Digital divide in the United States

By 2001, women had surpassed men as the majority of the online United States population. When controlling for income, levels of education, and employment, it turns out that women are clearly more enthusiastic ICT users than men.[8] The 2009 Census data suggests that potential disparities in gendered connectivity have become nearly non-existent; 73% of female citizens three years and older compared to 74% of males could access the Internet from their home.[9][10]

Women in the United States are taking advantage of the freelance employment opportunities the Internet offers. For example, a report in 2018 stated that women make up the majority of online shop owners on Etsy, and the majority of hosts on Airbnb.[11]

Although more women in the United States use the Internet than men, there still remains significant gender gaps in content creation and website development. For example, a 2013 survey found that about 27% of Wikipedia editors from the U.S. were female.[12] In 2009, a Wikimedia Foundation survey revealed that 6% of editors who made more than 500 edits were female, with the average male editor having twice as many edits.[13]

Older generations of Americans have consistently reported the lowest level of access to the Internet per age cohorts.[14][15] In 2019, 59% of Americans age 65 and older had access to broadband at home compared to about 80% of other age groups (77% of Americans age 18–29, 77% of Americans age 30–49, and 79% of Americans age 50–64).[16] Although older generations still hold the lowest amount of Internet usage age-wise, the United States has seen a dramatic increase in Internet users at the age of 65 and older over time. From 2000 to 2015, the number of senior citizens connected to the Internet increased by 44%.[17]

Device ownership has drastically increased for Americans age 65 and older over the years but still remains consistently lower than that of all American adults.[18] Data from Pew Research Center shows that smartphone ownership increased from 11% in 2011 to 24% in 2016 (compared to the American average of 35% and 77%, respectively) and tablet ownership increased from 1% in 2010 to 32% in 2016 (compared to 3% and 51%, respectively). [18] In terms of device usage, seniors tended to describe their smartphones as "freeing" and "connecting" [19] and are more likely to use tablets and e-readers.[20]

Rising trends in connectivity of Whites, Hispanics, and African Americans

Generally, racial minorities have demonstrated lower levels of access and knowledge ICTs and of owning infrastructure to utilize the connection.[21] In 2000, 50% of Whites had access to the Internet compared to 43% of Hispanics and 34% of African Americans.[22] Between 2000 and 2010, the racial population of Internet users became increasingly similar to the racial makeup of the United States population, demonstrating a closing racial divide.[23] In 2019, 79% of Whites had access to broadband compared to 61% of Hispanics and 66% of African Americans. [16]

English-speaking Hispanics have been the fastest rising ethnic cohort in terms of Internet usage.[24] In 2010, 81% of English-dominant Latinos, 74% bilingual Latinos, and 47% Spanish-dominant Latinos used the Internet. Even though the rate of dominant Spanish-speaking Latinos was lower at the time, it rose significantly from 36% in 2009.[25]

African Americans are behind Whites in Internet access, but the gap is most evident within the senior population: in 2003, 11% of African Americans age 65 and older reported using the Internet, compared to 22% of senior Whites. Also in 2003, 68% of 18- to 24-year-old African Americans and 83% of 18- to 24-year-old Whites had Internet access. A similar gap is noted in the 55- to 64-year-old range with 58% of Whites and 22% of African Americans accessing the Internet.[26]

In 2019, there was virtually no digital divide in ownership to smartphones by race/ethnicity: 82% of Whites, 79% of Hispanics, and 80% of Blacks had access to smartphones. [16]

Internet connectivity varies widely state by state in the U.S. both in terms of broadband coverage and Internet speed. [27] For example, in 2019, New Jersey ranked the highest in Internet connectivity with the fastest average Internet speed (52.0 Mbit/s) and highest percentage of broadband coverage (99%), and Montana ranked the lowest with the slowest average Internet speed (20.3 Mbit/s) and lowest percentage of broadband coverage (69%).[27]

Internet connectivity also varies by region. In 2016, U.S. Census data showed that nonmetropolitan areas in the South have the lowest percentages of households with computers or Internet connection and Metropolitan areas in the West have the highest percentages. [28] Southern states tend to have higher poverty levels that correlate with low levels of Internet connectivity. For example, in 2016, Arkansas and Mississippi reported the lowest levels of broadband use (71% of households) and both states have low median incomes compared to the rest of the country.[28]

In 2016, roughly half of all households with an income less than $25,000 owned a desktop or laptop computer. Over 90% of all households with an income over $100,000 owned a desktop or laptop computer. The same relationship can be seen for households owning smartphones, tablets, and Internet/broadband subscriptions.[28]

