Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|2

LETTER FROM THE PRESIDENT

Dear Stakeholder, Since 2010, Connected Texas has been narrowing the divide between those who have access to broadband and those who do not. Connected Texas has created the forum for a variety of leaders and entities to unite behind common goals and a shared vision. This teamwork has made Texas a better place for business and an even better place to live in large measure by addressing the technology needs of education and business. Connected Texas provides statewide technology leadership and advocacy through robust, public-private partnerships that expand broadband access and enhance technology adoption and use to grow economies, retain and attract talent, and create jobs. Fueled by unprecedented data and research, Connected Texas’ ability to facilitate and organize a diverse cross-section of stakeholders has resulted in numerous efforts across the state to expand the life-changing benefits of broadband to all. These efforts were continued and maintained in part due to the receipt of the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant funded by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). While Connected Texas’ impact has been substantial, the need for ongoing improvement in broadband access and adoption remains. The Federal Communications Commission’s recent announcement of its new “advanced broadband” benchmark of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload has ignited a renewed urgency to both meet this target and exceed those speeds in order to solidify Texas’ stance in the cutting-edge interconnected economy. The following report is designed to memorialize the efforts of Connected Texas as well as showcase examples of the thousands of stakeholders impacted by our work to date. By examining our technology past, we can better plan for our connected future. Sincerely,

Tom Ferree President and COO Connected Nation

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Since 2010, Connected Texas has been the “voice of broadband” in the Lone Star State. Offering a neutral perspective on broadband access, adoption, and use, Connected Texas has worked closely with communities, providers, government officials, and anchor institutions to accelerate technology in the state. Connected Texas served as the state’s designated entity for broadband mapping, research, technical assistance, and local technology planning. The following report summarizes advances made in broadband access, adoption, and use over the past five years, as well as outstanding challenges and opportunities for continued growth to ensure that all Texas communities, residents, institutions, and businesses are connected to twenty-first century technology and equipped with the skills and support to utilize it to its fullest. According to Connected Texas’ broadband maps, the state continued strong growth in broadband infrastructure and deployment, as well as increased competition among the higher broadband speed tiers over the last five years. Despite progress, significant connectivity gaps persist in the state, particularly in the state’s rural areas. While expanding broadband access to these areas is important, without corresponding broadband adoption among Texas’ consumers and businesses, further investment and build-out could be deterred. To provide information on the people, businesses, and communities that are taking advantage – and more importantly, not yet taking advantage – of the expansive opportunities provided through broadband, Connected Texas conducts annual statewide residential and business broadband surveys. In Connected Texas’ 2014 Residential Technology Assessment, these surveys revealed that 74% of Texans have adopted broadband at home, and 80% of businesses in the state utilize broadband. Yet, with nearly 5 million adults and 105,000 businesses statewide still without broadband, there remains much to do. Within individual communities, Connected Texas facilitated broadband and technology outreach, education, and dissemination through its Connected Community Engagement Program (“Connected”). The Connected program coalesces and trains regional leaders and forms community broadband planning teams to assess the local technology landscape. Each community is then provided a step-by-step action plan to meet their local technology needs. Since 2011, twenty-nine Texas communities have successfully completed local technology assessments and received technology action plans through this program. Connected teams are working to address a wide variety of technology-related issues across community sectors. From addressing rural infrastructure gaps, improving the online presence and use of technology among businesses, or expanding tele-health opportunities at rural institutions, to expanding e-government services, hosting local technology summits, or developing, implementing, and support one-to-one device programs and connectivity for schools, the Connected program offers a direct intervention for accelerating the access, adoption, and use of technology across Texas.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Letter from the President ............................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................... 3

Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 4

Background ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Broadband Access in Texas ............................................................................................................. 7

Mapping ....................................................................................................................................... 7

The Broadband Availability Gap in Texas ................................................................................ 9

Connect America Fund Implications for Texas ..................................................................... 13

Validation .............................................................................................................................. 14

Broadband Adoption in Texas ....................................................................................................... 17

Trends in Broadband Adoption Among Texas Homes and Businesses ..................................... 17

Residential Broadband Trends .............................................................................................. 17

Business Broadband Trends .................................................................................................. 18

Topical Reports ..................................................................................................................... 18

Texas’ Broadband Conference ................................................................................................... 21

Connected Community Engagement Program ............................................................................. 24

Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 30

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 31

Appendix 1: Provider’s Engaged by Connected Texas ................................................................. 32

Appendix 2: My ConnectViewTM Interactive Map Screenshot Example ....................................... 38

Appendix 3: Connected Texas Maps ............................................................................................. 39

Appendix 4: Rural Broadband Experiments in Texas .................................................................... 53

Appendix 5: Engineering & Technical Services Field Validation Techniques ................................ 55

Appendix 6: Residential Survey Methodology .............................................................................. 66

Appendix 7: Logistic Regression Model for Home Broadband Adoption ..................................... 68

Appendix 8: Connected Community Engagement Program Process ........................................... 70

Appendix 9: FCC Broadband Availability, 2015 FCC Broadband Program Progress Report ......... 78

Appendix 10: FCC Announces Provisional Winners in RBE Auction ............................................. 80

Appendix 11: Research Reports .................................................................................................... 83

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|5

BACKGROUND

Since 2010, Connected Texas, under the direction of the state, has served as the broadband resource providing information, insight, and expertise to various stakeholders throughout the state. Support provided to stakeholders has varied based on the specific stakeholder group and need, but Connected Texas has been able to share its resources and expertise in an effort to improve the broadband landscape across the state. The number of stakeholders supported is vast and includes the Texas Department of Agriculture, Texas Public Utilities Commission, Texas State Library and Archives Commission, Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Education Agency, Texas Computer Education Association, Texas Workforce Commission, Texas Economic Development Council, Texas Department of Information Resources, the University of Texas, and many more. The program office, established in Austin, served as a go-to resource and primary champion of broadband as it related to adoption, access, and use within the state. Updates were provided to program partners and stakeholders throughout the state through periodic status reports, continual direct interactions, addressing requests for information or data, and raising awareness of broadband‐related news and information through a variety of media. Outreach staff distributed 64 press releases statewide, maintained a program blog and social media pages, and distributed regular e-newsletters to subscribers. Throughout the project, representatives served as subject matter experts in the areas of impacting broadband access, adoption, and use, while program data was often highlighted by media outlets in pieces related to technological advancement efforts. The program manager testified at the Texas State Senate Hearing on Virtual Education conducted on October 8, 2012, as requested by the state legislature (senate committee on education). The testimony was in response to an apparent disparity in broadband availability between rural and metro K-12 facilities. The result of this testimony and related commendations, including the call for the drafting of a bill (House Bill 1926), can be found in the

Committee Report to the 83rd Legislature, specifically pages 9 and 10. H.B. 1926, later signed into law, required the Texas Education Agency to conduct a thorough statewide assessment of broadband availability to all K-12 facilities by the end of year 2015. In September 2013, the program manager participated in the first (of three) panel series presented by The Texas Tribune named "Demographic Change and the Digital Divide." The focus of the three-part series was the impact of the digital divide in a state with a fast-growing and rapidly changing population. Co-Panelists included: a former state representative who is also the head of Google Fiber in Austin, a current state representative, and the executive director of Austin Free-Net. The event was held at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs on the University of Texas at Austin campus. The conversation was live streamed through, and later archived, on The Texas Tribune’s website. On March 14, 2014, program representatives conducted an informational webinar regarding the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Rural Broadband Experiments. The webinar drew substantial interest from stakeholders and representatives of partner organizations and entities in the state. In addition, staff supported over a dozen organizations including municipalities, providers, and regional entities with more specific information on the FCC Rural Broadband Experiments in order for the organizations to pursue funding. Data was also used to support programs such as the Texas Connects Coalition, FirstNet, Connect America Fund, and more. Texas Connects Coalition, a Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) awardee, used SBI program broadband information to add value to their Internet and computer training classes and locations, while staff and program data also lent support to the Texas Department of Public Safety’s FirstNet Grant Application.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|6

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|7

BROADBAND ACCESS IN TEXAS

Mapping

Since 2010, Connected Texas has researched and mapped growth and gaps in Texas broadband access in accordance with the Department of Commerce and Federal Communications Commission broadband definition changes. This project was originally funded for two years of data collection and five years of broadband planning activities. In September of 2010, this project was amended to extend data collection activities for an additional three years and to identify and implement best practices. The first submission of mapping data under the State Broadband Data and Development grant program represented 75.5% provider participation in Texas. In each subsequent submission, staff was able to increase provider participation in the voluntary program. The final data update, submitted in September 2014, included datasets for 94.2% of the provider community. One hundred ninety-four (194) participating providers were represented with 17 additional providers whose coverage area was estimated. This dataset was further used to evaluate the broadband landscape across Texas by comparing availability and speed tier(s) against that of the data collected by the program since 2010. Based on the October 2014 data, 98.55% of households statewide have access to fixed broadband at speeds of at least 768 kilobits per second (Kbps) download/200 Kbps upload. In fact, 267,109 more households have access to fixed broadband services of 3 megabits per second (Mbps) download/768 Kbps upload now than

3 years ago. This data was submitted in April and October each year. In June 2010, the program launched its first online, interactive mapping tool for viewing and validating broadband data, BroadbandStat. The interactive mapping application, featured on the program website, allowed consumers to locate their residence and identify providers that offer Internet service to that location. Internet service areas were depicted based on the latest data collected and prepared for submission to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). In an effort to provide further broadband mapping analysis tools, the program introduced a new mapping application called My ConnectView

TM on

April 2, 2012. Compared to BroadbandStat, the interactive map featured more interactive data layers, additional tools to explore data, and the ability to create, print, and share custom maps. Additional enhancements to the application were made in 2013, including: 1) upgrading the server to ArcGIS for Server 10.1; 2) adding a button to create permanent links which allowed users to develop a customized display with various data layers turned on with a specific zoom level and then allowed them to send the permanent link to another user, who would then get the same display in the interactive map setting; 3) adding a date display to the legend to inform the user of the current nature of the broadband data; and 4) enhancing the featured pop-up windows to allow users to scroll through multiple record selections.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|8

Users can select data layers that they wish to view on the map display. Data layers are broken down into three main sections: access, adoption, and use. These sections contain broadband coverage information, the density of unserved households, maximum advertised download speeds, links to adoption programs, and Community Anchor Institutions (CAI). CAIs can be trusted resources for broadband connectivity to citizens that are unserved

or underserved at their homes. Connected Texas realized that CAI connectivity was an important component of the state’s overall connectivity, and over the course of the grant, captured CAI connectivity data through direct outreach, surveys, and partnerships with statewide organizations. The program received information for 21% of identified CAI (percentage based on submitted download speeds).

Community Anchor

Institution Type Identified CAI

Type of Connectivity

Download Speed

Upload Speed

K-12 Schools 10,826 142 2,671 2,648

Libraries 902 112 368 263

Healthcare 877 104 186 104

Public Safety 4,412 261 548 259

Higher Ed Institutions 456 54 121 53

Other Government 1,517 480 113 65

Other Non-Government 28 8 8 8

Total 19,018 1,161 4,015 3,400

Both applications have been housed in a highly available, monitored, and managed environment with a focus on being multi-functional and user-friendly. To date the program’s interactive map, My ConnectView

TM, has received

27,461 visits and has served as a way to encourage and solicit consumer feedback.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|9

Consumer feedback has played an important role in the data collection project. In addition to consumer e-mails received via the interactive map, the project has received 588 broadband inquiries over the life of the grant. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) staff and Engineering and Technical Services (ETS) staff utilized the inquiries for verification purposes by overlaying the feedback with the broadband availability information collected through the program. As a result of consumer feedback, Connected Texas has provided the consumer with broadband service options available to him/her, analyzed areas of unmet broadband demand, and improved the accuracy of the state maps. The data composed by Connected Texas is also submitted for additional analysis and use in the National Broadband Map, the first searchable inventory of broadband services across the country. The National Broadband Map is released and maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in collaboration with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and in partnership with 50 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia.

The Broadband Availability Gap in Texas

Texas’ 2014 broadband landscape demonstrates strong growth in infrastructure and deployment. Since October 2011, 159,702 additional households have gained access to broadband service statewide at speeds of 768 Kbps download/200 Kbps upload.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|10

As of October 2014, 97.05% of Texas households had broadband access at 3 Mbps download/768 Kbps upload and 267,109 fewer households were unserved by this speed than in 2011 (excluding mobile wireless and satellite services). Further, rural broadband availability at 3 Mbps download/768 Kbps upload increased from 85.05% in 2011 to 91.53% in 2014. The state has also shown increased access and competition among the higher broadband speed tiers.

In addition to the above speed and provider details, since 2011, broadband service at 50 Mbps download/1.5 Mbps upload has increased 18.45 percentage points and service at 100 Mbps download/1.5 Mbps upload has increased 17.7 percentage points (both excluding mobile wireless and satellite services). Further, the number of fiber broadband providers increased from 24 in 2011 to 32 in 2014.

Households Served by Speed Tier Number of Facilities-Based Broadband Providers

4+ Providers

3 Providers

2 Providers

1 Provider

Unserved

3 Mbps/768 Kbps 3,933,561 2,113,180 1,755,476 857,908 262,808

3 Mbps/768 Kbps (Percent) 44.08% 23.68% 19.67% 9.62% 2.95%

10 Mbps/1.5 Mbps 1,197,657 1,961,709 2,768,957 2,166,510 828,101

10 Mbps/1.5 Mbps (Percent) 13.42% 21.99% 31.03% 24.28% 9.28%

25 Mbps/3 Mbps 295 61,153 919,728 3,989,343 3,952,413

25 Mbps/3 Mbps (Percent) 0.00% 0.68% 10.31% 44.71% 44.30%

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|11

Despite this positive progress, significant gaps persist in Texas, particularly throughout rural regions. Further, broadband availability and competition in Texas decreases as speeds increase. As Internet and web applications continue to develop, along with the number of connected devices in a typical household or business, there is an increasing need for faster, more robust broadband speeds. The National Broadband Plan, released in 2010, recommended a national broadband speed target for households and small businesses of 4 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload. The National Broadband Plan also recommended that the FCC reassess this target every four years. As such, in January 2015, the FCC adjusted the definition of “advanced broadband” to 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. In adopting this target, the FCC found that 17 percent of the U.S. population did not have access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband, but, when available, consumers were subscribing to broadband at these

higher speeds. The FCC also determined that over half of rural Americans did have not access to 25 Mbps down/3 Mbps up connectivity. Broadband availability in Texas is significantly under the national average. According to the most recent Connected Texas data, 55.7% of households in Texas have access to 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload broadband networks. However, 3,952,413 households continue to be marginalized with broadband speeds below this national benchmark. The vast majority of the areas in Texas without access are located in rural regions of the state. Broadband access, and the applications it supports, is a transformative technology that is having an immediate and comprehensive impact on virtually every sector of the Texas economy, every level of the government, and overall social welfare. Texas residents and businesses are becoming increasingly reliant and dependent upon this technology. However, communities and vulnerable populations without such access are unable to take full advantage of the benefits of technology and are at risk of being further isolated by the digital divide. Ongoing infrastructure assessments and state policy that promotes widespread availability would be instrumental to achieving equitable, ubiquitous access.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|12

Efforts to bridge the broadband availability gap in Texas need to continue, especially as consumers, businesses, and policymakers seek ever-increasing broadband speeds. Texas should continue to track and monitor broadband availability and infrastructure in the state at various speed and quality levels. The FCC has begun collecting data on the availability of retail fixed and mobile broadband, with plans to publish those findings twice annually. However, while that data will be useful, the FCC will not directly map infrastructure facilities and will not necessarily provide information on various speed tiers and network technologies. Instead, the FCC will collect data only relating to the retail maximum offered peed for residential and business fixed broadband services. For mobile broadband services, the FCC will only collect “minimum advertised” speed, portions of which might not be publicly released. In rural areas, the FCC data will only be collected at the census block level.

1

Over the last five years, Connected Texas has mapped broadband infrastructure in a manner that allows for the matching of broadband infrastructure to state institutional needs. Because the FCC will only collect advertised retail service availability, even if that data were to be made available to Texas, it would not support those important state needs for infrastructure planning and economic development. In addition, with regard to retail broadband availability, the Connected Texas project collected multiple speed tiers for both fixed and mobile technology and independently validates those capabilities. In rural areas, Connected Texas collected broadband retail service availability at a sub-census block level, which is more granular than the current FCC data process, and regularly processes inquiries from citizens, communities, and providers on service availability. This type of hands-on, local engagement allows for and encourages solutions-driven collaboration between providers and communities.

1 Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Federal

Communications Commission, WC Docket No. 11-10, Report and Order, 28 FCC Red 9887, 2013. The FCC was to have started collecting this data on October 1, 2014, but the FCC suspended that data collection due to difficulties with its electronic filing Interface. See Form 477 Filing Interface Remains Closed as Technical Improvements are Implemented, Federal Communications Commission, Wireline Competition Bureau, WC Docket No. 11-10, Public Notice, DA 14·1458, Oct. 2014.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|13

Connect America Fund Implications for Texas

As the previous maps identify, Texas has made a significant impact in broadband availability over the last five years; however, opportunities remain to improve access to advanced broadband speeds and ensure that all Texas businesses, governments, and residents have equitable connectivity.

Connected Texas has used the broadband infrastructure information it has collected and validated to work directly with communities and providers to solve access gaps in their communities. One important example is the overwhelming effort many Texas communities made to participate in an FCC experimental program that would provide direct funding for network upgrades.

In January 2014 the FCC created the Rural Broadband Experiment program (RBE). The launch of the program marked the first time that the FCC had considered investing a portion of its $4 billion per year telecommunications network subsidy program

into an application-based, competitive bidding framework. Part of the Connect America Fund (CAF), the Rural Broadband Experiment program sought to

determine how the FCC could allocate broadband network subsidies to rural communities in a cost-effective way. Eligible areas for the RBE program were defined as any area without access to fixed broadband at the 3 Mbps download/768 Kbps upload speed. In those areas within the service territories of larger, price cap local telephone companies (AT&T, CenturyLink, Frontier), the FCC sought projects that would serve entire census tracts that include unserved census blocks. In early 2014, the FCC solicited “expressions of interest” from providers, communities, institutions, and public-private partnerships regarding their ideas and proposals on how they could use CAF subsidies to support broadband infrastructure build-out in currently unserved areas. The FCC received nearly 1,000 expressions of interest from applicants across the country, 51 of which were from Texas. In December 2014, the FCC Wireline Competition Bureau announced the provisional winners including broadband projects in 25 states and Puerto Rico. There were three categories of RBE projects that received provisional awards – 19 projects building networks capable of 100 Mbps download/25 Mbps

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|14

Validation Case Study Douglass, Texas - Through efforts of Connected Texas and other stakeholders, two new wireless broadband towers brought broadband to more than a hundred homes in the Douglass, Texas area. The first tower provides broadband service to approximately forty homes in the East Lake Estates just outside Douglass. The second tower has more than sixty homes already on the subscription list in the greater Douglass area. Most of the early subscriptions have come from discounted orders offered through the local school district. One Douglass resident summed up the general thankfulness of the community saying thanks to his new home high-speed Internet service, he no longer has to drive his family to Nacogdoches three times a week to allow his daughter to complete her high school homework assignments.

upload; 12 projects building networks capable of 10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload in eligible unserved areas; and 9 projects building networks capable of 10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload in extremely high, unserved cost areas. Four projects in Texas were given funding. This was great news for state teams and partners (Please see Appendix 10). All told, 15 of the 40 provisionally winning projects are located in the Connected Nation State Broadband Initiative footprint. Connected Nation provided a wide variety of information and support to prospective bidders and stakeholders in these states, including webinars to states and with FCC staff, regularly-updated FAQs, mapping of eligible areas and corresponding analysis, Policy Briefs, and application assistance. These fifteen projects in Connected Nation jurisdictions account for $41.7 million of all of the subsidies provisionally awarded, or approximately 42% of the nearly $100 million in provisional awards.

Validation

Provider engagement and validation are essential to gathering meaningful, accurate data regarding Texas’ broadband ecosystem. Over the past five years, Connected Texas has developed strong relationships with commercial and residential broadband providers across Texas to collect the extensive datasets that populate the state broadband maps. To ensure its accuracy, Connected Texas validates all data received from participating providers. Connected Texas’ validation process is informed with, among other methods, broadband inquiries provided by consumers and local stakeholders. In areas of the state in which providers are unable to supply broadband data, Connected Texas employs several techniques to estimate the service territory. Connected Texas uses this data to build consumer awareness regarding service options available in their area and encourage provider infrastructure build-out in localities without coverage. Detailed, accurate broadband data enables more than informed decision making. Connected Texas’ mapping and validation helps bring broadband to rural areas of the state and eliminates the connectivity gap. Connected Texas validates all data received from participating providers. Testing was

completed against 204 companies out of 224 viable providers totaling 91.07% within the state. Connected Texas developed on-the-ground

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|15

validation processes that it implemented in an effort to reach the most accurate depiction of broadband technology data available. ETS staff traveled 75,042 miles for the purpose of conducting field verifications in Texas. Staff utilized a variety of resources for validation support such as provider coverage maps, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) databases, volunteered provider data submissions and broadband inquiries.

In some instances providers were unable or unwilling to participate in the voluntary data submission process. In such instances, program staff completed a process by which desktop research into the public sources of data combined with in-field techniques listed above and sound engineering practices were used to estimate the coverage area for these providers. This methodology was presented as a best practice to the FCC in June 2011.

For further information on Connected Texas’ validation processes, see Appendix 5.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|16

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|17

Home Broadband Adoption in Texas

BROADBAND ADOPTION IN TEXAS Broadband access is important, but future investments and build-out in the state could be deterred if broadband adoption among Texas businesses and residents does not grow as well. Therefore, it is in the interest of all leaders in Texas to collaborate and bridge the remaining broadband adoption gaps to ensure that all Texans are able to participate and compete in the twenty-first century interconnected global economy.

Trends in Broadband Adoption Among Texas Homes and Businesses

Connected Texas’ innovative research on broadband access, adoption, and use is unprecedented. Connected Texas conducts annual statewide residential and business surveys. These surveys provide information about the people, businesses, and communities that are taking advantage – and more importantly, not yet taking advantage – of the opportunities provided through broadband adoption.

Residential Broadband Trends

Connected Texas’ 2014 Residential Technology Assessment revealed that 26% of Texans have not adopted broadband at home, down from 38% in 2010. While 74% of adults in the state subscribe to home broadband service, this leaves nearly 5 million adults statewide who still do not subscribe to home broadband service.

The barriers to home broadband adoption are consistently delineated into three main categories: (1) a belief that having home broadband service is not important or relevant; (2) affordability of service and/or devices; and (3) a lack of digital skills to fully benefit from the devices and broadband connectivity. Since 2012, the belief that home broadband service is not relevant or worthwhile has been the top barrier to home broadband adoption, cited by three out of ten Texas non-adopters (30%) in 2014. Cost is another significant barrier to home broadband adoption, reported by nearly one-quarter of non-adopters (23%). The lack of digital literacy skills has declined as a barrier to home broadband adoption since 2011, from 14% to 12% of non-adopters in 2014; this represents more than 820,000 fewer adults who said that their lack of digital literacy skills prevented them from subscribing to broadband.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|18

*Connected Texas did not conduct a Business Technology Assessment in 2012

Broadband Adoption Among Texas Businesses

Business Broadband Trends

Because of the impact that broadband has on businesses and the workforce, Connected Texas surveyed businesses in the state about their broadband adoption and usage. Broadband is a transformative tool that helps Texas businesses increase their revenues and productivity. According to Connected Texas’ Business Technology Assessments, Texas businesses earned an estimated $194.6 billion in revenue from online sales in 2013, the equivalent of 13% of Texas’ Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for that year.

