Despite the Internet’s ever-growing social and economic relevance, a sizable number of Americans in select cities still aren’t connected.

For the first time, the Census Bureau collected data measuring Internet adoption in its most recent annual American Community Survey. The results depict disparities in connectivity and the current state of Internet connectivity at the local level, estimating numbers of households with access and how residents are connecting.

Nationwide, 79 percent of American households in 2013 had some form of Internet access --including mobile broadband and slower connections. Nearly all houses are hooked up to the Internet in some cities, but in other large jurisdictions, more than a third of households remain without access.

Cities recording the highest Internet adoption rates were predominantly wealthy enclaves characterized by tech-savvy residents. An estimated 96 percent of households in the Denver suburb of Centennial, Colo., had Internet access -- the highest nationally of all cities with at least 100,000 residents. 

Cary, N.C., another relatively wealthy city in the tech-heavy Research Triangle area, posted a similarly high Internet adoption rate.

Cary has long been far ahead other parts of the country. Back in 2000, three-quarters of residents there already had established home Internet access, according to city surveys. Adoption further accelerated in the early 2000s when the region’s primary Internet provider rebuilt its local network, said Susan Moran, the city’s public information director.

Places like Cary with high density and strong Internet adoption tend to attract the most private infrastructure investment and competition. Earlier this year, Google announced it was exploring bringing its highly-touted fiber-optic network to the Raleigh-Durham metro area. “People who make their homes and do business here really drive expansion of service,” Moran said.

College towns like College Station, Texas, and Tempe, Ariz., also registered high connectivity rates. Of the largest jurisdictions, San Jose, San Diego and Seattle recorded the highest adoption rates, at about 88 percent.

To a large degree, Internet adoption mirrors a city’s demographics. Poorer households might not sign up because of the cost. Whites also report higher Internet adoption than black and Hispanic households. Age is another pronounced demographic divides. About 64 percent of the 65-and-over population reported having Internet subscriptions, compared to 81 percent for the rest of the population.

There are several barriers to Internet adoption. Some perceive the Internet as irrelevant to their lives and just don’t see a need for it. Others can’t afford to pay for service or a computer. There’s also a lack of digital literacy around how to use the Internet, a problem that’s particularly relevant for the elderly population. Internet availability is also often a problem in rural and remote areas. Some poorer urban neighborhoods may have insufficient providers offering reliable service at higher speeds.

A quarter or more of households are without Internet connections -- including dial-up service -- in 80 of the 296 larger cities reviewed. The Census survey found the lowest adoption rates in El Monte, Calif., Hartford Conn., Laredo, Texas, and Santa Maria, Calif. -- all with less than 60 percent of households connected. Not surprisingly, many cities with lower connection rates suffered years of economic decline. Just 60 percent of Detroit households, for example, were connected.

Basic Internet adoption rates only tell part of the story, though. Many connected households remain saddled with slow speeds that limit the Internet’s usefulness.

The Census survey does not measure respondents’ connection speeds. It does, though, record connection types, which can provide rough approximations for numbers of high-speed connections. Actual download and upload speeds vary greatly; even DSL services are advertised as high-speed in many areas. Typically, though, cable and fiber connections offer the fastest speeds.

Here’s a table showing cities with the largest shares of households reporting Internet subscriptions classified as cable modem, fiber or having two or more fixed broadband types:

Local Jurisdiction Total share of all households Cable Internet share Fiber Internet share 2 or more fixed broadband share
Cary, N.C. 78.6% 64.8% 6.0% 7.7%
Plano, Texas 77.2% 25.5% 30.0% 21.7%
Thousand Oaks, Calif. 76.9% 34.4% 24.9% 17.7%
Irvine, Calif. 76.1% 62.4% 2.8% 10.9%
Temecula, Calif. 75.4% 23.0% 40.3% 12.2%
Murrieta, Calif. 75.2% 21.1% 43.1% 11.1%
Stamford, Conn. 74.0% 65.8% 1.7% 6.5%
Bellevue, Wash. 73.8% 61.1% 4.0% 8.7%
Virginia Beach, Va. 73.6% 48.9% 15.5% 9.2%
Arlington, Va. 73.5% 31.8% 23.0% 18.7%

