Introduction

In March of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic upended daily life in Greater Boston and around the world. Unemployment rates spiked, schools were closed, and those with the ability to work or attend school virtually were forced to reorient themselves to a completely digital environment. Reliance on this digital environment exposed many of the inequities that have existed in accessing these digital tools and resources. While some transitioned to online work or learning seamlessly, others faced big challenges. Many of those challenges relate to digital access. For example, slow and unreliable internet connections made it hard for many students to fully participate in online school. Some families were reliant on data-limited cellular plans that might run out by month's end. Many residents were not familiar with how to use the internet and digital tools, limiting their access to resources and making them vulnerable to scams and malware. And for a large share of the population, they simply did not own a computer. These barriers put people at a disadvantage in education, jobs, health, and civic and community participation.

In the cities of Chelsea, Everett, and Revere there are many low-income households, people of color, and immigrant residents that have been disproportionately impacted by the health and economic disruptions of COVID. Barriers to digital access are also common in these communities. For most homes in the three cities, average upload and download speeds do not measure up to what is advertised; this is a particular problem for larger households. Fiber optic service, essential for truly high-bandwidth internet connections, is available only in some neighborhoods, leaving many households reliant on slower copper cable service. One out of five households do not have a computer available.1

Municipal leaders and staff in Chelsea, Everett, and Revere recognize that they have a critical role to play in ensuring that residents and businesses have access to reliable, high-speed, and affordable internet service, along with the skills and tools to use it. The three municipalities engaged the Metropolitan Area Planning Council to create the Commonwealth’s first regional digital access plan. A regional approach was taken because the digital divide crosses municipal boundaries, and the solutions require coordinated efforts. Through a comprehensive planning process, MAPC evaluated available data, coordinated a digital access survey with over 2,000 responses, attended school district meetings, held focus groups in multiple languages, evaluated existing infrastructure, and worked closely with municipal staff and executive leadership to fully understand not only the symptoms, but the root causes of digital inequities. This plan outlines those findings and sets a path forward for these municipalities and others to improve not only digital connectivity and use, but the economic, health, and social well-being of all residents.

Key Findings

Our research documented widespread and inequitable lack of access to broadband speed connections, and wide variation in connection speeds. 15% of residents within the three communities do not have an internet connection at home, according to the 2015-19 American Community Survey. For those households making less than $75,000 per year, that number jumps to 55% in Everett, 65% in Chelsea, and 64% in Revere. Among those with internet access, the quality of the service (in terms of upload and download speeds) varies widely. Speed test data from mLab and Microsoft indicate that 30% to 40% of households have service that does not meet the FCC’s basic definition of “broadband”: 25 megabits per second (Mb/s) download speed and 3 Mb/s upload speed (otherwise known as “25/3”). 2

Connection speed is particularly important when multiple people need to work or attend school remotely at the same time. 80% of respondents to the Digital Access and Equity Survey responded that more than one person in their household needs to use the internet at the same time frequently or all the time. This is more likely among large families and households (four or more people), which make up 33% of households in Chelsea, 27% of those in Everett, and 24% of those in Revere. Parents, students, and teachers attest to the disruption caused by slow internet speeds and multiple users competing for limited bandwidth.

Affordability remains a primary barrier to consistent internet service and high-speed subscriptions in these three cities. 70% of survey takers responded, ‘Yes’ to the question, “Have you ever had to change or cancel your internet subscription because it was too expensive?” Additional barriers to internet adoption stem from language isolation, concerns about privacy, and lack of information regarding internet subsidies and training programs. For example, respondents who completed MAPC’s Digital Access survey in a language other than English were less likely to feel confident in the use of a laptop/Chromebook as well as resolving internet connectivity issues, indicating the need for language-specific programming.3

MAPC Digital Access and Equity Survey for the Cities of Chelsea, Everett, and Revere.

The affordability problem is compounded by the limited choice of service providers and limited reach of fiber optic networks. Most households in the three cities rely on “wireline” connections through a cable TV provider. There are only two such providers in Everett and Revere (Comcast and RCN); and Chelsea is served only by Comcast. Depending on location, households may have connection only to the copper wire cable TV connection, or they may be able to access fiber optic service. Fiber optic service supports much higher speeds and could (theoretically) enable users to have a choice of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) but is not available in all neighborhoods. Where fiber does exist, it is owned by the cable service provider (Comcast or RCN), which serves as the sole ISP.

