O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 1

B y J o h n B . H o r r i g a n , P h . D .

Broadband 

Adoption and 

Use in America

OBI Working Paper Series No. 1
2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 3

Summary of Findings

The Federal Communications Commission’s OctoberNovember 2009 survey finds that nearly two-thirds (65 

percent) of American adults use high-speed Internet connections to go online from home.

The FCC conducted a survey of 5,005 Americans in October 

and November 2009 in an effort to understand the state of 

broadband adoption and use, as well as barriers facing those 

who do not have broadband at home. The main findings are:

➤ 78 percent of adults are Internet users, whether that 

means broadband, dial-up, access from home or access 

from someplace other than home.

➤ 74 percent of adults have access at home.

➤ 67 percent of U.S. households contain a broadband user 

who accesses the service at home.

➤ 65 percent of adults are broadband adopters. The discrepancy of two percentage points between household 

and individual home use is because some survey respondents are nonbroadband users but live with someone 

who, at home, is.

➤ 6 percent of Americans use dial-up Internet connections 

as their main form of home access.

➤ 6 percent are Internet users but do not use it from home; 

they access the Internet from places such as work, the 

library or community centers.

For the purposes of this report, home broadband users are 

those who said they used any one of the following technologies 

to access the internet from home: cable modem, a DSL-enabled 

phone line, fixed wireless, satellite, a mobile broadband wireless connection for your computer or cell phone, fiber optic, 

T-1. In other words, home broadband users opt in to that classification through a survey question not by adhering to definition 

of broadband by speed that might be read to them.

The main dividing lines for access are along socioeconomic 

dimensions such as income and education. 

➤ 46 percent of adults whose highest level of education is 

a high school degree are broadband users at home; 82 

percent of adults who have attended or graduated from 

college are broadband users at home.

➤ 52 percent of Americans in households with annual 

incomes of $50,000 or below have broadband at home, 

compared with 87 percent of those in households with 

incomes above that level.

➤ Among low-income Americans—those whose annual 

household incomes fall below $20,000—broadband 

adoption stands at 40 percent.

African-Americans and Hispanics trail the average in 

broadband access, although gaps have narrowed since 

early 2009.

➤ 59 percent of African-Americans have broadband at 

home.

➤ 49 percent of Hispanics (English and Spanish speaking) 

have broadband at home.

➤ For Hispanics who took the survey in Spanish, broadband adoption is only 20 percent.

➤ For Hispanics who opted to take the survey in English, 

65 percent have broadband.

These figures represent increases from levels registered in 

surveys conducted in early 2009 by the Pew Research Center, 

which found in April that 46% of African Americans and 40% 

of Hispanics (English and Spanish speaking) used broadband 

at home.

Some 42 percent of Americans with disabilities have broadband at home.

The FCC survey asked adults a series of six questions to 

determine whether a respondent should be classified as having 

a disability. Nearly one-quarter (24 percent) responded “yes” 

to at least one of the questions, indicating they have a disability; 

their broadband adoption rate is two-thirds the national average. Looking at the data differently, 39 percent of all Americans 

without broadband have some type of disability.

Senior citizens (those over the age of 65) continue to trail 

the national average in broadband adoption with a 35 percent broadband-at-home penetration rate.

➤ Nearly half (48 percent) of senior citizens are Internet 

users, regardless of connection type.

On average, Americans pay nearly $41 per month for broadband service, but half of those who receive their broadband 

in a bundle with other services cannot identify the Internet 

portion of their bill.

➤ When asked the level of their monthly Internet bill, to the 

nearest dollar, broadband users, on average, cited a figure 

of $40.68

➤ Most users (70 percent) receive broadband bundled with 

other services. Of these, 50 percent could specify their 

bundled monthly price: $37.70.
4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

➤ Among broadband users who subscribe to a stand-alone 

high-speed service at home (i.e., they do not have service in a bundle), the average monthly bill reported was 

$46.25.

Broadband users overwhelmingly view the social aspects of 

the Internet as very important to them, while watching TV, 

videos or movies online and playing games were deemed 

less important.

When asked what types of online applications are important 

to them, here is what broadband users said were very important 

to them.

➤ 68 percent cited the Internet’s capacity to ease 

communication with family and friends.

➤ 39 percent said the ability to use the Internet to keep up 

with community news.

➤ 35 percent mentioned the ability to share content, such 

as photos, videos or text.

➤ 24 percent cited online shopping.

➤ 10 percent said watching television shows, videos 

or movies online.

➤ 9 percent identified playing games online is very 

important. 

Although most users of broadband at home have positive 

perspectives on the Internet, worries about inappropriate 

online content and security of personal information can 

put a damper on online activity.

Most broadband users see the Internet as a tool for learning 

and productivity. 

➤ 81 percent strongly agree that the Internet is a valuable 

resource for information and learning.

➤ 74 percent strongly agree that it is important for children 

to learn to use the Internet.

➤ 56 percent strongly agree that people can be more 

productive using the Internet.

Nonetheless, broadband users view the Internet as having 

pitfalls. 

➤ 56 percent strongly agree that too much pornography 

and offensive material is online.

➤ 39 percent strongly agree that it is too easy for personal 

information to be stolen online.

➤ 24 percent strongly agree that the Internet is too 

dangerous for children. 

Users with positive outlooks about the Internet tend to be 

more active online (as measured by how many online activities they do) than those with less upbeat views on the Internet. 

Similarly, broadband users with strong concerns about the 

three pitfalls cited are less active online than those who do not 

share those views. These relationships do not show cause and 

effect, but they do suggest how attitudes influence the way 

people engage with the Internet.

Non-adopters are almost 50 percent more likely than 

broadband users to say they believe it is too easy for personal information to be stolen online. 

➤ By a 57 percent to 39 percent margin, non-adopters of 

broadband at home say they strongly agree that it is too 

easy to have their personal information stolen online.

This is one factor linked to their lower likelihood of adoption. Although this concern is not necessarily a causal factor 

behind non-adoption decisions, there is a significant positive 

correlation between high levels of worries about personal privacy and non-adoption.

Broadband users exhibit varying degrees of understanding 

of digital concepts. That, in turn, influences what they do 

online.

Respondents received a series of questions asking how well 

they understood various terms relating to computers and the 

Internet; such questions serve as proxy measures for people’s 

online skill levels. What follows is the share of broadband users 

who say they understood very well the listed terms:

➤ 61 percent—refresh or reload

➤ 44 percent—operating system

➤ 42 percent—Internet browser cookie

➤ 41 percent—JPEG file

➤ 40 percent—spyware or malware

➤ 16 percent—widget

Those with greater understanding of these terms are heavier 

online users. Some 29 percent of broadband users said they 

did not understand any of the listed terms very well, while 24 

percent understood five or six of the terms very well. On average, the former group engaged in about half as many online 

activities as their more informed counterparts. Again, a causal 

relationship is not suggested here, but the findings indicate 

how skills can shape how heavily they use the internet.

People take advantage of multiple devices and services to 

go online, but these are usually supplementary access paths 

for them. 

➤ 30 percent of American adults have used a handheld 

device (e.g., cell phone or smart phone) to access the 

Internet.1

➤ This behavior is more prevalent among minority groups.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 5

➤ 39 percent of African-Americans have accessed the 

Internet with a handheld device.

➤ 39 percent of Hispanics have accessed the Internet 

with a handheld device.

➤ 84 percent of those who use the Internet via a handheld 

device have broadband at home. That figure is somewhat 

lower for African-Americans (78 percent) and Hispanics 

(68 percent).

➤ 15 percent of all Americans use a mobile wireless broadband service with their laptop computers.2

➤ The vast majority (92 percent) of wireless broadband 

users have wireline broadband at home.

➤ Broadband users also access the Internet from places 

other than home. 

➤ 67 percent have at some time used the Internet at the 

homes of friends or family.

➤ 62 percent have used the Internet at work.

➤ 33 percent have used the Internet at a public library.

➤ 30 percent have used the Internet at school.

➤ 13 percent have used the Internet at a community 

center.

➤ 5 percent have used the Internet at a place of worship.

Thirty-five percent of Americans do not use broadband at 

home. They fall into three categories, each with distinct 

demographic characteristics.

➤ 22 percent of adults are not Internet users. They are the 

oldest non-adopting group, with a median age of 60, and 

include the highest share of Hispanics (at 20 percent). 

Some 84 percent have high school degrees or less and half 

live in households with annual incomes of $30,000 per 

year or less.

➤ 6 percent of adults have dial-up connections at home. 

Nearly one-third (29 percent) of them live in rural areas, 

twice the rate for broadband users, and one-quarter 

(23 percent) have college degrees, which modestly lags 

the national average. The median age is 53.

➤ 6 percent of adults are Internet users, but do not have 

access from home. The group is relatively young (the 

median age is 38) and female (59 percent), but they 

tend to have low incomes and low levels of educational 

attainment.3

Of these non-adopters, 12 percent say they cannot get broadband where they live. This translates into a 4 percent share 

of Americans—on the basis of their reports on infrastructure 

availability in their neighborhood—who say they are unable to 

obtain broadband because it is not available. This means that 

31 percent of all Americans can get service but do not.

There are three primary reasons why the 35 percent of 

non-adopting Americans do not have broadband: cost, lack 

of digital literacy and broadband is not sufficiently relevant 

for them to purchase it:

➤ 36 percent of non-adopters cite cost as the main reason they do not have high-speed Internet at home. This 

breaks out in the following ways:

➤ 15 percent say the price of the monthly bill is too much 

for them.

➤ 10 percent say the cost of a computer is too much.

➤ 9 percent say they do not want a long-term service 

contract or cannot afford the installation fee.

➤ 2 percent cite a combination of these reasons.

➤ 22 percent of non-adopters cite factors pointing to lack 

of digital literacy as the main reason they are not online. 

These include people who are not comfortable with computers or, for non-internet users, are “worried about all 

the bad things that can happen if I use the Internet.” As 

people who cite digital literacy as barrier tend to be older 

(the median age is 62), concerns about the safety of the 

online environment is understandable.

➤ 19 percent of non-adopters do not have broadband 

because they question its relevance to their lives. They 

do not believe digital content is sufficiently compelling 

to justify getting it. Specifically, these non-adopters say 

the Internet is a “waste of time,” do not think there is 

anything worth seeing online and (for dial-up users) say 

they are content with their current service. Dial-up users 

make up a disproportionate share of those citing lack of 

relevance as a barrier. 

Non-adopters concerned with cost would be willing to pay, 

on average, $25 per month for broadband.

Non-adopters who cited the monthly cost of broadband as a 

reason they did not have service received a follow-up question 

asking them to estimate how much they would pay for service. 

Among this group:

➤ 52 percent were able to provide an estimate; it averaged 

$25 per month.

➤ 28 percent answered “don’t know” to this question.

➤ 20 percent said they were not willing to pay anything for 

broadband.

Some 65 percent of those who estimated their willingness to 

pay (WTP) cited a figure of $20 per month or more. 

➤ If all of those who cited this figure had a service offering 

at $20 before them and took service, broadband adoption 

would be 6 percentage points higher in the United States.
6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

Nearly all (91 percent) who provided a WTP estimate identified a figure of $10 per month or more.

➤ If all of those who cited this figure had a service offering 

at $10 before them and took service, broadband adoption 

would be 8 percentage points higher in the United States.

Non-adopters have a variety of outlooks on the Internet 

and information and communications technologies (ICTs). 

Some non-adopters, notwithstanding worries they may have 

about the Internet and their capacity to use it, have a hopeful 

outlook on the benefits it may confer. Many are users of ICTs, 

just not broadband at home. Among nonbroadband adopters:

➤ 80 percent have premium television, i.e., either satellite 

or cable.

➤ 70 percent have cell phones.

➤ 42 percent have at least one working computer at home.

With respect to attitudes, most express high degrees of worry 

about the privacy of their personal information and inappropriate online content:

➤ 65 percent strongly agree there is too much pornography 

and offensive material on the internet.

➤ 57 percent strongly agree that it too easy for their personal information to be stolen online.

➤ 46 percent strongly agree that the internet is too dangerous for children.

At the same time, many non-adopters see the upsides to 

online access

➤ 59 percent strongly agree that the Internet is a valuable 

tool for learning.

➤ 54 percent strongly agree that it is important for children 

to learn to use the Internet.

➤ 37 percent strongly agree that people can be more productive using the Internet. 

One-quarter (24 percent) of non-adopters have had experience with broadband, meaning they once had service at 

home or have used it at work or someplace else:

➤ 17 percent of all non-Internet users had home access in 

the past.

➤ Of this group, 49 percent said they had home highspeed Internet access. 

➤ 46 percent of dial-up or “not-at-home” Internet users 

have used a broadband connection from somewhere other 

than home, such as at work, school or a friend or family 

member’s house.

Together, users in these two groups with direct experience 

with broadband equate to 24 percent of the non-adopting 

population, or 8 percent of all adults.

“Proxy Internet” use is evident for 22 percent of non-Internet or “not-at-home” users who live with someone with 

online access. Among these users:

➤ 16 percent ask the Internet user in the home to carry out 

an online task at least once a week.

➤ 20 percent ask the Internet user in the house to carry out 

an online task about once a month.

➤ About half of this “proxy access” is done using a broadband connection in the home.

When it comes to outlooks toward the Internet and levels 

of ownership of ICT products, non-adopting Americans fall 

into four categories, each with different barriers to broadband adoption.

Digitally Distant non-adopters make up 10 percent of the 

general population, and members of this group do not see the 

point of being online. Few in this group see the Internet as a 

tool for learning and most see it as a dangerous place for children. This is an older group (the median age is 63), nearly half 

are retired and half say that either lack of relevance or digital 

literacy are barriers to adoption.

The Digital Hopefuls make up 8 percent of the population. 

They like the idea of being online but lack the resources for access. Few have a computer and, among those who use one, few 

feel comfortable with the technology. They are most likely to 

cite cost as a barrier to adoption, with affordability of the computer playing an important role. They are also more likely than 

average to say digital literacy is a barrier. Demographically, 

this group is heavily Hispanic (26 percent), has a high share of 

African-Americans (20 percent) and is low-income.

The Digitally Uncomfortable make up 7 percent of the 

population, and are the mirror image of the Digital Hopefuls; 

they have the resources for access but not a bright outlook 

on what it means to be online. Nearly all of the Digitally 

Uncomfortable have computers, but they lack the skills to use 

them and have tepid attitudes toward the Internet. This group 

reports a variety of barriers, including cost, lack of available 

infrastructure where they live, low perceptions of the Internet’s 

relevance and low digital literacy. 

The Near Converts, who make up 10 percent of the population, have many of the same characteristics of broadband 

adopters. They have high rates of computer ownership, positive 
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 7

attitudes about the Internet and are, relative to other nonadopters, youthful (at a median age of 45). Many are dial-up 

or “not-at-home” users, and monthly access cost is the largest 

reason for non-adoption among this group.

Looking across various population segments reveals differences in what they do online and what keeps them from 

having broadband.

Families: Parents with minor children at home are more 

likely than average to have broadband at home, by a 75 percent 

to 65 percent margin. The strong majority (87 percent) has at 

least one working computer at home, leaving a 13-percentagepoint gap between adopters and those with a functioning 

computer. Among those without broadband, nearly half (48 

percent) cite cost as the main barrier to adoption, with 24 percent specifically pointing to the level of the monthly access fee.

Low-income Americans: Some 40 percent of low-income 

Americans (with annual household incomes at $20,000 or 

below) have broadband, compared with 91 percent among those 

living in homes with annual incomes above $75,000. Low-income broadband users are more likely than well-off broadband 

users to look for or apply for a job online – by a 77 percent to 60 

percent margin. Not surprisingly, 47 percent of this group identifies cost as the biggest barrier to broadband adoption. That is 

twice the rate of the (relatively few) upper-income nonbroadband adopters.

African-Americans: Although African-Americans trail 

the average in overall broadband adoption, the adoption gap 

does not exist for adults under age 30; some 75 percent of 

African-Americans in this younger age group have broadband, 

which equals the average. By contrast, 21 percent of AfricanAmerican senior citizens have broadband; that compares with 

the 35 percent average. African-American broadband users are 

highly likely to have used their broadband connection to look 

for or apply for a job; 83 percent versus the 60 percent average. African-Americans with broadband are also more likely to 

take a class for credit online (37 percent versus the 26 percent 

average). With respect to barriers to adoption, 42 percent of 

African-Americans say cost is the main reason they do not have 

broadband.

