Science, Innovation and Electronic Information Division Working Papers Understanding Internet Usage Among Broadband Households: A Study of Household Internet Use Survey Data by Catherine Middleton, Ryerson University and Jonathan Ellison, Statistics Canada

1. Introduction and background for the study
2. Understanding usage patterns in Canadian broadband households
3. Discussion
4. Conclusions

1   Introduction and background for the study

For more than a decade, the Government of Canada promoted strategies to enable Canadians to become participants in the information society (Government of Canada 1999, Government On-Line Advisory Panel 2003, Industry Canada 1994). As part of these strategies, it was recommended that broadband ¹  Internet access be made available to all Canadian households (National Broadband Task Force 2001), but there are still many unserved and underserved areas in the country (CRACIN 2005). Although many provincial initiatives are making progress in extending broadband coverage (e.g. Alberta SuperNet 2005; CommunityNet 2006; Ministry of Agriculture Food and Rural Affairs 2007), and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has ordered an expansion of broadband services in regional areas (CRTC 2008) broadband services are still not yet available to all Canadians.

It is widely believed that having access to a broadband Internet connection provides individuals with social and economic benefits, including access to employment and educational opportunities, e-commerce, facilitated communication with municipal, provincial and federal governments, and improved access to health care information (Anderson and Raban 2005, Firth and Mellor 2005, ITU 2003, Lai and Brewer 2006, Middleton 2007). Using U.S. data, analysis conducted by the MIT Communication Futures program concluded that broadband access "enhance[s] economic growth and performance, and that the assumed economic impacts of broadband are real and measurable" (Gillett, Lehr, Osorio and Sirbu 2006: 4). The adoption of broadband and other information and communications technologies is seen as "essential to increasing Canada's productivity and competitiveness" (Telecommunications Policy Review Panel 2006:8-4). This perspective is shared by the European Union, where the Commission of the European Communities (2006) has declared that broadband is "crucial for fostering growth and jobs" (i2010 2006:non-paginated).

As is seen in Table 1, Canadians were among the early leaders in broadband adoption (Lie 2003). According to available figures, the country's adoption rate was second only to South Korea from 2001 through 2003. By 2004, Canada had slipped to third place in broadband adoption, behind Denmark and South Korea. As of June 2007, adoption rates in South Korea, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Scandinavian countries had overtaken those in Canada, dropping it to ninth overall.

Table 1: International broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants and rankings, 2001 to 2007

Canadian adoption rates continue to outpace those in the United States, but there are concerns that Canada will lose its competitiveness in the global knowledge economy if it cannot maintain its position as a leader in broadband deployment (Telecommunications Policy Review Panel 2006). But despite the widespread usage of the OECD broadband adoption data for international comparisons, the penetration rates simply acknowledge that there is opportunity for broadband usage among adopters. Adoption rates do not reveal nuances of actual usage, so provide little insight on what people actually do with their broadband connections and do not necessarily signify that residents are prepared to participate in the information society.

Orbicom and the ITU have developed the ICT Opportunity Index to measure access to, and usage of, information and communications technologies (ICTs) (ITU 2007). This indicator captures opportunity for ICT usage by assessing infrastructure availability (e.g. land and cell phone lines, bandwidth per inhabitant), user skill levels, and adoption rates for computers, television, Internet, broadband Internet, as well as outgoing telephone traffic. The index scores allow for international comparisons of ICT capacity and uptake, offering a valuable starting point for understanding whether citizens have the opportunity to, and do, participate in the information society. But even taken collectively, the OECD broadband adoption data and the ICT Opportunity Index scores are not intended to offer detailed insights on the nature of citizens' participation in the information society.

DiMaggio and Hargittai (2001:1) argue that as access to technical infrastructures becomes more widespread and Internet penetration rates increase, the research focus should shift from the digital divide (whether people have access to the Internet) to 'digital inequality,' defined as "inequality among persons with formal access to the Internet". Similarly, Attewell (2001) describes access as the 'first digital divide,' suggesting that usage is a second, and more critical, digital divide that must be bridged in order to share in the benefits of an information society. Gurstein (2003:non-paginated) makes the case that access is not the end objective for the development of ICT infrastructures, policies and practices, arguing for coupling access with "the knowledge, skills, and supportive organizational and social structures to make effective use of that access and that e-technology to enable social and community objectives".

