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."
People using their neighbor's "free" wifi?
I still don't have home net access. It is deplorable!!
In Sweden they have 100 mbit (unlim. traffic) lines to their HOME!!
This is such an obviously biased sample. Who the hell has time to answer a survey about whether or not they use the internet, do they plan to use the internet, why not, etc? I'll tell you who: lonely/isolated/old/redneck people who are just happy to talk to anyone, even a speed dialing survey taker. I can't imagine that anyone who is "with it" enough to be on the internet would feel like taking such a survey.
...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.
...and after the last two elections, it doesn't surprise me that there are so many of them.
As I type on my computer hooked-up 42" TV, look over at my PDA which says I have new email and surf the local weather on my phone I dont get it.
What is this "No Internet" of which you speak?
Well I, for one, do NOT have internet access and I don't plan to get it! Who needs it? I can get all the spam I want at the grocery store for less money.
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.
Many people in the U.S. are too poor to afford a computer or a monthly charge for internet access. Part of the problem is all of the money that was once partly theirs is being spent to kill other people.
-
Here is my summary of U.S. government corruption. Where's yours?
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.
please mOderatE ink splashes across
Perhaps this is a sign that people are starting to realize that they need to control their own lives. Every individual should think (as opposed to feel) about where, when, how and the total cost of allowing technology into their lives. Properly used, technology can be very beneficial. Improperly used (or not consciously thought about), technology can be a very heavy burden or an actual menace (identity theft). Hopefully, the people that have made this choice have done due diligence and intelligently decided.
My cynical side thinks that most of these people are or approach being Luddites. I hope my cynical side is wrong.
It was also reported that about 23% of mature Americans cannot read a schedule! Further still, from one study, America's adults made no progress in their ability to read a newspaper, a book or any other prose arranged in sentences and paragraphs!
This is amazing because this nation has had "free" education for a long time - education that would have prevented these appalling figures.
With figures like these, why should anyone expect a different outcome when it comes to internet access? Populations like these cannot generate effective demand for services similar to those found on the internet.
In other news, it was reported today that a significant segment of the US population remains immune to an onslaught of spam, phishing attacks, and viruses, all by avoiding a connection to the dubiously beneficial "internet" everyone keeps squawking about.
. . . is about the only thing holding this back. Once you get decent broadband (I don't count anything less than a megabit downstream) you open up a whole slew of new possibilities that just aren't practical on dialup. Some will never get home internet access or even a home computer, but I'd bet money that a big chunk of that 1/3 without home Internet access has a land-line phone and probably cable/satelite TV. I have no doubt whatsoever that the Internet will eventually completely replace POTS and analog cable*. It's just way more flexible.
*I purposely left out digital cable since it's so similar to and in many cases *IS* IP TV.
You're absolutely right! This survey should be thrown out if it includes *any* "lonely/isolated/old/redneck people" because, as we all know, these people don't count - even in surveys. Only "with it" people are statistically significant.
You're posting on a Saturday, sir.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
They had internet access. First dial up, then a DLS line.
After a year or so, my siblings were the only ones using it, usually to download spyware and such while hitting myspace.
After walking my dad through reinstalling XP home on the computer to get rid of all of the crap, he gave up. The computer now sits in the corner of their home and is rarely used.
When they need internet access, they go to the library. It is not a major part of their life.
If I lived a bit closer, I would probably be able to put linux or lock down XP and make it a bit more secure on their system and set it up for them to use. Even then, the monthly cost of the dsl line was not worth it to them given the amount of use they would get out of it.
All of that said, I do see a market for something like a SunRay @ home for users like my parents. Small terminal that actually runs everything remotely. With higher speed internet connections (A sunray only needs about 1Mbps for very acceptable performance with a 1280x1024) and almost no power draw, it is perfect for things like this (yes, you can setup a similar setup with a linux terminal, but the sunray is actually simpler. I've done both in my life)
While such a setup would not be workable for most slashdoters, it would work fine for the rest of the world who dont care to become computer mechanics just to browse the web (think tivo users vs mythTV users)
Why do all of you blame young people who are illiterate or too poor or whatever your fake reasons are? How about the large number of 60+ people in this country. Do you all want to be tech supporting your grandparents? I know I don't... there's nothing wrong about not having internet even if a lot of the people they asked are between 20 and 40. Why is this even a story? Just because most of the people at /. think everything from the toaster to the bedspread should have an IP address (which if they connect everything to the internet I'm gonna because a hermit) doesn't mean everyone else has to agree with you or even give a shit.
