Slashdot Mirror
Pew Internet Project Study on Internet Non-Users
cheezitmike writes "The Pew Internet and American Life Project released a new study on the digital divide and the declining growth of the Internet: "Pew Internet Project tracking data show a flattening of the overall growth of the Internet population since late 2001. Internet penetration rates have hovered between 57% and 61% since October 2001, rather than pursuing the steady climb that they had showed in prior years." You can also just read their short summary of findings or stories about the study in The Washington Post and The New York Times (free reg.)."
I could have told them this. The bubble burst. Because of that, marketing budgets have plummeted. Hence, less companies are running less ads about stuff online. Therefore, people who aren't already online aren't seeing as many commercials for online services, and don't feel 'left out' of the fad. And most people who aren't already online, probably won't have their lives enriched all that much by going online (blasphemous words around here, I know).
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
I find it interesting that this rate directly coincides with the American Economy decicing to take a nice little plunge in the toilet from around the same time.
Most people view the internet, or even a computer, as a luxury item, and therefore, the monthly access fee will be one of the first things cut when times get tight.
As for lack of new growth, for most people, a PC is still a multi hundred dollar investment, and if you are not sure you are not going to have a job next week, most people will not make the investment.
You say you want a revolution....
Wait a minute, sometimes they say "have access to the internet" and other times they say "use the internet". With libraries offering free internet _access_, pretty much anyone who is willing to get off their butts and head over to a public library can have the access. Also, how about 18 and under? A poor kid from the ghetto may not have the latest PowerMac at home, but their school probably has access, and therefore the kid. I think they need to be a bit more clear here.
Plus there is the obvious breakdown by occupation. Since blacks represent a very small percentage of IT workers (IT in the broader sense) vs population, but IT workers obviously comprise a very high percentage of those with "internet access", the numbers are going to be skewed.
You can get a serviceable PC system for $300 and online for $10/month. Any family that doesn't have Internet access either has no interest in it, or is in such dire straits that they have far greater problems than being on the wrong side of the "digital divide".
Interesting how this seems to have topped out at very nearly the same penetration rates as cable television.
In cable, everyone thought that penetration was highly dependent on homes passed, that it would be a fixed percentage of how many homes could actually get wired. But although the homes passed numbers are quite high now, ultimately cable's speediest growth seems to have topped out at about 60 percent.
Same with Internet - some form of access is fairly ubiqitous now, but actual usage is topping out.
I wonder if this points to a class of telecommunications non-consumers - a certain group that simply doesn't consume or appreciate communications media enough to spend additional disposable income beyond what is freely available.
---
Believe me, I'm as surprised by my comment as you are.
This is hardley astounding. I hope it comes as no shock to anyone that not everyone can afford a computer and a monthly ISP charge. It should also come as no shock that this appears to have plataued at the same time as home computer sales. Amazingly, there was a limit to the number of households that could afford a computer and the fact that the computer makers and the ISPs did not anticipate it seems to be a great shock to everyone. The reason that the Internet penentration and computer sales have slowed is because there is a limit to the market. Big deal.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
That's ridiculous! Most people are not too stupid to use the internet, it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence. Many non-user's (internet or computer, most probably both) are simply held back by fear of learning new things. Get them to overcome that fear and they would surf away!
The problem with people that think like you is this, you see movies like Minority Report that depict life in the future and you think, "I would never be uncomfortable learning those new things", but you don't realize that the great advances in technology that will be made in any one lifetime will still pale in comparison to the massive amount of change that happened as this modern technology was first developed.
You or I might be like them...
In short, growth will stop when we hit the luddites and the elderly.
First of all, segregating the population in any way by age is discriminatory, and therefore ignorant.
Secondly, did you bother to read the Washington Post article? This highlights a 22 year old Comms major who lives w/ his 60-something grandmother. Guess which one is the prolific web user? The grandmother. The elderly are not necessarily slow to adopt technology which meets their needs - keep in mind that the generation that we describe as the 'elderly' invented the computer, television, modern radio, etc etc. How can this generation be slow to adopt technologies which they helped bring into existence?