Source: Governing calculations of 2013 American Community Survey data. NOTE: Figures do not include households with access that do not have Internet subscriptions. It’s difficult to know from the Census data how many residents are connecting at faster speeds. Defining what constitutes “high speed” or broadband Internet also isn’t universally agreed upon. Earlier this year, the FCC proposed updating its definition for broadband service -- currently downloads speeds of at least 4 Mbps and upload speeds of 1 Mbps -- to download speeds of at least 10 Mbps. AT&T, Verizon and other telecoms met the agency’s proposal with resistance.

Providers report data to the FCC tallying numbers of household connections. (See our map for updated FCC data at the county level)

James Brooks, director of city solutions for the National League of Cities, said local leaders should assess market demand and how companies might help fulfill a government’s internal needs as well. “Cities have learned a lot from early franchise agreements,” he said. “Municipalities need not be afraid of their private sector partners.”

Cities like Chattanooga, Tenn., and Santa Monica, Calif., maintain their own municipal broadband networks. Brooks said municipal networks help to fill gaps in areas with poor service, but they’re not practical for every market.

Twenty states have passed laws restricting municipal networks or banning them outright, at times resulting from telecoms’ lobbying efforts in state legislatures. Critics of the laws include FCC chairman Tom Wheeler, who has suggested that they limit competition. 

“Throughout the country where we have seen competitive broadband providers come in to a market, prices have gone down and broadband speeds have gone up. No wonder incumbent broadband providers want to legislate rather than innovate,” he wrote in a blog post in June.

Colorado’s preemption, different than most other state laws, allows for voters to approve local networks in their areas. Seven Colorado jurisdictions responded earlier this month by passing measures authorizing their local governments to offer high-speed Internet. Wheeler has also hinted that the FCC may soon move to preempt state laws that limit or ban community broadband networks.

City Internet Adoption Rates

Internet adoption rates (all connection types) for cities and incorporated Census-designated places with at least 100,000 residents are shown below:

