Archive

Scott C. Forbes
Institute Fellow
Institute for Information Policy
College of Communications
208A Carnegie Bldg.
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802
814-863-0988
814-863-6779 fax

This paper was made possible by a gift from Bell Atlantic, to the Institute for Information Policy, in support of research on universal service, and was presented at the annual meeting of the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Alexandria, VA, October 1998. We are especially indebted to the support of Ed Lowry of Bell Atlantic for his advice and support. The paper, however, reflects only the views of the authors.

This paper is currently under consideration for inclusion in a dedicated issue of The Information Society.

I swear to the Lord,
I still can't see,
Why Democracy means,
Everybody but me.

-- Langston Hughes[1]

Does this gap in access to technology matter? You bet it does. How can you look for a job without a phone? How can an employer call you for an interview? How can you demonstrate that you have the skills to compete if you don't know which side of a diskette goes in first?

--William E. Kennard[2]

Langston Hughes plaintive lament strikes at the heart of the intention of democracy. Democracyâs ideal ö sovereignty and inclusion ö thrives or withers on democracyâs reality. To argue that a democracy can exist when its reality excludes individuals, who are nevertheless bound by its laws, is to claim a democracy in the making, or at worst to live an enduring hypocrisy. For the most part, Americans have claimed a democracy in the making, as they have struggled for the last 200 years to establish genuine participation for all citizens. Indeed, we tacitly acknowledge that for democracy to live up to its ideal, it must include all of its members from the core to the periphery. The key to the struggle and the promise has been and continues to be participation.

In the Information Age, universal access to communications technology is the primary policy tool for enabling citizens to participate in those economic, political, and social activities fundamental to a good society. Therefore, FCC Chairman William E. Kennardâs questions engage far more than a concern for opportunities available to African-Americans or Latinos. Kennard is addressing the promise of democracy, just as Langston Hughes addressed the shame of its blindness.

In this paper, we concentrate on observed information technology diffusion gaps between white Americans on the one hand, and African-Americans and Latinos on the other. We ask, "Why does there persist a gap in access to information technologies and telecommunications networks between the nationâs majority whites and minority African-Americans and Latinos?" Our purpose is to address this question and to propose directions for arriving at an answer.

This paper will focus on the household penetration of information technologies and services, specifically: radio, television, telephone, cable, personal computers, and Internet access. We will not discuss the admittedly important issues surrounding the delivery of universal service to libraries and schools, nor the gaps in equity of education that may result from differential levels of institutional access. Policy questions pertaining to libraries, schools, and the e-rate more properly belong within a discussion of the necessary development of an institutional infrastructure to match the growth of the technological information infrastructure; and, therefore, stand beyond the scope of this paper. Such policy issues center on institution building and the proper application of government resources -- both fiscal and political -- to an institution-oriented concept of universal service.

By contrast, the question of household access to information resources stems from expectations of the nationâs economic and democratic potential as originally expressed at the beginning of the 20th century, and continues within that context into the 21st century ö that is, from a concept of Universal Service meant to empower the individual.

Universal service provides three levels of value to American society: political, economic, and social. In so doing, Universal Service provides a direct tool for closing access gaps; thereby, furthering the goal of participation.

The Political Value of Universal Service

Democracy requires an informed and involved citizenry; yet this is possible only if its citizens have access to information about their government and the opportunity to participate in political discourse. Once one accepts the premise of the Declaration of Independence -- that governments derive Îtheir just power from the consent of the governedâ -- it follows that the governed must have full freedom of expression, in order to exercise their right to consent

There are, then, two dimensions of political participation -- reception and distribution. On the reception side, citizens are better able to make informed contributions and to receive the benefits of the political process when they have heard a variety of opinions, especially when they have heard their favored opinions challenged in the marketplace of ideas. On the distribution side, citizens also benefit when individuals are able to communicate and to engage in political dialogue beyond the confines of their immediate communities. Only then, can democratic discourse transcend the walls of localness and the stifling of popular debate that occurs when only elites have access to the national channels of communication. Thus, the many possible avenues for democratic participation are so important that telecommunications policies must dedicate themselves to protect, facilitate, and expand democratic discourse.

The Economic Value of Universal Service

In the information age, information networks distribute economic goods and services, and add value to transactions. Networks carry information that becomes input to other products or decisions. Consequently, the economic benefits of an interconnected information infrastructure accrue to the individuals on that network, to the network owners; and, therefore, to society as a whole. For without basic communications service a person is more likely to become an economic burden on society. A person is less likely to get a job when a potential employer cannot reach that person by telephone, and the person and their family suffer. The unemployed are also less likely to be taxpayers and more likely to receive social welfare payments.

