A-2 Comment Summaries and Responses

November 2025 NTIA Internet Use Survey: Comments on Proposed Information Collection

Summary

On June 17, 2025, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) published a notice in the Federal Register requesting comments on the next edition of the NTIA Internet Use Survey, pursuant to the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). NTIA received 14 comments in response to this notice. NTIA appreciates the feedback and has considered each comment in the course of finalizing its proposed information collection.

Overall, the comments strongly emphasized the importance of data on internet use, including the NTIA Internet Use Survey. Beyond that, almost all of the comments were focused on small changes to the meaning/content of the survey, rather than on the respondent burden. Indeed, many of the comments suggested that NTIA add multiple questions to the survey. We agree that the suggested additional data could be valuable in many cases. However, due to decreasing response rates, the Census Bureau has emphasized the need to reduce survey response times. So we are unable to add any questions at this time. We intend to consider suggestions for additional content along with potential removals prior to the next data collection.

Commenters also objected to removal of a question (DEVSTA) which asked whether household members had been unable to use an internet-connected device because it was in use by someone else or otherwise inaccessible, as well as two questions about online privacy concerns. These questions tended to take significantly longer to answer than most other questions on the survey. While NTIA appreciates the importance of the topics addressed through these questions, we removed them to help improve interview times while preserving the vast majority of survey questions.

Most comments seemed to focus on challenges around broadband adoption. Multiple comments suggested survey changes that were often similar. For example, multiple commenters suggested changing the questions (NOHM and PRINOH) which asked households that don’t use the internet at home the reasons for lack of connection. Commenters were concerned that the “Don’t need it or not interested” answer choice is masking other, more detailed reasons that households may have for being offline. This question has been changed multiple times in the past few iterations, based on previous rounds of feedback, to try and ensure the validity of responses. In an attempt to further ensure data quality, we have put the “Don’t need it or not interested” answer choice at the bottom of the list of possible responses. If the question is worked as intended, then changing the order of the answer choices should not materially change responses. If, however, the commenters are correct, then the 2025 results for this question may be substantially different from the results in 2023 and prior surveys. We appreciate the continued commenter attention on this important topic, and look forward to examining the latest data.

Commenters made many useful suggestions on revising some questions for clarity. These suggestions may increase the quality of the survey, but typically would not decrease time burden on respondents. To ensure statistical validity and to avoid too many changes to longitudinally-tracked variables, these changes would require more thorough testing. We aim to consider the clarity suggestions during the next revision.

NTIA summarizes and responds to each comment below.

1. Hannah Dillenbeck – Mohawk Valley Economic Development District, Inc.

This comment suggested that each question about device use (LAPTOP, DESKTP, etc.) should have a corresponding question regarding age of device. The author pointed out that many users have devices, but those devices are out of date.

We agree that this would be an interesting and useful question. The DEVQUA question asks broadly about how well devices work, but does not delve into device-level specifics. The Census Bureau has requested that NTIA be careful about survey length due to dropping response rates. A statistically valid inventory of each user’s devices and their age would add a significant amount of time to the respondent burden. At this time, we are unable to add questions which would provide this level of detail.

2. Beth Jarosz

This comment expressed support for adding the survey to the CPS. The author expressed concern that SOCIAL did not mention newer social media platforms and then commented that all questions “will provide valuable insights into internet and media use in the U.S.”

We appreciate the commenter’s support for the Internet Use Survey. During the next version of the survey, we will reconsider which social media platforms to include.

3. Teodora Mihaylova – Digitunity

The commenters suggested that questions about computer ownership and access be separated from questions about internet access. They also gave four specific recommendations: (1) Keep the DEVSTA question from 2023, which asks if individuals were unable to use a device because it was in use or inaccessible. This question addresses issues of the number of devices in the home. (2) Adjust the NOHM and PRINOH questions, which are only given to respondents who don’t use the Internet at home. NOHM asks respondents about all the reasons why they do not use the Internet, and PRINOH asks which of these is most important. The comment suggested taking one of the potential reasons, “No computing device, or device inadequate or broken”, and splitting it up into three answers: “No computing device”, “Device inadequate”, and “Broken”. (3) Add a question asking respondents whether they were unable to complete a work task due to computing device limitations. (4) Adding a question asking respondents whether they were unable to complete an educational task due to computing device limitations.

