The U.S. Internet Monopoly Map: States and Cities With the Least Internet Competition

It’s surprisingly common for a single internet provider to reign supreme in one area, but that doesn’t make it a good idea

By Brianne Sandorf

Aug 04, 2025

5 min read

Edited ByRebecca Lee Armstrong

Edited ByTim Tincher

The ol’ US of A might be the internet’s birthplace, but that doesn’t mean we get our pick of internet providers. If anything, it’s the opposite. A surprising amount of states and metros experience a broadband monopoly, where only one wired internet provider operates without competition.

For instance, due to a broadband monopoly, Montana resident Shaun Michael Lewis was forced to purchase DSL services for his home and business from a local provider. “I attempted to identify a different provider on account of the low speeds and limited throughput of my residential connection but discovered there were none,” Lewis recalls. Having only one internet provider in the area meant no competition—and no alternatives.

That’s where we come in. We ranked all 50 U.S. states and over 300 metro areas by how fierce the internet competition is. Armed with this information, you get a better idea of whether you can switch providers or if you’d have to move first.

On this page:

Why internet monopolies matter
Best and worst states for internet competition
Best and worst metros for internet competition
Check for yourself
How we got these numbers

Why internet monopolies matter

With internet service so integral to day-to-day life, the lack of provider competition is both alarming and surprisingly widespread.

We found that over 8.7 million Americans live in metro areas with only one wired broadband provider, and fewer than 10% of 100+ metros offer two or more providers on most blocks. States with otherwise strong internet competition still have monopolies scattered throughout, and even populous areas are subject to them. For instance, nearly 60% of Springfield, Ohio, residents have only one internet provider option—and that’s in a city of around 700,000.

Contrary to what you might expect, monopolies aren’t great for internet service providers either, according to Reviews.org data. Consumer distrust and frustration run highest where internet choices are most limited, and 59% of Americans say they feel misled by ISP pricing. Resentment festers so strongly that many customers currently under a monopoly would switch providers if they could, potentially even at personal expense.

As an example, Shaun Michael Lewis jumped at the chance to switch his real estate brokerage to the newly-arrived Starlink, even though it’s expensive and his company is still under contract with the local monopoly. “We are deploying this alternative to the extent possible in an effort to break free of the rural monopolies in place in many of our markets,” explains Lewis.

What about wireless internet?

When gathering data about monopolies, we focused on broadband companies—those with wired internet connections. Some areas with broadband monopolies may have wireless alternatives like satellite or 5G providers, but these options may not be as fast or reliable as wired connections, even if they are available.

The 10 best and worst states for internet competition

Internet monopoly map (state version)

The internet monopoly map pictured above shows which states have the most and least internet competition. The best states for internet competition have more providers and fewer monopolies, while the worst states for internet competition have fewer providers and more monopolies.

To learn more about how the data we used to rank these states, check out our methodology.

The 10 best states for internet competition

Rank	State	% of census blocks with 2 or more providers	% of population with 2 or more providers	Combined internet competition score
1	New Jersey	4.25%	96.19%	0.94
2	Connecticut	3.12%	99.73%	0.86
3	Utah	2.66%	97.78%	0.77
4	California	2.49%	96.76%	0.73
5	Rhode Island	1.93%	99.03%	0.7
6	New York	2.88%	94.64%	0.74
7	Michigan	1.84%	98.67%	0.68
8	Florida	1.91%	98.27%	0.68
9	Minnesota	1.81%	98.44%	0.67
10	Oregon	1.58%	98.42%	0.64

Here’s what sticks out about the best states for internet competition:

High-performing states like New Jersey, Connecticut, and Utah all have strong ties to the technology sector, but they aren’t the first states you think of when it comes to technological innovation. Surprisingly, all three ranked above California, home to the tech giants of Silicon Valley.
Many leading states (such as Utah, New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island) were early fiber internet adopters. That’s thanks to municipal-run networks, early rollouts of Verizon Fios across the East Coast, and state broadband initiatives— mainly in pockets of high population density.