When the number of people on a network grows, so too does the network's functionality and potential customer base. A network is most valuable to owners, service suppliers and service recipients when as many people as possible connect to a network, all other factors being equal. As a new infrastructure develops, it will only reach its full potential when the maximum number of entrepreneurs is attracted by the participation on the network of the maximum number of people. And as the United States further transforms itself into an economy that creates and shares information, maximizing access to the interconnected information infrastructure carrying that information becomes crucial for businesses and individuals. To that end, universal service is the mechanism for maximizing access because Americans should be empowered economically by their telecommunications systems.

The Social Value of Universal Service

At the cusp of the 21st century, it seems reasonable to argue that access to an interconnected information infrastructure is crucial, since individuals need access to information for self-development, for help in developing and maintaining social relationships, and for the benefits that come from those relationships.

Admittedly, the range of information provided by the basic infrastructure is quite broad, encompassing the mundane and the critical. For that reason, access to communication services offers benefits in a broad cultural sense. If the nation wants to encourage the sense of shared values and mutual responsibility that comes from social interaction, then maximum access to communication networks becomes a necessity. Social interaction forms a part of the socialization process through which society seeks to engender loyalty to itself and to its public values. We define ourselves not in isolation but through contact with others. Therefore, the network is an essential ingredient for overcoming social fragmentation and, consequently, for enabling participation in community. Communication creates society; and, in essence, the network creates the weave.

Universal service, then, is an operational benchmark on the way to the greater goals of, political participation, economic development, and social empowerment. Americans should experience benefits that can save lives, create jobs, and give every citizen the chance to pursue the full spectrum of life. In an information society, the network holds us together.

The literature on telecommunications gaps is small. Of the hundreds of studies concerned with universal service, only a few address telephone penetration and its social causes. Until the late 1980s the weight of opinion on households without telephones seems to have been that existing subsidy programs adequately included all those that could reasonably be connected.[3] Thus, for the century of telephone service, little or no thought was given to those left off of the net. Only in the period immediately after the break-up of AT&T did some voices focus on the social dynamics of those without telephone service and point to poverty related factors as causes of phonelessness.[4] These studies constitute the empirical source of the call to rethink universal service accomplishments in light of the emergence of a new information infrastructure. Finally, recent research indicates that those at the margins of society are particularly vulnerable to isolation and its socioeconomic consequences as a result of lacking access to a telephone.[5] However, while some of these studies -- two most recently from the government -- point to and describe the gap in telephone penetration between the majority and minorities, there is almost nothing that points to causes of the gap.[6]

Under these circumstances, an analysis of historical gaps can be instructive. The spread of some earlier information technologies indicates that gaps can be temporary.

In 1925, 10% of all households owned radios (see Figure A). By 1930, ownership stood at 46%. Ten years later, in the throes of the Depression, Americans still managed to increase ownership of radios to 82% of all households. They bought radios at an astonishing rate, especially when one considers that the Depression forced personal expenditures on information goods and services to drop from 4.4% of all personal expenditures in 1930 to 3.5% in 1935, not recovering the 1930 level until 1945.[7] Despite these obstacles, radio achieved virtual saturation by 1950. Radioâs astonishing growth masks the existence of a gap that might have existed between the majority and minorities. If there ever was a gap, and given what we know of subsequent gaps there is every reason to believe that a radio gap existed, that gap closed by 1950 so that nearly every household had a radio as they still do today.

In that year, 1950, less than one household in ten owned a television. However, fifteen years later, less than one household in ten remained without a TV. Television's complete adoption took less time than radio. Yet in this case, we have evidence of a gap during the period of televisionâs diffusion (See Figure B.). During the first seven years of the diffusion of television, lower income groups lagged behind wealthier groups. The wealthiest quartile led the way so that by 1956 this group had reached 90% penetration. Nevertheless, by 1970, television had reached a saturation level close to that of radio (though never equal to radio the one truly ubiquitous medium). Again, as with radio, a gap closed.

