Slashdot Mirror
Many Americans Still Don't Have Home Net Access
Weather Storm wrote in with a story about those who see no need for home net access. Surprisingly, it's not the cost that is a barrier to entry. Instead, most say they don't see the value of having a net connection at home. "A little under one-third of U.S. households have no Internet access and do not plan to get it, with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives, according to a new survey. Park Associates, a Dallas-based technology market research firm, said 29 percent of U.S. households, or 31 million homes, do not have Internet access and do not intend to subscribe to an Internet service over the next 12 months."
...that the majority of these people do not have children in middle or high school, or if they do, that they rely heavily upon libraries or school systems for work.
Whether we want to admit it or not, there are people who just don't care about the internet and what is on it. Most people here do care - in most cases we are heavily involved with it daily so it just seems foreign to us that "they just don't get it!"
I don't see this as a bad thing, just different.
I am Ergo the magnificent. Short in power, tall in stature, narrow of vision and wide of purpose.
There was a time when almost nobody had internet access. Back then, the internet was a beautiful place. It wasn't built around what's best for Amazon and Citibank. It wasn't built around think of the children or delivering stupid flash games to mentally retarded adults. You didn't have banner ads and commoditization of every single website on the net (in fact, it was a lot like back in the BBS days when it was all about offering services to people because you enjoyed it - and you didn't care that you spent more money on it than you would ever earn back.. and you didn't even attempt to).
Besides, a huge amount of Americans believe in creationism, alien abductions, that the moon landing was faked and that global warming is a scam, though lesbians cause hurricanes. The fewer of those that we push to the internet, the better.
The only people that want MORE of these idiots to join the net are corporations, so they have a greater pool to suck money from. It in no way benefits the actual internet as a means of communication or intellectual expression.
Did it ever occur to you that this is no one thing everyone wants or likes? Does everyone watch TV, listen to the radio, read the newspaper, have a (cell)phone? No. Each person has there own preference to how they get information and communicate with others and the world.
Now, whether or not this survey is accurate, as some have already and vibrantly pointed out, is another issue.
Wouldn't the survey have then revealed that most folks who didn't plan on getting Internet access responded that way because they couldn't afford it, rather than because they don't see any need for it?
Oh, wait, that's right - such a conclusion wouldn't let you troll off-topic for left-wing karma.
Yeah, that's it... it must be those Christians, thumping their bibles all the time. Who has time for those computers. Wonder who is going to all of those bible thumping websites that are all over the internet though. Of course then there are those wacky green types that are fearful that people wasting their time, consuming energy, sitting in front of their computers might be contributing to global warming.
Rock on with your priviledged self. You're kidding, right? The US really doesn't have much of a poverty problem. The number of truly poor people is actually quite low. What the US Government chooses to call poverty, in many third world countries would be considered the lap of luxury. Of course, their inflation of the numbers makes it that much harder to help the folks who really need it, as they're lost amidst a sea of "poor" people who can't afford to pay college tuition for their kids. Not being able to afford food or adequate housing, that's poverty. Not being able to afford an internet connection? Give me a fucking break. That's a fucking luxury.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
the grandparent has a point because:
Poor people don't want to admit being poor, especially to a stranger, so might lie. saying they don't want internet access rather than saying they want it but feel they can't afford it/spare the money for a computer and ISP fees.
In the US, many jobs require using a computer every day for 8 hours while at the office. In the opinion of many that I know and have worked with, they don't see why they would want to sit in front of a computer for a few more hours when they get off work. This isn't a US vs rest of the world thing, it's apathy! Why sit in front of the computer typing away every night when you do it all day at work? That's what it comes down to for most of the baby boomer generation. For younger generations, it is probably borrowing their neighbor's wifi connection. For the 22% who said that they can't afford a computer, they didn't ask them if they could afford smoking either. So it's my opinion that the survey is somewhat incomplete and skews results in a certain way to make it look like much of the US is a backwards society when that's really not case. Some people just don't care about technology. Having other priorities and interests is not a bad thing.
Personally, I'd have a hard time adjusting to not having broadband, but I could probably survive. Slashdot withdrawal is not generally considered to be fatal.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Rock on with your priviledged self. Or, it could be that most people in the survey reported lack of internet was not a monetary issue. Only 20% of those reporting no internet said it was because it was too expensive.
Rock on with your judgmental self.
Surprisingly, it's not the cost that is a barrier to entry. Instead, most say they don't see the value of having a net connection at home.
At lower cost the value equasion changes. Most people don't see the value of having a fishing boat and RV at home. It would be nice to have but the cost is the limitation for many people. At $60/month it is difficult for many to justify the cost against the value. If I was single, I would still be on dial-up. With a family, I can justify the cost.
The truth shall set you free!
To start off, God I wish I didn't need the internet. I'd get rid of it so fast. I'd kill to get back all the time I coulda spent doing real work, or reading, or being outside spent instead spent on Slashdot. Honestly, I have some envy for people that actually don't need it. You can do what you really have to do at work or the library. So I don't think lack of the internet is any sign of poverty in america or whatever.
e wsid=32800
BUT
There is honest-to-god food insecurity in the US. Yeah I mean that all those poor people living in the lap of luxury don't know where their next meal is coming from, or have to choose between food and rent. And just cus you don't see them from the freeway on your commute from suburbia to office park doesn't mean they don't exist. What's all the more fucked up about it is that the problem is about 10 times worse here than in every other industrialized country, because American politicians are far more interested in invading foreign countries and pork for their districts than giving a f--- about starving people.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?n
http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err11/
Sorry, try reading the article.