2

Connected Texas’ 2014 Business Technology Assessment, released in summer 2014, revealed that four out of five businesses in the state (80%) use broadband, up from 73% of businesses in 2010.

Despite this increase, approximately 105,000 Texas businesses still do not use broadband. Additionally, over one in five Texas businesses (22%) have difficulty finding employees with the necessary technological skills, suggesting that technology training can help empower Texas’ workforce.

Topical Reports

In addition to statewide research surveys, Connected Texas published several reports that explored broadband issues in the state, ranging from online shopping to e-learning applications. These reports uncover and highlight broadband successes and opportunities within the state and show how Texas

2 2013 GDP in real dollars = $1.533 trillion (source: United

States Bureau of Economic Analysis).

residents and businesses benefit from broadband adoption. Among these studies: Texas Goes Mobile: Mobile Broadband Adoption and Satisfaction Across Texas (2012) reported that nearly one-half of Texas adults (48%, representing 8.9 million Texans) used mobile broadband at that time. Of those, 2.1 million used mobile broadband instead of subscribing to home Internet service. More than one-half of Texans who accessed broadband on their cell phones (53%) said they were satisfied with their mobile service, with Texans giving the highest marks to service reliability and customer satisfaction.

The Texas Digital Divide: An Assessment of Rural and Non-Rural Texans (2012) showed that home broadband adoption was 16 percentage points lower among rural Texans than among those living in non-rural parts of the state (48% of rural adults, compared to 64% of those in urban and suburban portions of the state). Rural Texans who did subscribe to home broadband service or use mobile broadband were also less likely than their non-rural peers to use many online applications (one exception was that rural mobile users were just as likely to use their mobile service to search or apply for jobs as non-rural Texans). More than one in four

rural Texans who did not subscribe to broadband (27%) said that cost was their main barrier to adopting broadband, while a lack of available service was the main barrier to adoption for approximately 145,000 rural Texans. Making the Connection Through Digital Literacy (2012) revealed that approximately 1.4 million, or 20% of Texans who did not have broadband at home, cited the lack of digital literacy skills as their main barrier to subscribing. Statewide, approximately 600,000 Hispanics, 544,000 Caucasians, and 198,000 African Americans living in Texas cited digital literacy as a barrier to home broadband adoption.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|19

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|20

BROADBAND USE IN TEXAS Connected Texas’ mapping and research has provided data-driven analyses of the challenges and opportunities to enhance statewide broadband deployment and adoption. As access and adoption rates increased over the last five years, so has the need for digital skills. Digital literacy, or the knowledge of how to use a computer and the Internet, is growing in importance as today’s workforce becomes more closely tied to technology. The United States Department of Commerce notes that 62% of all employed adults in the United States use the Internet for their jobs.

3 Yet

even with this widespread use, the Federal Communications Commission reports that 66 million Americans do not have sufficient computer or Internet skills, representing one in five Americans.

4

Teaching Texans these skills is vital to ensure that those who are employed today, as well as those looking for employment, have the ability to compete with workers from around the world. The need for digital literacy skills is reshaping the old mantra in education of teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic. Embracing information and communications technologies in the curriculum are important in the twenty-first century.

5

Providing Learning Anywhere: K-12 Education in Texas (2012) showed that one-half (50%) of Texas households with children said that their children used home Internet service for schoolwork. In addition, more than six out of ten adults with children at home (61%) said that children were using the Internet at school for schoolwork. Statewide, approximately one million Texas parents subscribed to home broadband service because someone needed the service for school.

How Broadband Impacts the Texas Economy (2013) revealed that Texas broadband subscribers reported

3 http://www.commerce.gov/news/fact-

sheets/2011/05/13/fact-sheet-digital-literacy#_edn4 4 http://factfinder2.census.gov/ and

http://www.connect2compete.org/news/07-23-12/getting-past-catch-22-digital-literacy 5

http://www.reading.org/Libraries/Position_Statements_and_Resolutions/ps1067_NewLiteracies21stCentury.sflb.ashx

that, thanks to broadband, they made an average of 2.4 fewer trips to the doctor per year, they drove an average of 165.6 fewer miles per month, they saved an average of 15.36 hours per month, and saved an average of $3,161 annually in fuel and maintenance costs as a result of driving less. The combined savings of broadband adoption on the Texas economy was $40.9 billion per year.

Online Shopping in Texas (2013) reported that approximately 11.4 million Texas adults made some sort of purchase online over the previous 12 months. The median household income of online shoppers was nearly $17,000 higher than the state average; in addition, nine out of ten online shoppers (90%) lived in urban or suburban portions of the state, while 80% had a college education. Approximately 7.1 million Texas adults used the Internet to order goods or services from businesses located within the state, and 8.4 million went online to place orders from American businesses outside of Texas. This translated into an estimated $4.4 billion spent annually for Texas businesses and $6.4 billion per year for American businesses in states other than Texas. Broadband and Education – Connecting Students in Texas (2014) showed that more than 950,000 students in the state did not have broadband at home at that time. One in five Texas parents of K-12 students (20%) said their children’s school provided students with laptop or tablet computers, yet 25% of rural parents said their children do not use the Internet at school at all. Many parents saw the value of technology in education, though; over one-half of parents of K-12 students whose schools provided computers said that those computers helped their children’s grades, and six out of ten parents who did not have broadband at home agreed that having Internet service at home would make it easier for their child to do homework.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|21

Texas’ Broadband Conference

Throughout the grant, technology trends were presented to state stakeholders at various meetings and events, such as broadband summits. The state’s first-ever broadband summit, themed Getting Every Community Online, drew stakeholders from across the state to the Gaylord Texan Hotel on June 5-7, 2012. Attendees representing a range of sectors – from education to agriculture – discussed many topics including job creation and the economic development that comes from expanding broadband access, adoption, and use. Texas Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples delivered the event’s keynote address highlighting the important role of broadband in rural development and gave encouraging news about the government’s efforts to expand broadband use. One of the key focuses of the summit was on growing broadband adoption particularly in rural areas. Connected Texas released a new rural broadband adoption report to kick-off the event revealing technology adoption and usage is lower among rural Texans than among those living in suburban and urban counties, including computer ownership, broadband adoption, and mobile broadband usage. This means that approximately 1.2 million rural Texans do not have broadband service at home for a variety of reasons. More than one in four rural Texans who do not subscribe to broadband (27%) say that cost is their main barrier to adopting high-speed Internet.

Connected Texas and TCEA co-hosted the Texas Broadband Symposium October 7-8, 2014 at TCEA’s headquarters in Austin, concentrating on the

importance of connecting all students to broadband and the steps to follow to overcome various obstacles toward statewide implementation.

The event began with the announcement of Connected Texas’ release of the Broadband and Education – Connecting Students in Texas report, and followed with panel sessions on challenges at the state and national level, historical and present funding of broadband access, success stories from around the state, approaches from other states, and school and community connections.

Speakers included Don Shirley and Tom Koutsky from Connected Texas and Connected Nation; Dr. Walt Magnussen, director of telecommunications at Texas A&M University; Dr. Mickey Slimp, executive director, Northeast Texas Consortium of Colleges and Universities (NETnet); Gloria Meraz, director of communications of the Texas Library Association; and Jeff Mao, senior director of learning solutions programs at Common Sense Media, to name a few.

Our compliments to TCEA for holding a great symposium and it’s clear that we collectively in Texas owe it to every child, and ultimately every citizen, to be able to provide the technological and computer support in schools around Texas. Hopefully what we’ve come out of this symposium with are some great ideas on how to move forward and achieve those results.

Judge John E. Firth

Coryell County

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|22

Attendees were divided into groups and were given the opportunity to collaborate on the identification of key barriers to providing broadband access to Texas schools, categorizing strategies that policymakers and practitioners can support to overcome barriers, as well as solutions and next steps. The event helped provided a better understanding of the challenges and best practices of providing broadband access to school districts across the state.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|23

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|24

CONNECTED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM Since 2011, Connected Texas has provided communities and their multitude of stakeholders with facilitated broadband and technology outreach and education through the Connected Community Engagement Program (Connected). Supported by data gathered through Connected Texas’ broadband mapping and research, the Connected program examines local technology conditions and benchmarking deficiencies and successes and creates a plan for expanding broadband and technology access, adoption, and use throughout a community. This is a comprehensive report to cover work completed and best practices from technical assistance projects in Texas. Connected leverages state-based, public-private partnerships to engage residents at the local level. The program coalesces and trains regional leaders and supports the formation of community broadband planning teams comprised of various cross-sector representatives. These teams work with Connected Texas to assess the existing broadband and technology landscape using criteria developed as part of a national community certification model. The assessment is separated into three distinct broadband measures: access, adoption, and use. Each criteria has a maximum of 40 points, with 120 points available overall. This scoring rubric enables Connected Texas to identify previously unrealized community needs; the goal of the program is to then empower informed and collaborative

local strategies and initiatives that target the specific technology gaps in the community. Each community is provided with a step-by-step action plan to meet their goals. The plan also supports future broadband expansion and programs that will help ensure that the community maintains widespread Internet access, adoption, and use. The entire assessment – from formation of the Connected Team to the completion of a technology action plan – lasts between 8 to 24 months, depending on the size of the team, the champion leading the effort, and other community-specific factors.

Connected communities have made great strides in addressing regional-specific issues. The program has helped communities implement projects to address connectivity and technology issues that include, but are not limited to, broadband infrastructure expansion, provider identification, digital literacy training to increase small business Internet use, and technology adoption. For example, in coordination with the TDA State Broadband Coordinator and Texas Broadband Task Force, Connected Texas

will establish approximately 29 planning teams at a regional or local level. The teams will conduct meetings throughout the project to benchmark technology use across relevant community sectors; set goals for improved technology use within each sector; and develop a plan for achieving its goals, with specific recommendations for web-based application development and demand creation. Both planning teams and the Texas Broadband Task Force will participate in an annual statewide strategic planning meeting to share best practices and identify and resolve any new barriers or challenges.

Connected Teams

Include:

Local government officials

Business owners

Schools

Libraries

Chambers of commerce

Economic development corporations

Farm Bureau members

Healthcare institutions

Emergency management

Native tribes

Internet service providers

Higher education And many others

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|25

The Connected Texas Community Engagement Program was able to produce only 12 technology action plans during the first two years of operation, but in the fall of 2013 a new two-fold strategy was implemented to both increase the number of communities engaged and the number of technology actions plans developed. The first strategy was to engage and develop relationships with the regional council of governments and the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) Regional Field Staff in order to gain regional support for the Community Engagement Program. Once the first strategy was launched, three new Community Technology Advisors were hired to increase the presence of the program in the field and to handle the rapidly increasing number of community engagements. The program quickly gained the support of four regional councils of government and the TDA Regional Field Staff that resulted in 36 additional new community engagements and 29 new technology action plans by end of the program in January of 2015.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|26

To date, in Texas 250 community planning meetings were held across the state by a total of 65 engaged communities and collaborated with local, cross-sectorial stakeholders. Four Texas communities have achieved Connected certified community status and 26 completed a technology action plan. Program staff assisted these communities in planning, scheduling, and facilitating local and regional planning sessions through the creation of meeting agendas and documentation of the work accomplished. Support was further provided to train community members to develop technology action plans. The progress of each community involved in the Connected program was tracked and monitored so that staff were able to provide support where needed and report to stakeholders on the progress of each community. The SBI program also offers expertise to the community team through detailed broadband mapping and analysis, technical services and data validation, and community outreach and awareness support.

Community Name Access Score

Adoption Score

Use Score

Total Score

Status Date

Published

Anderson County 22 12 40 74 Action Plan 1/22/2015

Bastrop County 37 38 40 115 Certified 11/13/2013

Bosque County 19 20 31 70 Action Plan 9/15/2013

Brewster County 25 34 38 97 Action Plan 12/3/2014

Cameron County 38 24 40 102 Action Plan 1/2/2015

Cass County 20 20 35 75 Action Plan 1/24/2014

City of Jacksboro 19 32 40 91 Action Plan 10/21/2014

City of Marfa 24 26 36 86 Action Plan 11/12/2014

City of Sealy 22 22 37 81 Action Plan 7/24/2014

City of Stamford 20 24 20 64 Action Plan 6/4/2013

City of Valentine 6 24 36 66 Action Plan 9/24/2014

Comanche County 14 8 29 51 Action Plan 2/12/2015

Coryell County 22 32 37 91 Action Plan 9/28/2014

Fayette County 27 38 37 102 Action Plan 2/16/2015

Fort Bend County 40 38 40 118 Certified 11/25/2014

Gillespie County 22 36 40 98 Action Plan 1/23/2013

Hidalgo County 38 40 34 112 Certified 1/2/2015

Jim Hogg County 29 2 20 51 Action Plan 1/29/2015

Kleberg County 40 22 28 90 Action Plan 1/29/2015

Lamar County 34 18 40 92 Action Plan 1/22/2015

McMullen County 19 0 18 37 Action Plan 5/22/2013

Mitchell County 30 4 16 50 Action Plan 9/12/2013

Montague County 27 32 33 92 Action Plan 12/16/2014

Sabine County 6 32 21 59 Action Plan 6/11/2013

San Augustine County 15 22 29 66 Action Plan 5/14/2013

Titus County 16 6 40 62 Action Plan 1/27/2015

Wharton County 11 36 35 82 Action Plan 9/9/2013

Willacy County 31 32 32 95 Action Plan 12/22/2014

Young County (1st

time) 29 36 37 102 Action Plan 6/25/2013

Young County (2nd

time) 32 38 37 107 Certified 8/19/2014

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|27

We are excited that Bastrop County has achieved the Connected certification. As one of the fastest growing counties in the state, we embrace what technology can do for our citizens. Connectivity helps us do everything more efficiently, whether it’s healthcare, education, agriculture, or business.

Judge Paul Pape Bastrop County

Bastrop County became the first certified Connected community in the state and 16th

in the nation. Through the program community members were able to assess the local broadband landscape, identify gaps, and establish actionable goals and objectives to increase broadband access, adoption, and use for families, organizations, and businesses throughout Bastrop County. Seven priority projects were detailed within Bastrop County’s Technology Action Plan:

1. Complete a Vertical Asset Inventory 2. Develop or Identify a Broadband Training and

Awareness Program for Small and Medium Businesses 3. Establish a “Digital Factory” 4. Identify, Map, and Validate Broadband Demand 5. Implement a Community-Based Technology Awareness

Program 6. Improve Online Business Services Offered by

Government 7. Pursue Next Generation 911 Upgrades

This Connected Texas team worked hard with partners and providers across the state to expand affordable, high-speed access to communities. The efforts paid off in

2013 when LiveAir Networks made 1 Gbps download

speeds available to residents in Smithville and La Grange; Smithville is located in Bastrop County. Young County became the second county in Texas to attain the distinction of being a certified Connected community, and was the first previously uncertified Texas community to implement specific projects in order

to obtain certification. Young County completed a technology action plan in June 2013; however, the county missed certification by three access points. Over the next year, the community began to implement some of the recommended projects, resulting in certification in July 2014. The Young County Technology Action Plan includes projects to expand digital literacy, including a commitment by the Graham Chamber of Commerce to host “Techie Tuesday” classes once per month, build awareness for the benefits of broadband, and assist businesses with technological training, as well as improving the online presence of local governments, among other entities. “Young County being certified by Connected Texas is probably one of the biggest rural advantages a community can have in bringing and finding quality residents and quality businesses. There is no reason that the charm of rural life changes because we have high technology,” said County Commissioner, Mike Sipes.

The East Texas Council of Governments and its fourteen counties in the East Texas region joined the Arkansas-Texas Council of Governments and its nine Texas counties to develop and implement separate Regional Broadband plans that could be funded and completed in phases. Through a partnership with Connected Texas, an initial data research phase was launched to benchmark each community and determine the gaps and low points of broadband access, adoption, and use. After the initial data research phase of the project, the data was used to determine gaps in broadband service within the region in order to develop a strategic plan which included specific equipment and

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|28

cost requirements. At the time of the termination of the Connected Texas program, 4 of the communities had developed their technology action plan with the remaining 19 communities in some phase of completion. The Rio Grande Council of Governments recognized the lack of broadband access was a key deterrent to economic expansion in the six counties that comprise the region. One of the key recommendations that began to emerge from the community engagements was for teams to conduct research surveys and market analyses to validate a business case for providers to expand services in their community. Using a survey template provided by the Connected Texas staff, several communities launched broadband survey projects and the GIS staff of the Rio Grande Council of Governments mapped the tabulated data in order to assist the communities in the development of a business case. At the time of the termination of the Connected Texas program three of the communities had developed their technology action plan with the remaining three communities in some phase of completion. Broadband and related technologies are essential for success in the twenty-first century connected global economy. Rural areas without adequate infrastructure, populations lacking digital literacy skills and businesses unaware of the benefits of technology use will continue to be left behind without targeted programs to address these gaps. Connected Texas’ mapping and research uncovers the persisting access and adoption needs throughout the state, while its Connected Community Engagement Program ensures that communities have the knowledge, support, and resources to close these divides and leverage broadband for improved community and economic development. While this report has highlighted successes under this collaboration, it is evident that additional work remains in order to ensure that all Texas communities and residents are connected to twenty-first century technology and have the skills and support to use it to its fullest.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|29

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|30

CONCLUSION Connected Texas has successfully worked over the last five years to accelerate broadband technology access, adoption, and use. In partnership with Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA), Connected Texas has worked closely with rural communities across the state to identify community broadband needs and advance a meaningful technology initiative. While Connected Texas’ impact has been significant, the challenges remain. More and faster broadband is needed across Texas, and Connected Texas needs your help. There’s never been a more important time. As technology evolves, the “digital divide” between urban and rural communities grows wider. Rural communities are left behind. For example, while multiple providers in Austin announced rolling out gigabit (1,000 Mbps) Internet connections, many rural communities are lucky if they have 3 Mbps service. Some communities in Texas still have no broadband at all. Moreover, based on the new broadband benchmark 25 Mbps speeds, almost half of Texas households are left behind. Texas will not be able to maintain its economic edge in the world without making advanced broadband a priority for the entire state. Connected Texas is proud of the progress Texans have made over the last five years, and our commitment to improving broadband technology is steadfast.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|31

APPENDIX

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|32

APPENDIX 1: PROVIDER’S ENGAGED BY CONNECTED TEXAS

PROVIDER PLATFORM WEBSITE ACI DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.aciglobal.com/

Air Net, LLC Fixed Wireless http://www.airnetllc.com

Airplexus, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.burlesoncountytx.com/airplexusinc.htm

Alamo Broadband, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.alamobroadband.com

Aledo Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.aledobroadband.com

Allegiance CATV Cable http://allegiance.tv

Alliance Communications Network

Cable http://www.alliancecable.net/

AMA Communications LLC Fixed Wireless http://www.amatechtel.com/

Amarillo Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.amarillowireless.net

Anvil Communications Fixed Wireless http://www.anvilcom.com

Argon Technologies Fixed Wireless http://www.argontech.net/

AT&T Mobility LLC Mobile Wireless http://www.wireless.att.com/

AT&T Southwest DSL, Fiber http://www.att.com

AwesomeNet Fixed Wireless http://www.awesomenet.net

Balatize Broadband Services Fixed Wireless http://balatize.com/

Basin 2 Way Fixed Wireless http://www.basin-net.net/

Basin Broadband, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.basinbroadband.com/

Bee Creek Communications, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://beecreek.net

Big Bend Telephone Company DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless, Satellite http://www.bigbend.net/

Blossom Telephone Company, Inc.

DSL, Fixed Wireless http://www.blossomtel.net

Border to Border Communications, Inc.

DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.border2border.com

Brazoria Telephone Company DSL http://btel.com

Brazos Internet DSL http://www.brazostelephone.com

Brazos WiFi Fixed Wireless http://www.brazoswifi.com/

Broadcomm.Us Fixed Wireless http://www.broadcomm.us

Broadwaves Fixed Wireless http://www.broadwaves.net

Buffalo Cable Television Cable http://www.buffalocabletv.com

Cable ONE Cable http://www.cableone.net

Cameron Communications DSL http://www.camtel.com

Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.caprock-spur.com

Cascom Fixed Wireless http://www.castrovillecomputers.com

CCWIP Fixed Wireless http://www.ccwip.net/

Central Link Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.centrallink.com

Central Texas Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

DSL, Fixed Wireless http://www.centex.net/

Centrovision, Inc. Cable http://www.centrovision.net/

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|33

PROVIDER PLATFORM WEBSITE CenturyLink DSL http://www.centurylink.com/

CG Communications, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.cgcomm.biz

Charter Communications, Inc. Cable http://www.charter.com

CKS Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.ckswireless.com

Coastal-Link Communications Cable http://btel.com/coastal-link/

Cogent Fiber http://www.cogentco.com

Coleman County Telephone Cooperative

DSL http://www.web-access.net

Colorado Valley Communications, Inc.

DSL, Fixed Wireless http://www.cvctx.com/

Comcast Cable http://www.comcast.com

Comcell DSL http://comcell.net

Communications Etc. Fixed Wireless http://www.communications-etc.com

Connextions Telcom DSL, Fiber http://www.cnext.com

Consolidated Communications DSL, Fiber http://www.consolidated.com

CPUonsite Fixed Wireless http://www.plainscomputing.com

Cricket Wireless Mobile Wireless http://www.mycricket.com/broadband

Cybercom Corporation Fixed Wireless http://www.txcyber.com

DCTexas Internet Fixed Wireless http://www.dctexas.com

Deep East Texas Communications

Fixed Wireless http://www.det-com.com

Dell Telephone Cooperative, Inc. DSL, Fixed Wireless, Fiber http://www.delltelephone.com/

Digital Passage, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.digitalpassage.com

Digitex.com Fixed Wireless http://digitex.com

East Texas Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.etbroadband.net

East Texas Cable Cable http://www.etcable.net

East Texas DSL Fixed Wireless http://www.eastexas.net

East Texas WiFi Fixed Wireless http://www.easttexaswifi.com

Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

DSL http://www.eastex.com/

Echo Wireless Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.echowibb.com

ECTISP, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.ectisp.net

Electra Telephone Company DSL http://www.electratel.com/

En-Touch Systems, Inc. Cable, Fiber http://www.entouch.net/

ERF Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.erfwireless.net

ETEX Communications, LP DSL, Fiber http://www.etex.net

Evolve Broadband Mobile Wireless http://www.evolvebroadband.com

Farm to Market Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.farm-market.net

Fidelity Communications Inc. Cable http://www.fidelitycommunications.com/

Ganado Telephone Company, Inc.

DSL http://www.ganadotel.com

Gecko Inter.Net Fixed Wireless http://www.geckointer.net

GEUS Cable http://www.geus.org

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|34

PROVIDER PLATFORM WEBSITE GHz Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.ghzwireless.com

GOCO Wireless, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://gocowireless.net

Gower Net Fixed Wireless http://www.gower.net

GoZoe Wireless, LLP Fixed Wireless http://www.gozoe.com/

Grande Communications Cable http://www.grandecom.com/

Gtek Computers and Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.gtek.biz

GVEC.net Fixed Wireless http://www.gvec.net

GVTC Communications Cable, DSL, Fiber http://www.gvtc.com/

Hallettsville Communications Fixed Wireless http://www.hal-comm.com

Harris Broadband LLP Fiber http://www.harrisbb.com

Hill Country Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

DSL, Fixed Wireless http://www.hctc.coop

Hillcountry Networks Fixed Wireless http://www.hillcountrytx.net

Hometown Computing Fixed Wireless http://www.htcomp.com/

Hughes Network Systems, LLC Satellite http://www.hughesnet.com/

IguanaNet Fixed Wireless http://iguananet.com

Indian Creek Internet Services, Inc.

