LOCALIZE IT: Poor, less white areas get worst internet deals
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.EDITORS/NEWS DIRECTORS:
Four major internet providers disproportionately offered the worst deals to neighborhoods across the U.S. that are poorer and have a higher concentration of people of color than other parts of their cities, according to an investigation by The Markup, a nonprofit newsroom focusing on technology’s impact on society. Formerly redlined areas also received the worst offers.
The Markup examined internet offers to nearly 1 million addresses in 38 U.S. cities. People in disadvantaged neighborhoods would be offered plans as high as $100 per megabit per second, while those in more affluent areas that have more white residents and the best historic redlining scores were offered plans for less than $1 per Mbps.
The effect of these practices went beyond fairness: Those in disadvantaged neighborhoods were offered speeds so slow they were denied the ability to participate in remote learning, jobs and even family connection and recreation that are ubiquitous to modern life.
The Associated Press, in partnership with The Markup, shares the investigation's findings plus tips for localizing the story. Find the full coverage here.
BACKGROUND
The Markup collected nearly 850,000 internet service offers made between April and October on nearly 1 million addresses in 38 cities across the country. The topline finding is that four companies — AT&T, Verizon, CenturyLink and EarthLink — offered blazing fast internet plans (200 Mbps download speeds or above) at the same price they offered slow internet plans (under 25 Mpbs, which is below the Federal Communications Commission’s floor for labeling a connection as “broadband”).
Some researchers have looked at broadband availability, and one, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, published a report saying some internet providers were advertising varying speeds for the same price, which it called “tier flattening.” The Markup’s investigation is the first examination of actual offers to U.S. addresses, which were gathered from the providers’ look-up tools.
Some of the pricing disparities were extreme. CenturyLink’s offers ranged from $100 per megabit per second (for 0.5 Mbps plans) all the way down to 25 cents per megabit per second (for 200 Mbps plans) in all 15 cities The Markup examined.
The federal government does not regulate internet pricing, so providers can charge whatever they want.
However, the FCC is currently engaged in rulemaking around “digital discrimination," which could potentially create restrictions around this type of behavior.
THE DATA
The Markup used automated techniques to enter millions of addresses across 45 major U.S. cities into each of the four internet service providers’ websites, and to save the advertised speed and price for the cheapest plan for each address.
Cities that offered uniform speeds (Baltimore, New York City, Philadelphia, Boston, Providence, Rhode Island, and Wilmington, Delaware) were filtered out.
The remaining offers in 38 cities were merged with socioeconomic data: median household income, race/ethnicity from the 2019 five-year American Community Survey, and historic redlining grades from the University of Richmond's Mapping Inequality project.
In 90% of the cities The Markup examined, the areas offered the worst deals were lower-income. In two-thirds of cities, the worst deals went to the least white areas. In every city where there was enough data to do the analysis, the worst deals went to areas that had been historically redlined.
The Markup found at least one of these disparities (income, race/ethnicity or historical redlining grades) in every city except for Boise, Idaho, and Fargo, North Dakota.
Address-level data as well as summaries about how internet speeds vary across socioeconomic areas in each city can be found here for:
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
ATLANTA, GEORGIA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
BALTIMORE, MARYLAND (VERIZON)
BILLINGS, MONTANA (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
BOISE, IDAHO (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
CHEYANNE, WYOMING (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
COLUMBUS, OHIO (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
DENVER, COLORADO (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
DES MOINES, IOWA (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
DETROIT, MICHIGAN (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
FARGO, NORTH DAKOTA (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
HOUSTON, TEXAS (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI (AT&T)
JACKSONVILLE, FLORIDA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
LAS VEGAS, NEVADA (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
LOUISVILLE, KENTUCKY (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA (CENTURYLINK)
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
NEWARK, NEW JERSEY (VERIZON)
OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
OMAHA, NEBRASKA (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
PHOENIX, ARIZONA (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
PORTLAND, OREGON (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
SIOUX FALLS, SOUTH DAKOTA (CENTURYLINK, EARTHLINK)
VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA (VERIZON)
WASHINGTON, D.C. (VERIZON)
WICHITA, KANSAS (AT&T, EARTHLINK)
In GitHub you’ll find a breakdown of speeds offered to a representative sample of each city. You will also see an interactive map with access to address-level data that you can zoom into.
For a detailed breakdown showing precisely how The Markup conducted its analysis, along with the full results, check out its methodology here.
LOCALIZING TIPS
— Look at the maps of connection speeds in your city. Where are the clusters of slow connections? Talk to people on the ground in those communities to see what challenges they’ve faced in getting internet service and how it’s affected their lives.
— Does the geographic divide between slow and fast neighborhoods in your city fall along any historical markers of segregation? Use this to explore the hidden dimensions of housing segregation. For example, Kansas City, Missouri’s Troost Avenue is both a historical dividing line for racial segregation and an obvious inflection point separating a big cluster of fast connections from a big cluster of slow ones.
— Reach out to local organizations that have been working to get people in your community online. Many of them have likely seen the effects of ISPs charging high prices for slow service in marginalized communities first-hand. A good resource for finding these groups in your city is to reach out to any local affiliates of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that works with groups across the country helping get people online. You can find its affiliate list here.
— During the transition to remote schooling, many students and teachers experienced how slow, inconsistent internet connection made learning difficult — if not impossible. This data can tie into conversations about the nexus of digital equity and education, especially in areas with lots of slow connections. How do local school districts and teachers’ unions view the way online connectivity in their community affects the remote learning experience? Principals of schools that serve marginalized communities and PTA leaders there may also be good sources on how the lack of access affected students during the pandemic.
DATAWRAPPER GRAPHICS
— In most cities, poorer neighborhoods were offered worse internet plans more often: https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/yv3Vw/
— In most cities, households in the least-White areas were offered the worse internet plans much more often, https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/eFcrH/
— Breakdown by ISP:
AT&T, https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/3AUkE/
CenturyLink, https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/mKzuZ/
Verizon, https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/njcfw/
EarthLink, https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/WLxTW/
___
Localize It is an occasional feature produced by The Associated Press for its customers’ use. Questions can be directed to Katie Oyan at koyan@ap.org.