Understanding where the current fiber optic networks are and who owns them, is an essential step in addressing digital equity. Upon request from the three cities, RCN and Comcast provided detailed maps of the cable and fiber service networks (cable franchise agreements provide municipalities with the right to access this information upon request). MAPC mapped these networks and estimated how many households were within 200 feet of a mapped fiber line (a threshold chosen as a reasonable upper limit of a service connection for such dense urban communities.) The resulting map depicts the estimated likelihood that a home in each census block is within that 200-foot threshold; it shows that access to fiber is very uneven throughout the three cities. Some neighborhoods have good fiber coverage that provides access to most houses; others have fiber that serves only certain streets. Overall, MAPC estimates that 34% of residents in the three cities live further than 200 feet from a fiber optic line. Chelsea has the greatest share of residents without access to fiber (42%) while Everett has the lowest share (30%). MAPC’s analysis did not find evidence that people of color and low-income residents are disproportionately underserved by the fiber network within each city. However, the incomplete coverage in this “majority minority” portion of the region does have disparate impacts when compared to universal coverage of fiber access in wealthier municipalities.

Data provided by Comcast / RCN through Everett, Chelsea, Revere cable franchise agreements.

These results show that existing telecommunication companies have yet to build networks that provide all residents with a choice of internet service providers offering truly high-speed broadband access. As much of the future federal funding through both the American Rescue Plan Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act specifically calls out an emphasis on fiber connections for both reliability and speed, it will be critical for these communities to work with public and private actors to expand fiber connectivity. This plan can serve as an introduction to municipal actions to advise capital investment, inform policy decisions, and identify program needs that can address resident concerns, remove barriers, promote competition, and provide pathways to close the digital divide and affordability gap that exists today in these municipalities.

Recommendations

Historically, digital equity has been an issue that municipal and community partners have recognized as important, but not one that has been a core focus of any one entity. While establishing a local point of contact for leading future efforts related to digital access and equity, it is also important to recognize the role that existing stakeholders can play in advancing programs, policies, and investments.

MAPC established the following framework for considering the roles of these local actors as follows:

Digital Equity Planning Process

Project Purpose

The purpose of this report is to establish a framework for understanding and addressing the digital access challenges in Chelsea, Everett, and Revere. While Massachusetts already has a strong track record of tackling rural broadband issues, not as much attention has been paid to underserved urban communities, especially Gateway Cities (defined by the State Legislature as a group of 26 midsize urban centers that anchor regional economies around the state). There is little guidance and few proven strategies for closing the gaps in these communities, necessitating a planning process that brings in new information and new approaches. Given the challenges facing these municipalities and their residents, it is also particularly important to develop a plan centered around user needs and capabilities and scaled to fit the capacity of municipal staff and other local implementers.

MAPC envisions that the participating municipalities can use the findings and recommendations of this report for three major areas of work: advising capital investments, supporting program design, and informing policy change. We also hope that this report can serve as a template for other Gateway Cities interested in developing digital access plans, so they can save time and effort on such planning processes.

Project Goals

Local governments rarely understand their role in digital access: few have strategies for providing fast, reliable, and affordable internet to residents and businesses. Revere, Chelsea, and Everett are leading the Commonwealth in developing a plan that is both scaled to fit the capacity of municipal staff and that leverages a strong network of local, state, and federal public, private, educational, and nonprofit resources. MAPC has structured this plan to be a template for municipalities and their partner stakeholders.

The plan goals are as follows:

Project Goals

MAPC firmly believes that to achieve outcomes that enhance the wellbeing of a community, a plan must include that community’s perspectives and participation. This is the bedrock of any design that centers users and their needs. It is also the respectful way to work with communities, and in particular, communities that have historically been marginalized.

