1. Challenges of
Measuring Broadband
Adoption
Jack M. Geller, Ph.D.
University of Minnesota-Crookston

2. The MIRC Project in Retrospect
MIRC was funded through the U.S. Department of
Commerce, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program (BTOP).
It was categorized as one of many Sustainable
Broadband Adoption (SBA) projects.
As such its “primary goal” was to increase
sustainable broadband adoption throughout rural
MN and specifically in the 11 demonstration
communities

3. But what exactly do we mean by adoption?

4. NTIA definitions of key metrics for
reporting purposes:
– Household Subscriber: a household with a paid or
unpaid (subsidized) home broadband Internet
connection service.
– User: “Regular user” of broadband at a public
computer center, friend’s home, workplace, etc.; a
user may have a Smartphone or subscribe to an
Internet information service, but it does not count
as a home broadband connection.
– Adopter: This term is not used in the NTIA Metrics

5. While the BTOP-SBA program has a goal of
sustainable broadband adoption, there really is not
a clear definition of adoption.
• Is any regular user counted as an adopter?
• What about regular users who choose to only
access the Internet from work, a public library or
anywhere else other than home?
•Should adoption focus on households or people?

6. What and How do we count for MIRC
The MIRC assessment began with two household
surveys in June 2010:
5.A statewide survey across all of rural Minnesota to
establish a statewide baseline for Rural MN.
2. Separate community surveys for each of the 11
MIRC demonstration communities.
We must understand that all adoption numbers are
simply quantitative estimates. They are derived from
samples of those who self-report.

7. A Word About Adoption in Theory

8. Cumulative Adoption

9. Rogers Theory of Diffusion
of Innovations

10. Baseline Adoption Estimates June 2010
Benton County 66.3 %
Cook County 50.2 %
Itasca County 63.3 %
Kandiyohi County 64.0 %
Leech Lake 48.8 %
Stevens County 64.4 %
TRF 59.4 %
Windom 62.7 %
Winona 69.2 %
Worthington 53.9 %
Upper MN Valley 57.6 %
MIRC Average 61.7 %
Rural MN Average 64.0 %

11. Since that time the MIRC project evaluation has been
estimating new subscribers in each of the eleven
demonstration communities every quarter.
To do this we have been working with a third-party
provider to monitor Internet traffic and transactions in
every rural Minnesota County. This monitoring
identifies:
•The number of unique IP addresses identified in the defined
geography.
•The speed of the connection.
•The provider/carrier.

12. Caveat: We cannot assume that changes in the number
of subscriptions will directly translate into an equal
change in the adoption rate.
Example: Your community has a current adoption rate of
65% and 10 new families move to town. However, only
5 of the new families purchase a broadband connection.
Result: The number of broadband subscribers in your
community increases while your adoption rate decreases!
Remember: Estimates are just that … estimates.

13. Current Estimated Percentage Increases
in New Subscribers for All Demo sites
Benton County 8.9 %
Cook County 11.9 %
Itasca County 8.5 %
Kandiyohi County 9.4 %
Leech Lake 8.4 %
Stevens County 9.0 %
TRF 9.5 %
Windom 9.8 %
Winona 8.6 %
Worthington 9.5 %
Upper MN Valley 8.5 %

14. Putting it in Perspective
With these caveats in mind, at the beginning of 2012 we
estimated that broadband adoption increased 7.4 percent in the
MIRC communities, while the rest of rural MN increased by 5.7
percent.
… Well doesn’t seem like much of a difference!
While this difference may seem quite modest at first glance, it is
important to recognize that this means the pace of broadband
adoption in the MIRC communities is actually 29.8% faster than
in the rest of rural Minnesota.

15. What’s Next?
3.Surveys are currently being conducted across the state and in the 11
demonstration communities to replicate the ones conducted in June 2010. These
studies will provide the final Post-MIRC adoption estimates for the project and
will be used to quantify the progress made in broadband adoption.
5.These surveys will also serve to help us verify our method of estimating
broadband adoption through the monitoring of Internet traffic. If these methods
verify each other, it raises the question: Do we need to conduct surveys anymore?
7.Once we estimate the change in adoption for each Demo community, we will
try to correlate the change in adoption with changes in other project outcomes;
For example:
•Activity conducted by MIRC Partners
•Changes in the Community Benchmarks
•Outcomes reported by Demo Communities

16. Considerations as we Look Ahead
•We are nearing the end of the adoption curve. Therefore a future focus on
utilization will be more valuable than the current focus on adoption.
•The definition of a broadband subscription needs to include cellular broadband
connectivity.
• For example, if cell phones were excluded, it would appear that telephone
adoption is plummeting, as households continue to drop their landlines each
month. But are people actually less connected?
• 4G data networks are now reaching connection speeds that are clearly broadband
quality.
• Similar to the experience with cell phones, are we already witnessing some
consumers abandon their terrestrial broadband connection in favor of mobile
broadband?
• In fact, the statewide broadband survey currently underway will be the first
where we will no longer assume that residents use a computer as their appliance
connecting them to the Internet. Rather … we will ask.

17. Thank You