Examining the current state of Internet access in Minnesota and how it redefines the digital divide.

1. 2012 Minnesota Internet Survey
Digital Divide 2.0 and beyond
After more than ten years of asking rural Minnesotans about their access
to high-speed Internet service, it is possible to draw a few conclusions:
1. It is fairly well accepted now that broadband access has become a ne-
cessity for functioning at full capacity in today’s world. In other words,
Internet access and broadband access are no longer considered a luxury
2. The digital divide isn’t what it used to be. The divide can be character-
but rather a necessity by most people.
ized as the haves and have-nots, those who have broadband and those
who do not. In the early days of broadband, the main barrier to being
a “have” was availability of the service itself. Now that infrastructure is
nearly ubiquitous, at least in Minnesota, the other barriers, which have
always been there, are becoming more apparent, particularly in the area
3. Broadband no longer ties the user to a fixed location (i.e., the home).
of bandwidth.
In just the past few years, technology has been introduced that makes it
possible for people to access the Internet from just about anywhere. This
trend is important not only to people who use the Internet and do busi-
4. The preceding points tie into what appears to be a generational change
ness on it, but to those who provide access and create policy affecting it.
in how people access, use, and think of the Internet.
This study was completed with support from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Minnesota Telecom Alliance,
Networks United for Rural Voice, the Blandin Foundation, and the McKnight Foundation. Thanks also to the
City of Minneapolis for their collaboration.
A PDF of this report can be
downloaded from the Center’s web
site at www.ruralmn.org. The Center for Rural Policy and Development, based in St. Peter, Minn., is a private, not-for-profit
© 2012 Center for Rural Policy policy research organization dedicated to benefiting Minnesota by providing its policy makers with
and Development an unbiased evaluation of issues from a rural perspective.

2. 100% Rural
Computer
80% Internet
Broadband
Figure 1: Adoption 60% Twin Cities
rates of computers, Computer
Internet service, and Internet
40%
broadband in the Twin Broadband
Cities metro area and
the rest of Minnesota 20%
since 2001.
0%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2009* 2010 2011* 2012
-2008
History of the study is similar to that of the Twin the 2012 Minnesota Internet
The Center included ques- Cities. Survey. A total of 1,652 adults
tions on broadband adoption in • The use of social media, in Minnesota were interviewed.
its first rural Minnesota survey in voice over Internet Protocol A combination of landline and
2001. The next year, the survey (VOIP, online phone calls), cellular random digit dial (RDD)
focused solely on broadband and and streaming video are up samples was used to represent
the Internet. In 2005, the seven- dramatically in the last two adults in the target areas who
county Twin Cities metropolitan years. have access to either a landline
area was included for the first • While the home computer or cellular telephone. The margin
time to provide a comparison is still by far the most com- of error for the statewide sample
to rural counties. And in 2012, mon means of accessing the was ±2.53% at a 95% confidence
interviewers called cell phone Internet for Minnesota house- level. The margin of error for both
numbers for the first time, rec- holds, the number of people the Twin Cities sample and the
ognizing the number of house- accessing the Internet outside rest of Minnesota sample was
holds that have given up landline their homes continues to ±3.58%. The complete methodol-
phones and now use cell phones grow, as does the number and ogy report can be found at www.
as their only phone. variety of devices they are us- ruralmn.org.
ing to access it.
Major findings • There are a number of rea- Adoption rates
• Adoption rates for computers, sons people do not purchase The survey results show that
Internet access, and broad- broadband for their homes, the adoption rates for computers,
band continue to go up but at but the primary ones are lack the Internet, and broadband were
a slower rate in both the rural of interest and cost. up in 2012 compared to 2010,
counties and the Twin Cities. although the increase was not as
The Twin Cities is still several Methodology great as in past years. The state-
percentage points ahead of As in past studies, the state wide rate of broadband adoption
the rest of the state in terms of was divided into two regions, the went from 69.5% of households
adoption: 79.2% for the Twin seven-county Twin Cities metro- to 75.4% of households. In
Cities vs. 70.6% for rural politan area, or “Metro,” and the 2012, 70.6% of rural households
Minnesota. remaining 80 counties making up reported purchasing broadband
• Over one quarter of Minneso- the rest of Minnesota, or “Rural.” service, compared to 79.2% of
ta households (27%) use cell The Social Science Research In- Twin Cities households. Figure 1
phones only, no landlines. stitute at the University of North shows how computer, Internet,
The rate for rural Minnesota Dakota, Grand Forks, conducted and broadband adoption rates
2 2012 Minnesota Internet Survey

3. 100%
80%
60% Figure 2: Broadband
adoption rates by age group
for the Twin Cities metro
40%
area counties and the rest of
Minnesota.