We appreciate the desire to keep the DEVSTA question. Due to the need for a shorter survey, we cannot retain this question at this time, nor can we add questions about work and educational limitations. Regarding NOHM and PRINOH, only 0.9% of households listed “No computing device, or device inadequate or broken” in 2023. Breaking this 0.9% up into smaller bins is not likely to create meaningful, actionable, and statistically significant results. Furthermore, many people may have had a device break and then either stop working or become inadequate. So further behavioral testing, which is not possible for this round, would be necessary.

4. Reg Leichty – State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA)

The authors expressed support for the data collection, highlighting the insights it provides into broadband adoption and use. They pointed out the importance of reliable, disaggregated data to inform policy decisions. The suggestion addressed the survey questions which asked if household members used particular devices (LAPTOP, DESKTP, TABLET, etc.). They recommended distinguishing whether devices are “personally owned or provided by a school, library, or other public institution.”

To support this recommendation, the comment pointed to two documents. The Digital Access Data Collection Blueprint by the Council of Chief State School Officers points out that “granular data on device ownership and institutional support” is important for the evaluating educational success. The Universal Connectivity Imperative “provides a roadmap for closing the digital access divide” and reinforces the need for more detailed device-level data.

We appreciate the suggestion and recognize that many computing devices are provided through schools, libraries, or other public institutions. Given the length constraints, we cannot add any more questions at this time.

5. Bibi Reisdorf

This comment strongly advised against removal of the DEVSTA question, saying that “question of technology availability within the household is an important facet that allows for a nuanced analysis of lived digital inequalities for house hold members.” The author also suggested adding a question on the number of working computers in the household, to include laptop and desktop computers. The author’s research shows that the number of computers is a “strong indicator of internet use and frequency of use.”

We appreciate this suggestion and can see how number of computers would be a useful metric. Due to interview time constraints, we cannot add an additional question at this time. An alternate way to address the comment would be to change the device questions (LAPTOP, DESKTP, etc.) to ask how many devices respondents have rather than whether they have a device. This would require extensive rethinking of questions and testing to ensure the questions have validity. We will consider this for future revisions.

6. Angela Siefer – National Digital Inclusion Alliance
Alisa Valentin – Public Knowledge

This comment commends NTIA for continuing the Internet Use Survey and highlights its importance in making “informed, evidence-based decisions regarding technology policies, initiatives, and programs…” The authors’ first recommendation is to continue the survey and increase its accessibility. Authors highlighted how the dataset “is the largest, most comprehensive, and long-term collection of information regarding how individuals utilize computers and the internet, and the challenges they encounter,” and that “the data complement and do not duplicate other data sets” such as the FCC broadband map and the American Community Survey internet use questions. The comment expresses concern that using automated or online data collection in future surveys would create statistical bias in the results, due to the fact that the study itself examines internet use. “Automated and online methods could ultimately increase the reporting burden rather than reduce it, and would almost certainly exclude many respondents from participating.”

The authors’ second recommendation is to change the NOHM question, which asks respondents to choose one or more reasons why they don’t have internet. The comment suggests removing the “don’t need it or not interested” response option, with the explanation: “when teased apart, most non-adopters cite multiple reasons for not being online, with cost being chief among them.” They also suggested other changes to the possible answers for NOHM, including significant rewording.

It is not clear from the comment why “don’t need it or not interested” should be removed. Respondents can include multiple options on NOHM, so the inclusion of “don’t need it” should not interfere with respondents also listing cost. However, we have changed the order of responses so that “don’t need it or not interested” is almost last and right above “other”. If “don’t need it” is causing respondents to not include other factors, this order change should create significantly different results from the previous year. Changing wording significantly might change the longitudinal validity of time series, so the more extensive wording changes on NOHM are not implementable at this time.

The third recommendation included multiple suggestions on specific questions, including:

• Keeping DEVSTA, which asked about limitations due to not enough devices in the home,

• Keeping three privacy-related questions (PSCYBA, PSPRE, PSCON), all of which had been deleted from the previous release. Of the three privacy questions, the authors said PSCYBA was the most important to keep, since it focused on cyber breaches.

• Asking an additional question about “repairs and technical support.”

• Asking if the respondent is looking for work.

• Adding school buses as a location to INSCHL, which asks about internet use at school

• Including civic engagement activities to EGOVTS, which asks about using the internet to access government services.

Unfortunately, length constraints limit the number of questions that can be retained. Note that the basic monthly portion of the CPS asks the same respondents questions about looking for work, so those data already exist. Moreover, adding buses and civic engagement to INSCHL and EGOVTS, respectively, may broaden the scope of those questions in ways that would change their meaning, which would require further behavioral testing and risk breaking longitudinal trends.