Hispanics: Half (49 percent) of Hispanics have broadband at 

home. While young African-Americans have broadband access 

on par with the average, “under 30” Hispanics trail the average for their age cohort, 57 percent versus 75 percent. Those 

Hispanics with broadband use it for downloading and streaming music (69 percent have done this, in comparison with the 

52 percent average). They also find broadband very important 

for keeping up with news about their community; 52 percent 

say this compared with the 39 percent average. As to adoption 

barriers, 52 percent of Hispanic non-adopters cite cost, equally 

split between those who point to the monthly fee and those who 

say they cannot afford a computer.

People with disabilities: Of the 24 percent of respondents 

who have some sort of disability, 42 percent have broadband. 

The online activities of broadband-using people with disabilities are narrower in scope than others; that is, they do fewer 

things online. That may reflect difficulties some people with 

disabilities have in using the devices to get online or interacting 

with Web pages. Barriers for non-adopting people with disabilities do not differ significantly from the average.

Rural Americans: Fifty percent of rural residents have 

broadband, a rate that reflects in part the older and less 

wealthy rural population but also the lack of available infrastructure. One in 10 rural non-adopters say they cannot get 

broadband where they live. That is more than twice the average. Rural Americans with broadband, meanwhile, are as active 

as their urban and suburban counterparts in using the Internet 

for shopping and taking classes online, suggesting that they use 

broadband as a way to virtually access the benefits associated 

with urban or suburban living.
8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 9

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

I. Adoption: who uses broadband at home—and who doesn’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Who uses broadband at home–and who doesn’t . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 

Dividing lines on broadband access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Adoption patterns for key population segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

How people connect to the Internet at home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 

Monthly cost of service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 

II. Online behaviors: what shapes them and what matters to users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Online activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Attitudes about the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Skills: Understanding information and communications technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

The activities people say are most important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Why new users get online . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

III. Alternative access: different place, different platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

The places people access the Internet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Use of the handheld for online access and other purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 

Mobile Wireless Broadband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 

What people pay for cell phone service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

IV. Non-adopters: who they are and the barriers they face . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Overview of non-adopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

Past and proxy broadband use for adopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

The role of disabilities in non-adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

Why non-adopters do not have broadband . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 

What non-adopters are willing to pay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 

Summary of most important reasons for non-adoption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 

When respondents can cite multiple reasons for not adopting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

Segmenting the population of non-adopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

V. Focus on key population groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Low-income Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

African-Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Hispanics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

People with disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Rural Americans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Appendix: Tables on demographics and use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
1 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 1 1

Introduction

The Federal Communications Commission in the fall of 

2009 fielded a national survey of Americans under authority granted by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA). 

The BDIA, which became law in October 2008 but needed 

and received funding approval under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), requires the FCC to conduct 

periodic surveys that explore the broadband experience of 

American consumers. Specifically, the BDIA directs the survey 

to probe the types of technology people use for their home 

broadband service, what they pay, the applications they use 

and, for those who do not use broadband, the barriers to adopting broadband.

This paper reports the national findings from the random 

digit dialing telephone survey that interviewed 5,005 adult 

Americans, 2,671 of whom are broadband-at-home users. The 

remaining 2,334 either do not have broadband at home, report 

that they do not use the Internet or say they are Internet users but without access at home. The number of non-adopters 

surveyed represents an oversample of this population; this was 

done to facilitate statistical analysis of non-adopters. 

The Methodology section in the report’s appendix provides 

detail on the sampling design for this survey, and also discusses 

such issues as response rate and use of cell phone numbers in 

the sample. Cell phone numbers were used in the sample in 

recognition of the fact many Americans do not have landline 

telephone service at home, but rather rely only on their cell 

phones. Overall, interviewers conducted 31% of the surveys 

with respondents who were on a cell phone; 13% said they were 

“cell phone only” households, while 18% had a landline, yet 

were contacted on their cell phone. 

It is also worth noting that the data presented throughout 

is weighted to take into account characteristics of the sample, 

including the oversample of non-adopters. The weighting 

corrects for the fact that, in the figures noted in above, 2,671 

adopters does not represent 65% of 5,005 respondents, the 

home broadband adoption figure highlighted at the outset. In 

results reported within, percentage figures represent weighted 

results; the number of cases reported for various sub-samples 

are actual number of cases. 

For the survey, the margin of error based on results based 

on the entire sample of 5,005 is plus or minus 1.6 percentage 

points. For results on 2,671 home broadband adopters, the 

margin of error is plus or minus 2.1 percentage points; for the 

oversample of non-adopters (n=2,334) the margin of error is 

plus or minus 2.2 percentage points. Finally, results based on 

all internet users (n=3,555), the margin of error is plus or minus 1.8 percentage points. Interviewers conducting the survey 

provided a Spanish-language option for respondents wishing to 

take the survey in Spanish.

The FCC’s survey results compare favorably to a similar 

survey conducted in the fall of 2009 by the Census Bureau 

for the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration, which found that 63.5 percent of American 

households used high-speed internet to go online.4

What is new about this survey

The survey is unique for the FCC, in that it is the first time that 

the Commission has conducted its own survey of end-users of 

the Internet. The Commission, using data gathered from FCC 

Form 477 (a semi-annual reporting document for telecommunications entities) has previously reported on the number 

of broadband lines in service to end users based on carrier-reported data at the Census tract level.5

 This survey, as it involves 

interviewing adults, presents adoption data based on what 

users say about how they access the Internet at home.

The survey is distinct in a broader sense owing to its focus 

on non-adopters of broadband at home. There have been other 

national surveys that have examined why people do not use 

the Internet, most notably the Pew Internet & American Life 

Project’s 2002 survey on why people did not use the (mainly) 

dial-up Internet.6 Other Pew Internet research has analyzed 

non-adoption of broadband based on a few questions in national surveys.7

Finally, the FCC survey develops segments of non-adoption. 

This segmentation permits non-adopters to be placed in categories that yield insights into the reasons people do not have 

broadband—and possible solutions that might be targeted at 

non-adopters. The British regulator Ofcom undertook a similar 

segmentation of non-adoption8

 but this is the first time national data collected by the U.S. government has been examined 

in that way. 
1 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 1 3

I. Adoption: who uses

broadband at home—

and who doesn’t

Who uses broadband at home—and who doesn’t 

The October-November FCC survey finds that a strong majority of Americans use the Internet. Among adults, 78 percent 

are Internet users, meaning they have access from home or 

someplace other from home, and with any type of connection 

(i.e., dial-up or broadband). The findings about access:

➤ 65 percent of adults use broadband at home.

➤ 67 percent of households have broadband. The survey 

asked non-adopters whether another person in the house 

uses the Internet with a home high-speed connection. 

Affirmative answers to that question add two additional 

percentage points to overall penetration. 

➤ 6 percent of Americans have dial-up Internet connections 

at home.

➤ 6 percent of Americans are Internet users but do not access the Internet from home.

This means that 22 percent of Americans are not Internet 

users (1 percent of respondents did not know the type of 

Internet connection they have at home and thus are not classified as broadband, dial-up or “not at home” online users). 

Although broadband access and reasons for not having it 

are the principle themes of the survey, respondents were asked 

about several other assets pertaining to information and communications technology (ICT), such as use of computers, TVs 

and cell phones. Specifically:

➤ 86 percent of Americans have a cell phone.

➤ 65 percent have cable TV at home.

➤ 66 percent have a desktop computer at home.

➤ 52 percent have a laptop computer at home.

➤ 29 percent have satellite TV.

Combining cable and satellite TV, as well as desktop and laptop adoption, yields the following figures for home computer 

and home premium TV use:

➤ 86 percent of Americans have either cable TV or satellite 

TV.

➤ 79 percent of Americans have either a desktop or laptop 

computer at home. 

The appendix to this paper provides detail on adoption patterns for each of these technologies across demographic and 

socio-economic categories. 

Exhibit 1: 

Broadband Adoption 

by American Adults by 

Socio-Economic and 

Demographic Factors

Hispanic*

49

Black

59

White

69

18–29

65+

35

50–64

64

30–49

75 74

$40–75K

84

$75K +

93

$20–40K

59

Less than $20K

40

College +

86

Some college

77

High school graduate

55

Less than high school

24

Rural

50

Non Rural

68

50

40

30

20

100

70

10

0

*Hispanics includes both English and Spanish-speaking Hispanics

American adults

60

80

90
1 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

Dividing lines on broadband access

Broadband adoption is not distributed evenly in the population 

(See Exhibit 1). The differences in adoption break out prominently along two particular dimensions, which are not mutually 

exclusive:

Education:Among adults, roughly half of Americans have 

had some college experience (even if they have not or did not 

graduate). Among those who have some college experience, 82 

percent have broadband at home, compared with 46 percent of 

those whose highest level of educational attainment is a high 

school degree. 

Income: Americans in the lower half of the income distribution demographic, meaning an annual household income of 

$50,000 per year or less, are much less likely to have broadband 

at home than those with higher incomes. Among respondents 

reporting household incomes of $50,000 or less, 52 percent 

have broadband at home, far below the 87 percent adoption 

rate for those above that income threshold.

Adoption patterns for key population segments

Surveys conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Internet & 

American Life Project found that broadband adoption within 

two minority groups, African-Americans and Hispanics, lags 

the average and, for African-Americans, has grown very little 

from 2007 to the beginning of 2009. The FCC survey shows 

some breaks from those patterns. 

African-Americans: FCC figures found 59 percent of 

African-Americans had broadband at home in the OctoberNovember survey, up considerably from 46 percent in Pew’s 

April survey. 

Hispanics: Slightly less than half (49 percent) of Hispanics have broadband at home in the FCC survey compared with 

40 percent of Hispanics in a Pew Research Center April 2009 

survey. In the FCC survey, 3 percent of respondents chose to 

take the survey in Spanish; among these Spanish speakers, 

broadband adoption was 20 percent. 

People with disabilities: The FCC survey finds that 42 percent of those who identify themselves with disabilities has broadband at home. A July 2003 survey from the Pew Internet Project 

showed that 10 percent of those with disabilities had broadband 

at a time when 18 percent of Americans had broadband.9

The FCC survey sampled all Americans, but for several 

racial or ethnic categories, there were not enough respondents 

to draw statistically reliable inferences. For Asian-Americans, 

American Indians, and Alaskan natives, the sample yielded 

fewer than 100 respondents in each group. The first two groups 

in particular have a sizable population that may not speak 

English or that have low telephone penetration rates. Because 

of that and the small sample of respondents, it is inadvisable to 

report results.

How people connect to the Internet at home 

The survey asked respondents what type of Internet connection they use at home. The question, which is the same one 

used in surveys conducted by the Census, allowed respondents 

to pick any of the categories listed that the respondent believed 

described his home broadband connection. In other words, 

respondents could pick more than one type of home broadband 

connection from the list (See Exhibit 2).

The answers underscore the difficulty in asking people 

about the technological dimensions of their home Internet 

access points. Although it is possible that some consumers 

have more than one home high-speed connection, these figures 

suggest that most Americans have two broadband connections. It is likely that a significant number of consumers do not 

know the details of their home Internet connections. Some, 

for instance, may confuse a wireless home network working 

off wireline broadband with a “fixed wireless provider.” Given 

the opportunity to pick more than one category, in conjunction with uncertainty over how they connect to the internet 

Exhibit 2:

At home, what do you 

now use to connect to the 

Internet ( figures as a 

percent of home Internet 

users)

Cable modem 58

DSL-enabled phone line 44

Mobile broadband wireless connection for your computer or cell phone 44

Fixed wireless provider 29

Dial-up telephone line 12

Satellite connection 10

A fiber optic connection such as FiOS 10

T-1 connection 5

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey of 5,005 adult Americans, October-November 2009.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 1 5

at home, some respondents inaccurately chose more than one 

category of connection type. 

Notwithstanding the possible confusion reflected in the 

survey responses, it seems likely that the vast majority of home 

broadband access is wireline. In fact, estimates place wireless 

home broadband access at 2 percent of homes—that would 

include fixed wireless or satellite service.10

The survey also made extensive efforts to determine 

whether a respondent had dial-up service at home or not. First, 

interviewers asked respondents first whether they connect at 

home “through a slow-speed connection such as dial-up or...a 

high-speed, broadband connection.” Among home users (72 

percent of respondents), 8 percent said they had a slow-speed 

connection. 

Second, a follow-up question for the 8 percent who said 

they had a slow speed connection asked them to confirm that 

they “now use a dial-up connection to the Internet at home, 

not a higher-speed connection.” Most (93 percent) who first 

said they had a slow-speed connection confirmed that they 

now have dial-up at home. For the purposes of this report, only 

those who were able to confirm in the second question that 

they have dial-up at home are defined as home dial-up users. 

This amounts to 6 percent of the entire adult population. 

With the questioning approach isolating home dial-up 

users, home broadband users are defined, in this report, as 

respondents who chose any of the options listed in Exhibit 2

that are home high-speed connections, that is, cable modem, 

a DSL-enabled phone line, fixed wireless, satellite, a mobile 

broadband wireless connection for your computer or cell 

phone, fiber optic, T-1. Thus, home broadband users opt in to 

that classification through a survey question not by adhering to 

definition of broadband by speed that might be read to them. 

Monthly cost of service 

As the BDIA directs, the survey also asked consumers what 

they pay per month for home broadband service. This question 

presents another challenge for respondents, separate and apart 

from knowing the details about home connection technology. 

Many consumers have Internet service bundled with other 

services (such as telephone or cable TV), making it difficult for 

the respondent to know what portion of the total bill reflects 

the cost of Internet service. 

To address bundling, the survey asked consumers if they paid 

for various services (cell phone, landline phone, Internet, cable 

TV, satellite or wireless broadband) in conjunction with other 

services. If consumers said they paid for the Internet in a separate bill, they were asked to tell interviewers what their average 

monthly bill was to the nearest dollar. If respondents said their 

Internet service was bundled with another service, follow-up 

questions addressed what the monthly bills were for the entire 

bundle, whether the respondents knew the Internet portion 

and, if so, what the monthly Internet bill was.

This careful approach to bundling has the advantage of stripping out those who do not know the Internet portion of their 

bundle before they are asked to quantify their monthly Internet 

bill. Those who do not know are not asked to make an estimate. 

However, by appropriately excluding these respondents, the 

overall sample of respondents offering cost estimates is reduced. One-third of broadband users did not give an estimate of 

their monthly broadband payments.

For Internet users, bundling their bill with other services is 

common. A majority of home broadband users (70 percent) say 

their Internet service is bundled with another service in their 

monthly bill, with 29 percent saying they receive a stand-alone 

bill for broadband. 

Among those who bundle Internet with another service, 50 

percent said they knew what the Internet portion of the bill was, 

a figure that was the same for broadband and dial-up users alike.

The survey finds that:

➤ Overall, users report paying $40.68 per month for their 

broadband Internet connections.11

➤ Those who report they take service in a bundle (among 

those who can report what the Internet portion of the 

bundle is), the average bill is $37.70.

➤ Those with stand-alone broadband service report a 

monthly bill of $46.25.

➤ Those use dial-up at home to go online report a monthly 

bill of $22.98.

Several other sources gather data on what people pay for 

broadband and offer points of comparison. They are:

➤ The Pew Internet Project found in its April 2009 survey 

that users report an average monthly broadband bill of 

$39. 

➤ TNS Telecoms, through analysis of consumer bills, 90 

percent of which are bundled offerings, finds an average 

broadband bill of $34.50. 

➤ Telogical Systems examines stand-alone nonpromotional 

offers of providers, and its figures show an average broadband bill of $46 per month. 

Telogical’s figures for stand-alone prices track reasonably well with what respondents in the FCC survey say about 

stand-alone bills. Those in the FCC survey able to identify the 

Internet component of their bundle cited an average figure 

about $3 more than the bill analysis of TNS Telecoms, which 

focuses mainly on bundled offerings.12
1 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

II. Online behaviors: 

what shapes them 

and what matters

to users

This section describes the kinds of online activities people 

engage in, as well as two factors that influence intensity of use. 

