America’s Most Internet-Connected Cities

Despite the Internet’s ever-growing social and economic relevance, a sizable number of Americans in select cities still aren’t connected.

For the first time, the Census Bureau collected data measuring Internet adoption in its most recent annual American Community Survey. The results depict disparities in connectivity and the current state of Internet connectivity at the local level, estimating numbers of households with access and how residents are connecting.

Nationwide, 79 percent of American households in 2013 had some form of Internet access --including mobile broadband and slower connections. Nearly all houses are hooked up to the Internet in some cities, but in other large jurisdictions, more than a third of households remain without access.

Cities recording the highest Internet adoption rates were predominantly wealthy enclaves characterized by tech-savvy residents. An estimated 96 percent of households in the Denver suburb of Centennial, Colo., had Internet access -- the highest nationally of all cities with at least 100,000 residents. 

Cary, N.C., another relatively wealthy city in the tech-heavy Research Triangle area, posted a similarly high Internet adoption rate.

Cary has long been far ahead other parts of the country. Back in 2000, three-quarters of residents there already had established home Internet access, according to city surveys. Adoption further accelerated in the early 2000s when the region’s primary Internet provider rebuilt its local network, said Susan Moran, the city’s public information director.

Places like Cary with high density and strong Internet adoption tend to attract the most private infrastructure investment and competition. Earlier this year, Google announced it was exploring bringing its highly-touted fiber-optic network to the Raleigh-Durham metro area. “People who make their homes and do business here really drive expansion of service,” Moran said.

College towns like College Station, Texas, and Tempe, Ariz., also registered high connectivity rates. Of the largest jurisdictions, San Jose, San Diego and Seattle recorded the highest adoption rates, at about 88 percent.

To a large degree, Internet adoption mirrors a city’s demographics. Poorer households might not sign up because of the cost. Whites also report higher Internet adoption than black and Hispanic households. Age is another pronounced demographic divides. About 64 percent of the 65-and-over population reported having Internet subscriptions, compared to 81 percent for the rest of the population.

There are several barriers to Internet adoption. Some perceive the Internet as irrelevant to their lives and just don’t see a need for it. Others can’t afford to pay for service or a computer. There’s also a lack of digital literacy around how to use the Internet, a problem that’s particularly relevant for the elderly population. Internet availability is also often a problem in rural and remote areas. Some poorer urban neighborhoods may have insufficient providers offering reliable service at higher speeds.

A quarter or more of households are without Internet connections -- including dial-up service -- in 80 of the 296 larger cities reviewed. The Census survey found the lowest adoption rates in El Monte, Calif., Hartford Conn., Laredo, Texas, and Santa Maria, Calif. -- all with less than 60 percent of households connected. Not surprisingly, many cities with lower connection rates suffered years of economic decline. Just 60 percent of Detroit households, for example, were connected.

Basic Internet adoption rates only tell part of the story, though. Many connected households remain saddled with slow speeds that limit the Internet’s usefulness.

The Census survey does not measure respondents’ connection speeds. It does, though, record connection types, which can provide rough approximations for numbers of high-speed connections. Actual download and upload speeds vary greatly; even DSL services are advertised as high-speed in many areas. Typically, though, cable and fiber connections offer the fastest speeds.

Here’s a table showing cities with the largest shares of households reporting Internet subscriptions classified as cable modem, fiber or having two or more fixed broadband types:

Local Jurisdiction	Total share of all households	Cable Internet share	Fiber Internet share	2 or more fixed broadband share
Cary, N.C.	78.6%	64.8%	6.0%	7.7%
Plano, Texas	77.2%	25.5%	30.0%	21.7%
Thousand Oaks, Calif.	76.9%	34.4%	24.9%	17.7%
Irvine, Calif.	76.1%	62.4%	2.8%	10.9%
Temecula, Calif.	75.4%	23.0%	40.3%	12.2%
Murrieta, Calif.	75.2%	21.1%	43.1%	11.1%
Stamford, Conn.	74.0%	65.8%	1.7%	6.5%
Bellevue, Wash.	73.8%	61.1%	4.0%	8.7%
Virginia Beach, Va.	73.6%	48.9%	15.5%	9.2%
Arlington, Va.	73.5%	31.8%	23.0%	18.7%

