Digital divide in the United States

The digital divide in the United States refers to inequalities between individuals, households, and other groups of different demographic and socioeconomic levels in access to information and communication technologies ("ICTs") and in the knowledge and skills needed to effectively use the information gained from connecting.[1][2][3] The global digital divide refers to inequalities in access, knowledge, and skills, but designates countries as the units of analysis and examines the divide between developing and developed countries on an international scale.[4]

Main articles: Digital divide and Global digital divide

Although the digital divide in America has decreased considerably, there are still certain groups of Americans with limited access, with correlations to race, income, geographic location, and age.[5]

As of 2016, approximately 11.5% of the total U.S. population did not have Internet access.[6]

Infographic from the White House on the digital divide in the US

The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) conducted the first survey to assess Internet usage among what the study deemed the 'haves' and the 'have-nots' of American society in 1995.[2] After U.S. President Bill Clinton adopted the phrase, "the digital divide" in his 2000 State of the Union address, researchers have identified numerous origins and aversions explaining trends in access and usage of information and communication technologies between the groups of United States' haves and have-nots.[7] Over the past decade, several of these demographic access and usage gaps have narrowed, or closed altogether, while others continue to show a lack of connectivity for the group; these include gaps on the basis of race and ethnicity and income.[8][9]

The digital divide has been identified by policymakers as a concern in need of a remedy, since technology has the potential to improve individual Americans' lives.[9] Although frequency of Internet use among all Americans has risen (26% in 2002 used the Internet for more than an hour per day compared to 48% in 2009), still almost one third of Americans are not connected to the Internet.[8] Internet connectivity varies widely state by state in the U.S., as well. For example, in 2011 89% of Washington residents were connected to the Internet in one or more locations on one or more devices, ranking first in the nation.[10] Meanwhile, 59% of all Mississippi residents were connected to the Internet in one or more locations on one or more devices in 2011, ranking last in the nation.[11] In addition to a divide in access to connectivity, researchers have identified a skill, or knowledge, divide that demonstrates a gap between groups in the United States on the basis of technological competency and digital literacy.[12]

The effort by the United States' government to close the digital divide has included private and public sector participation, and has developed policies to address information infrastructure and digital literacy that promotes a digital society in the United States.[13]

Demographic breakdown

Gender

By 2001, women had surpassed men as the majority of the online United States population. The 2009 Census data suggests that potential disparities in gendered connectivity have become nearly nonexistent; 73% of female citizens three years and older compared to 74% of males could access the Internet from their home.[14][15] When controlling for income, levels of education, and employment, it turns out that women are clearly more enthusiastic ICT users than men.[16]

Women in the United States are taking advantage of the freelance employment opportunities the Internet offers. For example, women make up the majority of online shop owners on Etsy, and the majority of hosts on Airbnb.[17]

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. are female.[18] 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.[19]

Age

Older generations of Americans have consistently reported the lowest level of access to the Internet per age cohorts.[20] Americans 55 and older have always shown the lowest level of broadband usage, while Americans ages 18–24 have exhibited the highest levels of usage: in 2001, 3.1% of households 65 years and older, 10.1% of households 45–64 years of age, and 11.3% of households 16–44 years of age connected to the Internet at home.[21] The same trend holds true on the individual level: in 2005, 26% of Americans ages 65+, 67% of ages 50–64, 80% of ages 30–49, and 84% of ages 18–29 reported Internet access.[22] As a whole, usage rates are increasing rapidly, but older Americans still have the lowest levels of Internet connectivity: by 2009, 39.9% of households 65 years and older, 68.2% of households 45–64, and 71.2% of households 16–44 reported connecting to the Internet.[21] Per the oldest generations of Americans, 4% of the Greatest Generation (85+), 7% of the Silent Generation (66–84), and 35% of the Baby Boomers (47–65) had connected to the Internet by February 2008.[23][24] 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. From 2000 to 2015, the number of senior citizens connected to the Internet increased by 44%.[25] As far as device usage, seniors tended to describe their smartphones as "freeing" and "connecting"[26] and are more likely to use tablets and e-readers.[27]