This plan has benefitted greatly from the community advisory teams that met throughout this process to provide feedback and respond to proposed strategies and data analysis. The teams were extremely helpful in distributing and completing the community needs assessment. It provided perspectives that informed the plan’s vision and goals and shaped the focus and framing of this plan. These stakeholders will also have a role to play in implementation; they should be actively engaged by municipal staff as they move the plan into action.

History & Background

Achieving digital equity is more than providing decent Wi-Fi. It’s an interconnected challenge that includes three main elements: an adequate device (computer or tablet) a good broadband connection to the internet, and the “digital literacy” necessary to use the internet safely, effectively, and confidently. These are the three legs of the digital access stool. Unfortunately, many residents in Chelsea, Everett, and Revere face chronic, structural, and longstanding barriers to full digital access. Solutions and interventions must not only resolve isolated challenges but be part of a larger web of actions rooted in systemic and social justice.

How Does the Internet Function?

To understand what actions and responsibilities could be taken to close the digital divide, it’s important to look at the internet ownership model that exists today. As the slides below highlight, the internet is comprised of many technologies, each playing a part in transferring information as bits across the globe and to your screen. Let’s take a journey through the technology of the Internet:

Who owns the internet?

No one “owns” the internet. The technology infrastructure that is used to send bits of data across the globe has many different owners and many different operators. Various distributed networks with different models of ownership, management, and regulation connect to form the larger Internet. Some entities own the massive “server farms” on which websites and applications live and operate; others own the connections between these farms and the portals which link them together; others own and operate the wires, fiber optic cables, or satellites that connect individual devices to the internet; and some companies exist simply to provide that connection. And of course, property owners and residents are often responsible for in-building wiring and hardware (such as modems) that are the critical final links in the network. Understanding the landscape in Metro Boston is essential to planning for better connectivity.

In the cities of Chelsea, Everett, and Revere, corporate entities own and operate almost all the fiber optic lines, cable lines, telephone poles, and other physical network infrastructure. These same entities are the exclusive Internet Service Providers (ISPs) for households using this infrastructure to access the internet.

There are also some ISPs such as Starry and netBlazer which lease infrastructure from other companies or strategically deploy their own physical infrastructure. More information about the service providers in Chelsea, Everett, and Revere can be found in the existing conditions section.

Corporate monopolies on wireline internet connections are not the only model for local internet access. As this map of community and municipal networks from the Institute for Local Self Reliance shows, there are other models of ownership and operation here in Massachusetts. In some, more rural parts of Massachusetts municipalities have been able to provide resident service through publicly owned broadband networks. To do this, they often leverage the organizational structure and authority of special public entities called municipal power and light plants. These municipally-owned but financially independent entities, originally conceived of to provide electricity, are empowered to build and operate broadband networks as well. This model of public ownership and public operation is commonly used where no private company is willing to invest in wired connections of very low density areas.

There are other ownership and operation models emerging elsewhere and being explored in Massachusetts. The “Open Access” model allows for one entity to own the network infrastructure, while one or more other entities provide internet access over that network. This approach, being considered in both Quincy and Fairhaven, MA, allows municipalities to direct public investment into publicly owned infrastructure without committing them to become an internet service provider. Municipalities, public entities, or a company could own the infrastructure, such as fiber, and let ISPs compete to deliver service to businesses and residents. With such a model, municipalities can ensure residents and businesses are equitably connected with infrastructure. By allowing multiple ISPs to provide service across the publicly owned network, this model can provide more choice for residents and lower costs due to ISP competition.  The UTOPIA Fiber initiative in Utah is one example of an open access network being implemented now.

Detailed descriptions of different models of ownership and operation along with examples can be found here in the Internet Ownership Models Review. As the recommendations of this plan describe there are short-term actions that can be taken by Chelsea, Everett, and Revere to explore the cost-benefit analysis of introducing a different model to address the connection struggles being faced by residents.

Community Needs Assessment

Survey Respondent Demographics

In sum, MAPC collected 2,165 surveys, in excess of the survey goal.

MAPC collected 793 surveys from Chelsea residents, 388 from Everett residents, and 825 from Revere residents. The key findings in this report will summarize the total of the three communities, but specific community-level findings can be viewed using the data visualizations embedded in the following section.