Fulfilling Missouri s Digital Promise

Transcription

1 Fulfilling Missouri s Digital Promise January 2013 MoBroadbandNow Truman State Office Building Room 270-A Jefferson City, MO The third in a series of MoBroadbandNow reports addressing the broadband challenges in Missouri.

2 (This page was intentionally left blank) 1

3 Understanding Internet Non-adoption: Fulfilling Missouri s Digital Promise 1 Digital Inclusion in Missouri: Digital inclusion can be defined as the opportunity and ability of Missourians to access the Internet and associated information technologies. Digital inclusion is influenced by a number of factors, including urban- rural or socio- economic status, education, or age and can lead to widening divides in digital literacy for those without access as new technologies emerge. i The non- adoption of computer and Internet technologies and digital inclusion go hand- in- hand. MoBroadbandNow s first report, Dissecting Missouri s Digital Divide, analyzed data from MoBroadbandNow s 2011 residential survey of broadband use (June 2012). ii The report found that there is a broadband adoption gap of 19 percentage points between Missourians living in rural areas and those living in non- rural areas (63% of rural residents have adopted broadband, compared to 82% of non- rural residents). While rural residents are less likely to subscribe to broadband Internet services, they are more likely to use the Internet to look for information about a job, take a class, visit a government website, or look for information about buying a product. The second report in the MoBroadbandNow series, Building Digital Inclusion: Broadband and Missouri s Public Libraries, discussed Missouri s public libraries and their role in providing access to the Internet (October 2012). iii This is the third report in the series and will address the subject of technology non- adoption and explore reasons for non- adoption in Missouri s regions and across different Missouri demographics. Gaining an understanding of the regions and demographics that lag in technology adoption and any specific reasons for this non- adoption are critical to future efforts by both government and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to effectively reach non- adopters. This may include programs and promotions to address the disparity in computer and Internet technology adoption and availability in Missouri. About MoBroadbandNow: MoBroadbandNow was established by Gov. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon in 2009 as a public- private partnership initiative to expand and enhance broadband accessibility and adoption. He regards broadband accessibility and adoption as fundamental to Missouri s future and global competitiveness, in 1 Authored by: Shriniwas Gautam, Timothy Haithcoat, Anna Read and Damon Porter 2 The Missouri State Fair Survey was conducted in Sedalia, which is in the central part of Missouri, in August 2012 and the survey was voluntary for those who visited the event and thus may not be representative of all Missourians. 2

4 much the same way as the railroad and the interstate highway system were to their historic periods. Gov. Nixon had set an ambitious goal to increase the number of Missourians with broadband accessibility from the initial level of 79% in 2009 to at least 95% by the end of The results and analyses from the broadband mapping data from June 2012 (in addition to other data collection efforts of the MoBroadbandNow program) indicate that this goal has been achieved. In 2011, MoBroadbandNow conducted a residential assessment of broadband use in Missouri. Survey questionnaires were sent to 76,400 randomly sampled households across Missouri, covering all Missouri counties. The purpose of this survey was to measure the level of Internet technology adoption and barriers to technology adoption, to determine how Missourians are using the Internet and their level of satisfaction with Internet service, and to measure the average price and type of Internet technology used across the state. It was a mail survey using a postal delivery file obtained from the United States Postal Services (USPS). Each of the 19 Regional Planning Commission (RPC) areas received approximately 4,000 mailed surveys (with survey density tied to the population in each county in each RPC). A total of 9,825 surveys were returned, for a response rate of 13%. Data from this survey inform the findings in this report. Distribution of non-adopters in Missouri by geography: In this section, the geographic distribution of technology non- adopters (computer and Internet technologies) will be analyzed. Based on the survey findings, 91% of Missouri residents have access to a computer at home and 88% report having Internet in the home. Of this number, only 71% have a broadband connection, with considerable disparity across the state based on residency type (rural- urban and region). The non- adoption of computers is higher in non- rural areas, while the non- adoption of Internet technology (both basic and high- speed) is higher in Missouri s rural areas. While there is a marginal difference between the percentage of rural residents and non- rural residents without computer and basic Internet, the difference in broadband non- adoption rates is more than double in rural Missouri when compared to non- rural Missouri (see Figure 1). 3