-SaNo
I guess we can insult them with impunity. They're probably not going to be reading Slashdot comments, are they?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Agreed. Plus a lot of people work and don't have time for the playground that the internet has become. Lord knows when I worked I didn't have time for a great many things.
I wonder what the percentage of Americans have a TV? Many people have more than one TV, yet only have one computer. Cost may be a factor in that, but seeing as you can buy cheap computers from companies like Dell, I don't think that price is that big of an issue. Somehow people finding sitting infront of a computer for 2-3 hours bad, but sitting infront of the TV for an entire day fine. Is the general population afraid of computers? Or do they like to put their mind into coast mode and have content spoon fed to them.
x86, oh yes, I'm pro.
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
I don't have access at home, and I don't really care. When I need access on a weekend, I'm usually at a coffee shop ( like now ) anyway, and at least where I am -- DC -- there's quite a few free WAPs.
I used to have DSL at my old apartment, and I spent too much time online. Frankly, I'd rather be writing code, or reading a book. I get "enough" internet access at work. If I know I'm going to need some offline documentation, I download it when I have access and keep it around.
What it comes down to is this: When my girlfriend and I moved in together, we discussed whether internet & cable tv were worth the expense, and we decided it wasn't. It's a lot of money to -- essentially -- veg out. We'd rather spend time together, or read, or go exercise, or do something worthwhile.
Now, that being said it's saturday and I'm on slashdot from a free WAP dowtown. So, I guess it's hard to take me seriously.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Over 70% penetration in a little more than a decade. That is unbelievably fast, and the best proof yet -- if you needed any -- that Internet access will become as much a commonplace utility as electricity, phone service or running water. Although it's obvious that it's the existing power, telephony and cable TV infrastructure that made the rapid adoption possible, it's still worth pointing out that that's more adoption, faster, than any other technology I can think of. Maybe VCRs became more common, faster? Not sure.
It's going to be very interesting to see what the net looks like when the average 40 year-old has never known life without it.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
29 percent of American households consist of "really old people".
But how do they? ... But what do they? ... What?!?
You haven't really addressed the issue, as far as others are concerned. All these new things that broadband brings may or may not change the numbers that the survey presents. One can have cable TV (even though DirectTV may be a better value) or VOIP (even though it has limitations, 'it's not a cellphone', or it's not a better value than what they have presently) without having internet access. So you're presenting things through a geek POV just like everyone else in this forum.
Seeing as my brain is completely bleached by stuff like goatse, lemonparty or 4chan /b/, I'd say they better be off not knowing.
In my opinion, we (internet users) just exaggerate how powerful the internet is. Don't get me wrong, the web IS great, but you actually CAN live without it. Or at least other people.
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams [...]."
This is about right. Cable TV hit about 60% market penetration by household in the US years ago, and has been stuck there since. That's probably about where Internet penetration will end up.
US broadband penetration is up to 80% of US Internet users. Some other countries are higher, but they're mostly countries which are either very crowded or very cold.
The irony of this discussion is that most slashdotters can probably understand the choice to live sans internet about as well as they understand or can envision life as the opposite sex. This is a community of people who spend a significant portion of time on the 'net discussing the net.
I find it fascinating how many of the first comments immediately lump these non-internetters in categories such as "old", "red-neck", "bible-thumpers", and other not-so-flattering terms. Is this because these categories are more or less accurate? Or just what slashdotters envision as the opposite of themselves?
then they'll get on that whatsit, that "internets."
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Given the disgraceful state of the corporate-controlled television, radio and print media in this country, the fact that so many Americans don't have internet access is a threat to our democracy itself.
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!
An article that truly warrants the "thinkofthechildren" tag.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Maybe it's because they don't want software phoning home all the time.
