband Internet was a relatively new technology in the early 2000s,

which is why both availability and adoption levels at that time were low but both grew significantly

over the decade. In order to compare the impacts of household characteristics on adoption between

two time periods, it is useful to use a metric or indicator of adoption that is consistent over time. This

is why we will first focus on Internet use at home to compare the adoption gaps or marginal effects

between 2001 and 2009 (Section 8.4.1). In order to compare the adoption gaps or marginal effects for

home broadband Internet use, we will use data for 2007 and 2009 (Section 8.4.2).

The full set of regression results from these analyses is presented in Sections A7 and A8 of the

Appendix. The factors that we control for in these analyses include household income, education, age,

race, ethnicity, foreign-born status, household size (total number of persons in household), and

geographic location (urban-rural location and state).12

Section 8.4.1: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood of Home Internet Use, 2001 versus 2009

Between 2001 and 2009, Internet use at home rose by one-third, from 51% to 69% of American

households connecting to the Internet from home. Table 26 presents the estimated marginal effects

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 39

12 Unlike the regression analysis for 2009 presented in Section 4.2, we are unable to control for disability status in this section since

similar data on disability are not available for 2001.
of selected socioeconomic (income, education, race, ethnicity), and geographic (urban-rural status)

factors on the probability of Internet use at home. These marginal effects changed only slightly

between 2001 and 2009. For example, after controlling for various non-income attributes, the gap

between households with incomes exceeding $75,000 and households with incomes less than $25,000

declined slightly, from 37 to 32 percentage points. Compared to households where the householder

has less than a high school degree, the relative gains associated with a high school degree and some

college have risen but those associated with a college degree or more have not changed. 

Table 26 also shows that the White-Black gap in home Internet use, after holding the other attributes

constant, has fallen from 16 percentage points in 2001 to 10 percentage points in 2009, whereas the

White-Hispanic gap remained largely unchanged. This suggests that Internet use in Black

households, on average, has gotten closer to that in White households, after accounting for socioeconomic and geographic characteristics, although the same pattern of convergence does not hold for

Hispanic households. The urban-rural gap in home Internet use stayed similar, implying that the

increased likelihood of home Internet use by urban dwellers relative to their rural-area counterparts

has not changed.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

40 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table 26: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood that a Household Uses Internet at Home, 2001 and 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, CPS and 

CPS Computer and Internet Use Supplement, September 2001 and ESA calculations.

Note: Sample includes all households with the head of household aged 16 or more, and non-missing data on income.

Adoption Gap in 2009

(percentage point)

18

30

32

13

25

30

10

14

2

5

43,662

94,963,684

Adoption Gap in 2001

(percentage point)

16

30

37

10

21

29

16

15

-5

4

47,310

88,963,933

Household Characteristics

Household Income

Gap between households with incomes $25,000-$50,000

and households with incomes less than $25,000

Gap between households with incomes $50,000-$75,000

and households with incomes less than $25,000

Gap between households with incomes exceeding $75,000

 and households with incomes less than $25,000

Education

Gap between those with a high school degree 

and those with less than high school degree

Gap between those with some college 

and those with less than high school degree

Gap between those with a college degree or more 

 and those with less than high school degree

Race and Ethnicity

 Gap between White, Non-Hispanic and Black, Non-Hispanic

 Gap between White, Non-Hispanic and Hispanic

 Gap between White, Non-Hispanic and Asian

Urban-Rural 

 Gap between urban and rural households

Sample Size 

Estimated Number of Households
Section 8.4.2: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics

on the Likelihood of Home Broadband Internet Use, 2007 versus 2009

Between 2007 and 2009, broadband Internet use among households rose by one-fourth, from 51%

to 64% of American households using broadband Internet services. Table 27 compares the marginal

effects of household characteristics on the likelihood of home broadband Internet use between 2007

and 2009. The full set of these regression results is presented in Section A8 of the Appendix. The

marginal effects of household demographic and geographic factors on home broadband Internet

adoption stayed largely unchanged between 2007 and 2009. For example, relative to households in

the lowest income group, the likelihood of adoption rose slightly (from 13 to 17 percentage points)

for households with incomes between $25,000 and $50,000, while the likelihood of adoption fell

slightly (from 39 to 35 percentage points) for households in the highest income group. 