Race and ethnicity
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.[28] The gap between races has been evident for over a decade: in 2000, 50% of Whites had access to the Internet compared to 43% of Hispanics and 34% of African Americans.[29] As of 2009, 77.3% of Asian Americans, 68% of Whites, 49.4% of Blacks, and 47.9% of Hispanics used broadband at home.[21] Even though the racial gap in Internet connectivity and usage is still evident, it is narrowing, as racial minorities experience a higher growth rate than majorities.[30]

81% of U.S. born Latinos versus 54% of U.S. foreign-born Latinos used the Internet in 2010.[31] Of all adults, English-speaking Hispanics are the fastest rising ethnic cohort in terms of Internet usage.[32] In 2010, 81% of English-dominant Latinos, 74% bilingual Latinos, and 47% Spanish-dominant Latinos use the Internet. Even though the rate of dominant Spanish-speaking Latinos is low, comparatively, it has risen significantly since 36% in 2009.[31]

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.[33]

Finally, between 2000 and 2010, the racial population of Internet users has become increasingly similar to the racial makeup of the United States population, demonstrating a closing racial divide.[34]

By 2011 Internet usage by Hispanics had surpassed that of Black households. 58.3% of Hispanic households in the US have Internet access, while only 56.9% of Black households have access to the web. These numbers are actually down from 2010 when 59.1% of Hispanic homes and 58.1% of Black homes had Internet access. This is in a year when more households had than ever before. In 71.7% of American households had Internet access. The recent downturn might be caused by the recent recession. Even with minor changes such as these, the Internet gap between races does not appear to be shrinking. The races generally continue to have growing Internet usage at about the same rate, thus keeping the gap the same. For example, in 2000 the percentage difference between White non-Hispanics and Hispanics and Blacks was about 23% by 2011 this number had shrank to 19%. This however is a relatively small change.[35]

Region

Nonmetropolitan areas in the South have the lowest percentages of households with computers or Internet connection. Metropolitan areas in the West have the highest percentages. Southern states tend to have higher poverty levels that correlate with low levels of Internet connectivity. For example, 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.[36]

Income

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.[36]

While Internet usage has increased in low-income households, these households are more likely to be smartphone-dependent. This leaves them at a disadvantage when applying for jobs or doing other tasks traditionally formatted for a larger screen. As for its effects on school-age children, in 2015 over a quarter of low-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.[37]

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.[38] Wealthy families choose child care options and schools that limit or ban screen time.[38][39] 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.[38]

Educational attainment

In 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%.[36]

The reverse divide is related to education. The more educated parent are, and especially the more parents know about how computers work, the more likely they are to ban or sharpy limit the use of computers, tablets, smartphones, and other digital devices for their children.[40]

Schematic visualization of Pipeline Model described by Shaw & Hargittai

Some studies suggest an interaction effect between race and income in predicting Internet connectivity.[31][41] Further research explains internet connectivity as a pipeline model. A. Shaw & E. Hargittai explain the pipeline model as a series of steps that "represent a sequence of stages through which an individual must pass in order to become more actively engaged in knowledge consumption and production activities through digital media. First, a user must have heard of a site to be able to contribute to it. Second, a user must have visited the site to participate on it. Third, a user must understand that it is possible to make contributions to the site in order to add content. Only once these conditions are met can a user participate on a site”.[42] Understanding the guidelines set up by the pipeline model allow for clarification on the divide between simply knowing a site and interacting/editing a page. The usage and ultimate participation in online sites depends on the resources available. Access to the internet is seen in the eyes of all ages as important, but the costs for online participation for working-class groups drive the gap.[42][43]

Jen Schradie in her article 2018 Article the Digital activism Gap: How Class and Costs Shape online Collective action, identifies cost and class differences and privileges as two major factors leading to the deepening of the Digital Divide. Schradie’s research asserts that the costs for online participation for working-class groups drive the gap. For organizations, class divides are rooted in resource variation. Schradie further explains that for individual working-class groups, the gap in online participation was embedded in access, skills, empowerment, and tools (ASETs).[44]

Differences in [organizational] resources stratified along class lines shape groups’ abilities to build online presence. However, Schradie’s research acknowledges that it is more than a question of whether groups have access to the latest digital equipment. The research acknowledges that lacking dedicated individuals with the skills and education required to navigate the online space was a frequently mentioned issue.

