California's Digital Divide

Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide Report #293 - March 2026 Executive Summary In today’s world, digital connectivity is foundational to education, healthcare, economic participation, and civic engagement. This Brief examines the “digital divide” in California – the degree to which broadband access is or is not available to different populations in the state, whether defined by geography, economics, race, or other criteria. California has made historic investments to close its digital divide, yet broadband gaps persist. While statewide data suggests near-universal coverage, these numbers can be misleading. Broadband infrastructure often fails to reach households due to cost, terrain, permitting delays, limited competition, and lack of provider incentives. Even where infrastructure is available, affordability and service quality remain uneven. While almost all California census blocks have some coverage, nearly 5 percent of households across the state lack access. Rural areas of the state, including tribal areas, often have relatively little coverage. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) household deployment data shows that several counties have significant shares of unserved or underserved households. In these counties, double-digit percentages of households lack access to broadband meeting even the baseline 25/3 Mbps standard, emphasizing that statewide averages hide substantial regional variation. Even within more populous counties, the urban/rural divide persists, with rural areas of those counties often having less coverage than urban areas. Rural tribal areas are often especially underserved. The digital divide is equally stark when assessed by income. Among those with a household income of less than $20,000, about 20 percent lack a subscription, compared to less than 3 percent among homes with a household income of more than $75,000. While California has made measurable progress in expanding broadband infrastructure, persistent geographic, economic, and demographic disparities continue to leave hundreds of thousands of households offline or underserved. California has implemented several key programs to address the digital divide in rural areas, focusing on expanding broadband infrastructure, improving affordability, and ensuring equitable access. The Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative, Last Mile Federal Funding Account, California Advanced Services Fund, and the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program represent the state’s multi-faceted approach to bridging connectivity gaps. Together, California’s middle- and last-mile initiatives have substantially expanded the availability of funding and infrastructure needed to close remaining connectivity gaps, reinforcing the central premise of this Brief: that solving California’s digital divide requires not just tracking fiber miles laid or census blocks reached but also understanding who remains offline—and why. This Brief is based on Bridging California’s Digital Divide, a 2025 capstone project done by Fenny Desriani, Master of Public Affairs candidate at the UC Berkeley Goldman School of Public Policy, prepared at the request of the Little Hoover Commission. Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Understanding California’s Digital Divide INTRODUCTION Internet access plays a foundational role in how people learn, work, and take part in public life. In today’s world, digital connectivity is foundational to education, healthcare, economic participation, and civic engagement. Communities without adequate connectivity face growing disadvantages as essential services increasingly move online. But the availability of high-speed internet access is not uniform across the country or throughout California. This Brief examines the “digital divide” in California – the degree to which broadband access is or is not available to different populations in the state, whether defined by geography, economics, race, or other criteria. DEFINING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE Broadband is essentially a high-speed, always-on internet connection that enables the fast transmission of data over a network. Broadband is defined not only by availability, but by speed, reliability, and capacity to support modern applications such as video conferencing, telehealth, and cloud-based work. Delivered via technologies such as fiber-optic, cable, DSL (Digital Subscriber Line), satellite, and fixed wireless, broadband connectivity underpins the critical digital infrastructure that drives economic growth and social inclusion. In March 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) raised the benchmark for high- speed fixed broadband to a minimum download speed of 100 megabits per second (Mbps) and an upload speed of 20 Mbps—up from the previous standard of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps set in 2015. The FCC explained that the updated benchmark responds to changes in how people use the internet— especially as digital tools become more essential for work, learning, and access to services. The agency emphasized the importance of reaching rural and underserved communities to ensure no one is left behind in today’s increasingly connected world.1 Different agencies and funding programs use varying criteria to define whether a community is “unserved” or “underserved” by broadband (see Table 1). Federal and state programs apply different speed thresholds and coverage criteria, which directly affect eligibility for funding. Other definitions consider whether reliable wireline service is consistently available across the entire area. These distinctions matter because they directly affect eligibility for public funding and influence how resources are allocated to close the digital divide. Areas may appear “served” under legacy definitions while remaining unable to support remote learning, telehealth, or reliable work-from-home arrangements. As a result, funding programs may overlook communities that experience real-world connectivity limitations. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 2 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Table 1 - Definition of Unserved and Underserved Areas of Broadband Access in California Download Upload Definition Category Speed Speed Notes Source Threshold Threshold Federal Funding Unserved 25 Mbps 3 Mbps Areas lacking wired broadband connec- Account (FFA) tivity that meets these speed bench- marks are considered unserved, ensur- ing high-quality, interactive services. California Ad- Unserved 10 Mbps 1 Mbps Areas that do not have reliable connec- vanced Services tivity meeting these lower benchmarks Fund (CASF) Infra- are designated unserved, highlighting structure Account basic gaps in internet access. Broadband Equity, Unserved <25 Mbps <3 Mbps Unserved areas are defined as those Access, and De- without any wired broadband access at ployment (BEAD) Program speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps. Underserved <100 Mbps <20 Mbps Areas with broadband access above 25/3 Mbps, but below 100/20 Mbps, are considered underserved, limiting full participation in digital activities. Note: Throughout this report, “unserved” refers to areas lacking broadband speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps, while “underserved” refers to areas with service above 25/3 Mbps but below 100/20 Mbps, as defined by the BEAD program. IMPACTS OF INADEQUATE BROADBAND ACCESS In an increasingly digital world, lacking access to the internet is a serious barrier to individual and community development. Disconnected populations—often located in rural or underserved urban areas—face pronounced difficulties in accessing education, healthcare, employment, and essential public services or opportunities for civic engagement. Education. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed deep inequities in digital access, with students in low-connectivity regions missing lessons, struggling to access materials, and falling further behind academically. Teachers were forced to adapt their instruction without adequate infrastructure. Healthcare. Broadband has become a critical determinant of health, influencing access to preventive care and telehealth services. Patients in disconnected communities face poorer health outcomes due to unmanaged chronic conditions.2 Clinic closures and provider shortages make telehealth increasingly essential. Economic Opportunity. Broadband access is now foundational to economic opportunity. Unreliable internet access restricts participation in remote work, digital job platforms, and the gig economy.3 Small businesses in low-connectivity areas face significant challenges in adopting modern digital tools.4 The economic costs of disconnection extend beyond individual households, contributing to broader regional underdevelopment.5 Civic Inclusion and Civic Education. The digital divide undermines civic participation such as restricting access to voter registration, public forums, and opportunities to engage with local LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 3 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 governance.6 It also limits civic education, excluding students from online programs, virtual town halls, and interactive tools that build democratic skills.7 THE STATE OF BROADBAND ACCESS IN CALIFORNIA By some measures, California has made significant strides in broadband infrastructure expansion. For example, broadband now reaches nearly every census tract in the state. But more granular data reveal a continued divide, with significantly lower rates of access in rural areas, low-income households, and among racial and ethnic minorities. Overall Access Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data suggest that nearly all areas of California are served by basic broadband standards. The relatively new standard of 100/20 Mbps coverage reaches 96.4 percent of census tracts, and 98 percent of census tracts are covered under the older 25/3 Mbps standard (see Figure 1). Figure 1 - California Broadband Coverage by Speed Tier Source: Federal Communications Commission National Broadband Map, data as of June 30, 2025: Area Summary | FCC National Broadband Map However, infrastructure coverage alone does not fully reflect the state of broadband accessibility at the household level. Under the FCC’s current methodology, a census block is considered “served” if broadband service is available to at least one location within it. While this approach enables national-scale mapping, it may overstate actual availability in large or irregularly shaped rural census blocks, where not all households are equally reachable.8 As a result, high statewide coverage percentages can obscure persistent gaps at the local and household level, particularly in rural, remote, and low-income communities. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 4 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Household-level data highlights this disconnect. While almost all California census blocks have some coverage, according to the 2024 American Community Survey, an estimated 4.6 percent of households across the state lack access.9 These figures represent improvement compared to earlier years – in 2019, for example, 10.6 percent of California households lacked internet access.10 Urban/Rural Rural areas of the state, including tribal areas, often have relatively little broadband coverage. FCC household deployment data compiled by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) shows that, as of December 31, 2023, several counties had significant shares of unserved or underserved households. This is especially pronounced in rural and mountainous regions such as Inyo, Lassen, Mariposa, Modoc, Mono, Sierra, and Trinity Counties.11 In these counties, double-digit percentages of households lack access to broadband meeting even the baseline 25/3 Mbps standard, emphasizing that statewide averages hide substantial regional variation. Even within more populous counties, the urban/rural divide persists, with rural areas of those counties often having less coverage than urban areas. For example, in Los Angeles County, only 1.5 percent of households in urban areas are unserved, compared to 22.7 percent in rural areas. Similarly, in Shasta County, just 0.03 percent of urban households are unserved, while 15.4 percent of rural households lack access.12 Rural tribal areas are often especially underserved. Del Norte County, for example, has a relatively high unserved rural population – 12 percent of households – but the unserved share of houses in tribal areas of the county is much higher – more than 70 percent.13 Income The digital divide is equally stark when assessed by income. For example, among homes with a household income of more than $75,000, less than 3 percent lack an internet subscription. Among those with a household income of less than $20,000, about 20 percent lack a subscription.14 Table 2 – California 2024 Internet Subscription Rates by Household Income Percent without an Household Income Internet Subscription Less than $20,000 20.5% $20,000 to $74,999 9.6% $75,000 or more 2.7% LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 5 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Race/Ethnicity The divide by race and ethnicity is far less dramatic than by geography or income. However, it is still present. For example, more than 93 percent of white and Asian American households statewide have a broadband subscription, compared to 90.4 percent of African American households, and 92.8 percent of Latino households.15 Table 3 – California 2024 Broadband Subscription Rates by Ethnicity Percent with a broadband subscription Ethnicity with a computer in household White alone 93.2% Black or African American 90.4% alone American Indian and Alaska 87.6% Native alone Asian Alone 96.3% Native Hawaiian and Other 92.3% Pacific Islander alone Some other race alone 91.8% Two or more races 93.9% Hispanic or Latino origin (of 92.8% any race) White alone, not Hispanic or 93.2% Latino A Shrinking Divide By almost all of these measures, the state has made progress in recent years, with gains being most pronounced among historically marginalized populations. The percentage of Hispanic and Latino households not subscribing to broadband internet decreased from 8.1 percent in 2019 to 5.9 percent in 2024. Black households saw an even larger decrease from 15.8 percent to 7.3 percent.16 Low-income households also saw substantial improvement, with the rate of households earning less than $20,000 without an internet subscription decreasing from an estimated 36.3 percent in 2019 to 20.5 percent in 2024.17 Additional Challenges Beyond basic availability, broadband quality and adoption present additional challenges. CPUC fixed broadband adoption data indicates that 77.6 percent of households in California with access to broadband at or above 25/3 Mbps subscribe to service at that level. But in 14 counties, the adoption rate is below 50 percent.18 Importantly, these figures reflect adoption only among served locations and do not include households that remain unserved, which means overall connectivity gaps may be understated. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 6 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Some households may not be able to subscribe to plans reaching the FCC’s benchmark of 100/20 Mbps because of the limitations of technology used to provide internet connections to the majority of California. Technology-specific data from the FCC’s Fixed Broadband Deployment dataset shows that the majority of Californians rely on cable networks for their internet connections.19 While cable systems can often deliver high download speeds, they typically offer limited upload capacity, reflecting both provider plan offerings and inherent network constraints. As a result, many households are effectively unable to subscribe to services that meet the FCC’s 100/20 Mbps standard, even where infrastructure exists. This underscores that broadband “availability” does not necessarily equate to access to modern, high-quality service capable of supporting remote work, telehealth, and other bandwidth-intensive applications. Figure 2 - Consumer Internet Service Subscriptions by Technology and Speed Tier Source: CPUC 2025 Home Broadband Adoption Report. California’s geography compounds these challenges. The state has some of the most densely populated urban centers in the nation alongside vast, rugged, and sparsely populated rural regions. Mountainous terrain, deserts, forests, and long distances between households increase the costs to deploy broadband and reduce private-sector incentives to invest in last- mile infrastructure. FCC data from the National Broadband Map, shows that in urban parts of California, 99 percent of units are considered served at 25/3 Mbps, whereas only 87 percent of rural units are considered served.20 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 7 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Figure 3 - Percent of Urban/Rural Units in California Covered by Speed Tier Source: FCC National Broadband Map, data as of June 30, 2025: Area Summary | FCC National Broadband Map. These challenges are particularly acute in tribal communities, many of which are in remote areas with limited existing infrastructure. Tribal lands continue to experience some of the lowest broadband access and adoption rates in the state, reflecting a combination of geographic isolation, historical underinvestment, and data limitations that can further obscure unmet need. Compared to non-tribal units at 98 percent served, only 83 percent of tribal units are considered served at 25/3 Mbps (see Figure 4).21 Together, these findings underscore that high statewide coverage percentages can mask localized deficits in broadband access, equity, and adoption. While California has made measurable progress in expanding broadband infrastructure, persistent geographic, economic, and demographic disparities continue to leave hundreds of thousands of households offline or underserved. They reinforce the central premise of this research: that solving California’s digital divide requires not just tracking fiber miles laid or census blocks reached but also understanding who remains offline—and why. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 8 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Figure 4 - Percent of Tribal/Non-Tribal Units in California Covered by Speed Tier Source: FCC National Broadband Map, data as of June 30, 2025: Area Summary | FCC National Broadband Map. Efforts to Address the Digital Divide California’s Broadband Initiatives California has implemented several key programs to address the digital divide in rural areas, focusing on expanding broadband infrastructure, improving affordability, and ensuring equitable access. The Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative, Last Mile Federal Funding Account, California Advanced Services Fund, and the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program represent the state’s multi-faceted approach to bridging connectivity gaps. Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative. The Middle-Mile Broadband Initiative (MMBI) is a $3.25 billion statewide infrastructure project led by the California Department of Technology in partnership with Caltrans and various private and public sector partners. Created through SB 156 (2021), the initiative is building an open-access, 8,133-mile fiber-optic network to connect unserved and underserved communities to affordable, high-speed internet. By improving access to middle-mile infrastructure, MMBI aims to reduce last-mile broadband deployment costs and support equitable digital access across California. Last Mile Federal Funding Account. Also established under SB 156 and administered by the CPUC, the $2 billion Last Mile Federal Funding Account (FFA) is designed to support the extension of broadband infrastructure directly to homes, businesses, and anchor institutions in areas often LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 9 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 overlooked by private providers due to high deployment costs and low population density. By the end of the first funding round in February 2025, the CPUC had awarded over $1.1 billion in grants across 52 counties, supporting 113 broadband projects and delivering service to an estimated 2 million Californians. Notably, 73 of these projects are targeted toward disadvantaged communities, and together they include the deployment of more than 7,000 miles of fiber.22 Still, the demand for FFA grants far outpaces the available funding. In the first round of funding, the CPUC received more than $4.6 billion in funding requests—more than double the account’s total budget.23 This overwhelming response underscores the scale of unmet broadband needs across California and raises important questions about how future rounds will be prioritized and sustained. California Advanced Services Fund. The California Advanced Services Fund (CASF), established in 2007 and administered by the CPUC, remains a foundational program for expanding broadband access and equity in the