Broadband Quality in Public Libraries: Test Findings and Results March 1, 2015 by John Carlo Bertot, Ph.D. Co-Director and Professor jbertot@umd.edu Jean Lee Graduate Research Associate Nishit Pawar Graduate Research Associate Paul T. Jaeger Co-Director and Professor
Table of Contents List of Figures... ii Intro and Context... 1 A Study of the User Experience.. 1 Methodology.... 2 Procedure and Approach... 3 Data Quality and Test Limitations 4 The University of Maryland Test v. test.net. 5 Digital Inclusion Survey and Test Data. 5 Key Findings and Results. 7 Overall Test Results by Connection Type and Locale. 7 Direct Connection Results.. 7 Wi-Fi Connection Results 9 Test Results by Network Load. 11 City Libraries. 12 Suburban Libraries.. 14 Town Libraries.. 17 Rural Libraries.. 20 Grouping the Results. 20 The Dropoff: v. User Experience. 22 Test and the Digital Inclusion Survey 23 Basic and Advanced Technologies Offered by Libraries 24 Conclusion. 25 A Call for Future Research. 26 References.. 26 Appendix A. Test Data Tables.. 27 Appendix B. Digital inclusion and Test Methodology... 40 Appendix C. Selected Tables from DI Survey and Test Analysis. 43 University of Maryland College Park i
List of Figures Figure 1: Participation in 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey and Test. 2 Figure 2: Total Test Sample and Participation (Branch/Outlet). 2 Figure 3: Total Public Library System Test Participation 3 Figure 4: Total Public Library Outlet/Branch Test Participation. 3 Figure 5: States Represented by Test Participation. 3 Figure 6: Total Participation in Test by Test Type and Locale... 4 Figure 7: Test Results Variation... 6 Figure 8: Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Locale (in Kbps).. 8 Figure 9: Public Library Direct Connect Upload Test Results by Locale (in Kbps).. 8 Figure 10: Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Locale (in Kbps).. 10 Figure 11: Public Library Wi-Fi Upload Test Results by Locale (in Kbps) 11 Figure 12: City Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Load (in Kbps). 12 Figure 13: City Public Library Direct Connect Upload Test Results by Load (in Kbps)... 13 Figure 14: City Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Load (in Kbps)... 13 Figure 15: City Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Load (in Kbps)... 14 Figure 16: Suburban Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Load (in Kbps). 15 Figure 17: Suburban Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Load (in Kbps). 16 Figure 18: Suburban Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Load (in Kbps) 16 Figure 19: Suburban Public Library Wi-Fi Upload Test Results by Load (in Kbps). 17 Figure 20: Town Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Load (in Kbps). 18 Figure 21: Town Public Library Direct Connect Upload Test Results by Load (in Kbps) 18 Figure 22: Town Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Load (in Kbps) 19 Figure 23: Town Public Library Wi-Fi Upload Test Results by Load (in Kbps). 19 Figure 24: Public Library Outlets Grouped Test Direct Connect s, by Locale Code. 21 Figure 25: Public Library Outlets Grouped Test Direct Connect Upload s, by Locale Code... 21 Figure 26: Public Library Outlets Grouped Test Wi-Fi s, by Locale Code... 21 Figure 27: Public Library Outlets Grouped Test Wi-Fi Upload s, by Locale Code. 22 Figure 28: Public Library Outlet Compared to Device-Level, by Locale Code, in Megabits Per Second.. 22 University of Maryland College Park ii
Figure 29: Public Library Outlet Upload Compared to Device-Level, by Locale Code, in Megabits Per Second. 23 Recommended report citation: Bertot, J.C., Lee, J., Pawar N., Jaeger, P.T. (2015). Broadband Quality in Public Libraries: Test Results and Findings. College Park, MD: Information Policy & Access Center, University of Maryland College Park. Available at http://ipac.umd.edu/. University of Maryland College Park iii
Intro and Context From e-books to e-government services to distance learning, more of the information and services people seek and use in our nation s public libraries are delivered to them via wired and wireless broadband networks. The American Library Association (ALA) and the Information Policy and Access Center (ipac) at the University of Maryland have tracked these trends over two different but related survey efforts since 2009. Most recently we published results from the Digital Inclusion Survey (http://digitalinclusion.umd.edu/), which is funded by the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), in July 2014. Among its national findings, virtually all public libraries now provide free Wi-Fi access and an average of 20 computers. Overall, libraries also report some progress in their public Internet speeds (e.g., about 10% of libraries reported speeds of 1.5Mbps or less, compared with 23.4% two years earlier), but still falling far short of goals established in the recent E-rate Modernization proceeding and in the National Broadband Plan (with about 2% of libraries with 1 Gbps speeds). Only about half of all libraries report maximum Internet download speeds greater than 10 Mbps, with city libraries generally skewing on the higher end (about 27% with maximum speeds of 100 Mbps or higher) and rural libraries generally skewing on the lower end (about 3% with speeds of 100 Mbps or higher). Two-thirds of libraries indicated they would like to improve their broadband speeds. Using this nationwide survey and a smaller subset of libraries that provided both subscribed Internet speeds and measured speed test data last fall, the ALA and ipac sought to drill down further to approximate the user experience via a public library s public Internet access connection. A Study of the User Experience In order to inform the policy discourse around broadband in public libraries, this 2014 research effort sought to approximate the user experience via a public library s public Internet access connection through a national speed test data collection effort. More specifically, the study sought to: Collect speed test data via a public library s direct connect devices (e.g., a public access computer using a library s hardwired infrastructure); Collect speed test data via a public library s wireless (Wi-Fi) connected device (e.g., a laptop computer); and Collect speed test data via a public library s wireless (Wi-Fi) mobile-connected device (e.g., a smartphone, tablet). 1 In addition, the study sought to enhance the speed test data collection with integration and additional analysis using the 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey data collection effort conducted by the Information Policy & Access Center (ipac) at the University of Maryland in partnership with the American Library Association 1 The mobile device data collection was experimental and in part a proof of concept test that used speedof.me as its speed capture tool. The tool is an HTML5-based produce and thus we were able to build a mobile device interface that did not require an app download and was not flash-based and thus could work with IOS (iphone and ipad devices). University of Maryland College Park 1