Maintaining regular, consistent internet access was a challenge for people who can barely make ends meet.[44] Having more middle/upper-class support translates into more funding and subsequently more resources, which contributes to higher levels of digital engagement.[44]

This filters into a feeling of disempowerment not often felt by many working-class or mix to upper-class individuals, who simply possessed more A.S.E.Ts. Schradie explained that middle to upper-class individuals not only tended to have the access, skills, and tools, but often expressed more entitlement and confidence in their ability to use media platforms.[44]

Much of the growth in the Latino adult Internet population can be accounted for by examining the differential usages of U.S.-born Latinos versus foreign-born Latinos and the primary language used.There are also different levels of connectivity between Whites and Hispanics that are attributable to education as well as income, since Hispanics tend to have less education and lower income than Whites.

Means of connectivity

Infrastructure

The infrastructure by which individuals, households, businesses, and communities connect to the Internet refers to the physical mediums that people use to 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.[45] Other than desktops, most types of Internet capable infrastructure connect through wireless means. In 2009, 56% of Americans said that they had connected to the Internet through wireless means.[32]

Within the Greatest Generation (75 years and older), 28% own desktop and 10% own laptops. Of the Silent Generation (66–74 years), 48% own desktops and 30% own laptops. 64% of the Older Baby Boomers (57–65 years) own desktops and 43% own laptops. 65% of the Younger Boomers (47–56 years) own desktops and 49% own laptops. 69% of Generation X (35–46 years) owns desktops and 61% owns laptops. Generation Y (or the Millennials) are the only generation whose laptop use exceeds desktop use of 70% to 57%, relatively. Of adults over 65, only 45% have a computer (40% of adults 65 and older use the Internet).[45]

85% of all adults 18 and over own a cell phone, such as a Blackberry or iPhone, or other device that serves as a cell phone. Broken up into age cohorts, 48% of ages 75 and older, 68% of 66- to 74-year-olds, 84% of 57- to 65-year-olds, 86% of 47- to 56-year-olds, 92% of 35- to 46-year-olds, and 95% of 18- to 34-year-olds own a cell phone, such as a Blackberry of iPhone, or other device that serves as a cell phone.[45]

Of each individual within the age cohort who owns a cell phone, such as a Blackberry or iPhone, or other device that serves as a cell phone, 2% of adults 75 and older, 17% of adults ages 66–74, 15% of ages 57–65, 25% of 47- to 56-year-olds, 42% of 35- to 46-year-olds, and 63% of 18- to 34-year-olds use their phone to access the Internet.[45]

Racial minorities use cell phones more often than any other device to connect to the Internet. In 2010, 76% of Hispanic, 79% of Black, and 85% of White adults were using cell phones. 34% of White cell phone owners, 40% of Hispanic cell phone owners, and 51% of Black cell phone owners use their phones to access the Internet.[31]

47% of all adults own an iPod or MP3 player. 3% of 75+, 16% of ages 66–74, 26% of ages 57–65, 42% of ages 47–56, 56% of ages 35–46, and 74% of ages 18–34 own an iPod or MP3 player.[45] Similarly, 42% of adults own a game console such as an Xbox or PlayStation. 3% of adults 75 and older, 8% of the adults ages 66–74, 19% of adults ages 57–65, 38% of adults ages 47–56, 63% of adults ages 35–46 and 18–34 own a game console.

Adult age cohorts owning e-Book readers and iPads or tablets are similar percentages as well. 5% of all adults own an e-Book reader compared to 4% owning an iPad or tablet. 2% of adults ages 75 + own an e-Book compared to 1% owning a tablet, 6% of 66–74 year olds own an e-Book compared to 1% owning a tablet, 3% of adults ages 57–65 own an e-book reader and an iPad or tablet, 7% of adults ages 47–56 own an e-Book reader compared to 4% owning an iPad or tablet, and 5% of adults ages 18–46 own an e-Book reader and an iPad or tablet.[45]

Age is negatively related to incidence of owning a device: 1% of 18–34 year olds, 3% of 35–46 year olds, 8% of 47–56 year olds, 20% of 66–74 year olds, and 43% of 75 year olds and older own none of the previously listed devices.[45]

Location

If Internet is inaccessible from the home, one can often find Wi-Fi connections at restaurants and coffee shops, schools, and libraries.