20%
0%
18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
Rural Metro
100%
have changed since 2001.
80%
Part of the reason for a slower
rate of increase may be the 60%
recent recession. A 2010 Pew
Internet and American Life study 40%
indicated that adoption rates fell
nationwide during the recession.1 20%
However, it is also likely that
these technologies are reaching 0%
their natural saturation point. < $25,000 $25,000
–$39,000
$40,000
–$49,000
$50,000
–$74,000
$75,000 $100,000 $150,000 +
–$99,000 –$150,000
The broadband adoption rate in Rural Metro
Figure 1 shows a typical S-curve
associated with technology adop- Figure 3: Broadband adoption by income group for the Twin
Cities and rural Minnesota.
tion: adoption starts slowly with
the early adopters, gains momen-
tum as the bulk of the population
< $25,000
catches on, then slows down as
the last late adopters come on $25,000 to $39,000
board and adoption nears its
maximum. $40,000 to $49,000
The impact of age, income,
$50,000 to $74,000
education $75,000 to $99,000
Age. In looking at who has
or has not adopted broadband at $100,000 +
home, age, income, and educa- 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
tion are still major predictors.
2003 2012
Figure 2 shows the breakdown of
broadband adoption in the home Figure 4: Broadband adoption rates by household income for rural
by age group (out of all house- Minnesota in 2003 and 2012.
holds). As it has been for the last
decade, the adoption rate among
seniors (age 65 and over) is still
the lowest, but it continues to
2012 Minnesota Internet Survey 3

4. Less than High School
HS or equivalent
Figure 5: Broadband Some College
adoption by level of 2-year College
education attained, in
the Twin Cities and rural 4-year College
Minnesota. Master’s Degree
Doctoral Degree
Professional Degree
(JD, MD)
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Rural Metro
grow each year. In 2003, the first phones and other mobile devices This drop in the Twin Cities,
year we reported specifically or borrowing a wireless connec- therefore, could be a reflection of
on seniors, 5.6% of rural senior tion at a public hotspot. the recession. On the other hand,
households had broadband. Income. Income has also considering the younger median
In 2012, 48.5% of rural senior been a long-time predictor of age of the Twin Cities population,
households had broadband, Internet and broadband adoption. it could also be a reflection of the
while 53.7% of Twin Cities senior Figure 3 shows how broadband rise in the use of smart phones
households did. adoption is affected by income, and other portable devices, as
Interestingly, we see that the while Figure 4 shows how the discussed earlier.
adoption rate for the youngest pattern has stayed consistent Education. Breaking out the
age group is also low, particularly between 2003 and 2012. data by education levels shows a
in rural Minnesota (68% com- While home broadband pattern similar to that of income,
pared to 81% in the Twin Cities). adoption has risen in the lowest where the higher the level of edu-
This low figure does not necessar- income group (less than $25,000) cation attained, the more likely a
ily mean that people in this age over the last two years in rural household is to have a computer,
group are not on the Internet or Minnesota households, going Internet, and broadband technol-
not adopting broadband. It only from 25% in 2010 to 35% in ogy (Figure 5). The differences
indicates a lower percentage of 2012, it appears to have dropped between rural and metro adop-
households in this age group with for metro households, from 40% tion rates within each group are
broadband in their homes. A clue to 32%. One reason may be the not large.