state. With over $460 million awarded across 1,282 projects as of early 2025, CASF supports infrastructure deployment, broadband adoption, digital literacy, and tribal technical assistance, particularly in areas where market incentives fall short. Infrastructure investments under CASF have connected an estimated 322,931 households, including over 66,000 through last-mile and hybrid projects. The program has also supported 498 adoption initiatives, reaching more than 415,000 Californians, and funded 543 public housing projects connecting more than 27,000 low-income households. Additionally, $7.3 million in tribal technical assistance has supported 74 projects across 39 Tribes, helping them build the capacity to plan and pursue broadband development. CASF’s regional consortia model and matching grant structure (up to 70% for unserved areas) have helped reduce financial barriers, but challenges remain. In particular, rural affordability gaps persist, with residents often paying more for lower-quality service. As California scales up its middle- and last-mile programs, CASF’s role in coordinating community-driven planning and sustaining local access will remain essential. Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment Program. The federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program represents a significant infusion of funding into California’s broadband expansion efforts. Under BEAD’s nationwide allocation of $42.45 billion, California has been allocated approximately $1.86 billion, earmarked for unserved locations across the state.24 BEAD funding complements existing state programs by addressing affordability barriers directly through mandates requiring Internet Service Providers to offer low-cost plans for low-income households. In March 2025, the state officially opened its competitive sub-grantee selection process, inviting Internet Service Providers and eligible applicants to bid for funding as part of the BEAD program rollout. Applications are evaluated based on the applicants’ technical capacity and commitment to delivering affordable, high-speed internet in priority locations identified through LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 10 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Table 4 - Summary of Last-Mile Programs Managed by California State Government Feature FFA CASF BEAD Level State program (fed and State program Federal program (via states) state-funded) (state-funded) Administered By CPUC CPUC National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) / CPUC Focus Last-mile projects Various broad- Nationwide broadband expansion band needs Funding Source American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) State telecom Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act - California allocation surcharges (NTIA) Funding Non-recurring ARPA stimulus Ongoing, backed Multi-year federal investment, but still funds must be obligated by 2024 by recurring state time-limited (spent within 2024-2030) Sustainability and spent by 2026; future sus- telecom surcharg- and not a permanent program. tainability is uncertain without es. new allocations. Timeline Round 1: 2023– 2024; Round 2: Ongoing since 2024–2030 2024– 2008 California’s BEAD Challenge Process Map. This mapping effort—which has guided over $1 billion in preliminary allocations—ensures that resources are directed where they’re needed most and provides transparency in how underserved areas are prioritized. Table 4 summarizes the three last-mile broadband programs managed by the California state government. Primary Technologies for Broadband Together, California’s middle- and last-mile initiatives have substantially expanded the availability of funding and infrastructure needed to close remaining connectivity gaps. However, translating these investments into reliable, affordable service on the ground depends heavily on the broadband technologies deployed and their suitability to local conditions. In rural and hard-to- reach areas, Internet Service Providers and communities face difficult tradeoffs among cost, deployment speed, performance, and long-term scalability. The sections below examine the primary last-mile technologies used across California: fiber-optic, fixed wireless, satellite, and mobile wireless. Fiber-Optic Broadband Fiber offers fast, low-latency, and highly reliable connectivity ideal for telehealth and other data- intensive uses, but it is costly. A 2022 report summarizes the capital costs of fiber ranging from $2,620 to $42,370 per passing depending on housing density and if it is low- or high-end fiber. Comparatively, fixed wireless broadband capital costs range from $465 to $3,950 per passing, depending on housing density and low- or high-end architecture.25 More recent data suggests LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 11 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 that the typical underground deployment of fiber costs $18.00 per foot, while the typical aerial deployment costs $8.00 per foot.26 This translates to $95,040 per mile for underground fiber and $42,240 per mile for aerial fiber. In interviews, some stakeholders noted that challenging terrain, multi-jurisdictional permitting, and high per-mile construction expenses can delay projects, even when funding is available.27 Fixed