While the Internet is not the only means of engagement in a knowledge economy or information society, information and communications technologies make up the infrastructure that provides access to knowledge and information (Kahin and Foray 2006). There is an "implicit assumption that lack of access to information in a world where access to it is increasingly important can confer disadvantages, or compound them where already present" (SIBIS 2003:40). Without access to infrastructure, and without the skills and literacy to make use of knowledge and information, citizens may be disadvantaged. Conversely, it is assumed that with access to the Internet, and especially with broadband Internet access, citizens are well-positioned to participate in the information society and accrue the related benefits. But access alone does not guarantee effective use.

Working in the European context, Anderson and colleagues (Anderson and Raban 2005, Anderson, Gale, Jones and McWilliam 2001) considered the impacts of broadband adoption by studying post-adoption behaviours. In their 2005 work, they concluded that the differences in user behaviours between people using broadband and narrowband (low speed or "dial-up") Internet connections are attributable more to experience levels than to the technology itself. Broadband in and of itself does not create specific benefits, rather its users must be experienced enough to understand and take advantage of the potential benefits broadband can bring. Further, they noted that even among broadband users, the most widely used services were for communication purposes (a finding consistent with Middleton (2003)), and that switching to broadband did not increase the amount of money spent online. They cautioned that their study was based on 2002 data, but based on these data expressed concerns that a focus on technology (i.e. getting people to use broadband networks) was not sufficient to result in usage patterns that reap the potential benefits of broadband.

Reporting on broadband usage in the U.S., Kolko (2006) showed that broadband adoption was associated with an increase in the frequency of use of some online activities (including music downloads and purchasing), yet had no significant impact on other activities (e.g. job searching, and accessing government information and services). Among experienced broadband users, Kolko reported increases in some activities over time, and decreases in others, indicating that the overall impact of broadband usage on online behaviours was unclear.

In an early study of broadband uses in the U.S., Horrigan and Rainie (2002) concluded that users with broadband connections were more sophisticated in their usage of the Internet than those with lower speed connections. Anderson and Raban's (2005) work suggested that it is not the broadband connection per se that drives this finding, rather it was the fact that in general, broadband users were more experienced Internet users and thus their usage patterns reflected greater experience and comfort levels with the Internet. In their study of the economic benefits of broadband, Gillett et al. (2006:3) made the point that in order to achieve these beneficial outcomes "broadband had to be used, not just available".

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of how broadband is used by Canadian households. This study uses Household Internet Use Survey data to present a picture of actual broadband usage in the three year period (2001-2003) during which Canada was second in the OECD broadband rankings, and to consider whether existing uses of broadband networks support claims that broadband access prepares users for participation in the information society. In particular, the study illustrates differences in scope of usage between high speed and low speed households, and between high intensity and low intensity households.

2   Understanding usage patterns in Canadian broadband households

In the context of this study, there are several variables of interest. The starting point for the analysis is Canadian households in which at least one individual used the Internet at home in a typical month. In 2001, 48.7% of households (5.8 million) were in this category. In 2002 the number increased to 51.4% (6.3 million), rising to 54.5% (6.7 million) in 2003. The 2005 CIUS (Statistics Canada 2006) reported that an estimated 61% of Canadian households (7.9 million) had Internet connections, indicating that growth in Internet adoption continued, but at a slower rate than observed earlier in the decade (Middleton & Sorensen 2005). Within the subset of households using the Internet from home in a typical month, the focus in this study is on households with broadband (high speed) Internet connections, shown in Chart 1 below.

Chart 1
Canadian household Internet usage, showing speed of Internet connection for households using the Internet from home in a typical month

In order to better understand the nature of Internet usage among Canadian households, and to explore the differences between high speed and low speed households, variables measuring intensity and scope of Internet use were derived from the HIUS datasets. Intensity of use is assessed based on responses to questions about frequency of Internet usage, and time spent online. Households were classified as high intensity or low intensity based on their Internet usage (see Box 3 for more details about the intensity variables used in this study). Scope of use was based on responses to questions about the sorts of online activities household members did in a typical month. Several variables were created to measure scope (see Box 4 for a description of the scope variables and how they were constructed). Analysis of scope and intensity of use among high speed and low speed Internet users was carried out to explore the nuances of Canadian household Internet adoption patterns. In particular, these variables go beyond basic adoption data to show the extent to which the Internet is used (intensity) and the breadth of Internet usage (scope). These variables can be taken as proxies for engagement with the Internet, with those who exhibit higher intensity and broader scope of usage expected to be better prepared to participate in the information society.