The 10 worst states for internet competition

Rank	State	% of census blocks with 2 or more providers	% of population with 2 or more providers	Combined internet competition score
50	Alaska	0.83%	72.17%	0.07
49	North Dakota	0.24%	79.82%	0.14
48	Montana	0.61%	80.39%	0.2
47	Massachusetts	2.73%	75.21%	0.37
46	Oklahoma	1.09%	83.06%	0.3
45	Arkansas	1.00%	84.64%	0.32
44	South Dakota	0.57%	87.51%	0.32
43	Hawaii	2.51%	79.42%	0.41
42	New Mexico	0.59%	89.87%	0.36
41	Kentucky	1.55%	88.12%	0.45

Here’s what sticks out about the worst states for internet competition:

Many of these states are rural or have a low population density, like Alaska, Montana, and New Mexico. That’s unfortunate but unsurprising—areas with fewer people have fewer potential customers and may not seem worth it to some internet providers, even the bigger brands.
These states are also often heavily Broadband Equity Access and Deployment Program -eligible, meaning they’ve already been identified as areas where internet deployment is challenging.

The 10 best and worst metro areas for internet competition

Internet monopoly map (metro version)

Like with our state internet monopoly map, the metro monopoly map above shows which metros have the most and least internet competition. Again, the best metros for internet competition have more providers and fewer monopolies, while the worst metros for internet competition have fewer providers and more monopolies.

The 10 best metros for internet competition

Rank	Metro area	% of census blocks with 2 or more providers (FCC)	% of metro population with 2 or more providers	Internet competition score
1	Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA	5.85%	91.39%	1.00
2	Kokomo, IN	5.50%	93.98%	0.98
3	Trenton-Princeton, NJ	5.04%	98.91%	0.96
4	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ	5.10%	97.85%	0.96
5	Daphne-Fairhope-Foley, AL	4.66%	99.00%	0.92
6	Altoona, PA	4.31%	97.51%	0.88
7	Parkersburg-Vienna, WV	4.17%	98.55%	0.87
8	New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ	4.07%	99.18%	0.86
9	Mobile, AL	4.31%	93.30%	0.85
10	Vineland, NJ	4.05%	92.98%	0.82

Here’s what sticks out to us about the best metros for internet competition:

Some of the best metros (like Trenton, New Jersey and Bloomsburg, Pennsylvania) have multiple internet options on almost every block. That may be in part because many East Coast metros were early fiber adopters.
Some of these metros are in less-connected states. That suggests that with the right investment and infrastructure, internet competition can come anywhere.

The 10 worst metros for internet competition

Rank	Metro area	% of census blocks with 2 or more providers (FCC)	% of metro population with 2 or more providers	Internet competition score
1	Barnstable Town, MA	1.48%	7.26%	0.00
2	Erie, PA	1.18%	16.32%	0.03
3	Glens Falls, NY	1.21%	18.97%	0.05
4	Cumberland, MD-WV	0.51%	45.48%	0.14
5	Springfield, OH	0.83%	40.71%	0.14
6	Salisbury, MD	1.29%	44.34%	0.22
7	Johnstown, PA	2.08%	31.73%	0.22
8	Kingston, NY	1.87%	36.51%	0.23
9	Florence, SC	0.39%	72.71%	0.30
10	Cape Girardeau, MO-IL	2.27%	49.73%	0.35

Here’s what sticks out to us about the worst metros for internet competition:

In some of these metros—like Barnstable Town, Massachusetts, and Erie, Pennsylvania—90% or more of residents live under an internet monopoly. 90% is far worse than their states’ averages. Providers may not be as interested in coming to these areas partly because of local groups that don’t buy year-round internet, like summer tourists and Amish communities.
Even states with decent competition overall, like New York, have pockets where a single internet service provider dominates.

Check for yourself

If you’re curious about the internet options where you live, you don’t have to wonder. You can try our address finder below to see what competition is like for your location.

Find internet providers available in your area

How we got these numbers

How did we rank states and metro areas for internet competition? Let’s talk about the numbers we used and how we weighed them.

Our methodology for state rankings

We ranked U.S. states by broadband competition using an equally weighted score derived from two metrics: The percentage of census blocks with two or more wired broadband providers (FCC 2023 Broadband Data Collection) and the percentage of the population with similar access (Reviews.org 2024–2025 proprietary data). We incorporated population figures (2024 U.S. Census) to reflect impact.

We normalized both metrics on a 0 to 1 scale and averaged them for a final internet competition score, where higher scores indicate greater provider choice.

Our methodology for metro rankings

To rank U.S. metro areas by broadband competition, we analyzed the top 303 metros using FCC data, proprietary provider data, and U.S. Census population estimates.

We based each metro’s internet competition score on two equally weighted metrics: The percentage of census blocks with access to two or more wired broadband providers (from the FCC’s 2023 Broadband Data Collection) and the percentage of the population with access to two or more providers (from Reviews.org’s 2024–2025 proprietary dataset, based on surveys, ISP reports, and local coverage data). We used population figures from the 2024 U.S. Census to reflect the number of people affected.