(ALA) and the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and funded by the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services. Methodology The 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey included a speed test tool embedded within the survey. The survey licensed an instance of Ookla 2 and built a custom data collection and capture tool around the utility. 1,669 unique public library locations ran an instance of the speed test as part of the 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey. Of those, 1,510 completed the Survey as well and reported their subscribed broadband upload and download speeds (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Participation in 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey and Test Locale Code Libraries City 375 Suburban 332 Town 284 Rural 519 Overall 1,510 The Summer 2014 supplementary study undertook a multi-stage sampling approach to collect speed test data from libraries. For general speed test data (direct connect, Wi-Fi, and mobile), the study team opened up the speed test tool to all libraries for use. For analysis of Digital Inclusion Survey data and speed test data, we drew a proportionate sample of 1,000 libraries based on aggregated library locale (City, Suburban, Town, and Rural) from those aforementioned 1,510 libraries that participated in both the 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey and the voluntary speed test. We factored in geographic region and whether a library was part of a larger system with multiple branches or stand alone. Figure 2 shows the sampled library distribution by locale and total participation. In all 70% of sampled libraries participated in the summer supplement. Figure 2: Total Test Sample and Participation (Branch/Outlet) Locale Code Distribution in Population* 2014 Test Sample City 16.6% 166 Suburban 23.2% 232 Town 19.8% 198 Rural 40.3% 403 Overall 100.0% 1,000 * The 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey used the FY2011 Public Library Survey outlet file published by IMLS (the most current file at the time) as its sample frame. The study team modified the file to remove U.S. Territory libraries, bookmobiles, and books by mail instances, leaving 16,715 library locations from which to draw a sample. 2 Ookla is the underlying speed test capture tool in the www.speedtest.net website that many organizations use to measure the speed of their connection. University of Maryland College Park 2
The speed test was in the field from July 14, 2014, through August 15, 2014. As Figures 3-5 show, a total of 1,230 public library systems and 2,251 library locations (outlets/branches) spread across 49 states participated in the speed test. Figure 3: Total Public Library System Test Participation Total Public Library Participation (number of library systems) Locale Code Direct Connect Wireless Mobile Total City 48 17 29 94 Suburban 133 50 55 238 Town 260 99 69 428 Rural 192 187 91 470 Overall 633 353 244 1,230 1,230 Library systems in all participated, however, some systems ran the speed test multiple times across connection type. Figure 4: Total Public Library Outlet/Branch Test Participation Total Public Library Participation (number of library branches/locations) Locale Code Direct Connect Wireless Mobile Total City 391 75 61 527 Suburban 290 80 94 464 Town 323 128 72 523 Rural 371 254 112 737 Overall 1375 537 339 2,251 Figure 5: States Represented by Test Participation Total Participation by State Locale Code Direct Connect Wireless Mobile Total Overall 45 48 37 49 Procedure and Approach As part of the speed test, we asked participating libraries to: Run the speed test multiple times when the library was closed, when usage was light, typical, and heavy (these were self-identified determinations); Indicate whether the test was via a directly connected computer or Wi-Fi (the mobile test was separate, thus that determination was automatic); Indicate the library s subscribed download and upload broadband speeds; Provide the number of public access computers available at the location/branch. In all, the study captured 6,207 instances of the speed test that included 3,458 direct connect instances, 2,160 Wi-Fi instances, and 589 mobile instances (see Figure 6). University of Maryland College Park 3
Figure 6: Total Participation in Test by Test Type and Locale Data Quality and Test Limitations A speed test is essentially a point in time measure that is an indicator of a user s Internet experience. It is not a measure of actual network speed. tests have a number of limitations and factors that affect the results that can include: The design of the speed test tool itself. Different speed test tools (e.g., Ookla via test.net, mlab, speedof.me) all use different technologies and methodologies to capture their results. A library s network configuration. How a library configures its network whether it uses broadband management techniques (i.e., packet shaping), optimization, and other factors can have a substantial effect on the speed at the device level. A library s Internet Service Provider (ISP) arrangement. Libraries can have arrangements with their ISPs that increase broadband capacity at peak times to ensure an overall quality of service level. Library network load. At any given time, a library s network may experience high or light traffic it is highly variable by time of day, weekend v. weekday, season (e.g., summer v. fall), and other factors. University of Maryland College Park 4