Interpreting the Data

         
Rank Local Jurisdiction Share of households with Internet Number households without Internet Margin of error
1 Centennial, Colorado 96% 1,530 +/- 667
2 Cary, North Carolina 95.5% 2,568 +/- 670
3 Irvine, California 95.3% 3,944 +/- 1,589
4 Frisco, Texas 94.7% 2,416 +/- 885
5 Bellevue, Washington 93.6% 3,363 +/- 910
6 Gilbert, Arizona 93.4% 4,733 +/- 1,077
7 Boulder, Colorado 92.7% 3,080 +/- 978
8 Pearland, Texas 92.6% 2,595 +/- 1,065
9 Plano, Texas 92.3% 8,184 +/- 1,628
10 Scottsdale, Arizona 92.1% 7,900 +/- 1,534
11 College Station, Texas 92% 2,785 +/- 1,006
12 Coral Springs, Florida 92% 3,231 +/- 1,112
13 Surprise, Arizona 92% 3,835 +/- 816
14 Sunnyvale, California 92% 4,507 +/- 1,247
15 Lewisville, Texas 91.6% 3,086 +/- 881
16 Round Rock, Texas 91.6% 3,122 +/- 1,019
17 Arlington, Virginia 91.5% 8,452 +/- 1,329
18 Fort Collins, Colorado 91.4% 4,957 +/- 1,022
19 Naperville, Illinois 91.3% 4,329 +/- 911
20 Torrance, California 91.2% 5,010 +/- 1,110
21 Olathe, Kansas 91.1% 4,033 +/- 1,071
22 Chandler, Arizona 91% 7,640 +/- 1,328
23 The Woodlands, Texas 90.9% 3,299 +/- 1,137
24 West Jordan, Utah 90.8% 2,892 +/- 965
25 Berkeley, California 90.8% 4,222 +/- 1,022
26 Carlsbad, California 90.8% 4,002 +/- 1,380
27 Ann Arbor, Michigan 90.8% 4,279 +/- 895
28 Fremont, California 90.7% 6,935 +/- 1,415
29 Costa Mesa, California 90.6% 3,762 +/- 980
30 Santa Clara, California 90.5% 4,094 +/- 991
31 Elk Grove, California 90.1% 4,830 +/- 1,231
32 San Mateo, California 90% 3,858 +/- 964
33 Murrieta, California 89.9% 3,369 +/- 1,001
34 Rancho Cucamonga, California 89.8% 5,553 +/- 1,275
35 Overland Park, Kansas 89.6% 7,771 +/- 1,570
36 Virginia Beach, Virginia 89.5% 17,375 +/- 2,140
37 Temecula, California 89.5% 3,347 +/- 971
38 Miramar, Florida 89.5% 3,975 +/- 1,246
39 Thousand Oaks, California 89.3% 5,012 +/- 1,163
40 Santa Clarita, California 89.3% 6,438 +/- 1,183
41 Rochester, Minnesota 89% 4,796 +/- 871
42 Huntington Beach, California 88.9% 8,246 +/- 1,391
43 Alexandria, Virginia 88.8% 7,340 +/- 1,401
44 Pembroke Pines, Florida 88.7% 6,148 +/- 1,129
45 Fullerton, California 88.6% 5,056 +/- 1,021
46 Thornton, Colorado 88.4% 4,890 +/- 1,061
47 San Jose, California 88.4% 36,361 +/- 2,965
48 Arvada, Colorado 88.4% 5,063 +/- 993
49 Tempe, Arizona 88.4% 7,400 +/- 1,443
50 Cape Coral, Florida 88.2% 6,742 +/- 1,294
51 Broken Arrow, Oklahoma 88% 4,488 +/- 649
52 San Diego, California 88% 57,625 +/- 3,951
53 Provo, Utah 88% 3,782 +/- 833
54 Seattle, Washington 87.8% 36,435 +/- 3,499
55 Burbank, California 87.7% 5,240 +/- 1,275
56 Roseville, California 87.7% 5,639 +/- 1,143
57 Richardson, Texas 87.5% 4,781 +/- 1,194
58 Corona, California 87.5% 6,024 +/- 1,100
59 Orange, California 87.5% 5,265 +/- 1,179
60 Denton, Texas 87.3% 5,540 +/- 1,156
61 Columbia, Missouri 87.3% 5,926 +/- 1,091
62 Eugene, Oregon 87.3% 8,290 +/- 1,401
63 Anchorage municipality, Alaska 87.2% 13,279 +/- 1,869