Fixed Wireless http://www.indian-creek.net

Industry Telephone Company DSL http://www.industrytelco.com

Internet America, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.internetamerica.com

Kilgore Cable Television, Inc. Cable http://www.longviewcabletv.com/

La Ward Telephone Exchange, Inc.

DSL http://www2.laward.net

Lake Livingston Telephone Company, Inc.

DSL http://lakelivingstontel.com

Leaco Wireless, LLC Fixed Wireless http://www.leaco.net

Level 3 Communications, LLC Fiber http://www.level3.com/

Lipan Telephone Company DSL http://www.lipan.net

LiveAir Networks Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.liveair.net

Livingston Telephone Company, Inc.

DSL http://www.livingston.net

Local Choice Internet Fixed Wireless http://www.localchoiceinternet.com

Longview Cable Television, Inc. Cable http://www.longviewcabletv.com/

Los Guys Wireless Fixed Wireless N/A

LVWifi.com Fixed Wireless http://www.lvwifi.com

Mediastream Cable, Fixed Wireless http://www.mediastreamus.com

MegaPath Corporation DSL http://www.megapath.com

MetroPCS Wireless, Inc. Mobile Wireless http://www.metropcs.com

MEXUS Fixed Wireless http://www.mexus.net

Mid-Plains Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

DSL, Fiber http://www.midplains.coop

MobiNet, LLC Fixed Wireless http://www.mobinetllc.com/

Mountain Zone TV Systems Cable, Fixed Wireless http://www.mzbroadband.com/

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|35

PROVIDER PLATFORM WEBSITE MVC Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.mvcwireless.com/

NDemand Fixed Wireless http://www.ndemand.com

NetWest Online, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.airocom.net

New Source Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.newsourcebroadband.com/

NewWave Communications Cable http://www.newwavecom.com/

NextLink Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.nxlink.com

Nortex Communications Cable, DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.nortex.com

North Texas Broadband Cable http://www.northtxbroadband.com

North Texas Telephone Company DSL http://www.northtextel.net/

Northland Cable Television Cable http://www.yournorthland.com

NTS Communications, Inc. DSL, Fiber http://ntscom.com/

OneSource Communications Cabld, DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.1scom.com

Our-Town Internet Services Fixed Wireless http://www.our-town.com/

Pathway Com-Tel, Inc. Fiber http://www.usapathway.com/

Pathwayz Communications DSL, Fixed Wireless http://www.pathwayz.com

Peoples Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.peoplescom.net

Personal Touch Communications DSL, Fiber http://www.cumbytel.com/

Phoenix Broadband, LLC Fixed Wireless http://www.iatascosa.com/

Plateau Telecommunications, Inc.

DSL, Fiber http://plateautel.com/

Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.poka.com/

Prompt Technology Fixed Wireless http://www.prompt-tech.com/

PTCI Cable, DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless, Mobile Wireless

http://www.ptci.net/

Ranch Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.ranchwireless.com/

Reach Broadband Cable, Fixed Wireless http://reachbroadband.net

Reveille Broadband Cable http://www.reveillebroadband.com

Ridgewood Cable Fixed Wireless http://www.ridgewoodcable.com

Rioplex Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.rioplexwireless.com

Riviera Telephone Company, Inc. DSL http://www.rivnet.com

rNetworks Wireless Broadband Fixed Wireless https://www.facebook.com/rNetworksllc

Rock Solid Internet & Telephone Fixed Wireless http://www.getrsi.com

Rodzoo Wireless Fixed Wireless http://www.razerwireless.com/

Rural Texas Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.rtxbb.net

Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.santarosatelco.com

Skybeam Fixed Wireless http://skybeam.com/

Skycasters Satellite http://www.skycasters.com

Skynet Communications Fixed Wireless http://www.skynetwisp.com/

Skynet Country, LLC Fixed Wireless http://www.skynetcountry.com

SmartBurst, LLC Fixed Wireless http://www.smartburst.com

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|36

PROVIDER PLATFORM WEBSITE SmartCom Fixed Wireless http://www.sc2000.net

Smithville.net Fixed Wireless http://www.smithsys.net

SOS Communications Fixed Wireless http://www.soscomm.com/

South Plains Telephone Cooperative

DSL, Fiber http://www.sptc.net

Southwest Arkansas Telephone Cooperative

DSL, Fiber http://www.swat.coop

Southwest Texas Telephone Company

DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://my.swtexas.com

Speed of Light Broadband Fixed Wireless http://solbroadband.com

Sprint Mobile Wireless http://www.sprint.com

StarBand Communications Satellite http://starband.com/

Starnet Online Systems Fixed Wireless http://www.1starnet.com

Suddenlink Communications, LLC Cable http://www.suddenlink.com/

Tatum Telephone Company DSL http://www.tatumtel.net/

Taylor Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

DSL, Fiber http://online.taylortel.net/

TDS Telecom Cable http://www.bajabroadband.com

TekWav Fixed Wireless http://tekwav.com/

Telecom Cable, LLC Cable http://www.telecomcable.net

TetCoBiz Fixed Wireless http://www.tetcobiz.com/

Texas Broadband, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.texasbb.com/

Texas CellNet Fixed Wireless http://www.texascellnet.com/

Texas Communications Fixed Wireless http://www.texascom.com/

Texas Wireless Internet Fixed Wireless http://www.txwinet.com

TexasData Fixed Wireless http://www.texasdata.net/

Texhoma Wireless Fixed Wireless http://texhomawireless.com/

TGM Pinnacle Network Solutions Fixed Wireless http://pinnaclenetworksolutions.com

theSPECnet Fixed Wireless http://thespecnet.com

TierOne Networks Fixed Wireless http://www.tocn.com

Time Warner Cable Cable http://www.timewarnercable.com

TISD, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.tisd.net/

T-Mobile Mobile Wireless http://www.t-mobile.com

Totelcom Communications, LLC DSL, Fixed Wireless http://www.totelcom.net/

Transworld Network, Corp. Fixed Wireless http://www.twncorp.com

TV Cable of Grayson County Cable http://www.graysoncable.com/

tw telecom of texas, llc DSL, Fiber http://www.twtelecom.com

Twin Wireless, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.twin.net/

TXOL Internet Inc Fixed Wireless http://www.txol.net/

U.S. Cellular Mobile Wireless http://www.uscellular.com

Verizon DSL, Fiber http://www22.verizon.com/

Verizon Wireless Mobile Wireless http://www.verizonwireless.com/

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|37

PROVIDER PLATFORM WEBSITE VersaLink Cable http://versalinkus.com/media.html

ViaSat Satellite http://www.viasat.com/

VOWnet Fixed Wireless http://www.vownet.net/

VRFuturenet Fixed Wireless http://www.cirranet.net/

VTX1 DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.vtci.net

WaveDirect Telecommunications LLC

Fixed Wireless http://www.wavedirect.net/

Wavelinx Fixed Wireless http://www.wavelinx.net

Web Fire Communications DSL http://www.wf.net

Web-Access Fixed Wireless http://www.web-access.net

West Central Net Fixed Wireless http://www.wcsonline.net/

West Plains Telecommunications, Inc.

DSL, Fiber http://www.fivearea.com/

West Texas Rural Telephone Cooperative

Cable, DSL, Fiber http://www.wtrt.net

Western Broadband Fixed Wireless http://www.westernbroadband.com

WesTex DSL, Fiber, Fixed Wireless http://www.westex.coop

WesTex Connect Internet Services

Fixed Wireless http://www.wtconnect.com

Wharton County Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Fixed Wireless http://www.wcecnet.net

Windstream Corporation DSL http://www.windstream.com

XIT Communications DSL, Fiber http://www.xit.net/

Zeecon Wireless Internet, LLC Fixed Wireless http://zeecon.com

ZipLink Internet.com Fixed Wireless http://www.ziplinkinternet.com

Zipnet.us Fixed Wireless http://zipnet.us

Zito Media Cable http://www.zitomedia.com/

Zochnet Fixed Wireless http://www.zochnet.com/

Zulu Internet, Inc. Fixed Wireless http://www.zuluinternet.com

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|38

APPENDIX 2: MY CONNECTVIEWTM

INTERACTIVE MAP SCREENSHOT EXAMPLE

The following provides a screenshot of My ConnectView TM with focus on broadband service types available in the Austin, Texas area. The full map is available at http://www.connectedtx.org/interactive-map.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|39

APPENDIX 3: CONNECTED TEXAS MAPS

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|40

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|41

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|42

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|43

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|44

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|45

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|46

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|47

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|48

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|49

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|50

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|51

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|52

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|53

APPENDIX 4: RURAL BROADBAND EXPERIMENTS IN TEXAS

The following is a comprehensive list of expressions of interest filed in Texas as of April 1, 2014:

Name of Filer Expression Filed

4ip Technology & Media, LLC http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089727

Alenco Communications, Inc. (ACI) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089515

Ranch Wireless, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089528

Ark-Tex & East Texas Councils of Governments

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089402

Big Bend Telephone Company (3/10/14) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521090043

Big Bend Telephone Company (3/7/14) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089039

Bluebonnet Electric Cooperative http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089258

Border to Border Communications, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088855

Brazoria Telephone Company, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089476

Cap Rock Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088739

CD Networks, LLC http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088694

Coleman County Telephone Cooperative http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089803

Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (CLEC) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089535

Cumby Telephone Cooperative, Inc. (ILEC) http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089529

Eastex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089012

Electronic Corporate Pages, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088838

Etex Telecom http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089123

Etex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089126

Fidelity Communications Co. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089740

GCEC Telecom http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089816

Harris Broadband LLP http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089572

Hill Country Telecommunications, LLC http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521081767

JAB Wireless, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089243

Texas Lone Star Network http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089456

LiveAir Networks http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521090346

Livingston Telephone Company http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089054

Mid-Plains Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088724

NDemand, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089919

Neu Ventures dba Mountain Zone TV Systems http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089636

New Source Broadband I LLC http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088613

North Texas Telephone Company http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088667

Panhandle Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089477

Pedernales Electric Cooperative http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089834

Peoples Wireless Services & Peoples Communication, Inc.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089305

Poka Lambro Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088790

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|54

Riviera Telephone Company, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089295

Rural Texas Broadband http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089253

Santa Rosa Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088996

South Plains Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088440

Southwest Arkansas Telephone Cooperative, Inc.

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088653

Suddenlink Communications http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521092630

Texas 10, LLC d/b/a Cellular One and Central Louisiana Cellular

http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089767

Totelcom Networks, LLC http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088668

TWIN, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089602

Unified Communications Inc. D.B.A. ZochNet http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089707

VTX Telecom, LLC http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089022

W. T. Services, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088149

Wes-Tex Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089320

West Texas Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088150

WSSP Inc./Matt Wallace http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521088484

XIT Telecommunication & Technology, Ltd. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521089540

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|55

APPENDIX 5: ENGINEERING & TECHNICAL SERVICES FIELD VALIDATION TECHNIQUES

Introduction Connected Nation, Inc. is a not-for-profit working across states and with the federal government to implement the State Broadband Data and Development (SBDD) program created by the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008 and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and is managed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) within the Department of Commerce. One of the main components of the SBDD program is the creation of a detailed, nationwide map of broadband coverage in order to accurately pinpoint remaining gaps in broadband availability across the nation. Connected Nation is the largest mapping agent across the nation supporting the SBDD program, working in Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas to collect, process, integrate, and validate provider data, and map the broadband inventory across these jurisdictions. Connected Nation’s methodology for fulfilling the charge of the SBDD program starts with first establishing a trustworthy relationship with the dozens and sometimes hundreds of providers in each jurisdiction. Our mapping and engineering experts work with the providers to understand what data they have or can develop in-house describing their service territory by speed tier. Connected Nation then processes these data through a validation process that helps ensure the accuracy of the mapping data. This validation process is informed by, among other methods, broadband inquiries provided by consumers and local stakeholders about the information depicted through Connected Nation’s interactive broadband maps. This crowdsourcing approach is instrumental in helping to guide our validation process. Where providers are unable or unwilling to participate in the program and share data about their service territory, Connected Nation implements an estimation of their service territory using various techniques. This white paper provides an overview of Connected Nation’s methodology for provider outreach and relationship management, consumer data collection, and analysis to leverage crowdsourcing data stemming from broadband inquiries, and field validation of data volunteered by thousands of participating broadband providers. The memorandum also describes Connected Nation’s methodology for estimating the broadband coverage of providers who do not choose to participate in the SBDD program and volunteer estimates of their service territory.

Provider Relationship Management Over the past two years, Connected Nation’s Engineering & Technical Services (“ETS”) team has created a strong rapport with broadband providers on a local and national level. The goal was to develop trustworthy relations with thousands of providers across the jurisdictions where we are charged with completing a broadband inventory map: Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Beginning with an initial database of several thousand potential providers two years ago, the ETS team has contacted every known provider of broadband services in 12 U.S. states and territories, spoken with provider executives and broadband technicians, identified that the companies were viable providers of backhaul and residential broadband services, and learned about each of the 1,400 viable broadband service businesses. The ETS team has worked with providers, large and small, to understand what data they had available or could develop within the allotted time; it has collected these data and in tandem with Connected Nation’s mapping team of GIS technicians, validated, integrated, and ultimately mapped the service territory of approximately 1,400 providers.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|56

The NITA requires two annual updates to the SBDD mapping data – one in the spring and one in the fall. During these biannual mapping cycles, each provider is contacted at least three times by ETS team members by e-mail or telephone. Each year, providers rely on Connected Nation’s ETS team members as well for information about mapping updates or federal programs. While in the field, ETS team members also meet and talk face-to-face with broadband business owners, ask questions, and learn a variety of useful information:

What challenges do providers face in the current business environment?

Which providers are growing and which are contracting?

Which providers seek help and which have received assistance?

Which providers are reluctant to participate in special programs?

Which providers have compelling success stories that can be shared?

Who is pushing the envelope to extend broadband services in new ways and to more remote locations?

How is new broadband deployment financed in different regions and for different platforms?

How have federal stimulus funding programs impacted the business?

Do providers find the annual RUS funds accessible and practical to manage?

Members of the ETS team regularly attend provider conferences and trade shows to stay abreast of ever-changing regulatory and technical advances. On many occasions, the attending ETS team member is participating as one of the defining speakers to share knowledge on broadband mapping, digital literacy, broadband adoption and sustainability programs, and to report on real-time research analysis conducted by Connected Nation.

Consumer Data Collection and Analysis Broadband inquiries (“BBIs”) are submitted frequently by consumers via Connected Nation’s state-level websites. Inquirers often seek help to identify local broadband provider options, or to learn when a specific provider may be able to provide service at a particular location. Consumer comments also provide information which may help validate the underlying mapping data. To date, Connected Nation has received more than 20,000 BBIs, representing a large crowdsourcing database of service information and consumer experiences. The primary objectives of Connected Nation regarding these inquiries are to 1) improve the accuracy of the state maps with submitted consumer information and follow-up field research, 2) provide broadband options to consumers through cooperation with mapped providers and by facilitating new broadband service options, and 3) map and analyze information from consumers about areas of unmet broadband demand and alternatives to currently mapped services. The process for responding to a BBI is straightforward, while the tools used by the ETS team are varied. Tools include the state BroadbandStat maps, ArcGIS Explorer for reviewing (i) confidential provider inventory maps, (ii) geocoded BBIs; and (iii) geocoded tower location maps, provider data submission updates, provider websites, QuickBase, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) Spectrum Dashboard, FCC Universal Licensing System and Antenna Structure Registration databases, and a plethora of other useful resources. Following completion of desktop research and a provider inventory for the BBI address, an ETS team member speaks directly to the BBI consumer to gather more specific information, with the objective of

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|57

either: a) confirming or revising the BBI’s provider inventory, or b) gathering information about possible broadband options near the BBI address. While the mapping engine is designed to capture the supply of broadband services in any particular state, the BBI process has the ability to capture demand information, and measure that demand against the available supply. Examples of questions that may be answered by a completed BBI dataset:

Where are there concentrations of unmet demand (e.g., neighborhoods, lakeshores, school district boundaries)?

Where are areas where consumers say price is a barrier for broadband adoption?

Which providers are most often reported as mapped, but not providing service?

How many unserved consumers are close to a wireless tower, and how many might be able to receive wireless broadband with installation of a signal repeater?

What service platform is most requested by BBI consumers?

Which service providers are most often requested by BBI consumers?

The answers to these and other questions present opportunities to Connected Nation for identifying and participating in broadband expansion opportunities and challenges. Following the completion of the provider inventory with the consumer, the ETS team member can offer the consumer location-specific options for obtaining service, such as providing contact information for providers that the consumer was unaware were available, including satellite providers offering service and equipment assistance in certain situations. Potentially, the BBI process can capture information related to satellite referrals and other data points. Further, in instances where the provider inventory indicates a mapping discrepancy, the GIS department can potentially capture information related to census-block and road-segment reporting. Such information can yield other information, such as which platform is more likely to be overstated due to these issues, or what percentage of the mapped population is affected by use of these reporting blocks. Although Connected Nation’s GIS department could have simply created a “pin-point polygon” around the customer’s home demonstrating no service on the Connected Nation online broadband mapping platform, follow-up calls to the consumer indicated a larger potential problem: the consumer commented on the mapped area stating that cable modem service is “generally unavailable for several miles on my road.” The ETS team elected to conduct on-site research, and the results of the field validation effort produced a fairly noticeable mapping refinement (the pink shading at right represents the provider service area while the dark red line indicates where there is no cable plant).

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|58

Mapping discrepancies similar to the example above are certainly to be expected in areas where providers submit census-block data. At left, the red-line polygon indicates an unserved area within the orange-shaded service region. This discussion drives home the importance of BBI, crowdsourcing information and the field validation effort as a way of resolving broadband inquiries, improving the broadband maps, and responding more fully to clients, the general public demanding broadband, and other stakeholders.

Field Data Collection Connected Nation’s ETS team has driven nearly 100,000 miles and completed thousands of on-site

validations of data submitted by the thousands of broadband providers included in Connected Nation broadband maps. Provider field validations are performed throughout the calendar year to meet NTIA requirements, as well as to test and confirm provider service boundaries, deployed assets, broadband speeds, and delivery platforms. ETS team members utilize a variety of resources for validation support, including provider coverage maps, FCC databases, and volunteered provider data submissions. Validation locations are selected based on a broad set of criteria, and include all platform types. A significant benefit to field work is that the ETS team gains a better understanding of the local broadband environment while on-site and can identify previously unknown broadband providers – particularly, fixed wireless providers. Such first-hand knowledge can be an important asset in informing future programs. Various tools, visual inspections, and tests provide the basis for a validation report. ETS engineers utilize spectrum analyzers and frequency-tuned antennas, GPS devices, cameras, and mapping programs to test, capture, and record validation information. All validation information can now be recorded directly into Connected Nation’s QuickBase tool for geocoding, review, analysis, and reporting. Using common laptop computer software, ETS engineers can access open broadband connections, determine the first-, middle-, and last-mile providers for an Internet connection, and complete speed tests through Connected Nation’s online speed test tools or through other speed-test utilities. Visual confirmation of a provider’s presence in a community includes visiting provider offices and network operations centers, identifying and inspecting overhead (utility pole) and underground (pedestals and cabinets) gear labeled with provider names, seeking print-media listings and outdoor advertisements, researching federal licenses and local franchises, and testing wireless frequencies for transmissions and signal strengths. Validations may also include direct communication with broadband consumers in the provider’s service area.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|59

Data Validation of Participating Provider Field validations on data volunteered by broadband providers begin weeks in advance of the field trips as members of the ETS team work to prioritize an area of the state for field visitation. As described above, this process is also informed by crowdsourcing data collected through broadband inquiries from the general public. The next task involves identifying all viable providers in the defined area and determining their current level of participation in the broadband mapping program. Contact attempts are made to schedule on-site visits with providers to engage active participation in the validation process and to further the relationship. Lastly, ETS specialists will research the FCC Spectrum Dashboard to identify licensed mobile and fixed wireless spectrum users in the area. Armed with relevant data, provider appointments and an arsenal of test equipment (as shown below), the ETS team member sets out to determine how closely the actual broadband environment matches the graphic depiction displayed on the Connected Nation state-level interactive broadband map. The video available at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNMEQKHbDls provides an example of a typical Connected Nation field validation performed by ETS member Dwayne Goodman in Midlothian, a community south of Dallas, Texas. Another typical field validation exercise was conducted on broadband data provided to Connected Nation by a fixed wireless provider in Michigan using licensed BRS spectrum to deliver broadband services across mostly rural areas in the upper portion of Michigan’s Lower Peninsula. The ETS member is armed with a propagation map such as the one depicted below displaying coverage in Alden, MI, which is 21.5 miles from the wireless provider’s transmit site west of Traverse City, MI. Using the data submitted by the provider, the ETS team conducting this field validation calculated a receiver threshold at the test point of approximately -81dBm using a 9dBi gain receive antenna, and an actual field reading of -83.2dBm, as depicted in the chart on the following page.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|60

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|61

Occasionally, field validations uncover information that is contrary to data submitted by a provider. One such instance involved a Michigan Competitive Local Exchange Carrier (CLEC) that had provided coordinates for a remote terminal, a field enclosure that houses DSL distribution equipment (see picture below). The CLEC affirmed they provided DSL services to the surrounding community over copper owned by the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC), but from equipment owned by the CLEC. An ETS team member drove to the listed coordinates and located underground telephone pedestals belonging to the ILEC, but there was no remote terminal enclosure belonging to the CLEC. What was found at that location was a concrete pad with empty conduit. This suggests that someone prepared for an enclosure to be installed, but no equipment is in place and no wires have been installed. Such field validation is then used to make relevant corrections to that provider’s estimated broadband service territory.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|62

Data Submission of Non-Participating Provider In instances where providers are unable or unwilling to participate in the data collection process, Connected Nation has developed an internal “play book” of best practices necessary for extraction of data from a combination of field validation techniques paired with publically available data. One such example includes Connected Nation’s estimation of San Juan Cable, LLC’s or OneLink Communications’ service territory for the cable broadband provider in the greater San Juan area in Puerto Rico. Connect Puerto Rico, a wholly owned subsidiary of Connected Nation, is working for the Office of the Chief Information Officer of Puerto Rico (OCIO) to implement the SBDD program across Puerto Rico. Background: Following the protocols described in this memorandum, from September 2009 to the present, Connected Nation’s staff, as well as staff from OCIO, have reached out to OneLink Communications on numerous occasions to inform them about the SBDD mapping program goals and processes and engage the company in a secure, trustworthy partnership to ensure accurate mapping of its broadband service territory. Despite Connected Nation’s and OCIO’s best efforts, to date we have been unable to engage OneLink Communications in meaningful discussions about its broadband service coverage. Identification of Provider’s Legal Name, d.b.a., and FRN: Connected Nation began building a file of OneLink’s profile based on anecdotal information and, as time progressed, enriched the file with information obtained through the public domain. For example, Connected Nation received information from the Junta Reglamentadora de Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico (“JRT”) indicating that territory once operated by Adelphia was the same territory now operated by OneLink. A search for a Federal Registration Number (“FRN”) on the FCC COmmission REgistration System (“CORES”) system did not yield results. It was later discovered that the entity of record with the JRT was, in fact, San Juan Cable, LLC. A new search on the FCC CORES site yielded an FRN of 0013778857 and additional contact data. Identification of Provider’s Coverage Area: Connected Nation extracted the municipality boundaries where the company operates from OneLink’s publicly available website and used the company’s published boundaries to create a GIS shapefile of the greatest advertised broadband package offered across OneLink’s service area.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|63

These polygons were then compared against generic data supplied by OneLink during the course of attempted communication (see comparative illustration below). The purple shaded area is Connected Nation’s coverage polygon extracted from OneLink’s website and the red outlines illustrate the franchisee boundaries submitted by OneLink.