We normalized scores on a 0 to 1 scale, with higher scores indicating more competition.

Full ranking of US states for internet competition

Rank	State	% of census blocks with 2 or more providers	% of population with 2+	Internet competition score
1	New Jersey	4.25%	96.19%	0.94
2	Connecticut	3.12%	99.73%	0.86
3	Utah	2.66%	97.78%	0.77
4	California	2.49%	96.76%	0.73
5	Rhode Island	1.93%	99.03%	0.70
6	New York	2.88%	94.64%	0.74
7	Michigan	1.84%	98.67%	0.68
8	Florida	1.91%	98.27%	0.68
9	Minnesota	1.81%	98.44%	0.67
10	Oregon	1.58%	98.42%	0.64
11	Washington	1.38%	98.86%	0.63
12	Georgia	1.88%	96.46%	0.65
13	Indiana	2.02%	95.69%	0.65
14	Ohio	2.01%	95.69%	0.65
15	Texas	1.91%	95.99%	0.64
16	Maine	1.98%	95.40%	0.64
17	North Carolina	1.60%	96.93%	0.62
18	New Hampshire	2.29%	93.51%	0.64
19	Nevada	1.67%	95.89%	0.61
20	Illinois	1.92%	94.64%	0.62
21	Colorado	1.26%	97.31%	0.58
22	Wisconsin	1.25%	96.78%	0.57
23	Wyoming	1.63%	94.53%	0.58
24	West Virginia	2.15%	91.73%	0.59
25	Vermont	2.04%	92.23%	0.59
26	Tennessee	1.61%	93.99%	0.57
27	Pennsylvania	2.99%	87.65%	0.62
28	South Carolina	1.67%	93.59%	0.57
29	Maryland	2.27%	90.34%	0.58
30	Virginia	2.14%	90.64%	0.57
31	Iowa	1.34%	94.22%	0.54
32	Arizona	1.28%	94.33%	0.53
33	Nebraska	1.13%	93.74%	0.50
34	Missouri	1.90%	90.20%	0.53
35	Louisiana	1.26%	92.16%	0.49
36	Kansas	1.24%	91.96%	0.48
37	Alabama	1.45%	90.23%	0.48
38	Idaho	0.98%	92.23%	0.46
39	Delaware	2.71%	83.75%	0.52
40	Mississippi	1.36%	89.67%	0.46
41	Kentucky	1.55%	88.12%	0.45
42	New Mexico	0.59%	89.87%	0.36
43	Hawaii	2.51%	79.42%	0.41
44	South Dakota	0.57%	87.51%	0.32
45	Arkansas	1.00%	84.64%	0.32
46	Oklahoma	1.09%	83.06%	0.30
47	Massachusetts	2.73%	75.21%	0.37
48	Montana	0.61%	80.39%	0.20
49	North Dakota	0.24%	79.82%	0.14
50	Alaska	0.83%	72.17%	0.07