The third information technology of the era, the telephone, presents a stark contrast. From 1878, with the establishment of the first practical exchange, 80 years passed before 3 out of 4 households boasted a telephone.[8] And, though the adoption of radio sets proved immune to the Depression, telephone penetration dipped in correlation with personal expenditures. Telephones reached saturation by 1970, with 93% of households slowly advancing to 94% in the twenty years since.[9]

The key to the contrast lies in the nature of the exchange. Radio and Television constitute goods, while the telephone constitutes a service. Telephone services require a decision to pay a monthly fee, and the building of an infrastructure in order for the connection to function. For households on the margin, the payment structure of telephone service means a hard choice every month. And, as recent research suggests, that choice may result in the rejection of telephone service in favor of other purchases deemed more essential.[10] By comparison, the one time cost characteristic of radio and TV (allowing them to circulate second and third hand) facilitated rapid diffusion, obstructed the backslide experienced by the telephone during the Depression, and closed whatever gaps might have existed during radio and televisionâs early diffusion (See Figure A.). Telephoneâs gap still exists 120 years later. The lesson is that information goods have tended to diffuse more rapidly than information services. Thus, those gaps that may have existed in the initial distribution of radio and television closed, while the gap for telephone service did not.

A review of the factors contributing to nonsubscribership, indicates that the households without phones comprise multiple but overlapping groups.

In general, we can say that income affects access to telephone service, but not as a simple function. We can note that households receiving any kind of government assistance fall below national telephone penetration levels. Likewise, women heads of households with children fare poorly. The unemployed suffer inordinate loss of telephone service. And through it all, minorities, especially African-Americans, fall to the bottom of nearly all categories. In short, these six contributing factors illustrate the interwoven complexity of access to a technology most people think of as simple.

The phoneless do not constitute a homogeneous group. Any individual without a phone is likely to fall into several of the above groups. To that extent, understanding the causes of low telephone penetration for any one group requires parsing out multiple contributing factors, something that is virtually impossible with our current statistics.

Minority household penetration rates consistently rank eight to ten percentage points lower than their white counterparts. In 1984, shortly after AT&Tâs modified final judgment, the gap between white and minority households was approximately 13%. Fifteen years later, white households have a national average telephone penetration rate of 95%, approximately 8% higher than the Black and Hispanic rates of 86.9% and 86.7%, respectively.[14]

Differentials also exist between African-Americans and Latinos. For example, according in 1990, African-American renter occupied housing units (OHUs) in Pennsylvania with median incomes below the poverty line experience a telephone penetration rate of 84% while the penetration rate for Hispanics in similar circumstances is 72%÷startlingly low numbers considering that in 1990 PA had among the highest telephone penetration rate in the nation at 97.1%. In nearby Delaware, a state with a high telephone penetration (95.7%), the magnitude of this gap is reversed: Hispanics have a 62% penetration rate and Blacks contend with a 55% penetration rate.[15]

Native American households, particularly those on reservations and trust lands, experience the widest gap between their levels of telephone penetration and both the white and national penetration averages. The two states with the largest numbers of Native Americans÷Oklahoma and Arizona÷rank in the bottom quintile of overall state telephone penetration. The 314 US reservations and trust lands have an average telephone penetration rate of 46.6%÷less than half the national average. Native Americans in the Southwest suffer particular hardship (Figure 7). For instance, the Navajo Reservation and accompanying Trust Lands in AZ, NM, and UT suffer an astounding telephone penetration rate of 18.4%. That is, 4 of 5 American Indians in these territories do not have a phone. On the 48 reservations with 500 or more American Indian households, only six had telephone penetration levels above 75%÷none exceeded 85%.[16]

Example: Los Angeles, CA

According to 1990 Census data, nearly 36,000 renter-OHUs in Los Angeles did not have telephones. The telephone penetration rates for the OHUs below the poverty line for renters were:

WHITE

93%

BLACK

87%

NATIVE AMERICAN

81%

ASIAN

96%

HISPANIC

83%

Using 1998 Current Population Survey data, telephone penetration rates follow a predictable pattern when organized by ethnicity: White and Asian individuals were at or above the overall average rate, while Black, Hispanic, and Native American individuals trailed behind (See Table 1). Surprisingly, American Indians who lived in an owner-occupied home had a telephone penetration rate of 100%, but the sample size of 26 individuals could be the dominant factor in that rate and none were on reservations.

Table 1: Telephone Penetration Rates by Tenure and Race - 1998

White

Black

Hispanic

Asian

Native

American

Owner

96.6%

94.7%

93.7%

97.8%

100%

Renter

89.5%

85.9%

86.0%

95.1%

80.7%

Source: April 1998 Current Population Survey

Ethnicity clearly influences access to telephone service; nearly every bit of evidence presented so far has been touched by ethnicity. Nevertheless, as the above examples of Pennsylvania and Delaware demonstrate, ethnicityâs influence does not manifest itself in a straightforward manner. There appear to be intervening factors that work in both directions. That is, ethnicity seems to influence unemployment, income, youth, and gender; but all of these factors also appear to influence the significance of ethnicity. Add to this the implicit influence of geography.

