Part II: Examining the Digital Divide Thesis: NTIA reports from 1995, 1997 and 1998

There are many nuances in Victory's statements upon which we might focus. Among these would be which part of the above federal programs would be described as awareness campaigns as opposed to remedial campaigns. Additionally, without funding, how are we to implement what we heard in (TOP and CTC's) laboratory? Further, her assertion that (these programs have) been successful, but (are) no longer necessary to stimulate innovation in an industry that thrives on change and new applications is curious for programs that were intended to stimulate community applications for technologies, not industrial innovations of them. Finally, her preference to see the glass as half-full should be subjected to some evaluation. In the next section, we will evaluate this position through the lens of the NTIA reports themselves.

Since the findings of the first three reports are relatively undisputed and because they have fairly uniform conclusions I will attempt to boil them down into one discussion by describing 1995 findings then charting certain variables through successive reports. The fourth and fifth reports will then be evaluated against previous reports and their own conclusions. This will maintain consistency with the tone of the various reports which were remarkably uniform in the first three iterations, more optimistic in the third and very much more optimistic in the final.

I'll refer to all reports by the year in which they were published in regardless of the year in which the data was collected. All tables will be referred to as tables, regardless of weather they are called tables, charts or table-charts in the original publications. For identification purposes, I may then to refer to any table by it's year/table number in YY## format. As such, "9815" would indicate table 15 from the 1998 report.

As mentioned above, the 1995 report contained findings that linked such variables as location, race, age, education and income to low levels of computer utilization or access by charting percentages of U.S. households with a telephone, computer and modem and tabulating these by such variables as race, income, age, employment status. These were cross-tabulated by the Census Bureau according to and geographic category (rural, urban, inner-city).

Native Americans (including American Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos) in rural areas proportionately possessed the fewest telephones followed by rural Hispanics and rural Blacks (9504). Rural Blacks had the lowest computer rates (6.4%), followed by central city Blacks (10.4%), central city Hispanics (10.5%), and urban Blacks (11.8%) (9507).

For households with computers, Native Americans and Asians/Pacific Islanders registered the lowest position among those possessing modems (9506). Native American households (American Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimos) in rural areas had the lowest telephone penetration (75.5%). 26.7% of Asian/Pacific Islanders lived in households in which owned a computer.

Householders under 25 years especially in rural areas, ranked lowest in telephone penetration and near the bottom on computer ownership (9507). Seniors (55 years and older) are at the top of telephone penetration but rural seniors rate lowest in computer penetration in any geographic category, (9508). Among households with PCs, the youngest in rural areas have worst modem penetration, followed by rural middle-aged and senior citizens (9509).

A direct relationship between level of education and level of telephone, computer, and computer-household modem penetration was apparent. However, for any given level of education, central city households had the lowest telephone and computer penetration (9510, 9511), while rural households with computers fall below urban areas and central cities in modem penetration (9512).

The poorest households (incomes less than $10,000) in central cities had the lowest telephone penetration (79.8%), followed by rural (81.6%) and urban (81.7%) areas. Rural poor were lowest in computer penetration (4.5%).

Having thus set the stage, we may lump the 1998 and 1999 data together and track the various categories discussed above. There are marked differences between the reports which would impact our discussion variously. I will briefly characterize them below.

Following the 1995 report we lose disaggregated data for Native Americans, who are variously included in "Other non-Hispanic" households with Asian Americans, Eskimos, Pacific Islanders and Aleuts, or in Other Non-Hispanic excluding Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Such changes are due to low sample size on the part of Native Americans and consideration for the fact that Hispanic can represent people of any race or ethnicity The modem variable from 1995 is occasionally dropped in favor of households with online service, a much better metric for determining information access but a loss to uniformity for comparison purposes in certain cases. Usage patterns appear in certain reports but they are not central to my discussion.