Full ranking of US metros for internet competition

Rank	Metro area	% of census blocks with 2 or more providers	% of population with 2+	Combined internet competition score
1	Bloomsburg-Berwick–PA	5.85%	91.39%	1
2	Kokomo–IN	5.50%	93.98%	0.979512822
3	Trenton-Princeton–NJ	5.04%	98.91%	0.962337595
4	Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton–PA-NJ	5.10%	97.85%	0.961913588
5	Daphne-Fairhope-Foley–AL	4.66%	99.00%	0.922701437
6	Altoona–PA	4.31%	97.51%	0.876144024
7	Parkersburg-Vienna–WV	4.17%	98.55%	0.867974712
8	New York-Newark-Jersey City–NY-NJ	4.07%	99.18%	0.861418359
9	Mobile–AL	4.31%	93.30%	0.849243121
10	Vineland–NJ	4.05%	92.98%	0.819685446
11	Santa Cruz-Watsonville–CA	3.61%	99.78%	0.816575457
12	Evansville–IN	3.77%	97.10%	0.816381938
13	Monroe–MI	3.81%	96.15%	0.814544425
14	Dothan–AL	3.61%	99.20%	0.812869394
15	Elizabethtown–KY	3.39%	100.00%	0.794701015
16	Elkhart-Goshen–IN	3.50%	98.14%	0.79445615
17	Battle Creek–MI	3.45%	98.72%	0.792871261
18	Hattiesburg–MS	3.70%	94.23%	0.790635985
19	Odessa–TX	3.33%	98.07%	0.776019629
20	Ogden-Clearfield–UT	3.20%	99.87%	0.773764728
21	Davenport-Moline-Rock Island–IA-IL	3.21%	99.19%	0.770477879
22	Kansas City–MO-KS	3.15%	99.04%	0.763170272
23	Fort Wayne–IN	3.08%	99.66%	0.759724592
24	Panama City-Panama City Beach–FL	3.26%	96.46%	0.758324778
25	Peoria–IL	3.08%	99.41%	0.758127151
26	Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington–PA-NJ-DE-MD	3.18%	97.26%	0.754971065
27	Athens-Clarke County–GA	3.43%	92.85%	0.75324697
28	Pittsfield–MA	3.26%	95.22%	0.750401471
29	Lancaster–PA	3.20%	95.79%	0.747694494
30	Bellingham–WA	2.96%	99.31%	0.74478989
31	Pocatello–ID	2.90%	99.91%	0.742274605
32	Jefferson City–MO	3.84%	83.57%	0.737335775
33	Myrtle Beach-Conway-North Myrtle Beach–SC	2.81%	100.00%	0.73332597
34	Beckley–WV	3.43%	89.69%	0.733055318
35	San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont–CA	2.89%	98.53%	0.732398541
36	Atlantic City-Hammonton–NJ	4.02%	79.37%	0.729546197
37	Clarksville–TN-KY	2.85%	98.50%	0.727974087
38	Wildwood-The Villages–FL	2.78%	99.57%	0.7274038
39	Hilton Head Island-Bluffton-Port Royal–SC	2.82%	98.82%	0.72684424
40	Texarkana–TX-AR	3.24%	91.84%	0.726687691
41	Salt Lake City-Murray–UT	2.73%	99.93%	0.724413163
42	Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim–CA	2.76%	99.41%	0.724265057
43	Corpus Christi–TX	2.94%	95.17%	0.716219889
44	Dalton–GA	2.66%	99.72%	0.71566398
45	San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara–CA	2.67%	99.50%	0.715316422
46	Harrisonburg–VA	4.65%	66.37%	0.713145272
47	Rockford–IL	2.62%	99.91%	0.712645273
48	Provo-Orem-Lehi–UT	2.62%	99.80%	0.711942399
49	Hanford-Corcoran–CA	3.47%	85.65%	0.711473436
50	Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario–CA	2.68%	98.56%	0.710368235
51	Wausau–WI	2.85%	95.59%	0.709379876
52	Durham-Chapel Hill–NC	2.63%	98.83%	0.706802519
53	Sherman-Denison–TX	3.08%	91.35%	0.70662566
54	Hagerstown-Martinsburg–MD-WV	2.88%	94.29%	0.704247755
55	Boston-Cambridge-Newton–MA-NH	3.12%	89.66%	0.700059722
56	Raleigh-Cary–NC	2.50%	99.89%	0.699819193
57	Modesto–CA	2.52%	99.51%	0.699507463
58	Santa Maria-Santa Barbara–CA	2.58%	98.35%	0.698444481
59	Greenville–NC	2.75%	95.42%	0.697711712
60	San Antonio-New Braunfels–TX	2.64%	97.02%	0.696295238