Table 2 categorizes Internet-use households based on the speed of their connection and on the intensity of Internet usage. Over time more and more households are migrating to high speed connections. By 2003, it was estimated that almost two-thirds of the Canadian households that used the Internet from home in a typical month had a high speed connection. Although the proportion of low intensity households declined annually, low intensity households continued to outnumber high intensity households. Individual level data collected in 2005 are not directly comparable, but similar measures of intensity for individual Canadians show that low intensity patterns of Internet usage continued to be more prevalent than high intensity usage patterns, despite a very clear shift toward high speed connectivity.

Table 2: Internet households and individuals, by speed and intensity

The relationship between intensity of use and the speed of households' Internet connections is shown in the matrix below (Table 3). Of particular interest is the proportion of households categorized as high speed but low intensity (HSLI). While the trend among high speed households shows an increase in high intensity usage, more than half the high speed households in 2003 were low intensity Internet users, meaning household members were online fewer than seven times per week, or for less than 40 hours per month. This observation provides initial evidence that there are different kinds of broadband households, as it shows that access to a high speed connection does not necessarily result in high intensity usage.

Table 3: Speed-intensity matrix, showing percentage of households in each quadrant

Scope of usage measures the types of activities conducted online by household members, and provides a way of investigating differences in usage on the basis of speed and intensity dimensions. The first measure of scope provides a count of online activities reported by a household in a typical month. This measures the breadth of Internet usage. The average number of different activities reported in a typical month ranged from 8.6 in 2001 to 8.9 in 2003 (Table 4). But examining scope of usage in the context of speed and intensity shows a somewhat different picture.

Table 4: Mean number of online activities in a typical month, by household speed and intensity

High speed high intensity (HSHI) households averaged more than 10 activities per month, compared to the low speed low intensity (LSLI) household average of 7 monthly activities. ³  Low speed high intensity (LSHI) households carried out a wider variety of online activities than high speed low intensity (HSLI) households. Consistent with previous analysis of these data sets (e.g. Middleton and Sorensen 2005), it is also noted that there are differences in usage patterns based on household income, education levels of the head of household, and age of the head of household. Veenhof, Clermont and Sciadas (2005) report similar findings based on the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey data. Higher income households have higher mean numbers of online activities, as do those headed by persons with higher education levels. Households headed by older people have lower mean numbers of online activities. ⁴  This study focused on understanding basic differences in scope and intensity. It is noted that with its individual level data, the CIUS data set is better suited for further analysis that focuses on how differences in scope and intensity of usage are influenced by specific demographic characteristics.

While it is interesting to consider total numbers of monthly activities as a method for understanding differences in household Internet usage patterns, additional insights can be gained when the online activities are categorized. As was noted earlier, broadband Internet access is touted as a means for individuals to conduct business transactions, participate in educational activities, access health care and government information, communicate with others, and foster a stronger sense of community. HIUS data allow for an assessment of broadband users' financial and purchasing activities, their use of the Internet for communication, leisure and education, and the extent of their online searching activities. Extensive analysis was conducted to investigate different usage patterns based on the speed and intensity of household Internet connections. A selection of these results is presented below, illustrating interesting differences among households.

In looking at the data on scope of household Internet usage, it is noted that in most cases, the trends are predictable. For instance, over time the average number of households that have made an online purchase in a typical month is increasing (see Table 5).

Table 5: Households who made an online purchase in a typical month, by speed and intensity

What is of note in these data is the fact that even by 2003, 65% of Canadian households using the Internet did not make an online purchase in a typical month, and more than 75% of those in the low speed low intensity category did not purchase anything online. Even amongst those in the HSHI category, less than half indicated that they had made an online purchase in a typical month. Other research using 2005 CIUS data also emphasizes that most online purchasing activities continue to be concentrated among a relatively small proportion of users (McKeown and Underhill 2007).

An examination of Internet usage for educational or job search related purposes (Table 6) showed large differences among households who did not use the Internet in a typical month for either purpose (e.g. in 2003, more than 42% of high speed low intensity households did not engage in educational or job seeking Internet activities, as compared to just 26% of the high speed high intensity households). It is also noted that the percentages of households not using the Internet for educational or work purposes is not decreasing over time as might be expected. ⁵ 

Table 6: Households who did not use the Internet for job seeking or education in a typical month, by speed and intensity

An analysis of households' online searching behaviours provides a good measure of the breadth of online activities conducted in a typical month. A count of six different types of information searching indicated that the majority of households do use the Internet for a variety of search purposes (see again Box 4 for a list of the types of searches measured). In 2001, 55.8% of households searched for four or more types of information in a typical month (Table 7). These numbers rose to 59.2% in 2002, and 61.4% in 2003. High intensity households were more likely to engage in more search behaviours than low intensity households.