Table 27 also shows that the White-Black and the White-Hispanic gaps in home broadband Internet

use, as well as urban-rural gaps, did not change considerably between 2007 and 2009.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 41

Table 27: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic Characteristics on the

Likelihood that a Household Uses Broadband Internet at Home, 2007 and 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2007 and 

October 2009, and ESA calculations.

Note: Sample includes all households with the head of household aged 16 or more, and non-missing data on income. 

Adoption Gap in 2009

(percentage point)

17

28

32

35

11

23

29

10

14

0

7

43,662

94,963,684

Adoption Gap in 2007

(percentage point)

13

26

33

39

8

21

30

11

12

-4

8

42,481

91,153,697

Household Characteristics

Household Income

Gap between households with incomes $25,000-$50,000

and households with incomes less than $25,000

Gap between households with incomes $50,000-$75,000

and households with incomes less than $25,000

 Gap between households with incomes $75,000-$100,000

and households with incomes less than $25,000

Gap between households with incomes exceeding $100,000

and households with incomes less than $25,000

Education

Gap between those with a high school degree 

 and those with less than high school degree

Gap between those with some college

and those with less than high school degree

Gap between those with a college degree or more 

and those with less than high school degree

Race and Ethnicity

 Gap between White, Non-Hispanic and Black, Non-Hispanic

 Gap between White, Non-Hispanic and Hispanic

 Gap between White, Non-Hispanic and Asian

Urban-Rural 

 Gap between urban and rural households

Sample Size 

Estimated Number of Households
Section 9: Conclusion

Household use of broadband Internet service has risen dramatically during this decade as the Internet

has expanded to become an integral component of life for many American households. Nonetheless,

not everyone uses the Internet or has access to it. This report attempts to analyze what factors are

associated with home broadband Internet adoption, using data from a special 2009 supplement to the

CPS that asked questions about broadband Internet use of more than 50,000 households. 

The analysis determines that some significant adoption gaps exist today, particularly by income and

education levels. For example, controlling for various non-income household attributes, the gap

between households with incomes greater than $100,000 and those with incomes less than $25,000

totals 34 percentage points. Similarly, the controlled gap for those with at least college degrees versus

those with no high school diplomas tallies 29 percentage points. 

However, this report also shows that income and education levels, although strongly associated with

broadband Internet use, are not the sole determinants of broadband Internet adoption by households.

Even after accounting for differences in income and education (and a number of other key household

attributes), there remain significant differences in adoption rates across race and ethnicity, and across

urban and rural areas. For example, the unexplained gaps between Whites and Blacks (10 percentage

points) and Whites and Hispanics (14 percentage points) remain at double digits in 2009. The

adoption gap for rural versus urban is halved once controlled for household attributes, but still

registers 7 percentage points.

This report also finds that lack of need or interest, lack of affordability, lack of an adequate computer,

and lack of availability were all stated as main determinants of non-adoption of broadband Internet

services. The significance of these factors, however, varied across non-users, with affordability and

demand generally dominating. For instance, Internet non-users (representing almost two-thirds of

non-users of broadband at home) reported lack of need or interest as the main reason for not

subscribing to home broadband Internet services, whereas affordability was the most important

deterrent for those who either used the Internet at a location other than home or used a dial-up

Internet service at home. This suggests that those who used the Internet had a higher estimation of

broadband Internet’s value and need than those that did not. The significance of these factors differed

somewhat by income, race, and ethnicity, but affordability appeared to be a major concern for

households even at relatively high income levels.

This report also finds that broadband Internet use among households rose sevenfold, from 9% to

64%, between 2001 and 2009. Some of the groups that had lower than average adoption rates in

2001 have since exhibited impressive gains. Substantial adoption gaps still persist in broadband

Internet access within demographic groups, as well as across states and between urban and rural areas. 

Even though broadband Internet use has expanded significantly during this decade, not all groups are

participating in the Internet revolution to the same extent. For a number of reasons, some groups lag

behind in adopting this technology that has altered the social and economic landscape of the country.