The comment also suggests adding questions on delaying medical bills to pay for internet service, being able to afford mobile while not affording home internet (or vice versa) after HNETST, degradations to service when multiple family members are using the internet, internet outages, AI usage, public safety alerts, and digital assistive technologies.

NTIA appreciates the importance of gathering more information on internet use in the United States and agrees that any of these additional items are worth exploring in-depth. However, given the need to limit the length of this CPS supplement, we are unable to add these questions at this time. We have, however, kept PSCYBA.

7. Benton Institute

This comment, first, explained the importance of this data collection. “The NTIA Internet Use Survey is an essential and unique source of data bout digital access and adoption in the United States.” The authors then suggested adding questions on temporary internet loss related to device reliability, as well as on respondent cost tradeoffs between internet speed and other expenses. They also suggested asking respondents whether they maintained mobile service while losing a home internet connection. The authors supported adoption of a wide variety of additional questions about online risks & harms, as well as digital literacy

The authors also suggested reducing questions, including removing TRADTV and PREVTV. They also suggest significant changes to the questions asking about where people use the internet, such as only asking these questions to people who do not have internet access at home. The comment also suggests minor clarity changes to EGOVTS, PUBLSH, and EGOODS. The respondents also suggested removing the “don’t need it or not interested” response in NOHM and PRINOHM, which asked about reasons households don’t use the internet at home.

We appreciate the suggestions and the need for more data on internet use. Unfortunately, due to length constraints and burden on respondents, we cannot add any more questions at this time. We appreciate the many detailed suggestions about changes to survey questions, and we find many of them to be potentially quite useful. We will consider these suggestions during the next round of revisions.

8. American Library Association

This comment highlighted the need for data about the internet particularly as the government is funding broadband deployment. The comment suggested adding questions clarifying cost tradeoffs regarding internet service, as well as on causes of temporary internet loss. It also suggested adding a few items to NOHM, which asked about reasons why people don’t have home internet access. This version of the survey removed the DEVSTA question about limited number of devices in the home, and the authors suggested not removing it.

The authors suggested reintroducing one of the removed privacy questions (PSCON), adding a question on AI, and adding multiple questions on digital literacy. The authors appreciated this version’s changes to the question about working in the home and on other methods for connecting to the internet. They also suggested including hotspots in a question about mobile data plans (MOBDAT).

As mentioned previously, we cannot add additional questions at this time. Adding additional potential responses to NOHM would also require testing. Regarding MOBDAT, the decision to remove mobile hotspot was made to help reduce confusion around the new inclusion of a fixed wireless option in HOMTE. In addition, individuals who have mobile hotspots will almost always have cell phone plans.

9. Unidos US Comment

This comment was written by Unidos US and signed by 10 other civil society organizations. They valued the survey as a vital source of data for digital policy, but said that “federal data collection falls short across the dimensions of broadband, functional devices, and digital skills.” The comment discussed at length policy considerations around these three dimensions. It also recommended that NTIA adopt limitations on data use for law & immigration enforcement purposes, and for being used to disadvantage communities.

The comment suggested that NTIA should pilot new questions on language barriers and family/friend support around access, use, and adoption. It also suggested adding questions around confidence with digital skills. The authors recommended additions around specific internet-enabled technology (voice assistants, AI), including challenges and comfort with AI.

The suggested additions highlight the importance of the Internet Use Survey and of more data collection on the internet. Due to space constraints, we are unable to adopt additional questions at this time. While the broader policy suggestions are out of scope of this data collection, we would like to point out that there are no personal identifiers in the data we receive from the Census Bureau and post on our website, and that the Census Bureau has detailed policies and processes in place for protecting the identity of survey respondents. NTIA staff never see names or personalized data, and certain variables are redacted or edited by the Census Bureau to mitigate reidentification risks. The data protection policies for the Current Population Survey can be found here: https://www.bls.gov/respondents/cps/confidentiality.htm

10. Erika Heeren-Moon

This comment pointed out, as others did, the importance of the Internet Use Survey in gathering data about internet use. The comment suggested including more granular geographic context, such as urban/suburban/rural settings. The comment also suggested making NOHM and PRINOHM, the questions about reason for no internet at home, open-ended.