Wireless Broadband Fixed wireless—broadband delivered via point-to-point radio signals—is frequently cited as the most cost-effective near-term solution for rural and agricultural zones because it requires minimal trenching and is deployable within days or weeks. In some cases, providers can use a combination of licensed and unlicensed spectrum to cover farm areas where fiber would take years to arrive.28 However, performance depends on topography, line-of-sight, and the quality of existing tower infrastructure. Satellite Broadband Satellite broadband, especially low Earth orbit (LEO) systems like Starlink, has seen increased adoption in ultra-remote or mountainous regions. It can be deployed with no local infrastructure and offers consistent download speeds where no other options exist. Schools and small farms use satellite connections as either a primary or backup source. Still, stakeholders flagged high upfront equipment costs (typically upwards of $500), latency and reliability issues during peak hours, and affordability concerns. Mobile Wireless (4G/5G) Mobile broadband serves as a primary broadband source for many rural households but often cannot reliably support sustained data-intensive use. Mobile wireless also imposes high operational costs. Some rural users reported maintaining multiple business phone plans with different providers just to ensure connectivity during harvest and shipping seasons. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 12 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Table 5 - Summary of Broadband Technologies: Strengths and Limitations Technology Description Strengths Limitations Fiber-Optic Uses light signals over glass • Highest speed and reliability • Very high cost in rural areas strands for ultra-fast data trans- • Long-term Scalability (futureproof) • Deployment delayed by trench- mission. ing and permitting Fixed Uses point-to-point radio signals • Lower cost • Signal affected by hills, trees, and from a tower to premises. • Fast deployment (weeks) tower gaps Wireless • Effective in flat areas and, with new • Requires strong backhaul infra- tech, adaptable to challenging terrain structure like forests, buildings, and hills LEO Satellite Delivers internet from low-Earth • Reach remote, mountainous, or • High upfront equipment costs orbit satellites. emergency-prone areas (~$500) • No trenching required • Latency and reliability vary at peak times Mobile Provides broadband through • Widely available • Poor quality in rural zones cellular networks and towers. • Used as stopgap connectivity or • Congestion and signal drop-offs Wireless (4G/5G) mobile hotspots common Comparative Case Studies To identify effective strategies for improving rural broadband accessibility, this section highlights three initiatives that: (1) are explicitly situated in rural areas or extended to semi-rural zones, (2) address broadband accessibility directly through infrastructure deployment rather than merely focusing on adoption rates, and (3) have progressed beyond the initial planning and funding phases, demonstrating active deployment or completion of substantial milestones. Isleton, CA Isleton, California successfully implemented a fixed wireless network offering gigabit-speed internet connectivity. The use of wireless technology significantly enhanced internet speeds to over 900 Mbps while mitigating the higher costs and complexities associated with traditional fiberoptic installations.29 Deployment began in early 2023, and by early 2024, the network was fully operational. The Isleton broadband deployment was a successful collaboration involving the Isleton city government, Valley Vision, a regional broadband consortium, and unWired Broadband. Isleton’s local government facilitated the project by providing city-owned land as an alternative site for the new wireless tower after the original plan to utilize a privately owned water tower proved unfeasible. In exchange, the city benefits from rental income, improved internet services for municipal facilities, and enhanced internet options for residents. Valley Vision contributed critical support and guidance helping Isleton navigate complex project requirements and ensuring the project reached successful completion.30 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 13 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Chattanooga, TN – EPB Fiber Optic Network Chattanooga, Tennessee, became the first U.S. city to deploy a citywide fiber-to-the-home network capable of delivering internet speeds up to 1 Gbps in 2010, and later expanded this to 10 Gbps and even 25 Gbps by 2022.31 This revolutionary infrastructure was built and operated by the Electric Power Board (EPB), a publicly owned utility, with funding from municipal bonds and federal stimulus money via the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The network operates as a municipally owned asset, meaning the fiber infrastructure—including cables, switching equipment, and core network components—is owned and maintained by the local government through EPB. This ownership gives the community control over pricing, service levels, and future upgrades, insulating residents from private market failures. The network also supports a smart grid that has enhanced the electric utility’s efficiency and storm response