This involves analyzing: a) how attitudes toward the Internet 

influence how much they do online; and b) how the level of 

understanding of computers and the Internet influences what 

they do online. The section concludes by looking at what 

people find most important about their online activities.

Online activities

The Internet, as has been well documented, is a means for 

communication, collaboration and content creation directed 

at users, shoppers, social networkers, information seekers and 

people searching for entertainment. The survey asked Internet 

users if they had ever engaged in particular online activities, 

with the topics chosen to reflect the variety of activities people 

may pursue online.

To economize on the survey length, half the respondents 

received eight of the listed activities in Exhibit 3, and the other 

half received the other eight. Among the first set of activities 

(designated with an asterisk in the chart), broadband users on 

average participated in five of them. For the second set, broadband users did 3.7 of them, on average.

Those averages are affected by a host of factors. Young 

people are generally more attuned to digital life, so it is no 

surprise that adults under the age of 30 are typically more active. Respondents in that group say, on average, that they do 5.9 

and 4.6 of the online activities across the two sets. The better 

educated also do more things online: College graduates say 

they have done 5.3 and 3.9 activities, on average, of the activities listed. A table in the appendix details how online activities 

break out along demographic dimensions. 

As influential as demographics may be in explaining the 

scope of what people do online, there are two other relevant 

factors: attitudes about the Internet (its strengths and hazards) 

and skills (using measures of people’s understanding of computers and the Internet as a proxy for their level of skill).

Attitudes about the Internet

Respondents were read a series of six statements about the 

Internet—three about the Internet’s upsides and three about its 

less attractive qualities (See Exhibit 4).

In general, broadband users who showed strong levels of concern about potential hazards online reported doing a narrower 

scope of online activities than respondents without such worries. Similarly, those with positive perspectives were more active 

Exhibit 3:

Online Activities of 

American Adults 

( figures as a % of users 

in each group)

All Internet 

users

Dial-up 

users

Broadband 

users

Buy a product online* 78 56 83

Get local or community news* 75 55 80

Visit local, state or federal government Web site* 75 53 79

Use a social networking site* 52 41 55

Submit a review for a product or service* 52 36 55

Download or stream music* 47 22 52

Upload or share content* 45 26 48

Play games online* 46 38 48

Get international or national news 73 54 77

Bank online 63 43 69

Get information about or apply for a job 57 39 60

Get advice from a government agency about a health or safety issue 50 39 54

Download or stream video 38 18 42

Post to own blog or group blog 23 7 26

Take a class online 22 8 24

Play complicated role-playing games online 14 9 14

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey of 5,005 adult Americans, October-November 2009. Draft final results. For broadband users, 

n=1,378 for activities marked by * and n=1,278 for other activities. For dial-up user, n=212 for activities marked by * and n=247 for other activities.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 1 7

online. It is important to note that worries about online dangers 

do not always translate into behavioral changes. People may register concerns about identity theft, but this may not prevent many 

users from sharing personal information at online social networking or shopping sites. 

The following analysis shows how scope of activity varies by 

respondents’ attitudes. Recall that half the sample was asked 

about eight different online activities, and the other half asked 

about a separate set of eight activities. To show the interaction of 

attitude and activity, the analysis below reports the average number of activities (across both sets) among those who strongly agree 

with a specific attitudinal proposition. That is then contrasted, in 

percentage terms, with those who did not share that view. 

The Internet is too dangerous for children: Those who 

strongly agreed with this did an average of 4.3 and 3.1 activities, 

19 percent lower than those who do not share this view (averaged across both sets of activities).

It is important for children to know how to use the 

Internet: : Those who strongly agreed with this did an average 

of 5.2 and 3.8 activities, 16 percent more than those who do not 

share this view (averaged across both sets of activities).

The Internet is a valuable source for information and 

learning: As was the case for the importance of the Internet 

for learning among children, those who strongly agreed with 

this engaged in an average of 5.2 and 3.8 activities, 25 percent 

more than those who do not share this view (averaged across 

both sets of activities).

There is too much pornography and offensive material on the Internet: Those who strongly agreed did an average 

of 4.7 and 3.4 activities, 11 percent lower than those who do not 

share this view (averaged across both sets of activities).

People can be more productive using the Internet:

Those who strongly agreed with this did an average of 5.2 and 

4.0 activities, 18 percent more than those who do not share this 

view (across both sets of activities).

It is too easy for my personal information to be stolen 

online: Those who strongly agreed with this did an average of 

4.6 and 3.4 activities, 11 percent lower than those who do not 

share this view (across both sets of activities).

Overall, broadband users who strongly registered any of 

the three worries listed above (theft of personal information, 

inappropriate content, online dangers for children) engaged 

in 4.8 and 3.5 of the online activities probed. The share of 

all broadband users who cited any of those three things as 

strong concerns is 70 percent and, when compared with the 30 

percent of broadband users who share none of these concerns 

strongly, they do 14 percent fewer online activities. These comparisons do not mean that the attitudes in question cause or 

are sole drivers of the differences identified. However, they do 

indicate that how people perceive the Internet shapes how they 

use it. It is worth noting that the differences identified above 

are statistically significant when controlling for other respondent characteristics, such as age, race, education and income.13

Skills: Understanding information and 

communications technology

The scope of activities people do online may also have to do 

with the skills they bring to the online experience. Measuring 

the level of skill or literacy for a user is challenging in a survey 

environment. Merely asking people to rate how well they can 

carry out a given task can be problematic, and research has found 

that such self-assessment about skill is not the best predictor of 

actual skill levels. A better predictor of actual skill comes from 

asking respondents to rate on a scale their understanding of various concepts relating to the Internet or computers.14 

The FCC survey borrowed this approach, asking Internet users how well they understand six terms relating to the Internet 

or computers (See Exhibit 5).

Not surprisingly, education is strongly associated with the 

likelihood that people say they understand a particular concept 

very well (See Exhibit 6).

An important consequence of low levels of digital literacy 

is less engagement with online life. Those who say they understand the queried concepts “very well” are likely to do more of 

the online activities discussed. This correlation is significant 

Exhibit 4:

Public Attitudes 

about the Internet 

(% of broadband users 

who strongly agree)

The Internet is a valuable source for information and learning 81

It is important for children to learn how to use the Internet 74

There is too much pornography and offensive material on the Internet 56

People can be more productive using the Internet 56

It is too easy for my personal information to be stolen online 39

The Internet is too dangerous for children 24

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009, n=2,671 for broadband users.
1 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

when holding constant income, education, age and other factors that might also affect people’s probability of doing a range 

of things online.15

Exhibits 7, 8 and 9 demonstrate this point by showing, for 

broadband users, how the number of online activities in which 

they engage increases in tandem with the number of computer 

and Internet terms they say they understand “very well.” For 

the first set of activities, broadband users who did not say they 

understood any of the computer or Internet terms listed (29 

percent of respondents) engaged in an average of 3.8 of the 

online activities about which they were asked. Those who understood very well all of them (24 percent of respondents) did, 

on average, 6.1 activities. The differences are more pronounced 

for the second set of activities, with those who understand all of 

the terms very well doing, on average, more than twice as many 

activities as those who understood none of them. 

The activities people say are most important

What people do online and how they value a particular activity 

can differ for a number of reasons, often due to the context in 

which an activity is undertaken. More Internet users have, at 

some point, bought something online (78 percent) than have 

uploaded content they have created (45 percent) or participated in a blog (23 percent). However, seeing a video of a child’s 

birthday party may be more important to some people than 

buying a product online – especially if offline shopping opportunities are abundant. Conversely, coming upon a hard-to-find 

Exhibit 6:

By Education, 

Broadband Users’ 

Understanding of 

Computer and Internet 

Concepts (% “very well” 

in each group)

Less than 

High School High school grad Some college College+

Internet browser cookie 23 32 44 50

Spyware and malware 26 33 41 47

Operating system 21 31 44 55

Refresh or reload 46 52 64 68

Widget 4 11 15 22

JPEG file 17 28 41 55

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=2,671 for home broadband users.

Exhibit 7:

Number of Online 

Activities and Digital 

Literacy 

Average number of online activities

(first set of eight activities)

Average number of online activities

(second set of eight activities)

None 3.8 2.5

One term 4.9 3.3

Two terms 5.1 3.5

Three terms 5.4 4.2

Four terms 5.6 4.0

Five or more terms 6.1 4.8

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=1,378 for home broadband users for first set of activities and 

n=1,293 for home broadband users for second set of activities. 

Exhibit 5:

Broadband Users’ 

Understanding of 

Computer and Internet 

Concepts ( figures as a 

% of users)

Very well Somewhat well Not too well Not well at all

Internet browser cookie 42 30 12 15

Spyware and malware 40 34 11 14

Operating system 44 29 11 16

Refresh or reload 61 22 5 11

Widget 16 13 15 54

JPEG file 41 22 8 27

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=2,671 for home broadband users.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 1 9

good in the far- flung corner of the Web may be extremely 

important if the buyer is a collector or shopping for a special 

occasion.

Even though context is key to interpreting how people value 

different online activities, the survey nonetheless sought to 

explore this by asking Internet users to assess the importance 

of six different categories of online activities. Exhibits 8 and 9 

show results for all users and broadband users when they were 

asked to assess how important each online activity was to them. 

For most Internet users, the communicative aspects of the 

Internet are most important to them, followed by keeping up 

with news in the community and sharing content with others. Applications oriented to entertainment rate notably low, 

perhaps because (for watching TV shows or movies) excellent 

offline alternatives exist. Young broadband users are more 

likely to cite entertainment applications or online entertainment as “very important” than average, with 20 percent and 13 

percent saying this. They are also more likely to say communicating with family and friends (79 percent) and sharing content 

(45 percent) are very important online activities. 

Why new users get online

What existing users value about online activities and what triggers new adoption can be two different things. To address this, 

the survey asked about new users’ motives for getting online.

The level of Internet penetration has not grown substantially in recent years. As noted, the FCC survey finds that 78 

percent of Americans use the Internet, whether that is at home 

or somewhere else, dial-up or broadband. Surveys conducted 

by the Pew Internet Project show that Internet penetration 

first exceeded 70 percent in early 2006, with that figure reaching 75 percent for the first time at the end of 2007. The FCC 

asked how long respondents have been using the Internet; just 

6 percent report that they have been online for two or fewer 

years. Those who have been online for two or fewer years 

received follow-up questions asking them to cite the reasons 

they chose to get Internet access and then the most important 

reason for getting access.

As Exhibit 9 shows, most new users cite social reasons as a 

motive for beginning to use the Internet, with e-mail communication and content sharing as chief reasons. Accessing video or 

Exhibit 8: 

Broadband Survey 

Users on the Importance 

of These Activities

% as a share of broadband Internet users at 

home Very important Somewhat 

important

Not too 

important

Not important 

at all

Making it easy to communicate with friends and 

family, even if they are far away 68 23 5 4

Keeping up with the news in my community 39 39 11 10

Sharing content with others, such as photos, 

videos or text 34 38 15 13

Shopping online 23 41 19 18

Watching TV shows, movies and other video 

online 10 26 24 39

Playing games online 9 18 23 50

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=2,671 for home broadband users.

Exhibit 9:

Broadband Survey 

Users on Their Reasons 

for Getting Online

 (% among Internet 

users who have been 

online for 2 years or less)

% who cite 

reason

% who cite as 

most important

reason

To e-mail and stay in touch with family and friends 61 31

To gain access to music, movies and other entertainment 46 9

To share my photos or videos with family and friends 41 3

My children wanted Internet access 41 7

My children needed it for school 35 19

I needed it for school 27 10

An Internet provider made a special offer too good to pass up 21 2

My job required online access 20 6

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey of adult Americans, October-November 2009. N=92 for new users.
2 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

other Internet entertainment online also was a factor for many 

new users. A great offer by an Internet service provider was not 

widely cited by new users. When pressed about the most important reason, social and educational uses are most prominent. 

E-mail is the main reason for one-third of new users, while 

school—either for themselves or children—is the main reason 

for another one-third of new users. It is worth pointing out the 

small number of cases (92) for the subset of new users who 

received these questions.

III. Alternative 

access: different

places, different

platform

Access to the Internet is portable and shareable. People may 

take access with them or, if they cannot, they may access the 

Internet from different places. The survey looked at this in 

three contexts: handheld access, mobile broadband (from a 

laptop computer) and Internet access from places outside the 

home (often public access points).

The places people access the Internet

Although most online users have access from home, there are 

plenty of places outside the household where people can go 

online. To examine how people access the Internet away from 

home, respondents received questions that tried to fix whether 

they have gone online from someplace other than home and, if 

so, where. Exhibit 10 shows the places from which people access the Internet. 

These results show that 93 percent of Internet users have 

some form of access at home. Yet, it is apparent people access 

the Internet in other contexts as well—particularly at work or a 

friend or family member’s house. 

Exhibit 11 indicates that a majority of Americans (59 percent) who access the Internet do so in more than three places; 

17 percent of Americans go online in 5 or more places. 

Focusing on alternative access places that exclude home or 

work, 57 percent of all Americans (or 73 percent of Internet 

users) have at one point gone online at some place other than 

home or work, often at a friend or family member’s house. 

Eliminating the latter from consideration, 39 percent of 

Americans (or 48 percent of Internet users) have gone online 

Exhibit 11: 

Broadband Survey 

Users on the Number of 

Places They go Online

(% of Internet users)

One access point 17

Two access points 24

Three access points 25

Four access points 17

Five or more access points 17%

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 10 :

Broadband Survey 

Users on Where They 

Access the Internet

All Internet 

users

Broadband at 

home Dial-up at home Not-at-home 

users

Home 92% 100% 99% 7%

Friend or family member’s house 65 67 48 67

Work 58 62 36 48

Public library 35 33 32 57

School 29 30 17 21

Community Center 14 13 9 25

Church 5 5 4 5

Number of cases 3,555 2,671 459 392

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 2 1

at a library, school, community center or church. It is worth 

noting that these figures do not include those who may access 

the internet at a local coffee shop.

Exhibit 12 shows how incidence of using the internet at 

different access sites varies across demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondent.

Use of the handheld for online access and 

other purposes

With Internet access increasingly in people’s pockets, it is 

important to probe the activities people pursue using their 

handheld devices. Fully 86 percent of Americans have a cell 

phone. Estimates of the share of people with “smart phones” 

that permit online access vary, but Forrester Research places 

the share of the adult population with smart devices at 17 

percent in November 2009.16 The survey did not ask directly 

whether a respondent had a smart phone, but rather whether 

cell users did specific activities—some of which are likely to 

require having a smart phone. 

Exhibit 13 shows the findings from these questions, with a 

breakout by age, as young adults are more frequent users of 

mobile devices than their elders.

Although basic communication functions dominate the 

portfolio of cell phone activities, there is a substantial incidence of information seeking, such as accessing Web pages or 

searching for directions. Twenty percent of cell phone users say 

they have downloaded an application to their device, suggesting that at least that share has a smart phone; the actual level of 

Exhibit 12: 

Use of Public Access 

Points and Respondent 

Characteristics

(% of those surveyed) Public library School Community 

center Church

Male 33 26 15 5

Female 38 31 13 5

Parents with minor children at home 35 28 13 5

Those who report they have a disability 35 22 16 4

18–29 56 58 26 5

30–49 33 26 13 4

50–64 25 14 8 4

65+ 20 6 5 5

White (not Hispanic) 31 25 11 4

Black (not Hispanic) 51 36 21 6

Hispanic (English or Spanish speaking) 46 43 26 5

Less than high school 41 24 19 2

High school graduate 33 21 14 4

Some college 41 34 15 5

College + 31 31 11 6

Under $20K 55 41 25 4

$20K–$30K 44 30 20 6

$30K–$40K 41 33 13 5

$40K–$50K 30 23 12 4

$50K–$75K 28 24 10 5

$75K–$100K 31 27 11 5

Over $100K 28 30 10 4

Urban 38 33 16 5

Suburban 33 27 12 4

Rural 34 22 13 4

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009. 
2 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

smart phone usage is probably higher since not all smart phone 

users are likely to download applications. 