Those "dont want the internet" folks in the survey said "money was not the issue". So poverty is OUT as a cause.
Secondly, the definition of "Poverty" you use is ridiculously malleable and political, thats why you have 28 million or more there. They define it as the bottom 10% more or less, so you will ALWAYS have millions "below the poverty line". But you apparentlyare ignorant about how they calculate it: "Poverty Line" calculations that you refer to do not count the significant charitable help most poor have (Habitat for Humanity, community shelters and halfway houses, food banks, soup kitchens, etc), as well as governmental programs like WIC, food stamps, Welfare, subsidised housing, Medicare/Medicaid, free school lunches, government food assistance, Social Security Disability, etc. That is why you have statistics like: you can be "Poor" according to the income based poverty line, and still have a phone, cell phone, car, 2 tvs, air conditioning, etc. And those items are quite common amongst the "poor".
You want to see *real* poverty go visit Mozambique (been there with the Red Cross - the suffering there is horrid), or some ghettos in central America (for example Nicaragua). Potable water, shelter and food are the issues there, not whether or not to trade the Government Cheese for cigarettes, or sell the food stamps to buy a Nintendo.
Get your head out of your ass - and get your ass out of the US political blinders and learn a bit about the world. Even better - go do something about it instead of preaching on slashdot. I have.
Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
Cool. Can I use your connection to download kiddie porn and discuss the planning of, um, an "event" with my friend Osama? Sure, you'll be legally responsible and a prime suspect, but it's all about sharing, right?
The primary reason to fight poverty in a developed nation is not the discomfort of the people involved. Yes, they are poor. Yes, they are exploited and work 39.5 hours a week (or 79 hours, more often) merely to pay off their credit card bills. Yes, they stuff their faces with low-quality agricultural byproducts packaged up as convenience food and gain weight every year. It's uncomfortable, but as you say, every country has some uncomfortable people. Our poor are better off than Somalia's.
Unfortunately, our poor do not visit the doctor. That's dangerous. It's dangerous for them, but it's almost as dangerous for you and me. If you contracted TB or smallpox, you'd be at the doctor within the first day and a half. You'd have a competent doctor who'd listen to you or your family clearly describing your symptoms. He'd make the proper diagnosis, fill in the appropriate form to notify the CDC, and qurantine you.
If a poor person contracts a serious and uncommon disease, going to the doctor immediately isn't an option. He has to wait until the fever is serious enough that an emergency department will see him without his insurance. Even so, many of the better ERs will turn him away (or so he thinks) so he goes to the one with the best record of charity. His harried, exhausted doctor may think the disease is just the flu, like the dozen other cases of intense flu he's seen that day. Toss 'em out the door, tell 'em it'll get better. The poor person heads into work the next day because he's only got two sick days a year. He works at Appleby's bussing tables. Pretty soon you have a minor epidemic.
This is just one example of how having a huge population of people in our country who cannot afford the basic services most of us take for granted is a threat to all of us. Others include uninsured drivers, riots, the whole mess in New Orleans during the evacuation, the drug trade and public schoool violence. If you have a high standard of living, the best way to protect it is to ensure that nobody near you has a standard of living vastly lower than yours. Your ideas of meritocracy and your tax resentments are irrelevant in the face of problems like these.
...and I'll show you someone who isn't much interested in learning about the universe.
There are quite a few people on my campus who don't even own a computer. They live in the computer lab checking out myspace and facebook so that other people can't print out things. But then turn around and spend their money on drugs.
hello
The availability of music, movies, and TV shows has been around as long as computers have been capable of displaying them, though the technologies used have changed many times. Software much longer.
The margin on computer gear isn't large enough to bear shipping costs. Non speciality gear can be had for much lower than online prices in any major city.
Online banking isn't much younger than the web, but that might be a Canadian/US difference. Usian banking technology has always lagged way, way behind.
Google was a university project. It would almost certainly still have happened, though it wouldn't have become a profitable corporation aiding Chinese government censorship.
Don't take this to mean that I don't think the September that never ended wasn't good overall. We'd almost certainly not have cheap broadband, or the beginning of universal wireless coverage, among other things. It was not, however, "a primitive, dark place" in any sense.
Having the internet available to everyone is great, but I don't think it's all that big of a deal that the last 1/3 aren't interested. If anything, it's encouraging that it's that low. These numbers would be more useful compared with others, such as the percentage who choose not to read.
Because the prices the ISP charges are inevitably going to be based on how much the service costs them to operate and how much revenue they get from it. So if you have a bunch of people using the service through your open router, but not paying a subscription fee, the result is the ISP now has to raise rates to support the cost of the service and their profit margins.
So now all of us who [i]are[/i] paying for service and not just leeching off an open router are paying higher prices because of you. Higher prices also drive more people to use the neighbor's open access point instead, so it just becomes a cycle.
Or maybe it has something to do with illiteracy being about the same proportion, so what use would the internet be to them?
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]