According to the American Library Association, over 70% of public libraries in the United States claim to be the sole provider of free Internet or computer access in their community. However, the quality of that Internet access varies, with connections to the community's poverty level and community type. In a 2011 survey by the American Library Association, 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 6.0Mbps.[46]

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.[46]

Purpose of connectivity
Internet activities ever performed by percentage.
Activities the Internet is utilized for on a daily basis as percentages.

As new applications and software are developed, the Internet has increasingly become utilized to complete a variety of both professional work and personal tasks. To the right of this section are two tables describing the most recent data on the types of activities U.S. citizens utilize the Internet for compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau and presented in its final Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2012.

41% of Blacks and 47% of English-speaking Hispanics send and receive email on cell phones, as compared to 30% of Whites. Significant differences between the racial groups include sending and receiving instant messages, using social networking sites, watching videos, and posting photos or videos online.[47]

A 2013 study found that "African Americans are more likely than other segments of the population to use the Internet to seek and apply for employment, and are more likely to consider the Internet very important to the success of their job search."[48]

Lack of connectivity

Physical, financial, psychological, and skill-based barriers exist in terms of Internet access and Internet skills for different demographics:

25% of American adults live with a disability that interferes with daily living activities. 54% of adults living with a disability still connect to the Internet. 2% of adults say they have a disability or illness that makes it more difficult or impossible for them to effectively and efficiently use the Internet.[49]

Aversion to the Internet influences an individual's psychological barriers to Internet usage, affecting which involving which individuals connect and for what purpose. Comfort displayed toward technology can be described as comfort performing a task concerning the medium and infrastructure by which to connect. Technological infrastructure sometimes causes privacy and security concerns leading to a lack of connectivity.[50]

Individuals who exhibit computer anxiety demonstrate fear towards the initial experience of computer usage or the process of using a computer. From this, many researchers conclude that increased computer experience could lead to lower anxiety levels. Others suggest that individuals demonstrate anxiety toward specific computer tasks, such as using the Internet, rather than anxiety toward computers in general.[51]

Communication apprehension influences propensity to use only Internet applications that promote engagement in communication with other people such as Skype or iChat.[52]

Overcoming the digital divide in the United States

Information infrastructure

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.[53] 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.[54][55]

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."[56]

Notable Initiatives

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.[57]

Founded in 1996, the Boston Digital Bridge Foundation[58] 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.[59]

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.[13]

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.[60]

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.[13]

In 2000, Berkeley, California established a program that facilitated digital democracy in allowing residents to contribute opinions to general city plans via the Internet.[12]

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.[61]

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.[62]

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.[63]

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.[64]

In June 2004, Hon. Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan), Chair of the Select Committee on Technology in Government (now the Committee on Technology)[65] 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),[66] published a study and recommendations titled Expanding Digital Opportunity in New York City Public Schools: Profiles of Innovators and Leaders Who Make a Difference.[67] The report was one of numerous initiatives and events implemented by the Select Committee, which includes roundtables, conferences, hearings, and collaborative partnerships.[68][69]

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.[70]

In 2007, the use of "hotspot"[71] 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.[71]

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.[72]

Since 2008, organizations such as Geekcorps[73] and Inveneo[74] 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.[75]

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.[76] The bill was introduced on June 14, 2011, but was not enacted and died in the 112th Congress.[77]

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.[78]

Implications

Social capital

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.[79]

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.[80] 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.[81]

Economic gains

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.[82] 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.[83] In 2009, the Internet generated $64 billion in consumer surplus in the United States.[82] 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.[82] 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.[82]

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 2004–2009.[82] 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.[84]

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 globalwarming pollution per year.[85]