For example, broadband Internet adoption is particularly low among rural low-income Black and

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

42 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
Hispanic households. This report enhances our understanding of the factors that are important

drivers of – or impediments to – adoption. This information may contribute to the national efforts

to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to be linked into the services and information available

through the Internet. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 43
Reference

Lyle, Elizabeth. A Giant Leap and a Big Deal, OBI Working Paper Series No. 2, Federal

Communications Commission, Spring 2010. 

http://download.broadband.gov/plan/fcc-omnibus-broadband-initiative-%28obi%29-

working-report-giant-leap-big-deal-delivering-promise-of-equal-access-to-broadband-forpeople-with-disabilities.pdf

Federal Communications Commission. High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of

December 31, 2008, February 2010.

Horrigan, John. Home Broadband Adoption, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research

Center, June 2009.

Horrigan, John. Broadband Adoption and Use in America, OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, Federal

Communications Commission, February 2010.

Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB Bulletin No. 04-03, Update of Statistical Area

Definitions and Additional Guidance on Their Uses. Accessed June 23, 2010.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/bulletins_fy04_b04-03/

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Digital Nation: 21st Century

America’s Progress Toward Universal Broadband Internet Access, February 2010.

Smith, Aaron. Home Broadband 2010, Pew Internet and American Life Project, Pew Research Center,

August 2010.

U.S. Census Bureau. Computer and Internet Use Supplement File Technical Documentation, CPS-02.

Current Population Survey, September 2001.

http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsoct01.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement File Technical Documentation,

CPS-09. Current Population Survey, October 2009.

http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/cpsoct09.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Accessed June 23, 2010 (a). 

http://www.census.gov/population/www/metroareas/aboutmetro.html

U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. “Table: Selected Social Characteristics in the

United States: 2008.” Accessed July 15, 2010 (b).

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-

qr_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_DP2&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-

_caller=geoselect&-redoLog=true&-format

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

44 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
U.S. Department of Justice. Current text of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 incorporating

the changes made by the ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Americans with Disability Act of 1990.

Accessed July 15, 2010.

http://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 45
Appendix

Section A1: Data

This report utilizes data from the Department of Commerce’s U.S. Census Bureau, taken from the

Census Bureau’s October 2009 Current Population Survey (CPS) of 54,324 interviewed households.

Data collection for the survey took place from October 18 through 26, 2009, and generated response

rates of 92.1 percent for the basic CPS, with 93.8 percent of the CPS respondents answering the

School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement (i.e., 86.4 percent of the CPS sample answered the

supplement).

The households surveyed were selected from the 2000 Decennial Census with coverage in all 50 states

and the District of Columbia. The sample is continually updated to account for new residential

construction. The Census divided the United States into 2,025 geographic areas, each typically

comprised of a county or several contiguous counties. A total of 824 geographic areas were selected

for the 2009 CPS survey. For each household, Census Bureau interviewers spoke to a person (called

the “respondent”) who was at least 15 years old and was considered knowledgeable about everyone in

the household. The survey collected data both at the household level and at the individual level. For

purposes of collecting data at an individual level, the respondent provided responses for himself or

herself and proxy responses for all other members of that household age 3 and older. The survey,

therefore, provided information on more than 129,000 individuals (age 3 and older).

The procedure used in developing estimates for the entire civilian noninstitutional population for the

CPS involves weighting sample results using independent estimates of the population by state, sex,

age, race, and Hispanic/non-Hispanic categories. These independent estimates are developed by the

Census Bureau using civilian noninstitutional population counts from the last decennial census and

projecting them forward to current years using data on births, deaths, and net migration. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

46 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
Section A2: Broadband Internet

Use at the Individual Level, 2009

This section provides data on person-level

broadband Internet use by demographic and

geographic characteristics. The report presents

and analyzes broadband Internet adoption data

at the household level. The underlying trends

do not change if persons, as opposed to

households and heads of households, are the

unit of analysis.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 47

Table A1: Individual Broadband Internet

Use by Demographic Characteristics, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS 

School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: People who report using the Internet at any location and live in a 

household that subscribes to a broadband Internet service are considered 

to use broadband Internet at home. Because of the way the CPS Internet 

Use Supplement questions are constructed, it is not possible to directly 

identify people who use broadband Internet at home. *Sample includes all 

people 3 years of age or older. 