My own 75-yr old grandmother is one of the most web-savvy people I know. She communicates with all of her children & grandchildren via email & chat (she's on AIM, ICQ, and MSN chats, btw); does the majority of her shopping online (though she never did like to drive); and gets her news, etc online as well. In addition to that, she's on a Windows machine that she administers - i.e., she installs new versions of Windows, applications, configures her own web access, etc.
This is not about a weak economy.
This is about saturation, pure and simple.
The people out there with a predisposition for getting online have, for the most part, already done so. They've had the better part of a decade to do so.
In order to appeal to that last 40% or so, the internet will simply have to continue growing. Not in users, but in uses. Especially uses that are accesible by neophytes (and, more importantly, easily explainable to neophytes).
Another point you missed is that the 'net is interactive. Generally speaking, the TV is just a box you stare at, while the using a computer connected to the 'net requires a, allbeit low, minimum level of thought and interaction.
/= looking from pr0n/music).
Plus, if you are on the net searching for something, at least you're reading (assuming search
-Valiss
Reading through the survey results, I see nothing surprising about why people aren't on the internet. The population of people who have the computer skills and the financial resources to access the internet is saturating, and those who are left have the computer barrier to cross.
My mom would probably not be on the internet today if I hadn't set up her computer for her. Originally she had a MS Windows based PC, and knew just enough to open the browser and email applications. Anything else was way to difficult for her. She later switched to a new iMac which is a little easier for her to use, but it's still complex enough to baffle her. My sister, who is otherwise quite intelligent, has problems using a computer, and currently is not on the internet at all. Partly it is the financial barrier of buying a computer, and partly it is the lack of knowledge on how to set up a cheaper used computer.
Simpler 'appliances' like WebTV and Audrey attempt to make the barrier lower through lower prices and better ease of use, but they have not really been well accepted. I think the appliance concept could be the solution for more people accessing the internet, but I've been underwhelmed with the implementations and service costs so far.
It should be noted that this study only polled American internet users. The internet presence of many other countries is small, but rising. Furthermore, there do not seem to be any empiricle measurements of the kind network traffic analisis could provide. The study also does not take into account non-personal uses of the internet. Things like spiders and robots, mirroring software, etc. This study should not be taken to mean that the internet usage in general is leveling off. Just direct usage of it by the general public in America.
...and 27% (of American non-interenet users) say they believe the Internet is too complicated and hard to understand. What with 23% of Americans functionally illiterate, this only to be expected. Although I would have expected expected the number to be somewhat higher, I guess there are quite a few things people of limited literacy skills could accomplish on the internet. Playing games and checking sports scores come to mind.
Even their conclusions may not be entirely accurate. Although we may be reaching a certain saturation point, as the article suggests, that saturation point is actually a moving target. Saturation levels are determined by many things, including access to the technology, the current state of the art, and basic literacy rates. Improvements in any of these could drive the theoretical saturation point higher, allowing for more growth in usage levels.
However, the study is a good one on it's merits and has many interesting things to say within it's limitations. For instance, the summary states:
(Score: -1, Stupid)
Mainly because the Internet is pretty much infinite. This triggers the "five more minutes" syndrome for me - I want to explore a little further, or wait for one more post to respond to. On the other hand, all other activities I described are finite: Books end pretty quickly, or have chapters where I can stop reading. One a meal is ready, there's nothing more to do with it. Hiking trails always have a beginning and an end. The Internet, however, is missing an ending point, which is why i prefer to steer clear of it.
However, this is what struck me most: " The National Adult Literacy Survey by the U.S. Department of Education estimates that up to 23% of the U.S. population struggles enough with literacy that they have difficulty completing everyday tasks ". Yes, that is not about the internet (and might be offtopic), it's about *literacy*. That's nearly one quarter of the population! That means if I meet 20 people, 5 of them will not be able to read or write correctly.