Table 7: Households who searched for four or more types of information in a typical month, by speed and intensity

The Internet can also be used for entertainment and leisure purposes. The HIUS captured data on Internet use for downloading music, listening to the radio, playing games and seeking sports information. Table 8 provides data on households who have used the Internet for at least one entertainment or leisure activity in a typical month. It is not surprising that high speed households are more likely to engage in leisure activities online, as activities like downloading music, listening to the radio and playing games are much more enjoyable with a high speed connection. Despite the disadvantage of a low speed connection, almost 80% of LSHI households engaged in at least one entertainment or leisure activity online, but in 2003 this was the one type of activity where high speed low intensity (HSLI) usage is greater (although just slightly) than low speed high intensity (LSHI). It is interesting to note that, using this measure, the incidence of use of the Internet for leisure and entertainment activities declined slightly over time. However, it is acknowledged that the survey instrument may not have captured the full gamut of online entertainment and leisure activities that emerged over the time period studied.

Table 8: Households who used the Internet for at least one leisure or entertainment activity in a typical month, by speed and intensity

Data are available on household usage of email and chat groups, and were aggregated as a communication variable. In the three year period there were very few changes in overall usage patterns (Table 9). As of 2003, 70.8% of households used one communication tool in a typical month (although these data do not show which tool, it is reasonable to expect that the majority of those households just using one communication tool would be using email, as seen in Table 10), compared to just 3.0% who did not use the Internet for communication purposes (down slightly from 3.8% in 2001). Stating this another way, 97.0% of online households did use the Internet for communication purposes.

Table 9: Online households who used the Internet for communication purposes in a typical month, by number of uses

Email is the most widely adopted online activity. Differences among speed-intensity types are minimal, with even LSLI households nearing full adoption of email as shown in Table 10.

Table 10: Households who used email in a typical month, by speed and intensity

3   Discussion

Table 11 provides a summary of the 2003 scope data, showing marked differences in household Internet usage activities when assessed based on intensity. For each aggregate measure of activities it is demonstrated that high intensity users are also higher scope users. ⁶  In other words, the high intensity users were observed to have a greater breadth of usage of the Internet and, in a typical month, did a wider range of things online than low intensity users. This finding makes sense, as those households that did more online are also those households that used the Internet more frequently. These findings suggest that those who found the Internet more useful (as measured by the scope of their online activities) also used it more intensely.

Table 11: Summary of online activities by speed, and intensity, Internet use households, 2003

What is interesting in these findings is that the speed of the household Internet connection is not so clearly connected to the scope of usage activities. ⁷  Although it has been suggested that high speed users are also more sophisticated users of the Internet, this is not observed in this analysis, when scope of Internet usage is taken as a measure of sophistication of use. In the activities examined above, high intensity users with low speed connections (LSHI) demonstrated broader scope in their Internet activities than low intensity users with high speed connections (HSLI). ⁸  A ranking of scope of usage shows HSHI first, followed by LSHI, HSLI and LSLI, showing the dominance of intensity over speed.

The findings above reveal that speed of connection alone is insufficient in explaining sophistication of use. As revealed earlier in this study (see again Table 3), in each year from 2001 to 2003, there were more low intensity households among broadband users than there were high intensity households. While the numbers were quite close in 2003 (33.7% low intensity, 32.0% high intensity), what is important to recognize is that approximately half of the Canadian households that did have a broadband connection were relatively light users of the Internet. This is at a time when Canada was second in the world in broadband adoption. The low intensity households were shown to be less engaged in Internet activities (as measured by scope), demonstrating that broadband access alone did not result in extensive broadband usage. It is possible that some low intensity high speed users were attracted to broadband Internet for its convenience (always-on connectivity, phone line not in use when online), rather than for its speed, suggesting that intensity of use may be a better measure of engagement with the Internet than the speed of Internet access.

This research also presents valuable findings in terms of understanding the relative popularity of various online activities within Canadian households. Table 12 provides summary data on average scope of use, demonstrating that despite the high rates of broadband adoption by Canadian households, their overall scope of use was quite low in some areas. In 2003, about two-thirds of online Canadian households did not make an online purchase ⁹  and nearly 40% of households did not use the Internet to look for work or for educational purposes in a typical month. If the Internet is to become a means of engaging Canadians in the knowledge economy, through online commerce and lifelong educational activities, and as a means of helping Canadians gain employment, there is a long way to go before this objective can be achieved on a universal basis.