comes from another 2010 study recession. As mentioned earlier, The impact of children in
by the Pew Internet and Ameri- a Pew Research study found that the house. The findings show
can Life Project that found that nationally, broadband adoption that households with school-age
nationwide, 84% of young adults slowed dramatically in 2010.3 children are more likely to have
age 18-29 go online using their
cell phones or a laptop; in other Table 1: Impact of school-age children in the household on adoption rates.
words, a portable device that can
be taken out of the home.2 The Rural Metro
low number of 18- to 24-year- Kids No kids Kids No kids
olds in rural Minnesota with a Do you have a computer? 89.7% 74.0% 96.4% 81.6%
broadband connection at home Do you have an Internet
may indicate that this group is connection? 88.7% 69.1% 93.9% 77.5%
bypassing a fixed home connec- Do you have broadband? 85.7% 64.9% 90.9% 73.1%
tion altogether and are simply us- How important is being able to ac-
ing the cell service on their smart cess broadband? (Very important) 58.5% 37.9% 65.2% 51.2%
4 2012 Minnesota Internet Survey

5. computers and broadband as Table 2: Percentage of home Internet users engaging in selected activities
well (Table 1). Age of the primary in the last six months.
decision makers in the household Rural Metro
is presumably a major factor Send and receive email 96.2% 98.6%
here. Notice the difference in the Check the weather 88.7% 89.3%
perceived importance of broad-
Access news web sites 79.9% 82.6%
band between those with and
Research a purchase you’re planning 79.6% 86.3%
those without children, especially
for rural Minnesota. Purchase something at an online store or auction 77.6% 84.0%
Do banking, pay bills or other financial business
Things we do online online 77.2% 85.4%
The Minnesota Internet Study Stay informed on community news and events 69.6% 69.6%
also tracks activities that home Share photos 69.3% 79.8%
Internet users engage in. Table 2 Research medical information 63.9% 70.1%
shows the percentage of rural and Download music or video files 55.0% 73.0%
Twin Cities home Internet users Watch movies or TV shows 45.7% 70.5%
engaging in these activities. Email Search for employment 42.9% 52.1%
is still virtually universal. Social
Do homework 39.9% 45.0%
media, which has been available
Place a phone call over the Internet 37.4% 44.4%
to the public for only about five
years, is already at 75% for rural Do work for employer at home 33.4% 43.8%
Minnesota and over 80% for the Communicate with your child’s school 33.0% 39.7%
Twin Cities. Sell goods or services online or advertise 27.4% 24.3%
While the gap in participation Interact with the government or a government
rates between rural Minnesota official 21.0% 24.4%
and Twin Cities consumers has Take a high school or college class online 15.8% 21.5%
closed for most activities, there Check agricultural commodity prices 13.8% 7.4%
are still a handful of activities that Communicate with doctor or nurse or other
home Internet users engage in caregiver 12.7% 23.4%
more frequently in the Twin Cit-
ies compared to rural Minnesota
(Table 3).
In the past two years, some
activities have seen a large Table 3: Difference by percentage points in engagement, rural Minnesota
Internet users compared to Twin Cities Metro Internet users.
increase in popularity. Table 4
shows a list of activities that saw Rural Metro Difference
some of the largest growth in Watch movies or TV shows 45.7% 70.5% 24.8
use between 2010 and 2012 in Download music or video files 55.0% 73.0% 18.0
percentage points. The growth in Communicate with doctor or
these activities may reflect simply 12.7% 23.4% 10.7
nurse or other caregiver
the increase in their availability Share photos 69.3% 79.8% 10.5
as new services such as stream-
Do work for employer at home 33.4% 43.8% 10.4
ing video are introduced and in
an increase in the availability of
higher broadband speeds, mak-
ing it possible to engage in these
activities.
