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.)."
...there is a finite amount of pr0n out there, after all.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
You mean there are people who don't strive to be geeks?
This is indeed confusing.
Why slashdot? Why not?
That's still a pretty good climb... the Internet is maturing. Non-users will be assimilated.
Laws are for people with no friends.
that show the guy reaching the end of the internet are true after all?!?!
I live to gib...
"Well-to-do families are more likely to have access than less well-off families." Who would have guessed....
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
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....
I thought it was interesting that some of the people who stated their reasons for not going online said that it was because their systems were being monopolized by someone else in their household. Kinda reminds me of when I was a teenager and when I was hogging up the machine.
...And then there's that guy who said his wife would talk to other guys.
Kinda reminds me of some other things too...
I remember in the early days how there were all kinds of news shows about all the shady characters on the internet, and how they were trying to scare the masses. There were even a few "end of the world" type programs that connected the Internet to general decadence. God, according to Christian media, didn't approve of internet pr0n.
At the rate of growth that existed in the late '90s, I expected 2,718,281% of the population of the United States to be Internet users by now. What happened?
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
Although fixed wireless solutions are stepping in to add competition to the telco/cableco monopolies, computer usefulness and internet usefulness are being stymied by the lack of cheap, permanenet, and reasonably fast internet connectivity. Not everyone is willing to pay $50/mo for a good net connection. Dialup doesn't cut it.
:) Not 802.11x FYI. I'd tip my hand, but I don't want more competition...yet. ;)
That's why I've worked my tail off the last year to deploy a good wireless solution.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
I thought the number of people on the internet doubled every 2 years. In 2020 ther will be the equivalent of 1,024 China's on the internet...
For no reg, move every sed!
y /c ircuits/17shun.html
sed -e "s/www/archive/"
http://archive.nytimes.com/2003/04/17/technolog
Bah weep granah, weep ninny bong!
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.
Net Evaders: 20% of non-Internet users live with someone who uses the Internet from home. Some of these self-described non-users exploit workarounds that allow them to "use" the Internet by having email sent and received by online family members and by having others in their home do online searches for information they want.
Sounds like my old man... every so often, someone sends him an email, and I have to print out a copy and fax it to him from my office. I've tried to convince him to buy a computer but nothing short of psychiatric intervention will get him over his bizarre mental aversion to using one. Lazy old bastard.
There's a whole number of reasons why I decided to be a Net Evader, some of them mentioned in the articles:
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
The study shows:
Not the bubble burst per se. Apparently, lots of social factors come into play, which I think were not into the equation on the prediction years ago.
--
Error 500: Internal sig error
The rest are using AOL
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
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
Any Non-Internet users on /.? How do you feel about the new Pew study? Post your responses below.
You are not the customer.
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.
If they had written the paper correctly, there would be no need to right it.
"If, therefore, any be unhappy, let him remember that he is unhappy by reason of himself alone."
~Epictetus
I found the above portion of the article to be a little disturbing. It implies that everyone should be using the internet, yet some people resist it because of unfounded reasoning.
How about the fact that it's OK if you don't want to use the internet? If over half of the people not on the net now don't want it, I don't see what the big deal is. It isn't for everyone, and maybe shouldn't be. TV isn't for everyone, cellphones aren't for everyone. So what?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
"The Internet? Is that thing still around?" /Homer
Net avoiders are:
20% moochers who make friends and family use the net for them. Reminds me of my friend's jewish roommate who made us open the door for him on Yom Kippur.
17% idiots who gave up on complicated concepts like "back arrows" and "typing." Also people who balked at the expense of fixing computers and dealing with ISP bullshit (heh they should have gone webslum)
24% true luddites, or people who have better stuff to do, depending on how you look at it.
It also says that the majority of these folks (56%) don't plan on going online, that they don't have the social or technical skills to do so, and so I say good riddance. Doesn't look like our community is missing out on anything.
One thing that bothers me is their "special look" at disabled users. They never define "diabled," and I think they are defining a disabled person on the internet as somebody whose disability directly effects internet use (basically, the blind and those with difficulty using the mouse). Therefore, it's kind of self fulfilling...if it's hard and expensive to do something, you're not going to do it. I think if you look at the numbers of people with learning diabilities, physical impairments and debilitating illnesses who go online, you might discover the exact opposite -- that the buffering effect of online chat makes it easier to communicate, that the ability to move at one's own pace makes it easier to concentrate and comprehend. Shit, my first CS teacher was wheelchair bound with Lou Gherig's disease. Computers turned a crippling illness into a chance for him to make good money and a real impact on kids.
Hey freaks: now you're ju
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)
Anyone have data on the growth of TV over the years? Did it boom, then flatten out, or what?
I'd be curious to see how the TV versus Internet acceptance rates look.
It makes sense that things flatten out. Prices for Internet access are about the same as they were 5+ years ago. The people who can afford it will be more likely to get it. Just like TV's were expensive for a long time, but have now gotten cheap enough that almost everyone has one in their home (even the poor). If Internet and computer hardware rates were much less then I think we'd see more market penetration.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
While there are many people that fall into the category you mentioned, not all do. For example, I have a hi-speed internet connection. I love the net. However, a couple of years ago, our TV broke. I tried to convince my significant other that we didn't need a replacement. We got one, but if it had been up to me we wouldn't have. Sure we could easily afford a new TV, I just didn't see the point. From the cost-benefit analysis - I have to drive to the store vs. the pleasure I receive - it didn't make any sense to me. I'd rather have spent the time doing something else. From reading Slashdot posting over the years, I'm not alone.
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.
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.
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