As documented by the Pew Internet Project, use of mobile 

devices for non-voice data applications is particularly popular 

among African-Americans and Hispanics.17 Unlike the Pew 

survey, the FCC survey had a Spanish-language option, which 

means data reported here on mobile use among Hispanics 

represents a more complete sample of the Hispanic population. 

Still, African-Americans and Hispanics, consistent with prior 

research, are the most frequent users of the handheld device for 

a variety of applications (See Exhibit 14).

Not all of the activities listed in Exhibit 14 constitute 

Internet use on a handheld. Texting is not an application that 

runs on the Internet while downloading maps and directions 

may require Global Positioning System (GPS) capability. Not 

all downloading or streaming of music or video to a handheld 

requires Internet access. 

In defining the scope of Internet use on a mobile handheld, 

the activities chosen for inclusion in the definition are: sending 

or receiving e-mail, accessing Web pages on the Internet and 

downloading an application to a cell phone. When those three 

items constitute accessing the Internet on a cell phone, 36 

percent of all cell users have used the Internet on their devices. 

Since not everyone has a cell phone, this means 30 percent of 

all adults have gone online with a cell phone or smart phone. 

As with the entire suite of handheld activities, minorities are 

more active in handheld Internet use than whites. This is how 

results break down across racial categories:

➤ 39 percent of Hispanics and of African-Americans have 

used the Internet on their mobile handheld device.

➤ 27 percent of whites have accessed the Internet on a mobile handheld.

A question to consider is if the differences are racial in 

origin or whether they can be explained by other factors, such 

as age or income, which may vary systematically across racial 

Exhibit 14: 

By Race, Cell Phone 

Activities

Whites African-Americans Hispanics

% with a cell phone 87 86 85

% as a share of those with cell phone

Send or receive text messages 63 75 75

Send or receive pictures 50 61 58

Send or receive e-mail 24 34 28

Access Web pages on the Internet 24 36 36

Get a map or directions to another location 23 36 34

Send or receive Instant Messages 23 47 47

Download an application to your cell phone 17 26 24

Download or stream music or video 13 28 25

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey of 5,005 adult Americans, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 13: 

Cell Phone Activity

All adults Age 18–29 Age 30–49 Age 50–64 Age 65+

% with a cell phone 86 94 93 86 66

% as a share of those with cell phone

Send or receive text messages 66 94 79 51 15

Send or receive pictures 52 77 61 38 14

Send or receive e-mail 26 40 30 17 5

Send or receive Instant Messages 28 42 35 20 8

Access Web pages on the Internet 28 48 32 15 5

Get a map or directions to another location 27 44 30 16 8

Download an application to your cell phone 20 36 24 9 3

Download or stream music or video 17 32 18 8 3

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey of 5,005 adult Americans, October-November 2009.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 2 3

categories. White adults in the sample are, on the whole, older 

than the African-American respondents and much older than 

the Hispanics. The median age for white adults in the sample 

is 49; for African-Americans it is 46, and for Hispanics it is 33. 

As seen above, younger respondents are heavier users of mobile 

devices than older ones. While age, education and income are 

all indicators of the likelihood of using the Internet on a handheld device, the racial or ethnic classification of the respondent 

also emerges as a predictor—even when other factors are held 

constant. In other words, the differences that appear across 

races are not simply due to age or educational level.

Another issue is whether mobile Internet access is a substitute for home access. African-Americans and Hispanics 

report lower levels of home broadband adoption than whites 

yet are more likely to use the Internet on their handheld device 

(See Exhibit 15).

Are lower home adoption rates attributable to mobile 

Internet use? The survey results indicate the answer is, for 

the most part, “no.” There is a positive correlation between 

home Internet adoption and mobile Internet use—91 percent 

of mobile Internet users have Internet at home and 84 percent 

have broadband. Yet while African-Americans and Hispanics 

are more likely to be mobile Internet users, most users in these 

groups have broadband at home. More than three-quarters 

(78 percent) of African-American mobile Internet users have 

broadband at home, and more than two-thirds (68 percent) of 

Hispanic mobile Internet users have high-speed access at home. 

Viewed from the perspective of nonbroadband adopters, few 

non-adopters access the Internet on their handheld devices, 

though African-Americans and Hispanics do this at a higher 

rate than average. Specifically, among those who do not go 

online at home with a broadband connection:

➤ 14 percent of all non-adopters have accessed the Internet 

on their mobile devices.

➤ 20 percent of African-American non-adopters have accessed the Internet on a mobile device.

➤ 25 percent of Hispanic non-adopters have accessed the 

Internet on their mobile devices.

Overall, there is not a high incidence of mobile Internet 

access replacing home Internet connection. Rather—since 

most mobile Internet users also have broadband—it is an additional pathway to access. This pattern is not quite as strong 

for African-Americans and Hispanics, but the general trend is, 

nonetheless, the same for those groups. 

It is important not to confuse mobile Internet use with 

mobile broadband. To be sure, some of those using their mobile 

device for online access do so via relatively fast 3G and WiFi 

networks. However, it is difficult, using a survey, to determine 

what portion of mobile Internet users do this or how often. 

Mobile Wireless Broadband

Another access pathway for people is mobile wireless broadband service on a laptop. The survey asked laptop users the 

following question to probe mobile broadband use:

“Do you use a service with your laptop computer that is 

called wireless broadband, allowing you to access the Internet 

virtually anywhere? This is usually a service that you have to 

pay a monthly fee for, either by itself or as part of another communications bill. This is NOT what is called Wi-Fi.”

This access pathway appears at only modest levels in the 

general population. Among laptop users (52 percent of all 

adults), 28 percent said they used wireless broadband. As a percentage of the entire adult population, this comes to 15 percent 

who use wireless broadband.

African-Americans and Hispanics who have laptops were 

more likely than average to say they use such a service. Looking 

at the racial breakdown:

➤ Among African-Americans with laptops, 36 percent report using a mobile broadband service.

➤ Among Hispanics with laptops, 30 percent report using a 

mobile broadband service.

➤ Among whites with laptops, 26 percent report using a 

mobile broadband service.

The context for these findings is important. First, these 

figures apply to respondents with laptop computers—devices 

that Hispanics and African-Americans are less likely to have. 

(Some 54 percent of whites have a laptop, while 44 percent of 

Exhibit 15: 

By Race, Mobile and 

Home Internet Use

(% of mobile Internet users)

Internet at home Broadband at home

White 94 89

African-American 92 78

Hispanic 78 68

Total 91 84

Number of cases 3,455 2,671

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey of 5,005 adult Americans, October-November 2009.
2 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

African-Americans and 43 percent of Hispanics do.) As a share 

of the entire population of each of these groups, mobile broadband use unfolds as follows:

➤ Among all African-Americans, 16 percent say they use a 

mobile broadband service.

➤ Among all whites, 14 percent say they use a mobile broadband service.

➤ Among all Hispanics, 13 percent say they use a mobile 

broadband service.

Second, as noted, mobile broadband users are overwhelmingly home broadband users; 94 percent of all mobile broadband 

users have broadband at home, figures that are only modestly 

lower for African-Americans (91 percent) and Hispanics (84 

percent). Although some may be using their mobile broadband 

connection as their principle home access means, those saying 

they use mobile broadband were as likely as the average to say 

they use DSL, cable modem service and other wireline means 

such as fiber. As with mobile Internet use, mobile broadband is 

mainly a supplementary broadband access pathway.

What people pay for cell phone service

The survey asked cell phone users what their monthly bill was, 

and the question included a prompt for respondents to include 

charges for texting or long-distance service. Only respondents who receive a stand-alone cell phone bill—80 percent of 

respondents—received this question. The average figure they 

gave was $92 per month. 

By comparison, bill analysis from TNS Telecoms shows an 

average monthly cell phone bill of $99 per month. Many cell 

users have more than one line on their bill; for TNS, the average bill covered 1.9 lines. The FCC survey did not ask how many 

lines users had on their plan.

IV. Non-adopters: 

who they are and 

the barriers they 

face

Overview of non-adopters

Roughly one-third of Americans do not use broadband Internet 

at home. They fall into three categories of non-adoption:

➤ 22 percent of Americans do not use the Internet at all.

➤ 6 percent use the Internet but do not have access 

at home.

➤ 6 percent use dial-up Internet connections to go online 

from home.

Overall, 35 percent of Americans do not use broadband at 

home. (One percent of respondents were not broadband users, but could not be placed in any of three categories above). 

A small share—just 4 percent—say they cannot get service 

where they live. This is an imperfect measure of infrastructure 

availability, as it relies on the user accurately knowing about 

infrastructure in the neighborhood. This means that about onethird (31%) of Americans do not have broadband at home but 

could subscribe. However, the full cohort of non-adopters (35 

percent) is included in our analysis and discussion.

Key demographic differences when contrasting all nonadopters with adopters are:

➤ Gender: 57 percent of non-adopters are women versus 49 

percent of home broadband adopters.

➤ People with disabilities: 39 percent of non-adopters 

have a disability, compared with 15 percent of adopters.

➤ College graduates: Just 11 percent of non-adopters have 

college degrees versus 37 percent of broadband users.

➤ Age: 32 percent of non-adopters are age 65 or older versus 9 percent of adopters.

➤ Nearly two-thirds (65%) of non-adopters who are 

senior citizens are women.

➤ Income: 43 percent of non-adopters live in households 

with annual incomes of $20,000 or less, compared with 17 

percent of home broadband users.

➤ Rural: 24 percent of non-adopters live in rural areas 

versus 13 percent of broadband adopters.

Exhibit 16 presents detail on the demographic and socio-economic profiles for each of the three categories of 

non-adopters. Non-Internet users, the largest group, are older, 

lower-income and the least educated of the three. Online users 

who do not have home access tend to be younger women, usually with no more than a high school degree and low incomes. 

Dial-up users, though not as well off economically as broadband users, are higher on the socioeconomic scale than the 

other groups of non-adopters.

Past and proxy broadband use for nonadopters

Although those classified as non-adopters are not broadband 

users at home today, this does not mean that all of them are completely cut off from modern ICT goods or services. Many have 

a working computer at home (discussed below) and 49 percent 

uses computers occasionally, either at home, work or school. 

Additionally, some have had experience with broadband. 

Among dial-up users or “not-at-home” users, 46 percent have 
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 2 5

used broadband at some point—maybe at work, perhaps a 

friend’s house or possibly somewhere else. Among the wider 

set of all non-Internet users, 17 percent in this group were once 

Internet users at home. Of these former users, 49 percent say 

broadband was the type of home connection they had. 

Combining these two sets of nonusers’ past broadband 

Exhibit 16: 

The Demographics 

of Non-adopters

Broadband at 

home

Dial-up 

at home

Internet users, 

not at home

Non-Internet 

users

Gender

Male 51% 49% 41% 45%

Female 49 51 59 55

Families

Parents with minor children at home 36 24 27 19

Disabled

Those who report they have a disability 15 19 28 47

Age

18-29 25% 16% 39% 11%

30-49 39 27 34 20

50-64 26 33 20 28

65+ 9 24 8 41

Median Age 43 53 38 60

Race/ethnicity

White (not Hispanic) 74% 75% 64% 63%

Black (not Hispanic) 10 10 15 13

Hispanic (English or Spanish speaking) 10 10 15 20

Educational attainment

Less than high school 5% 12% 8% 39%

High school graduate 29 37 50 45

Some college 29 28 23 11

College + 37 23 19 5

Household income

Under $20K 10% 16% 30% 32%

$20K-$30K 7 13 16 17

$30K-$40K 9 11 18 7

$40K-$50K 9 15 7 8

$50K-$75K 16 14 11 6

$75K-$100K 15 8 6 1

Over $100K 20 5 3 2

Don’t know/refused 15 19 10 27

Community type

Urban 31 24 22 31

Suburban 51 43 40 45

Rural 14 29 21 22

Number of cases 2,671 459 392 1,450

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009. Total number of cases in this table is 4,972. This does not reflect the 

entire sample size of 5,005 because some responses did not permit classification into any of the categories.
2 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

experience yields reveals that one-quarter of non-adopters 

have had some experience with broadband—meaning they once 

had broadband access at home or have used it at work, a friend’s 

house or some other place. Put differently, 8 percent of the 

general population have had some exposure to broadband but 

do not presently have it at home. 

As to prospects for moving nonusers to broadband, 20 percent of nonusers say they would be interested in getting online 

access. Among current “not-at-home” Internet users, 46 

percentwould be interested in getting home access, while 41 

percent of dial-up users say they would be interested in getting 

broadband. Only 17 percent of dial-up users say they are very 

likely to get broadband in the next year. Similarly, among all

interested nonusers, broadband access is not a sure bet in the 

near future. Out of all non-adopters, 26 percent say it is very 

likely they will get broadband in the next 12 months, with another 28 percent saying this is somewhat likely. 

There is also the phenomenon of proxy access, that is, 

nonusers who cohabit with another Internet user. Among 

respondents who are non-Internet users or who do not use the 

Internet at home, 22 percent live with someone who uses the 

Internet at home. These nonusers often ask their online housemates to carry out tasks online for them. One in six (16 percent) 

say they ask their online housemates to do something online 

for them once a week. Another 20 percent say they do this once 

a month, while an additional 24 percent say they do a few times 

a year. 

A portion of the proxy access that nonusers’ housemates 

carry out is broadband. Nonusers who live with someone who 

goes online from home were asked about the household’s 

access. Some 21 percent say it is a dial-up connection, 47 percent state it is some other way and 32 percent do not know. 

Assuming that the response “some other way” reflects a home 

high-speed connection, these questions suggest that 2 percent 

of the general population fall into the category of nonusers who 

live in a broadband-connected household. 

The Role of Disabilities in Non-adoption

The largest group of nonbroadband adopters—non-Internet 

users—has a high likelihood of having some sort of disability. 

Overall, 39 percent of non-adopters have some sort of disability. The survey posed six questions, which, if any one yielded a 

“yes” answer, classified the respondent as a disabled American 

(See Exhibit 17). 

Collectively, 24 percent of respondents had an affirmative 

response to one of those questions and, for purposes of this 

report, are classified as people with disabilities.18 Within this 

group, 42 percent have broadband at home—much lower than 

the 65 percent average. Some 56 percent of those with disabilities are Internet users, below the 78 percent average. As the 

exhibit presenting the demographic and socioeconomic profiles 

of non-adopters shows, nearly half (47 percent) of non-Internet 

users report having some sort of disability. 

It is important to note that people with disabilities and 

non-adopters overlap quite a bit and in fact share many characteristics with non-adopters: They are generally older and have 

lower incomes. For that reason, it is not a surprise that nonadopters include a disproportionately high share of people with 

disabilities. Some of the difference in adoption rates is due to individuals’ disabilities and some is due lower incomes, advanced 

age or other factors associated with low adoption.

Why non-adopters do not have broadband

The survey sought to determine with as much specificity as 

possible why people without broadband choose not to have the 

service at home. Respondents were read a list of possible reasons for not having broadband and permitted to list as many as 

they chose as barriers. They then received a follow-up question 

asking the most important reason they did not have broadband. 

The question wording and choices offered varied slightly 

across different non-adopter groups. Dial-up users, for example, were offered the choice of “happy with current service,” 

which is not a relevant choice for those who do not use the 

Internet at all. A number of the exhibits show how people 

responded to the question that allowed them to list multiple 

Exhibit 17: 

Questions Used to 

Determine Disability 

( by Percentage)

Do you have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs? 12

Because of a physical, mental or emotional condition, do you have serious difficulty concentrating, 

remembering or making decisions? 8

Are you deaf or do you have serious difficulty hearing? 8

Because of a physical, mental or emotional condition, do you have difficulty doing errands alone such as 

visiting a doctor’s office or shopping? 6

Are you blind or do you have serious difficulty seeing even when wearing glasses? 5

Do you have difficulty dressing or bathing? 2

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey of 5,005 adult Americans, October-November 2009. 
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 2 7

reasons for non-adoption, then how they responded to the 

question asking about the most important reason.

Non-Internet users—22 percent of the adult population

Those who do not use the Internet offer a range of reasons for 

not being online. Nearly half cite the monthly cost, and similar 

numbers point to comfort with computers or worries about 

online content—that is, digital literacy looms as a barrier for 

them. The affordability of the computer is also a prominent 

reason for nonusers (See Exhibit 18).