2012 Minnesota Internet Survey 5

6. Table 4: Activities with the largest increases in participation, by percentage point.
Rural Metro
2012 2010 Change 2012 2010 Change
Social media 75.1% 70.6% 4.5 81.8% 68.9% 12.9
Stay informed on community news and
69.6% 36.4% 33.2 69.6% 53.1% 16.5
events
Watch movies or TV shows 45.7% 32.1% 13.6 70.5% 48.0% 22.5
Place a phone call over the Internet 37.4% 9.7% 27.7 44.4% 20.4% 24.0
Play games online with other gamers 36.2% 22.0% 14.2 40.1% 28.7% 11.4
Sell goods or services online or
27.4% 14.3% 13.1 24.3% 18.0% 6.3
advertise
Communicate with doctor or nurse or
12.7% 9.2% 3.5 23.4% 13.2% 10.2
other caregiver
How much time we spend if there was anything they wanted reported the same.
online to do online that they couldn’t A comparison of how much
When asked how many with their current speed, the households pay for their total
hours per day someone in their majority of replies involved being communications bill shows that
household is on the Internet, the able to do things faster and re- Twin Citians tend to pay more
average response for rural Min- ferred to activities such as stream- (Figure 6).
nesota was 4.2 hours, while the ing and downloading video and
average for the Twin Cities was music. Going mobile and getting away
4.6 hours. As a sign of how things from the home computer
have changed, this question used Cost The introduction of smart
to ask how many hours per week Rural and Metro households phones, tablet computers, and
someone in your household was reported paying about the same lightweight laptops, along with
online. amount for their Internet service the advent of wireless Internet
each month, $47.57 on average access (wi-fi) and Internet via
Speed and satisfaction for rural households compared a cell connection, has made
Although it is beyond the to $45.82 for Twin Cities house- it possible for Internet users to
scope of this study to get a com- holds. However, 16% of rural migrate out of their homes. The
plete picture of what broadband respondents said they did not Pew Research study on mobile
speed is offered where, we can know how much they paid, while access reported that as of May
get a more general idea of wheth- 24% of Twin Cities households 2010, 59% of all adult Americans
er the available speed (or the one
the consumer chose) is doing 30%
the job by asking respondents if 25%
they are satisfied with the speed
20%
of their Internet service. Overall,
Figure 6:
the majority of home Internet Estimated monthly 15%
users said they were satisfied, communications bill.
10%
although Twin Cities customers
were more satisfied than rural 5%
ones: 78% of rural home Internet
0%
users compared to 86% of Twin < $50 $50– $100– $150– $200– $250+
$99 $149 $199 $249
Cities home Internet users. When
asked in an open-ended question Rural Metro
6 2012 Minnesota Internet Survey

7. 100%
from home, they must find places
80% to access the Internet. We asked
everyone, regardless of whether
60%
they have Internet access at
40% home, where they go to access
Figure 7: Devices used
20% to connect to the Internet the Internet outside their homes.
from home, among One-fifth of rural households
0%
Home Tablet Cell Game Other
households with Internet. (20%) and nearly one-quarter of
computer phone device Twin Cities households (23%)
Rural Metro reported that they had accessed
the Internet at their public library
in the past six months.
We also asked everyone: Be-
sides home, the library, or work,
Table 5: Preferred device used to connect to the Internet at
home, among households with Internet. are there any other places they go
on a regular basis to access the
Rural Metro Internet? For rural Minnesotans,
Home computer 73.8% 69.9% 38% responded yes, they do go
Cell phone 9.6% 11.0% someplace outside the home reg-
Tablet computer 12.3% 11.0% ularly; 43% of Twin Cities house-
holds responded yes as well.
Gaming device 2.9% 5.3%
Coffee shops were by far the most
Other 1.4% 2.8%
popular. Of those responding that
Other devices included laptops, iPods, video streaming devices. they access the Internet outside
of home or work, 30% of rural
households and 40% of Twin Cit-
were going online wirelessly, us- becoming apparent in the last
ies households reported visiting
ing either a laptop or cell phone.4 few years is a trend toward in-
a coffee shop for Internet access.