A review of state data on total telephone penetration rates makes evident that penetration rates vary dramatically from state to state. At one end stand Nebraska and Pennsylvania with all time highs of 97.1%, and at the other end of the range resides New Mexico with a telephone penetration rate of 88.1%.[17] The variation in the experiences of the states leads us to suggest that geography might also influence telephone penetration.

However, taking this approach poses problems. We have as yet not been able to access data that allows us to correlate ethnicity and telephone penetration by geographic unit. That is, we can get data on telephone penetration by state, but have not found data on penetration by ethnicity by state. Weâre still looking.

In the absence of direct analysis, we are pursuing indirect approaches to the question. The first approach compares telephone penetration by tenure. In 1990, there were approximately 90 million occupied housing units (OHUs) in the US, 60 million of which were owner-occupied. The average telephone penetration rate of owner-OHUs was 97.81% while for renters 89.28%÷a difference of 8.53%. To put this in context, if each person living in the 4.8 million nationwide OHUs without a telephone service suddenly joined America Online, the subscriber base of the nationâs largest Internet Service Provider would nearly double overnight.[18]

The 3.5 million renter-OHUs without telephones account for 75% of all OHUs without telephones. One fourth of US counties experience a renter OHU penetration below 80%, thus leaving over 800,000 renter-occupied housing units without telephones in those states. In just ten counties, 548,703 renter-occupied housing units are without phones. In California, New York, and Texas alone, 950,000 renter OHUs without phones÷nearly 3 million people, assuming that 2.62 people live in a housing unit. In California, Los Angeles County listed nearly 90,000 renter-OHUs without telephones.

An examination of three states with relatively high penetration rates, California (94.3%), New York (94.2%), and Pennsylvania (97.1%), illustrates the potential importance of geography as an explanation for ethnicity in the telephone gap.[19] The data in the following tables (Tables 2, 3, and 4) represents owner occupied housing units. Since those who own their own homes are most likely to have a telephone, the differences between the majority and minorities should be minimized. Therefore, OHUs present a strong test for the uniform existence of a telephone gap. In California counties where data is available, the differences between African-Americans (labeled "blacks" in the Census) and whites vary in the extreme. Yuba county has a gap of 37.24%, while nearby Sacramento county shows almost no difference. Furthermore, five of the counties measured indicate higher telephone penetration rates among African-American households.

New York exhibits a range similar to Californiaâs. In New Yorkâs upstate Jefferson county white households with telephones outscore black households by 41 percentage points; whereas in western Genesee county the difference between the two groups barely passes two percent.

Much the same can be observed in Pennsylvania. York county in the southern tier shows a spread of 12.5 percentage points, African-Americans lagging behind whites. However, Mercer county in the northern tier shows African-American households leading white households by 1.21%.

Geography may also confound the influence of income. Policy makers and researchers generally consider income the determining factor in telephone penetration levels. However, there may be a closer relationship between telephone penetration and median household incomes for states with lower median household incomes than in states of greater affluence. If the top ten states in telephone penetration are compared with the top ten states in household median income, only 3 will be found on both lists (Table 5). Furthermore, if the bottom ten states in telephone penetration are compared with the bottom ten states in household median income, only 5 will be found on both lists (Table 6). Poorer states do have a tendency to have lower levels of telephone penetration, but the relationship is nowhere clear-cut.

What the element of geography seems to say is that the persistence of the telephone penetration gap between the majority and minorities at the national level gives way to significant variations when one focuses down to the level of the counties. Indeed, the county data is important because it also illustrates variations in the gap even within the same state, presumably with its uniform Public Utility Commission regulations. In other words, the conditions of the gap seem to vary from state to state and within states; thereby, pointing to influences that are local and possibly cultural.[20]

While it is true that people are flocking to personal computers and Internet service, current research indicates that ethnic minorities have yet to reach the penetration levels attained by whites; and, it may be, that the gap has grown in the last few years. At present, whites are twice as likely to own a personal computer as are African-Americans or Latinos÷40% compared to approximately 20%.[21] Since personal computers are a newer technology and have not yet had the time to "diffuse" into households, it is not surprising that this penetration gap is more pronounced than the overall gap in telephone penetration. Yet between the first and second Falling Through the Net reports (1995, 1998), the gap between whites and African-Americans has grown to 21.5%, up nearly 5%; while the white/Latino gap is now at 21.4%, up nearly 7%.[22] Online penetration rates seem to follow a similar pattern: about 20% of White households are online, while about 10% of African-American and Latino households are connected to the Internet.