Canadian households were using the Internet quite extensively to search for information (including information on government services, health care and travel), but there was a large percentage of the online user community that engaged in relatively limited searching activity. As searching is an essential means of navigating the Internet, extensive searching capability is needed to be a proficient Internet user. It is true that not all users will need to search for a wide variety of different information types, but wider searching patterns do indicate more willingness to engage with the Internet as a resource to support daily activities. The use of the Internet for entertainment and leisure may also indicate an increased level of engagement with the Internet. But usage in this category declined slightly from 2001 to 2003. It is unclear whether this represents a real decline in use of the Internet for entertainment purposes, or whether it is more a reflection that the survey instrument did not ask respondents about additional online leisure activities that emerged over time. Canadian households have embraced the Internet as a communication device. The vast majority of households reported using email and/or chat, thus indicating a basic skill level in Internet use.

Table 12: Summary of scope of household Internet activities, percentage of Internet use households

HIUS data do not allow for analysis of Canadian households' motivations for using the Internet, thus it is not possible to assess the extent to which households are disinterested in certain activities. Nevertheless, it is argued that the scope of Internet usage can be used as a means for assessing overall engagement levels with the Internet, no matter the reasons underlying such engagement. Regardless of whether Canadian households are not partaking in certain online activities because they are not interested in them, or because they do not have the necessary skills, computer literacy or equipment to do so, the fact remains that these data show that Canadian households have not equally or fully embraced the range of online activities available to them.

4   Conclusions

This study demonstrates that broadband connectivity does not in and of itself lead to enhanced engagement with the Internet. For people to become full participants in an information society, they must become engaged with the Internet. Governments around the world are taking actions intended to result in the Internet (and other information and communications technologies) becoming a fundamental part of society (ITU 2006), and the primary means by which to engage with various societal members. Information and communications technologies are expected to be more widely used to support health care, to provide educational opportunities, to connect and foster communities, to support cultural activities, and to facilitate commerce and trade. Citizens without access to such technologies may be disadvantaged.

The contribution of this study is to show that there are differences among Canadian broadband users, challenging the widely held notion that broadband adoption in and of itself somehow means that users are ready and willing to become full participants in the information society. There are broadband users who do fit this assumption, but there are also many broadband households that demonstrate much less engagement with the Internet, and are expected to have less interest, and possibly less aptitude, to fully embrace and participate in an ICT-enabled society.

There is a gap between the provision of broadband and the usage of broadband. As Anderson and Raban (2005:15) note, "broadband access will not change the structural problems already found in narrowband – those who have the knowledge and experience gain the most benefit whilst those who lack the skills, knowledge and perhaps self-confidence are left further behind".

While increases in broadband adoption rates may be viewed as measures of "e-readiness" or "e-intensity," the findings presented here do not support these claims. In Canada, there is a large group of low intensity broadband households, and although the 2005 CIUS data are not directly comparable, they also show a significant number of low intensity broadband users. Revisiting the matrix presented earlier (shown below in Table 13, this time incorporating 2005 CIUS data for individuals), it is seen that there is limited room for growth in broadband uptake from low speed high intensity households (and individuals). Interestingly, the data presented here provide some evidence that not having a high speed connection is not a barrier to engagement with the Internet, as the LSHI households showed broader scope of usage than their HSLI counterparts. There is no doubt that broadband access provides a more convenient and efficient means of engaging with the Internet, and it is expected that the low speed high intensity users will adopt broadband at a later date (likely barriers to broadband adoption in this category are price and availability).

Table 13: Canadian Internet households and individuals, by speed and intensity

Over time, it is expected that households will migrate into the HSHI quadrant from all other quadrants. In the short term however, it is most likely that the LSLI households will become HSLI households, as is seen in the 2005 CIUS data (which provide an indication of the trend in adoption patterns). Based on the analysis presented here, it is seen that movement within the speed range does not increase engagement as much as movement from low intensity to high intensity.

This study sheds new light on the nature of broadband households in Canada, by showing that not all households are equal. The differences in households' scope of Internet usage do matter, as they reflect differences in readiness for participation in the information society. This study lays the groundwork for additional analysis of Canadian Internet adoption data, showing ways in which measures of scope and intensity create valuable new insights, with important implications for equal access and participation in an information society.