A look at what devices Internet creased spending by households
(This breaks down to 5% of all
users in Minnesota use to con- on their cell phones. A recent
rural households and 10% of all
nect at home (Figure 7) shows analysis by the Wall Street Jour-
Twin Cities households.)
that while the computer is still nal of Bureau of Labor Statistics
the most prevalent, other de- consumer spending data showed
Importance of access at home
vices are catching up, especially that between 2007 and 2011,
Despite the new attention to
among younger people. When Americans increased their an-
mobility and being able to access
asked if there were any other nual spending on cell phones by
the Internet from anywhere, the
devices they used to access the $116, while decreasing in other
survey found that many respon-
Internet at home besides those areas of discretionary spending,
dents still believe it is very impor-
given, respondents also men- such as eating out (-$48), apparel
tant that they be able to access
tioned laptops, iPods, e-readers, and other services (-$141), and
broadband at home.
and streaming video devices such purchasing vehicles (-$575).5,6
Figure 8 shows that 44% of
as Roku. Respondents were also As more consumers move to cell
rural households and 56% of
asked which device they use the phone-based Internet service,
Twin Cities households rated
most in connecting to the Internet the trends in cell-based Internet
having access to broadband at
at home (Table 5). service pricing and limits on
home as very important. When
Expense has always been a monthly data service will bear
broken down by age, however,
factor in choosing to purchase monitoring.
it is apparent that home broad-
broadband service. One aspect When people want to use
band access is less important to
of mobile Internet access that is their wifi-enabled devices away
the oldest and the youngest age
2012 Minnesota Internet Survey 7

8. 60% 80%
70%
50%
60%
40%
50%
30% 40%
30%
20%
20%
10%
10%
0% 0%
Not Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Very Important 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
important not important important
Rural Metro
Rural Metro
Figure 8: Importance of having access to broadband at Figure 9: Percentage of respondents reporting that hav-
home. ing broadband access at home is “very important,” by
age group.
groups in the survey (Figure 9). have to do with affordability, rel- answer in rural households was
Of respondents age 18-25, only evance, and digital literacy: they “Too expensive,” while in Twin
46% of rural households and can’t afford it, they don’t see how Cities households “Too expen-
43% of Twin Cities households it would benefit them, or they sive” was nearly tied with “Has
said having broadband at home believe they wouldn’t know how access to the Internet someplace
was very important. The answer to use it.7 else.” “Not available where I live”
is very likely found in the studies When Minnesotans were was at or near the bottom of the
showing that a large percentage asked why they chose not to list.
of young adults are accessing the adopt Internet service for their To make a direct comparison
Internet using devices they can homes, similar reasons were between rural and Twin Cities
take anywhere. This would imply given. Approximately 25% of ru- households, however, we need
that a broadband connection in ral households and 17% of Twin to look at the data based on all
the home is less of a requirement. Cities households said they did households. While the percent-
not have Internet access at home. ages in Table 6 look small, it must
Understanding the “have nots” When these households were be remembered that they repre-
At the heart of the digital asked why, the most frequent sent thousands of households in
divide is a concern with getting response in each group was that both regions.
broadband access to the “have they didn’t need Internet ac- When responses were broken
nots.” But now that the barrier cess. The second most common down by age, interesting pat-
of basic infrastructure has been
largely removed in Minnesota,
Table 6: Reasons for not having Internet access at home, among all
other barriers show up more households.
clearly. A 2010 analysis of data
Rural Metro
collected by the Federal Commu-
Doesn’t need Internet access 12.2% 7.0%
nications Commission found that
Has access to Internet someplace else 1.8% 2.7%
the main indicators separating
those who adopt broadband from Not available where they live 0.5% 1.0%
those who do not are education, Too expensive 4.5% 2.5%
income, and age. The same study Doesn’t know how to use the Internet 2.6% 1.5%
found the main reasons people Concerned about the security of their information 1.6% 0.6%
gave for not adopting broadband Other reason 2.3% 1.5%
8 2012 Minnesota Internet Survey

9. 100%
80% 65+
50-64
60%
35-49
25-34
40%
18-24
20% ever, the response rate for “Do
not need Internet” was more than
0%
< $25,000 $25,000 $40,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000 $150,000+ double that in both groups (33%
–$39,999 –$49,999 –$74,999 –$99,999 -$149,000
for rural, 26% for Twin Cities).