Source: Governing calculations of 2013 American Community Survey data. NOTE: Figures do not include households with access that do not have Internet subscriptions.
It’s difficult to know from the Census data how many residents are connecting at faster speeds. Defining what constitutes “high speed” or broadband Internet also isn’t universally agreed upon. Earlier this year, the FCC proposed updating its definition for broadband service -- currently downloads speeds of at least 4 Mbps and upload speeds of 1 Mbps -- to download speeds of at least 10 Mbps. AT&T, Verizon and other telecoms met the agency’s proposal with resistance.

Providers report data to the FCC tallying numbers of household connections. (See our map for updated FCC data at the county level)

James Brooks, director of city solutions for the National League of Cities, said local leaders should assess market demand and how companies might help fulfill a government’s internal needs as well. “Cities have learned a lot from early franchise agreements,” he said. “Municipalities need not be afraid of their private sector partners.”

Cities like Chattanooga, Tenn., and Santa Monica, Calif., maintain their own municipal broadband networks. Brooks said municipal networks help to fill gaps in areas with poor service, but they’re not practical for every market.

Twenty states have passed laws restricting municipal networks or banning them outright, at times resulting from telecoms’ lobbying efforts in state legislatures. Critics of the laws include FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who has suggested that they limit competition. 

“Throughout the country where we have seen competitive broadband providers come in to a market, prices have gone down and broadband speeds have gone up. No wonder incumbent broadband providers want to legislate rather than innovate,” he wrote in a blog post in June.

Colorado’s preemption, different than most other state laws, allows for voters to approve local networks in their areas. Seven Colorado jurisdictions responded earlier this month by passing measures authorizing their local governments to offer high-speed Internet. Wheeler has also hinted that the FCC may soon move to preempt state laws that limit or ban community broadband networks.

City Internet Adoption Rates

Internet adoption rates (all connection types) for cities and incorporated Census-designated places with at least 100,000 residents are shown below:

Rank	Local Jurisdiction	Share of households with Internet	Number households without Internet	Margin of error
1	Centennial, Colorado	96%	1,530	+/- 667
2	Cary, North Carolina	95.5%	2,568	+/- 670
3	Irvine, California	95.3%	3,944	+/- 1,589
4	Frisco, Texas	94.7%	2,416	+/- 885
5	Bellevue, Washington	93.6%	3,363	+/- 910
6	Gilbert, Arizona	93.4%	4,733	+/- 1,077
7	Boulder, Colorado	92.7%	3,080	+/- 978
8	Pearland, Texas	92.6%	2,595	+/- 1,065
9	Plano, Texas	92.3%	8,184	+/- 1,628
10	Scottsdale, Arizona	92.1%	7,900	+/- 1,534
11	College Station, Texas	92%	2,785	+/- 1,006
12	Coral Springs, Florida	92%	3,231	+/- 1,112
13	Surprise, Arizona	92%	3,835	+/- 816
14	Sunnyvale, California	92%	4,507	+/- 1,247
15	Lewisville, Texas	91.6%	3,086	+/- 881
16	Round Rock, Texas	91.6%	3,122	+/- 1,019
17	Arlington, Virginia	91.5%	8,452	+/- 1,329
18	Fort Collins, Colorado	91.4%	4,957	+/- 1,022
19	Naperville, Illinois	91.3%	4,329	+/- 911
20	Torrance, California	91.2%	5,010	+/- 1,110
21	Olathe, Kansas	91.1%	4,033	+/- 1,071
22	Chandler, Arizona	91%	7,640	+/- 1,328
23	The Woodlands, Texas	90.9%	3,299	+/- 1,137
24	West Jordan, Utah	90.8%	2,892	+/- 965
25	Berkeley, California	90.8%	4,222	+/- 1,022
26	Carlsbad, California	90.8%	4,002	+/- 1,380
27	Ann Arbor, Michigan	90.8%	4,279	+/- 895
28	Fremont, California	90.7%	6,935	+/- 1,415
29	Costa Mesa, California	90.6%	3,762	+/- 980
30	Santa Clara, California	90.5%	4,094	+/- 991
31	Elk Grove, California	90.1%	4,830	+/- 1,231
32	San Mateo, California	90%	3,858	+/- 964
33	Murrieta, California	89.9%	3,369	+/- 1,001
34	Rancho Cucamonga, California	89.8%	5,553	+/- 1,275
35	Overland Park, Kansas	89.6%	7,771	+/- 1,570
36	Virginia Beach, Virginia	89.5%	17,375	+/- 2,140
37	Temecula, California	89.5%	3,347	+/- 971
38	Miramar, Florida	89.5%	3,975	+/- 1,246
39	Thousand Oaks, California	89.3%	5,012	+/- 1,163
40	Santa Clarita, California	89.3%	6,438	+/- 1,183
41	Rochester, Minnesota	89%	4,796	+/- 871
42	Huntington Beach, California	88.9%	8,246	+/- 1,391
43	Alexandria, Virginia	88.8%	7,340	+/- 1,401
44	Pembroke Pines, Florida	88.7%	6,148	+/- 1,129
45	Fullerton, California	88.6%	5,056	+/- 1,021
46	Thornton, Colorado	88.4%	4,890	+/- 1,061
47	San Jose, California	88.4%	36,361	+/- 2,965
48	Arvada, Colorado	88.4%	5,063	+/- 993
49	Tempe, Arizona	88.4%	7,400	+/- 1,443
50	Cape Coral, Florida	88.2%	6,742	+/- 1,294
51	Broken Arrow, Oklahoma	88%	4,488	+/- 649
52	San Diego, California	88%	57,625	+/- 3,951
53	Provo, Utah	88%	3,782	+/- 833
54	Seattle, Washington	87.8%	36,435	+/- 3,499
55	Burbank, California	87.7%	5,240	+/- 1,275
56	Roseville, California	87.7%	5,639	+/- 1,143
57	Richardson, Texas	87.5%	4,781	+/- 1,194
58	Corona, California	87.5%	6,024	+/- 1,100
59	Orange, California	87.5%	5,265	+/- 1,179
60	Denton, Texas	87.3%	5,540	+/- 1,156
61	Columbia, Missouri	87.3%	5,926	+/- 1,091
62	Eugene, Oregon	87.3%	8,290	+/- 1,401
63	Anchorage municipality, Alaska	87.2%	13,279	+/- 1,869