5 Technology non- adopwon in Missouri Percent Missouri Households 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 37% 18% 12% 11% 9% 7% Computer Internet Broadband Technology type Non- adopcon Rural Non- adopcon Non- rural Figure 1: Technology non-adoption in Missouri Regional Planning Commission based analysis: Analysis of regionally aggregated data from the MoBroadbandNow residential survey indicates considerable variation in the distribution of technology non- adopters in Missouri. While the difference in range between computer and (basic) Internet non- adoption is 13%, the regions differ considerably in broadband non- adoption, with a range of 40% when comparing adoption in the region with the lowest level of adoption to the region with the highest level (see Table 2 and Figure 2). Table 1: Regional variation in technology non-adoption in Missouri Computer non- adoption Internet non- adoption Broadband non- adoption Maximum 17% (Bootheel) 20% (Bootheel) 52% (Lake of the Ozarks) Minimum 5% (Mid- MO, East- West) 7% (MARC, East West) 12% (MARC) Range 12% 13% 40% 4

6 Figure 2: Technology non-adoption in Missouri regions 5

7 ZIP Code based analysis: The MoBroadbandNow residential survey respondents covered 80% (855) of Missouri s 1,072 ZIP codes. The survey responses were analyzed at the ZIP code level and Figure 3a presents the distribution of broadband non- adoption in Missouri (see Figure 3c and Figure 3d for the distribution of Internet and computer non- adoption). Figure 3a shows that areas of low broadband adoption (with 50% or more non- adoption) are particularly concentrated in contiguous counties in the middle of the state in the Pioneer Trails (particularly in Pettis County), Kaysinger Basin (particularly in St. Clair, Benton and Hickory counties), Lake of the Ozarks (particularly Morgan, Camden and Miller counties), Meramec (particularly in Osage County) and East- West Gateway regions (Franklin and Jefferson counties). Other distinct clusters of counties are located in the southern part of the state in the South Central Ozark (particularly in Ozark, Wright, Texas, Shannon and Oregon counties) and Ozark Foothills regions (particularly in Carter, Ripley and Wayne counties). The Mark Twain region also has a cluster of counties with high broadband non- adoption (particularly Shelby and Monroe counties). Other counties that show high non- adoption of broadband are: Stoddard and Mississippi (in the Bootheel region), part of Holt County (in the Northwest region), Andrew and Dekalb (in the Mo- Kan region) and Mercer County in the Green Hills region. This distribution of broadband non- adopters when compared with Missouri s provider access map (Figure 3b), shows that the areas with lower adoption of broadband tend to overlap the unserved or underserved areas in the state. This indicates that broadband unavailability may be one of the determining factors influencing broadband non- adoption. 6

8 Figure 3a: Household broadband non-adoption among surveyed ZIP codes in Missouri 7

9 Source: MoBroadbandNow ( Figure 3b: Missouri broadband service availability overview based on number of providers Figure 3c shows areas of low Internet adoption (with 50% or more non- adoption of Internet, either basic Internet or broadband). Compared to Figure 3a, Figure 3c shows fewer counties with 50% or more non- adoption. However, counties including Shelby, Stoddard, Wright, Andrew, DeKalb and Holt still have ZIP codes with 50% or more Internet non- adopters (i.e. do not even have the basic Internet), while for the majority of counties demonstrating high rates of broadband non- adoption, non- adoption rates for basic Internet fall below 50% (i.e. have basic Internet but not broadband). There are only a limited number of ZIP codes above 50%, and these are distributed across the state. ZIP codes showing high rates of computer non- adoption overlap with ZIP codes reporting high rates of Internet non- adoption (see Figure 3d). 8

10 Figure 3c: Missouri ZIP code level Internet non-adoption 9

11 Figure 3d: Missouri ZIP code level computer non-adoption Note: Figures 3a, 3c and 3d are based on responses received on the 2011 MoBroadbandNow residential survey. Responses were received from 855 of Missouri s 1,072 ZIP codes. There are ZIP codes that had very limited surveys returned some had just one survey returned. When viewed at this level, the percentage non- adopter calculation and resulting maps are primarily meant for comparison with Figure 3b, which shows broadband service availability based on number of providers. 10