Post-1995 reports also disaggregate geographic region category data. This allows a clearer view of where various challenges, as they manifest in populations, converge (i.e. that they may in fact be the same populations) and where they represent more distinct populations. Household Computer Penetration Gap and the dimension of time are, of course, gained with successive reports.

The following pages contain a series of charts which boil down the first three reports in those aspects in which they were consistent. These data were taken from the 1999 report as such inconsistencies as are discussed above render a direct comparison of report data moot. Again, these data are not held to be controversial. It's worth pointing out at this point that our discussion is limited to computers in households. The chief reason for this is that in 1995, online usage was not measured as such although modems were. Modems are a dubious metric for online usage since many computers have been sold with modems but these were not necessarily used. Online service provision is presented in isolation as of the 1998 report using 1997 data, is tracked through following three years and therefore represents the best body of consistent data on the subject. In view of this, I will present this data along with our analysis of 2001 data in the latest 2002 report in which this data is completely represented.

My approach is primarily to compare penetration rates (as a percentage) for top and bottom ranked categories in various groups of interest as measured by household. At certain points, the group in the lead has changed, i.e., another group has gained top raking supplanting the previous top rank. In these cases my analysis simply accepts the new lead and figures all other categories based on the new category group.

Note that in the above we do not represent "other non-Hispanic' due to data inconsistency between years as elsewhere described.

We clearly see from the above the initial disparities noted in the 1995 report, in addition to the disparity of region as distinct from geographic location category. We must further note that the gaps between top and bottom ranked categories are dramatically widening for the years observed.

The 2000 Report: Expanded Data, Expanded Understanding

Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion, released October 2000, contained new types of data including penetration figures for high-speed Internet services such as cable and DSL services. It examined computer and online access by individuals instead of looking at households and found differences in Internet use based on age, gender, and labor force status and usage by location weather at home or at a library, for example. The 2000 report also examined the use of computers and the Internet among people with disabilities. The report finds acute discrepancies between the general population and persons of this category. Since these were not central to my original intent, I do not focus upon this aspect of the report. I do not exclude out of hand what I consider to be a very promising field of endeavor, and the promise to extend the many benefits of information access to this group in particular which stands so very much to gain from it.

This report contained notable general statistics which are summarized below. The share of households with Internet access had soared by 58% since the last survey, rising from 26.2% in December 1998 to 41.5% in August 2000. More than half of all households (51.0%) have computers, up from 42.1% in December 1998. The share of individuals using the Internet rose by a third, from 32.7% in December 1998 to 44.4% in August 2000.

The report showed rapid and continuing penetration growth in all categories. Rural households as compared to other geographic location categories achieved a greater degree of parity. The gap between households in rural areas and households nationwide that access the Internet has narrowed from 4.0 percentage points in 1998 to 2.6 percentage points in 2000. In rural areas of that year, 38.9% of the households had Internet access, a 75% increase from 22.2% in December 1998.

Access to the Internet was also expanding across every education level and women appeared to be rapidly achieving parity with men. In December 1998, 34.2% of men and 31.4% of women were using the Internet. By August 2000, 44.6% of men and 44.2% of women were Internet users. Blacks and Hispanics still lagged behind other groups but showed impressive gains in Internet access. Black households having home access rose from 11.2% to 23.5%. Hispanic households with access had risen from 12.6% to 23.6%. Individuals 50 years of age and showed the highest growth in Internet usage of all age groups: 53% from December 1998 to August 2000, compared to a 35% growth rate for individual Internet usage nationwide.

Much of this constituted good news indeed. As a new feature, this report hazarded a guess at the big picture: if growth continues at that rate, more than half of all Americans will be using the Internet by the middle of 2001. History would prove this out.

Still, the report was careful to point out that the Digital Divide still existed and was in fact widening by certain indicators. The data showed that divides still existed between those with different levels of income and education, different racial and ethnic groups, old and young, single and dual-parent families, and those with and without disabilities. Additionally, due to its expanded scope, the report showed large differences in high-speed access based on income and other variables.