Individual Broadband Internet Use: Percent of persons connecting

to the Internet at home using broadband

All Persons*

Household Income

 Less than $25,000

 $25,000-$50,000

 $50,000-$75,000

 $75,000-$100,000

 More than $100,000

Education

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Race and Ethnicity

 White, Non-Hispanic

 Black, Non-Hispanic

 Asian, Non-Hispanic

 American Indian or Alaskan Native, Non-Hispanic

 Hispanic

Age

 3 to 15 years

 16 to 44 years 

 45 to 64 years

 65 years and over

Gender

 Male

 Female

Household Type

 Married-couple with children

 Single parent (male)

 Single parent (female)

 Family without children

 Non-family household

Disability Status

 Has a disability 

 No disability

Foreign-Born Status

 Citizens (including foreign born)

 Non-Citizen

 

Sample Size

Estimated Population

59.1

31.9

52.4

70.0

78.7

86.5

37.3

48.1

70.6

83.4

65.7

45.9

67.3

42.6

39.7

49.7

68.9

63.2

33.4

59.3

59.0

74.1

54.0

52.3

59.5

50.2

33.1

65.1

60.5

42.3

129,249

289,420,157

Table A2: Individual Broadband Internet

Use by Geographic Characteristics, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and 

CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 

2009, and ESA calculations.

Note: *Sample includes all people 3 years of age or older. 

Individual Broadband Internet Use: Percent of persons

connecting to the Internet at home using broadband

All Persons*

Metropolitan Status

 Urban

 Rural

Metropolitan Area (CBSA) Size

 Under 1,000,000

 1,000,000-2,499,999

 2,500,000-4,999,999

 5,000,000 or more

Sample Size 

Estimated Population

59.1

61.1

48.5

59.3

61.6

65.6

60.1

129,249

289,420,157
Section A3: Marginal Effects of

Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics on the Likelihood

that a Household Uses

Broadband Internet at

Home, 2009

This section contains the underlying regression

results for Table 6 in Section 4.2. Section 4.2

indicates that we utilized a regression analysis

framework to estimate the simultaneous impact

of multiple factors on the probability that a

household adopts broadband Internet services

at home. The results allow us to isolate the

effect of any one factor, holding all the other

factors constant. We refer to these results as the

marginal effects of selected demographic and

geographic characteristics on home broadband

Internet use. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

48 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table A3: Marginal Effects:

Regression of Broadband Internet Adoption

on Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics, 2009

Robust standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School 

Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA calculation

Note: The marginal effects reported on Table 6 in Section 4.2 are from the first column.

Column 1

omitted

0.1597***

(0.007)

0.2730*** 

(0.008)

0.3141*** 

(0.008)

0.3377*** 

(0.008)

omitted

0.1066*** 

(0.008)

0.2282*** 

(0.009)

0.2887*** 

(0.009)

0.0067*** 

(0.001)

-0.0001*** 

(0.000)

omitted

-0.1002*** 

(0.008)

-0.1407*** 

(0.009)

-0.0043 

(0.011)

-0.0486*** 

(0.017)

0.0689*** 

(0.007)

omitted

0.0463* 

(0.026)

-0.0525***

(0.007)

0.0870*** 

(0.023)

-0.0564*** 

(0.011)

0.0255*** 

(0.002)

yes

0.0867*** 

(0.029)

43,662

94,963,684

0.308

Column 2

omitted

0.1593*** 

(0.007)

0.2720*** 

(0.008)

0.3122*** 

(0.008)

0.3343*** 

(0.008)

omitted

0.1065*** 

(0.008)

0.2279*** 

(0.009)

0.2872*** 

(0.009)

0.0068*** 

(0.001)

-0.0001*** 

(0.000)

omitted

-0.1039*** 

(0.008)

-0.1429*** 

(0.009)

-0.0079 

(0.011)

-0.0492*** 

(0.017)

omitted

0.0636*** 

(0.007)

0.0727*** 

(0.008)

0.0908*** 

(0.009)

0.0855*** 

(0.010)

0.0302** 

(0.012)