A recent survey conducted by the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute of the Claremont Colleges, concentrated primarily on the lack of Latino household PC penetration.[23] Although finding that 31% of all Latinos nationally have yet to use a computer, its overall results were far more encouraging: Latinos had an online penetration rate of about 30%, continue to outpace all other ethnic groups in acquiring new users, and have doubled the number of computers in their homes in the last four years. In addition, Latinos are joining online services faster than the national average (See Table 7.).

Rate of Growth of PC Ownership 1994-1998 [24]

All US Households:

65%

Latino Households:

130%

This survey also highlighted the importance of education and income. Approximately 77% of Latino households connected to the Internet also had some college education, compared to 15% for unconnected households. Over 63% of Latino households with incomes above $75,000 are connected to the Internet. Moreover, this tendency appears to parallel the role of income in creating temporary gaps during the diffusion of television.

In fact, median income levels of online users are significantly above the national average. Between 50% and 70% of online users have a median household income above $50,000. The average median income level for online users is about $60,000.[25] While these numbers indicate that PCs and Internet services are still largely the domain of the affluent, decreasing PC ownership costs and stable one-price monthly Internet connection fees will likely encourage diffusion of these two technologies across income ranges.[26]

Yet there does not appear to be a strong relationship between PC penetration and median household income. Table 8 lists the 10 states possessing a PC penetration level at or above the national average (40%); and lists the states with the 10 highest household median income levels.[27] Only four states appear in both columns for top household PC penetration and median income: Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, and New Hampshire. Table 9 lists the 10 states possessing a PC penetration level at or below the national average (40%); and lists the states with the 10 lowest household median income levels. Seven states appear in both columns for lowest household PC penetration and median income: Alabama, Arkansas , Louisiana, Mississippi , Oklahoma, South Carolina, and West Virginia.

Because education interacts with income in affecting PC purchases, minorities with historically lower rates of education and income are likely to lag in their adoption of PCs. Still, the example of Latinos and PC adoption points to a parallel with the fleeting gap in TV diffusion, rather than the persistent gap in telephone penetration. PC purchases are likely to be led by wealthier, educated households to be followed by less wealthy but educationally oriented households. Thus, we suggest that the "PC gap" is temporary as was the "TV gap." What remains unclear is the rate at which PCs will be adopted, and the final saturation level in household penetration.

The existence of gaps ö the telephone gap in particular ö should trouble anyone concerned for the future of participatory democracy in the Information Age. Full-fledged access in the 21st Century means at least a telephone in the home and a computer with Internet access. Those without telephones lack effective participation in rapidly expanding digital Internet communities. If historical telephone penetration gaps cross over into the personal computer and Internet-user populations, it is quite possible that a persistent and ethnicity-centered gap between the information have and have nots will emerge, much to the detriment of an integrated society. Ironically, the telephone has rapidly become the weak link in the information technology chain: it is the "necessary but not sufficient" technology of the modern home.

If we wish to solve the mystery of the gaps, we will have to look beyond the data that has guided us in the past. We must go below national data to data specifically describing conditions at the levels of the states, counties, and perhaps even Census blocks. And, when we do this, we are likely to find a complex array of factors more particular to localities than to the country as a whole. All the while, we should remind ourselves to avoid thinking of all gaps as sharing the same characteristics.

For Langston Hughesâ lamentation to become history, we will have to dedicate ourselves more diligently than ever to probing the meaning of these gaps ö and to solving them. Thus, challenges raised by Larry Irving and William Kennard ring loudly because the consequences stand starkly on the horizon.

ðððððððððð

County

White

Black

Difference

Yuba

95.57%

58.33%

37.24%

San Luis Obispo

96.24%

70.73%

25.51%

Yolo

96.45%

80.70%

15.75%

Madera

94.63%

82.43%

12.19%

Imperial

86.91%

76.53%

10.38%

Merced

97.56%

88.89%

8.67%

San Mateo

98.54%

91.58%

6.96%

Monterey

98.67%

92.75%

5.92%

Santa Clara

98.38%

92.54%

5.84%

Tulare

94.55%

91.20%

3.35%

Contra Costa

97.71%

95.33%

2.38%

San Francisco

99.02%

97.04%

1.98%

Los Angeles

97.34%

96.02%

1.32%

Orange

98.60%

97.32%

1.28%

Alameda

97.27%

96.19%

1.08%

San Bernardino

93.29%

92.92%

0.37%

Riverside

95.66%

95.42%

0.24%

Kings

92.42%

92.31%

0.11%

Solano

96.68%

96.66%

0.02%

Sacramento

96.99%

97.05%

-0.05%

San Diego

97.18%

97.24%

-0.06%

Kern

92.96%

93.73%

-0.77%

Fresno

94.99%

97.24%

-2.25%

San Joaquin

95.39%

97.90%

-2.52%

Compiled from Table 71. (1993) 1990 Census of Housing, Detailed Housing Characteristics: California, US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.