64 Madison, Wisconsin 87.1% 13,910 +/- 2,172
65 Cambridge, Massachusetts 87% 5,623 +/- 1,132
66 Colorado Springs, Colorado 86.8% 22,362 +/- 2,394
67 Santa Rosa, California 86.8% 8,612 +/- 1,638
68 Port St. Lucie, Florida 86.7% 7,619 +/- 1,526
69 Henderson, Nevada 86.5% 14,181 +/- 2,099
70 McKinney, Texas 86.5% 6,559 +/- 1,679
71 West Covina, California 86.2% 4,237 +/- 874
72 Norman, Oklahoma 86.1% 6,232 +/- 1,237
73 Westminster, Colorado 86.1% 5,796 +/- 976
74 Tallahassee, Florida 85.9% 10,622 +/- 1,684
75 Simi Valley, California 85.8% 6,107 +/- 1,188
76 Fontana, California 85.7% 6,718 +/- 1,203
77 Raleigh, North Carolina 85.6% 24,552 +/- 2,829
78 San Buenaventura, California 85.5% 6,078 +/- 1,162
79 North Las Vegas, Nevada 85.4% 9,748 +/- 1,526
80 Elgin, Illinois 85.3% 4,882 +/- 1,385
81 Concord, California 85.2% 6,716 +/- 1,173
82 Portland, Oregon 85.2% 37,348 +/- 3,006
83 Austin, Texas 85.1% 51,895 +/- 3,992
84 San Francisco, California 85.1% 52,995 +/- 3,521
85 West Valley City, Utah 85.1% 5,431 +/- 1,230
86 Durham, North Carolina 85% 14,911 +/- 1,853
87 Garland, Texas 84.9% 11,805 +/- 1,838
88 Fargo, North Dakota 84.8% 7,547 +/- 1,262
89 Sterling Heights, Michigan 84.7% 7,542 +/- 1,221
90 Riverside, California 84.6% 13,818 +/- 1,663
91 Killeen, Texas 84.6% 6,718 +/- 1,379
92 Daly City, California 84.6% 4,958 +/- 1,313
93 Carrollton, Texas 84.4% 7,197 +/- 1,345
94 Palm Bay, Florida 84.4% 5,966 +/- 1,368
95 Fairfield, California 84.4% 5,335 +/- 1,036
96 Aurora, Colorado 84.4% 19,460 +/- 2,096
97 Peoria, Arizona 84.2% 9,420 +/- 1,407
98 Boise City, Idaho 84.1% 13,978 +/- 2,489
99 Midland, Texas 84% 6,923 +/- 1,444
100 Antioch, California 83.9% 5,496 +/- 1,161
101 Aurora, Illinois 83.9% 9,989 +/- 1,509
102 Chesapeake, Virginia 83.8% 12,945 +/- 1,625
103 Chula Vista, California 83.6% 12,579 +/- 1,994
104 El Cajon, California 83.6% 5,348 +/- 1,277
105 Oceanside, California 83.6% 10,373 +/- 1,744
106 Anaheim, California 83.5% 16,350 +/- 2,124
107 Mesquite, Texas 83.3% 7,934 +/- 1,572
108 Hayward, California 83.3% 7,822 +/- 1,341
109 Lincoln, Nebraska 83.3% 17,837 +/- 2,596
110 Stamford, Connecticut 83.3% 8,056 +/- 1,612
111 Gainesville, Florida 83.3% 8,434 +/- 1,604
112 Kent, Washington 83.1% 7,396 +/- 1,369
113 Vancouver, Washington 83.1% 10,804 +/- 1,788
114 Pasadena, California 83% 9,239 +/- 1,507
115 Salt Lake City, Utah 82.9% 12,552 +/- 1,717
116 Springfield, Illinois 82.7% 8,525 +/- 1,039
117 Clarksville, Tennessee 82.7% 8,833 +/- 1,270
118 Lexington-Fayette, Kentucky 82.4% 21,963 +/- 2,156
119 Rialto, California 82.2% 4,524 +/- 900
120 Sioux Falls, South Dakota 82.2% 11,841 +/- 1,606
121 Charleston, South Carolina 82.2% 9,684 +/- 1,614
122 Murfreesboro, Tennessee 82.1% 8,129 +/- 1,680
123 Minneapolis, Minnesota 82% 30,204 +/- 2,377
124 Charlotte, North Carolina 82% 53,926 +/- 3,526
125 Billings, Montana 82% 7,998 +/- 1,278