64	Madison, Wisconsin	87.1%	13,910	+/- 2,172
65	Cambridge, Massachusetts	87%	5,623	+/- 1,132
66	Colorado Springs, Colorado	86.8%	22,362	+/- 2,394
67	Santa Rosa, California	86.8%	8,612	+/- 1,638
68	Port St. Lucie, Florida	86.7%	7,619	+/- 1,526
69	Henderson, Nevada	86.5%	14,181	+/- 2,099
70	McKinney, Texas	86.5%	6,559	+/- 1,679
71	West Covina, California	86.2%	4,237	+/- 874
72	Norman, Oklahoma	86.1%	6,232	+/- 1,237
73	Westminster, Colorado	86.1%	5,796	+/- 976
74	Tallahassee, Florida	85.9%	10,622	+/- 1,684
75	Simi Valley, California	85.8%	6,107	+/- 1,188
76	Fontana, California	85.7%	6,718	+/- 1,203
77	Raleigh, North Carolina	85.6%	24,552	+/- 2,829
78	San Buenaventura, California	85.5%	6,078	+/- 1,162
79	North Las Vegas, Nevada	85.4%	9,748	+/- 1,526
80	Elgin, Illinois	85.3%	4,882	+/- 1,385
81	Concord, California	85.2%	6,716	+/- 1,173
82	Portland, Oregon	85.2%	37,348	+/- 3,006
83	Austin, Texas	85.1%	51,895	+/- 3,992
84	San Francisco, California	85.1%	52,995	+/- 3,521
85	West Valley City, Utah	85.1%	5,431	+/- 1,230
86	Durham, North Carolina	85%	14,911	+/- 1,853
87	Garland, Texas	84.9%	11,805	+/- 1,838
88	Fargo, North Dakota	84.8%	7,547	+/- 1,262
89	Sterling Heights, Michigan	84.7%	7,542	+/- 1,221
90	Riverside, California	84.6%	13,818	+/- 1,663
91	Killeen, Texas	84.6%	6,718	+/- 1,379
92	Daly City, California	84.6%	4,958	+/- 1,313
93	Carrollton, Texas	84.4%	7,197	+/- 1,345
94	Palm Bay, Florida	84.4%	5,966	+/- 1,368
95	Fairfield, California	84.4%	5,335	+/- 1,036
96	Aurora, Colorado	84.4%	19,460	+/- 2,096
97	Peoria, Arizona	84.2%	9,420	+/- 1,407
98	Boise City, Idaho	84.1%	13,978	+/- 2,489
99	Midland, Texas	84%	6,923	+/- 1,444
100	Antioch, California	83.9%	5,496	+/- 1,161
101	Aurora, Illinois	83.9%	9,989	+/- 1,509
102	Chesapeake, Virginia	83.8%	12,945	+/- 1,625
103	Chula Vista, California	83.6%	12,579	+/- 1,994
104	El Cajon, California	83.6%	5,348	+/- 1,277
105	Oceanside, California	83.6%	10,373	+/- 1,744
106	Anaheim, California	83.5%	16,350	+/- 2,124
107	Mesquite, Texas	83.3%	7,934	+/- 1,572
108	Hayward, California	83.3%	7,822	+/- 1,341
109	Lincoln, Nebraska	83.3%	17,837	+/- 2,596
110	Stamford, Connecticut	83.3%	8,056	+/- 1,612
111	Gainesville, Florida	83.3%	8,434	+/- 1,604
112	Kent, Washington	83.1%	7,396	+/- 1,369
113	Vancouver, Washington	83.1%	10,804	+/- 1,788
114	Pasadena, California	83%	9,239	+/- 1,507
115	Salt Lake City, Utah	82.9%	12,552	+/- 1,717
116	Springfield, Illinois	82.7%	8,525	+/- 1,039
117	Clarksville, Tennessee	82.7%	8,833	+/- 1,270
118	Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky	82.4%	21,963	+/- 2,156
119	Rialto, California	82.2%	4,524	+/- 900
120	Sioux Falls, South Dakota	82.2%	11,841	+/- 1,606
121	Charleston, South Carolina	82.2%	9,684	+/- 1,614
122	Murfreesboro, Tennessee	82.1%	8,129	+/- 1,680
123	Minneapolis, Minnesota	82%	30,204	+/- 2,377
124	Charlotte, North Carolina	82%	53,926	+/- 3,526
125	Billings, Montana	82%	7,998	+/- 1,278