-0.0520*** 

(0.007)

0.0924*** 

(0.024)

-0.0586*** 

(0.011)

0.0258*** 

(0.002)

yes

0.0888*** 

(0.029)

43,662

94,963,684

0.309

Linear Probability Model

Family Income: Less than $25,000

Family Income: $25,000-$50,000

Family Income: $50,000-$75,000

Family Income: $75,000-$100,000

Family Income: $100,000 or more

Education: Less than High School Degree

Education: High School Degree

Education: Some College

Education: College Degree or more

Age

Age-squared

Non-Hispanic White

Non-Hispanic Black

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Asian

Non-Hispanic, Other

Metropolitan (Urban)

Nonmetropolitan (Rural)

Not-identified (as metropolitan

or nonmetropolitan)

Metropolitan size: Less than 1 million

Metropolitan size: 1 to 2.5 million

Metropolitan size: 2.5 to 5 million

Metropolitan size: 5 million or more

Metropolitan size - not identified

Disability

Disability-not identified

Foreign-born non-citizen

Total number of persons in household

State indicator variables

Constant

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

R-squared
Section A4: Marginal Effects of Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics on the Likelihood that a Household Uses

Broadband Internet at Home, by Household Type, 2009

We performed our regression analysis separately for different household types in order to analyze how

stable or robust the associations are between broadband Internet use and household attributes. Table

A4 shows the marginal effects of demographic and geographic characteristics on the likelihood of

broadband Internet use for four different household types: married-couple households with children,

single-parent households with children, family households without children, and non-family

households.

In this section, we will briefly discuss the results for married-couple households with children and

single-parent households with children. Married-couple families with children represent 22% of our

sample and single-parent families with children represent another 11%. The first column of Table A4

presents the results for the overall sample and the next two columns present the results for the two

sub-groups. 

The marginal effects of most of the characteristics are similar for our two family types, implying that

the association between household attributes and broadband Internet use are rather robust among

these two family types. For example, income has very similar effects on broadband Internet use for

these two groups. The likelihood of broadband Internet use rises with income, and the rising effect

of income diminishes as income grows. The effect of education is similar, except that a college degree

(or more) has a steeper impact on single-parent families than their married-couple counterparts.

Relative to households where the householder has less than a high school degree, a single-parent

household headed by someone with a college degree is 31 percentage points more likely to use

broadband Internet at home (all else similar), compared to 24 percentage points for their marriedcouple counterparts.

The adoption gap between White and Black households is larger for single-parent (11 percentage

points) families than among their married-couple counterparts (6 percentage points). The adoption

gaps between White and Hispanic households are similar for both married-couple and single-parent

households. 

The marginal effects of foreign-born status, disability status, metropolitan status, and household size

are similar for the two groups. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 49
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

50 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table A4: Marginal Effects: Regression of Broadband Internet Adoption on

Demographic and Geographic Characteristics, by Household Type, 2009

Robust standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

All

omitted

0.1597***

(0.007)

0.2730***

(0.008)

0.3141***

(0.008)

0.3377***

(0.008)

omitted

0.1066***

(0.008)

0.2282***

(0.009)

0.2887***

(0.009)

0.0067***

(0.001)

0.0001***

(0.000)

omitted

0.1002***

(0.008)

0.1407***

(0.009)

0.0043

(0.011)

0.0486***

(0.017)

0.0525***

(0.007)

0.0870***

(0.023)

0.0564***

(0.011)

0.0255***

(0.002)

0.0689***

(0.007)

omitted

0.0463*

(0.026)

0.0867***

(0.029)

43,662

94,963,684

0.308

Married-couple

with Children

omitted

0.1552***

(0.019)

0.2524***

(0.019)

0.2718***

(0.020)

0.2963***

(0.019)

omitted

0.1429***

(0.021)

0.2282***

(0.021)

0.2425***

(0.021)

0.0126***

(0.003)

-0.0001***

(0.000)

omitted

-0.0568***

(0.018)

-0.1051***

(0.015)

0.0226

(0.016)

-0.0943***

(0.034)

-0.0453*

(0.024)

0.0879***

(0.031)

-0.0818***

(0.019)

0.0001

(0.004)

