The promise of ubiquitous, high-speed internet has long been a cornerstone of modern progress, an essential utility in an increasingly digital world. Yet, as our reliance on online connectivity deepens for work, education, healthcare, and social interaction, a significant divide persists across the United States. This chasm, often characterized as the digital divide, disproportionately affects rural communities, leaving millions behind despite nationwide improvements in broadband infrastructure.
Understanding the true scope of this challenge requires a nuanced approach, moving beyond simple availability to scrutinize the quality and affordability of service. A comprehensive methodology has been developed to assess internet access and quality across states, recognizing that mere infrastructure presence does not guarantee meaningful connectivity. This framework scores each state based on several weighted categories, providing a granular view of the broadband landscape.
At the core of this assessment are three crucial metrics related to access, accounting for a significant 65% of the total score: access to wired or fixed wireless broadband internet, access to low-priced broadband internet, and access to fiber-optic service. These metrics are heavily weighted because they represent the fundamental prerequisites for any form of meaningful digital engagement. If broadband is physically available but only to a select few, or if its cost is prohibitive, then even the most advanced technology becomes largely irrelevant.
Access to wired or fixed wireless broadband internet is foundational, measuring the literal availability of high-speed connections. Equally critical, and often overlooked, is access to low-priced broadband internet. A service that is technically “available” but financially out of reach for a significant portion of the population creates an affordability gap that is just as detrimental as a complete lack of infrastructure. Finally, the inclusion of fiber-optic service access reflects the pursuit of optimal connectivity, as it represents the fastest and most reliable internet technology currently available.
Beyond mere availability, the quality of internet service is paramount, assessed through three key indicators: download speed, upload speed, and round trip time (RTT), which measures latency. The relative importance of these quality metrics can vary significantly depending on individual user needs and activities. For instance, competitive online gamers prioritize low latency, as measured by RTT, where every millisecond counts in real-time interactions.
Live streamers or small business owners, whose livelihoods often depend on transmitting large amounts of data, will find upload speed to be their most critical factor. Conversely, the everyday user primarily engaged in streaming movies, browsing the web, or consuming content, will typically find download speed to be the most impactful measure of their internet experience. This differentiation underscores the complexity of defining “good” internet; it is not a monolithic concept but a spectrum of performance tailored to diverse demands.
To generate a robust and reliable assessment, data from over 186 million speed tests collected from the M-Labs NDT Data Set between January 1st and June 30th, 2025, were meticulously analyzed for their upload speed, download speed, and round trip time. This vast dataset provided a granular look at the state of digital connectivity across the nation. The scoring process then assigned every state a score from 0 to 100 for each of the six categories, which were subsequently weighted and aggregated to produce a final comprehensive score.
For the access categories—wired/fixed wireless, low-priced, and fiber-optic—the percentages naturally ranged from 0 to 100, requiring no modification for their score. However, for the three quality categories, a linear mapping approach was employed to scale each state’s median speed to a 0-100 score. Specific benchmark speeds were established to correspond to scores of 100 and 59, with intermediate values proportionally scaled. For RTT, 10 ms equated to a score of 100 and 20 ms to 59; for download speeds, 130 Mbps was set for 100 and 110 Mbps for 59; and for upload speeds, 35 Mbps achieved 100, while 28 Mbps was set at 59. This rigorous methodology underpins the findings of the 2025 report.
The 2025 report indeed highlights continued improvements in broadband availability nationwide, a testament to ongoing efforts to expand infrastructure. However, it simultaneously “underscores the significant regional differences in internet quality across the U.S.” This disparity reveals that while the sheer presence of broadband infrastructure has grown, the core issue for many rural Americans remains the lack of access to an *affordable* internet connection.
According to new research from BroadbandNow, published on August 21, 2025, a “devastating affordability gap threatens to leave millions of rural Americans disconnected despite available service.” Tyler Cooper, BroadbandNow’s editor in chief, emphasizes that this gap is not merely a hypothetical concern but a stark reality for many households. The report reveals that in five specific states—Alaska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Wyoming—the difference between households with physical access to broadband infrastructure and those able to subscribe to “affordable broadband plans” exceeded a troubling 20 percent.
The reasons behind these significant affordability gaps are multifaceted and often deeply rooted in the geographical and socio-economic realities of these regions. Cooper attributes much of this to the “difficult geographies of those states.” Western states, for instance, are characterized by sparse populations living considerable distances from one another. This low population density makes the deployment of infrastructure inherently more costly for providers.
Furthermore, these challenging conditions often hinder the emergence of meaningful competition among internet service providers, which would typically drive down prices. In Alaska, for example, “three-quarters of residents technically have broadband available, but pricing makes it effectively nonexistent for all but the wealthiest households.” Compounding this issue, rural areas frequently contend with lower median incomes, creating a double burden for residents attempting to secure essential internet services.