The number of hops to the content sought. A tool such as speedtest.net typically selects a speed test server that is the closest to the test location. In reality, the content a user might seek could reside on a server thousands of miles and multiple network hops away, which can impact the user experience. Traffic on the Internet. At any given time, the Internet in a given area might range from high to low volume. This is highly variable and can impact the user experience. The user device and its configuration. The type of device (desktop, laptop, tablet, smartphone, other) through which a user might access the Internet can have a significant impact on reported/captured speeds from a speed test. The device s processor, memory, network card, and other configurations can affect the results. As a result, any speed test data are best viewed as an approximate simulation of an individual s experience at a specific moment in time via a library s public access network. The University of Maryland Test v. test.net With the above limitations identified and acknowledged, we received comments from some libraries that raised concerns about the reported speeds via the University of Maryland (UMD) test as compared to results captured via test.net. Both versions of the speed tests relied on Ookla to capture speed test data. The UMD tool was integrated into a custom data collection tool that captured speed test data automatically and had a more limited number of servers that were used to generate speed test results as opposed to the entire universe of servers available to libraries via the test.net tool. Figure 7 compares test.net results from several servers selected at random as compared to the UMD speed test instance. As the results show, the UMD and default (in general the closest server to the test site via test.net) are comparable. The test does, however, point out that results from a speed test can vary greatly depending on the server used to capture the speed test data. The variance is particularly extreme for Server Six. But all the results vary in some way, a reflection of speed test capture tools. Digital Inclusion Survey and Test Data In addition to conducting the speed test, the study merged the speed test results with selected technology training, technology services, information resources, and programming data from the 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey (Bertot, et al., 2014). The findings section highlights some trends that this analysis identified, with additional methodological details in Appendix B and selected data tables in Appendix C. University of Maryland College Park 5
Figure 7: Test Results Variation Server/Test Connection Type Upload Default test.net (Ookla) One test.net (Ookla) Two test.net (Ookla) Three test.net (Ookla) Four test.net (Ookla) Five test.net (Ookla) Six test.net (Ookla) Seven test.net (Ookla) Wireless (Wi-Fi) 24.75Mbps 22.28Mbps Direct 57.99Mbps 39.12Mbps Wireless (Wi-Fi) 24.96Mbps 17.68Mbps Direct 58.04Mbps 26.77Mbps Wireless (Wi-Fi) 24.75Mbps 16.48Mbps Direct 58.00Mbps 38.70Mbps Wireless (Wi-Fi) 24.54Mbps 12.35Mbps Direct 58.04Mbps 13.68Mbps Wireless (Wi-Fi) 24.95Mbps 22.05Mbps Direct 50.82Mbps 38.70Mbps Wireless (Wi-Fi) 24.44Mbps 7.23Mbps Direct 24.14Mbps 38.23Mbps Wireless (Wi-Fi) 4.54Mbps 7.81Mbps Direct 1.66Mbps 12.35Mbps Wireless (Wi-Fi) 23.25Mbps 13.65Mbps Direct 58.00Mbps 17.10Mbps Wireless (Wi-Fi) UMD 23.82Mbps 21.25Mbps (Ookla) Direct 56.50Mbps 38.10Mbps Note 1: test results validation was conducted using a 50Mbps down/25mbps up fiber connection to the Internet over a 100Mbps internal network connection. Wireless tests were conducted via a 802.11n wireless router to the same internal network. Note 2: test.net tests were conducted initially using the default server selected by the test.net site via a directly connected computer. After the initial tests, seven servers (moving from East to West across the United States) were selected at random with all tests run all within a 15 minute window. The selected servers were recorded so as to conduct the tests again using Wi-Fi.The same methodology was used for the Wi-Fi test. Note 3: The UMD test, which used a licensed instance of Ookla, was conducted first and recorded for comparative purposes using the same network set up and devices. Note 4: Results captured August 11, 2014. University of Maryland College Park 6
Key Findings and Results This section summarizes the key findings from the speed test study. Appendix A contains the full set of data tables generated from the speed test. Given the experimental nature of the mobile device speed test, this section highlights the results from the direct connection and Wi-Fi speed test results. Appendix A, however, includes the data tables and results generated from the mobile version of the speed test. Overall Test Results by Connection Type and Locale This section highlights speed test results by both locale (City, Suburban, Town, and Rural) and speed test type (direct connection, Wi-Fi, and mobile). Direct Connection Results City public libraries reported an average captured download speed of 84,735 Kbps (82.74 Mbps), with a median download captured download speed of 31,210 Kbps (30.47 Mbps), minimum captured speed of 560 Kbps (.55 Mbps), and a maximum captured download speed of 841,534 Kbps (821.81 Mbps) (see Figure 8). Suburban public libraries reported an average captured download speed of 47,535 Kbps (46.42 Mbps), with a median download captured speed of 19,240 Kbps (18.79 Mbps), minimum download captured speed of 480 Kbps (.47 Mbps), and a maximum captured download speed of 809,961 Kbps (790.98 Mbps). Town public libraries reported an average captured download speed of 26,083 Kbps (25.47 Mbps), with a median download captured speed of 10,791 Kbps (10.54 Mbps), minimum captured speed of 160 Kbps (.16 Mbps), and a maximum captured download speed of 795,597 Kbps (776.95 Mbps). Rural public libraries reported an average captured download speed of 20,462 Kbps (19.98 Mbps), with a median download captured speed of 9,168 Kbps (8.95 Mbps), minimum captured speed of 20 Kbps (.02 Mbps), and a maximum captured download speed of 499,462 Kbps (487.76 Mbps). University of Maryland College Park 7
Figure 8: Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Locale (in Kbps) Figure 9: Public Library Direct Connect Upload Test Results by Locale (in Kbps) University of Maryland College Park 8