61	Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington–TX	2.45%	99.73%	0.693505878
62	Naples-Marco Island–FL	2.44%	99.81%	0.692958869
63	Portland-South Portland–ME	2.50%	98.66%	0.691959784
64	Corvallis–OR	2.38%	100.00%	0.687823781
65	Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos–TX	2.39%	99.55%	0.686006578
66	Syracuse–NY	2.58%	96.22%	0.684834285
67	Olympia-Lacey-Tumwater–WA	2.29%	99.84%	0.677277705
68	Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell–GA	2.31%	99.21%	0.675368535
69	Rochester–NY	2.77%	91.56%	0.675163607
70	Indianapolis-Carmel-Greenwood–IN	2.27%	99.29%	0.671646955
71	Lafayette–LA	2.29%	98.16%	0.666542903
72	Kiryas Joel-Poughkeepsie-Newburgh–NY	2.36%	96.55%	0.663662717
73	Memphis–TN-MS-AR	2.34%	96.87%	0.663591061
74	Visalia–CA	2.81%	89.03%	0.663230267
75	Manchester-Nashua–NH	2.23%	98.36%	0.661471713
76	Lansing-East Lansing–MI	2.20%	98.55%	0.659511197
77	Madison–WI	2.17%	98.94%	0.658828633
78	Scranton--Wilkes-Barre–PA	3.58%	75.36%	0.657362867
79	Akron–OH	2.26%	97.16%	0.656978569
80	Charleston–WV	2.20%	98.05%	0.656316315
81	Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach–FL	2.10%	99.57%	0.655446851
82	Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura–CA	2.36%	95.19%	0.654972639
83	Columbus–OH	2.16%	98.26%	0.653425404
84	North Port-Bradenton-Sarasota–FL	2.10%	99.10%	0.652443662
85	Harrisburg-Carlisle–PA	2.10%	99.01%	0.651868584
86	Knoxville–TN	2.20%	97.23%	0.651076709
87	Longview–TX	2.19%	97.39%	0.651040881
88	Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro–OR-WA	2.05%	99.68%	0.650858773
89	Detroit-Warren-Dearborn–MI	2.03%	99.82%	0.649636959
90	Houston-Pasadena-The Woodlands–TX	2.03%	99.73%	0.64906188
91	Dayton-Kettering-Beavercreek–OH	2.13%	97.95%	0.648270006
92	Champaign-Urbana–IL	2.03%	99.41%	0.647017156
93	Joplin–MO-KS	2.40%	93.17%	0.646298079
94	Huntsville–AL	2.03%	99.22%	0.645803101
95	Ithaca–NY	2.11%	97.84%	0.645450751
96	Pittsburgh–PA	2.23%	95.79%	0.645050022
97	Toledo–OH	1.97%	99.83%	0.643351714
98	Savannah–GA	2.07%	98.16%	0.643262714
99	Kahului-Wailuku–HI	2.70%	87.65%	0.642772299
100	Merced–CA	2.12%	97.18%	0.642291698
101	Auburn-Opelika–AL	2.09%	97.53%	0.641353544
102	Laredo–TX	1.96%	99.62%	0.640951673
103	Fayetteville–NC	2.00%	98.47%	0.637836207
104	Louisville/Jefferson County–KY-IN	2.01%	98.20%	0.637169162
105	Vallejo–CA	1.90%	100.00%	0.637030641
106	San Luis Obispo-Paso Robles–CA	1.99%	98.42%	0.636458529
107	San Diego-Chula Vista-Carlsbad–CA	1.93%	99.00%	0.633815449
108	Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia–NC-SC	1.94%	98.77%	0.633403994
109	Dubuque–IA	2.04%	96.81%	0.631461962
110	Gettysburg–PA	1.83%	100.00%	0.629623308
111	Lakeland-Winter Haven–FL	1.82%	99.86%	0.62767055
112	Appleton–WI	1.81%	99.91%	0.626931848
113	Ames–IA	1.99%	96.73%	0.625659829
114	Sacramento-Roseville-Folsom–CA	1.93%	97.72%	0.625636552
115	Spokane-Spokane Valley–WA	1.99%	96.48%	0.624062388
116	Cincinnati–OH-KY-IN	2.59%	86.23%	0.622058741
117	Tucson–AZ	1.94%	96.94%	0.621710727
118	Cape Coral-Fort Myers–FL	1.75%	100.00%	0.621157784
118	Grants Pass–OR	1.75%	100.00%	0.621157784
120	Buffalo-Cheektowaga–NY	2.87%	81.42%	0.620953312
121	Walla Walla–WA	1.75%	99.73%	0.619432548
122	Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas–NV	1.77%	99.36%	0.619184716