Figure 10: Income groups broken out by age groups. Each income group is
The clue again is in age. As
65+
dominated by certain age groups. Figure 10 shows, the oldest Min-
50-64 nesotans in the survey are more
35-49 likely to have the lowest incomes.
25-34 Seniors are less likely to have In-
18-24 ternet at home and are less like to
terns appeared. “Doesn’t need reporting an annual income of
consider having Internet at home
Internet access” was still a fre- less than $25,000, 33% said they
“very important.” At the same
quent answer in most age groups. didn’t need Internet, and 16%
time, one-third of households
It was understandably highest said it was too expensive. Out of
in this income group are under
among older respondents. How- all Twin Cities households in the
age 35. This is also the age group
ever, “Has access to the Internet same income group, 26% said
most likely to access the Internet
someplace else” was a frequent they did not need Internet access,
using a mobile device. They have
answer among younger respon- while 9% said it was too expen-
the technology available not to
dents, especially in the Twin sive. Also, 5% of rural house-
have to buy fixed-location broad-
Cities. holds in this income group said
band access, just as they have the
In looking at all rural Min- they had access to the Internet
technology that makes it possible
nesota households, seniors (age elsewhere, while nearly 13% of
not to have to buy a landline
65 and over) were the most likely Twin Cities households in this
phone. Their thought process may
to say they didn’t need Internet income group said the same.
be, “So why spend the money?”
access; a full 30% of rural senior For years we have known that
households said so, while in the older persons and lower income
Conclusions and areas for
Twin Cities, the figure was 23%. persons are the least likely to
further study
The next closest age groups were adopt broadband and Internet
For rural communities, the
half these percentages. In rural technology. The analysis above
term “digital divide” has referred
Minnesota, households in the indicates why, and the answer
for the most part to geography:
18-34 age range were the most appears to be largely due to a
Access was determined largely
likely to say home Internet access belief that they do not need it,
by the presence of infrastructure,
was too expensive (13.4%), while followed by a belief that it is too
and most of that infrastructure
in the Twin Cities, that same age expensive. It is understandable
was concentrated in larger popu-
group came in at 1.8%. The Twin for senior citizens, who have
lation centers. The result was a
Cities’ 55-64 age group was more survived most of their lives quite
tendency for rural residents to be
likely to say home Internet was well without Internet access, to
behind in adopting broadband
too expensive (6.9% of all house- say they do not need the Internet.
technology. As a 2010 study by
holds in that age group). But why low-income earners?
Daily et al noted, over the last ten
Income groups also reveal Logic would suggest that the
years, broadband access has in-
clues. Out of all rural households service is too expensive. How-
creasingly become a requirement
2012 Minnesota Internet Survey 9

10. of socio-economic inclusion, as of seniors adopting Internet and ing what technologies they use
opposed to just an outcome of it.8 broadband continues to grow and where they upgrade it, but
In other words, broadband has each year. how businesses should spend
crossed the threshold from being • Affordability: Interestingly, their technology and marketing
a luxury to becoming a necessity among rural households, the dollars, where consumers decide
to function in today’s world. youngest age groups (18-34) ex- to spend their time, and how
The good news is that Minne- pressed the biggest problem with policymakers design regulations
sota, including rural Minnesota, affordability among those who do that apply to access, distribution,
is ahead of many states when it not have a home Internet connec- and use.
comes to broadband access. The tion yet. On the other hand, the
infrastructure to get online is an same age group of non-adopters • Speed.
issue for fewer and fewer house- in the Twin Cities expressed virtu- The issue of bandwidth may
holds every year. ally no issue with cost. be the most important of all.