City public libraries reported an average upload speed of 55,053 Kbps (53.76 Mbps), with a median upload captured speed of 25,843 Kbps (25.23 Mbps), minimum upload captured speed of 160 Kbps (.16 Mbps), and a maximum captured upload speed of 811,490 Kbps (792.47 Mbps) (see Figure 9). Suburban public libraries reported an average captured upload speed of 23,381 Kbps (22.83 Mbps), with a median upload captured speed of 9,130 Kbps (8.91 Mbps), minimum captured upload speed of 200 Kbps (.19 Mbps), and a maximum captured upload speed of 666,791 Kbps (651.16 Mbps). Town public libraries reported an average captured upload speed of 13,336 Kbps (13.02 Mbps), with a median upload captured speed of 3,359 Kbps (3.28 Mbps), minimum captured speed of 73 Kbps (.07 Mbps), and a maximum captured upload speed of 544,166 Kbps (531.41 Mbps). Rural public libraries reported an average captured upload speed of 10,108 Kbps (9.87 Mbps), with a median upload captured speed of 2,196 Kbps (2.14 Mbps), minimum captured speed of 20 Kbps (.02 Mbps), and a maximum captured upload speed of 477,730 Kbps (466.53 Mbps). Wi-Fi Connection Results The Wi-Fi results (shown in more detail in the tables found in Appendix A) would indicate that some libraries conducted the Wi-Fi test remotely, thus skewing some of the results. That is, the tests were not run using a device connected to the library s Wi-Fi network in the public access area, but rather through remote login techniques by IT staff. Given this, we recommend relying on the median speeds reported as a more accurate reflection of a typical user s experience in a public library via a Wi-Fi connection. City public libraries reported and average captured Wi-Fi download speed of 58,999 Kbps (57.61 Mbps), with a median captured Wi-Fi download speed of 13,708 Kbps (13.38 Mbps), minimum captured Wi-Fi download speed of 400 Kbps (.39 Mbps), and a maximum captured Wi-Fi download speed of 835,398 Kbps University of Maryland College Park 9
Figure 10: Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Locale (in Kbps) (815.82 Mbps) (see Figure 10). Suburban public libraries reported an average captured Wi-Fi download speed of 21,068 Kbps (20.57 Mbps), with a median captured Wi-Fi download speed of 14,718 Kbps (14.37 Mbps), minimum captured Wi-Fi download speed of 150 Kbps (.15 Mbps), and a maximum captured download Wi-Fi speed of 494,809 Kbps (483.21 Mbps). Town public libraries reported an average captured download Wi-Fi speed of 17,739 Kbps (17.32 Mbps), with a median download Wi-Fi captured speed of 9,563 Kbps (9.34 Mbps), minimum captured speed of 20 Kbps (.02 Mbps), and a maximum Wi-Fi download speed of 403,563 Kbps (394.10 Mbps). Rural public libraries reported an average captured download Wi-Fi speed of 12,873 Kbps (12.57 Mbps), with a median download captured speed of 6,420 Kbps (6.27 Mbps), minimum captured speed of 20 Kbps (.02 Mbps), and a maximum captured download speed of 492,430 Kbps (480.89 Mbps). City public libraries reported an average captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 12,873 Kbps (12.57 Mbps), with a median captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 6,434 Kbps (6.28 Mbps), minimum captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 10 Kbps (.01 Mbps), and a maximum captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 696,098 Kbps (679.78 Mbps) (see Figure 11). Suburban public libraries reported an average captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 9,615 Kbps (9.39 Mbps), with a median captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 6,005 Kbps (5.86 Mbps), minimum captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 107 Kbps (.10 Mbps), and a maximum captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 107,355 Kbps (104.83 Mbps). Town public libraries reported and average captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 8,707 Kbps (8.50 Mbps), with a median upload captured Wi-Fi speed of 2,932 Kbps (2.86 Mbps), minimum captured University of Maryland College Park 10
upload Wi-Fi speed of 70 Kbps (.07 Mbps), and a maximum captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 384, 766 Kbps (375.75 Mbps). Rural public libraries reported an average captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 5,728 Kbps (5.60 Mbps), Figure 11: Public Library Wi-Fi Upload Test Results by Locale (in Kbps) with a median upload captured Wi-Fi speed of 1,440 Kbps (1.41 Mbps), minimum captured Wi-Fi speed of 10 Kbps (.01 Mbps), and a maximum captured upload Wi-Fi speed of 372,972 Kbps (364.23 Mbps). Test Results by Network Load Librarians were asked to indicate whether the speed test was being conducted when the library was closed, or usage was light (e.g., there are only a small number of people using the computers and Wi-Fi), typical e.g., the use of the computers and/or Wi-Fi is about what we typically get during the day), or heavy e.g., most or all of our computers are in use, there are many people using the library s Wi-Fi). These were selfreported perceptual indicators, but they provide a useful way to classify and analyze the impact of network load and usage on reported speeds at the device level and thus an indication of what a user might experience during peak versus lighter times. Individual perceptions can vary, nor should the data be viewed as actual measures of network load. University of Maryland College Park 11
City Libraries As Figures 12-15 show, performance degrades significantly as usage increases. The average download speed test result for a direct connection during light usage is 111,678 Kbps (109.06 Mbps), with a median download speed of 53,494 Kbps (52.24Mbps). This compares to an average of 39,292 Kbps (38.37 Mbps) during heavy usage, with a median of 16,483 Kbps (16.09 Mbps). The average upload speed test result for a direct connection during light usage is 76,084 Kbps (74.30 Mbps), with a median upload speed of 20,047 Kbps (19.58 Mbps). This compares to an average of 19,210 Kbps (18.76 Mbps) during heavy usage, with a median upload speed of 7,887 Kbps (7.70 Mbps). The median 3 download speed test result for a Wi-Fi connection during light usage is 19,618 Kbps (19.16 Mbps) versus 1,009 Kbps (.99 Mbps) during heavy usage. The median upload speed test result for a Wi-Fi connection during light usage is 10,517 Kbps (10.27 Mbps) versus 291 Kbps (.28 Mbps) during heavy usage. Figure 12: City Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Load (in Kbps) 3 As indicated previously, Wi-Fi results (shown in more detail in the tables found in Appendix A) would indicate that some libraries conducted the Wi-Fi test remotely, thus skewing some of the results. We thus present median data for Wi-Fi tests. University of Maryland College Park 12