123	Rapid City–SD	1.88%	97.52%	0.619067647
124	Kalamazoo-Portage–MI	1.69%	99.93%	0.614361358
125	Columbia–SC	1.89%	96.61%	0.614311153
126	Pine Bluff–AR	2.70%	83.19%	0.614273955
127	Midland–TX	1.88%	96.62%	0.61331686
128	Port St. Lucie–FL	1.67%	100.00%	0.612692261
129	Colorado Springs–CO	1.82%	97.38%	0.611823937
130	Salinas–CA	2.07%	93.16%	0.611313897
131	Gainesville–GA	2.82%	80.72%	0.611189525
132	Twin Falls–ID	1.90%	95.74%	0.609810249
133	Morristown–TN	2.04%	93.34%	0.609289483
134	Anniston-Oxford–AL	1.75%	97.95%	0.608058769
135	Chicago-Naperville-Elgin–IL-IN	1.87%	95.91%	0.607721938
136	Spartanburg–SC	1.84%	96.32%	0.607167169
137	St. Louis–MO-IL	1.70%	98.51%	0.606346085
138	Gulfport-Biloxi–MS	1.63%	99.27%	0.603794972
139	Denver-Aurora-Centennial–CO	1.63%	99.26%	0.603731074
140	Bangor–ME	1.66%	98.37%	0.601218756
141	Lexington-Fayette–KY	1.71%	97.52%	0.60107841
142	Baltimore-Columbia-Towson–MD	1.85%	95.19%	0.601004927
143	Grand Rapids-Wyoming-Kentwood–MI	1.55%	99.98%	0.59986618
144	Williamsport–PA	1.92%	93.68%	0.598763718
145	Greensboro-High Point–NC	1.67%	97.74%	0.598251396
146	Fresno–CA	2.00%	92.23%	0.597964085
147	Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford–FL	1.56%	99.47%	0.597665591
148	Roanoke–VA	2.33%	86.70%	0.597548978
149	Billings–MT	1.82%	94.96%	0.59636071
150	Brownsville-Harlingen–TX	1.71%	96.71%	0.595902701
151	Cedar Rapids–IA	1.63%	97.89%	0.594977098
152	Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin–TN	1.66%	97.38%	0.594892891
153	Chambersburg–PA	1.69%	96.86%	0.594744785
154	Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk–VA-NC	1.91%	92.98%	0.593232693
155	El Centro–CA	2.22%	87.79%	0.592873725
156	Morgantown–WV	1.57%	98.54%	0.592781302
157	Terre Haute–IN	1.88%	93.38%	0.592614027
158	Mankato–MN	1.71%	96.07%	0.591813253
159	Killeen-Temple–TX	1.63%	97.36%	0.591590524
160	Lawrence–KS	1.45%	100.00%	0.589412071
161	Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue–WA	1.46%	99.79%	0.589128411
162	Janesville-Beloit–WI	1.46%	99.67%	0.58836164
163	Reno–NV	1.49%	99.16%	0.588277432
164	Phoenix-Mesa-Chandler–AZ	1.45%	99.35%	0.585258725
165	Kennewick-Richland–WA	1.38%	99.95%	0.58168525
166	Waco–TX	2.03%	89.07%	0.580947004
167	El Paso–TX	1.62%	95.81%	0.5806282
168	Wenatchee-East Wenatchee–WA	1.38%	99.75%	0.580407297
169	Augusta-Richmond County–GA-SC	1.74%	93.73%	0.580035778
170	Urban Honolulu–HI	2.65%	78.45%	0.578695525
171	Casper–WY	1.40%	99.06%	0.578114741
172	Montgomery–AL	1.70%	94.05%	0.577847741
173	Sebastian-Vero Beach-West Vero Corridor–FL	1.60%	95.70%	0.577808946
174	Baton Rouge–LA	1.52%	96.91%	0.577075036
175	Winchester–VA-WV	2.14%	86.32%	0.57501525
176	Waterloo-Cedar Falls–IA	1.33%	99.64%	0.574413471
177	Richmond–VA	1.76%	92.31%	0.573078695
178	Charlottesville–VA	1.89%	90.09%	0.572649896
179	Napa–CA	2.27%	83.71%	0.572094443
180	Cheyenne–WY	1.38%	98.17%	0.570311471
181	Duluth–MN-WI	1.71%	92.49%	0.5689379
182	Ocala–FL	1.26%	99.83%	0.568220193
183	Lynchburg–VA	2.80%	74.14%	0.567028502
184	Houma-Bayou Cane-Thibodaux–LA	2.11%	85.53%	0.566792766
185	Johnson City–TN	1.39%	97.43%	0.566641237
186	Kingsport-Bristol–TN-VA	1.40%	97.26%	0.566613168
187	Boulder–CO	1.32%	98.43%	0.565623667
188	Bloomington–IN	1.25%	99.58%	0.565564562