Using this combined coverage polygon as the basis for further investigation, Connected Nation set out on an exploratory “drive test” to determine where cable plant existed and estimate where cable modem likely existed in the greater San Juan area. During the period of February 7 - 11, 2011, Connected Nation deployed five ETS members (all highly trained former telecommunications operators) to conduct a thorough analysis of OneLink’s “alleged” coverage area.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|64

At the conclusion of this week-long exercise, Connected Nation had driven through several hundred miles of the OneLink franchise area, located above-ground and underground plant (consisting of both fiber and coaxial cable), visited with and surveyed numerous local residents inquiring about their broadband service, obtained collateral material from OneLink’s local offices (to determine maximum advertised connection speeds), and created a polygon that illustrates the identified and likely coverage area of OneLink. The image below shows the results of the validation efforts in terms of the revisions made to the advertised

cable broadband availability in the greater San Juan area. Polygons in red, demonstrate areas where Connected Nation reasonably believes broadband “gaps” exist in OneLink’s franchise area. Connected Nation submitted the purple-shaded areas, along with full attributes, as the estimate of OneLink’s broadband service territory to the NTIA in the Puerto Rico SBDD broadband data submission of April 1, 2011.

Validation Achievements In-field validations have proven to be the most reliable verification method of local broadband landscapes across jurisdictions mapped by Connected Nation. No other methodology can ascertain deployed asset coordinates, wireless broadband frequency and signal strength attributes, and physical plant locations as accurately as being there in person. The Connected Nation ETS team has discovered cable broadband services where they were not reported to exist, no cable broadband where it was reported to exist, missing DSL equipment, and wireless broadband towers at locations other than reported, which directly affects signal coverage area. All of this information is used to revise, refine, and reconfirm the mapping database that ultimately feeds the National Broadband Map.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|65

Additionally, many fixed wireless providers operate “below the radar,” meaning they are not a member of any association, and typically do not advertise their services, but they still offer a viable service with broadband speeds often exceeding those of DSL providers. The only dependable process to certify there is no fixed wireless broadband coverage in a given area is to conduct a frequency analysis with a spectrum analyzer across all available frequencies.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|66

APPENDIX 6: RESIDENTIAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Connected Texas estimated broadband adoption and barriers to adoption through a series of random digit dial telephone surveys conducted from 2010 through 2014. The samples for each residential survey, as well as the margins of error, are as follows:

The statewide and rural broadband adoption estimates for 2014 are the result of a random digit dial telephone survey of 1,009 adults in Texas between September 19 and November 6, 2014. Of the 1,000 respondents randomly contacted statewide, 200 were called on their cellular phones and 800 were contacted via landline telephone. Once the respondent agreed to participate, surveys took approximately ten (10) minutes to complete. To ensure that each sample was representative of the state's adult population for each survey, Connected Texas set quotas by age, gender, and county of residence, then weighted the results to coincide with the most recent United States Census population estimates for each year. As with any survey, question wording and the practical challenges of data collection may have introduced an element of error or bias that is not reflected in the reported margins of error. Connected Texas applied rim weighting to correct for minor variations and to ensure that the samples matched the most recent U.S. Census estimates of the state's adult population by age, gender, and the urban/rural classification of each respondent's county of residence. For the purpose of setting quotas and weighting, Connected Texas defines "rural" respondents as adults living in a county that is not a part of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), as designated by the United States Office of Management and Budget. Connected Texas defines “low-income households” as those reporting annual household incomes less than $25,000. Thoroughbred Research Group, located in Louisville, Kentucky, conducted the surveys in English and Spanish on behalf of Connected Texas. Lucidity Research, LLC, of Westminster, Maryland, provided weighting and research consultation. Connected Texas calculated cross-tabulations using WinCross 11.0 and used SPSS Statistics v. 20 for weighting and regression analyses. Starting in 2011, surveys and survey methodologies were peer reviewed by experts in the fields of data collection and analysis. Dr. Sharon Strover of the University of Texas at Austin reviewed the results and survey methodology used in the most recent (2014) residential survey. As part of the State Broadband Initiative grant program, Connected Nation, Inc. and its subsidiaries have been surveying broadband adoption and use in eight states since 2010 using the same survey questions and methodologies. In any given year in any one particular state, small sample sizes among respondents in the cross-tabulated portions of the state samples can result in wide variations in observed results and wide margins of error. For this reason, Connected Texas employed a logistic regression model to estimate broadband adoption and mobile adoption rates for Hispanics, African Americans, low-income households, households with children, and adults age 65 and older

Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

All respondents 1,221 1,197 1,202 1,200 1,000

Effective sample size (post-weighting) 1,024 797 850 789 734

Margin of error ( percentage point +/-)* 3.06% 3.47% 3.36% 3.49% 3.62%

Rural respondents 400 398 402 398 247

Effective sample size (post-weighting) 395 281 167 118 173

Margin of error (percentage point +/-)* 4.93% 5.85% 7.58% 9.02% 7.45%

*Margins of error reported at the 95% CI, based on the post-weighting effective sample size

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|67

from 2010-2014. Connected Texas calculated these estimates based on a number of demographic factors that have historically been studied as having impacts on home broadband adoption rates (including age, employment, race, ethnicity, household income, the presence of children at home, education level, state of residence, and whether the household was in a rural portion of the state), as well as a time element. The estimated results as well as the observed results can be found in Appendix 11. The model used in the calculation of the estimated samples can be found in Appendix 7. Connected Texas conducted these residential surveys as part of the State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant program, funded by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The SBI grant program was created by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), unanimously passed by Congress in 2008 and funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|68

APPENDIX 7: LOGISTIC REGRESSION MODEL FOR HOME BROADBAND ADOPTION

Data

Data were collected through random digit dial surveys of adults in eight states: Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The dataset includes 46,613 cases from Connected Nation’s 2010-2014 Residential Technology Assessments in those eight states.

This dataset has a binary response dependent variable called “Broadband” which is equal to 1 if a respondent reported that s/he subscribed to broadband at home, and 0 if the respondent said that s/he did not subscribe to any home Internet service or only subscribed to dial-up Internet service. The independent variables were chosen as those that have historically been studied as linked to home broadband adoption and are as follows: sample (indicating whether a respondent was contacted by landline or cell phone), age, employment status, educational attainment, survey year, state of residence, presence of children at home, race/ethnicity, annual household income, and home computer ownership. Model Summaries

The overall test for the model gives chi-square test of 18900.762 with p-value of 0 indicates that the model as a whole fits significantly better than a null model (a model with no independent variable); 87.5% of respondents have been accurately classified as being a home broadband adopter or not by this model; The Hosmer and Lemeshow's goodness of fit test gives a p-value of 0.27 to reflect that this model adequately fit the data.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|69

Model6

Independent variable B S.E. Wald df Sig. Odds Ratio

Sample(ref: contacted by Landline) -.406 .035 138.252 1 0 .666

Age(ref:18-34) 180.456 4 0

35-44 0.018 0.057 0.099 1 0.753 1.018 45-54 -0.236 0.053 19.991 1 0 0.79 55-64 -0.298 0.057 27.593 1 0 0.742 65 or older -0.74 0.061 148.369 1 0 0.477

Employment status (ref: employed) -0.086 0.039 4.802 1 0.028 0.918

Educational attainment (ref: college degree or above)

295.116 3 0

No high school diploma -0.98 0.072 185.352 1 0 0.375 High school diploma -0.624 0.045 195.47 1 0 0.536 Some college -0.245 0.045 30.165 1 0 0.783

Year(ref: 2014) 263.199 4 0

2010 -0.585 0.056 109.149 1 0 0.557 2011 -0.501 0.056 78.825 1 0 0.606 2012 -0.075 0.058 1.697 1 0.193 0.927 2013 0.069 0.058 1.401 1 0.237 1.071

State(ref: Texas) 28.184 7 0 Iowa -0.059 0.066 0.799 1 0.371 0.943 Michigan 0.008 0.066 0.016 1 0.9 1.008 Minnesota 0.035 0.068 0.261 1 0.61 1.035 Nevada 0.229 0.068 11.319 1 0.001 1.258 Ohio 0.01 0.066 0.021 1 0.884 1.01 South Carolina -0.045 0.066 0.453 1 0.501 0.956 Tennessee -0.09 0.067 1.794 1 0.18 0.914

Number of children at home 0.121 0.031 14.977 1 0 1.129

Race/ethnicity (ref: white non-Hispanic) 41.979 3 0 African Americans -0.29 0.06 23.639 1 0 0.748 Hispanics -0.342 0.072 22.422 1 0 0.711 Other races or ethnicities 0.025 0.106 0.058 1 0.81 1.026

Household income (ref: $75,000 or more) 658.832 4 0 Less than $25,000 -1.342 0.055 589.801 1 0 0.261 $25,000 to less than $35,000 -1.025 0.059 299.919 1 0 0.359 $35,000 to less than $50,000 -0.816 0.055 218.832 1 0 0.442 $50,000 to less than $75,000 -0.447 0.054 68.285 1 0 0.639

Computer ownership (ref: no computer at home)

4.115 0.062 4413.038 1 0 61.225

Constant -0.68 0.047 211.602 1 0 0.507

6 B- These are values of bi in the equation of log(p/1-p)=b0+b1x1+ b2x2+ b3x3+...+bixi, where p is the probability of individuals

subscribing to home broadband service, and xi are demographical variables such as age and household income; S.E.- These are standard errors associated with the coefficient of B; Wald and Sig- Wald chi-square value and 2-tailed p-value are used to test the null hypothesis that the coefficient of B is 0. At the level of 0.05, the p-value of 0.05 or less indicates that the coefficient of B is significantly different from 0; df- Degrees of freedom for each test of B; Odds Ratio- These are the exponentiations of B, indicating each group’s likelihood of subscribing to home broadband service when compared to the reference group.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|70

APPENDIX 8: CONNECTED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM PROCESS

The Connected Community Engagement Program planning framework provides a clear path for the sustainable acceleration of broadband access, adoption, and use.

Step 1: Engage. Successful strategies to bridge the local digital divide and increase broadband access, adoption, and use are predicated on broad and sustained stakeholder participation. A successful local technology planning team should include people from multiple sectors, including:

State and Local Government

Public Safety

Education (K-12, Higher Ed)

Library

Business & Industry

Agriculture

Recreation and Tourism

Healthcare

Community Organizations

Technology Providers Step 2: Assess. The Connected planning process guides the local technology planning team through an assessment of community technology resources, strengths, assets, needs, and gaps in order to identify and develop strategies to address specific technology gaps and opportunities in the community. The Connected assessment framework is separated into three distinct broadband

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|71

measures: access, adoption, and use. Each area has a maximum of 40 points. To achieve Connected certification, the community must have a minimum of 32 points within each section and 100 out of the 120 points total overall. The ACCESS criteria determine whether a broadband and technology foundation exists within a community. The measurement seeks to identify gaps in the local broadband ecosystem, such as last and middle mile issues, cost barriers, and competition needs. Access scores are determined by evaluating:

Broadband Availability – is measured by analyzing provider availability of at least 3 Mbps download and 768 Kbps upload broadband service gathered by Connected Nation’s broadband mapping program. In communities that may have broadband data missing, community teams were able to improve the quality of data to ensure all providers are included.

Broadband Speed – is measured by analyzing the speed tiers available within a community. Connected Nation will analyze broadband data submitted through its broadband mapping program. Specifically, Connected Nation will break down the coverage by the highest speed tier with at least 75% of households covered. In communities that may have broadband data missing, community teams were able to improve the quality of data to ensure all providers are included.

Broadband Competition – is measured by analyzing the number of broadband providers available in a particular community and the percentage of that community’s residents with more than one broadband provider available. Connected Nation performed this analysis by reviewing the data collected through the broadband mapping program. In communities that may have broadband data missing, community teams were able to improve the quality of data to ensure all providers are included.

Middle Mile Access – is measured based on a community’s availability to fiber. Three aspects of availability exist: proximity to fiber middle mile points of presence (POPs), number of fiber middle mile providers available, and available bandwidth. Data was collected by the community in coordination with Connected Nation.

Mobile Broadband Availability – is measured by analyzing provider availability of mobile broadband service gathered by Connected Nation’s broadband mapping program. In communities that may have mobile broadband data missing, community teams were able to improve the quality of data to ensure all providers are included.

The ADOPTION component seeks to ensure that all local residents have access to and the ability to use broadband. Broadband adoption scores are comprised of:

Digital Literacy – is measured by first identifying all digital literacy programs in the community. Once the programs are determined, a calculation of program graduates will

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|72

be made on a per capita basis. A digital literacy program includes any digital literacy course offered for free or at very low cost through a library, seniors center, community college, K-12 school, or other group serving the local community. A graduate is a person who has completed the curriculum offered by any organization within the community. The duration of individual courses may vary.

Public Computer Centers – is measured based on the number of hours computers are available each week per 1,000 low-income residents. Available computer hours is calculated by taking the overall number of computers multiplied by the number of hours open to a community during the course of the week.

Broadband Awareness – is measured based on the percentage of the population reached. All community broadband awareness programs are first identified, and then each program’s community reach is compiled and combined with other campaigns.

Vulnerable Population Focus – A community tallies each program or ability within the community to encourage technology adoption among vulnerable groups. Methods of focusing on vulnerable groups may vary, but explicitly encourage technology use among vulnerable groups. Example opportunities include offering online GED classes, English as a Second Language (ESL) classes, video-based applications for the deaf, homework assistance for students, and job-finding assistance. Communities receive points for each group on which they focus. Groups may vary by community, but include low-income, minority, senior, children, etc.

The USE measurement seeks to realize the value of broadband on the community. As defined by the National Broadband Plan, meaningful use of broadband benefits individuals, organizations, and communities through economic, education, government, and healthcare opportunities. Use scores are comprised of:

Economic Opportunity – A community receives one point per basic use of broadband and two points per advanced use of broadband. Categories within economic opportunity include: economic development, business development, tourism, and agriculture.

Education – A community receives one point per basic use of broadband and two points per advanced use of broadband. Categories within education include K-12, higher education, and libraries.

Government – A community receives one point per basic use of broadband and two points per advanced use of broadband. Categories within government include general government, public safety, energy, and the environment.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|73

Healthcare – A community receives one point per basic use of broadband and two points per advanced use of broadband. Entities within healthcare can include, but are not limited to, hospitals, medical and dental clinics, health departments, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and pharmacies.

Step 3: Plan. Once community resources and needs are identified, the community planning team begins to identify local priorities and policies, programs, and technical solutions that will accelerate broadband access, adoption, and use. Connected Nation provides recommended actions based on best practices from communities across the United States. Step 4: Act. The technology planning team works together to ensure that selected policies, programs, and technical solutions are adopted, implemented, improved, and maintained. The Connected program also provides a platform for collaboration and the sharing of best practices between communities. Connected Nation provides communications support to raise awareness of your community’s efforts. For communities that measurably demonstrate proficiency in broadband access, adoption, and use in the Connected Assessment, Connected Nation offers Connected certification, a nationally recognized certification that provides an avenue for pursuing opportunities as a recognized, technologically advanced community. For more information about the Connected program, visit: www.connectmycommunity.org.

ACCESS ADOPTION USE 1. Broadband Availability 6. Digital Literacy 10. Economic Opportunity 2. Broadband Speeds 7. Public Computer Centers 11. Education 3. Broadband Competition 8. Broadband Awareness 12. Government 4. Middle Mile Access 9. Vulnerable Population Focus 13. Healthcare 5. Mobile Broadband Availability

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|74

County Name Broadband Availability

Score

Broadband Speed Score

Broadband Competition

Score

Middle-Mile Score

Mobile Score

Total Access Score

Anderson County 10 1 1 6 10 22

Bastrop County 10 2 5 10 10 37

Bosque County 2 1 0 6 10 19

Brewster County 8 3 2 10 2 25

Cameron County 10 3 5 10 10 38

Cass County 0 0 0 10 10 20

City of Jacksboro 6 1 2 0 10 19

City of Marfa 6 1 3 6 8 24

City of Sealy 4 3 5 0 10 22

City of Stamford 0 0 0 10 10 20

City of Valentine 0 0 0 6 0 6

Comanche County 2 0 2 0 10 14

Coryell County 6 3 3 0 10 22

Fayette County 2 0 5 10 10 27

Fort Bend County 10 5 5 10 10 40

Gillespie County 2 1 3 10 6 22

Hidalgo County 10 3 5 10 10 38

Jim Hogg County 8 1 4 6 10 29

Kleberg County 10 5 5 10 10 40

Lamar County 8 3 3 10 10 34

McMullen County 8 1 4 6 0 19

Mitchell County 8 1 5 6 10 30

Montague County 4 1 2 10 10 27

Sabine County 0 0 0 6 0 6

San Augustine County 4 1 0 10 0 15

Titus County 0 0 0 6 10 16

Wharton County 0 0 1 0 10 11

Willacy County 10 3 2 6 10 31

Young County (6/25/13) 10 1 2 6 10 29

Young County (8/19/14) 8 4 4 6 10 32

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|75

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|76

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|77

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|78

APPENDIX 9: FCC BROADBAND AVAILABILITY, 2015 FCC BROADBAND PROGRAM PROGRESS REPORT

Fixed Broadband Availability, 2015 FCC Broadband Progress Report

State/Territory 3 Mbps Download/ 768 Kbps Upload

25 Mbps Download/ 3 Mbps Upload

United States 96% 83%

Alabama 87% 65%

Alaska 87% 62%

American Samoa 74% 0%

Arizona 96% 83%

Arkansas 87% 41%

California 99% 93%

Colorado 98% 82%

Connecticut 99% 99%

Delaware 98% 97%

District of Columbia 99% 98%

Florida 97% 93%

Georgia 93% 86%

Guam 99% 0%

Hawaii 97% 96%

Idaho 96% 50%

Illinois 99% 95%

Indiana 96% 86%

Iowa 94% 75%

Kansas 95% 73%

Kentucky 88% 60%

Louisiana 88% 71%

Maine 91% 78%

Maryland 98% 93%

Massachusetts 99% 96%

Michigan 98% 87%

Minnesota 96% 87%

Mississippi 81% 60%

Missouri 93% 71%

Montana 86% 13%

Nebraska 99% 73%

Nevada 99% 94%

New Hampshire 94% 83%

New Jersey 99% 98%

New Mexico 92% 70%

New York 98% 97%

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|79

Fixed Broadband Availability, 2015 FCC Broadband Progress Report

State/Territory 3 Mbps Download/ 768 Kbps Upload

25 Mbps Download/ 3 Mbps Upload

North Carolina 93% 86%

North Dakota 95% 85%

Northern Mariana Islands 62% 0%

Ohio 97% 83%

Oklahoma 93% 51%

Oregon 98% 93%

Pennsylvania 98% 87%

Puerto Rico 73% 39%

Rhode Island 100% 99%

South Carolina 93% 77%

South Dakota 90% 81%

Tennessee 92% 82%

Texas 97% 62%

U.S. Virgin Islands 57% 55%

Utah 99% 95%

Vermont 78% 20%

Virginia 93% 79%

Washington 98% 96%

West Virginia 85% 44%

Wisconsin 95% 83%

Wyoming 90% 70%

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|80

APPENDIX 10: FCC ANNOUNCES PROVISIONAL WINNERS IN RBE AUCTION

A CONNECTED NATION POLICY BRIEF December 5, 2014 The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Wireline Competition Bureau today announced a list of 40 “provisional” winners in the Rural Broadband Experiment (RBE) network subsidy auction. As noted in prior Policy Briefs, the FCC’s Rural Broadband Experiment is the first attempt by the FCC to award fixed broadband network subsidies through a competitive bidding mechanism. Collectively, the 40 funded projects could receive nearly $100 million in Connect America Fund subsidies to build broadband networks in over 26,000 unserved census blocks identified on the National Broadband Map.

As we have previously noted, the FCC received nearly 600 project bids to serve over 76,000 census blocks by a November 7, 2014 auction deadline. The FCC analyzed these bids based upon a cost-effectiveness analysis, which used information from the National Broadband Map collected by Connected Nation and other broadband mapping agents and the Connect America Fund cost model. The Rural Broadband Experiment project is notable because it is the first time the FCC has sought to award Connect America Fund subsidies for fixed broadband network upgrades from non-incumbent providers. There has been a great deal of provider interest in the program – when first announced earlier this year, the FCC received over 1000 “expressions of interest” in the program, and the final bids collectively requested funding of over $880 million, well over the $100 million program budget. The FCC is seeking to fund a wide variety of network speeds and technologies in the project, including many fixed wireless projects. The next step is a technical and operational review by the FCC of each of the winning projects. This review will include financial statements, technology descriptions, designs and network diagrams. Only after the completion of this review and submission of letter of credit and eligible telecommunications certifications will the FCC finalize the list of winning projects.

Wide Geographic Scope of Provisional Awards Provisional winners include broadband projects in in 25 states and Puerto Rico. The following table lists all winning projects. Projects in states in which Connected Nation administers or supports the State Broadband Initiative program are highlighted. There were three categories of RBE projects that received provisional awards – 19 projects building networks capable of 100 Mbps download/25 Mbps upload; 12 projects building networks capable of 10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload in eligible unserved areas; and 9 projects building networks capable of 10 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload in extremely high, unserved cost areas.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|81

Bidder State Annual Subsidy

Networks Capable of Delivering 100 Mbps download/25 Mbps upload

Airnorth Communications, Inc. MI $1,990,400.00

Brainstorm Valley Micro Fiber Networks, Inc. CO $1,737,648.00

Broad Valley Micro Fiber Networks, Inc. DE $110,000.00

Cricelli, Inc. CA $522,300.00

Donnell (d/b/a San Joaquin Broadband) CA $14,833,187.00

Halstad Telephone Company ND $303,760.00

Lake County d/b/a Lake Connections MN $3,499,965.00

Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico, LLC PR $41,831.15

LTD Broadband LLC IA, MN $20,000,000.00

NCRESA MI $500,000.00

New Lisbon Telephone Company IN $37,695.00

Northeast Rural Services, Inc. OK $1,029,274.00

Rural Broadband Services Corporation, Inc. OK $17,500,648.00

Skybeam, LLC IA, NE, IL, KS, TX $8,839,194.00

Southwest Arkansas Telephone Cooperative AR $17,420.00

Terastream Broadband (USA), Inc. NM $1.00

Tower Communications LLC AR $3,191,090.40

Valley Electric Association, Inc. NV $527,326.00

Wichita Online, Inc. OK $314,633.00

Networks Capable of 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up in Eligible Unserved Areas

Agile Network Builders, LLC OH $3,324,400.00

Airnorth Communications, Inc. MI $420,000.00

Allamakee-Clayton Electric Cooperative, Inc. IA $1,453,593.00

Big Bend Telecom, LTD TX $14,800.00

Chaffee County Telecom, LLC CO $2,586,882.00

Cloudwyze Inc. NC $23,000.00

Crystal Broadband Networks, Inc. KY $428,361.00

Declaration Networks Group, Inc. VA $1,246,052.00

First Step Internet, LLC ID, WA $415,855.00

Giant Communications, Inc. KS $650,000.00

Mercury Wireless, Inc. KS $4,450,000.00

Meriweather Lewis Electric Cooperative TN $41,600.00

Networks Capable of 10 Mbps down/1 Mbps up in Extremely High Cost Areas

Big Bend Telecom, LTD TX $163,625.00

Consolidated Communications Networks, Inc. ND $3,096,810.00

De Novo Group CA $609,600.00

Delta Communications LLC IL $2,196,000.00

Last Mile Broadband LLC MD $260,000.00

Lennon Telephone Company MI $60,000.00

Mercury Wireless Inc. KS $250,000.00

Northern Valley Communications, LLC SD $2,022,120.00

Worldcall Interconnect Inc. TX $850,000.00

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|82

All told, 15 of the 40 provisionally winning projects are located in the Connected Nation State Broadband Initiative footprint. Connected Nation provided a wide variety of information and support to prospective bidders and stakeholders in these states, including webinars to states and with FCC staff, regularly-updated FAQs, mapping of eligible areas and corresponding analysis, Policy Briefs, and application assistance. These fifteen projects in Connected Nation jurisdictions account for $41.7 million of all of the subsidies provisionally awarded, or approximately 42% of the nearly $100 million in provisional awards.