See also

References
  1. Norris, P. 2001. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty and the Internet world- wide. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press.
  2. "FALLING THROUGH THE NET: A Survey of the "Have Nots" in Rural and Urban America". doc.gov.
  3. Patricia, J.P. 2003. 'E-government, E-Asean Task force, UNDP-APDIP'(PDF)
  4. Chinn, Menzie D. and Robert W. Fairlie. 2004. "The Determinants of the Global Digital Divide: A Cross-Country Analysis of Computer and Internet Penetration". Economic Growth Center. (PDF)
  5. "Digital divide decreasing but not gone". USA TODAY. Retrieved 2017-09-22.
  6. "U.S. Internet Users". www.internetlivestats.com. Retrieved 2017-02-27.
  7. Nie, Norman H (2001). "Sociability, Interpersonal Relations, and the Internet: Reconciling Conflicting Findings". American Behavioral Scientist. 45 (3): 420–435. doi:10.1177/00027640121957277.
  8. Morales, Lymari. 2009. "Nearly Half of Americans are Frequent Internet Users." Gallup Poll.
  9. Sautter, Jessica M. Rebecca M. Tippett; Morgan, S. Philip (2010). "The Social Demography of Internet Dating". Social Science Quarterly. 91 (2): 554–575. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00707.x. S2CID 143997969.
  10. "Washington Internet Access". Internet Access Local. Retrieved 2014-03-03.
  11. "Mississippi Internet Access". Internet Access Local. Retrieved 2014-03-03.
  12. Mossberger, K., C.J. Tolbert, and M. Stansbury. 2003. Virtual inequality: Beyond the digital divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
  13. Choemprayong, Songphan (2006). "Closing Digital Divides: The United States' Policies". Libri. 56 (4): 201–212. doi:10.1515/libr.2006.201.
  14. Gorski, Paul (2001). "Understanding the digital divide from a multicultural education framework". EdChange Multicultural Pavilion.
  15. "Reported internet usage for individuals 3 years and older, by selected characteristics". U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Archived from the original on 2016-01-06. Retrieved 2017-12-07.
  16. Hilbert, Martin (November 2011). "Digital gender divide or technologically empowered women in developing countries? A typical case of lies, damned lies, and statistics". Women's Studies International Forum. 34 (6): 479–489. doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2011.07.001.CS1 maint: ref=harv (link) Free access to a pdf of the study.
  17. "Bridging the Digital Gender Divide" (PDF). Organisation for Environmental Co-operation and Development. Retrieved February 23, 2020.
  18. Hill, Benjamin Mako; Shaw, Aaron (2013-06-26). Sánchez, Angel (ed.). "The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation". PLoS ONE. 8 (6): e65782. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065782. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 3694126. PMID 23840366.
  19. WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance (PDF) Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 April 2015
  20. Yi, Zhixian. 2008. "Internet Use Patterns in the United States." Chinese Librarianship: an International Electronic Journal 25.
  21. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2010. "Exploring the Digital Nation: Home Broadband Internet Adoption in the United States." Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
  22. Fox, Susannah. 2005. "Digital Division." Pew Internet & American Life Project.
  23. Jones, Sydney and Susannah Fox. 2009. "Generations Online in 2009." Pew Internet & American Life Project.
  24. Matt Rosenberg. "Generational Names in the United States". About.com Education.
  25. Weise, Elizabeth (June 26, 2015). "Digital divide decreasing but not gone". USA Today. Retrieved September 20, 2017.
  26. "For vast majority of seniors who own one, a smartphone equals 'freedom'". Pew Research Center. April 29, 2015. Retrieved 2016-12-12.
  27. Smith, Aaron (April 3, 2014). "Older Adults and Technology Use". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Retrieved 2016-12-12.
  28. Mossberger, Karen; Tolbert, Caroline J.; Gilbert, Michele (2006). "Race, Place, and Information Technology". Urban Affairs Review. 41 (5): 583–620. doi:10.1177/1078087405283511.
  29. Lenhart, Amanda, Lee Rainie, Mary Madden, Angie Boyce, John Horrigan, Katherine Allen, and Erin O'Grady. 2003. "The Ever-Shifting Internet Population: A new look at Internet access and the digital divide." Pew Internet and American Life Project.
  30. "Latinos Online, 2006–2008". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. December 22, 2009.
  31. Livingston, Gretchen. 2010. "Latinos and Digital Technology, 2010." Pew Hispanic Center