189	Hickory-Lenoir-Morganton–NC	1.32%	98.41%	0.565495872
190	Wilmington–NC	1.30%	98.68%	0.565104727
191	Chattanooga–TN-GA	1.30%	98.55%	0.564274058
192	Valdosta–GA	1.44%	96.04%	0.563050418
193	Amarillo–TX	1.29%	98.28%	0.561490631
194	Niles–MI	1.20%	99.68%	0.560912586
195	Kankakee–IL	2.60%	76.48%	0.56081674
196	Tallahassee–FL	1.19%	99.80%	0.560621167
197	Little Rock-North Little Rock-Conway–AR	1.44%	95.64%	0.560494513
198	Chico–CA	2.78%	73.31%	0.559608618
199	Lake Havasu City-Kingman–AZ	1.49%	94.66%	0.559523497
200	Reading–PA	2.88%	71.54%	0.558880641
201	Salem–OR	1.27%	98.14%	0.558479684
202	Grand Island–NE	1.37%	96.45%	0.558262888
203	Fort Collins-Loveland–CO	1.22%	98.79%	0.557342078
204	Sumter–SC	1.36%	96.45%	0.557204698
205	Bremerton-Silverdale-Port Orchard–WA	1.14%	100.00%	0.556608168
206	Omaha–NE-IA	1.26%	97.76%	0.554993383
207	Enid–OK	1.82%	88.40%	0.554443864
208	Punta Gorda–FL	1.08%	100.00%	0.550259025
209	Logan–UT-ID	1.28%	96.51%	0.54912256
210	Bend–OR	1.33%	95.64%	0.548854418
211	Lebanon–PA	2.35%	78.74%	0.548802844
212	Wheeling–WV-OH	1.77%	88.02%	0.546724801
213	Asheville–NC	1.29%	95.88%	0.5461552
214	Bakersfield-Delano–CA	1.55%	91.48%	0.545553193
215	Lawton–OK	1.75%	87.78%	0.543074877
216	Danville–KY	2.17%	80.71%	0.542343249
217	Coeur d'Alene–ID	1.49%	91.79%	0.541184877
218	Oklahoma City–OK	1.32%	94.60%	0.541150874
219	Racine-Mount Pleasant–WI	1.25%	95.29%	0.538152478
220	Saginaw–MI	0.96%	100.00%	0.53756074
221	Iowa City–IA	1.73%	87.08%	0.536485662
222	Santa Fe–NM	1.09%	97.38%	0.534576036
223	Muskegon-Norton Shores–MI	0.93%	100.00%	0.534386169
224	Tyler–TX	1.96%	82.94%	0.534370422
225	Owensboro–KY	1.80%	85.54%	0.53405276
226	Fond du Lac–WI	1.01%	98.53%	0.53345874
227	New Bern–NC	1.02%	98.22%	0.532536104
228	Ann Arbor–MI	0.90%	100.00%	0.531211597
229	New Orleans-Metairie–LA	1.01%	98.01%	0.530136063
230	Jackson–TN	0.93%	99.29%	0.529849437
231	Providence-Warwick–RI-MA	1.85%	83.87%	0.528672807
232	Oshkosh-Neenah–WI	0.90%	99.27%	0.52654707
233	Lake Charles–LA	0.92%	98.92%	0.526427034
234	Santa Rosa-Petaluma–CA	1.17%	94.47%	0.524447348
235	Manhattan–KS	1.14%	94.43%	0.521017186
236	Dover–DE	2.36%	74.12%	0.520340328
237	Sioux Falls–SD-MN	0.97%	97.05%	0.519769129
238	Lima–OH	0.79%	100.00%	0.519571503
239	Tulsa–OK	0.97%	96.97%	0.519257948
240	Green Bay–WI	1.00%	96.42%	0.518918149
241	Eugene-Springfield–OR	0.82%	99.16%	0.517378673
242	Cleveland–TN	0.77%	99.95%	0.517135634
243	Goldsboro–NC	0.81%	99.19%	0.516512175
244	La Crosse-Onalaska–WI-MN	0.75%	100.00%	0.515338741
245	Shreveport-Bossier City–LA	1.01%	95.52%	0.514225553
246	Binghamton–NY	1.58%	85.96%	0.513456271
247	Lincoln–NE	0.83%	98.09%	0.511599816
248	Hammond–LA	0.94%	95.80%	0.508607353
249	Fort Smith–AR-OK	1.54%	85.79%	0.508137249
250	Sheboygan–WI	0.68%	99.94%	0.507548022
251	Boise City–ID	0.81%	97.77%	0.507438711
252	Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent–FL	0.79%	97.93%	0.506344693
253	Lubbock–TX	0.84%	97.08%	0.506204346
254	Canton-Massillon–OH	0.72%	99.05%	0.506093894
255	Medford–OR	0.66%	100.00%	0.505815027
256	Milwaukee-Waukesha–WI	0.67%	99.74%	0.505211879
257	Flint–MI	0.64%	100.00%	0.503698646
258	Des Moines-West Des Moines–IA	0.89%	95.67%	0.502485732
259	Pueblo–CO	0.65%	99.43%	0.501114671
260	Grand Junction–CO	0.84%	95.93%	0.498856118