County

White

Black

Difference

Jefferson

91.29%

50.00%

41.29%

Greene

96.05%

69.23%

26.81%

Columbia

96.31%

73.68%

22.62%

Schenectady

97.40%

83.33%

14.07%

New York

98.13%

86.93%

11.20%

Niagara

97.33%

87.76%

9.57%

Suffolk

98.39%

89.88%

8.51%

Westchester

99.45%

90.99%

8.46%

Richmond

98.78%

90.40%

8.38%

Kings

96.53%

88.59%

7.94%

Wayne

93.31%

85.90%

7.41%

Orange

97.63%

90.97%

6.66%

Nassau

98.98%

93.09%

5.89%

Monroe

98.87%

93.90%

4.97%

Albany

98.30%

93.33%

4.97%

Erie

97.83%

92.95%

4.89%

Onondaga

98.27%

93.81%

4.46%

Bronx

94.91%

91.04%

3.87%

Queens

98.12%

95.44%

2.69%

Genesee

96.64%

94.29%

2.35%

Compiled from Table 71. (1993) 1990 Census of Housing, Detailed Housing Characteristics: New York, US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.

County

White

Black

Difference

York

95.35%

82.86%

12.50%

Delaware

98.38%

90.52%

7.85%

Montgomery

98.62%

91.22%

7.40%

Fayette

94.56%

88.30%

6.27%

Dauphin

98.56%

93.33%

5.23%

Philadelphia

95.57%

91.00%

4.57%

Berks

96.41%

92.44%

3.96%

Washington

97.43%

93.53%

3.90%

Westmoreland

97.38%

94.44%

2.94%

Lancaster

83.13%

80.39%

2.73%

Erie

93.15%

91.22%

1.93%

Chester

96.40%

96.24%

0.15%

Beaver

97.23%

97.42%

-0.19%

Mercer

92.32%

93.53%

-1.21%

Compiled from Table 71. (1993) 1990 Census of Housing, Detailed Housing Characteristics: Pennsylvania, US Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census.

Top Ten States in Telephone Penetration

Telephone Penetration

Top Ten States in Household Median Income

Household Median Income

Pennsylvania

97%

Alaska

$47,954

Nebraska

97%

New Jersey

$43,924

Minnesota

97%

Hawaii

$42,851

Utah

97%

Maryland

$41,041

Iowa

97%

Wisconsin

$40,955

New Hampshire

97%

Colorado

$40,706

Wisconsin

96%

Connecticut

$40,243

Maine

96%

New Hampshire

$39,171

Colorado

96%

Massachusetts

$38,574

Washington

96%

Illinois

$38,071

Compiled from: Table 2. Belinfante, Alexander (1998) Telephone Subscribership In The United States. Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Released: January 1998. (1997). Statistical abstract of the united states: 1991. Washington DC: Bureau of the Census.

Bottom Ten States in Telephone Penetration

Telephone Penetration

Bottom Ten States in Household Median Income

Household Median Income

Illinois

92%

South Carolina

$29,071

Georgia

92%

Tennessee

$29,015

Arizona

92%

Louisiana

$27,949

Oklahoma

91%

Montana

$27,757

Texas

91%

Mississippi

$26,538

Louisiana

91%

Oklahoma

$26,311

Washington DC

91%

New Mexico

$25,991

Arkansas

90%

Alabama

$25,991

Mississippi

89%

Arkansas

$25,814

New Mexico

88%

West Virginia

$24,880

Compiled from: Table 2. Belinfante, Alexander (1998) Telephone Subscribership In The United States. Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Released: January 1998. (1997). Statistical abstract of the united states: 1991. Washington DC: Bureau of the Census.

Top Ten States in PC Penetration

Household PC Penetration

Top Ten States in Household Median Income

Household Median Income

Alaska

55%

Alaska

$47,954

Utah

53%

New Jersey

$43,924

Colorado

52%

Hawaii

$42,851

New Hampshire

50%

Maryland

$41,041

Vermont

47%

Wisconsin

$40,955

Washington

46%

Colorado

$40,706

Idaho

44%

Connecticut

$40,243

Maryland

44%

New Hampshire

$39,171

Virginia

44%

Massachusetts

$38,574

California

43%

Illinois

$38,071

Compiled from: Table 2. Belinfante, Alexander (1998) Telephone Subscribership In The United States. Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Released: January 1998. (1997). Statistical abstract of the united states: 1991. Washington DC: Bureau of the Census.