The survey permitted respondents to choose more than one 

reason from the list of barriers to adoption. Fifty percent of 

nonusers picked at least three reasons, and one-quarter (24 

percent) cited at least five of the reasons listed. 

When asked the most important reason for not using the 

Internet, no single reason stands out for nonusers. About 16 

percent cite lack of comfort in using a computer as the main 

barrier, but cost (either monthly fee, cost of computer or activation fee) is the main reason cited by 25 percent of dial-up 

users. Some 12 percent are worried about risks online, and 14 

percent cite factors that suggest they are unclear about the 

Internet’s relevance to them (with 7 percent saying the Internet 

is a waste of time and 7 percent saying there is nothing they 

want to see online). (See Exhibit 19)

Those who cited monthly cost as a barrier (47% in this category of non-users) received follow-up questions on what they 

would be willing to pay for service. The responses sorted into 

three categories:

➤ 40 percent of nonusers provided an estimate and, among 

this group, the average monthly figure they said they 

would pay for Internet access at home was $26; the median figure was $20.

➤ 31 percent said either they don’t know or refused to 

answer.

➤ 29 percent said they were not willing to pay anything for 

access.

Exhibit 18: 

Reasons Nonusers 

Do Not Use the Internet 

( by Percentage)

Monthly cost is too expensive 47

I am not comfortable using a computer 46

I am worried about all the bad things that can happen if I use the Internet 45

The activation and installation fee to get service is too much 42

I cannot afford a computer 40

There is nothing on the Internet I want to see or use 35

The Internet is just a waste of time 33

I can access the Internet all I need to at work 14

It’s not available where I live 13

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=1,450 for nonusers. 

Exhibit 19: 

Main Reasons Nonusers 

Do Not Use the Internet 

( by Percentage)

I am not comfortable using a computer 16

I cannot afford a computer 14

I am worried about all the bad things that can happen if I use the Internet 12

Monthly cost is too expensive 11

The Internet is just a waste of time 7

There is nothing on the Internet I want to see or use 7

The activation and installation fee to get service is too much 5

It’s not available where I live 2

I can access the Internet all I need to at work 1

None of above reasons 9

Combination of reasons 5

Other reason 5

Don’t know/refused 3

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=1,450 for nonusers. 
2 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

As with nonusers, it is common for dial-up users to cite more 

than one reason that keeps them from using the Internet. Fiftysix percent cite at least three reasons and 18 percent cite five or 

more (See Exhibit 20).

About half of dial-up users are satisfied with their service or 

are not heavy Internet users. Half also cite the monthly cost, 

with a significant share saying the installation fee is a barrier. 

Nearly one-third say broadband is not available where they live. 

However, it is important to put this figure in proper context. 

First, dial-up users make up 6 percent of the adult population; 

if 30 percent truly cannot get broadband where they live, this 

means just 2 percent of adults (from this set of respondents 

who received the question) lack broadband availability. Second, 

since this is self-reported data on infrastructure availability, it 

is possible that respondents are wrong as to whether broadband 

is available where they live. Nonetheless, most (74 percent) of 

dial-up users who say availability is a barrier report that they 

would get broadband if it were available in their area.

When probed further on the most important barrier, issues 

pertaining to the relevance of the service (that is, not using the 

Internet very much, being content with current dial-up service 

and not needing additional speed) together loom largest (38 

percent) for dial-up users. Cost issues—monthly fee, activation 

fee, unwillingness to enter into a long-term contract—are next, 

cited as most important by 28 percent of dial-up users. 

Dial-up users who cited cost as a barrier then received a 

follow-up question asking how much they would be willing to 

pay for a broadband connection at home (See Exhibit 21). As 

with nonusers, responses fell into three categories. Among 

dial-up users citing monthly cost as a reason they do not have 

broadband:

➤ 62 percent provided an estimate. The average amount 

this group was willing to pay for broadband was $28 per 

month and the median figure was $25.

➤ 25 percent said they did not know or refused to answer 

the question.

➤ 13 percent said they would not be willing to pay anything 

for broadband.

Not-at-home users—6 percent of the adult population

Although the vast majority of Internet users have the means to 

go online from home, 6 percent do not. They use the Internet 

from elsewhere—perhaps work, perhaps the library—but not 

where they live.

For “not-at-home” users, worries about comfort with a 

computer or thinking there is nothing worthwhile online are not 

big barriers. Rather, affordability (e.g., monthly fee, activation 

Exhibit 20: 

Reasons Dial-Up Users, 

Who Make Up 6% of 

the Adult Population, 

Have Not Switched to 

Broadband 

( by Percentage) 

The monthly cost is too expensive 50

I’m happy with my current service 49

I do not use the Internet that much 44

I do not want to enter into a long-term service contract 44

The activation or installation fee to get service is too much 44

I do not need the additional speed it would offer 31

It’s not available where I live 29

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=567 for home dial-up users or those who did not know 

connection type. 

Exhibit 21:

Reasons Dial-Up Users 

Have Not Switched 

to Broadband 

( by Percentage)

The monthly cost is too expensive 19

I do not use the Internet that much 18

It’s not available where I live 17

I’m happy with my current service 16

I do not want to enter into a long-term service contract 4

I do not need the additional speed it would offer 4

The activation or installation fee to get service is too much 5

None of these reasons 7

Other/Don’t know 2

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=567 for home dial-up users or those who did not know 

connection type.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 2 9

charge or computer cost) plays a larger role. While those reasons 

are front and center, “not-at-home” users cite multiple reasons 

why they are not online. Two-thirds (66 percent) list at least 

three reasons and 11 percent cite five or more (See Exhibit 22).

Affordability clearly comes to the forefront when “not-athome” users are asked about the most important barrier they 

face. Some 41 percent cite the monthly cost or the outlay for 

a computer as the reasons they do not use the Internet from 

home.

As with prior groups, “not-at-home” users who said monthly 

cost was a barrier received a follow-up question on what they 

would be willing to pay for Internet access at home. Among 

“not-at-home” users for whom cost is a barrier (See Exhibit 23):

➤ 74 percent gave a dollar estimate; the average figure cited 

as this group’s willingness to pay for broadband was $21

per month and the median figure was $20.

➤ 16 percent said they did not know or refused to answer 

the question.

➤ 10 percent said they would not be willing to pay anything 

for broadband.

What non-adopters are willing to pay 

Across the three categories, 51 percent of all non-adopters 

said monthly cost was a barrier, although fewer said it was the 

primary reason they lack service. As is evident from the preceding discussion, not all of those who said cost was a barrier 

were able to respond to follow-up questions on how much they 

would be willing to pay for service. Across all three categories, 

just more than half (52 percent) of those who said monthly cost 

was a barrier could provide an estimate to the nearest dollar of 

what they would pay for service. As a share of all non-adopters, 

26 percent provided an estimate of willingness to pay for 

service. The willingness-to-pay figure for all non-adopters was 

$25 per month.

The $25 average does not mean that all non-adopters asked 

the question would purchase service if they faced a price at that 

level. Some respondents cited a figure above $25, many cited 

a figure below. In fact, among those who offered an answer, 65 

percent cited a figure of $20 per month or more for WTP. The 

vast majority (91 percent) of those who gave an answer cited a 

figure of $10 per month or more. 

Taking these respondents at their word—that they really 

would get broadband at the price they state—and representing 

Exhibit 23: 

Reasons “Not-atHome” Users Have Not 

Switched to Broadband 

( by Percentage)

Monthly cost is too expensive 27

I cannot afford a computer 15

I can access the Internet all I need to at work 11

I am worried about all the bad things that can happen if I use the Internet 9

The activation and installation fee to get service is too much 6

It’s not available where I live 5

I am not comfortable using a computer 5

The Internet is just a waste of time 4

There is nothing on the Internet I want to see or use 2

None of these reasons 7

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=392 for not-at-home users.

Exhibit 22:

Reasons “Not-atHome” Users Have Not 

Switched to Broadband 

( by Percentage)

Monthly cost is too expensive 57

The activation and installation fee to get service is too much 51

I can access the Internet all I need to at work 34

I cannot afford a computer 32

I am worried about all the bad things that can happen if I use the Internet 31

It’s not available where I live 15

There is nothing on the Internet I want to see or use 14

The Internet is just a waste of time 14

I am not comfortable using a computer 13

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=392 for not-at-home users.
3 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

the figures above for $20 per month and $10 per month as a 

share of all adults:

➤ A $20 offer would yield an increase in overall broadband 

adoption of 6 percentage points. 

➤ A $10 offer would yield an increase of 8 percentage 

points.

These small impacts reflect the fact that the survey tested 

the hypothesis that there are multiple reasons for non-adoption, with cost being one among them. The survey found that 

people had multiple barriers with, as noted previously, 51 

percent citing cost as one of them, followed up by a question 

on willingness-to-pay. Just more than half cited a figure, while 

28 percent answered “don’t know” and the balance said they 

would pay nothing for broadband. 

Finally, it is important to underscore the uncertainties 

inherent in measures of willingness-to-pay. Respondents are 

asked to make judgments on the value of a service that, many at 

least, have used sparingly (if at all); they therefore lack information on service attributes, which is key to placing a dollar 

value. For that reason, measures of willingness to pay, and the 

scenario on how much additional adoption would ensue from 

specific price offerings, should be taken as illustrative, not 

predictive. 

Summary on most important reason 

for non-adoption

The three baskets of non-adopters were asked similar kinds 

of questions about why they do not have broadband or any 

Internet service at home. Pulling the reasons together across 

all three groups of non-adopters yields the following consolidated reasons for non-adoption among all those who do not 

have broadband at home.

Cost: 36 percent of non-adopters cite a cost-related reason 

as their main barrier to adoption, with 15 percent pointing to 

the monthly cost of service, another 10 percent citing affordability of a computer and 9 percent saying they do not want a 

long-term service contract or find the installation fee too high. 

The remaining 2 percent cited a combination of these reasons. 

Digital Literacy: 22 percent of non-adopters give a digital 

literacy-related topic as their main barrier. These are nonadopters who said that “they are not comfortable using a 

computer” or they “are worried about all the bad things that 

can happen on the Internet.” Digital literacy breaks down as 

follows: 10 percent of non-adopters cite “worries about bad 

things” and 12 percent said they are “not comfortable with computers.” Although worries about online hazards (e.g., exposure 

to inappropriate content or the possibility of identity theft) 

exist for many current broadband users, some non-adopters are 

concerned enough to avoid the Internet altogether. This may 

have to do with the age of those citing digital literacy as a barrier. Their median age is 62.

Relevance: 19 percent of non-adopters say they do not think 

digital content delivered using broadband is sufficiently compelling to justify getting it. Many view broadband as an avenue 

to irrelevant content, and others seem content with the offline 

alternatives currently available to them. These respondents say, 

for instance, that the Internet is a “waste of time,” they do not 

believe there is anything worth viewing online or, for dial-up 

users, they cite contentment with their current service. Each 

of those reasons indicates that these non-adopters are on the 

other side of a perceptual chasm with respect to broadband. 

Unlike broadband users, they are not attuned to online content’s potential to provide information or opportunities for 

learning.

Other: 11 percent of non-adopters cited a variety of reasons 

that did not group into an identifiable category or offered no 

response.

Combination: 4 percent of non-adopters cited as their main 

reason a combination of reasons listed, whether that was price, 

worries about “bad” things online or other items.

Lack of availability: 5 percent of non-adopters said that 

the main reason they do not have the Internet or broadband is 

that it is not available where they live. This response is highest 

among dial-up users, 21 percent of whom say that broadband is 

not available where they live. 

Use high-speed at work: Finally, 3 percent of non-adopters said the main reason they do not have broadband at home 

is because they use broadband as much as they want at the 

workplace.

For the “lack of availability” reason, it is also important to 

distinguish respondents citing lack of availability as the most 

important reason for not having broadband from those who 

cited it as one of several reasons. Because people could list 

multiple reasons for not adopting (prior to being asked the 

most important reason), some who cited lack of infrastructure 

availability could (and did) not cite that as their most important reason for non-adopting. The upshot is that 12 percent of 

non-adopters cited lack of availability as a reason for not having broadband, while 5 percent of non-adopters cited it as the 

most important reason. The 12 percent of non-adopters citing 

lack of available infrastructure translates into 4 percent of all 

Americans who say they cannot get broadband because it is not 
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 3 1

available where they live. Finally, it is important to underscore 

that this is a self-reported assessment about the availability of 

broadband infrastructure, not an actual measure of whether 

broadband is in the respondent’s neighborhood.

When respondents can cite multiple reasons 

for not adopting

It is also worth summarizing, for all non-adopters, what share 

cited any of the reasons listed as possible barriers. The survey 

permitted non-adopters to list several reasons for not adopting 

before asking them to state the most important reason. Because 

respondents could list more than one reason—in fact most 

cited multiple reasons—the figures below sum to more than 

100 percent.

Cost: 66 percent of non-adopters cited any of the reasons 

that constitute the “cost” category, that is, two-thirds of nonadopters listed monthly access fee, cost of computer, installation fee, or reluctance in entering into a long term contract, as a 

reason they do not use the internet or broadband.

Relevance: 52 percent of non-adopters said that they found 

the internet to be a waste of time, they did not think there is 

anything worth seeing online, or they were content with their 

current service.

Digital literacy: 47 percent of non-adopters listed their 

lack of comfort with computers or worries “about all the bad 

things that can happen on the internet” as reasons for not having broadband.

Lack of availability: 12 percent of non-adopters said that 

their inability to get service where they live is why they do not 

have broadband.

To underscore how barriers to access interact in users’ 

minds, the following shows the frequency with which those who 

cited a particular barrier also pointed to others. 

Among the 66 percent of non-adopters who cited cost as a 

barrier:

➤ 50 percent also listed a digital literacy-related barrier.

➤ 48 percent also listed concerns about the relevance of the 

internet as a barrier.

Among the 52 percent of non-adopters who listed lack of 

relevance as a barrier:

➤ 45 percent also listed a digital literacy-related barrier.

➤ 28 percent also listed on the cost-related reasons.

Among the 47 percent of non-adopters who listed digital 

literacy as a barrier:

➤ 70 percent also listed cost as a barrier.

➤ 57 percent also listed lack of relevance as a barrier.

An important consequence of this analysis is that nonadopters typically face multiple barriers to adoption. Even 

though cost leads the way, most of the time even those who 

worry about cost need help in other areas. Likewise, those who 

say lack of relevance is a barrier also have issues with digital 

literacy and, to a less extent, cost.

Segmenting the population of non-adopters

Each of the three baskets of non-adopters reveals tendencies 

as to why people do not have broadband. Financial matters are 

critical for not-at-home Internet users, while dial-up users 

seem distant from the Internet, apparently not seeing a lot 

online that might lure them to faster service. Nonusers—the 

largest group of non-adopters, constituting two-thirds of 

non-adopters—are harder to pin down. Many cite reasons suggesting they do not see the relevance of the Internet, yet some 

point to costs and others worry about risks in being online.

Even if the survey responses yielded crisp reasons for nonadoption across categories of nonbroadband users, it would be 

worthwhile to know more than just a person’s stated barrier to 

adopting. In particular, it would help to know something about 

the person’s ability to clear the barrier.

One technique to do this is to segment the population of 

non-adopters into several groups based on measures of a respondent’s relationship to the Internet. The following analysis 

does this and it is built on two dimensions:

➤ Proximity to ICTs: All survey respondents were asked 

whether they have computers, cell phone or premium TV 

at home. Nonbroadband adopters also were asked if they 

had ever used a computer. 

➤ Attitudes about the Internet and computers: 

Respondents received questions about their overall comfort with computers and attitudes about the Internet. 

The survey details the specific attitudinal questions and 

responses for broadband adopters and non-adopters. It is 

clear that people without broadband at home use ICTs. Among 

non-adopters:

➤ 80 percent have premium TV, either cable or satellite 

television.

➤ 70 percent have a cell phone.

➤ On average, these cell phone users spend $73 per 

month on service.

➤ 49 percent say they use computers, at least occasionally.

➤ 42 percent have at least one working computer at home.
3 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

➤ Among nonbroadband-adopting computer users, 

34 percent say they are very comfortable using them.