Figure 13: City Public Library Direct Connect Upload Test Results by Load (in Kbps) Figure 14: City Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Load (in Kbps) University of Maryland College Park 13
Figure 15: City Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Load (in Kbps) Suburban Libraries As with City libraries, performance degrades significantly as usage increases in Suburban libraries (see Figures 16-19). The average download speed test result for a direct connection during light usage is 54,704 Kbps (53.42 Mbps), with a median speed test result of 20,067 Kbps (19.60 Mbps). This compares to an average download speed of 30,310 Kbps (29.60 Mbps) during heavy usage, with a median speed test result of 9,810 Kbps (9.58 Kbps). The average upload speed test result for a direct connection during light usage in Suburban libraries is 25,808 Kbps (25.20 Mbps), with a median speed test result of 9,530 Kbps (9.31 Mbps). This compares of to an average upload speed of 15,896 Kbps (15.52 Mbps) during heavy usage, with a median upload speed test result of 5,525 Kbps (5.40 Mbps). The median 4 download speed test result for a Wi-Fi connection during light usage is 16,198 Kbps (15.81 Mbps) versus 9,017 Kbps (8.80 Mbps) during heavy usage. The median upload speed test result for a Wi-Fi connection during light usage is 7,617 Kbps (7.44 Mbps) versus 3,445 Kbps (3.36 Mbps) during heavy usage. 4 As indicated previously, Wi-Fi results (shown in more detail in the tables found in Appendix A) would indicate that some libraries conducted the Wi-Fi test remotely, thus skewing some of the results. We thus present median data for Wi-Fi tests. University of Maryland College Park 14
Figure 16: Suburban Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Load (in Kbps) University of Maryland College Park 15
Figure 17: Suburban Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Load (in Kbps) Figure 18: Suburban Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Load (in Kbps) University of Maryland College Park 16
Figure 19: Suburban Public Library Wi-Fi Upload Test Results by Load (in Kbps) Town Libraries in town libraries are variable in terms of load for the reported direct connect speeds. The average download speed test result for a direct connection during light usage in Town libraries is 24,129 Kbps (23.56 Mbps), with a median download speed test result of 11,890 Kbps (11.61 Mbps). This compares to 29,025 Kbps (28.34 Mbps) during heavy usage, with a median download speed test result of 14,740 Kbps (14.39 Mbps). The average upload speed test result for a direct connection during light usage in Town libraries is 12,377 Kbps (12.09 Mbps), with a median upload speed test result of 3,708 Kbps (3.62 Mbps). This compares to 9,907 Kbps (9.67 Mbps) during heavy usage, with a median upload speed test result of 3,247 Kbps (3.17 Mbps). The median 5 download speed test result for a Wi-Fi connection during light usage is 9,783 Kbps (9.55 Mbps) versus 7,293 Kbps (7.12 Mbps) during heavy usage. The median upload speed test result for a Wi-Fi connection during light usage is 3,056 Kbps (2.98 Mbps) versus 2,569 Kbps (2.51 Mbps) during heavy usage. 5 As indicated previously, Wi-Fi results (shown in more detail in the tables found in Appendix A) would indicate that some libraries conducted the Wi-Fi test remotely, thus skewing some of the results. We thus present median data for Wi-Fi tests. University of Maryland College Park 17
Figure 20: Town Public Library Direct Connect Test Results by Load (in Kbps) Figure 21: Town Public Library Direct Connect Upload Test Results by Load (in Kbps) University of Maryland College Park 18
Figure 22: Town Public Library Wi-Fi Test Results by Load (in Kbps) Figure 23: Town Public Library Wi-Fi Upload Test Results by Load (in Kbps) University of Maryland College Park 19
Rural Libraries speeds in Rural libraries indicate that as usage increases, speeds at the device level decrease. The average download speed test result for a direct connection during light usage in Rural libraries is 21,039 Kbps (20.55 Mbps), while the median captured download speed test result is 9,353 Kbps (9.13 Mbps). This compares to 15,748 Kbps (15.38 Mbps) during heavy usage, as compared to a median captured download speed test result of 6,880 Kbps (6.72 Mbps). The average upload speed test result for a direct connection in Rural libraries during light usage is 10,580 Kbps (10.33 Mbps), with a median captured speed test result of 2,759 Kbps (2.69 Mbps). This compares to 6,569 Kbps (6.42 Mbps) during heavy usage, with a median captured upload speed test result of 992 Kbps (.97 Mbps). The median 6 download speed test result for a Wi-Fi connection during light usage is 9,783 Kbps (9.55 Mbps) versus 7,293 Kbps (7.12 Mbps) during heavy usage. The median upload speed test result for a Wi-Fi connection during light usage is 3,056 Kbps (2.98 Mbps) versus 2,569 Kbps (2.51 Mbps) during heavy usage. Grouping the Results Figures 24-27 provide another view of the speed test result data by grouping the speed test result data into speed categories. In viewing the data this way, the results show that: Users in City libraries in general experience direct connect download speeds in the 10.1Mbps- 24.9Mbps (29.6%) and 50Mbps-99.9Mbps (27.0%) ranges and Wi-Fi download speeds in the 10.1Mbps-24.9Mbps (27.1%) and less than 1.5Mbps (20.6%) ranges. Direct connect upload speeds fall in the 10.1Mbps-24.9Mbps (29.6%) and 25.0Mbps-49.9Mbps (26.2%) ranges and Wi-Fi upload speeds in the 1.6Mbps-10Mbps range (36.2%). Users in Suburban libraries in general experience direct connect download speeds in the 1.6Mbps- 10Mbps range (33.1%), and Wi-Fi download speeds in the 10.1Mbps-24.9Mbps (36.1%) and range. Direct connect upload speeds fall in the 1.6Mbps-10Mbps range (41.9%), and Wi-Fi upload speeds in the 1.6Mbps-10Mbps range (42.4%). Users in Town libraries in general experience download speeds in the 1.6Mbps-10Mbps range (41.5% direct connect and 48.1% Wi-Fi); and upload speeds in the 1.6Mbps-10Mbps range (48.1% direct connect and 45.4% Wi-Fi). Users in Rural libraries in general experience download speeds in the 1.6Mbps-10Mbps range (42.4% direct connect and 44.7% Wi-Fi); and upload speeds in the 1.5Mbps or less range (43.3% direct connect and 54.6% Wi-Fi). 6 As indicated previously, Wi-Fi results (shown in more detail in the tables found in Appendix A) would indicate that some libraries conducted the Wi-Fi test remotely, thus skewing some of the results. We thus present median data for Wi-Fi tests. University of Maryland College Park 20