126 Orlando, Florida 81.9% 18,683 +/- 2,048
127 Salem, Oregon 81.7% 10,891 +/- 2,006
128 Lubbock, Texas 81.7% 16,246 +/- 2,029
129 Wilmington, North Carolina 81.4% 9,106 +/- 1,354
130 Long Beach, California 81.4% 30,745 +/- 3,014
131 St. Paul, Minnesota 81.4% 20,652 +/- 1,601
132 Fayetteville, North Carolina 81.3% 14,944 +/- 1,372
133 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 81.3% 9,930 +/- 1,421
134 Lafayette, Louisiana 81.3% 9,085 +/- 1,419
135 Jersey City, New Jersey 81.2% 18,308 +/- 2,074
136 Irving, Texas 81.2% 15,508 +/- 1,701
137 Arlington, Texas 81.1% 25,550 +/- 2,789
138 Newport News, Virginia 80.8% 12,991 +/- 1,606
139 Denver, Colorado 80.8% 52,559 +/- 3,535
140 Moreno Valley, California 80.7% 9,675 +/- 1,412
141 Visalia, California 80.7% 8,312 +/- 1,389
142 Reno, Nevada 80.5% 17,677 +/- 1,903
143 Spokane, Washington 80.3% 16,977 +/- 1,928
144 Hollywood, Florida 80.3% 10,734 +/- 1,819
145 Yonkers, New York 80.2% 14,666 +/- 1,862
146 Garden Grove, California 80.1% 9,146 +/- 1,274
147 Boston, Massachusetts 80.1% 50,090 +/- 3,244
148 Downey, California 80.1% 6,377 +/- 1,310
149 Washington, DC 80% 54,207 +/- 3,373
150 Columbus, Ohio 80% 65,954 +/- 4,168
151 Vallejo, California 79.9% 8,412 +/- 1,560
152 Worcester, Massachusetts 79.8% 13,520 +/- 1,738
153 Richmond, California 79.8% 7,269 +/- 1,545
154 Oakland, California 79.8% 31,186 +/- 2,735
155 Lakewood, Colorado 79.8% 12,447 +/- 1,795
156 Joliet, Illinois 79.6% 9,797 +/- 1,447
157 Tyler, Texas 79.4% 7,865 +/- 1,373
158 Bakersfield, California 79.2% 23,088 +/- 2,271
159 Urban Honolulu, Hawaii 79.2% 26,958 +/- 2,192
160 Atlanta, Georgia 79.2% 38,523 +/- 2,434
161 Salinas, California 79.1% 8,434 +/- 1,392
162 Las Vegas, Nevada 79.1% 43,867 +/- 2,971
163 Sacramento, California 78.9% 36,939 +/- 2,873
164 Jacksonville, Florida 78.9% 66,312 +/- 3,728
165 Hampton, Virginia 78.8% 11,282 +/- 1,310
166 Glendale, California 78.8% 14,999 +/- 2,075
167 Manchester, New Hampshire 78.8% 9,690 +/- 1,521
168 Wichita Falls, Texas 78.6% 8,277 +/- 1,196
169 Grand Prairie, Texas 78.6% 12,755 +/- 2,005
170 Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 78.6% 49,773 +/- 3,154
171 Nashville-Davidson, Tennessee 78.5% 54,089 +/- 3,382
172 Odessa, Texas 78.5% 8,358 +/- 1,370
173 Everett, Washington 78.4% 8,925 +/- 1,757
174 Los Angeles, California 78.3% 287,017 +/- 6,979
175 Fort Worth, Texas 78.2% 58,622 +/- 3,665
176 Greensboro, North Carolina 78.2% 25,255 +/- 2,257
177 Mesa, Arizona 78.2% 36,346 +/- 2,860
178 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 78.1% 16,212 +/- 2,382
179 New York, New York 78.1% 675,906 +/- 12,071
180 Gresham, Oregon 78% 8,535 +/- 1,490
181 Tucson, Arizona 78% 45,762 +/- 3,289
182 Corpus Christi, Texas 77.9% 25,610 +/- 1,990
183 St. Petersburg, Florida 77.8% 23,833 +/- 2,451
184 High Point, North Carolina 77.8% 9,051 +/- 1,348
185 Fort Wayne, Indiana 77.8% 22,616 +/- 2,454