12 Reasons for non-adoption at the state level: Understanding the reasons for computer and Internet technology non- adoption is critical for policymakers as well as Internet Service Providers (ISPs). This section summarizes the characteristics of non- adopters and explores primary reasons for non- adoption in Missouri. Based on this survey, the major reasons for not having Internet at home can be grouped into four areas: finance related, availability related, safety or privacy related, and technology know- how related as presented in Table 2 (for further detail see Table A1 and Table A2 in the Appendix). For those without a computer, survey data suggest they do not have the end user machine to access the Internet. Survey respondents report the cost of Internet access as the most common reason for non- adoption for both rural and non- rural Missouri households. Lack of a computer in the home is a larger problem for non- rural households than for rural households, while lack of technical know- how (Internet use and importance) is reported be a larger problem for rural households than for non- rural households. Lack of Internet availability is considered a bigger hurdle for rural households than for non- rural households. Table 2: Reasons for non-adoption of Internet based on type of residence Major reasons for Internet non- adoption Rural Missouri households* (n=605) Non- rural households* (n=440) 1. Finance related Cost related to Internet 49% 48% No computer 27% 40% 2. Availability related Unavailability of high- speed Internet 34% 4% Can t get the kind of Internet access I want 21% 4% Problem with DSL access 13% 4% 3. Safety or privacy related Privacy/ security 17% 20% Computer safety 10% 15% 4. Technology know- how related Don t know how to use it 10% 16% Nothing on Internet that I need 7% 16% Don t really know about Internet 10% 18% *Respondents were free to choose more than one reason 11

13 Characteristics of non-adopters: Income: Income is an important characteristic in determining technology adoption, as illustrated in Figure 4. However, the distribution of broadband non- adopters is more uniformly distributed across different income groups, while the distribution of computer non- adoption is heavily skewed towards households in lower income groups. Of Missourians who are computer non- adopters, 58% earn less than $30,000 a year, while only 8% of households earning at least $75,000 a year are computer non- adopters. With respect to broadband non- adoption, the percentages are 30% and 21%, respectively. This difference in adoption then suggests that the reason for computer non- adoption is based more on affordability, while broadband non- adoption is more related to perceived value. The survey data suggest that the cost of a computer is the major reason for non- adoption (47%) in lower income households, while for higher income households ($75,000 or more) there was sufficient access to computers outside of home (34%) with only 16% reporting cost as a component of the reason for non- adoption. For households with mid- income level (income equal or higher than $30,000 but less than $75,000), three major reasons for computer non- adoption were cost (50%), no need for a computer (51%), and not wanting a computer (39%). Survey results also suggest that the major reason (54%) for Internet non- adoption was cost for households with less than $30,000 in annual income. For households with mid- income level (income equal or higher than $30,000 but less than $75,000), the three major reasons for Internet non- adoption of Internet were cost (55%), lack of a computer (28%), and unavailability of high- speed Internet (25%). For high- income households ($75,000 or more) the primary reason for non- adoption was unavailability of a high- speed Internet service in their area (48%). Annual Household Income ($) Equal more than 75,000 50,000-74,999 30,000-49,999 less than 30,000 Income and technology non- adopwon 8% 13% 14% 21% 20% 19% 27% 25% Note: Only 42% of the computer non- adopters and 59% of the Internet and broadband non- adopters reported their income. Figure 4: Income and technology non-adoption 24% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 43% Percentage of total non- adoptors Households without Broadband Households without basic Internet Households without Computer 58% 12

14 Households with children: Thirty- six percent of households responding to the survey had children in the home, while 64% reported that they did not have children in the home. Technology non- adoption is proportionately higher for households without children than for those with children (see Figure 5). The three primary reasons for not having Internet in households with children are: cost, unavailability of high- speed Internet and unavailability of the type of Internet desired. For households without children cost of Internet, no computer and privacy/security issues were the three primary reasons for not having Internet (see Table 3). More than 1 in 10 households without Internet think that Internet access will decrease their child s safety (stranger danger) and 13% of households without Internet do not want Internet access because of inappropriate content (porn, hate materials, etc.) on the Internet. This is 4% higher than for households without children. Proportionately fewer households with children (6%) consider the Internet of no use to them compared to 12% of households without children, indicating that households with children place relatively more value on Internet access, even when they currently do not have Internet in their home. Household types and technology non- adopwon Percentage of total non- adopters 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 85% 75% 72% 25% 28% 15% No Computer No Internet No Broadband Types of technology Household with children Household with no children Figure 5: Household type and technology non-adoption 13

