U.S. Internet Growth Stalling

abb_road writes "Internet usage is predicted to grow by only 1% in 2006, with uptake slowing even more in subsequent years. The article examines causes for the slowdown, including individuals who are actively choosing to not be online. These non-users cite a number of reasons for their decision, including cost and increased productivity. Is this simply a combination of luddites and a statistical quirk, or is the Internet reaching its saturation point in the U.S.?"

Comments

Privacy

[TheOzz]

From the article, "Goodwin knows how easy it is for Big Brother to gain access to personal information." This one reason for not using the Internet is a perfect example of pure ignorance in regards to privacy. I bet this person has no problem handing a credit card to the waitress, gas station attendant, or retail clerk. How do these oh so careful people combat a waitress, gas station attendant, or retail clear from making note of the credit card number, three digit security code on the back, and expiration date and then selling it to a friend or using it themselves?

Reasoning based on false assumptions

[Billosaur]

It's little wonder that millions of people don't like or trust the Internet. Take Sylvia Goodwin, a 57-year-old assistant attorney general in Tucson. She has a PC at home but no Net service. That puts her among the 31% of households that say they will not subscribe to an Internet service because access at work is sufficient. To Goodwin, the Web is a 21st century manifestation of the world depicted in George Orwell's 1984. As a prosecutor, Goodwin knows how easy it is for Big Brother to gain access to personal information. To her, giving out addresses, telephone numbers, and credit-card information online seems like a surefire way to lose control of your privacy. "If you do everything on the Internet, someone can go in and pick it up," she says.

1984? That's a bit of a stretch. There, the government controlled all communications; I don't think any one government can control the Internet. It's spread across the globe and even repressive governments allow limited access.

Her problem is that she's bought into the media hype over the problems on the Internet. It's not like there are none, but if she's worried about her personal information, does she throw out sensitive documents (pay stubs, credit card bills, etc.) without shredding them? Perhaps she's handed her card over to a cashier, not realizing it's being double swiped. Does she carry on cell phone conversations out in public, blithely giving away personal details anyone in earshot can hear?

The problem is not the Internet, but the people on the Internet, specifically the con artists, scammers, and criminals who now have a new way of fleecing honest citizens. As long as the media contnues to blow every story out of proportion, Internet growth will die out.

Saturation on the coasts maybe, not in the middle

[Jim Ethanol]

I live in San Francisco where you'd think the Internet was as pervasive as the air we breathe, and to some degree it is. But I'm originally from Wyoming, (no broke back mountain jokes please) and I can tell you that most people there don't have computers.

What they do have however, is Playstations and Xbox's. The reasons why are numerous. Cost, lack of options, etc.

I believe that the next generation consoles, particularly the PS3, along with Ajaxy Web 2.0 and the continued proliferation of broadband to the home, will truly start to bring the Internet to the masses.

A computer is still intimidating and a tough sell to a lot of these people... but a $300 game machine that your 4 kids are begging for, that's an easy sell.

Once they discover that it has a decent web browser and that there's a whole new world of communication and content out there... then things will start to really grow.

access at work is sufficient ...

[rewinn]

According to the article, a significant number of people say "access at work is sufficient."

That's a rational economic decision. 8 hours a day for reading personal email and blogging should be enough for most people.

Re:Well...

[Zeinfeld]

there's only so much porn you can watch....

This is not far from the point. The Internet was designed to serve the university research community. It is hardly unexpected if less than 100% of US households are interested in the result.

The 'slow' rate of growth is entirely expected. The telephone system grew rapidly in the 30s through the 60s then 'growth' hit a wall and the increase in the number of subscribers was almost entirely due to old non subscribers passing away and a near 100% uptake rate amongst people in their 20s.

If you look at the figures the number of non Internet households is only 34%. The number of non-subscribers is only 29%. Multiply the two figures together and the proportion of the population that has not adopted the net that is most likely to is only 10%. 1% growth per year is about what you would expect at that point - and it is going to be comming almost entirely from the aging effect.

This has been the case for several years now.

The other effect that is not mentioned here is the number of people who have broadband at work but don't want to pay for or cannot get broadband at home. If I could not get broadband at home I would really not want to pay for dialup. I would probably go to Panera to surf instead.