I find that absolutely scary for a civilised nation.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
am i the only one here who went to both an elementary AND a highschool where they would not allow students on the computer unless you were with a class and a teacher at the time? my highschool bought a multi-million dollar lab, and then just let it collect dust
:/]
speaking of labs that collect dust, the University of Regina media lab [a collection of very, very nice mac's]is 80-90% unused at least...they just sort of sit behind a glass wall and collect dust.
and of course, that and isp's i've found charge way too much for the service they give...28.8 does not cost 60$/month to host[specially when i troubleshoot all software/my end user end stuff myself
...and of course this insane [mostly microsoft driven, partially isp driven] idealogy that if you don't have THE newest hardware you won't be able to connect to the internet...this is insane. I connect to highspeed cable using a pentium I 133mhz running windows 3.1 and linux appears much much easier to work with. you don't need a 5 GHz AMD with 8GB RAM to check your email...mabye if you turned off some hotmail advertisements and found a descent text email, you could reasonably connect with 300 BAUD or so...[and email i would suggest is the main use from what i've seen of the net...]...as for other uses? what of a text based icq? irc? www[*cough"Elinx"*] EVERYONE should be on the internet and have access by now, but due to people just junking hardware, being afraid of being out of date[when in reality ALL OF YOU are out of date...unless you have military/industrial grade equipment]...and just letting existing technology sit...arg it makes me sick!
GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
Be glad of this... I have seen families where the parents were not high-educated and where they didn't see the *use* of their kids to go to College/University. So be glad, very, very glad that they made that sacrifice for you.
No, it is not my case, both of my parents did go to University... Above that, I'm a spoiled brat. Do you know any kid that actually got a blank cheque from his dad to build a new "kick-ass" computer (that back in 1995)? Well that kid was me...
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
There is a Digital divide but it is not related to those people who do not want to be on the net, but to those who cannot afford to be online.
The worrisome digital divide is the one that affects young people and children from poor areas. Those are very likely to be in a disadvantageous position when looking for jobs in the future.
On the other hand, there are people who make a choice to stay off line, well, it's their choice...
Well, I have a TV, but I don't have cable, so, effectively, I don't have TV. I live in a high-density area which prevents me from receiving broadcast signals. I do rent a video once in a while, which is the only reason I still keep the set around.
While I agree with you that there is good TV and bad TV, when you're in the position of having to pay for any TV, you begin to consider what it's worth to you. I enjoy spending time on a variety of other leisure activities much more than I enjoy watching television. Those include outdoor activities, but when I'm home I'd rather be reading books, listening to music, or spending time online. About 2 1/2 years ago, after paying two cable bills in a row without having turned on the television once in those two months, I cancelled my cable subscription.
I don't really think that my horizons have diminished as a result. There is far, far better news programming on broadcast radio than on broadcast/cable TV, and I do still read the newspaper. The Internet is ideal for researching and investigating stories that interest me, and offers more in-depth means of staying informed than TV. It also offers alternative means of accessing most of the televised entertainment that might appeal to me, since most of the TV shows I might conceivably be interested in are readily available for download, commercial free. So far, though, I've only found a few that actually do interest me, and none currently are still being made (the most recent was "Farscape," which has just concluded). The only thing I can think of that I'm really missing are the little well-produced gems that one might catch on the Discovery Channel or the Science Channel or some such while channel-surfing. But it's just not worth the $40+ per month I'd have to pay, especially considering that I'd have to pay it to a subsidiary of AOL Time Warner, a company I'd rather not do business with.
Anyway, channel-surfing is something you do when you're in the habit of watching TV, not something you do when you don't turn it on for two months. Really, I think that's what it boils down to. None of us -- not even retired folk, the leisure class, or shut-ins -- has the time to partake of all the means of infotainment on offer in our media-saturated world: 500+ TV channels, 10s of 1,000s of pages of new reading material published everyday, 100s or 1000s of hours of new music to listen to every week, and the seeming infinity that is the Internet. At some point, whether by design or (more often) by default, you decide one thing or another just isn't as important to you as the others.