15 Table 3: Reasons for Internet non-adoption based on household types Primary reasons for Internet non- adoption for households with children* (n=268) Cost related to Internet: 57% Unavailability of high- speed Internet: 36% Unavailability of type of Internet desired: 21% Computer safety: 14% Child safety: 11% Inappropriate Internet content: 13% Nothing in the Internet that is useful: 6% *Respondents were free to choose more than one reason Primary reasons for no Internet access for households without children (n=808) Cost related to Internet (45%) No computer: 39% Privacy/ security: 39% Computer safety: 11% - Inappropriate Internet content: 9% Nothing in the Internet that is useful: 12% Race: The composition of MoBroadbandNow survey respondents by race/ethnicity was 96% White/Caucasian and 4% other races/ethnicities (including Black, Asian, Hispanic and other). The proportion of households without a computer, basic Internet and broadband is illustrated in Figure 6 below and corresponds to the racial composition of the overall sample. Technology non- adopwon and race Technology Types No Broadband No Internet No Computer 96% 94% 94% 4% 6% 6% White Other 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percentage of total non- adopters Figure 6: Technology non-adoption and race The White/Caucasian respondents, as well as respondents of other races (non- White/non- Caucasian) gave similar reasons for not having Internet (as listed in Table 4) with the exception of unavailability of high- speed Internet. Almost half of White/Caucasian households, as well as households of other races without Internet indicated cost as the primary reason for broadband non- adoption. Similarly, about one- third of both White and non- White households without Internet indicated lack of a computer as a reason for not having broadband. 14

16 Even though non- rural Missouri has higher rates of Internet adoption than rural Missouri, 55% of non- white households without Internet live in non- rural areas. This supports the fact that unavailability of high- speed Internet (accessibility) is a larger problem for White households without Internet (22%) than it is for non- White households (11%). On the other hand, lack of Internet- related know- how (digital literacy) is a larger problem for non- white households (18%) than White households without Internet (10%). Table 4: Reasons for Internet non-adoption Major reasons for Internet non- adoption White/Caucasian households* (n=913) Non- White/Non- Caucasian households* (n=55) Cost related to Internet 49% 50% No computer 33% 31% Unavailability of high speed Internet 22% 11% Privacy/ security 18% 20% Computer safety 12% 16% Don t really know about Internet 10% 18% *Respondents were free to choose more than one reason Broadband non-adoption for those with basic Internet: The primary reason for choosing either dial- up or satellite (considered basic Internet, i.e. non- broadband Internet for this analysis) among basic Internet adopters is unavailability of other services to choose from (54%). Given the fact that 81% of these basic Internet adopters self- report as living in a rural area, their concern with respect to limitation in their range of choices is reasonable. The second most reported reason for choosing dial- up or satellite connections is cost of service (21%). Again, given the fact that these basic Internet adopters have lower annual household incomes ($10,000 less) compared to those with broadband connection, the price differential between basic Internet and broadband may be a reason for not switching to faster Internet service even when there is a better service from which to choose. Lack of provider (service) choice as the reason for non- broadband adoption was indicated by 54% of the respondent households, with only about one- fifth (21%) indicating their inability to afford broadband. This suggests that availability is a bigger hurdle in broadband adoption than cost. Adoption of broadband in Missouri has increased in the recent years with 35% of households with broadband reporting having first subscribed to broadband in the past three years and 62% within the past seven years despite the fact that the median household income in Missouri has decreased from $46,867 in 2008 compared to $45,247 in 2011, a decrease of $1, This indicates adoption is increasing with growing availability despite household income decreasing. However, for many households, cost remains a barrier to adoption. 15

17 Internet use between those with broadband and those with just basic Internet does not differ greatly the two notable exceptions would be activities related to banking and watching streaming television. Table 5: Comparison of variables for Internet adopters but non-adopters of broadband Variables Internet adopters Don t have broadband Have broadband Median income Mean income $50,000 $74,628 $60,000 $70,413 Rural 81% 48% Why choose the current service? Don t have broadband Have broadband Cost 21% 22% Speed 15% 39% Only available service 54% 21% Most reliable in my area 8% 14% Other 2% 4% Level of satisfaction (Satisfied or Very Satisfied) Don t have broadband Have broadband Cost 53% 51% Speed 34% 78% Reliability 54% 82% Provider choice 18% 30% Why choose the current service? Don t have broadband(rural) Don t have broadband (non- rural) Cost 17% 26% Speed 36% 43% Only available service 29% 14% Most reliable in my area 15% 13% Other 3% 4% Households with broadband express a higher level of satisfaction with the speed, reliability, and provider choice over those who have just basic Internet. However, the satisfaction with cost is lower, though marginally so (2% difference). Rural Missourians with just basic Internet are more likely to have chosen their current provider because it was the only available service in their area (15% more). These households are less concerned (9% less) about choosing their current provider because of cost when compared to their non- rural counterparts. All these indicators reflect that many of the current basic Internet adopters are likely to adopt broadband, provided these services are available; this is particularly true for households in rural Missouri. 16