On the second issue, non-adopters have a mix of attitudes 

about the Internet—some positive, others less so. Exhibit 24

compares “strongly agree” responses for broadband adopters 

and non-adopters.

The attitudinal and proximity questions serve as input into 

statistical analysis that classifies respondents based on their 

responses. That analysis includes all non-adopters—dial-up, 

not-at-home users and nonusers. The analysis yielded four 

groups of non-adopters, each with distinct characteristics 

described below. The analysis also identifies the key adoption 

barriers in each group, although answers to those questions 

were not inputs into the statistical analysis that created the 

groups.19

Group 1: Digitally Distant: 10 percent of the general 

population

This group does not see the point of being online and does not 

have the computer skills to dive in even if its members were 

so inclined. Few (15 percent) in this group see the Internet as 

a tool for learning and most see it as a dangerous place, either 

for children (53 percent) or personal information (56 percent). 

Very few (11 percent) have a computer. Many (25 percent) 

cite digital literacy as a barrier to adoption, and nearly half 

are retired from the work force. Just 8 percent of this group 

have any experience with broadband (i.e., they used at a place 

other than home or used to have home high-speed service). The 

Digitally Distant group has a low probability of adoption in the 

near future.

The important demographic characteristics of this group 

have to do with age. With a median age of 63, it is the oldest of 

any of the groups; 47 percent are age 65 or older. The Digitally 

Distant also has the highest rate of retirees across the four 

groups, at 45 percent. They are also not well off economically, 

with 50 percent reporting annual household incomes below 

$30,000.

Group 2: Digital Hopefuls: 8 percent

The Digital Hopefuls like the idea of being online, but lack 

the resources to connect using broadband. Members of this 

group have positive attitudes about how the Internet might 

be a tool for learning and personal productivity; 86 percent 

strongly believe it is a useful tool for learning and 68 percent 

believe people can be more productive using the Internet. But 

22 percent cannot afford a computer (and only 3 percent have 

one at home), 15 percent cannot afford the monthly access fee 

and only 9 percent have past experience using broadband. A 

significant share (28 percent) cites digital literacy as a barrier, 

the highest of any group. Given help—likely a lot of it—in clearing cost hurdles to access, members of this group have a positive 

probability of adopting broadband.

Consistent with their lack of resources to connect, the 

Digital Hopefuls are the least well off economically of any 

group. Some 44 percent live in households with annual incomes 

of $20,000 or less. Nearly half (49 percent) have not graduated from high school. This group, with a median age is 57, has 

the highest share of Hispanics (26 percent). One in five are 

African-Americans and 50 percent are white. 

Group 3: Digitally Uncomfortable: 7 percent

The Digitally Uncomfortable has the equipment for access 

(nearly all have a computer), but the group has tepid attitudes 

about the usefulness of the Internet and low comfort levels 

with computers. Just 24 percent say they are very comfortable 

using them, and just more than one-third (37 percent) see the 

internet as a productivity tool. Although some in the Digitally 

Uncomfortable group could use a break on the monthly access fee (16 percent), more need help learning about relevant 

content (18 percent) and improving their digital literacy (17 

percent). Twenty-one percent cite a lack of available infrastructure as a reason they do not have broadband. 

As to attitudes, 53 percent worries about security of personal information online, although a majority (68 percent) 

sees the Internet as a useful tool for learning and information 

gathering. The path to access and robust use might be long for 

this group. Because they have already cleared the computer 

ownership hurdle and because one-third (35 percent) have 

Exhibit 24:

How Strongly Do You 

Agree or Disagree 

With the Following 

Statements 

(% of Non-adopters 

Who “Strongly Agree”)

There is too much pornography and offensive material on the Internet 65

It is too easy for my personal information to be stolen online 57

The Internet is a valuable source for information and learning 59

It is important for children to learn how to use the Internet 54

The Internet is too dangerous for children 46

People can be more productive using the Internet 37

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009; n=2,334 for non-adopters.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 3 3

past experience with broadband, the Digitally Uncomfortable, 

with the right support, stand a reasonable chance of adopting 

broadband.

From a socioeconomic perspective, members of the Digitally 

Uncomfortable group are very much the average non-adopter. 

The median age is 55 (versus 54 for all non-adopters), 63 percent are white (the same as the average), and 27 percent have 

either graduated from college or at least attended college (also 

the average).

Group 4: Near Converts: 10 percent

This group has many of the qualities of broadband adopters—

a high rate of computer ownership (76 percent use them occasionally and 68 percent own one), comfort with computers 

(56 percent describe themselves as very comfortable with 

the device) and positive attitudes about the Internet’s usefulness (three-quarters say it is a valuable learning tool). And 42 

percent have used broadband in the past. However, nearly 41 

percent cite financial issues as the main barrier to home broadband access, principally the monthly access fee. Concerns about 

the Internet’s relevance to their lives also play a role. At 10 percent of the general population, this group has a high probability 

of adopting broadband—if they clear financial constraints.

The Near Converts are much younger than other non-adopters (their median age is 45) and they have much higher levels 

of educational attainment. Half have either graduated from 

college or attended college. Their incomes are in the middle 

ranges (30 percent have annual household incomes between 

$40,000 and $75,000) and most are employed full or part time.

Exhibit 25 summarizes the main barriers that each segment of non-adopters faces. A clear implication of Exhibit 25

is this: The greater the conversion probability, the larger role 

the monthly Internet bill plays as a barrier. The Near Converts 

have the highest probability of becoming broadband adopters; the monthly access cost is the main hurdle. The most 

difficult-to-convert group is the Digitally Distant; they have 

no single reason standing out as a barrier. In between the two 

extremes, cost plays a role in slightly different ways (computer 

affordability for the Digitally Adrift, monthly bill for the 

Digitally Disposed), but other factors are important, too.

At the same time, although cost leads as a primary barrier 

for non-adopters, nearly two-thirds cite a reason other than 

cost. As noted earlier, non-adopters generally mention more 

than one obstacle for adoption—meaning interventions to lure 

people to broadband should be comprehensive in nature. Cost 

relief will work effectively for many non-adopters but only 

when accompanied by training programs to bolster their digital 

skills and information about content that is relevant to their 

lives. Similarly, addressing digital literacy in isolation is not 

likely to be effective unless cost is addressed and efforts are 

made to inform people about online content relevant to them.

V. Focus on key 

population groups

Although this paper has referred to differences among population subgroups, this section has key figures for several groups 

of interest, as well as discussion of notable variations in behavior and attitudes for these groups. This focus on specific groups 

covers data on adoption and non-adoption. 

Families (respondent is the parent of child 

under 18 who lives in household)

With the integration of information technology into so many 

dimensions of family life—whether is communicating with one 

another or schools—it is no surprise that those with children 

under age 18 in the house generally have a lot of information 

technology. Nine out of 10 (87 percent) have Internet access, 

and 74 percent have broadband at home. The survey interviewed parents, of whom 92 percent have a cell phone, and 

many (39 percent) use it sometimes to access the Internet. 

Among kids under 18 living at home, 45 percent have cell 

phones. For children between the ages of 12 and 17, some 75 

percent have cell phones.

Exhibit 25: 

Summary of Most 

Important Barriers by 

Segment

Segment % as share of all Americans today Adoption barriers faced

1. Near Converts 10 Cost 

(mostly monthly bill)

2. Digital Hopefuls 7 Cost (mostly monthly bill), relevance

3. Digitally Uncomfortable 8 Cost (mostly PC), 

digital literacy, accessibility

4. Digitally Distant 10 Cost, digital literacy, 

relevance, accessibility

Total Non-adopters 35
3 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

Although families with minor children at home have higher 

broadband adoption rates, there is still a gap between broadband 

adoption and computer ownership. Among such families, 87 percent have a working computer at home—a 13-percentage-point 

gap compared with 74 percent of those without children who 

have a working computer at home.

The survey asked parents or guardians the ages of their 

children. When it came broadband adoption, there was little 

difference between parents with children from ages 5 to 12, and 

those with children between 13 and 17; the level was 72 percent 

for families with younger children and 75 percent for families 

with older ones. To the extent large adoption differences unfold 

by age, younger parents are less likely to have broadband at 

home than older ones. For parents with offspring at home in the 

18-to-29 age range, 65 percent have broadband at home, compared with 77 percent of parents older than that.

As to online activities, parents tend to engage in activities 

that focus on convenience and community. Fully 86 percent have 

used their broadband connection to keep up with community 

news, 85 percent for online purchases and 57 percent to get 

advice or information from a government agency about a health 

or safety issue; all of these exceed the average. When asked what 

activities are very important to them, 44 percent cite keeping up 

with news about the community; that is above the average.

Non-adopters

Cost—and the monthly fee in particular—comes front and 

center as the barrier to adoption for non-adopting families. 

Half (48 percent) say that cost is the primary reason they are 

not online, with 24 percent specifically citing the monthly. 

Issues such as digital literacy (16 percent) or lack of relevance 

(13 percent) figure much less. Note that the “other” category 

in Exhibit 26, and ones that follow, refers to all other reasons 

cited by respondents, which may include items such as lack of 

availability and ability to use the Internet from work.

Low-income Americans

There is a clear relationship between broadband adoption and 

income. Some 40 percent of those with household incomes of 

$20,000 per year or less have broadband at home, while 91 percent of those with household incomes above $75,000 per year 

have it (See Exhibit 27).

Not only does broadband adoption vary by income, individuals with broadband at home exhibit some differences in 

behavior and attitude toward broadband depending on their 

income. In general terms, lower-income broadband users 

are more likely to use their home high-speed connections to 

address important life issues, such as job searches or education, and for entertainment. Higher-income broadband users, 

however, are more likely than low-income ones to shop online, 

contact government and bank (See Exhibit 27). 

When asked whether particular online activities were very 

important to them, low-income and upper-income broadband 

users share the idea that communicating with family and 

friends is very important. By a modest margin (74 percent to 68 

percent), low-income broadband users are more likely to say 

that than upper-income ones. Low-income users are also more 

likely to say that entertainment activities are very important to 

them. One in five (21 percent) low-income broadband users say 

that watching TV, movies or videos online is very important to 

them, compared with 8 percent of upper-income users who say 

this. However, upper-income broadband users are nearly twice 

as likely to say that shopping online is very important to them; 

32 percent say this versus 17 percent of low-income broadband 

users.

Non-adopters

Unsurprisingly, those with the lowest incomes are most likely 

to cite cost as the main barrier to having broadband at home 

(See Exhibit 28).

For the other barriers—digital literacy and relevance—the 

stories are mixed. For digital literacy, aside from low-income 

Exhibit 26:

Barriers to Adoption: 

Families with Minor 

Children at Home 

( by Percentage)

Main reason cited for not having the 

Internet or broadband Families with minor children at home Other non-adopters

Cost 46 31

Digital literacy 16 24

Relevance 13 21

Other 25 25

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009. 
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 3 5

people citing it less often, around one-fourth of non-adopters 

point to it as a primary barrier. The Internet’s perceived lack of 

relevance is more of an issue in the middle-income ranges. For 

higher-income non-adopters (of which there are few), hard-tocategorize “other” reasons dominate. 

African-Americans

For African-Americans, online access is, relative to the average, 

somewhat less oriented to home high-speed wireline access 

and more focused on mobile Internet. Nearly three in five 

(59 percent) African-Americans have broadband at home, but 

39 percent have used the Internet on their mobile handheld 

device. For African-Americans, home broadband adoption 

trails the national average by six percentage points; for mobile 

Internet use, African-Americans outpace the national average 

by nine percentage points. 

To an extent greater than average, African-Americans without broadband at home use the mobile Internet as a substitute, 

but it is not a very widespread practice. Among AfricanAmericans who have gone online with their mobile device, 

78 percent have broadband at home; for all mobile Internet 

users, the home broadband adoption rate is 89 percent. For 

African-Americans without broadband at home, 20 percent 

have used the Internet on their handheld devices; that figure is 

just 9 percent for all non-adopters.

Another distinctive pattern among African-Americans is 

that broadband adoption gaps are particularly acute for older 

African-Americans. In fact, broadband adoption for AfricanAmericans is 76 percent in the 18–29 age group, essentially the 

same others. Thereafter, however, African-Americans are much 

less likely than average to adopt broadband at home when the 

Exhibit 28: 

Reasons for Not 

Adopting Broadband 

( by Percentage)

Cost Digital literacy Relevance Other

Under $20K 47 17 15 21

$20K–$30K 37 23 18 23

$30K–$40K 38 21 14 27

$40K–$50K 29 24 23 25

$50K–$75K 25 23 26 23

Over $75K 25 20 12 43

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 27:

By Income, Reasons 

for Broadband Use 

( by Percentage)

Low-income broadband users

(annual household income 

of $20K or less)

Upper-income broadband users 

(annual household income 

of $75K or more)

Activities in which 

low-income users lead

Get information about a job or apply for one 77 60

Play games 70 44

Stream music to your computer 64 55

Take a class for credit 31 25

Play complicated role-playing games 21 9

Activities in which 

upper-income users lead

Buy a product 74 93

Go to local, state, or government Web site 68 86

Get international news 64 85

Banking 51 80

Review a product or service 49 62

Contact a government agency 

about health or safety issue 42 62

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.
3 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

focus is on age and the gap is most pronounced among senior 

citizens (See Exhibit 29).

Because of the high share of young people in the ranks of 

African-American broadband adopters, the online activities 

of African-American broadband users takes on a youthful 

cast. Some 83 percent of African-Americans with broadband 

have used the connection to search for or apply for a job, far 

above the 57 percent rate for other broadband users. AfricanAmerican broadband users are also more likely to take a class 

for credit online or participate in a blog (See Exhibit 30).

As to what they see as very important, African-American 

broadband users are very likely to say communicating with 

family and friends, although at a somewhat lower rate than 

average. African-Americans are, however, more likely to say 

that the Internet is very important to them for keeping up with 

community news and entertainment (See Exhibit 31).

Non-adopters

For African-Americans without broadband access at home, cost 

is cited as the main reason—and it weighs in at a rate somewhat 

higher than average. Forty-two percent of African-Americans 

cite cost as the primary reason they do not have broadband at 

home; this compares to an average 36 percent among nonadopters (See Exhibit 32).

Dissecting the cost factor shows that 15 percent of AfricanAmericans point to the affordability of a personal computer 

(above the 10 percent average), and 15 percent cite the level of 

the monthly bill (right at the average). 

Hispanics

The gap separating Hispanics’ home broadband use from 

the average is wider than the comparable figure for AfricanAmericans; 49 percent of Hispanics have broadband at home. 

There is also a gap in adoption within the groups, as Spanishspeaking Hispanics are far less likely to have broadband at 

home than those whose facility with English is such that they 

opted to take the survey in English. For Hispanic respondents 

who chose to take the survey in Spanish, just 20 percent have 

broadband at home. Hispanics who took the survey in English 

are right at the 65 percent average for home high-speed adoption (See Exhibit 33).

The adoption gap for Hispanics is most acute among young 

adults. Some 57 percent of Hispanics between the ages of 18 and 

29 have broadband, more than 20 points below the average. Just 

Exhibit 29: 

Broadband Adoption by 

Age: African-Americans 

( by Percentage)

African-Americans All others in sample

All 59 66

Ages 18–29 76 75

Ages 30–49 67 75

Ages 50–64 49 66

Ages 65+ 21 36

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 30: 

Online Activities: 

African-Americans 

( by Percentage)

African-Americans All other broadband adopters

Get information about or apply for a job 83 57

Update a blog (either own or group blog) 37 24

Take a class toward a degree 37 22

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 31: 

Online Attitudes: 

African-Americans 

% who say this is very important to them African-Americans All other broadband adopters

Communicating with family & friends 61 67

Keeping up with news in the community 51 38

Watching TV shows, movies or other video 18 9

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 3 7

more than half (53 percent) of those between the ages of 30 and 

49 have broadband, 25 points behind the average.

Hispanics are not laggards when it comes to the cell phone. 

The vast majority (85 percent) has one and, along with AfricanAmericans, members of this group are active users of the 

mobile Internet; 39 percent have taken advantage of online 

access with their handheld. To a somewhat greater extent than 

African-Americans, mobile access takes the place of broadband 

at home. One-quarter of Hispanics who do not have broadband 

at home access the Internet using their mobile device. Among 

Hispanics who have used the Internet via handheld devices, 68 

percent have broadband at home, another indication that the 

mobile Internet fills the wireline void for some Hispanics.