Figure 24: Public Library Outlets Grouped Test Direct Connect s, by Locale Code Locale Code City Suburban Town Rural Overall 1.5Mbps or Less 4.4% (n=43) 3.6% (n=26) 7.0% (n=55) 13.3% (n=129) 7.3% (n=253) 33.2% (n=1,149) 26.7% (n=924) 12.7% (n=438) 16.3% (n=565) Figure 25: Public Library Outlets Grouped Test Direct Connect Upload s, by Locale Code Locale Code City Suburban Town Rural Overall 1.5Mbps or Less 11.7% (n=114) 13.5% (n=98) 30.7% (n=240) 43.3% (n=421) 25.2% (n=874) 38.6% (n=1,335) 17.3% (n=598) 6.6% (n=228) 9.6% (n=332) 3.8% (n=133) Figure 26: Public Library Outlets Grouped Test Wi-Fi s, by Locale Code Locale Code City Suburban Town Rural Overall 1.5Mbps or Less 20.6% (n=102) 5.2% (n=26) 6.1% (n=29) 20.3% (n=140) 13.8% (n=297) 36.6% (n=791) 29.2% (n=630) 8.9% (n=193) 9.2% (n=198) 2.7% (n=95) 1.6Mbps- 10Mbps 17.4% (n=170) 33.1% (n=241) 41.5% (n=324) 42.4% (n=412) Direct Connect s 10.1Mbps- 25.0Mbps- 24.9Mbps 49.9Mbps 29.6% 13.8% (n=289) (n=135) 24.2% 17.7% (n=176) (n=129) 27.5% 12.8% (n=215) (n=100) 25.1% 7.6% (n=244) (n=74) 50Mbps- 99.9Mbps 27.0% (n=264) 16.5% (n=120) 9.7% (n=76) 10.7% (n=104) 100Mbps- 1Gbps 7.8% (n=76) 4.9% (n=36) 1.4% (n=11) 0.9% (n=9) 1.6Mbps- 10Mbps 29.6% (n=289) 41.9% (n=305) 48.1% (n=376) 37.2% (n=362) Direct Connect Upload s 10.1Mbps- 25.0Mbps- 24.9Mbps 49.9Mbps 26.2% 8.6% (n=256) (n=84) 22.8% 8.8% (n=166) (n=64) 10.5% 4.7% (n=82) (n=37) 9.7% 4.4% (n=94) (n=43) 50Mbps- 99.9Mbps 17.4% (n=170) 10.6% (n=77) 50% (n=39) 4.7% (n=46) 100Mbps- 1Gbps 6.6% (n=64) 2.5% (n=18) 0.9% (n=7) 0.6% (n=6) 1.6Mbps- 10Mbps 19.2% (n=95) 31.7% (n=158) 48.1% (n=230) 44.7% (n=308) Wi-Fi s 10.1Mbps- 25.0Mbps- 24.9Mbps 49.9Mbps 27.1% 12.1% (n=134) (n=60) 36.1% 13.1% (n=180) (n=65) 30.5% 6.3% (n=146) (n=30) 24.7% 5.5% (n=170) (n=38) 50Mbps- 99.9Mbps 14.9% (n=74) 11.8% (n=59) 7.7% (n=37) 4.1% (n=28) 100Mbps- 1Gbps 6.1% (n=30) 2.0% (n=10) 1.3% (n=6) 0.7% (n=5) 2.4% (n=51) University of Maryland College Park 21
Figure 27: Public Library Outlets Grouped Test Wi-Fi Upload s, by Locale Code Locale Code City Suburban Town Rural Overall 1.5Mbps or Less 28.5% (n=141) 19.3% (n=96) 37.0% (n=177) 54.6% (n=376) 36.6% (n=790) 39.5% (n=853) 15.2% (n=329) 3.8% (n=82) 3.3% (n=71) 1.6Mbps- 10Mbps 36.2% (n=179) 42.4% (n=211) 45.4% (n=217) 35.7% (n=246) Wi-Fi Upload s 10.1Mbps- 25.0Mbps- 24.9Mbps 49.9Mbps 19.2% 5.1% (n=95) (n=25) 28.3% 6.4% (n=141) (n=32) 10.5% 3.6% (n=50) (n=17) 6.2% 1.2% (n=43) (n=8) 50Mbps- 99.9Mbps 6.1% (n=30) 2.8% (n=14) 3.1% (n=15) 1.7% (n=12) 100Mbps- 1Gbps 5.1% (n=25) 0.8% (n=4) 0.4% (n=2) 0.6% (n=4) 1.6% (n=35) The Dropoff: v. User Experience Figures 28 and 29 show the difference between a library s median subscribed download and upload speeds and the median speed at the device level in a library. Caution should be used with these numbers. They are not a measure of actual speed, but rather are presented as an indicator of the user s experience in the public library by type of device. Note also that the type of device (directly connected computer, Wi-Ficonnected device) has an effect on the user experience as well. As the data show, the device level measure of speed shows a drop off as compared to subscribed speed as to be expected. The drop off can range substantially, however: roughly 11% in Rural libraries, 13% in City libraries, 35% in Town libraries, and 37% in Suburban libraries (download speed, via directly connected devices). Upload speed drop off is more pronounced: 47% in City, 55% in Suburban libraries, 67% in Town libraries, and 76% in Rural libraries (upload speed, via directly connected devices). Figure 28: Public Library Outlet Compared to Device- Level, by Locale Code, in Megabits Per Second Locale Code City Suburban Town Rural Overall Median 35.2 Mbps (n=1,055) 30.0 Mbps (n=904) 16.0 Mbps (n=768) 10.0 Mbps (n=1,003) 20.0 Mbps (n=3,822) Direct Connect Test (median) 30.5 Mbps (n=977) 18.8 Mbps (n=728) 10.5 Mbps (n=781) 8.9 Mbps (n=972) 17.2 Mbps (n=3,458) Wi-Fi Test (median) 13.4 Mbps (n=495) 14.4 Kbps (n=498) 9.3 Mbps (n=478) 6.3 Mbps (n=689) 10.8 Mbps (n=2,160) University of Maryland College Park 22
Figure 29: Public Library Outlet Upload Compared to Device-Level, by Locale Code, in Megabits Per Second Locale Code City Suburban Town Rural Overall Median 29.3 Mbps (n=1,048) 20.0 Mbps (n=846) 10.0 Mbps (n=784) 8.9 Mbps (n=961) 15.0 Mbps (n=3,636) Direct Connect Test (median) 15.5 Mbps (n=977) 8.9 Mbps (n=728) 3.3 Mbps (n=781) 2.1 Mbps (n=972) 7.5 Mbps (n=3,458) Wi-Fi Test (median) 6.3 Mbps (n=495) 5.9 Mbps (n=498) 2.9 Mbps (n=478) 1.4 Mbps (n=689) 4.1 Mbps (n=2,160) Test and the Digital Inclusion Survey This section summarizes the key findings from the analyses conducted upon merging the speed test results, including the reported number of public access computers, with selected data on technologies, services, training, training types, and programming from the 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey (Bertot, et al., 2014). In doing this, the study team created a subset of data with the following characteristics: It included only libraries that participated in both the speed test and the 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey; and It included only libraries that participated in the direct connect version of the speed test (not Wi-Fi or Mobile, if the library only ran tests via those means). Using this approach created a dataset with 1,578 cases through which to conduct analysis. The Digital Inclusion Survey data consists primarily of binary/nominal data for example, whether a library offers a particular type of technology training, program, or service. For extended analysis, the selected 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey data (technologies, services, training, training types, and programming) were categorized as being either basic or advanced library offerings. In addition, the captured and subscribed direct connect speeds from the speed test were divided into quintiles (see Appendix B for further information). al analyses were then conducted between the speed test data, the numbers of public access computers, and the basic and advanced categorizations of what libraries offer to the public. In general, the correlational analysis did not show a statistical relationship between subscribed broadband speeds, speed test results, and the public access technology services offered by libraries to their communities. More specifically, the correlational analyses indicated the following trends (see Appendix C for correlation tables): University of Maryland College Park 23