186 Las Cruces, New Mexico 77.7% 8,766 +/- 1,689
187 Tampa, Florida 77.6% 32,769 +/- 2,638
188 Norfolk, Virginia 77.5% 19,243 +/- 1,867
189 Santa Ana, California 77.4% 17,223 +/- 2,000
190 Palmdale, California 77.4% 10,060 +/- 1,388
191 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 77.3% 29,544 +/- 2,565
192 Green Bay, Wisconsin 77.3% 9,535 +/- 1,241
193 Tacoma, Washington 77.3% 18,529 +/- 2,079
194 Escondido, California 77.2% 10,202 +/- 1,337
195 McAllen, Texas 77.1% 9,462 +/- 1,752
196 Pomona, California 77.1% 9,047 +/- 1,346
197 Albuquerque, New Mexico 77.1% 49,957 +/- 3,372
198 Omaha, Nebraska 77.1% 39,356 +/- 2,695
199 Huntsville, Alabama 76.9% 18,402 +/- 2,242
200 Independence, Missouri 76.8% 11,425 +/- 1,924
201 Little Rock, Arkansas 76.7% 17,988 +/- 2,159
202 Pompano Beach, Florida 76.4% 9,686 +/- 1,446
203 Des Moines, Iowa 76.3% 19,418 +/- 1,805
204 Clearwater, Florida 76.3% 11,105 +/- 1,846
205 Lakeland, Florida 76.3% 9,134 +/- 1,379
206 Victorville, California 76.2% 7,438 +/- 1,898
207 Athens-Clarke County, Georgia 76% 10,555 +/- 1,388
208 Louisville/Jefferson, Kentucky 76% 59,480 +/- 3,387
209 Montgomery, Alabama 76% 18,837 +/- 1,803
210 Phoenix, Arizona 75.9% 124,822 +/- 5,799
211 Bridgeport, Connecticut 75.7% 11,714 +/- 1,670
212 Kansas City, Missouri 75.6% 47,110 +/- 3,154
213 Grand Rapids, Michigan 75.5% 17,717 +/- 1,539
214 Amarillo, Texas 75.4% 18,482 +/- 1,706
215 Houston, Texas 75.1% 202,782 +/- 7,534
216 Chicago, Illinois 75.1% 256,481 +/- 5,727
217 Lansing, Michigan 75% 12,255 +/- 1,738
218 San Antonio, Texas 74.7% 124,833 +/- 5,190
219 Norwalk, California 74.6% 6,871 +/- 1,108
220 Inglewood, California 74.6% 9,331 +/- 1,490
221 Ontario, California 74.5% 12,023 +/- 1,712
222 Winston-Salem, North Carolina 74.3% 24,140 +/- 1,990
223 Modesto, California 74.3% 17,843 +/- 2,211
224 Richmond, Virginia 74.3% 22,666 +/- 1,826
225 Lancaster, California 74.2% 13,052 +/- 2,245
226 Columbus, Georgia 74% 18,649 +/- 1,881
227 Columbia, South Carolina 74% 11,485 +/- 1,280
228 Indianapolis, Indiana 74% 84,818 +/- 4,299
229 Peoria, Illinois 73.8% 12,316 +/- 1,429
230 Tulsa, Oklahoma 73.8% 42,675 +/- 1,944
231 San Angelo, Texas 73.6% 10,033 +/- 1,691
232 Rockford, Illinois 73.6% 15,360 +/- 1,355
233 Topeka, Kansas 73.5% 14,411 +/- 1,702
234 Wichita, Kansas 73.4% 40,170 +/- 2,993
235 Davenport, Iowa 73.3% 10,903 +/- 1,309
236 Pasadena, Texas 73.3% 12,222 +/- 1,702
237 Fresno, California 73% 43,541 +/- 2,910
238 Oxnard, California 73% 13,736 +/- 1,661
239 Savannah, Georgia 72.9% 14,356 +/- 1,285
240 Knoxville, Tennessee 72.7% 21,881 +/- 2,179
241 Springfield, Missouri 72.7% 19,678 +/- 2,131
242 Baton Rouge, Louisiana 72.5% 24,367 +/- 2,242
243 Stockton, California 72.5% 24,967 +/- 2,351
244 Elizabeth, New Jersey 72.5% 10,984 +/- 1,420
245 Lowell, Massachusetts 71.8% 10,869 +/- 1,754
246 Dallas, Texas 71.5% 135,640 +/- 5,949
247 Allentown, Pennsylvania 71.5% 11,353 +/- 1,512