Asian Americans and Pacific Islander households had maintained the highest level of home Internet access at 56.8%. Blacks and Hispanics households, at the other end of the spectrum, showed the lowest Internet penetration rates at 23.5% and 23.6%, respectively.

With respect to individuals, while about a third of the U.S. population uses the Internet at home, only 16.1% of Hispanics and 18.9% of Blacks use the Internet at home.

Even with broadband services, a relatively new technology used by only 10.7% of online households, there are disparities. Rural areas, for example, are now lagging behind central cities and urban areas in broadband penetration at 7.3%, compared to 12.2% and 11.8%, respectively.

Two-parent households are nearly twice as likely to have Internet access as single-parent households (60.6% for dual-parent, compared to 35.7% for male-headed households and 30.0% for female-headed households). In central cities, only 22.8% of female-headed households have Internet access.

Large gaps for Blacks and Hispanics remained when measured against the national average Internet penetration rate, and this recent data enabled us to evaluate percentage point trails for certain categories and variables from year to year. The divide between Internet access rates for Black households and the national average rate was 18 percentage points in August 2000 (a 23.5% penetration rate for Black households, compared to 41.5% for households nationally). That gap is 3 percentage points wider than the 15 percentage point gap that existed in December 1998.

In certain cases type of observation has allowed us to see groups that showed negligible progress. The Internet divide between Hispanic households and the national average rate was 18 percentage points in August 2000 (a 23.6% penetration rate for Hispanic households, compared to 41.5% for households nationally). That gap was 4 percentage points wider than the 14 percentage point gap that had existed in December 1998.

The August 2000 divide between Black households and the national average rate with regard to computer ownership was 18 percentage points (a 32.6% penetration rate for Black households, compared to 51.0% for households nationally). That gap was statistically no different from the gap that existed in December 1998.

Similarly, the 17 percentage point difference between the share of Hispanic households with a computer (33.7%) and the national average (51.%) did not register a statistically significant change from the December 1998 computer divide.

Again, the 2000 report verged into theorizing: Now that a large number of Americans regularly use the Internet to conduct daily activities, people who lack access to these tools are at a growing disadvantage. (Executive Summary) It further suggests that The rapid uptake of new technologies is occurring among most groups of Americans, regardless of income, education, race or ethnicity, location, age, or gender, suggesting that digital inclusion is a realizable goal.

In this positive conjugation of the issue, Digital Inclusion as opposed to Digital Divide, the focus had once again morphed much like the way it once did from modems to Internet access. In it's own terms, the 2000 report states that the rapid growth in computer and Internet use among those in the middle income and education ranges and among relatively disadvantaged populations suggests that, in some cases, the digital divide has begun to narrow or will do so soon

With it's new focus on broadband services, the 2000 report had also turned the yes/no question of access into one of degree, in a way begging a new question: how much, or what kind of access? Another example of information that would also break down the question of access as a yes-or-no affair was the issue of access in the home as compared to access anyplace else. The process of breaking our understanding out of the household/geographic location context begun with the 1995 report, continued with our pursuit of understanding down to the most granular level-the individual, had resulted in numerous new qualifiers. Our new series of tables shows how certain trends we've been watching evolved through this period of observation. We are unfortunately unable to track race due to inconsistencies in data.

Note the very un-dramatic rates in lower categories

Note the very un-dramatic rates in lower categories

Note the very un-dramatic rates in lower categories

In our new series of tables we see our trends continuing: general progress for all groups but with marked and increasing trails between top and bottom ranked groups. This aspect of increasing trail is one that we will examine more closely in 2002.

In all, the cautious optimism of the report seems well reasoned. Although it carefully documents the lag in adoptions, we see that there is positive progress across every definable sub-sector of society. For proponents of a ubiquitous National communications and information infrastructure, this is the ultimate social vindication.

Forward to next page
Back to Contents
Back to top