Bottom Ten States in PC Penetration

Household PC Penetration [28]

Bottom Ten States in Household Median Income

Household Median Income [29]

New York

32%

South Carolina

$29,071

South Carolina

31%

Tennessee

$29,015

North Carolina

30%

Louisiana

$27,949

Kentucky

30%

Montana

$27,757

Oklahoma

30%

Mississippi

$26,538

Alabama

29%

Oklahoma

$26,311

Louisiana

25%

New Mexico

$25,991

Arkansas

24%

Alabama

$25,991

West Virginia

24%

Arkansas

$25,814

Mississippi

21%

West Virginia

$24,880

Compiled from: Table 2. Belinfante, Alexander (1998) Telephone Subscribership In The United States. Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Released: January 1998. (1997). Statistical abstract of the united states: 1991. Washington DC: Bureau of the Census.

Compiled from Series R 1-12. (1975). Historical statistics of the United States, colonial times to 1970 (Bicentennial Ed. ed.). Washington DC: GPO. Table 956. (1981). Statistical abstract: 1981. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 884. (1992). Statistical abstract: 1992. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 1.1, 1.3 Belinfante, A. (1991). Monitoring report: Telephone penetration and household family characteristics. (CC Docket No. 80-286). Federal Communications Commission.

Compiled from Wilbur Schramm (1960). Mass Communications. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. p. 108.

Langston Hughes (1943) "The black man speaks," in Jim crow's last stand.

2 William Kennard, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Speech to the National Urban League, Philadelphia, PA, August 3, 1998.

3 See Booker, E. (1986). Lifeline and the low income customer: Who is ultimately responsible? Telephony, 210(20), 116-132. Dordick, H. S. (1990). The origins of universal service. Telecommunications Policy, 14(3), 223-238. Dordick, H. S., & Fife, M. D. (1991). Universal service in post-divestiture USA. Telecommunications Policy, 15(2), 119-128. Gilbert, P. (1987). Universal service on hold: A national survey of telephone service among low income households No. US Public Interest Research Group. Hills, J. (1989). Universal service: Liberalization and privatization of telecommunications. Telecommunications Policy, 13(2), 129-144.

4 See Perl, L. J. (1983). Residential demand for telephone service 1983 No. 1). National Economic Research Associates, Inc. for the Central Services organization, Inc. of the Bell Operating Companies. Hausman, J., Tardiff, T., & Belinfante, A. (1993). The effects of the breakup of AT&T on telephone penetration in the united states. The American Economic Review, 83(2), 178-184. Schement, J. R. (1994). Beyond universal service: Characteristics of americans without telephones, 1980-1993 Communications Policy Working paper No. 1. Benton Foundation. Schement, Jorge Reina [1998] "Thorough americans: Minorities and the new media," Investing in Diversity: Advancing Opportunities for Minorities and the Media. Aspen Institute Publication, Washington DC, 87-124. Schement, Jorge Reina, Belinfante, Alex, and Povich, Laurance [1997]. "Trends in telephone penetration in the united states 1984-1994." In E. M. Noam & A. J. Wolfson (Eds.), Globalism and Localism in telecommunications, (pp. 167-201). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Mueller, Milton, and Schement, Jorge Reina [1996] "Universal Service from the Bottom Up: A Study of Telephone Penetration in Camden, New Jersey," The Information Society. Vol. 12, 273-292. Schement, Jorge Reina [1995] "Beyond universal service: Characteristics of americans without telephones, 1980-1993," Telecommunications Policy. Vol. 19, No. 6, 477-485. Williams, F., & Hadden, S. (1991). On the prospects for redefining universal service: From connectivity to content Policy Research Project: The University of Texas at Austin. Williams, F., & Hadden, S. (1992). On the prospects for redefining universal service: From connectivity to content. Information and Behavior, 4, 49-63.

5 See Schement, Jorge Reina [1998] "Thorough americans: Minorities and the new media," Investing in Diversity: Advancing Opportunities for Minorities and the Media. Aspen Institute Publication, Washington DC, 87-124. Schement, Jorge Reina, Belinfante, Alex, and Povich, Laurance [1997]. "Trends in telephone penetration in the united states 1984-1994." In E. M. Noam & A. J. Wolfson (Eds.), Globalism and Localism in telecommunications, (pp. 167-201). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Schement, Jorge Reina [1995] "Beyond universal service: Characteristics of americans without telephones, 1980-1993," Telecommunications Policy. Vol. 19, No. 6, 477-485.