As to online activities, Hispanics stand out, relative to the 

average, in two clear ways. 

➤ Job Search: Hispanics are more likely to use their 

high-speed connection to search for or apply for a 

job—68 percent versus the 59 percent average.

➤ Streaming or downloading music: Consistent with the 

youthful Hispanic population, they are more likely to 

download or stream music—69 percent versus the 49 percent average.

At the same time, the broadband connection is also important for Hispanics for following what is going on in the 

community. Fully 80 percent use the Internet for getting local 

or community news, and 52 percent identify this kind of activity as very important to them, compared with the 38 percent 

figure for others. 

Non-adopters

The story among Hispanic non-adopters is cost. Half cite 

it as the main barrier to adoption. Twenty-one percent 

(See Exhibit 34) say the monthly online bill is too much for 

them, and 23 percent say they cannot afford a computer.

Exhibit 33:

Broadband Adoption 

by Age: Hispanics 

( by Percentage)

Hispanics All others in sample

All 49 67

Ages 18–29 57 81

Ages 30–49 53 78

Ages 50–64 32 67

Ages 65+ 23 36

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 34:

Barriers to Adoption: 

Hispanics 

( by Percentage)

Main reason cited for not having 

the Internet or broadband Hispanics Other non-adopters

Cost 52 32

Digital literacy 18 22

Relevance 14 20

Other 16 26

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 32: 

Barriers to Adoption: 

African-Americans 

( by Percentage)

Main reason cited for not having 

the Internet or broadband African-Americans Other non-adopters

Cost 42 35

Digital literacy 20 22

Relevance 13 20

Other 25 24

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.
3 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

People with disabilities

As noted earlier, 23 percent of respondents in this survey 

answered “yes” to one of six questions intended to identify an 

individual as having a disability. In the survey, those with a disability were older than most respondents, with a median age of 

57. This explains, in part, the lower overall Internet penetration 

rate for this group (56 percent) and the low rate of home highspeed adoption (42 percent). Although 74 percent have a cell 

phone, people with disabilities are not very likely to access the 

Internet with it (only 18 percent have). 

One-third of respondents with a disability were over the 

age of 65 in the survey, and only 25 percent have broadband at 

home. At the other end of the spectrum, one-third is under the 

age of 50, and 57 percent has broadband at home—more than 

20 points below average. It is notable that senior citizens with 

disabilities are 76% less likely to have broadband than seniors 

who do not have a disability. (See Exhibit 35)

Notable among those with disabilities is the narrower scope 

of online activities. For some activities, people with disabilities who have broadband are nearly as likely to engage in them 

as the overall average. Three quarters (73 percent) of people 

with disabilities use their broadband connection to get news 

about their communities, not too far from what other broadband users say (81 percent). People with disabilities are also 

within range of others for use of their broadband connection to 

visit a government Web site (71 percent versus the 80 percent 

average).

On the whole, however, broadband-using people with disabilities do fewer things online than average. The survey asked 

half of all respondents about eight different online activities, 

and the other half about another eight activities. Among both 

sets of activities, respondents with disabilities and broadband 

were less active than the average. For one set, broadband-using 

people with disabilities did 4.6 activities on average compared 

to 5.1 for broadband users without a disability. For the other 

set, the figures were 3.3 and 3.7, respectively, for broadband users with disabilities and other broadband users. The differences 

may not seem great, but they indicate a level of online activity 

for broadband users with disabilities that is about 12 percent 

lower than that of broadband users who are not disabled. 

People with disabilities share have many of the characteristics that are often associated with lower levels of Internet 

use—advanced age and lower income. However, having a disability—even when those other characteristics are taken into 

account—is significantly correlated with lower levels of online 

activity. 

Non-adopters

People with disabilities do not differ greatly from the average 

in terms of why they do not have broadband at home. They are 

somewhat more likely to say they cannot afford a computer (15 

percent cite it as the main reason versus the 10 percent average), which may be due to the extra expense for some users 

for fitting a computer with the capability to allow them to use 

broadband (See Exhibit 36).

Exhibit 35:

Broadband Adoption 

by Age for People with 

a Disability 

( by Percentage)

People with disabilities All others in sample

All 42 72

Ages 18–29 59 78

Ages 30–49 56 77

Ages 50–64 43 72

Ages 65+ 25 44

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 36: 

Barriers to Adoption: 

People with Disabilities 

( by Percentage)

Main reason cited for not having 

the Internet or broadband People with Disabilities Other non-adopters

Cost 37 35

Digital literacy 25 19

Relevance 17 19

Other 21 27

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 3 9

residents between 18 and 29 have broadband at home, compared with the average of 75 percent.

It appears that some rural high-speed users take advantage 

of the distance-bridging capacity of broadband. More than 

three-quarters (77 percent) of rural broadband users have 

bought a product online. Although this is below the average 

84 percent rate for other broadband users, it is notable in light 

of the fact that rural Americans have a higher share of two 

qualities that discourage online buying: age and lower incomes. 

Similarly, 25 percent of rural Americans have taken a class online—something more the province of young people—matching 

the 24 percent rate for other broadband users.

As to what is important to them, 60 percent of rural broadband users say communicating with family and friends is very 

important, followed by 33 percent who value keeping up with 

community news and 33 percent who say sharing content with 

others is very important.

Non-adopters

The reasons rural Americans cite for not having broadband at 

home differ modestly from the average—with one exception. 

Rural non-adopters are twice as likely as urban or suburban 

non-adopters to say broadband is not available where they live 

(by a 10 percent to 4 percent margin, which is reflected in the 

“other” category below). They are less likely than other nonadopters to say cost is a barrier (31 percent to 38 percent) and 

relatively few (9 percent) say that the expense of a computer 

keeps them from broadband (See Exhibit 38).

Rural Americans

In the survey, rural Americans are people living in counties that 

do not contain any portion of a metropolitan statistical area 

(MSA). This is distinct from urban areas, defined as central 

cities in MSAs, and suburban areas, which are any portion of 

an MSA county that is not a central city. Place of residence 

is typically easy to determine from the respondents’ landline 

telephone number. Cell phone numbers may not map as easily to place of residence, and for that reason, respondents are 

asked to name the zip code for where they live. This is used to 

determine place of residence (rural, urban, or suburban) for 

respondents contacted on their cell phone. Using these two 

methods, 17 percent of respondents met the definition of residents of rural America.

There is a sizable gap between rural Americans with any sort 

of access to the Internet (71 percent) and those with broadband at home (50 percent). Ten percent of rural residents have 

dial-up Internet connection, above the average, reflecting the 

difficulty in running broadband infrastructure to some corners 

of rural America (See Exhibit 37). Fully 80 percent of rural 

Americans have cell phones, but just 20 percent have used 

them for Internet access.

Rural Americans tend to be older than their suburban 

and urban counterpart (the median age for rural adults is 50 

compared with 46 for all American adults) and with somewhat 

lower incomes. Younger rural Americans are far behind when it 

comes to broadband adoption by age; 56 percent of rural 

Exhibit 38: 

Barriers to Adoption: 

Rural Americans 

( by Percentage)

Main reason cited for not having 

the Internet or broadband Rural residents National Average

Cost 31 38

Digital literacy 23 21

Relevance 19 18

Service not available 10 4

Other 18 19

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.

Exhibit 37: 

Broadband Adoption 

by Geographic Location 

( by Percentage)

Rural residents All others in sample

All 50 68

Ages 18–29 56 78

Ages 30–49 63 76

Ages 50–64 51 67

Ages 65+ 29 37

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009.
4 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

Appendix: 

Tables on 

Demographics 

and Use

Demographic and socio-economic overview of those with various technological assets

(as a percentage of Americans)

Cable or 

satellite TV

Landline 

phone

Cell 

phone

Working computer at home

Gender

Male 48 46 50 50

Female 52 54 50 50

Parents with minor children at home 33 33 34 36

Those who report they have a disability 23 25 20 18

18–29 20 15 24 24

30–49 34 34 37 38

50–64 27 29 26 26

65+ 17 20 13 12

White (not Hispanic) 71 74 71 73

Black (not Hispanic) 11 11 12 10

Hispanic (English or Spanish speaking) 12 10 12 11

Less than high school 13 12 10 7

High school graduate 34 35 34 32

Some college 25 24 26 28

College + 29 29 30 34

Under $20K 15 14 15 12

$20K–$30K 9 9 9 8

$30K–$40K 9 8 10 10

$40K–$50K 9 9 9 10

$50K–$75K 14 14 15 16

$75K–$100K 11 11 12 13

Over $100K 15 15 15 17

Don’t know/refused 18 20 17 16

Urban 29 28 30 29

Suburban 50 52 49 51

Rural 17 18 16 17

Number of cases 4,301 4,373 4,268 3,650

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October-November 2009. 
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 4 1

Appendix: Demographic & socio-economic overview of those who do various activities online

(% broadband adapters in group)

Get local or 

community 

news*

Upload 

or share 

content*

Visit local, 

state or 

federal 

government 

Web site*

Download 

or stream 

music*

Buy a 

product 

online*

Use a 

social 

networking site*

Submit a 

review for 

a product 

or service*

Play 

games 

online*

Male 78 44 79 54 82 52 53 41

Female 82 52 78 49 84 58 57 56

Parents with 

minor children at 

home

86 51 82 58 85 59 56 53

Those who report 

they have a 

disability

73 41 71 45 73 47 57 52

18–29 86 67 75 75 86 85 57 63

30–49 85 49 80 58 84 57 58 50

50–64 74 37 83 34 84 38 53 38

65+ 58 26 68 17 69 16 39 27

White 

(not Hispanic) 79 48 81 49 87 54 55 46

Black 

(not Hispanic) 80 48 70 52 69 56 63 63

Hispanic 

(English or 

Spanish speaking)

80 45 74 70 70 59 49 49

Less than high 

school 75 48 60 57 64 55 51 76

High school 

graduate 73 36 66 48 74 50 47 47

Some college 81 48 83 53 84 58 56 54

College+ 85 56 87 53 92 57 60 40

Under $20K 80 46 68 64 74 58 49 70

$20–30K 78 50 78 56 64 57 55 58

$30–40K 78 43 77 58 76 48 51 54

$40–50K 80 51 70 48 84 53 57 38

$50–75K 75 42 80 42 87 54 52 45

$75–$200K 84 49 87 52 92 60 54 45

Over $100K 86 60 85 58 95 61 69 43

Don’t know/

refused 73 40 72 42 73 45 48 43

Number of cases 1,378 1,378 1,378 1,378 1,378 1,378 1,378 1,378

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October–November 2009.
4 2 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

Appendix: Demographic & socio-economic overview of those who do various activities online

(% broadband adapters in group)

Get international or 

national 

news*

Get information 

about or 

apply for 

a job

Post to own 

blog or 

group blog

Get advice 

from a government agency 

about a health 

or safety issue

Download 

or stream 

video

Do any 

banking 

online

Take a 

class 

online

Play complicated 

role playing 

games 

online

Male 70 60 23 52 46 69 21 18

Female 78 65 27 57 44 73 28 14

Parents with 

minor children at 

home

78 65 27 57 44 73 28 14

Those who report 

they have a 

disability

66 50 24 49 41 58 19 21

18–29 80 83 45 52 66 72 38 23

30–49 80 65 26 55 43 75 27 16

50–64 75 47 16 56 29 64 13 7

65+ 64 14 6 44 18 55 6 7

White 

(not Hispanic) 77 55 24 53 40 71 22 11

Black 

(not Hispanic) 72 83 37 55 54 57 37 31

Hispanic 

(English or 

Spanish speaking)

78 68 27 56 47 68 25 22

Less than high 

school 65 64 22 43 38 46 19 17

High school 

graduate 67 60 25 42 43 59 17 18

Some college 77 61 27 57 42 70 30 18

College+ 87 58 26 62 43 78 25 9

Under $20K 64 77 30 43 47 51 32 22

$20–30K 70 63 29 45 36 62 28 21

$30–40K 76 64 33 59 48 64 22 19

$40–50K 79 53 23 45 36 68 13 13

$50–75K 76 56 25 52 48 77 27 15

$75–$200K 86 66 26 55 52 77 25 14

Over $100K 84 56 24 67 49 82 26 5

Don’t know/

refused 73 50 20 50 36 57 18 15

Number of cases 1,293 1,293 1,293 1,293 1,293 1,293 1,293 1,293

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October–November 2009.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 4 3

Appendix: Demographic and socioeconomic overview of non-adopters by selected barriers 

(% of those facing barrier, by demographic)

Cost Digital Literacy Relevance Lack of availability

Male 40 45 43 49

Female 60 55 57 51

Parents with minor children at home 32 17 15 33

Those who report they have a disability 41 46 37 21

18–29 24 6 10 18

30–49 29 22 21 30

50–64 26 28 22 35

65+ 19 44 44 16

Median Age 47 61 61 50

White (not Hispanic) 54 65 71 78

Black (not Hispanic) 16 13 9 11

Hispanic (English or Spanish speaking) 27 16 14 5

Less than high school 34 29 27 10

High school graduate 42 51 47 38

Some college 14 12 15 33

College+ 9 8 11 20

Under $20K 38 24 24 22

$20–30K 15 15 14 15

$30–40K 10 10 7 10

$40–50K 7 9 10 7

$50–75K 5 8 11 5

$75–$200K 3 4 2 3

Over $100K 2 2 3 2

Don’t know/refused 21 28 30 21

Urban 37 28 24 8

Suburban 38 44 47 42

Rural 21 26 25 46

Number of cases 738 516 445 148

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October–November 2009.
4 4 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

Appendix: Demographic & socio-economic overview of non-adopter segments

(% of non-adopters)

Digitally Distant Digital Hopefuls

Digitally 

Uncomfortable Near Converts

Male 37 42 43 50

Female 63 58 57 50

Parents with minor children at home 18 22 25 28

Those who report they have a disability 49 51 35 24

18–29 10 13 17 21

30–49 18 22 22 37

50–64 25 26 27 30

65+ 47 38 34 12

Median Age 63  57 55  45 

White (not Hispanic) 66 50 63 71

Black (not Hispanic) 11 20 10 13

Hispanic (English or Spanish speaking) 18 26 22 10

Less than high school 36 49 30 5

High school graduate 48 38 43 45

Some college 9 9 17 28

College+ 6 4 10 22

Under $20K 36 44 27 13

$20–30K 14 15 22 9

$30–40K 8 8 12 12

$40–50K 5 3 8 14

$50–75K 3 3 7 16

$75–$200K 1 1 3 8

Over $100K 1 0 3 8

Don’t know/refused 32 26 20 22

Urban 25 20 27 25

Suburban 43 35 44 43

Rural 29 39 26 27

Number of cases 649 450 478 757

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October–November 2009.
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 4 5

Appendix: Non-adopter segments’ attitudes towards the Internet and technological assets 

(% of non-adopters) 

Digitally Distant Digital Hopefuls

Digitally 

Uncomfortable Near Converts

The Internet is dangerous for children 53 48 43 40

It is important for child to learn 

to use Internet 16 76 63 66

The Internet is valuable for info/learning 15 86 68 74

There is too much offensive or 

questionable material on the Internet 62 68 65 65

People can be more productive with 

Internet 0 68 37 49

It is too easy for personal 

information to be stolen online 56 66 53 54

Number of cases 649 450 478 757

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October–November 2009.

Appendix: Information and Communication Technologies by Segment

(% of segment)

Digitally Distant Digital Hopefuls

Digitally 

Uncomfortable Near Converts

Cable TV 59 56 46 61

Satellite TV 27 26 37 33

Cable OR Satellite TV 78 75 75 86

Desktop computer 9 2 83 55

Laptop computer 3 1 38 32

Desktop OR laptop computer 11 3 97 68

Cell phone 52 56 76 93

Number of cases 649 450 478 757

Source: Federal Communications Commission survey, October–November 2009.
4 6 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

Methodology

Broadband Consumer Survey

Prepared by Princeton Survey Research Associates 

Internationalfor the Federal Communications Commission

December 2009

Summary

The Broadband Service Capability Survey, sponsored by the 

Federal Communications Commission, obtained telephone 

interviews with a nationally representative sample of 5,005 

adults living in the United States. The survey was conducted by 

Princeton Survey Research International. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish by Princeton Data Source LLC 

from October 19 to November 23, 2009. The data was weighted 

to correct known demographic discrepancies. The margin of 

sampling error for the complete set of weighted data is ±1.6 

percentage points.