times. Before EPB’s intervention, Chattanooga faced the same broadband issues as many small cities: limited service providers, slow speeds, and high costs. After the fiber network was deployed, Chattanooga saw dramatic economic and social benefits: $2.7 billion in economic impact over a decade, the creation of 9,500 jobs, and the rise of a vibrant startup ecosystem.32 It also became a national model for bridging the digital divide. The network’s public ownership allowed for stable pricing ($57.99/month for 100 Mbps as of 2017), universal access, and investments in digital equity programs like Tech Goes Home. Estonia – EstWin Project EstWin is Estonia’s nationally coordinated broadband initiative that set a bold goal: to bring ultra- fast internet access —defined by the European Union as at least 100 Mbps, with EstWin designed to support gigabit-level speeds—within 1.5 kilometers of nearly every household, business, and institution across the country—especially in rural and underserved areas. Launched in 2009 and managed by the Estonian Broadband Development Foundation,33 the project adopted a middle- mile fiber optic strategy, constructing an open-access, passive infrastructure network that could be leased by multiple Internet Service Providers. This model fostered competition, reduced service costs, and created a scalable foundation for equitable internet expansion. The network is technology-neutral and designed to support gigabit-level speeds, aligning with European Union digital connectivity goals. What makes EstWin particularly successful is its clear governance structure, strategic use of public- private collaboration, and funding from the European Regional Development Fund. By 2023, the project had laid over 7,000 kilometers of fiber, connecting over 98% of Estonia’s population to highspeed internet proximity. This infrastructure has been crucial to Estonia’s leadership in e-government, digital education, and remote work. Unlike many piecemeal broadband efforts, EstWin exemplifies how a small country with coordinated national planning, open-access principles, and a commitment to inclusivity can deliver universal broadband coverage—even to its most remote villages. The project has since become a benchmark for other countries seeking sustainable digital infrastructure solutions. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 14 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 Notes 1. FCC News Release, March 14, 2024. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/ 16. U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce. “Types of attachments/DOC-401205A1.pdf Internet Subscriptions by Selected Characteristics.” American 2. Parys, J. V., & Brown, Z. Y. (2023). Broadband Internet Access and Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S2802, Health Outcomes: Patient and Provider Responses in Medicare. 2024, https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2024.S2802?q=S2802: NBER Working Paper Series. Accessed on February 17, 2026. U.S. Census Bureau. “ Types of Internet Subscriptions by Selected 3. Kloza, B. (2023, February 27). Impact of the Digital Divide: Economic, Characteristics.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Social, and Educational Consequences. Connecting the Unconnected. Subject Tables, Table S2802,2019, https://data.census.gov/table/ https://ctu.ieee.org/blog/2023/02/27/impact-of-the-digital-divide- ACSST5Y2019.S2802?q=Telephone,+Computer,+and+Internet+ economic-social-and-educational-consequences/ Access&g=040XX00US06. Accessed on 27 Jan 2026. 4. Adams, R. (2023). The Digital Divide Limits Opportunities—And How 17. U.S. Census Bureau. “TYPES OF COMPUTERS AND Businesses Can Help. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/councils/ INTERNET SUBSCRIPTIONS.” American Community forbesbusinesscouncil/2023/11/29/how-the-digital-divide-limits- Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Subject Tables, Table S2801, opportunities-and-how-businesses-can-help/ 2019, https://data.census.gov/table/ACSST5Y2019. 5. Connected Nation. (2024). https://connectednation.org/blog/data- S2801?q=Telephone,+Computer,+and+Internet+Access&g show-that-broadband-access-equals-economic-resiliency =040XX00US06. Accessed on 27 Jan 2026. 6. Anderson, J. (2024, March 15). Understanding the Essential Role of 18. California Public Utilities Commission. Fixed Broadband Adoption Broadband Access For An Equitable Democracy. https://circle.tufts. by County, February 1, 2025. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/media/ edu/latest-research/unveiling-essential-role-broadband-access- cpuc-website/divisions/communications-division/documents/ towards-equitable-democracy broadband-mapping/broadband_data-of-dec_2023/ca-2023--- 7. Schmitt, J. B., Baake, J., & Kero, S. (2024). What means civic education d23_01feb2025---fixed-adoption-by-county---fcc---terrestrial.pdf in a digitalized world? Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1257247. https:// 19. California Public Utilities Commission, Home Broadband doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1257247 Adoption Report, Filed April, 16, 2025. https://docs.cpuc.ca.gov/ 8. Broadband Data Collection Presentation. https://www.fcc.gov/ PublishedDocs/Efile/G000/M563/K203/563203680.PDF sites/default/files/bdtf-presentation-crtc-oecd-08102021.pdf 20. Federal Communications Commission, Area Summary, FCC 9. U.S. Census Bureau. “Presence and Types of Internet Subscriptions National Broadband Map, data as of June 30, 2025. https:// in Household.