6 (1995) Falling Through the Net: A Survey of the 'Have Nots' in Rural and Urban America" National Telecommunications And Information Administration, U.S. Bureau Of The Census, U.S. Department Of Commerce. Washington DC. (1998) Falling Through The Net II: New Data On The Digital Divide. National Telecommunications And Information Administration, U.S. Bureau Of The Census, U.S. Department Of Commerce. Washington DC.

7Series E 135-166, G 416-469 (1975). Historical statistics of the united states, colonial times to 1970. Washington DC: GPO. Table 708, 738 (1981). Statistical abstract of the united states: 1981. Washington DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census. Table 676 (1987). Statistical abstract of the united states: 1988 . Washington DC: Bureau of the Census.

8Brooks, J. (1975). Telephone: The first hundred years. New York: Harper & Row, p. 65.

9Belinfante, A. (1993, July). Telephone subscribership in the United States. (CC Docket No. 87-339). Federal Communications Commission.

10 Horrigan, J., & Rhodes, L. (1995). The evolution of telephone service in texas : Working Paper, LBJ School of Public Affairs. Mueller, M. L., & Schement, J. R. (1996). Universal service from the bottom up: A study of telephone penetration in Camden, New Jersey. The Information Society, 12, 273-292. Schement, J. R., Belinfante, A., & Povich, L. (1997). Trends in telephone penetration in the united states 1984-1994. In E. M. Noam & A. J. Wolfson (Eds.), Globalism and Localism in telecommunications, (pp. 167-201). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

11Between 1985 and 1986, the Census changed definitions for "MSA status not identifiable." Many of those households were moved into "City status in MSA not identifiable." But this does not change the overall tendency.

12 Schement, Jorge Reina, Belinfante, Alex, and Povich, Laurance [1997]. "Trends in telephone penetration in the united states 1984-1994." In E. M. Noam & A. J. Wolfson (Eds.), Globalism and Localism in telecommunications, (pp. 167-201). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

13 Schement, Jorge Reina, Belinfante, Alex, and Povich, Laurance [1997]. "Trends in telephone penetration in the united states 1984-1994." In E. M. Noam & A. J. Wolfson (Eds.), Globalism and Localism in telecommunications, (pp. 167-201). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

14 Belinfante, Alexander (1998) "Telephone subscribership in the United States." Federal Communications Commission, Washington DC.

15 1990 Census Summary Tape File 3.

16 (1995) Housing of American Indians on Reservations÷Equipment and Fuels. U.S. Bureau of the Censusâ statistical brief, Washington DC.

17 Table 2. Belinfante, Alexander (1998) Telephone Subscribership In The United States. Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Released: January 1998.

18 (1997) Estimates of Housing Units and Households. US Bureau of he Census, Washington DC. July.

19 Table 2. Belinfante, Alexander (1998) Telephone Subscribership In The United States. Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Released: January 1998.

20 We have recently hypothesized that mobile home ownership among whites might contribute to the telephone gap because it would award whites an advantage in demonstrating assets even though their income might be low. However, when we examined Californiaâs Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties ö among the foremost in the nation for mobile home ownership ö we encountered little or no differences between whites and African-Americans. Without new evidence, we consider this hypothesis falsified.

21 Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1998, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html, Chart 12.

22 Falling Through the Net II: New Data on the Digital Divide, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1998, http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html, Chart 14, 15.

23 Closing the Digital Divide, Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 1998.

24 Closing the Digital Divide, Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 1998.

25 source: Pulse--Consumer Profiles: Changing in a High Tech World, Vol, 5, Issue 3, June 1998, CTAM., Closing the Digital Divide, Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, 1998, MediaMark CyberStats, Spring 1998 at www.mediamark.com , NetRatings, Inc. news release December 8, 1997 available at www.netratings.com/newsDec_8.htm.

26 For instance, few computers sold in the retail market cost less than $1,000 in 1996. Yet by 1997, sub $1,000 PCs constituted 48.4% of retail PC sales, up from 1.2% in 1996. Computers over $2,000 now constitute less than 8% of retail PC sales. J. Kirchner, "PC Prices: How Long Can They Go?", PC Magazine Online, March 10, 1998 at http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/issues/1705/283015.htm and "Expensive PCs Face Challenge" by Todd Wasserman, Computer Retail Week using International Data Corporation (IDC) data, June 15, 1998.

27 Penetration levels were taken from Falling Through the Net II. Percentages of 39% and above were included, to eliminate any possible omissions due to rounding.

28 Belinfante, Alexander GET CITE

29 1997 Statistical Abstract of the United States, GET CITE

More papers by Jorge Schement