0.0704***

(0.013)

omitted

0.1082**

(0.042)

0.0208

(0.079)

9,857

21,734,535

0.258

Single-parents

with Children

omitted

0.1404***

(0.019)

0.2508***

(0.024)

0.3195***

(0.031)

0.3188***

(0.026)

omitted

0.1102***

(0.024)

0.2331***

(0.024)

0.3113***

(0.028)

0.0055

(0.003)

-0.0001

(0.000)

omitted

-0.1118***

(0.021)

-0.1258***

(0.025)

0.0255

(0.055)

-0.0508

(0.041)

-0.0952***

(0.027)

-0.1961

(0.165)

-0.1051***

(0.029)

0.0084

(0.006)

0.0901***

(0.023)

omitted

-0.0189

(0.099)

-0.0205

(0.090)

4,551

10,381,473

0.234

Family Households

without Children

omitted

0.1405***

(0.014)

0.2414***

(0.015)

0.2912***

(0.016)

0.3258***

(0.015)

omitted

0.1094***

(0.016)

0.2267***

(0.016)

0.2683***

(0.016)

0.0075***

(0.002)

-0.0001***

(0.000)

omitted

-0.0868***

(0.016)

-0.1423***

(0.016)

-0.0326

(0.020)

-0.0015

(0.031)

-0.0185

(0.012)

0.1368***

(0.024)

-0.0521**

(0.021)

0.0296***

(0.006)

0.0703***

(0.011)

omitted

0.0541

(0.043)

0.1162**

(0.053)

14,673

30,977,040

0.256

Non-family

Households

omitted

0.1207***

(0.011)

0.2160***

(0.013)

0.2695***

(0.016)

0.2877***

(0.015)

omitted

0.0830***

(0.012)

0.2348***

(0.014)

0.3524***

(0.014)

-0.0026**

(0.001)

-0.0000***

(0.000)

omitted

-0.1051***

(0.013)

-0.1790***

(0.017)

-0.0291

(0.023)

-0.0486*

(0.028)

-0.0577***

(0.011)

0.1282**

(0.054)

-0.0119

(0.020)

0.0430***

(0.008)

0.0630***

(0.012)

omitted

-0.0091

(0.051)

0.3381***

(0.051)

14,581

31,870,635

0.343

Linear Probability Model

Family Income: Less than $25,000

Family Income: $25,000-$50,000

Family Income: $50,000-$75,000

Family Income: $75,000-$100,000

Family Income: $100,000 or more

Education: Less than High School Degree

Education: High School Degree

Education: Some College

Education: College Degree or more

Age

Age-squared

Non-Hispanic White

Non-Hispanic Black

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Asian

Non-Hispanic Other

Disability

Disability - not identified

Foreign-born non-citizen

Total number of persons in household

Metropolitan (Urban)

Nonmetropolitan (Rural)

Not-identified (as metropolitan 

or nonmetropolitan)

Constant

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

R-squared
Section A5: People with Disabilities: Profile and Internet Use, 2009

This section provides data on demographic and geographic characteristics for individuals with

disabilities, and on Internet use by this group. The report presents and analyzes the data at the

household level. The underlying trends do not change if persons, as opposed to households and heads

of households, are the unit of analysis. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 51

Table A5: Person Demographic and Geographic Characteristics by Disability Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Note: The distributions across the income categories do not sum to 100% since income data are not reported by some households.

Percent of All People

Family Income

 Less than $25,000

 $25,000-$50,000

 $50,000-$75,000

 $75,000-$100,000

 More than $100,000

Education

 Less than High School Degree

 High School Degree

 Some College

 College Degree or more

Age (mean years)

Geographic Location

 Urban

 Rural 

Sample Size

Estimated Population

Distribution for People with disabilities (%)

11.2

37.7

21.9

11.2

4.4

5.1

27.3

35.2

23.4

14.2

60.1

78.2

21.1

12,638

27,024,985

Distribution for People with no disability (%)

88.8

15.7

21.1

16.2

10.2

16.2

16.5

28.6

27.3

27.6

42.6

84.5

14.8

94,573

213,523,194

Table A6: Internet Use by

Disability Status, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS 

School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Internet Use (%)