----------------------------

For more information about the Connect America Fund and the Rural Broadband Experiment program, as well as other broadband policy issues, please contact Connected Nation at policy@connectednation.org.

Connected Texas Final Grant Report Page|83

APPENDIX 11: RESEARCH REPORTS

Connected Texas 2010-2014 Residential Technology Assessment Survey Trends (first 17 pages)

Connected Texas Annual Technology Assessment which covers 2010-2014 (next 73 pages)

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

DO YOU HAVE A CELLULAR PHONE?

Base: Respondents Contacted Via Landline

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1027 1001 1,002 1,000 800

Yes 76% 78% 81% 85% 81%

No 23% 22% 19% 15% 18%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD ALSO HAVE A LAND LINE TELEPHONE CONNECTION?

Base: Respondents Contacted Via Cell Phone

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 194 196 200 200 200

Yes 43% 31% 27% 29% 23%

No 56% 68% 72% 71% 77%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 2% <1% 0%

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A COMPUTER?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1,221 1,197 1,202 1,200 1,000

Yes 81% 82% 80% 85% 84%

No 19% 18% 19% 14% 15%

Don't know/refused 0% <1% <1% <1% <1%

WHAT TYPE OF COMPUTER DO YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households With Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 965 954 969 1009 828

Desktop computer 77% 71% 68% 64% 61%

Laptop computer 60% 65% 68% 70% 69%

A tablet computer, such as an iPad 0% 10% 25% 34% 36%

Don't know/refused <1% 1% 1% 1% 1%

Statewide

Page 1 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE INTERNET AT HOME?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1,221 1,197 1,202 1,200 1,000

Yes 77% 73% 76% 82% 80%

No 23% 26% 23% 17% 20%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% 1% <1% <1%

DO YOU USE THE INTERNET FROM ANY LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1,221 1,197 1,202 1,200 1,000

Yes 60% 53% 59% 64% 61%

No 39% 47% 40% 36% 39%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% <1% <1% <1%

Statewide

Page 2 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

AT WHAT LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME DO YOU USE THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Someplace Other Than Home

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 724 593 633 701 565

At work 56% 53% 56% 60% 53%

At the library 21% 17% 13% 8% 8%

At someone else's home 10% 11% 14% 11% 12%

Restaurants or coffee shops 9% 16% 20% 20% 22%

At school 9% 14% 15% 10% 11%

On cell phone or handheld device 12% 27% 33% 29% 31%

Hotels 3% 7% 12% 6% 7%

At a community center 3% 3% 4% 5% 3%

Airports 2% 4% 8% 4% 5%

Through wifi or an aircard 9% 8% 13% 12% 9%

At the store/while shopping 0% 0% 0% <1% 1%

While traveling/on vacation 0% 0% 0% <1% <1%

In the car/while driving 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

In a hospital or doctor's office 0% 0% 0% <1% <1%

At a second home/cabin 0% 0% 0% <1% 0%

At church 0% 0% 0% <1% 1%

Other (specify) 13% 11% 1% *% 2%

Don't know/refused 3% 1% 3% 2% 2%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF INTERNET SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households With Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 911 860 917 971 792

Dial-up service through your telephone line 12% 10% 5% 5% 5%

Broadband or high-speed Internet service 81% 84% 91% 93% 93%

Don't know/refused 8% 6% 4% 2% 3%

Statewide

Page 3 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE BROADBAND SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Respondents Who Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 720 673 798 878 644

DSL service, usually provided by a telephone company 35% 33% 33% 30% 29%

Cable modem, usually provided by a cable TV company 39% 42% 46% 48% 45%

Fixed wireless broadband, connecting to the Internet through an outdoor antenna 8% 6% 7% 4% 6%

Fiber to the home 9% 11% 12% 10% 9%

Satellite broadband 4% 5% 7% 7% 5%

Wireless/wifi 0% 3% 4% 5% 5%

Broadband over power lines through your electric company, also known as BPL 0% 5% 4% 3% 1%

Other (specify) 1% 1% <1% 0% 0%

None of these 0% <1% <1% 0% <1%

Don't know/refused 8% 6% 5% 3% 5%

DO YOU USE WI-FI ZONES, SOMETIMES CALLED 'HOTSPOTS' TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Outside Of Home And Have A Laptop Or Tablet Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 426 409 452 504 422

Yes 61% 64% 73% 68% 75%

No 37% 33% 27% 31% 24%

Don't know/refused 2% 2% <1% 1% 1%

Statewide

Page 4 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

AT WHAT LOCATIONS DO YOU NORMALLY USE WI-FI HOTSPOTS?

Base: Use Wi-Fi Hotspots

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 256 266 308 331 308

Hotels 57% 64% 71% 14% 12%

Restaurants or coffee shops 57% 64% 71% 63% 51%

Airports 39% 50% 51% 13% 9%

At work 41% 48% 55% 19% 22%

At the library 30% 39% 37% 8% 5%

Outdoor public zones, such as in parks 21% 25% 31% 9% 12%

At a community center 16% 17% 20% 5% 3%

At school 0% 0% 0% 9% 12%

At the store 0% 0% 0% 3% 3%

At home 0% 0% 0% 4% 8%

At someone else's home 0% 0% 0% 1% 2%

While traveling/ on vacation 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

At church 0% 0% 0% 1% 2%

At a hospital or doctor's office 0% 0% 0% 2% <1%

In the car/ while driving 0% 0% 0% 1% 2%

Other (specify) 4% 4% 1% 1% 2%

None of these 8% 6% 5% 0% 0%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0% 8% 5%

Statewide

Page 5 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014ON YOUR LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A MOBILE WIRELESS SERVICE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET THROUGH A CELLULAR NETWORK?Base: Households With A Laptop Or Tablet Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 575 606 676 720 613

Yes 22% 29% 21% 16% 17%

No 73% 68% 78% 82% 79%

Don't know/refused 5% 3% 1% 2% 4%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE WAY YOU WORK FROM HOME, WHEN YOU DO SO?

Base: Employed Adults

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 764 692 677 697 519

You work at home, often using the Internet, but typically outside of normal business hours 22% 25% 25% 31% 28%

You work at home using an Internet connection, instead of commuting to your usual work place 17% 21% 21% 21% 21%

You own and operate a business out of your home 10% 6% 12% 10% 10%

Other (specify) 4% 4% 1% 1% 2%

Don't know/refused 1% 2% 4% 3% 2%

Statewide

Page 6 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

DO YOU HAVE A CELLULAR PHONE?

Base: Respondents Contacted Via Landline

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 355 361 382 368 220

Yes 71% 74% 79% 83% 83%

No 29% 26% 21% 17% 17%

Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0% 0% <1%

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD ALSO HAVE A LAND LINE TELEPHONE CONNECTION?

Base: Respondents Contacted Via Cell Phone

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 45 37 20 30 27

Yes 40% 27% 23% 23% 20%

No 60% 73% 77% 77% 80%

Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A COMPUTER?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 400 398 402 398 247

Yes 72% 71% 74% 81% 81%

No 28% 29% 26% 18% 19%

Don't know/refused 0% <1% 0% 1% <1%

WHAT TYPE OF COMPUTER DO YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households With Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 287 272 317 314 193

Desktop computer 79% 72% 61% 54% 57%

Laptop computer 58% 60% 67% 70% 67%

A tablet computer, such as an iPad 0% 5% 15% 32% 27%

Don't know/refused 0% 1% 1% <1% 5%

Rural

Page 7 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE INTERNET AT HOME?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 400 398 402 398 247

Yes 67% 62% 67% 78% 76%

No 33% 37% 32% 21% 23%

Don't know/refused <1% <1% <1% 1% <1%

DO YOU USE THE INTERNET FROM ANY LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 400 398 402 398 247

Yes 56% 46% 51% 59% 56%

No 41% 53% 48% 41% 44%

Don't know/refused 2% 1% 1% <1% <1%

Rural

Page 8 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

AT WHAT LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME DO YOU USE THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Someplace Other Than Home

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 225 153 184 194 127

At work 51% 51% 46% 59% 50%

At the library 29% 22% 20% 5% 12%

At someone else's home 14% 12% 20% 17% 17%

Restaurants or coffee shops 9% 12% 13% 18% 20%

At school 10% 12% 14% 17% 12%

On cell phone or handheld device 11% 19% 22% 32% 25%

Hotels 6% 6% 9% 6% 8%

Airports 2% 2% 2% 3% 5%

Through wifi or an aircard 6% 4% 20% 12% 9%

At a community center 4% 2% 2% 2% 3%

At the store/ while shopping 0% 0% 0% <1% 2%

While traveling/ on vacation 0% 0% 0% <1% 0%

In the car/ while driving 0% 0% 0% <1% 0%

In a hospital or doctor's office 0% 0% 0% <1% 0%

At a second home/ cabin 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

At church 0% 0% 0% <1% 1%

Other (specify) 11% 10% 1% <1% 2%

Don't know/refused 2% 1% 2% 1% 4%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE TYPE OF INTERNET SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 241 231 278 379 190

Dial-up service through your telephone line 19% 15% 11% 9% 10%

Broadband or high-speed Internet service 77% 82% 85% 89% 88%

Don't know/refused 4% 5% 5% 2% 3%

Rural

Page 9 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE BROADBAND SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 196 180 243 261 154

DSL service, usually provided by a telephone company 37% 38% 54% 40% 41%

Cable modem, usually provided by a cable TV company 28% 33% 22% 34% 24%

Satellite broadband 12% 9% 17% 15% 14%

Fiber to the home 4% 6% 3% 5% 4%

Fixed wireless broadband, connecting to the Internet through an outdoor antenna 10% 5% 8% 7% 11%

Wireless/wifi 0% 2% 5% 8% 4%

Broadband over power lines through your electric company, also known as BPL 0% 4% 1% <1% 2%

Other (specify) 1% 4% 0% 0% 0%

None of these 0% 2% 1% 0% 0%

Don't know/refused 9% 7% 3% 4% 5%

DO YOU USE WI-FI ZONES, SOMETIMES CALLED 'HOTSPOTS' TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Outside Of Home And Have A Laptop Or Tablet Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 121 102 127 141 91

Yes 57% 67% 66% 59% 60%

No 39% 33% 34% 40% 37%

Don't know/refused 3% 0% <1% <1% 3%

Rural

Page 10 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

AT WHAT LOCATIONS DO YOU NORMALLY USE WI-FI HOTSPOTS?

Base: Use Wi-Fi Hotspots

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 69 70 74 83 58

Hotels 60% 61% 60% 9% 13%

Restaurants or coffee shops 54% 64% 73% 56% 48%

Airports 36% 39% 29% 6% 4%

At work 40% 59% 41% 25% 25%

At the library 32% 43% 25% 10% 4%

Outdoor public zones, such as in parks 20% 30% 40% 12% 6%

At a community center 17% 20% 8% 7% 1%

At school 0% 0% 0% 14% 15%

At the store 0% 0% 0% <1% 0%

At home 0% 0% 0% 2% 5%

At someone else's home 0% 0% 0% <1% 1%

While traveling/ on vacation 0% 0% 0% <1% 0%

At church 0% 0% 0% <1% 1%

At a hospital or doctor's office 0% 0% 0% 2% 1%

In the car/ while driving 0% 0% 0% 1% 3%

Other (specify) 4% 1% 0% 1% 0%

None of these 9% 7% 9% 0% 0%

Don't know/refused 3% 2% 0% 13% 9%

ON YOUR LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A MOBILE WIRELESS SERVICE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET THROUGH A CELLULAR NETWORK?Base: Households With A Laptop Or Tablet Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 167 154 220 221 133

Yes 20% 33% 17% 21% 9%

No 77% 63% 80% 78% 87%

Don't know/refused 3% 3% 3% 1% 4%

Rural

Page 11 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE WAY YOU WORK FROM HOME, WHEN YOU DO SO?

Base: Employed Adults

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 235 190 207 219 118

You work at home, often using the Internet, but typically outside of normal business hours 17% 17% 19% 25% 25%

You work at home using an Internet connection, instead of commuting to your usual work place 10% 12% 9% 12% 9%

You own and operate a business out of your home 10% 9% 22% 12% 16%

Other (specify) 6% 7% 2% 1% 5%

Don't know/refused 2% 3% 5% 2% 3%

Rural

Page 12 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

DO YOU HAVE A CELLULAR PHONE?

Base: Respondents Contacted Via Landline

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 189 188 216 172 143

Yes 46% 55% 62% 68% 55%

No 54% 45% 38% 32% 44%

Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0% 0% 1%

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD ALSO HAVE A LAND LINE TELEPHONE CONNECTION?

Base: Respondents Contacted Via Cell Phone

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 39 55 52 25 27

Yes 19% 15% 14% n/a n/a

No 79% 83% 85% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 3% 3% 1% n/a n/a

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A COMPUTER?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 228 243 268 197 170

Yes 48% 70% 53% 62% 57%

No 52% 30% 47% 37% 43%

Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

WHAT TYPE OF COMPUTER DO YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households With Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 107 141 151 123 91

Desktop computer 71% 58% 54% 60% 49%

Laptop computer 54% 53% 59% 52% 53%

A tablet computer, such as an iPad 0% 5% 6% 15% 14%

Don't know/refused 1% 2% <1% <1% 3%

Low-Income

Page 13 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE INTERNET AT HOME?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 228 243 268 197 170

Yes 40% 55% 48% 60% 56%

No 58% 45% 52% 39% 44%

Don't know/refused 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%

DO YOU USE THE INTERNET FROM ANY LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 228 243 268 197 170

Yes 38% 41% 36% 42% 35%

No 61% 59% 63% 58% 64%

Don't know/refused 2% 0% 1% <1% 1%

Low-Income

Page 14 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

AT WHAT LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME DO YOU USE THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Someplace Other Than Home

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 83 72 80 63 47

At the library 40% 37% 31% 22% 16%

At someone else's home 16% 12% 20% 13% 17%

At work 30% 29% 29% 39% 26%

At school 18% 33% 42% 20% 20%

Restaurants or coffee shops 7% 25% 21% 15% 15%

At a community center 2% 3% 7% 3% 3%

On cell phone or handheld device 3% 19% 17% 26% 22%

Airports 2% 0% 2% <1% 0%

Hotels 5% 1% 5% 3% 0%

Through wifi or an aircard 7% 5% 14% 7% 11%

At the store/while shopping 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

While traveling/on vacation 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

In the car/while driving 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

In a hospital or doctor's office 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

At a second home/cabin 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

At church 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Other (specify) 21% 8% 3% 0% 0%

Don't know/refused 5% 5% 1% 3% 4%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBE THE TYPE OF INTERNET SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 91 113 138 114 88

Dial-up service through your telephone line 29% 19% 14% 7% 7%

Broadband or high-speed Internet service 53% 71% 77% 91% 91%

Don't know/refused 18% 11% 9% 2% 2%

Low-Income

Page 15 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBES THE BROADBAND SERVICE YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 50 77 106 96 78

DSL service, usually provided by a telephone company 36% 25% 30% 41% 21%

Cable modem, usually provided by a cable TV company 50% 40% 41% 48% 53%

Fixed wireless broadband, connecting to the Internet through an outdoor antenna 3% 7% 16% 8% 5%

Fiber to the home 6% 8% 9% 2% 5%

Satellite broadband 3% 7% 10% 4% 7%

Wireless/wifi 0% 6% 8% 8% 8%

Broadband over power lines through your electric company, also known as BPL 0% 10% 9% 4% 1%

Other (specify) 3% 3% 0% 0% 0%

None of these 0% <1% <1% 0% 0%

Don't know/refused 8% 11% 6% 2% 9%

DO YOU USE WI-FI ZONES, SOMETIMES CALLED 'HOTSPOTS' TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?

Base: Use Internet Outside Of Home And Have A Laptop Or Tablet Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 30 37 39 31 18

Yes 43% 55% 76% 74% n/a

No 48% 37% 24% 26% n/a

Don't know/refused 9% 8% 0% 0% n/a

Low-Income

Page 16 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS 2010-2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT SURVEY TRENDS

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014ON YOUR LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A MOBILE WIRELESS SERVICE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET THROUGH A CELLULAR NETWORK?Base: Households With A Laptop Or Tablet Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 55 74 88 70 52

Yes 12% 21% 19% 16% 10%

No 82% 74% 79% 76% 87%

Don't know/refused 6% 5% 2% 9% 4%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBE THE WAY YOU WORK FROM HOME, WHEN YOU DO SO?

Base: Employed Adults

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 84 95 88 65 41

You work at home, often using the Internet, but typically outside of normal business hours 2% 3% 7% 16% 23%

You own and operate a business out of your home 6% 1% 6% 3% 6%

You work at home using an Internet connection, instead of commuting to your usual work place 4% 7% <1% 10% 6%

Other (specify) 2% 1% 2% 5% 0%

Don't know/refused 0% <1% 6% <1% 1%

Low-Income households = annual household income less than $25,000

Cells marked as "n/a" are not reported due to small sample sizes

Low-Income

Page 17 of 17

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PURCHASED A HOME COMPUTER?

Base: Households With Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 965 287 107

Within the past 12 months 36% 32% 34%

Between one and two years ago 27% 29% 28%

Between three and four years ago 17% 19% 17%

More than four years ago 17% 16% 16%

Don't know/refused 3% 4% 5%

WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A COMPUTER AT HOME?

Base: Households Without Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 256 113 121

Too expensive 35% 24% 41%

You don't need a computer 33% 42% 32%

Computers are too complicated/don't know how to use one 18% 17% 16%

You use a computer at a different location 8% 10% 7%

Have access on cell phone 8% 5% 5%

Any other reason? 18% 17% 17%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE INTERNET AT HOME?

Base: No Internet Access In Household

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 304 132 134

You don't own a computer 45% 36% 52%

You don't need the Internet 26% 31% 28%

Too expensive 23% 20% 21%

You can get Internet access somewhere else 11% 5% 7%

Concerns about fraud or identity theft 5% 5% 6%

Broadband isn't available in your area, and you don't want dial-up 5% 5% 3%

Any other reason? 12% 16% 12%

Don't know/refused 1% 2% 1%

Page 1 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 310 133 137

Yes 59% 55% 52%

No 13% 18% 11%

Don't know/refused 28% 26% 37%

* Including don't know/refused

WHAT DO YOU PAY EACH MONTH FOR YOUR INTERNET SERVICE? Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 911 267 91

Less than $10 3% 3% 3%

Between $10 and $19 7% 10% 16%

Between $20 and $29 20% 21% 20%

Between $30 and $39 17% 17% 10%

Between $40 and $49 12% 7% 14%

$50 or more 19% 22% 19%

Don't know/refused 23% 20% 17%

DOES YOUR INTERNET PROVIDER ALSO PROVIDE YOUR HOME WITH OTHER SERVICES, SUCH AS YOUR TELEPHONE, CELL PHONE SERVICE, OR TELEVISION? THIS IS OFTEN CALLED 'BUNDLING.'Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 911 267 91

Yes 77% 64% 67%

No 22% 36% 31%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% 2%

Page 2 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHAT OTHER SERVICES ARE BUNDLED WITH YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE?Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service Bundled With Other Services

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 674 170 60

Home phone service (land line) 76% 80% 74%

Television 63% 47% 57%

Cellular phone service 14% 11% 21%

Other 1% 4% 1%

Don't know/refused 2% 2% 1%

WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY THAT PROVIDES YOUR INTERNET ACCESS? Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 911 267 91

AT&T (or Southwestern Bell) 35% 25% 37%

Time Warner 18% 7% 13%

Comcast 8% 2% 6%

Verizon 7% 5% 6%

Suddenlink 4% 8% 6%

Windstream 2% 5% 2%

Charter 1% <1% 0%

Sprint 1% 2% 3%

Grande Communications 1% 1% 1%

AOL 1% 3% 3%

Cricket 1% <1% 2%

CenturyLink 1% 2% 0%

Earthlink 1% 1% <1%

HughesNet 1% 2% <1%

NetZero 1% 1% 0%

WildBlue <1% 3% 0%

PeoplePC <1% <1% 1%

Consolidated Communications <1% 1% 2%

Embarq <1% 1% 0%

Other including don't know/refused 16% 31% 18%

Page 3 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHEN DID YOU FIRST BEGIN SUBSCRIBING TO BROADBAND SERVICE? Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 721 196 50

Within the last six months 8% 11% 15%

Between 7 and 12 months ago 6% 8% 9%

Between 1 and 2 years ago 14% 17% 16%

Between 2 and 3 years ago 15% 19% 21%

Between 3 and 5 years ago 23% 22% 20%

Between 5 and 7 years ago 17% 11% 8%

More than 7 years ago 14% 9% 12%

Don't know/refused 2% 4% 0%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR DECISION TO SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND SERVICE?Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 721 196 50

You learned that broadband became available in your area 30% 31% 13%

You realized broadband was worth the extra money 27% 29% 21%

The cost of broadband became affordable 26% 29% 21%

You got a computer in your home 25% 26% 29%

You needed to conduct business online 21% 17% 11%

You heard about the benefits of broadband in the news or through your community 18% 15% 18%

A friend or family member convinced you to subscribe 14% 15% 15%

Other 14% 19% 18%

Don't know/refused 3% 6% 12%

OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR BROADBAND SERVICE? ARE YOU...Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 721 196 50

Very satisfied 68% 69% 62%

Somewhat satisfied 29% 26% 35%

Not satisfied 3% 5% 0%

Don't know/refused <1% 1% 3%

Page 4 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, HOW MANY BROADBAND PROVIDERS DO YOU HAVE TO CHOOSE FROM, IN YOUR AREA?Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 721 196 50

One 14% 25% 21%

Two 19% 19% 13%

Three 23% 16% 16%

Four 9% 7% 5%

Five or more 12% 5% 13%

Don't know/refused 23% 28% 31%

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE DOWNLOAD SPEED PROVIDED BY YOUR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER? Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 721 196 50

Less than 768 kilobits per second 3% 6% 1%

About 768 kilobits per second 4% 8% 3%

About 1.5 megabits per second 8% 9% 8%

About 3.0 megabits per second 7% 8% 7%

About 6.0 megabits per second 7% 4% 6%

About 10.0 megabits per second 4% 2% 0%

Over 10.0 megabits per second 9% 3% 13%

Refused <1% 0% 2%

Don't know/remember 58% 61% 61%

Page 5 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD YOU SAY THE ACTUAL SPEEDS YOU RECEIVE COMPARE TO THE SPEEDS ADVERTISED BY THE INTERNET PROVIDER YOU USE? WOULD YOU SAY THE ACTUAL SPEED YOU RECEIVE ARE …Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 721 196 50

Less than or slower that what is advertised 23% 21% 14%

About the same as what is advertised 60% 61% 66%

Faster than advertised 6% 6% 12%

Don't know/remember 11% 11% 9%

IS BROADBAND SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: Households That Subscribe To Dial-Up Service Or Do Not Know What Type Of Internet Service They Have

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 190 71 41

Yes 45% 28% 38%

No 22% 33% 21%

Don't know/refused 33% 39% 42%

WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE?