Interestingly, BroadbandNow’s analysis yielded some “counterintuitive” findings that challenge common assumptions about broadband development. The report did not find that a strong fiber presence correlated to better general broadband outcomes. Several states boasting more than 60 percent fiber coverage surprisingly ranked low in the group’s overall assessment, which considered coverage, speed, and access to affordable plans. This suggests that fiber deployment, while a critical component, is not a standalone panacea for comprehensive connectivity issues.
Conversely, some states with comparatively lower fiber penetration, such as California and Illinois, performed better in the rankings. This success was attributed to “robust cable and fixed wireless networks,” indicating that a diversified and high-quality infrastructure mix can effectively bridge gaps even without pervasive fiber. This finding underscores the importance of evaluating the overall ecosystem of connectivity rather than focusing on a single technology solution.
Another unexpected discovery was the lack of correlation between the sheer number of Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in a state and its overall broadband quality. This suggests that simply counting providers might not be an accurate gauge of market health or consumer benefit. Consequently, Cooper recommends that regulators should shift their focus from mere provider count to assessing the “quality of competition” and concentrate on “ensuring multiple high-quality options” within a market, rather than just tallying the number of available providers.
While many rural states struggle, the 2025 BroadbandNow rankings also identified areas of excellence. The states that scored highest in the overall assessment were concentrated in the Northeast: New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, and New Hampshire led the list. These states demonstrate that comprehensive broadband access, quality, and affordability are achievable through focused efforts and favorable conditions, offering a valuable benchmark for other regions.
Yet, the broader picture for America’s infrastructure remains under pressure, extending far beyond digital connectivity to encompass challenges from “crumbling highways to rural areas without reliable internet.” The latest U.S. News & World Report rankings—which assess transportation, energy, and internet access—offer a revealing “data-driven countdown” of the 25 states grappling most with infrastructure deficiencies, ranked from #25 (the “best of the worst”) to #50 (the “very worst”). This broader context is crucial for understanding how internet access intersects with other vital public services and a state’s overall functional capacity.
Examining these rankings provides a vivid illustration of how internet access can be a critical determinant of a state’s overall infrastructure health. West Virginia, for instance, ranks dead last overall at #50, burdened by “crumbling transportation, unreliable energy, and the worst broadband access in the nation.” Louisiana (#48) and Mississippi (#47) also suffer from deeply inadequate infrastructure across all sectors, with internet and power delivery being particular pain points that hinder daily life and economic activity. Hawaii (#49) struggles with high energy costs and limited internet access across its islands despite its robust tourism economy.
Alaska (#46), with its “extreme geography,” faces severe complications in infrastructure delivery, particularly energy and broadband, even if its roads are relatively strong compared to other aspects. These challenges highlight how environmental factors can compound the difficulty of achieving comprehensive connectivity in certain regions.
Even states that perform well in other infrastructure categories can be severely undermined by poor digital connectivity. Montana (#25) and Wyoming (#26), for example, score high in transportation and energy, but their “rural landscape contributes to poor internet access—dragging down its overall infrastructure ranking.” Similarly, New Mexico (#42) excels in energy production but ranks “among the worst for internet access, especially in rural areas,” mirroring Alabama (#33) where solid physical infrastructure is overshadowed by “digital inequality—particularly rural broadband gaps.” Wisconsin (#31) also sees its “middling transportation and poor internet access drag its ranking down,” highlighting a widespread pattern of digital deficiencies being a significant obstacle to overall state performance.
Conversely, some states demonstrate strong internet access but are hampered by other infrastructure deficits. Connecticut (#27), despite “excellent internet access,” falls short with “outdated transportation systems and poor energy efficiency.” Maryland (#28) benefits from “solid internet infrastructure” but is “weighed down by serious transportation issues, most notably heavy traffic congestion.” Massachusetts (#39), one of the worst-ranked for both transportation and energy, is “saved from a lower spot by its decent internet access,” preventing an even lower overall ranking. Even California (#35), with its “strong internet access,” faces major energy issues like blackouts and wildfire risk, alongside overburdened transport systems.
These varied state profiles underscore the complex interplay of infrastructure components and the pervasive nature of the broadband challenge. While the overall picture of America’s infrastructure is diverse, the thread of inadequate or unaffordable internet access consistently emerges as a critical vulnerability, especially in rural America. The impact extends beyond mere inconvenience, touching upon economic development, educational opportunities, and the overall quality of life. As Joe Turnham, executive director of the Macon County Alabama Economic Development Authority, cogently states, “Every month and every year a rural community is not reaching its broadband deployment potential it’s killing potential deals. Whether they know it or not, admit it or not, it is.” This stark reality demands urgent attention and concerted action, acknowledging that reliable, affordable high-speed internet is no longer a luxury but a fundamental necessity for rural prosperity.