In 2019, Pew Research Center came out with a report that stated while Internet usage has increased in lower-income households (with annual incomes of less than $30,000), these households are more likely to be smartphone-only Internet users.[29] This can leave them at a disadvantage when applying for jobs or doing other tasks traditionally formatted for a larger screen. [30] As for its effects on school-age children, in 2015, over a quarter of lower-income students did not have access to broadband Internet at home, leaving them to rely on either smartphones or public library access to complete online homework.[31] In a 2020 report by Common Sense Media, it was reported that 30% of American children in grades K-12 lacked access to broadband Internet and several key types of devices (computers, laptops, tablets), and this was exacerbated for children from lower-income homes. [32] This lack of access can leave them at a disadvantage for accessing educational resources, particularly when distance and remote learning has become popular due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

A reverse divide is also apparent in the choices that parents make for their children and teenagers. Kids in poor families spend more time using digital devices for entertainment and less time interacting with people face-to-face compared to children and teenagers in well-off families.[33] Wealthy families choose child care options and schools that limit or ban screen time.[33][34] This has led to concerns that wealthy families are buying face-to-face human interaction for their children, with all the benefits that brings to them, while other children will be left with the poor substitute of an artificial game.[33]

In 2018, data showed that households where the house owner has a bachelor's degree or higher, desktop/laptop computer ownership exceeds 93%. However, in households where the house owner did not graduate high school, that figure sharply drops to 45%.[28]

The reverse divide is related to education. According to a New York Times article in 2018, the more educated parents are, and especially the more parents know about how computers work, the more likely they are to ban or sharply limit the use of computers, tablets, smartphones, and other digital devices for their children.[35]

Schematic visualization of Pipeline Model described by Shaw & Hargittai

Shaw and Hargittai (2018) explain that inequities in participatory activity on the Internet (such as on Wikipedia) can be represented as a pipeline model. The steps in their model include: (1) being aware of the site, (2) visiting the site, (3) understanding that it is possible to edit, contribute, or participate on the site, and (4) actually contributing on the site. Thus, gaps in digital knowledge and skills produce gaps in online participatory activity. [36]

In 2018, Jen Schradie examined how different factors drive the digital divide in online participation or digital engagement between lower and higher socio-economic groups. [37] She discusses what she calls ASET resources: access, skills, empowerment, and tools. She asserts that lower-class individuals and organizations have less ASETs, and because of this, have less resources to participate online (such as building a robust online presence or navigating an online space). For example, her research describes that having consistent internet access was a challenge for people who can barely make ends meet. The lack of resources creates feelings of disempowerment. Schradie explains that middle to upper-class individuals not only tended to have more ASETs, but often feel more entitlement and confident in their ability to use digital media.[37]

Data suggest that race, income, and education are intertwined,[38] especially when it comes to the digital divide.[25][39] Using the ASETs model above, those who are White, higher-income, and more highly educated typically have more ASETs. As a result, these groups tend to have higher digital connectivity. Other research suggests that a part of the digital divide has been driven by language differences, with those with lower English ability have traditionally had less Internet connectivity and usage. [40]

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) distinguishes between broadband or high-speed Internet access and dial-up Internet access.[41] Broadband access includes using DSL, cable modems, fiber, wireless, satellite, or BPL. As of 2019, approximately 27% of U.S. adults did not have access to broadband Internet at home. [16]

Additionally, people use different physical mediums that can connect to the Internet such as desktop computers, laptops, cell phones, iPods or other MP3 players, Xboxes or PlayStations, electronic book readers, and tablets such as iPads.[42] Since 2013, Pew Research Center has been tracking the percentage of the American population who they call "smartphone-only Internet users" who do not have home broadband but own a smartphone.[15] This percentage has grown from 8% in 2013 to 18% in 2019. Smartphone-only Internet users are more likely to be adults who are younger (22% of Americans ages 18–29), Hispanic (25%) and Black (23%), from households with annual incomes of less than $30,000 (26%), and with less than a high school degree (32%).

According to a 2019 survey by the Pew Research Center in 2019, smartphone ownership in the United States varies greatly among generations:

• Millennials (born in 1981–1996): 93%
• Generation X (born 1965–1980): 90%
• Baby Boomers (born 1946–1964): 68%
• Silent Generation (born 1945 and earlier): 40%

If Internet is inaccessible from the home, one can often find Wi-Fi connections at restaurants and coffee shops, schools, and libraries. A survey by Pew Research in 2016 found that 23% of Americans 16-years-old and older used wi-fi at a public library.[43] According to the American Library Association (ALA), 98% of public libraries in the United States in 2015 offered free wi-fi.[44] In a 2011 ALA survey, it was shown that the quality of that Internet access can vary, with connections to the community's poverty level and community type.[45] Rural libraries were much less likely to report having fiber optic Internet connections, while a majority of urban libraries reported having it. Rural libraries were also less likely to have connectivity speeds higher than 6.0 Mbit/s.