  32. "Horrigan, John. 2009. "Wireless Internet Use." Pew Internet & American Life Project". Archived from the original on 2012-01-13. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  33. "Fox, Susannah. 2004. "22% of Americans age 65 and older go online." Pew Internet & American Life Project (PDF)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-06-16. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  34. "Technology Trends Among People of Color". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. September 17, 2010.
  35. "Computer and Internet Use in the United States" (PDF). US Census Bureau. 2013.
  36. "Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2016" (PDF). U.S. Census Bureau. Aug 2018. Retrieved Feb 28 2020.
  37. "Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption". Pew Research Center. Retrieved 2020-02-21 from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/07/digital-divide-persists-even-as-lower-income-americans-make-gains-in-tech-adoption/
  38. Bowles, Nellie (2018-10-26). "The Digital Gap Between Rich and Poor Kids Is Not What We Expected". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-07-08.
  39. Bowles, Nellie (2018-10-26). "Silicon Valley Nannies Are Phone Police for Kids". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-07-08.
  40. Bowles, Nellie (2018-10-26). "A Dark Consensus About Screens and Kids Begins to Emerge in Silicon Valley". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2019-07-08.
  41. Calvert, Sandra L.; et al. (2005). "Age, Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Patterns in Early Computer Use: A National Survey". American Behavioral Scientist. 48 (5): 590–606. doi:10.1177/0002764204271508. S2CID 145164317.
  42. Shaw, Aaron; Hargittai, Eszter (2018-02-01). "The Pipeline of Online Participation Inequalities: The Case of Wikipedia Editing". Journal of Communication. 68 (1): 143–168. doi:10.1093/joc/jqx003. ISSN 0021-9916.
  43. LOGES, WILLIAM E.; JUNG, JOO-YOUNG (August 2001). "Exploring the Digital Divide". Communication Research. 28 (4): 536–562. doi:10.1177/009365001028004007. ISSN 0093-6502.
  44. Schradie, Jen. "The Digital Production Gap: The Digital Divide and Web 2.0 Collide." Poetics, Vol. 39, No. 2. April 2011, p. 145-168 (PDF) Archived February 27, 2012, at the Wayback Machine
  45. "Generations and their gadgets". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. February 3, 2011.
  46. "2010-2011 Public Library Funding and Technology Access Survey: Survey Findings and Results" (PDF). American Library Association. June 21, 2011. Retrieved Feb 23, 2020.
  47. Smith, Aaron. 2010. "Mobile Access 2010." Pew Internet & American Life Project.
  48. Horrigan, John B (November 2013). "Broadband and Jobs: African Americans Rely Heavily on Mobile Access and Social Networking in Job Search". Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. Retrieved January 30, 2014.
  49. "Americans living with disability and their technology profile". Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. January 21, 2011.
  50. Rhodes, Lois. " Barriers to Access." Evaluating Community Technology Centers. May 2002.
  51. Rockwell, Steven C., Loy Singleton. 2002. "The Effects of Computer Anxiety and Communication Apprehension on the Adoption and Utilization of the Internet." The Electronic Journal of Communication 12, no. 1 & 2.
  52. "Pew Research Center - Nonpartisan, non-advocacy public opinion polling and demographic research". pewresearch.org. October 8, 2015.
  53. "The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board. The Recovery Act". Archived from the original on 2012-11-08. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
  54. The White House. Issues: Technology - Broadband.
  55. Executive Office of the President of the United States - National Economic Council. "Recovery Act Investments in Broadband: Leveraging Federal Dollars to Create Jobs and Connect America". December 2009. (PDF)
  56. "The Alliance for Public Technology, Communications Workers of America. State Broadband Initiatives: A Summary of State Programs Designed to Stimulate Broadband Deployment and Adoption. July 2008" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-05-17. Retrieved 2012-11-15.
  57. United States Advisory Council on the National Information Infrastructure. 1996. A nation of opportunity: Realizing the promise of the information superhighway. Washington, DC.
  58. "Digital Bridge Foundation". digitalbridgefoundation.org. Archived from the original on 2002-10-08. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  59. "City of Boston Receives $4.3 Million Grant That Will Give Training, Computers and Opportunity to Underserved Communities - City of Boston". cityofboston.gov.