Generally, there were weak positive relationships between the captured or subscribed speeds and the basic/advanced categories, but lacked statistical significance. The strongest correlation was usually between the basic library offerings and the advanced. The exception to this was in the case of basic and advanced economic programming [r = 0.019, n = 671, p = 0.628]. This may indicate that libraries that provide greater numbers of basic service offerings are also more likely to provide more advanced offerings, as well. There was also a weak positive correlation between the number of public access computers (PACs) and the basic and advanced library offerings, with a greater positive relationship to advanced offerings. This may indicate that if a library is able to offer more computers as a resource, they are also more likely to be able to provide more advanced offerings. These findings were limited to the particular methodological approach used. The dataset available from the results was a limited subset and the lack of strong correlational relationships may be attributed to the number of cases used in the analysis. Basic and Advanced Technologies Offered by Libraries The following results regarding the basic and advanced technologies offered by libraries in relation to the different speed variables the captured speeds from the speed test, the captured speeds grouped into quintiles, the subscribed speeds reported by libraries, and the subscribed speeds grouped into quintiles serves as an example of the correlational coefficients and degrees of significance between the speeds and library offerings. Appendix C includes the resulting correlation matrices generated regarding the speed variables in relation to the all the different library offerings. There was a slightly positive correlation between the basic technologies offered by libraries and the captured speed test download speeds [r = 0.084, n = 720, p = 0.024]. No significant relationship was found between basic technologies and captured upload speeds [r = 0.065, n = 720, p = 0.080]. However, the positive relationship became more discernible between the basic technology offerings and the captured download speed quintiles [r = 0.211, n = 720, p = 0.000], as well as the captured upload speed quintiles [r = 0.182, n = 720, p = 0.000]. With regard to subscribed speeds, there was no significant relationship between basic technologies and the subscribed download speeds [r = -0.011, n = 682, p = 0.777] or subscribed upload speeds [r = -0.009, n = 679, p = 0.805]. As was the case for reported speeds, there was a significant relationship for the subscribed speeds after being divided into quintiles, with a slightly positive correlation between basic technology offerings and the subscribed download speed quintiles [r = 0.196, n = 682, p = 0.000] or subscribed upload speed quintiles [r = 0.196, n = 679, p = 0.000]. The positive correlation between the advanced technologies offered by libraries and the captured download speeds was stronger than with basic technologies [r = 0.205, n = 720, p = 0.000], as well as for captured upload speeds [r = 0.195, n = 720, p = 0.000]. This positive relationship was comparable to that of advanced technology offerings and the reported download speed quintiles [r = 0.193, n = 720, p = 0.000], as well as the reported upload speed quintiles [r = 0.205, n = 720, p = 0.000]. Between advanced technologies and the subscribed download speeds, there was a weak positive relationship [r = 0.164, n = University of Maryland College Park 24
682, p = 0.000], as well as for subscribed upload speeds [r = 0.147, n = 679, p = 0.000]. There was a slightly positive correlation between advanced technology offerings and the subscribed download speed quintiles [r = 0.262, n = 682, p = 0.000], and for subscribed upload speed quintiles [r = 0.216, n = 679, p = 0.000]. Although the relationship was still relatively weak, the strongest relationship with basic and advanced technologies offered by libraries was the positive relationship between the two [r = 0.357, n = 720, p = 0.000]. It is also worth mentioning that there was a slight positive correlation between the number of public access computers and the basic technology offerings [r = 0.190, n = 716, p = 0.000] and advanced technology offerings [r = 0.237, n = 716, p = 0.000]. In summary, the analysis as conducted did not show a statistically significant correlation between broadband connectivity and the digital services and/or resources provided by libraries to the communities that they serve. This may be a reflection of the approach taken with the analysis conducted. There is a need for greater empirical study of the relationship between broadband connectivity and public access technology services to more definitively explore the topic. Conclusion The study sought to provide insights into the broadband connectivity quality of service that users experience in public libraries through the use of speed test tools. As noted, the data do not provide measures of actual library broadband connectivity speeds, but rather provide data that a typical user might experience at the device level at a particular moment in time in public libraries through multiple connection types directly connected via a library s public access computers, wirelessly connected (Wi-Fi) via a laptop, and wirelessly (Wi-Fi) connected using a mobile (e.g., smartphone, tablet) device. In general, the data show that: City and Suburban public libraries provide greater quality of service at the device level as compared with Town and Rural public libraries, and there is a wide range of connectivity speeds across public libraries; Directly connected devices exhibit the greatest captured upload and download speeds, followed by Wi-Fi-connected laptops and Wi-Fi-connected mobile devices. This is not surprising, but given the increased move towards user-owned devices in libraries, does raise questions about the overall user experience in public libraries through Wi-Fi; Quality of service degrades at peak use times, sometimes dramatically; Upload speeds reported are lower substantially in some cases than download speeds, thus impacting the ability of users to create and upload digital content (e.g., multi-media files, forms, and other content); and Other factors than broadband contribute to the types of services and resources (e.g., information technology literacy, programs, services) that libraries provide to their communities. That is, the University of Maryland College Park 25