We thank the author for her comments. To the first suggestion, the Internet Use Survey, as a supplement to the CPS, is already linked with rich demographic data on survey respondents. While the survey does not contain enough data points to infer conclusions at small geographic areas, there are many variables which could be used to understand things like population density. Also, NOHM was an open-ended question in previous versions of the Internet Use Survey. It was changed at the suggestion of commenters and on the advice of Census Bureau experts. At this point, longitudinal consistency cautions against changing it back.

11. National Urban League

This comment recommended additional questions on costs of internet adoption, digital skills, distrust of internet providers & others, accessibility challenges, number and usefulness of devices, language issues, accessibility, technical support, AI, and emerging digital tools. The comment also suggested incorporating the data into Data Explorer within six months of survey completion and enabling finer-grained geographic details where possible. The comment added specific suggestions for questions and additions in Appendix A.

Most of the suggestions from this comment would involve making the survey longer. However, the survey length is limited due to in an effort to minimize respondent burden and stabilize response rates. The CPS does not have a large enough sample size to make finely-localized estimates. However, NTIA and the Census Bureau are exploring ways to produce more geographically granular estimates, including through Local Estimates of Internet Adoption, through which we have been developing county-level adoption estimates. We appreciate the comment on speed of data release. NTIA always aims to release the data as quickly as possible, while allowing our Census Bureau partners to complete vital tasks that ensure privacy, data quality, and appropriate documentation.

12. Jessica Dine – Open Technology Institute at New America

This comment suggested that NTIA should focus data gathering efforts on narrowing connectivity gaps, and pointed out that despite the large amounts of money spent on expanding out connections, 97% of non-adopters did not cite issues with internet non-availability. The comment highlighted how important the Internet Use Survey is in documenting internet adoption gaps.

The comment suggested a broader reconsidering of the Internet Use Survey’s goals in light of policy events. It suggested focusing on solutions and policy actions, for instance by adding questions on how much people would be willing to pay for broadband and what they would need to be able to afford broadband. It also suggested adding a digital skills assessment. Like many other commenters, the authors suggested revisions to NOHM. This comment suggested using “don’t need it or not interested” as a first-line response, with a secondary question asking whether respondents had other concerns.

Beyond specific survey suggestions, the authors included a number of policy suggestions for NTIA, including some relevant to data collection, such as developing a digital skills framework. These suggestions are out of scope for this data collection.

We appreciate OTI’s thoughtful comment. We agree with the important need for gathering more information on reasons for internet non-adoption and digital skills. However, the Internet Use Survey serves multiple purposes for a variety of user bases from academia, civil society, industry, and government. Given the limited availability of time on the CPS, many of these additional questions are likely best addressed through other venues.

13. Wired Broadband

This comment advocates for NTIA to recognize the difference between wired and wireless broadband. It explains issues around wireless internet adoption at length. Those issues are outside of the scope of this data collection.

The authors also claim that the current version of the survey is not “technology neutral,” and is weighted towards wireless internet. They request that the survey ask about different types of wired connections (copper, coaxial cable, fiber).

The authors have specific edits to existing questions, many of which are suggestions to include cable, fiber, DSL, and mobile as options in specific questions. They also suggested that NETCHK, a question which references individuals in the interviewed households, is a violation of privacy.

NTIA’s goal with this survey is to objectively understand the actual experiences of Americans in interacting with the internet. Those experiences are largely driven by available market options. The revision of HOMTE is indeed designed to separate various types of internet service and to track their prevalence.

Behavioral testing from past iterations has shown that people often cannot differentiate between cable and fiber internet connections. In addition, this breakout is not appropriate or useful for many of the asked questions. For instance, identity theft may happen in multiple ways, and typically has nothing to do with whether someone has a cable or fiber connection at home.

Regarding NETCHK: In order for the CPS to understand members of a household, the Census Bureau has long-referred to individuals’ names when speaking with respondents during interviews. This is likely the only way to understand rich detail about household members, since the interviewee knows these people by their names. The names are removed from the data sets before release and before being transmitted to NTIA, and all data is handled in accordance with the Census Bureau’s comprehensive privacy policies.

14. County of LA

This comment suggested changes to tables S2801 and S2802 on the Census Bureau’s website. These are tables created by the Census Bureau to summarize results from the American Community Survey. The suggestions seemed to recommend gathering more data on digital skills, technical support, and disaggregating households without internet by more characteristics.

We understand the need for more data on the internet. However, the data collection described in this document is a supplement to the Current Population Survey. The suggested changes are for the American Community Survey, which is a different project.