126	Orlando, Florida	81.9%	18,683	+/- 2,048
127	Salem, Oregon	81.7%	10,891	+/- 2,006
128	Lubbock, Texas	81.7%	16,246	+/- 2,029
129	Wilmington, North Carolina	81.4%	9,106	+/- 1,354
130	Long Beach, California	81.4%	30,745	+/- 3,014
131	St. Paul, Minnesota	81.4%	20,652	+/- 1,601
132	Fayetteville, North Carolina	81.3%	14,944	+/- 1,372
133	Cedar Rapids, Iowa	81.3%	9,930	+/- 1,421
134	Lafayette, Louisiana	81.3%	9,085	+/- 1,419
135	Jersey City, New Jersey	81.2%	18,308	+/- 2,074
136	Irving, Texas	81.2%	15,508	+/- 1,701
137	Arlington, Texas	81.1%	25,550	+/- 2,789
138	Newport News, Virginia	80.8%	12,991	+/- 1,606
139	Denver, Colorado	80.8%	52,559	+/- 3,535
140	Moreno Valley, California	80.7%	9,675	+/- 1,412
141	Visalia, California	80.7%	8,312	+/- 1,389
142	Reno, Nevada	80.5%	17,677	+/- 1,903
143	Spokane, Washington	80.3%	16,977	+/- 1,928
144	Hollywood, Florida	80.3%	10,734	+/- 1,819
145	Yonkers, New York	80.2%	14,666	+/- 1,862
146	Garden Grove, California	80.1%	9,146	+/- 1,274
147	Boston, Massachusetts	80.1%	50,090	+/- 3,244
148	Downey, California	80.1%	6,377	+/- 1,310
149	Washington, DC	80%	54,207	+/- 3,373
150	Columbus, Ohio	80%	65,954	+/- 4,168
151	Vallejo, California	79.9%	8,412	+/- 1,560
152	Worcester, Massachusetts	79.8%	13,520	+/- 1,738
153	Richmond, California	79.8%	7,269	+/- 1,545
154	Oakland, California	79.8%	31,186	+/- 2,735
155	Lakewood, Colorado	79.8%	12,447	+/- 1,795
156	Joliet, Illinois	79.6%	9,797	+/- 1,447
157	Tyler, Texas	79.4%	7,865	+/- 1,373
158	Bakersfield, California	79.2%	23,088	+/- 2,271
159	Urban Honolulu, Hawaii	79.2%	26,958	+/- 2,192
160	Atlanta, Georgia	79.2%	38,523	+/- 2,434
161	Salinas, California	79.1%	8,434	+/- 1,392
162	Las Vegas, Nevada	79.1%	43,867	+/- 2,971
163	Sacramento, California	78.9%	36,939	+/- 2,873
164	Jacksonville, Florida	78.9%	66,312	+/- 3,728
165	Hampton, Virginia	78.8%	11,282	+/- 1,310
166	Glendale, California	78.8%	14,999	+/- 2,075
167	Manchester, New Hampshire	78.8%	9,690	+/- 1,521
168	Wichita Falls, Texas	78.6%	8,277	+/- 1,196
169	Grand Prairie, Texas	78.6%	12,755	+/- 2,005
170	Oklahoma City, Oklahoma	78.6%	49,773	+/- 3,154
171	Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee	78.5%	54,089	+/- 3,382
172	Odessa, Texas	78.5%	8,358	+/- 1,370
173	Everett, Washington	78.4%	8,925	+/- 1,757
174	Los Angeles, California	78.3%	287,017	+/- 6,979
175	Fort Worth, Texas	78.2%	58,622	+/- 3,665
176	Greensboro, North Carolina	78.2%	25,255	+/- 2,257
177	Mesa, Arizona	78.2%	36,346	+/- 2,860
178	Fort Lauderdale, Florida	78.1%	16,212	+/- 2,382
179	New York, New York	78.1%	675,906	+/- 12,071
180	Gresham, Oregon	78%	8,535	+/- 1,490
181	Tucson, Arizona	78%	45,762	+/- 3,289
182	Corpus Christi, Texas	77.9%	25,610	+/- 1,990
183	St. Petersburg, Florida	77.8%	23,833	+/- 2,451
184	High Point, North Carolina	77.8%	9,051	+/- 1,348
185	Fort Wayne, Indiana	77.8%	22,616	+/- 2,454
186	Las Cruces, New Mexico	77.7%	8,766	+/- 1,689