  60. "CFY Is Now PowerMyLearning". cfy.org.
  61. "National Science Foundation. Advanced Networking Project with Minority-Serving Institutions. 2004. AN-MSI frequently asked questions.". Archived from the original on 2006-08-18. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  62. "Digital Opportunity". nara.gov. Archived from the original on 2013-03-13. Retrieved 2013-03-20.
  63. "Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. 2003. "Responding to the needs of other. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Annual Report, 2003." (PDF)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2013-01-11. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  64. "Rice University. Office of Public Affairs. Houston Grandmother Is Nation's First Super Wi-Fi User. Latest Press Release. Technology for All, 19 Apr. 2011. Web. 21 September 2011". Archived from the original on 2011-10-31. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  65. "About Us". NYC Council Committee on Technology's Blog. Retrieved August 1, 2013.
  66. Select Committee on Technology in Government of the New York City Council (June 2004). Expanding Digital Opportunity in New York City Public Schools: Profiles of Innovators and Leaders Who Make a Difference (Thanks and Acknowledgements) (PDF). p. 19. the graduate student Digital Opportunities Team at CUNY Hunter College departments of Urban Affairs and Planning was comprised of Danisa Dambrauskas, Kazu Hoshino, Gavin O'Donoghue, and Jennifer Vallone and supervised by Professor Lisa Tolliver in the Departments of Urban Affairs and Planning
  67. Select Committee on Technology in Government of the New York City Council (June 2004). Expanding Digital Opportunity in New York City Public Schools: Profiles of Innovators and Leaders Who Make a Difference (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-02-13.
  68. "Fall 2003 Hearing and Event Schedule for The New York City Select Committee on Technology in Government, Chaired by Council Member Gale Brewer (D-Manhattan)". Solutions for State and Local Government Technology. Retrieved August 1, 2013.
  69. Select Committee on Technology in Government of the New York City Council (June 2004). Expanding Digital Opportunity in New York City Public Schools: Profiles of Innovators and Leaders Who Make a Difference (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-02-13.
  70. "Portables to power PC industry". BBC News. September 27, 2007. Retrieved 2010-05-01.
  71. Thomas, J. (January 16, 2007). "New Free Software Will Help Close Digital Divide in Education". America.gov.
  72. LaRose, Robert; Gregg, Jennifer L.; Strover, Sharon; Straubhaar, Joseph; Carpenter, Serena (2007). "Closing the rural broadband gap: Promoting adoption of the Internet in rural America". Telecommunications Policy. 31 (6–7): 359–373. doi:10.1016/j.telpol.2007.04.004.
  73. "ICT & Applied Technologies - IESC". iesc.org. Archived from the original on 2011-11-30. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  74. "Home".
  75. "ICT & Applied Technologies - IESC". iesc.org. Archived from the original on 2011-12-13. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
  76. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2012-04-15. Retrieved 2011-12-09.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  77. "Broadband Affordability Act of 2011 (2011 - H.R. 2163)". GovTrack.us. Retrieved 2016-02-12.
  78. Foster, Bill (2015–2016). "H.R.2372 - Closing the Digital Divide for Students Act of 2015". Congress.gov.
  79. Putnam RD. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster
  80. Kraut R., M. Patterson, V. Lundmark, S. Kiesler, T. Mukophadhyay, and W. Scherlis. 1998. "Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychology 53:1011–1031.
  81. Gibson RK, PEN Howard, S. Ward. 2000. "Social capital, Internet connectedness, and political participation: A four-country study. Pappres. 2000 International Political Science Association Meeting Quebec, Canada.
  82. "Internet matters: The Net's sweeping impact on growth, jobs, and prosperity". mckinsey.com.
  83. "Study overview and key findings". netimpactusdy.com. 2002. Retrieved July 30, 2004.
  84. "Page not found" (PDF). oecd.org. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 4, 2011.
  85. "Environmental News Network Staff. 2000. "Internet boosts economy and saves energy, report says. CNN". Archived from the original on 2012-07-13. Retrieved 2011-12-09.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.