 At any location

 At home

 Use broadband Internet at home

 Use dial-up at home

Sample Size

Estimated Population

People with

disabilities

41.4

37.4

33.1

4.0

12,638

27,024,985

People with

no disability

74.8

69.3

65.1

3.9

94,573

213,523,194
Section A6: Broadband Internet

Use by State, 2001 versus 2009

This section presents average broadband

Internet usage rates by state, as well as the

standard errors and 90% confidence intervals

for the estimated state-level average broadband

Internet adoption rates.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

52 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table A7: Average Broadband

Internet Use by State, 2009

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS 

School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, and ESA 

calculations.

Mean

48

73

67

51

68

69

71

67

66

67

64

70

67

63

56

62

67

54

57

61

70

73

62

67

42

57

58

64

68

73

72

55

66

59

63

61

56

70

62

69

53

60

55

60

73

61

65

72

52

67

66

Standard

Error

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

1

2

Lower Bound

45

70

64

48

66

67

69

64

63

65

62

67

64

61

54

60

64

51

53

59

68

70

60

65

38

55

55

61

65

71

70

51

64

57

60

59

53

67

60

67

50

57

52

58

70

58

63

70

49

65

63

Upper Bound

52

76

70

54

69

71

73

69

69

68

66

73

71

65

59

65

70

57

61

64

72

75

65

69

45

60

62

67

70

75

75

58

67

62

66

64

59

73

64

72

56

62

58

61

76

63

67

75

55

69

68

State

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

90% Confidence Interval

Adoption Rate (%)
EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 53

Table A8: Average Broadband

Internet Use by State, 2001

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS 

Computer and Internet Use Supplement, September 2001, and ESA 

calculations.

Mean

5

13

12

4

13

10

11

6

7

10

7

18

6

6

4

9

10

3

5

10

9

14

9

8

6

7

3

10

7

14

12

2

12

7

5

8

8

9

8

11

8

9

10

9

12

8

8

11

4

6

6

Standard

Error

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Lower Bound

4

11

10

3

12

9

10

5

6

9

6

16

5

5

3

7

8

2

4

8

7

13

8

7

4

6

2

8

6

12

11

1

11

6

3

6

6

8

7

9

7

7

8

8

10

7

6

9

3

5

4

Upper Bound

7

15

14

5

14

12

13

8

9

11

9

21

8

7

5

10

12

4

7

11

9

16

10

9

7

9

5

12

8

16

14

3

13

8

6

9

9

11

9

12

10

11

12

10

14

9

9

12

6

7

7

State

AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

DC

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

KS

KY

LA

ME

MD

MA

MI

MN

MS

MO

MT

NE

NV

NH

NJ

NM

NY

NC

ND

OH

OK

OR

PA

RI

SC

SD

TN

TX

UT

VT

VA

WA

WV

WI

WY

90% Confidence Interval

Adoption Rate (%)
Section A7: Marginal Effects of

Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics on the Likelihood

that a Household Uses

Internet at Home,

2001 versus 2009

This section contains the underlying regression

results for Table 26 in Section 8.4.1. The

analysis presented in Section 8.4.1 involved

performing the regression analysis separately for

2001 and 2009 in order to analyze whether the

marginal effects of selected demographic and

geographic characteristics on household

Internet use have changed over time. 

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

54 U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

Table A9: Marginal Effects: Regression of

Home Internet Use on Demographic and

Geographic Characteristics, 2001 and 2009

Robust standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS), CPS School 

Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2009, CPS and CPS 

Computer and Internet Use Supplement, September 2001, and ESA 

calculations.