In 2010, nine out of every ten libraries surveyed by the ALA reported that providing services to job seekers was one of the most important services free Internet services provided. Other important services included providing government information such as tax forms, and educational information to school-aged children.[45]

Over the past few years, some public libraries in the United States have started to lend out hotspots to patrons.[46][47]

Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act on February 13, 2009 which was signed it into law four days later by President Barack Obama.[54] A portion of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act designated approximately $7.2 billion in investments to expand broadband access nationwide, improve high-speed connectivity in rural areas and public computer centers, and increase Internet capacity in schools, libraries, public safety offices, and other public buildings.[55][56]

According to a joint report from The Alliance for the Public Technology and the Communications Workers of America released in July 2008, states developed initiatives before there had been any national-wide action aimed to actively develop an information infrastructure and start to catch up to other countries in respect to the number of households with broadband internet. Broadband initiatives by the states can be broadly classified into seven different types:

• "Broadband Commissions, Task Force, or Authority established through legislation or executive order that directs public and private stakeholders to assess the state of high-speed Internet deployment and adoption in the state and recommend policy solutions.
• Public-Private Partnerships convened through executive order or statute to broadband availability, identify unserved and underserved areas, assess supply and demand-side barriers, create local technology teams to implement programs to increase computer ownership, digital literacy, aggregate demand, and accelerate broadband build-out.
• Direct Funding Programs to support the build-out of advanced networks in unserved and underserved areas by leveraging private sector funds to make network investment – and thus Internet service – more affordable
• State Networks operated by public agencies or the private sector connecting schools, universities, libraries and state and local government agencies to reduce costs by aggregating demand. In some cases, public agencies serve as anchor tenants to make middle-mile broadband build-out to underserved communities more economic. At least 30 states have established state networks
• Telehealth networks linking rural clinics with specialists in hospitals and academic institutions. At least 25 states support state telehealth networks.
• Tax Policy with targeted tax incentives for investment in broadband equipment.
• Demand-Side Programs to promote computer ownership, digital literacy, and development of community-based applications and services."[57]

In 1993, the U.S. Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure was established and administered a report called A Nation of Opportunity that planned access to ICTs for all member of the population and emphasized the government's role in protecting their existence.[58]

Founded in 1996, the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation[59] attempts to enhance children's and their parents' computer knowledge, program application usage, and ability to easily navigate the Internet. In 2010, the City of Boston received a 4.3 million dollar grant from the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. The grant will attempt to provide Internet access and training to underserved populations including parents, children, youth, and the elderly.[60]

Starting in 1997, Cisco Systems Inc. began Cisco Networking Academy which donated equipment and provided training programs to high schools and community centers that fell in U.S. Empowerment Zones.[6]

Since 1999, a non-profit organization called Computers for Youth has provided cheaper Internet access, computers, and training to minority homes and schools in New York City. Currently, the agency serves more than 1,200 families and teachers per year.[61]

The Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology established by the Department of Education was given almost $400 million between 1999 and 2003 to train teachers in elementary and secondary schools to use ICTs in the classroom.[6]

In 2000, Berkeley, California established a program that facilitated digital democracy in allowing residents to contribute opinions to general city plans via the Internet.[4]

The National Science Foundation gave EDUCAUSE (a non-profit that attempts to enhance education with ICTs) $6 million to focus on providing ICTs to Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.[62]

In 2000, President Clinton allocated $2.34 billion to provide low-income families at-home access to computers and the Internet, to install broadband networks in underserved communities, and to encourage private donation of computers, businesses or individuals to sponsor community technology centers, and technology training. An additional $45 million was added to emphasize provision of ICTs to underserved areas.[63]

In 2003, the Gates Foundation contributed $250 million to install more than 47,000 computers and train librarians in almost 11,000 libraries in all 50 states.[64]

In 2004 in Houston, Texas, a non-profit organization called Technology for All (TFA) established a free broadband Wi-Fi network in an underserved community, Pecan Park. An additional grant in 2010 assisted TFA, in collaboration with Rice University, in upgrading their Wi-Fi network to a new long-range version, a "Super Wi-Fi" in order to enhance network speed and computer quality.[65]