What gets me is that you rarely get the same "shock and awe" reaction to someone saying "I don't read books" or "I don't listen to music" as to someone saying "I don't watch TV" -- and, increasingly -- "I don't use the Internet." I've come to expect this from devotees of the boob tube, but it's a shame to see that attitude seeping into the wired community as well.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
There's a difference between absolute illiteracy and functional illiteracy. You are referring to absolute illiteracy which is indeed very low (as it should be). However, there are many people who are functionally illiterate, meaning they have difficulty reading and understanding text of moderate complexity, and they find it hard to impossible to write text that is longish, to the point and reasonably error free.
I know a good number of those, including my inlaws, even though my social circle is mostly well educated. And all these functionally illiterate people are very decent folks.
Absolutely. There are many things the government promised my parents, for instance, (and for which they paid, and I'm still paying, taxes), where said government has neither the intention nor the ability of delivering. Those are the things that (thanks to the money I'm permitted to keep out of the tax pool) I will be able to provide for my parents. (In fact, at the rate things are going, they may end up seeing as good a return on their investment as I do ;-)
i, for one, don't think that there's a very clear relationship between these different flavors of 'media_x avoiders.' Not that i'm at all average, but to point out the fact that i do NOT have a telivision (and therefore obviously neither cable nor dish), i do NOT read the newspaper, i currently do NOT have a phone (i will never own a land-line, and am in between mobile carriers at the moment), and i am VERY picky about which magazines i will read (mostly just 'scientific american,' 'the economist,' and 'CAR' (the British one) and very few others), i do NOT own a PDA, etc, etc. But i DO have and use internet access avidly.
i think that there is often a propensity here on slashdot to assume that using a certain service or good necessitates that said service or good is used in a manner consistent with how a slashdot user would use it. This, however disheartening, is simply a falicial idea. It is reasonable to assume that many people will abstain from using the 'net for the same reasons justifying shying away from other similar goods/services, but much of the time this simply isn't the case; especially in terms of the internet. As Beebos pointed out there are both positive and negative facets of using the internet, telivision et al, and when comparing such multifaceted services it's not a question of what kind of service to which one subscribes, but rather what one ultimately uses his/her services for. This is very similar to this servey lumping people who use the internet solely for the purposes of e mail into a broad group of 'internet users.' Sure, they use the internet, but to such a limited degree that they should, by reasonable accounts, be considered non-users (analogous to having a mobile phone just to have the time of the day beamed to your pocket, or getting a newspaper just to remember what day it is, or just to get the coupons)... but i digress
But to return to my original point, to say that people who use the internet are stereotypically people who necessarily watch TV (for example), is misinterpreting and/or confusing correlation with causation, for which the logical conclusion would be: if we give people free internet, then they'll watch more TV (in a purist sense anyway, i realize that one can get "free" cable from many cable ISPs), which is probably an incorrect thing to assume. And on a personal note whether i use the internet 6o or 1o hours in a week, it makes absolutely no difference to the fact that i watch zero telivision hours...
If one were to view the market penetrations more objectively one might simply say that: "the market penetration of most devices that may provide some useful utility to the majority of people will stabolize at around 1 standard deviation above an 'average' uptake of the population." By statistical logic most technologies probably will not be overly useful in the lives of more than 1 or 2 standard deviations above the mean, especially in the first decade or so of the product/service's lifetime. So it shouldn't be hugely suprising that many ubiqutious technologies will achieve a similar market presence, while the reasons for uptake and the populations utilizing each technology may not necessarily be the same.
anyway, just my worthless $2*10^(-2)...
-tid242
With a few exceptions, secrecy is deeply incompatible with democracy and with science. --Carl Sagan