Rural communities suffer from supply- and demand-side disadvantages when dealing with Internet access. Telecommunications companies are less likely to provide such communities with needed infrastructure because of their lower population densities; these communities also tend to have lower levels of factors known to influence the access decision, such as education and income.This study looks at the broadband Internet setting in Oklahoma over a 3-year period, examining the diffusion of infrastructure and access rates. A nonlinear decomposition technique allows for measurement of how characteristics such as the availability of infrastructure contribute to observed metropolitan—micropolitan or metropolitan—noncore digital divides.The results suggest that although differences in infrastructure are consistently only minor contributors to the divide, their importance has increased as knowledge about the Internet has diffused.
Armstrong, B. ( 2005, December 15). DSL services available to all Oklahoma residents by 2007. The Journal Record.
2.
Associated Press. (2007, March 28). Oil and gas industry lifts Oklahoma economy.
3.
Byers, A. ( 2006, Winter). Communities address technology-related development . Tangents: Technologies Across Nebraska Newsletter.
4.
Carter, R. ( 2003, April 20). SBC begins $300 million Internet service expansion . The Journal Record.
5.
Chakraborty, J., & Bosman, M. ( 2005). Measuring the digital divide in the United States: Race, income, and personal computer ownership. The Professional Geographer, 57, 395-410.
6.
Cooper, M., & Kimmelman, G. ( 1999). The digital divide confronts the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Washington, DC: Consumer Federation of America.
7.
Downes, T., & Greenstein, S. (2002). Universal access and local Internet markets in the U.S. Research Policy, 31, 1035-1052.
8.
Drabenstott, M. ( 2001). New policies for a new rural America. International Regional Science Review, 24(1), 3-15.
9.
Fairlie, R. ( 2003). An extension of the Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition technique to logit and probit models (Paper No. 873). New Haven, CT: Yale University, Economic Growth Center.
10.
Federal Communications Commission, Industry and Analysis and Technology Division. (2003). High-speed service for Internet access: Status as of June 30, 2003. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html
11.
Federal Communications Commission, Industry and Analysis and Technology Division. (2006). High-speed service for Internet access: Status as of June 30, 2006. Retrieved October 30, 2008, from http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/iatd/comp.html
12.
Firth, L., & D. Mellor. (2005). Broadband: Benefits and problems. Telecommunications Policy, 29(2), 223-236.
13.
Flamm, K. ( 2006, September). Diagnosing the disconnected: Where and why is broadband access unavailable in the U.S.?Paper presented at the Telecommunications Policy Research Conference, Fairfax, VA.
14.
Flamm, K., & Chaudhuri, A. ( 2007). An analysis of the determinants of broadband access. Telecommunications Policy, 31, 312-326.
15.
Fox, S. ( 2005). Digital divisions. Washington, DC : Pew Internet & American Life Project.
16.
Government Accountability Office. (2006). Broadband deployment is extensive throughout the United States, but it is difficult to assess the extent of deployment gaps in rural areas (Report No. GAO-06-426). Retrieved November 17, 2008, from http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06426.pdf
17.
Grubesic, T. ( 2003). Inequities in the broadband revolution. Annals of Regional Science, 37(2), 263-289.
18.
Horrigan, J. ( 2006). Home broadband adoption 2006: Home broadband adoption is going mainstream and that means user generated content is coming from all kinds of Internet users. Pew Internet and American Life Project . http://perwinternet.org
19.
Horrigan, J. ( 2007). Home broadband adoption 2007. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
20.
Horrigan, J. ( 2008). Home broadband adoption 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
21.
Johnson, T. ( 2001). The rural economy in a new century. International Regional Science Review, 24(1), 21-37.
22.
Kruger, L. ( 2008). Broadband grant and loan programs in the USDA’s rural utility service. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
23.
Liu, M., & San, G. ( 2006). Social learning and digital divides: A case study of Internet technology diffusion. Kyklos, 59(2), 307-321.
24.
Liu, Y., Martin, C., Roehl, E., Yi, Z., & Ward, S. ( 2006). Digital information access in urban/ suburban communities: A survey report of public digital library use by the residents of Connecticut . OCLC Systems and Services, 22, 132-144.
25.
Malecki, E. ( 2003). Digital development in rural areas: Potential and pitfalls . Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 201-214.
26.
Marvin, C. ( 1998). When old technologies were new: Thinking about electric communication in the late nineteenth century. New York : Oxford University Press.
27.
McConnaughey, J., & Lader, W. ( 1998). Falling through the net, II: New data on the digital divide. Washington, DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html
28.
Mills, B., & Whitacre, B. ( 2003). Understanding the non-metropolitan: Metropolitan digital divide. Growth and Change, 34, 219-243.
29.
National Cable and Telecommunications Association. ( 2004). Industry overview. Available at http://www.ncta.com/About/About/HistoryofCableTelevision.aspx Downloaded Mar 13, 2009.
30.
National Exchange Carrier Association. (2006 ). Trends 2006: Making progress with broadband. Whippany, NJ: Author. Retrieved November 20, 2008, from http://www.neca.org/media/trends_brochure_website.pdf
31.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration & Economics Statistics Administration. (2002). How Americans are expanding their use of the Internet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
32.
Neumark, D. ( 1988). Employers discriminatory behavior and the estimation of wage discrimination. Journal of Human Resources, 23, 279-295.
33.
Norris, P. ( 2001). Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Noyes, K. ( 2008, May 5). 3G network touches down in NYC. Technewsworld.
35.
Oaxaca, R., & Ransom, M. ( 1994). On discrimination and decomposition of wage differentials . Journal of Econometrics, 61, 5-21.
36.
Page, D. ( 2006, May 4). Oklahoma’s oil and gas economy has doubled . The Journal Record.
37.
Papacharissi, Z., & Zaks, A. ( 2006). Is broadband the future? An analysis of broadband technology potential and diffusion. Telecommunications Policy, 30, 64-75.
38.
Pigg, K. ( 2005). Introduction: Community informatics and community development . Journal of the Community Development Society, 36(1), 1-7.
39.
Prieger, J. ( 2003). The supply side of the digital divide: Is there equal availability in the broadband Internet access market? Economic Inquiry, 41, 346-363.
40.
Rogers, E. ( 1962). Diffusion of innovations. New York : Free Press.
41.
Rose, R. ( 2003). Oxford Internet survey results. Oxford , UK: Oxford Internet Institute.
42.
Strover, S. ( 2001). Rural Internet connectivity. Telecommunications Policy, 25, 331-347.
43.
Strover, S. ( 2003). The prospects for broadband deployment in rural America . Government Information Quarterly, 20, 95-106.
44.
Tarde, G. ( 1903). The laws of imitation (E. C. Parsons, Trans.) New York: Holt.
45.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General. (2005). Audit report: Rural utilities service broadband grant and loan programs (Audit Report No. 09601-4-Te). Washington, DC: Author.
46.
Warschauer, M. ( 2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press .
47.
Whitacre, B. ( 2008). Factors influencing the temporal diffusion of broadband adoption: Evidence from Oklahoma. Annals of Regional Science , 42, 661-679.
48.
Whitacre, B., & Mills, B. ( 2007). Infrastructure and the rural-urban divide in high-speed residential Internet access. International Regional Science Review, 30(3), 249-273.
