Document Type



he policy environment around broadband technology in the United States is shifting again and there are concerns about the impact these proposed changes will have on the future of rural bro- adband deployment and access. Similar to the Obama administration’s discussion of net neutrality, reclas- sifying high-speed internet is again receiving growing media and policy attention at the federal and state level in the United States. Globally, it is argued that affordable high-speed internet access is imperative to rural and regional economic development success. The global digital divide and challenges of non-adoption impact both developing and developed nations. While many studies have focused on the availability and broad categories of adoption of high-speed internet, few have clarified non-adoption characteristics within states. In a largely rural state such as South Carolina, the issues of access and usage are increasingly relevant as broadband has the potential to improve the access and quality of a range of public and private services, as well as overall state and regional economic well-being. This study focuses on the characteristics of non- adoption of high speed internet in South Carolina, with a particular focus on rural households in the state. Through the use of a statewide survey of 1,200 South Carolina households, we determined which variables were significant for the non-adoption of broadband technology. Confirming international and national level research, the elderly, low income, and rural households across all demographics have lower broadband adoption. These results reveal opportunities to explore policy options that improve technology access across a range of low adoption and use groups in rural communities across the world.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

APA Citation

Dickes, L., Crouch, E. & Walker, T. (2019). Socioeconomic determinants of broadband non-adoption among consumer households in South Carolina, USA. AGER: Revista de Estudios sobre Despoblación y Desarrollo Rural (Journal of Depopulation and Rural Studies), 26, 103-127.