study did not find significant relationships between broadband connectivity and speed test data and the provision of digitally inclusive services. Ultimately, the shows that public libraries report a range of connectivity and capacity, thus impacting the overall user experience at any given time. A Call for Future Research This study, with its identified overall sought to approximate the user connectivity experience in public libraries. There is a need, however, for in-depth study and analysis of broadband connectivity in public libraries that ascertains the quality of broadband and network services. Towards that end, we encourage the FCC to expand its Measuring Broadband America (2011-2014) research initiative to include community anchor institutions such as public libraries. Such research would provide a definitive assessment of the quality of broadband services in public libraries and facilitate further development of the E-rate program into the future. References Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Lee, J., Dubbels, K., McDermott, A.J., & Real, B. (2014). 2013 Digital Inclusion Survey: Survey Findings and Results. College Park, MD: Information Policy & Access Center. Available at: http://digitalinclusion.umd.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/2013digitalinclusionnationalreport.pdf. Federal Communications Commission (2014). Measuring Broadband America 2014: Consumer Wireline Broadband Performance in the U.S. Washington, DC: Federal Communications Commission. Available at: http://www.fcc.gov/reports/measuring-broadband-america-2014. University of Maryland College Park 26
Appendix A. Test Data Tables Figure A-1: Total Test Participation (instances run) Total Participation (instances of speed test) Locale Code Direct Connect Wireless Mobile Total City 977 495 120 1592 Suburban 728 498 176 1402 Town 781 478 110 1369 Rural 972 689 183 1844 Overall 3458 2160 589 6207 Figure A-2: Total Public Library System Test Participation Total Public Library Participation (number of library systems) Locale Code Direct Connect Wireless Mobile Total City 48 17 29 94 Suburban 133 50 55 238 Town 260 99 69 428 Rural 192 187 91 470 Overall 633 353 244 1230 1,230 Library systems in all participated, however, some systems ran the speed test multiple times across connection type. Figure A-3: Total Public Library Outlet/Branch Test Participation Total Public Library Participation (number of library branches) Locale Code Direct Connect Wireless Mobile Total City 391 75 61 527 Suburban 290 80 94 464 Town 323 128 72 523 Rural 371 254 112 737 Overall 1375 537 339 2251 Figure A-4: States Represented by Test Participation (instances run) Total Participation by State (instances of speed test) Locale Code Direct Connect Wireless Mobile Total City 0 0 0 0 Suburban 1 1 0 2 Town 30 12 5 47 Rural 0 0 0 0 Overall 31 13 5 49 University of Maryland College Park 27
Figure A-5: Public Library Outlet Connection, by Locale Code, in Kilobits Per Second Locale Code Mean Median City Suburban Town Rural Overall 180,467 Kbps (n=1,055) 155,450 Kbps (n=904) 53,160 Kbps (n=860) 35,645 Kbps (n=1,003) 107,898 Kbps (n=3,822) 36,000 Kbps (n=1,055) 30,720 Kbps (n=904) 16,384 Kbps (n=860) 10,240 Kbps (n=1,003) 20,480 Kbps (n=3,822) Minimum Maximum 200 Kbps 2,048,000 Kbps (n=1,055) (n=1,055) 200 Kbps 1,024,000 Kbps (n=904) (n=904) 768 Kbps 1,024,000 Kbps (n=860) (n=860) 200 Kbps 1,024,000 Kbps (n=1,003) (n=1,003) 200 Kbps (n=3,822) 2,048,000 Kbps (n=3,822) Range 2,047,800 Kbps (n=1,055) 1,023,975 Kbps (n=904) 1,023,232 Kbps (n=860) 1,023,975 Kbps (n=1,003) 2,047,975 Kbps (n=3,822) Standard Deviation 445,583 Kbps (n=1,055) 304,917 Kbps (n=904) 146,259 Kbps (n=860) 106,778 Kbps (n=1,003) 297,610 Kbps (n=3,822) Figure A-6: Public Library Outlet Upload Connection, by Locale Code, in Kilobits Per Second Locale Code Mean Median City Suburban Town Rural Overall 174,407 Kbps (n=1,048) 135,949 Kbps (n=846) 40,367 Kbps (n=784) 28,689 Kbps (n=961) 98,106 Kbps (n=3,639) 30,000 Kbps (n=1,048) 20,480 Kbps (n=846) 10,240 Kbps (n=784) 9,200 Kbps (n=961) 15,360 Kbps (n=3,639) Upload Minimum Maximum 200 Kbps 2,048,000 Kbps (n=1,048) (n=1,048) 75 Kbps 1,024,000 Kbps (n=846) (n=846) 200 Kbps 1,024,000 Kbps (n=784) (n=784) 200 Kbps 1,024,000 Kbps (n=961) (n=961) 200 Kbps (n=3,639) 2,048,000 Kbps (n=3,639) Range 2,047,800 Kbps (n=1,048) 1,023,925 Kbps (n=846) 1,023,800 Kbps (n=784) 1,023,975 Kbps (n=961) 2,047,975 Kbps (n=3,639) Standard Deviation 445,113 Kbps (n=1,048) 294,919 Kbps (n=846) 131,789 Kbps (n=784) 98,568 Kbps (n=961) 235,015 Kbps (n=3,639) University of Maryland College Park 28
Direct Connect Figure A-7: Public Library Outlets Test, by Locale Code, in Kilobits Per Second Direct Connect Test s Locale Code Mean Median Minimum Maximum Range City 84,735 Kbps 31,210 Kbps 560 Kbps 841,534 Kbps 840,974 Kbps (n=977) (n=977) (n=977) (n=977) (n=977) Suburban 47,535 Kbps 19,240 Kbps 480 Kbps 809,961 Kbps 809,481 Kbps (n=728) (n=728) (n=728) (n=728) (n=728) Town 26,083 Kbps 10,791 Kbps 160 Kbps 795,597 Kbps 795,437 Kbps (n=781) (n=781) (n=781) (n=781) (n=781) Rural 20,426 Kbps 9,168 Kbps 20 Kbps 499,462 Kbps 499,442 Kbps (n=972) (n=972) (n=972) (n=972) (n=972) Overall 44,695 Kbps (n=3,458) 17,602 Kbps (n=3,458) 20 Kbps (n=3,458) 841,534 Kbps (n=3,458) 736,333 Kbps (n=3,458) Standard Deviation 170,501 Kbps (n=977) 81,432Kbps (n=728) 53,999 Kbps (n=781) 36,971Kbps (n=972) 85,726 Kbps (n=3,458) Figure A-8: Public Library Outlets Test Upload, by Locale Code, in Kilobits Per Second Direct Connect Upload Test s Locale Code Mean Median Minimum Maximum Range City 55,053 Kbps 15,843 Kbps 160 Kbps 811,490 Kbps 811,330 Kbps (n=977) (n=977) (n=977) (n=977) (n=977) Suburban 23,381 Kbps 9,130 Kbps 200 Kbps 666,791 Kbps 666,591 Kbps (n=728) (n=728) (n=728) (n=728) (n=728) Town 13,336 Kbps 3,359 Kbps 73 Kbps 544,166 Kbps 544,093 Kbps (n=781) (n=781) (n=781) (n=781) (n=781) Rural 10,108 Kbps 2,196 Kbps 20 Kbps 477,730 Kbps 477,710 Kbps (n=972) (n=972) (n=972) (n=972) (n=972) Overall 25,470 Kbps (n=3,458) 7,632 Kbps (n=3,458) 20 Kbps (n=3,458) 811,490 Kbps (n=3,458) 624,931 Kbps (n=3,458) Standard Deviation 124,744 Kbps (n=977) 40,932 Kbps (n=728) 40,875 Kbps (n=781) 24,967 Kbps (n=972) 57,880 Kbps (n=3,458) University of Maryland College Park 29