18 Non-adopters access and use of the Internet: Regardless of whether Missourians have Internet in their homes, they often choose to access the Internet at other locations as well. While 91% of Missouri households report owning computers and 88% report Internet access in their home, a full 67% report accessing the Internet at other locations, including work, school and libraries. Of those households that use the Internet outside of the home, 10% do not have Internet at home, while 90% do (Table 6). Table 6: Computer ownership, Internet subscriber status and place of Internet access outside of home Detail All respondents Rural Non- rural Have computer 91% 93% 91% Have Internet 88% 88% 89% Have Internet that is Broadband 71% 63% 82% Use Internet outside of home (but may use 67% 67.4% 66.6% residential Internet as well) Though 67% of Missourians report using the Internet outside of the home, Missourians who do not have a home computer are less likely to use the Internet outside of home (only 30%) than those who do. Having a computer increases Internet use outside of the home (59%), even when a household does not have home Internet. This may be because owning a computer equates to more knowledge and comfort with these technologies, although there may still be barriers to Internet adoption (i.e. cost of Internet or unavailability). Missourians with basic Internet, but not broadband, still access Internet outside the home marginally more (3% more) than those who have broadband at home, indicating some benefit to having Internet at home, even if it is a connection that is slower than broadband (see Table 7). Only one- fifth of Missourians without a computer have an e- mail address. This percentage increases to 45% and 74% for Missourians who have a computer (but no Internet) or have a computer with basic Internet (but not broadband), respectively. The frequency of e- mail access, as expected, is higher when people have home Internet than it is for those without Internet or a computer (see Figure7). Table 7: Place and frequency of Internet access ( access) Who? Access Internet outside of home 17 Have e- mail account Percentage of those with an e- mail account who access it at least once a day All Missourians 67% 91% 71% Computer non- adopters (n=700) 30% 20% 42% Internet non- adopters (n=1,000) 59% 45% 49% Broadband non- adopters 59% (n=2,824) 56% 74% Broadband adopters (n=6,649) 71% 99% 75%

19 Frequency of e- mail access Household types Broadband non- adopters Internet non- adopters Computer non- adopters 16% 25% 27% 24% 23% 40% 42% 49% 59% - 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percentage of households Access less than once a week Access at least once a day Access weekly or several cmes a week Figure 7: Frequency of access Where do non-adopters access the Internet? Many Missourians without home Internet report accessing the Internet at locations outside the home. About two- thirds of survey respondents access the Internet at work, followed by approximately 60% who access the Internet at the homes of friends or relatives. Fifty- four percent of those without home Internet access go to public libraries for Internet access. The survey findings show that the adoption of home broadband does not reduce the use of Internet sources outside of the home. In fact, the use of Internet at locations outside of the home (listed in table 8) is higher for broadband adopters than for Internet non- adopters at all locations except for public libraries. Public libraries serve as a key point of Internet access for non- adopters. The majority of households that reported having access to home broadband reported also accessing the Internet at work (85%) and at the homes of friends or relatives (56%), but only 34% of these households reported using public libraries to access Internet. 18

20 Table 8: Places of non-residential Internet access Place of Internet access Respondents with no home computer Respondents without basic Internet at home Respondents with basic Internet but no broadband at home Respondents with broadband at home All respondents surveyed Work 49% 66% 73% 85% 82% School 13% 23% 30% 38% 36% Library 48% 54% 46% 34% 37% Relatives 51% 62% 59% 56% 56% Retail 4% 23% 26% 35% 33% Mobile 16% 31% 37% 57% 52% Non-adopter thoughts on importance of Internet and computers: The perceived importance of computer and Internet access increases with the level of familiarity with computer and Internet technologies. Those without a computer perceive computer and Internet access to be less important than those with a computer. Those with a computer but no Internet perceive those items to be less important than those with both a computer and Internet access. In Missouri, a surprisingly high percentage of computer non- adopters indicate not knowing the importance of either a computer or the Internet (41%) compared to those with a computer but no Internet access (23%).This percentage decreases to 14% when the household has access to basic Internet (see Table 9) compared to just 5% for those with broadband access. This shows that both availability and adoption of technology helps increase the positive perception and valuation of Internet access. Table 9: Perceived importance of computer and Internet by adopters and non-adopters How important is it for Missouri residents to have access to a computer and the Internet? Types of respondents Important or very important Somewhat to not important Don t Know Households without computers 25% 34% 41% Households with a computer but no Internet 50% 28% 23% Households with Internet but not broadband 66% 21% 14% Broadband Adopters 75% 21% 5% 19