In June 2004, Hon. Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan), Chair of the Select Committee on Technology in Government (now the Committee on Technology)[66] in conjunction with a graduate student Digital Opportunities Team at CUNY Hunter College, supervised by Professor Lisa Tolliver in the Departments of Urban Affairs and Planning),[67] published a study and recommendations titled Expanding Digital Opportunity in New York City Public Schools: Profiles of Innovators and Leaders Who Make a Difference.[68] The report was one of numerous initiatives and events implemented by the Select Committee, which includes roundtables, conferences, hearings, and collaborative partnerships.[69][70]

In 2007, projects called One Laptop per Child, Raspberry Pi and 50x15 were implemented in attempting to reduce the digital divide by providing cheaper infrastructure necessary to connect.[71]

In 2007, the use of "hotspot"[72] zones (where people can access free Wi-Fi) was introduced to help bridge access to the Internet. Due to a majority percentage of American adults (55) connecting wirelessly, this policy can assist in providing more comprehensive network coverage, but also ignores an underprivileged population of people who do not own infrastructure, so still lack access to the Internet and ICTs.[72]

The Broadband Access ($76 billion) and Community Connect ($57.7 million in grants) programs administered by the US Department of Agriculture (2007) and the e-Rate program administered by the Federal Communications Commission are the pillars of national policies intended to promote the diffusion of broadband Internet service in rural America.[73]

Since 2008, organizations such as Geekcorps[74] and Inveneo[75] have been working to reduce the digital divide by emphasizing ICTs within a classroom context. Technology used often includes laptops, handhelds (e.g. Simputer, E-slate), and tablet PCs.[76]

In 2011, Congresswoman Doris Matsui introduced the Broadband Affordability Act, which calls for the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to subsidize broadband Internet service for low-income citizens, assisting in closing the gap between high-income and low-income households. The Act would expand the program to offer discounted internet service to lower-income consumers living in both urban and rural areas.[77] The bill was introduced on June 14, 2011, but was not enacted and died in the 112th Congress.[78]

In 2014, Congressmen Bill Foster introduced the ‘‘Closing the Digital 5 Divide for Students Act of 2014’’, which amends the United States Housing Act of 1937 and is aimed at providing affordable internet for residents in low-income housing. It was last referred to the House Committee on Financial Services in 2015.[79]

The majority of research on civic engagement and social capital shows that the Internet enhances social capital in the United States, but others report that after controlling for background variables, civic engagement between users and non-users is not significantly different.[80]

Of those who do believe that the Internet promotes social capital, a longitudinal study in Pittsburgh found that Internet usage increased rates of individual participation in community activities as well as levels of trust. Additionally, these increased levels of involvement were greater for participants who had previously been the least involved.[81] Of those who use the Internet in the United States, studies have found that these individuals tend to be members of community social networks, participate in community activities, and exhibit higher levels of political participation.[82]

The United States is the world leader in Internet supply ecosystem, holding over 30% of global Internet revenues and more than 40% of global Internet net income. Its lead primarily stems from the economic importance of and dependence the United States places on the Internet, since the Internet makes the United States' economic activity faster, cheaper, and more efficient.[83] The Internet provides a large contribution to wealth: 61% of businesses who use the Internet in the United States saved $155.2 billion as a result of ICTs as more efficient means toward productivity.[84] In 2009, the Internet generated $64 billion in consumer surplus in the United States.[83] In the United States, the Internet promotes private consumption primarily through online shopping. In 2009, online purchases of goods and services totaled about $250 billion, with average consumption per buyer equaling about $1,773 over the year.[83] That same year, the Internet contributed to 60% of the United States' private consumption, 24% of private investment, 20% of public expenditure, and 3.8% of the GDP.[83]

Between 1995 and 2009, the Internet has contributed to 8% of the GDP's growth in the United States. Most recently, the Internet has contributed to 15% of the GDP's growth from 2004 to 2009.[83] The American government can also communicate more quickly and easily with citizens who are Internet consumers: e-government supports interactions with American individuals and businesses.[85]

Additionally, widespread use of the Internet by businesses and corporations drives down energy costs. Besides the fact that Internet usage does not consume large amounts of energy, businesses who utilize connections no longer have to ship, stock, heat, cool, and light unsellable items whose lack of consumption not only yields less profit for the company but also wastes more energy. Online shopping contributes to less fuel use: a 10-pound package via airmail uses 40% less fuel than a trip to buy that same package at a local mall, or shipping via railroad. Researchers in 2000 predicted a continuing decline in energy due to Internet consumption to save 2.7 million tons of paper per year, yielding a decrease by 10 million tons of carbon dioxide global warming pollution per year.[86]