As we continue to track the • Access to alternatives: At While the percentage of house-
development of broadband in the same time, nearly twice as holds with broadband continues
Minnesota, though, we find that many Twin Cities non-adopters as to rise, what speed a household
the trends have shifted now from rural ones said they could access gets is still very much a function
the issue of access to the issues of the Internet someplace besides of where it is located in relation
mobility and bandwidth. their homes. to key infrastructure. The demand
There are three areas in par- for more speed will only increase
ticular where we can draw some • The mobile Internet. as new bandwidth-eating tech-
conclusions and that we believe The Internet and broadband nologies are introduced. The
will require continuing attention: are going mobile via smart concern for many household-
the remaining non-adopters, the phones, lightweight laptops, tab- ers right now is the ability to do
new mobile Internet, and the im- let computers, and other hand- things faster, especially stream
portance of increased bandwidth. held devices. With the spread of video and music smoothly. Speed
these portable devices, how are has larger public implications,
• The digital divide and the re- our expectations about access to however. Business demands
maining non-adopters. the Internet changing? How does an ever-increasing bandwidth
Today, the lack of broadband this mobility affect our expecta- capacity. Education and health
infrastructure is a barrier to ac- tions regarding reliability and our care are moving more programs
cess for fewer and fewer house- perceived need for speed? And and services online, and distance
holds. But now that most of those how are people affected who live learning and remote health care
who really want broadband can in areas with no good mobile are continuously put forward as
get it, that leaves a group of peo- Internet options, including cell solutions to the problems rural
ple who could be characterized access? Access outside the home areas have with distance and a
as the more tenacious non-adopt- is significant in the same way sparse population. Universities
ers, those who have a different that cell phone-only homes are and health care facilities are still
set of barriers: Attitudes (“I don’t significant: the nature of the ser- experimenting with providing
need Internet,” “I wouldn’t know vice is changing. Consumers do education and services online,
how to use it”); affordability; and not necessarily need to purchase and therefore these activities
access to alternatives. a broadband connection specifi- still go somewhat unnoticed by
• Attitudes: The most com- cally for their home, and they in the general public. However, in
mon reason expressed by non- fact may not need to purchase the years to come, if rural com-
adopters was that they did not broadband at all. Fixed-location munities are not able to keep up
see a need for Internet. This home broadband, like the land- capacity-wise, they will not be
belief was most common among line phone, is becoming optional. able to take advantage of these
seniors, and especially rural These factors not only affect the new technologies, creating the
seniors. However, the percentage decisions providers make regard- distinct possibility that they will
10 2012 Minnesota Internet Survey

11. fall further behind, with seri- Endnotes 8
Daily, D., Bryne, A., Powell, A.,
ous implications for income and 1
Smith, A. (2010, August). Home Karaganis, J., & Chung, J. (2010).
population. Broadband 2010. http://www.pewin- Broadband adoption in low-income
ternet.org/Reports/2010/Home- communities. Retrieved Sept. 25,
Broadband-2010.aspx 2012, from http://webarchive.ssrc.
As the findings from the
org/pdfs/Broadband_Adoption_
survey showed, these barriers are 2
Smith, A. (2010, July). Mobile v1.1.pdf
more common in rural areas and Access 2010. http://www.pewin-
are another example of why deci- ternet.org/Reports/2010/Mobile-
sion makers working on these is- Access-2010.aspx
sues may take into consideration 3
Smith, A. (2010, August).
whether the solution will work in 4
Smith, A. (2010, July).
the same way or as effectively for
rural areas as for urban areas.
5
Troianovski, A. (2012). Cell phones
are eating the family budget [Elec-
Internet service providers are
tronic version]. Wall Street Journal.
well aware of these trends in the http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000
demand for mobility and band- 0872396390444083304578018731
width. And since the younger 890309450.html
demographic groups are the ones 6
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau
most focused on going mobile of Labor Statistics, Consumer Expen-
and doing more things on the ditures. (2012). Consumer Expendi-
Internet, these are trends that are ture Survey. http://www.bls.gov/cex/
not going away. Policymakers csxstnd.htm
and other decision makers should 7
Horrigan, J.B. (2010). Broadband
keep these trends in mind when it adoption and use in America. Re-
comes time for creating policies trieved Sept. 25, 2012, from http://
aimed at providing or encourag- online.wsj.com/public/resources/
ing Internet service. documents/FCCSurvey.pdf
2012 Minnesota Internet Survey 11

12. www.ruralmn.org
Twitter @ruralpolicymn
www.facebook.com/ruralmn
2012 Minnesota Internet Survey