Overview

The federal government has a long track record of significant investment in expanding broadband to ensure that all Americans can access the internet. A 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report detailed some 133 programs across 15 federal agencies that have supported broadband deployment efforts. These programs, which provided funding to construct new networks and programs focused on household affordability and digital skills training, cost $44 billion from 2015 to 2020 alone. After that period, the federal government made further investments as part of its COVID-19 pandemic recovery response through programs—such as the Treasury Department’s Capital Projects Fund—that helped people access critical health services, education, and employment online.

In addition, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021 is expected to deliver over $65 billion for broadband programs by 2030, primarily through IIJA’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program (BEAD), which is designed to bolster broadband deployment and help more people use the internet to improve their lives. (Note: The Digital Equity Act, known as DEA, which also was intended to boost programs tied to adoption and digital skills gaps, was canceled by the Trump administration in May 2025.)

These investments show that the federal government is focused on expanding broadband access by funding not only network deployment but also programs targeting issues, ranging from affordability to digital skills, that are barriers to consumers beginning to use broadband. This work is ongoing, as bipartisan working groups in Congress are considering reforms to the Universal Service Fund (USF)—a fund accounting for roughly $8 billion in annual federal broadband expenditures. Such reforms could alter the federal funding available for broadband deployment.

Yet broadband policy remains poorly equipped to target funding, identify existing gaps, and evaluate different approaches to achieving universal access despite federal investments in data collection. These include a mandate from Congress for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to “collect standardized, granular data on the availability and quality” of both fixed and mobile internet services and make this information publicly available. There is also an effort by the FCC and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to develop standardized broadband mapping data nationwide. These limitations in federal data collection make it more difficult for policymakers, researchers, and local-level broadband advocates and nonprofits to consistently identify and address gaps in broadband availability, adoption, and affordability.

Select demographic data about broadband users is available through the U.S. Census Bureau, and information about who is using broadband—including basic questions about broadband subscriptions and home technology use—is provided by government agencies including the FCC, NTIA, and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA). But a pressing need remains for national datasets about broadband pricing, network quality, consumers’ digital skills, and more, regardless of which government agency might provide the information.

Incomplete information can make it difficult for lawmakers to understand the effects of policy, and for government entities to enforce grant recipients’ program requirements. Because federal data focuses on information like the number of households with subscriptions, it lacks feedback on network quality and reliability, or on how consumers experience a broadband connection. Incomplete data can also make it challenging for researchers to evaluate how specific broadband policy changes affect consumers, and for people involved in broadband deployment and adoption at the state level to monitor whether ongoing and new programs are meeting their goals. Lack of data on broadband’s societal impact—such as effects on the economy, education, and health care—has led states to conduct their own baseline measurements to meet BEAD program requirements, including BEAD’s aim to “grow economic opportunities … provide increases in access to health care services … and enrich education experiences” nationwide. Additionally, NTIA’s BEAD Five-Year Action Plan guidance requires states to evaluate how program implementation affects economic and workforce development, education, health, civic and social engagement, and access to essential services.

To highlight shortcomings in the federal data, The Pew Charitable Trusts assessed the literature on broadband that relies on federal datasets, in some cases going back decades. The assessment is not a comprehensive review of broadband data and research; instead, it is designed to highlight the most consequential data gaps as identified by leaders in the field.

Data collection issues have taken on new urgency because the BEAD program places significant reporting requirements on state broadband offices that must be met by 2030 and need accurate data to evaluate the successes and challenges of their efforts. On its own, BEAD requires states to collect data about broadband access and adoption, and to demonstrate the impact of both on measuring outcomes related to economic growth, education, health care, and civic participation. Yet federal agencies have not provided best practices for collecting this data or for engaging with the public on it. State approaches to BEAD implementation may differ, but clear data and measurement standards from the federal government would enable consistency and comparability across states.

This brief not only outlines Pew’s review of the broadband literature assessing the gaps in available data but also looks at the available federal data sources for broadband. Finally, it explores the public policy implications of these gaps—and suggests some possible solutions to address them.

Pew’s review of broadband literature published from 2008 to 2024 (based on data that, in some cases, dates to the 1990s) showed that researchers had identified the following shortcomings with broadband data:

  • Limitations in geographic and household data: Federal data on broadband access, adoption, and household characteristics is often reported by county, ZIP code, or census tract, rather than by household. And geographic and household characteristics—such as the regions used in data collection or the composition of households—are not standardized across data sources, making it difficult to combine datasets for evaluation. This lack of standardization has led to inaccuracies in measuring the impact of broadband and the gaps in coverage, which is particularly problematic for federally funded projects that rely on accurate mapping data for broadband investment; these projects could misappropriate funds because of the data’s shortcomings.

     

  • Reliability of federal data for evaluation purposes: Federal data relies heavily on information from internet service providers (ISPs), leading to concerns in the literature that data on broadband availability and network performance may be affected by bias and lack of transparency. Also, federal data tends not to include price, making it difficult to assess how much broadband service costs and how affordable it is for customers throughout the country.
  • Inconsistencies in definitions: Several federal sources do not specify which broadband technologies are available to consumers, making it difficult to correlate network performance and household use of the internet. Some sources have also been inconsistent in defining key components, ranging from what qualifies as a broadband connection to the meaning of the phrase “digital equity” to how to measure internet use and digital skills—and how consumers benefit from the connection.
  • Lack of consistent impact assessments: The available data makes it difficult to determine the availability of affordable broadband connections or how to define affordability, and there is no uniform method of tracking broadband adoption patterns over time. Researchers need more information to gauge the value and impact in multiple areas (economic development, health care, education, civic life) of having a broadband internet connection.

