The Value of the Internet to Rural Populations
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
! ! "#$!%&'($!)*!+#$!,-+$.-$+!+)!/(.&'!0)1('&+2)-34!! &!5&3$!3+(67!*.)8!9$-6)52-)!5)(-+7:!;<=! ! ! ! >?(..$''@?$.A$'$7=$6(! #$%%&!'())$**+!,-.! /00123&4$!,)15$001)! ! ! 62-11*!15!7%51)8&431%! 9:;'$)<$*$= ! "! Top level summary: • People living in rural areas are frequently left with few (if any) options for Internet connectivity. The Internet services that are available often impose data caps, may be unreliable, often do not provide service at speeds that qualify as ‘broadband,’ and/or are disproportionately expensive when compared to Internet services available in urban areas. • While throughput speed (aka bandwidth) remains the metric that informs policy and infrastructure grants at the federal and state levels, a variety of factors define Internet connection quality. Throughput speed is not always the top priority among rural residents when it comes to their Internet connection. • Rural residents use numerous workarounds to manage connectivity constraints, but there is a cost to these strategies including lost time, lost money, and lost sleep. • Subscribers to a new fixed wireless ISP in coastal Mendocino county on average gained 2.96 new uses of the Internet with their new higher quality connection. • In response to the evolving economies of rural areas many residents pursue new livelihood strategies that are not based in the natural resource-based industries (farming, fishing, logging) traditional to the area. Telecommuting and telework have a history in the area that predates the Internet. ‘Technologies’ of telework in the past included fax machines and Fedex 2-day delivery. These have given way to Internet-based communication. Notably, 69.5% of survey respondents who are employed reported that the Internet was “very important” to their ability to make a living in the area. • 45% of employed survey respondents reported that they were self-employed a figure which is much higher than the national self-employment rate of 10%. Self-employment is clearly a key avenue for earning income among rural residents, a strategy of creating jobs where walking into an existing job is difficult. A range of uses of the Internet support rural self-employment. The ability to communicate with distant clients or customers is particularly significant. • Companies, government offices, and educational institutions increasingly assume that the general population has Internet access and a certain quality of connectivity. For those who lack good quality Internet connectivity it becomes more difficult, in light of these assumptions, to engage with these institutions or to access the services they offer. • Valued uses of the Internet vary. There are significant subpopulations in the area to consider including – retirees, families with school-aged children, Native Americans, Chicanx/Latinx, and low-income residents. Finally, attitudes toward the Internet vary as well and there are Internet dissenters living in the area as well. In particular there are long expressed concerns about the health & safety of Internet service provided specifically through wireless connections. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Who lives in coastal Mendocino County and how is it changing? ....................................................... 7 Study Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 9 Results of a survey on rural Internet use in Mendocino .................................................................... 10 Who responded to the survey? ......................................................................................................................................................... 11 How should we define the quality of an Internet connection? ......................................................... 14 Type of previous ISP .............................................................................................................................................................................. 14 Data allowances / Data Caps with Previous ISPs ...................................................................................................................... 16 How did Internet users in the area cope with low quality Internet connections? .............................. 18 Workarounds for poor Internet service ........................................................................................................................................ 18 What uses of the Internet did subscribers gain once their Internet connectivity improved? ............................... 21 Adapting to Changes in the Rural Economy ...................................................................................... 24 Tourism & Telecommuting ................................................................................................................................................................. 25 Relative Value of the Internet: a comparison among technologies ................................................... 30 Important subpopulations ............................................................................................................... 32 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 39 3 Introduction While the total population residing in rural areas of the United States has remained stable for nearly 100 years (at around 50 million), the experience of living in rural America is changing. Rural areas in the U.S. are defined by the census bureau as small towns with less than 2500 residents, open countryside and farms1. In 1900 this figure, 50 million people, constituted 60% of the total national population, a majority. Today less than 20% of Americans live in rural areas. As a result, we might expect the country’s rural population to be increasingly marginalized from policymaking at the state and national level due to their declining proportion of the national population. There have been many other changes to the kinds of economic activities carried out in rural America. Notably, this includes shifts in the agricultural sector and in other types of natural resource use. US Population: urban vs. rural 1900-1990 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 Percent urban Percent rural 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 Figure 1 - US population: urban vs. rural 1900-1990 (source: US Census bureau) Shifting numbers also make the experience of being an Internet non-user different from the recent past. As a technology rises to the point of ubiquity, non-users face increased difficulties. 1 See definition http://www.hrsa.gov/ruralhealth/aboutus/definition.html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` )$*3&H3*34=EF!7%!"QQU+!4-$!&@$)&A$!C$H!?&A$!C&0!"Y!<3*1H=4$0+!3%!>Z"Y!34!C&0!"FR!8$A&H=4$0 F!/! Y 08&**!?$)2$%4&A$!15!0()@$=$I!7%4$)%$4!0(H02)3H$)0!&)$!043**!21%%$243%A!(03%A!I3&*;(?!7%4$)%$4 F! C2D(.$!M!F!0$.5$-+&D$!)*!G=H=!&6('+3!N#)!&.$!)-'2-$!KEIIOFMJEML:!! ! ! 01()2$d #(%$!>Z">!04&40!5)18!4-$!,$C!7%4$)%$4!_!/8$)32&%!^35$!?)1[$24! > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!S302-$)!%14$0!4-30!?&44$)%!3%!-30!-3041)=!15!4-$!4$*$?-1%$F!N-3*$!4-$!4$2-%1*1A=!H$A&%!&0!&!%1@$*!*(M()=+!1@$)!438$+!%1%;(0$! `H$2&8$!3%2)$&03%A*=!I35532(*4!DS302-$)!"QQ>EF! !0$$d!-44?dLLCCCFC$H034$1?4383c&431%F218L0?$$IL4C$&<L&@$)&A$;C$H;?&A$L+!-44?0dLLA3A&18F218L>Z"YL">L>QL4-$; 1@$)C$3A-4;C$H;&@$)&A$;C$H;?&A$;03c$;30;(?;"U;3%;>Z"YL+!&%I!-44?dLL-44?&)2-3@$F1)AL4)$%I0F?-?! Y I3&*;(?!C-32-!I$?$%I0!(?1%!*&%I*3%$!?-1%$!0$)@32$!21%43%($0!41!$M304!51**1C3%A!5)18!4-$!(%3@$)0&*!0$)@32$!?)1@3031%0!15!4-$! 2188(%32&431%0!&24!15!"Q`Y!C-32-!$%0()$0!&551)I&H*$!)()&*!4$*$?-1%$!0$)@32$F!74!C&0! !(?I&4$I!H=!4-$!G$*$2188(%32&431%0!/24!15! "QQR!H(4!018$4-3%A!0383*&)!-&0!%14!=$4!H$$%!$%&24$I!41!$%0()$!&551)I&H*$!&22$00!41!4-$!7%4$)%$4F! ! U! This study looks in particular at the issue of Internet connectivity in rural areas focusing on a series of small towns along the Mendocino coast, with populations numbering in the hundreds. Residents have long struggled with poor quality or very expensive Internet connections and unreliable or fly-by-night ISPs. Ironically, the area hosts critical infrastructure of the physical Internet, including a number of backhaul fiber optic cables owned by AT&T, and Level 3. The tiny town of Manchester, CA (pop 195) is the site of a cable landing station that connects the West coast to Japan