Base: Using Dial-Up, But Broadband Is Available

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 81 21 16

Broadband is too expensive 31% n/a n/a

You don't need broadband 23% n/a n/a

The broadband service offered where you live is not fast enough to be worthwhile 8% n/a n/a

You can get broadband access somewhere else 5% n/a n/a

Another reason? 14% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 24% n/a n/a

WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR BROADBAND SERVICE IF IT WERE AVAILABLE IN YOUR AREA?Base: Households With Dial-Up Service Who Say Broadband Is Not Available

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 115 51 28

Yes 41% 51% 31%

No 30% 21% 27%

Don't know/refused 29% 28% 42%

Page 6 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHY WOULDN'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE?

Base: Households With Dial-Up That Wouldn't Get Broadband Even If It Were Available

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 64 25 19

Don't know anything about it 41% n/a n/a

You don't need broadband 23% n/a n/a

Broadband is too expensive 11% n/a n/a

Another reason? 13% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 24% n/a n/a

DO YOU ACCESS THE INTERNET THROUGH A CELLULAR PHONE OR OTHER MOBILE DEVICE?

Base: All Adults Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1043 323 135

Yes 37% 32% 23%

No 62% 67% 76%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 1%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF INFORMATION DO YOU USE THE INTERNET TO LOOK FOR ONLINE?

Base: All Adults Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1043 323 135

Product or service information 81% 80% 56%

Health or medical information 68% 65% 54%

Information about events in your community 61% 50% 42%

Information about government services or policies 57% 52% 40%

Jobs or employment 51% 45% 56%

Research for schoolwork 44% 44% 45%

None of the above 6% 9% 15%

Page 7 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING WAYS OF COMMUNICATING WITH OTHERS DO YOU USE?

Base: All Adults Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1043 323 135

E-mail 89% 86% 67%

Through a profile on a social or professional networking site such as Facebook, MySpace, or LinkedIn 55% 55% 44%

Instant messages 44% 44% 35%

Posting content to a website 33% 31% 18%

Posting content to a blog 19% 14% 13%

Posting content to a microblog such as Twitter 16% 14% 15%

Chatting in chat rooms 15% 15% 17%

None of the above 8% 11% 25%

DO YOU MAKE OR RECEIVE HOME TELEPHONE CALLS THROUGH YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION?Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 721 196 50

Yes 18% 16% 11%

No 81% 84% 89%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS DO YOU INTERACT WITH ONLINE, BY VISITING A WEBSITE OR COMMUNICATING ONLINE TO OBTAIN INFORMATION?

Base: All Adults Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1043 323 135

Friends or family 84% 76% 71%

Companies you do business with 57% 53% 21%

People you work with 53% 45% 26%

Your health insurance company 40% 31% 20%

Teachers for yourself or someone else 39% 39% 30%

Doctors or other healthcare professionals 37% 27% 22%

State government 31% 28% 20%

Your local government 27% 21% 19%

Elected officials or candidates 22% 21% 11%

None of the above 9% 11% 21%

Page 8 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2010 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING TYPES OF TRANSACTIONS HAVE YOU COMPLETED ONLINE?

Base: All Adults Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1043 323 135

Purchasing a product or service online 73% 76% 42%

Paying bills 66% 62% 38%

Online Banking 65% 63% 29%

Booking travel arrangements 63% 56% 29%

Online transactions with government (such as e-filing for taxes) 45% 36% 22%

Selling a product or service online 28% 25% 10%

Buying, selling, or trading investments 21% 21% 7%

None of the above 14% 14% 37%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT ONLINE?

Base: All Adults Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1043 323 135

Using a search engine 80% 75% 55%

Sending or receiving photos 72% 71% 48%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 67% 65% 51%

Downloading music 52% 49% 38%

Watching videos, movies, or TV shows online 50% 43% 39%

Playing games online 47% 48% 46%

Working from home 34% 22% 8%

Reading blogs 29% 24% 23%

Taking online classes 24% 26% 12%

None of the above 8% 9% 20%

Low-Income households = annual household income less than $25,000

Cells marked as "n/a" are not reported due to small sample sizes

Page 9 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PURCHASED A HOME COMPUTER?

Base: Households With Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 954 272 141

Within the past 12 months 29% 31% 21%

Between one and two years ago 30% 28% 30%

Between three and four yeas ago 15% 18% 16%

More than four years ago 21% 20% 25%

Don't know/refused 4% 3% 8%

WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A COMPUTER AT HOME?

Base: Households Without Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 242 125 102

You don't need a computer 33% 40% 23%

Too expensive 25% 25% 41%

Computers are too complicated 23% 31% 39%

Your computer is broken, and you have not had it fixed or repaired yet 15% 12% 13%

You use a computer at a different location 11% 6% 13%

Any other reason? 28% 22% 23%

Have access on cell phone 1% 0% 0%

Don't know/Refused 3% 4% 3%

DO YOU USE A COMPUTER ANYPLACE OTHER THAN AT HOME?

Base: Households Without Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 243 126 102

Yes 33% 22% 33%

No 67% 77% 67%

Don't know/refused <1% <1% 0%

Page 10 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE FROM HOME?

Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 860 238 113

Every day 83% 76% 80%

Several times per week 10% 13% 8%

Once per week or less 3% 7% 6%

Never 4% 3% 6%

Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0%

WHEN YOU ARE AT YOUR HOME, WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING DEVICES DO YOU USE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet At Home

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 829 229 103

A desktop computer 62% 62% 54%

A laptop computer 59% 52% 50%

A cell phone 31% 23% 28%

A game console, like an Xbox 360 or Nintendo Wii 21% 12% 22%

A tablet computer, like an iPad 9% 4% 4%

Other 1% 2% 1%

None of the above or don't know <1% 2% <1%

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 337 160 130

Yes 65% 49% 67%

No 18% 22% 17%

Don't know/Refused 17% 29% 16%

Page 11 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHAT DO YOU PAY EACH MONTH FOR YOUR INTERNET SERVICE?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 860 238 113

Less than $10 1% 3% 3%

Between $10 and $19 7% 8% 10%

Between $20 and $29 19% 23% 26%

Between $30 and $39 19% 17% 15%

Between $40 and $49 12% 10% 5%

Between $50 and $74 11% 12% 13%

$75 or more 9% 7% 5%

Don't know/refused 22% 19% 23%

DOES YOUR INTERNET PROVIDER ALSO PROVIDE YOUR HOME WITH OTHER SERVICES, SUCH AS YOUR TELEPHONE, CELL PHONE SERVICE, OR TELEVISION? THIS IS OFTEN CALLED 'BUNDLING.'Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 860 238 113

Yes 74% 68% 67%

No 24% 31% 30%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 3%

WHAT OTHER SERVICES ARE BUNDLED WITH YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE?

Base: Internet Subscription Is Part Of A Bundle

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 647 162 77

Home phone service (land line) 73% 72% 68%

Television 63% 43% 59%

Cellular phone service 18% 19% 19%

Other 4% 0% 1%

Don't know/refused 2% 2% 3%

Page 12 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHEN DID YOU FIRST BEGIN SUBSCRIBING TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Within the last six months 7% 8% 7%

Between 7 and 12 months ago 6% 5% 8%

Between 1 and 2 years ago 11% 13% 22%

Between 2 and 3 years ago 11% 17% 14%

Between 3 and 4 years ago 12% 12% 15%

Between 4 and 5 years ago 10% 9% 6%

Between 5 and 7 years ago 12% 17% 15%

Between 7 and 10 years ago 17% 11% 4%

More than 10 years ago 12% 6% 7%

Don't know/refused 3% 1% 2%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING CONTRIBUTED TO YOUR DECISION TO SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND SERVICE?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Broadband became available in your area 36% 38% 32%

You realized broadband was worth the extra money 34% 30% 22%

You needed to conduct business online 27% 22% 11%

Someone in your home needed broadband for school 26% 24% 37%

You bought or received a computer for your home 26% 22% 26%

Broadband services now cost less than they used to 21% 26% 23%

You heard about the benefits of broadband in the news or through your community 21% 20% 27%

A friend or family member convinced you 13% 14% 17%

You learned about an application that required broadband 8% 7% 14%

You took a class on how to use broadband 3% 6% 2%

Dial-up was too slow 2% 4% 3%

Other 5% 4% 10%

Don't know/refused 2% 3% 5%

Page 13 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DECIDED TO SUBSCRIBE TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE? Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Broadband became available in your area 18% 20% 14%

Someone in your home needed broadband for school 16% 16% 24%

You realized broadband was worth the extra money 13% 9% 9%

You needed to conduct business online 13% 12% 4%

You heard about the benefits of broadband in the news or through your community 8% 6% 15%

You bought or received a computer for your home 7% 5% 8%

Broadband services now cost less than they used to 7% 11% 7%

A friend or family member convinced you 6% 7% 5%

You learned about an application that required broadband 1% 2% <1%

You took a class on how to use broadband <1% <1% 0%

Dial-up was too slow 2% 4% 3%

Other 5% 4% 6%

Don't know/refused 3% 4% 5%

OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR BROADBAND SERVICE? ARE YOU...

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Very satisfied 66% 62% 61%

Somewhat satisfied 31% 35% 39%

Not satisfied 3% 3% <1%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

Page 14 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

NOW THINKING ABOUT YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH... YOUR AVERAGE DOWNLOAD SPEED?Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Very satisfied (5) 34% 30% 41%

4 38% 38% 22%

3 18% 21% 26%

2 4% 5% 6%

Not satisfied at all (1) 4% 3% 3%

Don't know/refused 2% 3% 1%

NOW THINKING ABOUT YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH... YOUR AVERAGE UPLOAD SPEED?Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Very satisfied (5) 33% 29% 34%

4 37% 27% 37%

3 19% 31% 23%

2 4% 6% 3%

Not satisfied at all (1) 3% 2% <1%

Don't know/refused 4% 4% 2%

NOW THINKING ABOUT YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH... YOUR VIDEO QUALITYBase: Have Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Very satisfied (5) 54% 45% 54%

4 28% 36% 21%

3 12% 14% 18%

2 2% 2% 2%

Not satisfied at all (1) 2% 1% 0%

Don't know/refused 3% 2% 4%

Page 15 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

NOW THINKING ABOUT YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH... THE RELIABILITY OF YOUR SERVICE, BEING ABLE TO ACCESS IT WHEN YOU WANT TO?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Very satisfied (5) 52% 47% 47%

4 30% 35% 26%

3 12% 12% 22%

2 4% 4% 4%

Not satisfied at all (1) 1% 1% 0%

Don't know/refused <1% 1% 1%

NOW THINKING ABOUT YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH... YOUR PROVIDER'S CUSTOMER SERVICE?Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Very satisfied (5) 43% 39% 49%

4 29% 31% 23%

3 17% 20% 16%

2 4% 3% 5%

Not satisfied at all (1) 4% 3% 7%

Don't know/refused 3% 3% 0%

NOW THINKING ABOUT YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH... THE MONTHLY PRICE YOU PAY FOR YOUR CURRENT BROADBAND SERVICEBase: Have Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Very satisfied (5) 27% 25% 36%

4 26% 27% 15%

3 28% 28% 34%

2 9% 11% 10%

Not satisfied at all (1) 7% 6% 3%

Don't know/refused 3% 3% 1%

Page 16 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

NOW THINKING ABOUT YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE YOUR SATISFACTION WITH... YOUR CONTRACT WITH YOUR CURRENT BROADBAND PROVIDER AND THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Very satisfied (5) 40% 41% 44%

4 30% 31% 33%

3 16% 15% 15%

2 5% 6% 4%

Not satisfied at all (1) 4% 5% 2%

Don't know/refused 5% 2% 3%

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE DOWNLOAD SPEED PROVIDED BY YOUR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER?Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Less than 768 kilobits per second 4% 7% 3%

About 768 kilobits per second 4% 3% 0%

About 1.5 megabits per second 13% 11% 13%

About 3.0 megabits per second 7% 9% 8%

About 4.0 megabits per second 4% 5% 4%

About 6.0 megabits per second 6% 1% <1%

About 10.0 megabits per second 2% 3% 5%

Over 10.0 megabits per second per second 6% 5% 11%

Refused 4% 4% <1%

Don't know/remember 49% 53% 55%

Page 17 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD YOU SAY THE ACTUAL SPEEDS YOU RECEIVE COMPARE TO THE SPEEDS ADVERTISED BY THE INTERNET PROVIDER YOU USE? WOULD YOU SAY THE ACTUAL SPEEDS YOU RECEIVE ARE …Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Less than or slower that what is advertised 28% 28% 27%

About the same as what is advertised 59% 60% 62%

Faster than advertised 4% 5% 5%

Refused <1% 1% 0%

Don't know/remember 7% 7% 5%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT USING THE INTERNET?

Base: All Adults Who Use The InternetUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 930 266 132

Communicating through e-mail or other ways of sending messages 83% 78% 75%

Researching or purchasing goods or services 70% 56% 58%

Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests 70% 64% 62%

Online banking or paying bills 69% 56% 55%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 61% 51% 56%

Searching for medical information, or communicating with healthcare professionals like doctors or insurance offices 52% 41% 42%

Taking online classes or conducting research for schoolwork 50% 40% 53%

Searching or applying for jobs 43% 35% 50%

Interacting with government offices or elected officials 28% 19% 16%

None of the above 2% 3% 7%

Don't know/refused <1% 1% 1%

DO YOU MAKE OR RECEIVE HOME TELEPHONE CALLS THROUGH YOUR INTERNET CONNECTION?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 713 180 77

Yes 22% 22% 22%

No 77% 77% 78%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

Page 18 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH-SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: Households That Subscribe To Dial-Up Service Or Do Not Know What Type Of Internet Service They Have

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 147 58 36

Yes 62% 47% 68%

No 23% 35% 15%

Don't know/refused 15% 18% 17%

ON YOUR CELL PHONE, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A PLAN THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Own Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 973 297 154

Yes 56% 47% 52%

No 43% 52% 48%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% <1%

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE USING YOUR CELL PHONE?

Base: Respondents Who Own Cell Phones That Allow Internet Access

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 502 124 65

Every day 59% 56% 61%

Several times per week 16% 12% 14%

Once per week or less 13% 14% 15%

Never 11% 17% 11%

Don't know/refusd <1% 1% <1%

Page 19 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT ON YOUR CELL PHONE USING YOUR MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE?Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Communicating through e-mail or other ways of sending messages 82% 73% 80%

Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests 58% 51% 63%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 46% 34% 42%

Researching or purchasing goods or services 42% 20% 38%

Online banking or paying bills 37% 32% 36%

Searching for medical information, or communicating with doctors or other healthcare professionals 27% 18% 27%

Taking online classes or conducting research for schoolwork 18% 12% 34%

Searching or applying for jobs 16% 16% 21%

Interacting with government offices or elected officials 10% 8% 10%

None of the above 3% 4% 1%

Don't know/refused <1% 0% 0%

OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE? ARE YOU...Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied 53% 56% 51%

Somewhat satisfied 42% 39% 46%

Not satisfied 4% 4% 3%

Don't know/refused 1% 0% 0%

Page 20 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE... YOUR AVERAGE DOWNLOAD SPEED?Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied (5) 26% 22% 37%

4 30% 27% 31%

3 22% 34% 12%

2 11% 6% 9%

Not satisfied at all (1) 4% 2% 10%

Don't know/refused 7% 8% 1%

NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE... YOUR AVERAGE UPLOAD SPEED?Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied (5) 23% 18% 36%

4 32% 33% 33%

3 25% 31% 15%

2 10% 10% 10%

Not satisfied at all (1) 4% 1% 7%

Don't know/refused 7% 6% <1%

NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE... YOUR VIDEO QUALITY?Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied (5) 34% 29% 35%

4 31% 28% 34%

3 21% 22% 16%

2 4% 10% 1%

Not satisfied at all (1) 6% 6% 13%

Don't know/refused 4% 5% 1%

Page 21 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE... THE RELIABILITY OF YOUR SERVICE, BEING ABLE TO ACCESS IT WHEN YOU WANT TO?Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied (5) 37% 44% 45%

4 35% 27% 30%

3 17% 19% 11%

2 9% 7% 13%

Not satisfied at all (1) 2% 2% <1%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE... YOUR PROVIDER'S CUSTOMER SERVICE?Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied (5) 39% 30% 42%

4 34% 32% 30%

3 17% 28% 10%

2 5% 3% 4%

Not satisfied at all (1) 3% 6% 11%

Don't know/refused 2% 2% 3%

NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE... THE MONTHLY PRICE YOU PAY?Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied (5) 26% 27% 33%

4 25% 23% 30%

3 27% 26% 24%

2 12% 9% 9%

Not satisfied at all (1) 8% 12% 4%

Don't know/refused 2% 3% 1%

Page 22 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE... YOUR CURRENT CONTRACT AND ITS TERMS OF SERVICE?Base: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied (5) 35% 33% 47%

4 29% 40% 32%

3 23% 20% 17%

2 8% 2% 3%

Not satisfied at all (1) 4% 4% 1%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

NOW THINKING ABOUT BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE, HOW WOULD YOU RATE... THE SERVICE AREA WHERE YOU CAN ACCESS BORADBAND ON YOUR CELL PHONEBase: Respondents Who Access The Internet On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 424 96 54

Very satisfied (5) 34% 26% 47%

4 35% 32% 34%

3 21% 30% 10%

2 6% 7% 1%

Not satisfied at all (1) 2% 5% 7%

Don't know/refused 1% 0% 0%

Low-Income households = annual household income less than $25,000

Page 23 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

DO YOU HAVE A CELLULAR PHONE?

Base: Respondents Contacted On Their Landline Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 2,200 598 792

Yes 64% 70% 50%

No 36% 30% 50%

Don't know/refused <1% 0% 0%

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD ALSO HAVE A LANDLINE TELEPHONE CONNECTION?

Base: Respondents Contacted On Their Cellular Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 200 60 86

Yes 35% 31% 34%

No 64% 69% 64%

Don't know/refused 1% 0% 2%

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A COMPUTER?

Base: All Non-Adopters Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 2,400 658 878

Yes 57% 53% 47%

No 43% 47% 53%

Don't know/refused <1% <1% <1%

WHAT TYPE OF COMPUTER DO YOU HAVE AT HOME?

Base: Households With Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1,318 342 372

Desktop computer 68% 66% 70%

Laptop computer 49% 53% 40%

A tablet computer, such as an iPad 5% 4% 4%

Don't know/refused 2% 2% 2%

Page 24 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

DO YOU USE THE INTERNET FROM ANY LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME?

Base: All Non-Adopters Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 2,400 658 878

Yes 36% 39% 28%

No 64% 61% 71%

Don't know/refused <1% 0% <1%

AT WHAT LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF YOUR OWN HOME DO YOU USE THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet Someplace Other Than Home

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 711 184 178

At work 39% 41% 23%

At the library 28% 27% 37%

At someone else's home 15% 20% 22%

At school 13% 13% 16%

Restaurants or coffee shops 12% 11% 16%

Through cell phone or handheld device 10% 9% 14%

Through wi-fi or an aircard 5% 6% 6%

Hotels 4% 3% 5%

At a community center 2% 1% 2%

Airports 1% 1% <1%

Other 6% 5% 7%

Don't know/refused 2% 4% 3%

DO YOU USE WI-FI ZONES, SOMETIMES CALLED "HOTSPOTS" TO ACCESS THE INTERNET SOMEPLACE OTHER THAN AT HOME?Base: Respondents Who Own A Laptop Or Tablet Computer And Use The Internet Someplace Other Than HomeUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 294 79 56

Yes 56% 50% 57%

No 44% 48% 41%

Don't know/refused 1% 2% 2%

Page 25 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

ON YOUR LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A MOBILE WIRELESS SERVICE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET THROUGH A CELLULAR NETWORK?Base: Respondents Who Own A Laptop Or Tablet Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 629 166 148

Yes 23% 23% 23%

No 71% 74% 71%

Don't know/refused 6% 3% 6%

WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE INTERNET AT HOME?

Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1,521 428 651

The monthly cost of Internet service is too expensive 29% 23% 37%

The cost of a computer is too expensive 25% 22% 34%

The activation and installation fees are too expensive 21% 18% 27%

You can get Internet access somewhere else 21% 19% 22%

Concerns about fraud or identity theft 20% 14% 25%

The Internet is too complicated 18% 14% 25%

There is nothing on the Internet that you want to see or use 18% 15% 19%

You don't feel comfortable using a computer 15% 16% 17%

Broadband isn't available in your area, and you don't want dial-up 11% 14% 10%

You don't own a computer or my computer doesn't work 5% 6% 6%

You don't want or need the Internet 4% 4% 3%

Any other reason? 19% 16% 14%

Don't know/refused 4% 5% 3%

Page 26 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO HOME INTERNET SERVICE?

Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1,521 428 651

The monthly cost of Internet service is too expensive 18% 14% 23%

There is nothing on the Internet that you want to see or use 10% 9% 9%

The cost of a computer is too expensive 9% 12% 13%

The Internet is too complicated 7% 6% 9%

You don't feel comfortable using a computer 7% 9% 6%

You don't own a computer or my computer doesn't work 5% 5% 6%

You can get Internet access somewhere else 5% 6% 4%

Concerns about fraud or identity theft 4% 3% 4%

You don't want or need the Internet 4% 4% 3%

Broadband isn't available in your area, and you don't want dial-up 4% 8% 3%

The activation and installation fees are too expensive 4% 4% 3%

Other 18% 15% 13%

Don't know/refused 4% 5% 3%

Page 27 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE AT HOME?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Dial-Up Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 879 230 227

The monthly cost of broadband service is too expensive 26% 25% 30%

Broadband service is not available where you live 16% 25% 15%

Concerns about fraud or identity theft 15% 14% 16%

You do not use the Internet very often from home 15% 16% 16%

The activation and installation fees are too expensive 15% 14% 16%

Broadband is too complicated 12% 7% 19%

Available broadband service is not fast enough to be worthwhile 12% 13% 13%

There is nothing you want to see or do online that requires broadband 11% 9% 10%

You can get broadband access somewhere else 10% 8% 9%

You don't want/need broadband 2% 4% 3%

You are satisfied with my current (dial-up) service 2% 2% 2%

You don't own a computer, or your computer is broken 1% 1% 1%

You don't know what it is, or anything about it 14% 15% 10%

Any other reason? 20% 15% 19%

Don't know/refused 3% 3% 4%

Page 28 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE? Base: Households That Subscribe To Dial-Up Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 879 230 227

The monthly cost of broadband service is too expensive 18% 18% 18%

Broadband service is not available where you live 11% 20% 8%

You do not use the Internet very often from home 7% 8% 6%

Broadband is too complicated 5% 1% 8%

There is nothing you want to see or do online that requires broadband 5% 5% 5%

Concerns about fraud or identity theft 5% 2% 5%

Available broadband service is not fast enough to be worthwhile 4% 3% 4%

The activation and installation fees are too expensive 3% 4% 6%

You can get broadband access somewhere else 3% 1% 3%

You are satisfied with my current (dial-up) service 2% 2% 2%

You don't want/need broadband 2% 4% 2%

You don't own a computer or your computer is broken <1% 1% 1%

You don't know what it is or anything about it 14% 15% 10%

Other 19% 14% 18%

Don't know/refused 3% 3% 4%

HAVE YOU EVER SUBSCRIBED TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE?

Base: All Non-Adopters Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 2,400 658 878

Yes 16% 15% 12%

No 80% 80% 86%

Don't know/refused 4% 4% 2%

Page 29 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHEN DID YOU STOP SUBSCRIBING TO BROADBAND SERVICE?

