Pew’s 2025 report warns that flawed federal broadband data skews funding toward urban areas that already appear well-served, while rural communities—like those lacking household-level data and facing overstated provider coverage—are left behind. Without accurate mapping and consistent definitions, cities will continue to benefit from broadband investments, while underserved rural regions remain disconnected.
Despite historic federal investments in broadband infrastructure, a new report by The Pew Charitable Trusts warns that the United States may fall short of its universal connectivity goals—not because of insufficient funding, but due to inconsistent, outdated, and incomplete federal data that fails to capture where broadband is needed most and how well it works.
Pew’s July 8, 2025 assessment, “To Improve Broadband Deployment, Enhanced Data Collection Is Key,” reveals serious shortcomings in how broadband access, affordability, adoption, and quality are measured and evaluated. The report underscores a critical disconnect: While over $65 billion from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) is earmarked for broadband projects through 2030—primarily through the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program—the data guiding these investments often misrepresents actual conditions on the ground.
A tangle of programs, poor visibility
According to a 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report cited by Pew, 133 federal broadband programs across 15 agencies spent $44 billion between 2015 and 2020. That number has only grown with pandemic-era investments and the ongoing rollout of BEAD. Yet despite this wave of funding, there is no unified national broadband strategy or consistent federal framework to measure success or track gaps.
The consequences are far-reaching: Areas already funded might still be unserved, while deserving communities are overlooked. BEAD’s strict prohibition on duplicative funding has made the data issue even more urgent—states must prove an area isn’t already “served” to be eligible for future funds, yet that determination often relies on flawed maps and self-reported provider data.
The cracks in the foundation
Pew’s report identifies four core weaknesses in current broadband data:
Geographic and household data limitations: Federal broadband availability is still largely mapped by ZIP code, census block, or tract, rather than by household. In rural areas especially, a provider’s claim to serve a census block—even if it only serves one household—can render the entire area ineligible for new funds. These distortions risk wasting resources and ignoring real need.
Reliability issues: Much of the data is self-reported by internet service providers (ISPs), with little external validation. Pew and others found that ISPs routinely overstate coverage and performance. There’s also no comprehensive national data on broadband prices or actual speeds experienced by users, and delays in publishing data make real-time assessments nearly impossible.
Inconsistent definitions: There is no consensus across agencies on what constitutes broadband, affordability, or even rural. Pew found 30 different federal definitions for “rural,” and the FCC, Census Bureau, and NTIA all define broadband speeds and access differently—frustrating efforts to standardize evaluations or compare datasets.
Lack of impact assessment: Despite broadband’s touted benefits for telehealth, education, employment, and civic life, federal datasets largely ignore the outcomes of broadband adoption. This makes it hard to assess whether public dollars are improving lives—or simply laying fiber.
States left holding the data bag
BEAD places heavy data-reporting requirements on states, compelling them to demonstrate broadband’s economic and social impact by 2030. But Pew found that the federal government has provided little guidance or support for consistent measurement. As a result, states are crafting their own metrics—leading to inconsistencies and further fragmentation. Without standardized data collection and definitions, Pew warns that evaluating the success of BEAD will be nearly impossible.
Calls for policy reform and research investment
Pew recommends several federal actions to fix the system:
Develop household-level data: Federal agencies should prioritize granular, household-level data to accurately reflect who is served and how well.
Mandate independent data collection: Rather than rely on ISP-reported information, the government should invest in independent tools—like speed tests and crowdsourced data platforms—to assess performance and availability.
Standardize definitions and metrics: Congress or the FCC should establish clear, unified definitions for broadband, affordability, and digital equity to ensure program alignment and consistent evaluation.
Measure outcomes, not just access: Future broadband investments should require impact assessments in areas like education, employment, healthcare, and civic engagement—areas where the benefits of connectivity are often assumed but rarely proven.
Fund research partnerships: Pew calls for more collaboration between federal agencies and academic researchers to refine metrics, improve data usability, and track broadband’s broader societal effects. Promising examples include Pew’s ongoing work with Michigan State University and Purdue University.