What national data sources exist?

Broadband availability data

Since 1992, the federal government has collected data on broadband availability, affordability, and adoption. The data about broadband availability has focused on the number of locations, such as homes and businesses where broadband service is available; the number connected to the internet; the technology type used; and the companies that provide those connections. From 1999 to 2022, availability data was collected using the FCC’s Form 477, which included information on “broadband connection; wired and wireless local telephone services; and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.” Starting in 2022, this information was collected by the FCC’s Broadband Data Collection System. Broadband availability data is also provided through the National Broadband Map project, which was managed by NTIA from 2010 to 2014 and then by the FCC. This map displays where services are provided, using information that ISPs report to the FCC.

One of the main limitations in federal data about where broadband is available is a lack of precision about the number of locations served within a geographical area, whether at the census block (the smallest geographic area in which the U.S. Census Bureau collects data), ZIP code, or county level. Other limitations are detailed below.

Broadband pricing and affordability data

Even when broadband service is available, consumers are often unable to afford it. Yet data about affordability is limited. Some information is available through the FCC’s Urban Rate Survey, which is an annual sample of ISPs operating in urban census tracts and focuses on the prices charged by ISPs across speed tiers and technology types. While this survey is a valuable tool for monitoring price changes over time, it by definition excludes rural areas and does not provide researchers and policymakers with the final price that consumers ultimately pay for internet service, making affordability difficult to assess.

Similarly, the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index details urban consumers’ average internet service costs. However, like the Urban Rate Survey, this data reflects only urban consumer patterns and prices and doesn’t apply to rural broadband pricing, which historically has been higher than in urban areas. Additionally, rural residents, on average, have lower incomes than their urban counterparts, meaning a reliance on the Consumer Price Index, Urban Rate Survey, or any other urban-centric broadband pricing source risks underestimating the affordability challenges facing rural Americans and distorting any state or national analysis of price and affordability.

But there’s some good news on pricing: As of October 2024, all internet providers must participate in the FCC’s Broadband Consumer Labels program. These labels, much like nutrition labels for food, display— online or in stores where consumers would order internet service—base prices, speeds, fees, data allowances, and other plan information. Although it is a welcome step toward transparency, the program is so new that it’s not yet possible for researchers to evaluate its effectiveness—or to analyze the impact of the labels on affordability and pricing. So far, no plans have been announced to aggregate pricing data obtained through the Broadband Consumer Labels program.

Broadband adoption and usage data

Once broadband service is available in an area, it is important for policymakers and researchers to understand how consumers take advantage of access to connections. As detailed by NTIA’s Internet Use Survey, there are several reasons individuals might remain unconnected, including price and a perceived lack of need. Data collection on broadband adoption can help illuminate those barriers and which ones, beyond access to a connection, might be preventing consumers from getting online. The FCC’s Form 477 data includes broadband adoption data per 1,000 households by census tract going back to 2000.

Demographic data, used to analyze trends in broadband adoption by age, race, income, and more, is available from two separate U.S. Census Bureau surveys: the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey. Beyond household composition, the American Community Survey includes estimates of the percentage of homes with a broadband connection down to the level of a census tract, each of which typically includes roughly 4,000 people. NTIA’s Internet Use Survey also maintains survey data regarding internet use and adoption patterns at the national and state level.

However, as with broadband availability data, adoption and usage data is limited by the geographic sublevels (state, county, ZIP code, census tract) of information about household and business connectivity patterns, and available datasets can vary at geographic levels, so they don’t always align for analysis. This means that the adoption and usage data is not helpful in evaluating household-level decisions about broadband connectivity, which could lead to flawed assumptions in policies designed to address disparities in connectivity.

Federal program funding data

Given the significant, ongoing federal investment in broadband expansion, assessing program effectiveness and promoting transparency rely on an understanding of how federal funds are distributed and spent. NTIA maintains several lists detailing the federal funding available to increase broadband deployment, adoption, and affordability—including the Public Geographic Information System (GIS) Data site, which details the funding type and award amount for programs the agency administers. The agency also maintains a Federal Broadband Funding Dashboard, which displays all federal agency and program funding for broadband from 2020 onward. However, NTIA has acknowledged inaccuracies in the dashboard about broadband-specific funding across agencies, as well as an inability to connect federal funding awards to how states choose to use the funds.

The Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC), an independent, not-for-profit company that administers the Universal Service Fund for the FCC, provides historical data about two subsidy programs—Lifeline, a $9.25 monthly federal subsidy to low-income consumers (those with income less than 135% of the federal poverty guidelines), and the now-defunct federal Affordable Connectivity Program, which until its cancellation in June 2024 provided up to $30 per month to qualifying households for an internet subscription. This data includes participation rates, total funding amounts, and qualification rates for both programs, but only down to the county level, so its use in evaluation is limited by the lack of precision about how receiving broadband subsidies affected households.

Additional datasets

Pew also examined broadband adoption data alongside various federal data to assess the impact of broadband deployment and connectivity—including economic data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the USDA and its Economic Research Service, and the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 1 summarizes these federal data sources.

Source link