Base: Households That Subscribed To Broadband In The Past

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 325 83 81

Within the past twelve months 33% 30% 31%

Between one and two years ago 22% 28% 22%

Between two and three years ago 9% 5% 9%

Between three and four years ago 9% 8% 14%

More than four years ago 14% 11% 10%

Don't know/refused 13% 18% 13%

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: All Non-Adopters Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 2,400 658 878

Yes 54% 45% 50%

No 25% 35% 25%

Don't know/refused 22% 21% 25%

IF YOU COULD SUBSCRIBE TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE AT A PRICE YOU CONSIDER ACCEPTABLE, WOULD YOU DO SO?Base: All Non-Adopters Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 2,400 658 878

Yes 45% 51% 47%

No 48% 44% 47%

Don't know/refused 7% 5% 6%

Page 30 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

AT WHAT MONTHLY PRICE WOULD YOU CONSIDER A HOME BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTION TO BE 'TOO EXPENSIVE TO CONSIDER'? Base: Respondents Willing To Subscribe At A Price They Deemed "Acceptable"

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 718 195 262

Under $5 0% 0% 0%

$5 to $9 <1% 0% 0%

$10 to $14 2% 2% 3%

$15 to $19 2% 1% 3%

$20 to $24 7% 5% 8%

$25 to $29 7% 10% 6%

$30 to $34 19% 19% 17%

$35 to $39 4% 2% 5%

$40 to $44 12% 13% 14%

$45 to $49 2% 2% 3%

$50 or more 45% 46% 42%

Don't know/Refused 0% 0% 0%

AND AT WHAT MONTHLY PRICE WOULD YOU CONSIDER A HOME BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTION TO BE 'GETTING EXPENSIVE, BUT STILL WORTH THE COST?'Base: Respondents Willing To Subscribe At A Price They Deemed "Acceptable"

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 718 195 262

Under $5 <1% 1% 0%

$5 to $9 2% 2% 2%

$10 to $14 5% 2% 8%

$15 to $19 10% 10% 11%

$20 to $24 15% 14% 15%

$25 to $29 15% 16% 13%

$30 to $34 15% 11% 14%

$35 to $39 8% 11% 9%

$40 to $44 8% 11% 11%

$45 to $49 4% 5% 4%

$50 or more 16% 16% 12%

Don't know/Refused 0% 0% 0%

Page 31 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

NOW, AT WHAT MONTHLY PRICE WOULD YOU CONSIDER A HOME BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTION TO BE 'A BARGAIN, DEFINITELY WORTH THE MONEY?'Base: Respondents Willing To Subscribe At A Price They Deemed "Acceptable"

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 718 195 262

Under $5 2% 1% 1%

$5 to $9 6% 5% 8%

$10 to $14 16% 19% 18%

$15 to $19 23% 17% 22%

$20 to $24 20% 24% 21%

$25 to $29 12% 10% 13%

$30 to $34 7% 9% 7%

$35 to $39 4% 5% 3%

$40 to $44 3% 2% 3%

$45 to $49 2% 1% 1%

$50 or more 5% 7% 3%

Don't know/Refused 0% 0% 0%

AND AT WHAT MONTHLY PRICE WOULD YOU CONSIDER A HOME BROADBAND SUBSCRIPTION TO BE 'SO INEXPENSIVE THAT YOU WOULD QUESTION THE QUALITY OF THE SERVICE AND NOT CONSIDER SUBSCRIBING?'Base: Respondents Willing To Subscribe At A Price They Deemed "Acceptable"

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 718 195 262

Under $5 9% 9% 8%

$5 to $9 19% 19% 23%

$10 to $14 34% 29% 35%

$15 to $19 17% 26% 18%

$20 to $24 11% 10% 9%

$25 to $29 4% 3% 2%

$30 to $34 2% 0% 2%

$35 to $39 1% 1% <1%

$40 to $44 1% <1% 1%

$45 to $49 <1% 0% 0%

$50 or more 2% 3% 3%

Page 32 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2011 RESIDENTIAL NON-ADOPTER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

ON YOUR CELL PHONE, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A PLAN THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Own Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1,611 461 478

Yes 47% 46% 47%

No 51% 51% 50%

Don't know/refused 2% 3% 3%

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE USING YOUR CELL PHONE?

Base: Respondents Who Own Cell Phones That Allow Internet Access

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 651 173 188

Every day 51% 50% 46%

Several times per week 13% 14% 9%

Once per week or less 16% 14% 23%

Never 20% 23% 22%

Don't know/refused 1% 0% 0%

HOW INTERESTED WOULD YOU BE IN HAVING ACCESS TO THE INTERNET ON YOUR CELL PHONE IF YOU COULD PRE-PAY A FEE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU SPEND ONLINE OR THE AMOUNT OF DATA YOU ACCESS INSTEAD OF HAVING A MONTHLY CONTRACT WITH YOUR PROVIDER?Base: Cell Phone Users Who Don't Use Phone For Internet Access

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1,138 340 353

Very interested 4% 6% 6%

Somewhat interested 14% 20% 15%

Not interested at all 80% 72% 76%

Don't know/refused 2% 1% 2%

Low-Income households = annual household income less than $25,000

Page 33 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHY DON'T YOU HAVE A COMPUTER AT HOME?

Base: Households That Do Not Own Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 232 85 117

You don't need a computer 53% 58% 53%

Too expensive 33% 27% 39%

Computers are too complicated 22% 12% 25%

You have a cell phone that you use instead of a computer 19% 18% 15%

You use a computer at a different location 18% 19% 17%

Your computer is broken, and you have not had it fixed or repaired yet 9% 2% 7%

You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use a computer 9% 3% 8%

Any other reason? (specify) 2% 2% 1%

Don't know/refused 4% 3% 5%

DOES YOUR HOUSEHOLD HAVE A TELEVISION?

Base: All Respondents Surveyed

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1202 402 268

Yes 98% 97% 95%

No 2% 3% 5%

Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0%

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE FROM HOME?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 917 291 138

Several times per day 68% 62% 63%

Once per day 16% 12% 15%

Several times per week 8% 11% 9%

Once per week or less 5% 12% 8%

Never 3% 2% 5%

Don't know/refused <1% 0% 0%

Page 34 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service Or Don't Know If They Subscribe To Home Internet ServiceUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 285 111 130

Yes 55% 56% 54%

No 12% 20% 10%

Don't know/refused 33% 24% 35%

WHAT DO YOU PAY EACH MONTH FOR YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE?

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 917 291 138

Less than $10 1% <1% 3%

Between $10 and $19 5% 5% 12%

Between $20 and $29 11% 17% 12%

Between $30 and $39 15% 15% 9%

Between $40 and $49 14% 12% 11%

Between $50 and $74 19% 17% 22%

Between $75 and $99 4% 5% 5%

Between $100 and $124 3% 5% 6%

Between $125 and $149 <1% 1% 0%

$150 or more 1% 1% 1%

Don't know/refused 28% 22% 19%

OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE? ARE YOU…

Base: Households That Subscribe To Home Broadband Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 813 243 106

Very satisfied 43% 38% 38%

Mostly satisfied 50% 51% 51%

Mostly dissatisfied 5% 8% 8%

Very dissatisfied 1% 3% 1%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% 2%

Page 35 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT USING THE INTERNET?

Base: Respondents Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 975 315 160

Communicating through e-mail or other ways of sending messages 87% 81% 72%

Researching or purchasing goods or services 73% 63% 53%

Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests 73% 64% 60%

Online banking or paying bills 70% 60% 51%

Using social networking sites like Facebook 69% 70% 66%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 66% 56% 53%

Searching for medical information, or communicating with healthcare professionals like doctors or insurance offices 53% 44% 39%

Taking online classes or conducting research for schoolwork 43% 39% 36%

Searching or applying for jobs 38% 33% 46%

Interacting with government offices or elected officials 30% 18% 18%

Advertising or selling products or services 16% 13% 11%

None of the above 1% 1% 3%

Don't know/refused <1% 2% 0%

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, DID YOU USE THE INTERNET TO ORDER GOODS OR SERVICES FROM VENDORS IN TEXAS?Base: Residents Who Research Or Purchase Goods Or Services Online

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 714 216 85

Yes 62% 61% 41%

No 31% 33% 50%

Don't know/refused 7% 6% 9%

Page 36 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO VENDORSIN TEXAS?Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From In-State Vendors

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 463 147 36

1 or 2 orders 19% 19% 41%

3 to 6 orders 41% 43% 44%

7 to 10 orders 14% 18% 8%

11 to 20 orders 12% 8% 3%

More than 20 orders 13% 12% 3%

Don't know/refused 2% 1% 0%

OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WHAT WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THE TOTAL COST OF GOODS AND SERVICES YOU ORDERED FROM TEXAS VENDORS TO BE?Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From In-State Vendors

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 463 147 36

Less than $20 3% 2% <1%

Between $20 and $49 4% <1% 16%

Between $50 and $99 6% 7% 3%

Between $100 and $249 27% 32% 45%

Between $250 and $499 15% 15% 12%

Between $500 and $749 12% 14% 10%

Between $750 and $999 4% 6% 0%

$1,000 or more 24% 17% 13%

Don't know/refused 6% 7% 0%

N THE PAST 12 MONTHS, DID YOU USE THE INTERNET TO ORDER GOODS OR SERVICES FROM AMERICAN VENDORS IN STATES OTHER THAN TEXAS?Base: Residents Who Research Or Purchase Goods Or Services Online

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 714 216 85

Yes 74% 74% 54%

No 22% 20% 45%

Don't know/refused 4% 5% 1%

Page 37 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO THESE VENDORS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF TEXAS?Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From U.S. Vendors Located Outside Of Texas

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 531 157 49

1 or 2 orders 11% 16% 15%

3 to 6 orders 32% 40% 47%

7 to 10 orders 18% 15% 12%

11 to 20 orders 16% 14% 16%

More than 20 orders 20% 13% 11%

Don't know/refused 2% 2% 0%

OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WHAT WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THE TOTAL COST OF GOODS AND SERVICES YOU ORDERED FROM AMERICAN VENDORS IN STATES OTHER THAN TEXAS TO BE?Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From U.S. Vendors Located Outside Of Texas

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 531 157 49

Less than $20 1% 0% 3%

Between $20 and $49 3% 6% 2%

Between $50 and $99 4% 3% 5%

Between $100 and $249 20% 29% 41%

Between $250 and $499 16% 17% 22%

Between $500 and $749 11% 11% 1%

Between $750 and $999 4% 2% 0%

$1,000 or more 33% 27% 21%

Don't know/refused 8% 4% 5%

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, DID YOU USE THE INTERNET TO ORDER GOODS OR SERVICES FROM VENDORS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES?Base: Residents Who Research Or Purchase Goods Or Services Online

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 714 216 85

Yes 14% 10% 6%

No 85% 87% 94%

Don't know/refused 1% 2% <1%

Page 38 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO THESE VENDORS LOCATED IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES?Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From Vendors Located Outside Of The United States

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 94 26 8

1 or 2 orders 49% n/a n/a

3 to 6 orders 40% n/a n/a

7 to 10 orders 6% n/a n/a

11 to 20 orders 0% n/a n/a

More than 20 orders 6% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 0% n/a n/a

OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WHAT WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THE TOTAL COST OF GOODS AND SERVICES YOU ORDERED FROM VENDORS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE?Base: Residents Who Ordered Goods Or Services Online From Vendors Located Outside Of The United States

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 94 26 8

Less than $20 14% n/a n/a

Between $20 and $49 10% n/a n/a

Between $50 and $99 14% n/a n/a

Between $100 and $249 20% n/a n/a

Between $250 and $499 16% n/a n/a

Between $500 and $749 6% n/a n/a

Between $750 and $999 0% n/a n/a

$1,000 or more 16% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 4% n/a n/a

Page 39 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MUCH REVENUE DO YOU ESTIMATE THAT YOU GENERATED FROM SELLING PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ONLINE?Base: Residents Who Advertise Or Sell Goods Or Services Online

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 151 41 17

Less than $20 33% 33% n/a

Between $20 and $49 2% 0% n/a

Between $50 and $99 4% 7% n/a

Between $100 and $249 8% 3% n/a

Between $250 and $499 4% 9% n/a

Between $500 and $749 6% 1% n/a

Between $750 and $999 1% 0% n/a

$1,000 or more 12% 4% n/a

Don't know/refused 29% 43% n/a

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT DOING THINGS ONLINE HAS SAVED YOU TIME IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?

Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet For One Or More Purposes

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 946 300 154

Yes 90% 87% 80%

No 9% 12% 19%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 1%

Page 40 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME WOULD YOU ESTIMATE YOU SAVE YOURSELF EACH MONTH BY HAVING HOME INTERNET SERVICE? (RECORD IN HOURS)Base: Texas Residents Who Believe Doing Things Online Has Saved Them Time

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 832 248 122

Less than 1 hour 4% 6% 4%

Between 1 and 4 hours 28% 31% 24%

Between 5 and 10 hours 27% 25% 24%

Between 11 and 20 hours 12% 6% 14%

Between 21 and 40 hours 11% 10% 11%

More than 40 hours 14% 19% 20%

Don't know/refused 4% 3% 5%

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU DRIVE FEWER MILES OR LESS OFTEN BECAUSE OF THE THINGS YOU ARE ABLE TO DO ONLINE?Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 946 300 154

Yes 76% 69% 70%

No 22% 31% 30%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% 1%

ABOUT HOW MANY MILES OF DRIVING PER MONTH DO YOU SAVE BY HAVING INTERNET SERVICE AT HOME?Base: Texas Residents Who Believe Doing Things Online Resulted In Less Driving

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 693 199 105

Less than 1 mile 1% <1% 1%

Between 1 and 10 miles 10% 7% 12%

Between 11 and 49 miles 28% 18% 43%

Between 50 and 99 miles 18% 17% 10%

Between 100 and 199 miles 17% 18% 14%

Between 200 and 499 miles 14% 25% 7%

500 miles or more 8% 15% 9%

Don't know/refused 4% <1% 4%

Page 41 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOUR ONLINE JOB SEARCH CONTRIBUTED TO YOU FINDING A JOB IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet To Search Or Apply For Jobs

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 300 66 55

Yes 46% 47% 64%

No 53% 52% 36%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% <1%

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ACCESSING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION ONLINE PREVENTED TRIPS TO THE DOCTOR OR MEDICAL CENTER IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet To Access Medical Information

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 526 155 68

Yes 45% 33% 57%

No 55% 66% 43%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, ABOUT HOW MANY TRIPS TO A DOCTOR OR MEDICAL CENTER HAVE YOU SAVED BY FINDING INFORMATION ONLINE?Base: Texas Residents Who Believe Finding Medical Information Online Has Saved A Trip To A Doctor Or Medical CenterUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 214 55 36

1 13% 13% 9%

2 23% 39% 19%

3 or 4 30% 19% 19%

5 or more 22% 21% 35%

Don't know/refused 11% 8% 17%

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT ACCESSING HEALTHCARE INFORMATION ONLINE PREVENTED TRIPS TO A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS?Base: Texas Residents Who Use The Internet To Access Medical Information

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 526 155 68

Yes 23% 17% 39%

No 77% 80% 57%

Don't know/refused 1% 3% 3%

Page 42 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, ABOUT HOW MANY TRIPS TO A HOSPITAL EMERGENCY ROOM HAVE YOU SAVED BY FINDING INFORMATION ONLINE?Base: Texas Residents Who Believe Finding Medical Information Online Has Saved A Trip To An Emergency RoomUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 100 26 23

1 36% n/a n/a

2 21% n/a n/a

3 or 4 18% n/a n/a

5 or more 12% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 13% n/a n/a

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: Household Internet Service Is Not A Broadband Connection

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 104 48 32

Yes 62% 21% 62%

No 23% 56% 22%

Don't know/refused 15% 23% 16%

WOULD YOU SIGN UP FOR BROADBAND SERVICE IF IT WERE AVAILABLE IN YOUR AREA?

Base: Dial-Up Users Who Do Not Have Access To Broadband

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 51 33 14

Yes 57% 69% n/a

No 22% 22% n/a

Don't know/refused 21% 9% n/a

ON YOUR CELL PHONE, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A PLAN THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?

Base: All Adult Residents With A Cell Phone

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1016 328 190

Yes 64% 61% 50%

No 35% 39% 49%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 1%

Page 43 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE USING YOUR CELL PHONE?

Base: Respondents Who Subscribe To A Data Plan On Their Cell Phones

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 596 167 82

Several times per day 65% 53% 54%

Once per day 7% 9% 8%

Several times per week 9% 12% 7%

Once per week or less 10% 14% 16%

Never 9% 11% 14%

Don't know/refused <1% 0% 1%

DO YOU EVER USE YOUR CELL PHONE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET WHILE YOU ARE AT HOME?

Base: Respondents Who Use Their Cell Phones To Access The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 521 139 64

Yes 76% 76% 82%

No 24% 24% 18%

Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0%

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT ON YOUR CELL PHONE USING YOUR MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE?Base: Respondents Who Use Their Cell Phones To Access The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 521 139 64

Communicating through e-mail or other ways of sending messages 83% 78% 71%

Using social networking sites like Facebook 67% 64% 67%

Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests 59% 57% 50%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 53% 36% 35%

Online banking or paying bills 49% 46% 41%

Researching or purchasing goods or services 46% 45% 32%

Searching for medical information, or communicating with doctors or other healthcare professionals 32% 28% 38%

Searching or applying for jobs 13% 16% 28%

Taking online classes or conducting research for schoolwork 13% 12% 22%

Interacting with government offices or elected officials 10% 5% 4%

None of the above 2% 3% 5%

Don't know/refused <1% <1% 0%

Page 44 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2012 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

OVERALL, HOW SATISFIED ARE YOU WITH THE MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE ON YOUR CELL PHONE? ARE YOU…Base: Respondents Who Use Their Cell Phones To Access The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 521 139 64

Very satisfied 41% 38% 33%

Mostly satisfied 51% 55% 58%

Mostly dissatisfied 5% 6% 6%

Very dissatisfied 2% 1% 3%

Don't know/refused <1% <1% 0%

NOW THAT YOU CAN ACCESS THE INTERNET USING YOUR CELL PHONE, DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU USE YOUR HOME BROADBAND SERVICE LESS OFTEN, MORE OFTEN, OR ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT?Base: Respondents With A Home Broadband Subscription And Also Use The Internet Via Vell Phone

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 431 103 32

More often 10% 6% 5%

Less often 14% 24% 28%

About the same 76% 70% 68%

Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0%

Low-Income households = annual household income less than $25,000

Cells marked as "n/a" are not reported due to small sample sizes

Page 45 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU PURCHASED OR RECEIVED A DESKTOP COMPUTER FOR YOUR HOME?

Base: Households With A Desktop Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 669 196 77

Less than 6 months ago 9% 10% 9%

6 months to less than one year ago 10% 9% 9%

One year to less than two years ago 12% 16% 11%

Two years to less than four years ago 27% 34% 26%

Four years ago or longer 38% 27% 40%

Don't know/refused 3% 4% 6%

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD PURCHASED OR RECEIVED A LAPTOP COMPUTER?Base: Households With A Laptop Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 686 206 65

Less than 6 months ago 17% 27% 16%

6 months to less than one year ago 19% 18% 11%

One year to less than two years ago 20% 16% 18%

Two years to less than four years ago 27% 17% 34%

Four years ago or longer 14% 17% 17%

Don't know/refused 3% 6% 4%

WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME SOMEONE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD PURCHASED OR RECEIVED A TABLET COMPUTER?Base: Households With A Tablet Computer

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 305 77 14

Less than 6 months ago 40% 60% n/a

6 months to less than one year ago 27% 13% n/a

One year to less than two years ago 20% 12% n/a

Two years to less than four years ago 9% 10% n/a

Four years ago or longer 2% 5% n/a

Don't know/refused 1% 0% n/a

Page 46 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE OR USE THE INTERNET FROM HOME?

Base: Households With Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 971 297 114

Several times per day 76% 78% 66%

Once per day 11% 10% 15%

Several times per week 6% 4% 8%

Once per week or less 4% 4% 7%

Never 2% 4% 2%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% 2%

ON YOUR CELL PHONE, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A PLAN THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET?

Base: Cell Phone Users

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1056 342 138

Yes 74% 73% 53%

No 25% 26% 45%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% 2%

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE OR ACCESS THE INTERNET USING YOUR CELL PHONE?

Base: Respondents Who Have A Data Plan That Allows Internet Access On Their Cell Phone

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 712 205 64

Several times per day 72% 76% 74%

Once per day 7% 7% 6%

Several times per week 9% 4% 3%

Once per week or less 7% 9% 10%

Never 5% 4% 6%

Don't know/refused <1% 0% 0%

Page 47 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

DO YOU EVER USE YOUR CELL PHONE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET WHILE YOU ARE AT HOME?

Base: Adults Who Use The Internet Via Cell Phone

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 659 185 58

Yes 81% 77% 79%

No 19% 22% 19%

Don't know/refused <1% <1% 2%

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: Respondents Who Do Not Subscribe To Broadband Service At Home

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 311 137 101

Yes 64% 48% 60%

No 15% 27% 13%

Don't know/refused 21% 25% 27%

Page 48 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT USING THE INTERNET?