261	Fargo–ND-MN	0.66%	98.38%	0.49546361
262	Wichita–KS	0.62%	98.92%	0.494681321
263	Las Cruces–NM	0.71%	97.21%	0.49327854
264	Eau Claire–WI	0.54%	100.00%	0.493116742
265	Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach–FL	0.67%	97.56%	0.491282195
266	Bowling Green–KY	0.74%	96.27%	0.490446734
267	Sioux City–IA-NE-SD	0.98%	91.96%	0.488303424
268	Crestview-Fort Walton Beach-Destin–FL	0.47%	100.00%	0.485709409
269	Birmingham–AL	0.84%	93.84%	0.485501513
270	College Station-Bryan–TX	0.43%	99.96%	0.481221056
271	Rocky Mount–NC	0.78%	93.22%	0.475190717
272	Idaho Falls–ID	1.41%	82.35%	0.472399988
273	Decatur–IL	0.81%	92.06%	0.470953163
274	Redding–CA	2.11%	70.05%	0.467879231
275	Blacksburg-Christiansburg-Radford–VA	1.40%	81.62%	0.466677271
276	Elmira–NY	1.99%	71.55%	0.46476559
277	Worcester–MA	2.26%	67.07%	0.464710593
278	Albuquerque–NM	0.38%	97.77%	0.461936523
279	Palm Bay-Melbourne-Titusville–FL	0.25%	99.77%	0.460959574
280	Yuba City–CA	0.71%	91.87%	0.459157204
281	Huntington-Ashland–WV-KY-OH	0.80%	90.07%	0.457179344
282	Youngstown-Warren–OH	1.00%	86.57%	0.455978981
283	Topeka–KS	0.80%	89.67%	0.454623439
284	Beaumont-Port Arthur–TX	0.67%	91.10%	0.450004325
285	San Angelo–TX	0.44%	94.52%	0.447518935
286	Tuscaloosa–AL	1.06%	83.71%	0.444053401
287	Watertown-Fort Drum–NY	1.53%	75.32%	0.440178238
288	Abilene–TX	0.45%	91.65%	0.430238505
289	Lexington Park–MD	0.71%	86.06%	0.42203268
290	Anchorage–AK	0.59%	86.86%	0.414446205
291	Rome–GA	1.16%	76.29%	0.407223262
292	Missoula–MT	0.90%	77.96%	0.390381216
293	York-Hanover–PA	2.03%	56.92%	0.375516116
294	Cape Girardeau–MO-IL	2.27%	49.73%	0.354970289
295	Florence–SC	0.39%	72.71%	0.302867247
296	Kingston–NY	1.87%	36.51%	0.228170002
297	Johnstown–PA	2.08%	31.73%	0.219848932
298	Salisbury–MD	1.29%	44.34%	0.216826803
299	Springfield–OH	0.83%	40.71%	0.144955202
300	Cumberland–MD-WV	0.51%	45.48%	0.141572279
301	Glens Falls–NY	1.21%	18.97%	0.046252986
302	Erie–PA	1.18%	16.32%	0.026145542
303	Barnstable Town–MA	1.48%	7.26%	0

Written by

Brianne Sandorf

After five years with Reviews.org, Brianne can and will tell you which internet or mobile provider you should sign up for. She’s talked with internet customers across the U.S. and beyond and addresses their real-life concerns in every piece she writes. Brianne also created the ratings system for the Reviews.org internet service provider reviews and wrote most of them. Brianne channels her lifelong interest in detective work by hunting for obscure, need-to-know information about internet service providers. She’s always learning so that she can pass her knowledge on to Reviews.org readers. Her writing and expertise have appeared in numerous other publications, including Move.org, Parents.com, and the Stanford student blog. Her work for Reviews.org is also cited in a research paper about smart home assistants titled “Expert-Generated Privacy Q&A Dataset for Conversational AI and User Study Insights.” Brianne is a homegrown Utahn who loves to travel and see new places. She graduated from Westminster College with a double major in honors and creative writing. After 20 years in a 8,000-person city, she now lives in Murray, a bustling metropolis of 50,000 where she and her husband raise their two little girls.