21 Characteristics of broadband choice important to non-adopters: Having a choice across or among different broadband characteristics, such as providers and types of service, becomes less important to someone who does not even have a basic Internet connection in their home. This is true even though all four of the broadband characteristics, listed below in Table 10, are ranked similarly for those without Internet, those with basic Internet, and those with broadband access. This is likely because Missourians without access would like to have broadband of any type, regardless of provider, even though speed and cost still would be important factors in making a decision to adopt. Broadband adopters consider both cost (by a margin of 30%) and speed (by a margin of 36%) within their broadband choice as more important when compared to those without basic Internet. Table 10: Difference in choices of broadband characteristics for adopters and non-adopters Important choices to have for broadband Characteristics of Internet Broadband non- adopters Broadband non- adopters (but have Internet) Broadband adopters Providers 23% 29% 42% Types of services 35% 45% 58% Speed of service 43% 59% 79% Cost of service 58% 69% 88% Cost of Internet in Missouri: Based on this analysis, cost is one of the major hurdles to adoption of both basic Internet and broadband in Missouri. While costs vary by region and type of Internet connection, at the state level data from Telogical Systems, LLC indicates the average monthly price for Internet access is $28.85 per Megabits per second (Mbps) with an average monthly price of $49.45 ($37.15 with promotional discounts) for the first year of an Internet service contract, as of October The price of Internet service in Missouri increased in the month of September and exhibited a 26% increase in the average monthly cost per Mbps when compared to April 2012 (see Figure 8). Data from the MoBroadbandNow survey indicated that Missourians pay on average $42.87 per month with just a dollar difference between rural and non- rural Missouri (rural: $42.36; non- rural: $43.72). It should be noted that rural households report less satisfaction with both the speed of their Internet service and choice of their current provider, in part due to a lack of alternate providers in their area. 20

22 60 Average Monthly Price for Internet in Missouri, Average Price ($/ month) April May June July August September October Average Standandard Monthly Price for First Year Average Monthly Price for First Year with Promocons Price per Mbps Source: Telogical Systems, LLC, Figure 8: Average Monthly Price for broadband in Missouri Broadband price information in Missouri was also collected at the Missouri State Fair 2 in August 2012 where broadband adopters indicated that they paid on average $59/month. On the same survey, a separate question found that non- adopters were willing to pay $34/month for broadband service at their home. This difference between the average price paid by current adopters and the price non- adopters are willing to pay is significant (a gap of $25/month) and may further suggest that cost of Internet is indeed an adoption hurdle for many Missouri households. A 2010 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) study iv showed that Americans pay on average $41/month for their broadband service and those without broadband service are willing to pay $25/month. This difference of $16 is lower than the variation of $25 found in Missouri. 21

23 Conclusion: Geography, race, household income and children in the household are all factors affecting computer and Internet technology adoption or non- adoption among Missourians. Most of Missouri s broadband non- adopters are in rural areas. These are particularly concentrated in counties south of the I- 70 corridor, both in the central and south central parts of the state. There are also pockets of lower adoption in other ZIP codes across the state, though less concentrated in counties with metropolitan areas such as St. Louis, Kansas City, Springfield, and Columbia. Cost, access to Internet services, and limited knowledge and/or skill with computing technology stand out as the three major reasons for computer and Internet non- adoption in Missouri. However, non- adoption of broadband among those who already have basic Internet is more related to the unavailability of specific or desired types of high- speed Internet access in an area rather than cost or lack of knowledge and/or skill related to these computing technologies. Additionally, a large portion of Internet non- adopters, as well as broadband non- adopters, use the Internet in places outside of the home. Finally, while the costs vary by region and type of Internet connection, there is a significant gap in the willingness to pay for broadband by current non- adopters, with the difference in the price paid by current broadband adopters and the price non- adopters are willing to pay being even higher in Missouri than on the national level. 22