187	Tampa, Florida	77.6%	32,769	+/- 2,638
188	Norfolk, Virginia	77.5%	19,243	+/- 1,867
189	Santa Ana, California	77.4%	17,223	+/- 2,000
190	Palmdale, California	77.4%	10,060	+/- 1,388
191	Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania	77.3%	29,544	+/- 2,565
192	Green Bay, Wisconsin	77.3%	9,535	+/- 1,241
193	Tacoma, Washington	77.3%	18,529	+/- 2,079
194	Escondido, California	77.2%	10,202	+/- 1,337
195	McAllen, Texas	77.1%	9,462	+/- 1,752
196	Pomona, California	77.1%	9,047	+/- 1,346
197	Albuquerque, New Mexico	77.1%	49,957	+/- 3,372
198	Omaha, Nebraska	77.1%	39,356	+/- 2,695
199	Huntsville, Alabama	76.9%	18,402	+/- 2,242
200	Independence, Missouri	76.8%	11,425	+/- 1,924
201	Little Rock, Arkansas	76.7%	17,988	+/- 2,159
202	Pompano Beach, Florida	76.4%	9,686	+/- 1,446
203	Des Moines, Iowa	76.3%	19,418	+/- 1,805
204	Clearwater, Florida	76.3%	11,105	+/- 1,846
205	Lakeland, Florida	76.3%	9,134	+/- 1,379
206	Victorville, California	76.2%	7,438	+/- 1,898
207	Athens-Clarke County, Georgia	76%	10,555	+/- 1,388
208	Louisville/Jefferson, Kentucky	76%	59,480	+/- 3,387
209	Montgomery, Alabama	76%	18,837	+/- 1,803
210	Phoenix, Arizona	75.9%	124,822	+/- 5,799
211	Bridgeport, Connecticut	75.7%	11,714	+/- 1,670
212	Kansas City, Missouri	75.6%	47,110	+/- 3,154
213	Grand Rapids, Michigan	75.5%	17,717	+/- 1,539
214	Amarillo, Texas	75.4%	18,482	+/- 1,706
215	Houston, Texas	75.1%	202,782	+/- 7,534
216	Chicago, Illinois	75.1%	256,481	+/- 5,727
217	Lansing, Michigan	75%	12,255	+/- 1,738
218	San Antonio, Texas	74.7%	124,833	+/- 5,190
219	Norwalk, California	74.6%	6,871	+/- 1,108
220	Inglewood, California	74.6%	9,331	+/- 1,490
221	Ontario, California	74.5%	12,023	+/- 1,712
222	Winston-Salem, North Carolina	74.3%	24,140	+/- 1,990
223	Modesto, California	74.3%	17,843	+/- 2,211
224	Richmond, Virginia	74.3%	22,666	+/- 1,826
225	Lancaster, California	74.2%	13,052	+/- 2,245
226	Columbus, Georgia	74%	18,649	+/- 1,881
227	Columbia, South Carolina	74%	11,485	+/- 1,280
228	Indianapolis, Indiana	74%	84,818	+/- 4,299
229	Peoria, Illinois	73.8%	12,316	+/- 1,429
230	Tulsa, Oklahoma	73.8%	42,675	+/- 1,944
231	San Angelo, Texas	73.6%	10,033	+/- 1,691
232	Rockford, Illinois	73.6%	15,360	+/- 1,355
233	Topeka, Kansas	73.5%	14,411	+/- 1,702
234	Wichita, Kansas	73.4%	40,170	+/- 2,993
235	Davenport, Iowa	73.3%	10,903	+/- 1,309
236	Pasadena, Texas	73.3%	12,222	+/- 1,702
237	Fresno, California	73%	43,541	+/- 2,910
238	Oxnard, California	73%	13,736	+/- 1,661
239	Savannah, Georgia	72.9%	14,356	+/- 1,285
240	Knoxville, Tennessee	72.7%	21,881	+/- 2,179
241	Springfield, Missouri	72.7%	19,678	+/- 2,131
242	Baton Rouge, Louisiana	72.5%	24,367	+/- 2,242
243	Stockton, California	72.5%	24,967	+/- 2,351
244	Elizabeth, New Jersey	72.5%	10,984	+/- 1,420
245	Lowell, Massachusetts	71.8%	10,869	+/- 1,754
246	Dallas, Texas	71.5%	135,640	+/- 5,949
247	Allentown, Pennsylvania	71.5%	11,353	+/- 1,512
248	Chattanooga, Tennessee	71.4%	19,608	+/- 1,927