248 Chattanooga, Tennessee 71.4% 19,608 +/- 1,927
249 West Palm Beach, Florida 71.3% 11,710 +/- 1,887
250 El Paso, Texas 71.3% 63,047 +/- 3,740
251 San Bernardino, California 71.2% 16,198 +/- 1,941
252 Waco, Texas 71.2% 13,450 +/- 1,776
253 Providence, Rhode Island 71% 17,588 +/- 2,077
254 Warren, Michigan 70.5% 16,169 +/- 1,911
255 Augusta-Richmond County, Georgia 70.4% 20,427 +/- 2,091
256 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 70.2% 173,795 +/- 5,793
257 Toledo, Ohio 70.2% 35,363 +/- 2,326
258 Erie, Pennsylvania 70.1% 12,217 +/- 1,341
259 Cincinnati, Ohio 69.7% 40,361 +/- 2,794
260 Pueblo, Colorado 69.7% 12,787 +/- 1,334
261 Baltimore, Maryland 69.6% 74,116 +/- 3,610
262 Springfield, Massachusetts 69.4% 16,974 +/- 1,599
263 Glendale, Arizona 69% 24,628 +/- 2,358
264 Abilene, Texas 68.9% 13,208 +/- 1,681
265 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 68.8% 72,129 +/- 3,361
266 Syracuse, New York 68.8% 17,170 +/- 1,744
267 North Charleston, South Carolina 68.8% 11,547 +/- 1,356
268 South Bend, Indiana 68.7% 12,675 +/- 1,331
269 Akron, Ohio 68.2% 26,112 +/- 2,114
270 St. Louis, Missouri 68.1% 44,815 +/- 3,116
271 Shreveport, Louisiana 67.9% 24,934 +/- 2,276
272 Newark, New Jersey 67.8% 29,992 +/- 2,686
273 Memphis, Tennessee 67.7% 80,922 +/- 4,437
274 Buffalo, New York 67.4% 35,679 +/- 2,443
275 Kansas City, Kansas 67.2% 17,223 +/- 1,547
276 Mobile, Alabama 66.5% 24,794 +/- 2,192
277 Waterbury, Connecticut 66.3% 13,421 +/- 1,938
278 New Orleans, Louisiana 66.2% 53,572 +/- 2,249
279 Paterson, New Jersey 66% 15,047 +/- 1,869
280 Rochester, New York 65.9% 29,448 +/- 2,517
281 Dayton, Ohio 65.8% 20,180 +/- 2,010
282 Beaumont, Texas 65.6% 15,391 +/- 1,950
283 Evansville, Indiana 64.7% 17,530 +/- 1,760
284 New Haven, Connecticut 64.1% 17,939 +/- 1,883
285 Cleveland, Ohio 63.9% 59,403 +/- 2,886
286 Miami Gardens, Florida 63.6% 11,467 +/- 1,604
287 Miami, Florida 63.2% 56,886 +/- 3,208
288 Jackson, Mississippi 61.2% 24,912 +/- 2,264
289 Brownsville, Texas 61.1% 19,340 +/- 2,009
290 Birmingham, Alabama 61% 34,626 +/- 2,315
291 Hialeah, Florida 60.7% 27,648 +/- 2,801
292 Detroit, Michigan 60.1% 101,923 +/- 3,568
293 Laredo, Texas 59.8% 26,376 +/- 2,000
294 El Monte, California 58% 13,190 +/- 1,655
295 Hartford, Connecticut 57.7% 19,539 +/- 1,965
296 Santa Maria, California 56.1% 11,942 +/- 1,429

SOURCE: Governing calculations of 2013 American Community Survey one-year estimates Estimates refer to percentages of total households, not individuals. Total adoption rates include all connection types and households reporting Internet access without subscriptions. Note than some smaller jurisdictions have higher margins of error. The Census Bureau published data for other localities not shown with fewer residents, but one-year estimates for these jurisdictions aren't as reliable. Read about broadband adoption in rural areas in the November issue of Governing.