24 Appendix: Table A1: Computer non-adoption Reasons Rural* (n=355) Urban (n=380) Missouri (n=933) Reason Grouping for Missouri R=Rural- Missouri NR: Non- Rural MO: Missouri - Cost /too expensive 14% (1) 11% (4) 10% (3) Don't want one 14% (1) 16% (1) 12% (1) Responses indicating no need of computer at home** (R: 35%, NR: 40%, MO: 29%) Don't need one 12% (3) 14% (2) 10% (2) Don't have time to use one at home 3% 3% 2% Sufficient access to computers 2% 2% 2% My cell phone is all I need 4% 5% 3% Don t know how to use one 10% (4) 12% (3) 9% (4) Responses indicating lack of Don t know how to set up 7% 8% 6% Don t know how to choose one 7% 5% 5% Don't have time to learn how to use one 5% 4% 3% Worried about computer safety (virus, worms) 9% (5) 8% (7) 7% (7) technical knowhow** (R: 29%, NR: 29%, MO: 23%) Responses indicating safety/ security concerns** (R: 28%, NR: 30%, MO: 24%) Safety/ security concerns 9% (5) 10% (6) 8%(6) Privacy/ security/ personal information concerns 8% (7) 11% (5) 8% (5) Don't want kids to use it 2% 1% 1% Plan to purchase one within the year 5% 4% 3% - Don't know 3% 1% 1% - *Figures in the parentheses are the ranks for each reason and the total for Missouri does not add to the sum of rural and non- rural as many respondents did not indicate their residency type. The respondents had the option of picking more than one reason. 23

25 stable A2: Internet non-adopters: Reasons Rural* (%) (n=605) Non- rural (%) (n=440) Missouri (%) (n=1155) Reason Grouping for Missouri R=Rural- Missouri NR: Non- rural MO: Missouri Cost/ too expensive 49% (1) 48% (1) 48% (1) Don't have computer 27 (3) 40 (2) 34 (2) - High- speed Internet not available 34 (2) 4 20 Problem with Problem with DSL access 13 (6) 4 8 Can't get the kind of Internet access that I want 21 (4) 4 13 Problem with cable access Privacy/ security/ personal information 18 (5) 20 (3) 18 (3) Computer safety (6) 12 (5) Inappropriate content(porn, hate material, etc.) Child safety (stranger danger) availability** (R: 73%, NR: 14%, MO: 45%) Privacy/ safety related:** (R: 40%, NR: 53%, MO: 45%) Don t know how to use one (4) 13 (4) Technical know- Don't have time to learn how to use how related:** (R: 33%, NR: 56%, Don't really know about Internet MO: 44%) Don t know how to set up Don t know how to choose one Nothing on the Internet that I need 7 16 (4) 10 (6) No need** Sufficient access elsewhere (R: 15%, NR: 28%, MO: 20%) Plan to establish Internet - connection within a year Other *Figures in the parentheses are the ranks for a few of the reasons and the total for Missouri does not add to sum of rural and non- rural as many respondents did not indicate their residency type. The respondents had the option of picking more than one reason. ** Note that the same respondent might have responded to different reasons within this category 24

26 i Becker, Samantha, et al Opportunity for All: How the American Public Benefits from Internet Access at U.S. Libraries. (IMLS RES- 01).Institute of Museum and Library Services. Washington, D.C. libraries- report- opportunity- for- all.aspx ii Gautam S, T. Haithcoat and D. Porter (2012). Dissecting Missouri s Digital Divide: A Study of Residential Broadband Adoption and Availability in the State of Missouri. broadband- initiatives/digital- divide/ iii Haithcoat, T; Gautam, S; Read, A; and Porter, D Building Digital Inclusion: Broadband and Missouri s Public Libraries. Report.pdf iv Horrigan, John B Broadband Adoption and Use in America. OBI working paper series no.1.federal Communications Commissions. 25

27 - The goal is for 95 % BROADBAND AVAILABILITY in Missouri by the end of STRATEGIC INDUSTRY SECTOR PROJECTS in agriculture and healthcare. Over 110 are participating in broadband initiative. INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS TECHNOLOGY 18REGIONAL STRATEGIC PLANS developed to address underserved broadband communities. Find Us Online facebook.com/mobroadbandnow