Summary

  • ITU estimates that a representative 15,000-household digital-inclusion survey costs USD 2–2.5 million per country; its report says no dedicated pooled mechanism funds regular surveys across countries.
  • National reporting cycles stretch from about two years in high-income countries to five years or longer in lower-income countries, leaving the 2030 connectivity effort with uneven instruments and calendars.

The Internet’s 2030 target has a glamorous noun and an unglamorous dependency: statistics. ITU’s October 2026 update puts 2025 Internet use at 74 per cent of the world’s population, or six billion people. More than a quarter of the world’s population remained offline. That is an enormous number of people and, for policy-makers, an enormous number of households that a global estimate cannot visit one by one.

The measurement framework asks more than whether a signal reaches a place. It covers connection quality, availability, affordability, devices, digital skills, and safety and security. A government cannot answer all six with a speed test or a tower map. Household surveys and other national statistics reveal who owns a device, what people can afford, how they use services and where barriers persist. The work belongs to national statistical offices and regulators, with methods aligned well enough for countries to compare results.

The calendar already shows the institutional split. ITU says high-income countries collect ICT statistics about every two years. Lower-income countries often do so every five years or less frequently. Across Africa, the average is one indicator on household Internet access or individual Internet use per year, often reported late. A target framed for 2030 therefore runs on evidence produced at different speeds, by systems with different levels of capacity.

The bill is unusually concrete. ITU estimates that a nationally representative digital-inclusion survey covering 15,000 households costs roughly USD 2 million to USD 2.5 million per country. That is ITU’s estimate for the specified survey design; costs vary with the instrument, fieldwork and national conditions. The point is the recurring commitment. A country cannot buy a credible time series with one heroic survey and then leave the statistical office to discover the next budget somewhere under the sofa.

The funding routes ITU identifies are familiar but scattered: ordinary domestic budgets, occasional international assistance, revenue from country-code top-level domains, and Universal Service Funds. Each has a different owner and purpose. A Universal Service Fund may already have a mandate and balances; a statistics office may need to negotiate for them. A national budget can fund the work, but the survey competes with every other line item. ITU says no dedicated pooled financing mechanism currently supports regular digital-inclusion surveys across countries.

The dashboard reflects that unevenness. In its 2025 assessment, ITU marks the global household Internet-access situation unavailable because there is no harmonized data source for household counts. Its table reports target attainment only among economies with data; “n.a.” means the global situation cannot be assessed because coverage is limited. The table mixes 2025 global aggregates, 2024 country values or the latest observation in the prior four years, and ITU estimates for some indicators. A target table is therefore also a map of the statistical infrastructure beneath it.

ITU points to ways to reduce cost and improve comparability: insert ICT modules into existing social surveys, share international survey tools, align methods through expert groups and test mobile-phone data as a complement. The ITU–World Bank programme aims to assist at least 30 countries with mobile-phone data by 2030. Those steps can help. They still require statisticians, legal authority, recurring budgets, data stewardship and a decision about which questions public agencies will keep asking.

The 2030 connectivity targets are aspirational. That makes measurement a political choice rather than a box-ticking exercise. Governments and international institutions can decide whether the target gets a durable statistical budget, or whether each country assembles the next round from temporary grants and spare capacity. The headline number will keep arriving. The hard question is whether the system can explain how it was made.

Sources