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=jun2025&ge Detailed Tables, Table B28002, 2024, https://data.census.gov/table/ oid=06&type=state&zoom=4.00&vlon=-121.055668&vlat=38.93814 ACSDT5Y2024.B28002?q=B28002: Accessed on February 17, 2026. 4&br=r&speed=100_20&tech=1_2_3_6_7 10. U.S. Census Bureau. “PRESENCE AND TYPES OF INTERNET 21. Federal Communications Commission, Area Summary, FCC SUBSCRIPTIONS IN HOUSEHOLD.” American Community National Broadband Map, data as of June 30, 2025. https:// Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Detailed Tables, Table B28002, broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=jun2025&ge 2019, https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDT5Y2019.B28002? oid=06&type=state&zoom=4.00&vlon=-121.055668&vlat=38.93814 q=Telephone,+Computer,+and+Internet+Access&g=040XX00US06. 4&br=r&speed=100_20&tech=1_2_3_6_7 Accessed on 17 Feb 2026. 22. CPUC. (2025). Last Mile Federal Funding Account. https://www.cpuc. 11. California Public Utilities Commission, Fixed Consumer Broadband ca.gov/industries-and-topics/internet-and-phone/broadband- Deployment by County, May 14, 2024. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/-/ implementation-for-california/last-mile-federal-funding-account media/cpuc-website/divisions/communications-division/ 23. Easterday, C. (2025, February 26). California Opens BEAD Funding documents/broadband-mapping/broadband_data-of-dec_2023/ Window to ISPs. Broadband Breakfast. https://broadbandbreakfast. ca-2023---d23_14may2024----household-deployment-by-county--- com/california-opens-bead-funding-window-to-isps/ fcc---terrestrial.pdf 24. BEAD Program. (2025). https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/beadprogram 12. Federal Communications Commission, Area Summary, FCC 25. Afflerbach, Andrew, Ph.D., P.E. (June 2022). Fixed Wireless National Broadband Map, data as of June 30, 2025. https:// Technologies and Their Suitability for Broadband Delivery. Benton broadbandmap.fcc.gov/area-summary/fixed?version=jun2025&ge Institute for Broadband & Society. https://www.benton.org/sites/ oid=06089&type=county&zoom=7.36&vlon=-122.194407&vlat=40. default/files/FixedWireless.pdf 736697&br=r&speed=100_20&tech=1_2_3_6_7 26. Fiber Broadband Association and Cartesian. (January 2026). 2025 13. FCC, data as of June 30, 2024; retrieved April 29, 2025 Fiber Deployment Cost Annual Report. Fiber Broadband Association. 14. U.S. Census Bureau. “Types of Computers and Internet https://fiberbroadband.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/FBA_ Subscriptions” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates Cartesian_Fiber-Deployment-Cost-Annual-Report_2025.pdf Subject Tables, Table S2801, 2024, https://data.census.gov/table/ 27. Peterson, M. (2025, March 25). Interview with representative from ACSST5Y2024.S2801?q=S2801: Accessed on February 17, 2026. UnWired Broadband. Sandeen, C. (2025, March 26). Interview with 15. U.S. Census Bureau. “Types of Internet Subscriptions by Selected representative from WiConduit. Characteristics.” American Community Survey, ACS 5-Year Estimates 28. Peterson, M. (2025, March 25). Interview with representative from Subject Tables, Table S2802, 2024, https://data.census.gov/table/ UnWired Broadband. ACSST5Y2024.S2802?q=S2802: Accessed on February 17, 2026. 29. Business Wire. (2024). unWired Broadband Celebrates Ribbon Cutting for New Tower in Isleton, CA. unWired Broadband Celebrates Ribbon Cutting for New Tower in Isleton, CA. https://www.businesswire. com/news/home/20241212022357/en/unWired-Broadband- Celebrates-Ribbon-Cutting-for-New-Tower-in-Isleton-CA LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 15 Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 30. Delta Protection Commission. (2024). A Giant Leap for Internet Speeds in Isleton – Delta Protection Commission. https://delta. ca.gov/a-giant-leap-for-internet-speeds-in-isleton/ 31. Chattanooga, E. P. B. (2024, September 20). EPB Fiber Optics marks 15 years of delivering the world’s fastest community-wide internet. https://epb.com/newsroom/press-releases/EPB-marks-15-years- of-delivering-worlds-fastest-community-wide-internet/ 32. Lobo, B. J. (n.d.). The realized value of fiber infrastructure in Hamilton County, Tennessee. Rushe, D. (2014, August 30). Chattanooga’s Gig: How one city’s super-fast internet is driving a tech boom. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/30/ chattanooga-gig-high-speed-internet-tech-boom 33. Eesti Lairiba Arenduse Sihtasutus. (2025, February 19). Eesti Lairiba Arenduse Sihtasutus. https://www.elasa.ee/EstWin broadband infrastructure network brings ultra-fast connectivity to rural Estonia | Shaping Europe’s digital future. (n.d.). Retrieved April 17, 2025, from https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/estwin- broadband-infrastructure-network-brings-ultra-fast-connectivity- rural-estonia Issue Brief: California’s Digital Divide March 2026 | (916) 445-2125 | little.hoover@lhc.ca.gov 925 L Street, Suite 805, Sacramento, CA 95814 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION WWW.LHC.CA.GOV | 16