2001

omitted

0.1550***

(0.006)

0.2959***

(0.008)

0.3730***

(0.008)

omitted

0.0971***

(0.007)

0.2142***

(0.008)

0.2909***

(0.008)

0.0074***

(0.001)

-0.0001***

(0.000)

omitted

-0.1631***

(0.008)

-0.1487***

(0.010)

0.0456***

(0.014)

-0.1191***

(0.027)

-0.0623***

(0.011)

0.0358***

(0.002)

0.0361***

(0.006)

omitted

0.0212

(0.034)

yes

-0.0414*

(0.025)

47,310

88,963,933

0.324

2009

omitted

0.1843***

(0.007)

0.2954***

(0.007)

0.3200***

(0.007)

omitted

0.1320***

(0.009)

0.2503***

(0.009)

0.3049***

(0.009)

0.0103***

(0.001)

-0.0001***

(0.000)

omitted

-0.1027***

(0.008)

-0.1396***

(0.009)

-0.0205*

(0.011)

-0.0538***

(0.016)

-0.0383***

(0.010)

0.0288***

(0.002)

0.0500***

(0.006)

omitted

0.0224

(0.025)

yes

0.0402

(0.028)

43,662

94,963,684

0.315

Linear Probability Model

Family Income: Less than $25,000

Family Income: $25,000-$50,000

Family Income: $50,000-$75,000

Family Income: $75,000 or more

Education: Less than High School Degree

Education: High School Degree

Education: Some College

Education: College Degree or more

Age

Age-squared

Non-Hispanic White

Non-Hispanic Black

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Asian

Non-Hispanic, Other

Foreign-born non-citizen

Total number of persons in household

Metropolitan (Urban)

Nonmetropolitan (Rural)

Not-identified (as metropolitan

or nonmetropolitan)

State indicator variables

Constant

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

R-squared
Section A8: Marginal Effects of

Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics on the Likelihood

that a Household Uses

Broadband Internet at Home,

2007 versus 2009

This section contains the underlying regression

results for Table 27 in Section 8.4.2 for

comparing the marginal effects of selected

demographic and geographic characteristics on

home broadband Internet use between 2007

and 2009.

EXPLORING THE DIGITAL NATION: HOME BROADBAND INTERNET ADOPTION IN THE UNITED STATES

U.S. Department of Commerce ● Economics and Statistics Administration ● National Telecommunications and Information Administration 55

Table A10: Marginal Effects: Regression

of Home Broadband Internet Use

on Demographic and Geographic

Characteristics, 2007 and 2009

Robust standard errors in parentheses

*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (CPS) and CPS 

School Enrollment and Internet Use Supplement, October 2007 and October 

2009, and ESA calculations.

2007

omitted

0.1297***

(0.007)

0.2619***

(0.008)

0.3309***

(0.009)

0.3851***

(0.009)

omitted

0.0812***

(0.008)

0.2137***

(0.009)

0.2971***

(0.009)

0.0026***

(0.001)

-0.0001***

(0.000)

omitted

-0.1058***

(0.008)

-0.1198***

(0.009)

0.0412***

(0.013)

-0.0522***

(0.017)

-0.0516***

(0.011)

0.0180***

(0.002)

0.0811***

(0.007)

omitted

-0.0033

(0.026)

0.0686**

(0.030)

42,481

91,153,697

0.298

2009

omitted

0.1671***

(0.007)

0.2818***

(0.008)

0.3233***

(0.008)

0.3474***

(0.008)

omitted

0.1104***

(0.008)

0.2321***

(0.009)

0.2936***

(0.009)

0.0068***

(0.001)

-0.0001***

(0.000)

omitted

-0.1004***

(0.008)

-0.1396***

(0.009)

-0.0036

(0.011)

-0.0527***

(0.016)

-0.0527***

(0.011)

0.0259***

(0.002)

0.0698***

(0.007)

omitted

0.0472*

(0.026)

0.0734**

(0.029)

43,662

94,963,684

0.307

Linear Probability Model

Family Income: Less than $25,000

Family Income: $25,000-$50,000

Family Income: $50,000-$75,000

Family Income: $75,000-$100,000

Family Income: $100,000 or more

Education: Less than High School Degree

Education: High School Degree

Education: Some College

Education: College Degree or more

Age

Age-squared

Non-Hispanic White

Non-Hispanic Black

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic Asian

Non-Hispanic, Other

Foreign-born non-citizen

Total number of persons in household

Metropolitan (Urban)

Nonmetropolitan (Rural)

Not-identified (as metropolitan 

or nonmetropolitan)

Constant

Sample Size

Estimated Number of Households

R-squared
EXPLO

HOME ADOP

final cover 1 and 4.qxd 10/25/10 2:43 PM Page 1