Base: Adults Who Use The Internet

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1023 312 128

Communicating through e-mail or other ways of sending messages 90% 87% 82%

Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests 77% 78% 61%

Online banking or paying bills 75% 76% 54%

Using social networking sites like Facebook 72% 80% 68%

Purchasing goods or services 72% 66% 51%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 65% 69% 53%

Searching for medical or healthcare information 60% 60% 52%

Conducting research for schoolwork 47% 55% 47%

Searching for information about government services 46% 42% 46%

Searching or applying for jobs 40% 45% 45%

Applying for services or filling out forms at government websites 39% 39% 38%

Communicating with your doctor or other healthcare professionals 30% 23% 29%

Taking online classes 28% 35% 24%

Advertising or selling products or services 17% 11% 17%

None of these 1% <1% 4%

Don't know/refused <1% 0% 1%

Page 49 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT ON YOUR CELL PHONE USING YOUR MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE?Base: Adults Who Use The Internet Via Cell Phone

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 659 185 58

Communicating through e-mail or other ways of sending messages 88% 91% 89%

Using social networking sites like Facebook 77% 87% 83%

Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests 69% 73% 56%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 56% 64% 55%

Online banking or paying bills 56% 52% 46%

Purchasing goods or services 52% 58% 43%

Searching for medical or healthcare information 37% 46% 47%

Communicating with your doctor or other healthcare professionals 30% 31% 42%

Conducting research for schoolwork 28% 40% 23%

Searching for information about government services 25% 28% 32%

Searching or applying for jobs 21% 24% 35%

Applying for services or filling out forms at government websites 16% 20% 23%

Advertising or selling products or services 13% 14% 18%

Taking online classes 8% 14% 14%

None of these 4% 4% 4%

Don't know/refused <1% <1% 0%

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, DID YOU USE THE INTERNET TO ORDER GOODS OR SERVICES FROM VENDORS LOCATED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES?Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases In The Past 12 Months

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 756 215 71

Yes 92% 89% 82%

No 8% 11% 18%

Don't know/refused <1% 0% 0%

Page 50 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO VENDORS LOCATED IN THE UNITED STATES?Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases From U.S. Vendors

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 699 198 60

1 or 2 orders 5% 6% 18%

3 to 6 orders 27% 23% 33%

7 to 10 orders 18% 25% 34%

11 to 20 orders 21% 23% 6%

More than 20 orders 27% 20% 9%

Don't know/refused 2% 3% 0%

OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WHAT WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THE TOTAL COST OF GOODS AND SERVICES YOU ORDERED FROM VENDORS IN THE UNITED STATES TO BE?Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases From U.S. Vendors

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 699 198 60

Less than $20 1% 6% 2%

Between $20 and $49 <1% <1% 4%

Between $50 and $99 3% 4% 15%

Between $100 and $249 14% 22% 24%

Between $250 and $499 14% 8% 20%

Between $500 and $749 14% 16% 10%

Between $750 and $999 4% 6% 8%

Between $1,000 and $4,999 29% 26% 7%

$5,000 or more 9% 7% 4%

Don't know/refused 10% 7% 6%

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, DID YOU USE THE INTERNET TO ORDER GOODS OR SERVICES FROM VENDORS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES?Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases In The Past 12 Months

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 756 215 71

Yes 19% 13% 16%

No 80% 84% 82%

Don't know/refused 1% 3% 1%

Page 51 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY SEPARATE ORDERS DID YOU PLACE ONLINE TO VENDORS LOCATED IN COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THE UNITED STATES?Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases From Foreign Vendors

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 122 25 8

1 or 2 orders 45% n/a n/a

3 to 6 orders 34% n/a n/a

7 to 10 orders 9% n/a n/a

11 to 20 orders 4% n/a n/a

More than 20 orders 7% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 1% n/a n/a

OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, WHAT WOULD YOU ESTIMATE THE TOTAL COST OF GOODS AND SERVICES YOU ORDERED FROM VENDORS OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES TO BE?Base: Adults Who Have Made Online Purchases From Foreign Vendors

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 122 25 8

Less than $20 7% n/a n/a

Between $20 and $49 14% n/a n/a

Between $50 and $99 18% n/a n/a

Between $100 and $249 29% n/a n/a

Between $250 and $499 8% n/a n/a

Between $500 and $749 4% n/a n/a

Between $750 and $999 2% n/a n/a

Between $1,000 and $4,999 9% n/a n/a

$5,000 or more 6% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 3% n/a n/a

Page 52 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

OVER THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MUCH REVENUE DO YOU ESTIMATE THAT YOU GENERATED FROM SELLING PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ONLINE?Base: Adults Who Have Sold Goods Or Services Online In The Past 12 Months

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 176 50 19

Less than $20 29% 33% n/a

Between $20 and $49 1% 1% n/a

Between $50 and $99 1% 2% n/a

Between $100 and $249 10% 14% n/a

Between $250 and $499 6% 1% n/a

Between $500 and $749 5% <1% n/a

Between $750 and $999 1% <1% n/a

Between $1,000 and $4,999 16% 21% n/a

$5,000 or more 7% 10% n/a

Don't know/refused 24% 18% n/a

WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?...SENDING OR RECEIVING AN E-MAIL

Base: All Respondents

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1200 398 197

Very difficult 3% 3% 8%

Difficult 3% 4% 5%

Easy 49% 47% 57%

Very easy 43% 44% 26%

Refused <1% 0% 0%

Don't know 2% 2% 4%

Page 53 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?...WRITING A LETTER USING WORD PROCESSING SOFTWARE LIKE MICROSOFT WORD

Base: All Respondents

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1200 398 197

Very difficult 5% 5% 9%

Difficult 7% 6% 13%

Easy 46% 42% 48%

Very easy 40% 45% 26%

Refused <1% <1% <1%

Don't know 2% 2% 4%

WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?...CREATING OR EDITING A SPREADSHEET

Base: All Respondents

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1200 398 197

Very difficult 10% 9% 21%

Difficult 17% 16% 22%

Easy 43% 46% 40%

Very easy 26% 27% 10%

Refused <1% <1% <1%

Don't know 5% 2% 7%

Page 54 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?...ACCESSING THE INTERNET ON A MOBILE DEVICE LIKE A TABLET OR CELL PHONE

Base: All Respondents

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1200 398 197

Very difficult 5% 4% 11%

Difficult 8% 6% 13%

Easy 44% 46% 45%

Very easy 38% 41% 25%

Refused <1% <1% <1%

Don't know 4% 2% 5%

DO YOU HAVE ANY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 LIVING AT HOME?

Base: All Respondents

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 1200 398 197

Yes 37% 46% 34%

No 62% 53% 66%

Refused <1% 1% 0%

AND HOW MANY OF THOSE CHILDREN ARE CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH THE 12TH GRADE AT SCHOOL?Base: Households With Children Under 18

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 376 112 49

0 16% 22% 19%

1 36% 31% 28%

2 30% 28% 24%

3 or more 17% 18% 28%

Don't know/refused 1% <1% 0%

Page 55 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

AND HOW MANY OF THOSE CHILDREN ARE CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH THE 12TH GRADE AT SCHOOL?Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 School

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 324 93 43

1 43% 40% 35%

2 37% 36% 30%

3 14% 13% 14%

3 or more 21% 23% 35%

HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET AT SCHOOL FOR THEIR CLASS ASSIGNMENTS?

Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 School

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 324 93 43

0 8% 18% 12%

1 44% 27% 40%

2 30% 29% 14%

3 or more 14% 18% 29%

Don't know/refused 4% 7% 5%

DO YOUR CHILDREN USE YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?

Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 School

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 324 93 43

Yes 78% 59% 63%

No 13% 29% 14%

No home Internet service in household 9% 12% 23%

Refused 0% 0% 0%

DO YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET ANYPLACE OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOME FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?

Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 School

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 324 93 43

Yes 44% 33% 29%

No 55% 67% 66%

Refused 1% 0% 4%

Page 56 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHERE DO YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?

Base: Households Where Children Use The Internet For Schoolwork Someplace Other Than Home

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 152 38 17

At school 69% 77% n/a

At the library 22% 20% n/a

At someone else's home 18% 20% n/a

Through cell phone or handheld device 9% 0% n/a

Restaurants or coffee shops 8% 15% n/a

Through wi-fi or an aircard 3% 0% n/a

At work 3% 0% n/a

Through a tablet computer supplied by the school 2% 0% n/a

Through a laptop computer supplied by the school 2% 0% n/a

At a community center 1% <1% n/a

Other (specify) 2% 0% n/a

Don't know/refused 2% 0% n/a

Page 57 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

DO YOUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS PROVIDE THEM WITH A LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER TO USE?

Base: Children In Household Enrolled In K-12 School

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 324 93 43

Yes 26% 34% 34%

No 73% 65% 66%

Refused <1% 1% 0%

HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN HAVE A LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER THAT IS PROVIDED TO THEM BY THEIR SCHOOL?Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 School

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 324 93 43

0 5% 4% 2%

1 12% 15% 16%

2 5% 7% 5%

3 or more 4% 8% 9%

Don't know/refused 1% 0% 2%

SINCE THE SCHOOL SUPPLIED A COMPUTER FOR SCHOOLWORK, HOW HAS THAT AFFECTED YOUR CHILDREN'S GRADES? WOULD YOU SAY IT HAD...?Base: Households Where Children's Schools Provide Laptop or Tablet Computers

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 89 30 14

A positive impact 54% 64% n/a

A negative impact 4% 1% n/a

No impact as far as you can tell 42% 34% n/a

Don't know/refused <1% 1% n/a

Page 58 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

AND WOULD YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS?...HOME INTERNET SERVICE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO SEEK OUT HEALTHCARE INFORMATION

Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 229 101 83

Strongly agree 18% 8% 20%

Agree 51% 51% 50%

Disagree 20% 25% 17%

Strongly disagree 6% 3% 6%

Refused <1% <1% 0%

Don't know 5% 14% 7%

AND WOULD YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS?...HOME INTERNET SERVICE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO RESEARCH OR BUY GOODS AND SERVICES

Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 229 101 83

Strongly agree 18% 15% 15%

Agree 47% 49% 49%

Disagree 24% 24% 29%

Strongly disagree 3% 1% 3%

Refused 1% <1% 0%

Don't know 6% 11% 4%

Page 59 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2013 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

AND WOULD YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS?...HOME INTERNET SERVICE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO INTERACT WITH LOCAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICESBase: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 229 101 83

Strongly agree 15% 12% 14%

Agree 48% 53% 47%

Disagree 24% 24% 27%

Strongly disagree 8% 6% 7%

Refused 1% <1% 0%

Don't know 4% 5% 4%

AND WOULD YOU STRONGLY AGREE, AGREE, DISAGREE, OR STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS?HOME INTERNET SERVICE WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR MY CHILD TO DO HOMEWORK.

Base: Households That Do Not Subscribe To Home Internet Service

Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 30 12 10

Strongly agree 22% n/a n/a

Agree 37% n/a n/a

Disagree 29% n/a n/a

Strongly disagree 11% n/a n/a

Refused 0% n/a n/a

Don't know <1% n/a n/a

Low-Income households = annual household income less than $25,000

Cells marked as "n/a" are not reported due to small sample sizes

Page 60 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE OR USE THE INTERNET FROM HOME?Base: Households With Internet ServiceUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 792 187 88Ever personally use 98% 97% 93%Several times per day 72% 67% 62%Once per day 12% 16% 12%Several times per week 9% 6% 7%Once per week or less 5% 8% 12%Never 2% 2% 7%Don't know/refused <1% <1% 0%

AND WHAT DO YOU PAY EACH MONTH FOR YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE?Base: Households With Internet ServiceUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 792 187 88Less than $10 2% 0% 1%Between $10 and $19 4% 2% 4%Between $20 and $29 9% 13% 16%Between $30 and $39 13% 12% 11%Between $40 and $49 13% 11% 18%Between $50 and $74 26% 31% 26%Between $75 and $99 8% 7% 2%Between $100 and $124 5% 2% 3%Between $125 and $149 1% 0% 3%Between $150 and $174 1% 2% 0%Between $175 and $199 <1 0% 1%Between $200 and $224 1% 1% 2%Between $225 and $249 0% 0% 0%$250 or more <1% 1% 0%Don't know/refused 17% 19% 15%

ON YOUR CELL PHONE, DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO A PLAN THAT ALLOWS YOU TO ACCESS THE INTERNET? Base: Cell Phone OwnersUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 858 204 110Yes 76% 68% 57%No 22% 29% 39%Don't know/refused 2% 3% 4%

Page 61 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

HOW OFTEN, IF EVER, DO YOU GO ONLINE OR ACCESS THE INTERNET USING YOUR CELL PHONE?Base: Cell Phone Owners Who Have A Data PlanUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 601 132 50Several times per day 68% 59% 48%Once per day 9% 11% 15%Several times per week 9% 9% 11%Once per week or less 8% 10% 8%Never 6% 12% 17%Don't know/refused 0% 0% 0%

DO YOU USE YOUR CELL PHONE TO ACCESS THE INTERNET WHILE YOU ARE AT HOME, WHILE YOU ARE AWAY FROM HOME OR BOTH?Base: Adults Who Use The Internet Via Cell PhoneUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 546 116 36At home 80% 85% 84%Away from home 96% 93% 87%Both 77% 79% 70%Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

ARE THERE LIMITS TO THE AMOUNT OF DATA YOU CAN ACCESS ON YOUR CELL PHONE EACH MONTH BEFORE YOUR SPEED IS REDUCED OR YOU ARE CHARGED MORE?Base: Cell Phone Users Who Have A Data PlanUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 601 132 50Yes 53% 57% 62%No 41% 37% 33%Don't know/refused 6% 6% 5%

IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU REACHED OR EXCEEDED THAT MONTHLY DATA CAP?Base: Adults Whose Cell Phone Data Plan Limits Data UsageUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 306 72 28Never 52% 36% n/a 1 or 2 times 23% 29% n/a

3 or 4 times 7% 10% n/a

5 or more times 12% 8% n/a

Don't know/refused 5% 17% n/a

Page 62 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE INTERNET AT HOME?Base: Adults Who Do Not Subscribe To The Internet At HomeUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 208 60 82You don't own a computer 22% 28% 20%You don't need Internet access at your home 23% 25% 28%The monthly cost of Internet service is too expensive 31% 22% 42%The activation and installation fees are too expensive 18% 22% 31%You can get Internet access someplace else 24% 27% 21%The cost of a computer is too expensive 25% 26% 34%You wouldn't use the Internet enough to make it worth the cost 19% 13% 18%There is nothing on the Internet that you want to see or use 19% 21% 25%Concerns about fraud or identity theft 14% 21% 16%You don't know how to use a computer well enough to access the Internet 11% 10% 15%The Internet is too complicated 10% 5% 16%You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use the Internet 6% 4% 5%Broadband isn't available in your area, and you don't want dial-up 12% 10% 11%You don't want internet service at home 5% 8% 2%Any other reason? 5% 11% 1%Don't know/refused 2% 4% 0%

Page 63 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO HOME INTERNET SERVICE?Base: Adults Who Do Not Subscribe To The Internet At HomeUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 208 60 82You don't own a computer 11% 12% 8%You don't need Internet access at your home 9% 7% 12%The monthly cost of Internet service is too expensive 21% 9% 30%There is nothing on the Internet that you want to see or use 7% 10% 10%You don't know how to use a computer well enough to access the Internet 5% 2% 7%The cost of a computer is too expensive 8% 6% 13%You wouldn't use the Internet enough to make it worth the cost 3% 0% 1%You can get Internet access someplace else 4% 11% 2%The Internet is too complicated 2% 2% 3%Broadband isn't available in your area, and you don't want dial-up 6% 5% 4%The activation and installation fees are too expensive 0% 0% 0%You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use the Internet 2% 2% 2%Concerns about fraud or identity theft 2% 6% 2%You don't want internet service at home 10% 12% 5%Any other reason? 5% 11% 1%Don't know/refused 5% 7% 2%

AND TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, WHAT IS THE ADVERTISED BANDWIDTH OR DOWNLOAD SPEED PROVIDED TO YOUR HOME BY YOUR INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDER?Base: Households With Internet Service At HomeUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 792 187 88Less than 768 kbps 1% 5% 6%At least 768 kbps, but less than 1.5 Mbps 3% 3% 2%At least 1.5 Mbps, but less than 4 Mbps 5% 5% 1%At least 4 Mbps, but less than 6 Mbps 3% 3% 0%At least 6 Mbps, but less than 10 Mbps 3% 3% 2%At least 10 Mbps, but less than 15 Mbps 6% 6% 9%At least 15 Mbps, but less than 20 Mbps 5% 4% 4%At least 20 Mbps, but less than 30 Mbps 3% 2% 1%At least 30 Mbps, but less than 50 Mbps 4% *% 1%At least 50 Mbps, but less than 75 Mbps 4% 1% 1%At least 75 Mbps, but less than 100 Mbps 1% 1% 1%At least 100 Mbps, but less than 1 Gbps 2% 1% <1%1 Gbps or more 3% 2% 0%Don't know/remember 58% 66% 72%

Page 64 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHY DON'T YOU SUBSCRIBE TO BROADBAND INTERNET SERVICE AT HOME?Base: Respondents Who Subscribe To Dial-Up Or Don't Know What Type Of Internet Service They HaveUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 78 33 10

You don't need home broadband service 17% 23% n/aYou do not know enough about broadband, or you don't know what it is 28% 30% n/a

The monthly cost of broadband service is too expensive 11% 17% n/a

Broadband service is not available in your area 28% 39% n/a

You do not use the Internet often enough to make it worth the extra cost 16% 22% n/a

There is nothing you want to see or do online that requires broadband 12% 12% n/a

The activation and installation fees are too expensive 12% 12% n/a

You can get broadband access somewhere else 13% 24% n/a

Broadband is too complicated 5% 10% n/a

Available broadband service is not fast enough to be worthwhile 5% 3% n/a

Your computer is too old or too slow to access broadband 11% 10% n/a

Concerns about fraud or identity theft 12% 19% n/a

You don't want broadband service at home 6% 0% n/a

You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use broadband 3% 7% n/a

Any other reason? 1% 0% n/a

Don't know/refused 6% 6% n/a

Page 65 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH ONE OF THESE IS THE MAIN REASON WHY YOU DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO HOME BROADBAND SERVICE?Base: Respondents Who Subscribe To Dial-Up Or Don't Know What Type Of Internet Service They HaveUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 78 33 10

Broadband service is not available in your area 20% 32% n/aYou do not know enough about broadband, or you Don't know/refused what it is 17% 15% n/a

You don't need home broadband service 10% 11% n/a

You do not use the Internet often enough to make it worth the extra cost 9% 5% n/a

There is nothing you want to see or do online that requires broadband 5% 5% n/a

Broadband is too complicated 1% 0% n/a

You don't want broadband service at home 5% 0% n/a

The monthly cost of broadband service is too expensive 4% 6% n/a

Your computer is too old or too slow to access broadband 7% 3% n/a

You can get broadband access somewhere else 4% 15% n/a

The activation and installation fees are too expensive 1% 0% n/a

You have an illness or physical condition that makes it difficult to use broadband 1% 0% n/a

Available broadband service is not fast enough to be worthwhile 2% 0% n/a

Concerns about fraud or identity theft 4% 0% n/a

Any other reason? 1% 0% n/a

Don't know/refused 8% 9% n/a

TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, IS BROADBAND OR HIGH SPEED INTERNET SERVICE AVAILABLE IN THE AREA WHERE YOU LIVE?Base: Households Without Broadband ServiceUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 286 93 92

Yes 57% 48% 58%

No 23% 33% 19%

Don't know/refused 20% 20% 24%

Page 66 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT USING THE INTERNET?Base: Adults Who Use The Internet At Home Or Outside The HomeUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 838 204 98

Communicating through e-Mail or other ways of sending messages 88% 82% 79%

Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests 77% 72% 61%

Purchasing goods or services 73% 67% 47%

Using social networking sites like Facebook 71% 67% 68%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 69% 59% 51%

Online banking or paying bills 68% 54% 48%

Searching for medical or healthcare information 62% 48% 48%

Searching for information about government services 47% 36% 41%

Conducting research for schoolwork 47% 42% 51%

Searching or applying for jobs 41% 25% 39%

Applying for services or filling out forms at government websites 44% 28% 39%

Communicating with your doctor or other healthcare professionals 36% 25% 24%

Taking online classes 26% 14% 28%

Advertising or selling products or services 20% 20% 14%

None of these 1% 2% 2%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

Page 67 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING ACTIVITIES DO YOU CONDUCT ON YOUR CELL PHONE USING YOUR MOBILE BROADBAND SERVICE?Base: Adults Who Use The Internet Via Cell PhoneUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 546 116 36

Communicating through e-Mail or other ways of sending messages 86% 79% 82%

Using social networking sites like Facebook 76% 75% 75%

Exploring or participating in hobbies or personal interests 70% 62% 56%

Reading online newspapers or other news sources 65% 50% 49%

Purchasing goods or services 52% 53% 27%

Online banking or paying bills 56% 50% 31%

Searching for medical or healthcare information 41% 34% 34%

Searching for information about government services 28% 31% 39%

Conducting research for schoolwork 31% 36% 57%

Searching or applying for jobs 24% 17% 34%

Communicating with your doctor or other healthcare professionals 31% 33% 23%

Advertising or selling products or services 15% 15% 8%

Applying for services or filling out forms at government websites 17% 16% 8%

Taking online classes 8% 5% 9%

None of these 3% 4% 2%

Don't know/refused 1% 1% 0%

Page 68 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?SENDING OR OPENING FILES ATTACHED TO AN E-MAILBase: All RespondentsUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 1000 247 170

Very difficult 4% 4% 9%

Difficult 8% 10% 19%

Easy 52% 61% 48%

Very easy 32% 19% 16%

Don't know 3% 5% 5%

WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?USING A PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE TO DESIGN OR EDIT SOFTWAREBase: All RespondentsUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 1000 247 170

Very difficult 27% 26% 22%

Difficult 40% 36% 44%

Easy 22% 25% 20%

Very easy 3% 2% 4%

Don't know 7% 10% 7%

WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?CREATING OR EDITING A MOBILE APPLICATION OR APPBase: All RespondentsUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 1000 247 170

Very difficult 21% 19% 24%

Difficult 37% 42% 35%

Easy 27% 24% 26%

Very easy 6% 5% 5%

Don't know 7% 8% 7%

Page 69 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WOULD THE FOLLOWING TASKS BE VERY DIFFICULT, DIFFICULT, EASY, OR VERY EASY FOR YOU TO ACCOMPLISH WITHOUT ASSISTANCE FROM SOMEONE ELSE?USING OR MANAGING INFORMATION USING DATABASE SOFTWAREBase: All RespondentsUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 1000 247 170

Very difficult 8% 9% 15%

Difficult 27% 30% 34%

Easy 46% 38% 34%

Very easy 11% 10% 6%

Don't know 6% 11% 8%

HOW MANY CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18 LIVE AT YOUR HOME?Base: All RespondentsUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 1000 247 170

0 57% 62% 61%

1 14% 10% 8%

2 15% 14% 16%

3 or more 13% 13% 15%

Don't know/refused 2% 1% 0%

AND HOW MANY OF THOSE CHILDREN ARE CURRENTLY ENROLLED IN KINDERGARTEN THROUGH THE 12TH GRADE AT SCHOOL?Base: Households With Children Under 18Unweighted Sample Size (n=) 336 72 54

0 18% 13% 7%

1 34% 28% 35%

2 28% 32% 29%

3 or more 19% 26% 29%

Don't know/refused <1% 1% 0%

Page 70 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET AT SCHOOL FOR THEIR CLASS ASSIGNMENTS?Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 SchoolUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 282 64 50

0 11% 22% 16%

1 42% 26% 33%

2 28% 31% 25%

3 or more 15% 14% 14%

Don't know/refused 5% 7% 12%

DO YOUR CHILDREN USE YOUR HOME INTERNET SERVICE FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 SchoolUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 282 64 50

Yes 69% 64% 44%

No 13% 16% 21%

No home Internet service in household 17% 20% 30%

DO YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET ANYPLACE OUTSIDE OF YOUR HOME FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?Base: Households With Children Enrolled In K-12 SchoolUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 282 64 50

Yes 48% 41% 45%

No 50% 58% 50%

Don't know/refused 2% 1% 5%

Page 71 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

WHERE DO YOUR CHILDREN USE THE INTERNET FOR THEIR SCHOOLWORK?Base: Households Where Childeren Use The Internet For Schoolwork At Locations Outside Of HomeUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 132 25 20

At school 62% n/a n/aAt the library 37% n/a n/a

At someone else's home 18% n/a n/a

Restaurants or coffee shops 8% n/a n/a

Through cell phone or handheld device 8% n/a n/a

At work 2% n/a n/a

Through a laptop computer supplied by the school 0% n/a n/a

At a community center 1% n/a n/a

Through wifi or an aircard 1% n/a n/a

Through a tablet computer supplied by the school <1% n/a n/a

Other 3% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 4% n/a n/a

DO YOUR CHILDREN'S SCHOOLS PROVIDE THEM WITH A LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER TO USE?Base: Households With Children In K-12 SchoolUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 282 64 50

Yes 30% 31% 37%

No 69% 68% 62%

HOW MANY OF YOUR CHILDREN HAVE A LAPTOP OR TABLET COMPUTER THAT IS PROVIDED TO THEM BY THEIR SCHOOL?Base: Households Where Children's Schools Provide Laptops Or TabletsUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 82 19 16

0 19% n/a n/a1 41% n/a n/a

2 15% n/a n/a

3 or more 13% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 11% n/a n/a

Page 72 of 73

CONNECTED TEXAS -- 2014 RESIDENTIAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTStatewide Rural Low-Income

SINCE THE SCHOOL SUPPLIED A COMPUTER FOR SCHOOLWORK, HOW HAS THAT AFFECTED YOUR CHILDREN'S GRADES? WOULD YOU SAY IT HAD...?Base: Households Where Children's Schools Provide Laptops Or TabletsUnweighted Sample Size (n=) 82 19 16

A positive impact 53% n/a n/a

A negative impact 3% n/a n/a

No impact as far as you can tell 40% n/a n/a

Don't know/refused 5% n/a n/a

Low-Income households = annual household income less than $25,000

Cells marked as "n/a" are not reported due to small sample sizes

Page 73 of 73