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."

Comments

I would be willing to bet...

[Darundal]

...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.

I can understand this

[Fuzzie Viking]

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.

Re:I can understand this

[Elemenope]

I'd say it's about three distinct thirds. That is, about one third of the non-users are just tech-intimidated and do not wish to feel stupid and/or incompetent while learning an entirely new skill set; newbie errors inevitably happen, and nobody likes to feel like a noob. A second third are people who truly honestly have rich, full lives without connectivity; it can't be that hard since people used to do it all the time! The final third are people who can't afford it, and would much rather concentrate on feeding their kids or making car payments. I have contempt for only the first third; fear of failure is a dumb reason to not try something new. The other two, however, have damn good reasons for staying offline.

To each their own.

[Sage Jackal]

I find it morbidly amusing how some people find the lack of desire to have net access must mean there's something inherently wrong with the person.

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.

Re:Self selected sample

[mordors9]

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.

Re:Self selected sample

[Dun Malg]

Or it could be that fact that the US has a poverty problem. Not that most people even recognize that fact. They just assume that people without internet don't want it, not that they can't afford it.

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.

So?

[zerus]

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.

Not too surprising

[Bilbo]

I don't know about the numbers, but I do know that I'm acquainted with plenty of people who still don't have Internet access. Some of them live outside of the range of cheap broadband. Mostly, it's older people who figure that they've lived all their lives without the Internet, so why go through the hassle of learning how to use it now? They have no problem with staying connected to their friends through the phone, or (*gasp*) through the US Mail. They can order things from catalogs using the phone, or just drive to the store if they need anything. There are plenty of very real dangers out there for someone who doesn't know what he or she is doing (phishing, rootkits, botnets, spam, internet scams, etc.) and they just don't see the benefits to outweigh the risks.

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.

Re:And?

[LaughingCoder]

Back then, the internet was a beautiful place.

You're kidding, right? IMO, it was the massive scale up of the internet that made the net worthwhile. I remember the early days of the internet very well. Do you? No ability to download music/movies/TV shows, no ability to download software, no ability to order dirt-cheap computer gear from places like newegg, no online banking or bill-paying, no Wikipedia or Google. Heck, there wasn't even a web yet; just a bunch of IRC channels and newsnet and nerd-infested chat rooms. It was a primitive, dark place. Once the masses started to jump in the richness of the net came about. Google is a great case in point. They make their obscene revenue based on advertising, which itself is fueled by the sheer number of potential viewers. Take away the scale up and you lose Google.

Re:Self selected sample

[EQ]

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.

Lap of luxury

[Anonymous Coward]

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.