Penn State finds digital divide wider than reported for broadband internet in rural Pa. |

Penn State finds digital divide wider than reported for broadband internet in rural Pa.

Stephen Huba
Tribune-Review File
Zach Cutrell of Citizens Fiber holds a fiber optic tube in 2017. The family-owned company, founded in 1906, has gone from telephone service to cable TV to high-speed internet. It has now switched its mostly rural customers to fiber optics in an attempt to stay viable.

The “digital divide” in rural parts of Pennsylvania may be growing instead of closing, according to a new study by Penn State University.

The “Broadband Availability and Access in Rural Pennsylvania” study found there isn’t a single county where at least 50% of the population received broadband connectivity, defined by the Federal Communications Commission as 25 megabits per second for downloads and 3 Mbps for uploads.

Penn State conducted the study for the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a legislative agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

While the FCC has noted more than 800,000 Pennsylvania residents do not have access to broadband connectivity, the Penn State study found such official estimates downplay the true state of the digital divide in Pennsylvania because they rely on self-reported data by internet service providers, or ISPs.

In Allegheny County, for example, the median broadband download speed was 20 Mbps, meaning 50% of the study respondents experienced faster speeds and 50% experienced slower speeds.

In Westmoreland County, the median broadband download speed was 12.3 Mbps.

In both cases, FCC maps show the counties as having 25/3 Mbps broadband service availability.

Unlike the self-reported data reflected in the FCC maps, the Penn State research team conducted its study in 2018 by collecting more than 11 million broadband speed tests from across the state and found that median speeds did not meet the FCC’s criteria to qualify as a broadband connection.

What’s more, by combining the 2018 data with a historical archive of an additional 15 million tests from Pennsylvania residents, the Penn State study found that, since 2014, the discrepancy between the ISPs’ self-reported broadband availability and actual speed test results has grown substantially in rural areas — but not in urban areas.

“The take-home message from these analyses is this: It appears that official broadband maps are becoming less accurate over time — particularly those for rural areas — and the methodology used by the FCC not only overstates broadband speeds and availability but also shows results that are less and less accurate year after year,” the study said.

The Penn State study comes on the heels of an FCC report released last week that was criticized for overstating the availability of high-speed internet service.

“This research mapped out the levels of actual connectivity speeds that Pennsylvanians experienced while participating in a broadband test,” said state Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Williamsport. “The maps produced from these tests show that a digital divide in Pennsylvania is real, and that connectivity speeds are substantially slower in our rural counties.”

Commenting on the Penn State study, Gov. Tom Wolf said, “Broadband is as essential in today’s society as electricity. Not having broadband limits your ability to do business, find a job, access information and so much more. Our lack of broadband access keeps children from accessing online assignments and homework and deters businesses from moving to our state.”

Wolf has introduced a Restore Pennsylvania initiative that he says will “bridge the digital divide” in communities across the state.

Stephen Huba is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Stephen at 724-850-1280, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania | Top Stories
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.