249	West Palm Beach, Florida	71.3%	11,710	+/- 1,887
250	El Paso, Texas	71.3%	63,047	+/- 3,740
251	San Bernardino, California	71.2%	16,198	+/- 1,941
252	Waco, Texas	71.2%	13,450	+/- 1,776
253	Providence, Rhode Island	71%	17,588	+/- 2,077
254	Warren, Michigan	70.5%	16,169	+/- 1,911
255	Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia	70.4%	20,427	+/- 2,091
256	Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	70.2%	173,795	+/- 5,793
257	Toledo, Ohio	70.2%	35,363	+/- 2,326
258	Erie, Pennsylvania	70.1%	12,217	+/- 1,341
259	Cincinnati, Ohio	69.7%	40,361	+/- 2,794
260	Pueblo, Colorado	69.7%	12,787	+/- 1,334
261	Baltimore, Maryland	69.6%	74,116	+/- 3,610
262	Springfield, Massachusetts	69.4%	16,974	+/- 1,599
263	Glendale, Arizona	69%	24,628	+/- 2,358
264	Abilene, Texas	68.9%	13,208	+/- 1,681
265	Milwaukee, Wisconsin	68.8%	72,129	+/- 3,361
266	Syracuse, New York	68.8%	17,170	+/- 1,744
267	North Charleston, South Carolina	68.8%	11,547	+/- 1,356
268	South Bend, Indiana	68.7%	12,675	+/- 1,331
269	Akron, Ohio	68.2%	26,112	+/- 2,114
270	St. Louis, Missouri	68.1%	44,815	+/- 3,116
271	Shreveport, Louisiana	67.9%	24,934	+/- 2,276
272	Newark, New Jersey	67.8%	29,992	+/- 2,686
273	Memphis, Tennessee	67.7%	80,922	+/- 4,437
274	Buffalo, New York	67.4%	35,679	+/- 2,443
275	Kansas City, Kansas	67.2%	17,223	+/- 1,547
276	Mobile, Alabama	66.5%	24,794	+/- 2,192
277	Waterbury, Connecticut	66.3%	13,421	+/- 1,938
278	New Orleans, Louisiana	66.2%	53,572	+/- 2,249
279	Paterson, New Jersey	66%	15,047	+/- 1,869
280	Rochester, New York	65.9%	29,448	+/- 2,517
281	Dayton, Ohio	65.8%	20,180	+/- 2,010
282	Beaumont, Texas	65.6%	15,391	+/- 1,950
283	Evansville, Indiana	64.7%	17,530	+/- 1,760
284	New Haven, Connecticut	64.1%	17,939	+/- 1,883
285	Cleveland, Ohio	63.9%	59,403	+/- 2,886
286	Miami Gardens, Florida	63.6%	11,467	+/- 1,604
287	Miami, Florida	63.2%	56,886	+/- 3,208
288	Jackson, Mississippi	61.2%	24,912	+/- 2,264
289	Brownsville, Texas	61.1%	19,340	+/- 2,009
290	Birmingham, Alabama	61%	34,626	+/- 2,315
291	Hialeah, Florida	60.7%	27,648	+/- 2,801
292	Detroit, Michigan	60.1%	101,923	+/- 3,568
293	Laredo, Texas	59.8%	26,376	+/- 2,000
294	El Monte, California	58%	13,190	+/- 1,655
295	Hartford, Connecticut	57.7%	19,539	+/- 1,965
296	Santa Maria, California	56.1%	11,942	+/- 1,429

SOURCE: Governing calculations of 2013 American Community Survey one-year estimates

Interpreting the Data

• Estimates refer to percentages of total households, not individuals.
• Total adoption rates include all connection types and households reporting Internet access without subscriptions.
• Note than some smaller jurisdictions have higher margins of error. The Census Bureau published data for other localities not shown with fewer residents, but one-year estimates for these jurisdictions aren't as reliable.

Read about broadband adoption in rural areas in the November issue of Governing.