Challenges of Challenges of Measuring Broadband Measuring Broadband

Adoption Adoption Jack M. Geller, Ph.D.

University of Minnesota-Crookston

The MIRC Project in Retrospect

MIRC was funded through the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).

It was categorized as one of many Sustainable Broadband Adoption (SBA) projects.

As such its “primary goal” was to increase sustainable broadband adoption throughout rural MN and specifically in the 11 demonstration communities

But what exactly do we mean by adoption?But what exactly do we mean by adoption?

NTIA definitions of key metrics for reporting purposes:

– Household Subscriber: a household with a paid or unpaid (subsidized) home broadband Internet connection service.

– User: “Regular user” of broadband at a public computer center, friend’s home, workplace, etc.; a user may have a Smartphone or subscribe to an Internet information service, but it does not count as a home broadband connection.

– Adopter: This term is not used in the NTIA Metrics

While the BTOP-SBA program has a goal of sustainable broadband adoption, there really is not a clear definition of adoption.

• Is any regular user counted as an adopter?

• What about regular users who choose to only access the Internet from work, a public library or anywhere else other than home?

•Should adoption focus on households or people?

What and How do we count for MIRC

The MIRC assessment began with two household surveys in June 2010:

1.A statewide survey across all of rural Minnesota to establish a statewide baseline for Rural MN.

2. Separate community surveys for each of the 11 MIRC demonstration communities.

We must understand that all adoption numbers are simply quantitative estimates. They are derived from samples of those who self-report.

A Word About Adoption in Theory

Cumulative AdoptionCumulative Adoption

Rogers Theory of Diffusion Rogers Theory of Diffusion of Innovationsof Innovations

Baseline Adoption Estimates June 2010

Benton County 66.3 %Cook County 50.2 %Itasca County 63.3 %Kandiyohi County 64.0 %Leech Lake 48.8 %Stevens County 64.4 %TRF 59.4 %Windom 62.7 %Winona 69.2 %Worthington 53.9 %Upper MN Valley 57.6 %

MIRC Average 61.7 %Rural MN Average 64.0 %

Since that time the MIRC project evaluation has been estimating new subscribers in each of the eleven demonstration communities every quarter.

To do this we have been working with a third-party provider to monitor Internet traffic and transactions in every rural Minnesota County. This monitoring identifies:

1.The number of unique IP addresses identified in the defined geography.2.The speed of the connection.3.The provider/carrier.

Caveat: We cannot assume that changes in the number of subscriptions will directly translate into an equal change in the adoption rate.

Example: Your community has a current adoption rate of 65% and 10 new families move to town. However, only 5 of the new families purchase a broadband connection.

Result: The number of broadband subscribers in your community increases while your adoption rate decreases!

Remember: Estimates are just that … estimates.

Current Estimated Percentage Increases in New Subscribers for All Demo sites

Benton County 8.9 %Cook County 11.9 %Itasca County 8.5 %Kandiyohi County 9.4 %Leech Lake 8.4 %Stevens County 9.0 %TRF 9.5 %Windom 9.8 %Winona 8.6 %Worthington 9.5 %Upper MN Valley 8.5 %

Putting it in Perspective

With these caveats in mind, at the beginning of 2012 we estimated that broadband adoption increased 7.4 percent in the MIRC communities, while the rest of rural MN increased by 5.7 percent.

… Well doesn’t seem like much of a difference!

While this difference may seem quite modest at first glance, it is important to recognize that this means the pace of broadband adoption in the MIRC communities is actually 29.8% faster than in the rest of rural Minnesota.

What’s Next?1.Surveys are currently being conducted across the state and in the 11 demonstration communities to replicate the ones conducted in June 2010. These studies will provide the final Post-MIRC adoption estimates for the project and will be used to quantify the progress made in broadband adoption.

2.These surveys will also serve to help us verify our method of estimating broadband adoption through the monitoring of Internet traffic. If these methods verify each other, it raises the question: Do we need to conduct surveys anymore?

3.Once we estimate the change in adoption for each Demo community, we will try to correlate the change in adoption with changes in other project outcomes;

For example:•Activity conducted by MIRC Partners•Changes in the Community Benchmarks •Outcomes reported by Demo Communities

Considerations as we Look Ahead

1.We are nearing the end of the adoption curve. Therefore a future focus on utilization will be more valuable than the current focus on adoption.

2.The definition of a broadband subscription needs to include cellular broadband connectivity. • For example, if cell phones were excluded, it would appear that telephone adoption is plummeting, as households continue to drop their landlines each month. But are people actually less connected? • 4G data networks are now reaching connection speeds that are clearly broadband quality.• Similar to the experience with cell phones, are we already witnessing some consumers abandon their terrestrial broadband connection in favor of mobile broadband?• In fact, the statewide broadband survey currently underway will be the first where we will no longer assume that residents use a computer as their appliance connecting them to the Internet. Rather … we will ask.

Thank You