Details on the design, execution and analysis of the survey 

are discussed below.

DESIGN AND DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

Sample Design

Two samples were used for data collection—a random digit 

dial (RDD) landline sample and an RDD cell sample. The 

landline sample frame was an equal probability sample across 

all active blocks.20 All blocks within a county were sorted in 

ascending order by area code, exchange and block number. A 

sampling interval was computed for each county in our sample 

by summing all eligible blocks in the county and dividing that 

sum by the quota assigned to the county. From a random start 

between zero and the sampling interval, blocks were systematically selected from each county. Once a block was selected, a 

two-digit random number was appended to the block to create 

a phone number. Business numbers were not excluded at the 

sampling stage. Rather they were flagged during sampling and 

purged before dialing. Additionally, protected numbers were 

not excluded from the sample frame.21 

The cellular sample was not list-assisted because no list of 

cellular numbers exists. Rather, cellular phone numbers were 

systematically sampled from dedicated wireless 100-blocks 

and shared service 100-blocks with no directory-listed landline 

numbers.

Contact Procedures

Interviews were conducted from October 19 to November 

23, 2009. As many as 15 attempts were made to contact every 

sampled landline telephone number and as many as 7 attempts 

were made to contact every sampled cellular telephone number. Sample was released for interviewing in replicates, which 

are representative subsamples. Using replicates to control the 

release of sample helps ensure that complete call procedures 

are followed. Calls were staggered over times of day and days of 

the week to maximize the chance of making contact with potential respondents. Interviewing was spread as evenly as possible 

across the field period.

For the landline sample, interviewers asked to speak with 

the adult in the household who had the most recent birthday. 

If the selected adult was not at home or could not complete the 

interview at the time of contact, interviewers arranged to call 

back the selected person at a later time. For the cellular sample, 

interviews were conducted with the person who answered the 

phone. Interviewers verified that the person was an adult and 

in a safe place before administering the survey. Cellular sample 

respondents were offered a post-paid cash reimbursement for 

their participation.

The interviewing was done in two phases that ran concurrently. The first phase included interviews with all adults while 

the second phase obtained interviews with an oversample of 

adults who were not broadband adopters (i.e., the non-adopter 

oversample). Respondents who were contacted in phase two 

and were adopters were screened out.

WEIGHTING AND ANALYSIS

Weighting is generally used in survey analysis to compensate 

for sample designs and patterns of non-response that might 

bias results. The data was weighted to correct for three sample 

elements that could potentially bias survey estimates—[1] the 

oversampling through screening of additional non-adopters, 

[2] different probabilities of selection based on the number 

of adults in each household and the number of telephones 

that each respondent has access to and [3] disproportionate 

non-response.

Non-adopters Oversample

A sample adjustment was made to account for the non-adopters 

oversample. This adjustment simply adjusted the proportion 

of non-adopters in our total sample to match the proportion 

of non-adopters in the first phase of interviewing. This adjustment was made individually for the landline and cell samples. 

Table 1 shows the oversample adjustment (OSADJUST) that 

was made to the data.

Different Probabilities of Selection

We made two sample adjustments to the data that address 

unequal selection probabilities. One adjustment accounts for 

within household clustering and is a function of the number of 

adults in each household while the second adjustment accounts 
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 4 7

for the overlapping landline and cell sample frames and the 

number of landline telephones in each household.

The Probability of Selection Adjustment (PSA) corrects for 

the fact that respondents in the landline sample have different 

probabilities of being sampled depending on how many adults 

live in the household. Since we only sample one person per 

household, adults who live with no other adults have a greater 

chance of being sample than adults who live with one or more 

other adults. 

To compute the PSA, first define n1

 as the number of people 

in the landline sample who live in single-adults households and 

n2

 as the number of people in the landline sample that live in 

multi-adult households. The PSA equals:

n1 + n2 for landline respondents in single-adult 

n households 1

 + 2n2

2(n1 + n2) for landline respondents in multiplen adult households 1

 + 2n2

1 for cellphone respondents

The Phone Use Adjustment (PUA) corrects for different 

probabilities of selection based on the number of landline 

phones in each respondent’s household and whether or not the 

respondent has a cell phone. 

To compute the PUA, first define p1

 as the number of respondents with only one phone, p2

 as the number of respondents 

with two phones and p3

 as the number of respondents with 

three or more phones, the PUA equals:

3(p1 + p2+ p3) for respondents with one phone

3p1

 + 2p2+ p3

2(p1 + p2+ p3)

for respondents with two phones

3p1

 + 2p2+ p3

(p1 + p2+ p3) for respondents with three or more 

3p phones 1

 + 2p2+ p3

Differential Non-response

The final step in weighting the data consisted of raking sample 

demographics to match population parameters. The sample 

was balanced—by form—to match national population parameters for sex, age, education, race, Hispanic origin, region (U.S. 

Census definitions), population density, and telephone usage. 

The basic weighting parameters came from a special analysis 

of the Census Bureau’s 2009 Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement (ASEC) that included all households in the United 

States. The population density parameter came from an analysis of Census 2000 data. The telephone usage parameter came 

from an analysis of the most recently available National Health 

Interview Survey data.22

Raking was accomplished using Sample Balancing, a special iterative sample weighting program that simultaneously 

balances the distributions of all variables using a statistical 

technique called the Deming Algorithm. An input weight equal 

to the product of OSADJUST, PSA and PUA was used for the 

raking. Weights were trimmed to prevent individual interviews 

from having too much influence on the final results. The use 

of these weights in statistical analysis ensures that the demographic characteristics of the sample closely approximate the 

demographic characteristics of the national adult population. 

Table 2 compares weighted and unweighted sample demographic distributions to population parameters.

Effects of Sample Design on Statistical Inference

Post-data collection statistical adjustments require analysis 

procedures that reflect departures from simple random sampling. PSRAI calculates the effects of these design features so 

that an appropriate adjustment can be incorporated into tests 

of statistical significance when using these data. The so-called 

“design effect” or deff represents the loss in statistical efficiency that results from disproportionate sample designs and 

Table 1:

Oversample Adjustment 

Main sample Main sample + oversample Adjustment (OSADJUST)

Landline

Non-adopters 36.2% 48.6% 0.745

Adopters 63.8% 51.4% 1.241

Cellular

Non-adopters 21.2% 37.7% 0.562

Adopters 78.8% 62.3% 1.265
4 8 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

systematic non-response. The total sample design effect for 

this survey is 1.37.

PSRAI calculates the composite design effect for a sample of 

size n, with each case having a weight, wi

 as: deff =

n

n ∑ wi

2

i=1

formula 1

(

n

∑ wi

i=1 )

2

Table 2: 

Sample Demographics

Parameter Unweighted Sample Weighted Sample

Gender

Male 48.5 45.1 48.1

Female 51.5 54.9 51.9

Age

18–24 12.6 7.4 12.1

25–34 17.8 10.6 16.8

35–44 18.2 13.9 17.8

45–54 19.6 20.2 19.5

55–64 15.1 19.2 15.0

65+ 16.6 26.3 16.8

Education

Less than high school 14.1 10.0 13.0

High school graduate 34.7 33.3 34.1

Some college 24.1 22.8 24.3

College + 27.1 33.1 28.0

Race/Ethnicity

White (not Hispanic) 68.8 74.1 68.8

Black (not Hispanic) 11.5 9.2 11.1

Hispanic 13.7 8.7 12.6

Other (not Hispanic) 6.0 6.6 6.1

Region

Northeast 18.5 17.6 18.3

Midwest 22.0 25.8 22.5

South 36.8 37.5 37.0

West 22.7 19.1 22.1

County Pop. Density

1—Lowest 20.1 24.7 20.5

2 20.0 22.5 20.4

3 20.1 20.5 20.4

4 20.2 17.7 20.0

5—Highest 19.6 14.7 18.6

Phone Use

LLO 13.6 14.7 13.6

Dual users 65.6 72.8 66.4

CPO 20.8 12.6 20.1
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 4 9

in 95 out every 100 samples drawn using the same methodology, estimated proportions based on the entire sample will be 

no more than 1.6 percentage points away from their true values 

in the population. The margin of error for estimates based 

on non-adopters is ±2.4 percentage points. It is important to 

remember that sampling fluctuations are only one possible 

source of error in a survey estimate. Other sources, such as 

respondent selection bias, questionnaire wording and reporting 

inaccuracy, may contribute additional error of greater or lesser 

magnitude.

RESPONSE RATE

Table 3 reports the disposition of all sampled telephone 

numbers ever dialed from the original telephone number 

samples. The response rate estimates the fraction of all eligible 

In a wide range of situations, the adjusted standard error

of a statistic should be calculated by multiplying the usual 

formula by the square root of the design effect (√deff ). Thus, 

the formula for computing the 95% confidence interval around 

a percentage is:

pˆ ± ( √deff x 1.96 √ pˆ (1- pˆ )

) formula 2 n

where pˆ is the sample estimate and n is the unweighted 

number of sample cases in the group being considered.

The survey’s margin of error is the largest 95% confidence 

interval for any estimated proportion based on the total 

sample—the one around 50%. For example, the margin of error 

for the entire sample is ±1.6 percentage points. This means that 

Table 3: 

Sample Disposition 

Landline—combined Cell—combined

Total Numbers Dialed 75974 33914

Non-residential 6069 618

Computer/Fax 3602 34

Cell phone 61

Other not working 39194 12847

Additional projected not working 3330 868

Working numbers 23718 19547

Working Rate 31.2% 57.6%

No Answer / Busy 1110 289

Voice Mail 2989 4730

Other Non-Contact 123 12

Contacted numbers 19496 14516

Contact Rate 82.2% 74.3%

Callback 2372 2278

Refusal 11661 8310

Cooperating numbers 5463 3928

Cooperation Rate 28.0% 27.1%

Language Barrier 213 78

Child's cell phone — 1105

Adopter screen-out 1580 1169

Eligible numbers 3670 1576

Eligibility Rate 67.2% 40.1%

Break-off 188 53

Completes 3482 1523

Completion Rate 94.9% 96.6%

Response Rate 21.9% 19.4%
5 0 F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | W W W . B R O AD B AND . G O V

O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

respondents in the sample that were ultimately interviewed. 

At PSRAI it is calculated by taking the product of three component rates:23

➤ Contact rate—the proportion of working numbers where 

a request for interview was made24

➤ Cooperation rate—the proportion of contacted numbers 

where a consent for interview was at least initially obtained, versus those refused

➤ Completion rate—the proportion of initially cooperating 

and eligible interviews that were completed

Thus the response rate for the landline sample was 22 percent. The response rate for the cellular sample was 19 percent.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank several members of the National 

Broadband Taskforce for their help in making this report a 

reality. Foremost is Ellen Satterwhite who provided invaluable 

help on a number of fronts—from insights on survey questions, 

to analysis of the data, to editorial judgment. Jessica Strott also 

participated in design of the survey instrument, and her ideas 

greatly contributed to its quality.

The survey was carried out by Princeton Survey Research 

Associates International and the entire team there—Evans 

Witt, Margie Engle, and Jonathan Best—were instrumental in 

designing and carrying out this survey. They have the author’s 

sincere thanks. 
O B I W o r k i n g P a p e r S e r i e s No . 1

F e d e r a l c o m m u n i c a t io n s c o m m issio n | B r o a d b a n d A d op t io n a n d Us e i n A m e r i c a 5 1

1 Because it is difficult to tell whether such access meets 

the standards to qualify as broadband, users of wireless 

handheld access are not counted as home broadband 

users—though most wireless handheld internet users 

qualify as home broadband users.

2 Mobile wireless broadband users are counted as home 

broadband users if that is their source of home access.

3 1 percent of non-adopters could not be classified into any 

of the three groups of non-adopters.

4 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Digital Nation: 21st Century America’s Progress 

Toward Universal Broadband Internet Access. February 

2010. Available online at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/

reports/2010/NTIA_internet_use_report_Feb2010.pdf.

5 More information is available at the FCC’s Web site: 

http://www.fcc.gov/form477/.

6 Lee Rainie et.al., The Ever Shifting Internet Population.

Pew Internet & American Life Project, April 2003. 

Available online at: http://www.pewInternet.org/

Reports/2003/The-EverShifting-Internet-PopulationA-new-look-at-Internet-access-and-the-digital-divide.

aspx, accessed on January 18, 2010.

7 John B. Horrigan. If you build it, will they log on? Pew 

Internet & American Life Project, January 2009. Available online at: http://www.pewInternet.org/~/media//

Files/Reports/2009/PIP_Broadbandpercent20Barriers.

pdf, accessed on January 18, 2010.

8 Ofcom, Accessing the Internet at Home, June 2009. 

Available online at: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/research/

telecoms/reports/bbresearch/bbathome.pdf, accessed 

on January 18, 2010.

9 John B. Horrigan, How Americans Get in Touch with 

Government, Pew Internet & American Life Project, May 

2004. Available online at: http://www.pewInternet.org/

Reports/2004/How-Americans-Get-in-Touch-WithGovernment.aspx, accessed on January 18, 2010.

10 Omnibus Broadband Initiative (OBI) internal analysis of 

various industry sources.

11 Respondents were asked simply to estimate their 

monthly bill to the nearest, but not prompted to make 

that estimate exclusive or inclusive of taxes or fees that 

may be imposed on service.

12 Internal OBI analysis of data from TNS Telecoms and 

Telogical Systems.

13 The finding that the correlations are statistically significant is derived from an ordinary least squares (OLS) 

regression in which the dependent variable is the number of activities a user has done and the independent 

variables include gender, race, education, income, level 

of online skills (as discussed in the next section) and the 

specific attitudinal variable of interest.

14 Eszter Hargittai, “An Update on Survey Measures of 

Web-Oriented Digital Literacy.” Social Science Computer 

Review, Volume 27, no. 1, February 2009, pp. 130–137.

15 As in the example above, the findings that the correlation 

between skills and number of activities is the result of an 

OLS regression in which the dependent variable is the 

number of activities a user has done and the independent 

variables include gender, race, education, income and 

the number of tech terms the user reports understanding 

“very well.”

16 Cody Barbierri, “Smartphone usage continues to grow 

in US, according to Forrester Research.” Demo Beat, 

http://demo.venturebeat.com/2010/01/05/smartphoneusage-continues-to-grows-in-us-according-to-forresterresearch/. Accessed on February 12, 2010.

17 John B. Horrigan, Wireless Internet Use, Pew Internet & 

American Life Project, July 22, 2009.

18 According to the Census, 54 million people have a 

disability, including speech, hearing, vision, mobility 

or cognitive disorders. U.S. Census Bureau, Americans 

With Disabilities: 2005, Current Population Reports, 3, 

4 (2008), http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/

releases/archives/income_wealth/013041.html.

19 In constructing the segments, a statistical cluster 

analysis was performed only on those respondents 

who did not have broadband at home. Several different 

cluster solutions were evaluated for their effectiveness 

in producing cohesive groups that were distinct from one 

another and substantively meaningful. The final solution 

selected was judged to be strongest on a statistical basis 

and to be most persuasive from a substantive perspective.

20 Active blocks are defined as 100 contiguous phone 

numbers (e.g., 609-924-9200 to 609-924-9299) with at 

least one residential directory listings.

21 Phone numbers in SSI random-digit database are 

flagged as “protected” if they have recently been pulled 

for any sample order. While excluding protected numbers results in a “fresher” sample (i.e., one that consists 

of numbers that have not been recently pulled), we feel 

that excluding these numbers would potentially bias our 

sample.

22 Blumberg SJ, Luke JV. Wireless substitution: Early 

release of estimates from the National Health Interview 

Survey, July-December, 2008. National Center for 

Health Statistics. May 2009.

23 PSRAI’s disposition codes and reporting are consistent 

with the American Association for Public Opinion 

Research standards.

24 PSRAI assumes that 75 percent of cases that result in a 

constant disposition of “No answer” or “Busy” are actually not working numbers.

E n d n ot e s