Seriously, a lot of people don't want "automatic updates", "automatic non-updates" (malware), and other software downloading things and sending information back to their makers (even if it's "not personally identifiable" information). You don't have to have an Internet connection to do work on your computer. This may change as applications start outsourcing components to the Internet, but traditional desktop software will never die. Although web applications like Google Docs and Spreadsheets make group collaboration easier, Microsoft Office shouldn't fear being replaced by it any time soon.
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
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.
One third of Americans are actually sensible...
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
FROM THE OPENBSD
who are not obese.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I don't have phone service. I don't need it. So what?
This is why Slashdot should advertise. What better lure to the wired life?
(psst.. don't tell them about the Anonymous Coward thing. Accounts for marketing FTW!)
I wonder how many don't want internet connections at home simply because they have access to the internet at work, and their employer has liberal usage policies. My employer is like this -- as long as you keep it legal and clean (no porn, no illegal downloads or p2p file sharing) they have no problems with personal usage. Some people might find it hard to justify spending $$$ per month when they don't need to.
...and I'll show you someone who isn't much interested in learning about the universe.
Here is a map showing the internet accessibility in the USA. Areas marked red do not have internet access. *ducks* ;)
they have Real Lives.
By the time IRC came into being (1988) the internet was already going downhill.
If you think there wasn't software trading going on back then, you are mistaken.
The oddest non-computer, non-internet user I know is a mechanical engineer friend who is extremely creative who refuses to use computers, and has refused to learn for 20 years, & yet would benefit so much from using it. It has hurt his work, but he trudges on with paper and pencil. His sons use computers all the time, and his oldest son is now at Annapolis.
These types of people see the downside of the hassles and frustrations as being insurmountable for their psyche. It is a total mental rejection of or lack of true understanding of what ultimate time savings there are in using computers.
I understand the pain of the hassles, but I never understood accepting the loss of not being able to communicate easily with peers & customers everywhere who are up with Internet use, plus engineering applications that speed up work tremendously.
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.
That "buttons and make-up are evil, churning butter and barn raisings are kinda nifty", and concluded by asking "do you like my beard?"
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Cell phones can be turned off, you know.
for your interpretation of the law?
+++ATH0
Is there any requirement in your state that an ISP "register?" There certainly isn't in mine. We provide free wifi access and everyone knows it - that makes us an isp. Period.
NO Internet only $9.99 a month.
The other oddball thing is that I don't have cable TV, and I live in an area that gets no over the air signal. I decided that I would rather pay for my wi-fi anywhere connection, which costs about the same as a month's subscription to cable TV. It was a lifestyle choice. I'm insanely in love with my handheld PC and my wi-fi anywhere service. Now that I no longer have a TV signal, I have found out what kind of life goes on around TV shows. People talk about TV all the time, and yes I feel left out because after nine months without a TV signal, I have no idea what in the hell my friends are talking about.
But I was the first one to have a cell phone, a decade before anyone else I know. None of my friends have wireless enabled PDAs, and I was part of the online BBS community long before Al Gore invented the internet.
Q: "What if you need 911?"
A: I live in a condo with 150 neighbors and on-site security, if I can't get 911 on my cell I'll yell
Q: "How will you get on the internet?"
A: Cable broadband
Q: "What if you need to send a fax?"
A: I've never had a fax machine in my home. My office is a ten-minute walk so I fax from there.
Q: "What if your cell phone batteries die?"
A: Every land line phone I have is cordless and uses batteries so that was already an issue.
Plus there was the whole "what if you drop and break your cell phone" or "what if you lose your cell phone" or "what if your cell phone is stolen" and on. As though I couldn't walk into a store within 12 hours and get a new one. Here's one of the funnier things... the person most concerned about the whole dead-battery thing doesn't have internet in their home (they do have computers though, and a vacation home and two boats so it's not a poverty thing like some others have implied) because they are religious and their church has convinced them that the internet is just about porn and having the internet in your home is inviting satan into your family or whatever.
So like you said... "To each their own"
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
and not having f@#$@ internet is a large part of it. suddenly, i have time to walk 1 mile to the grocery store and back, or the movie theatre, or... da da da da ... the wifi coffee shop that is 0.5 miles away from my net-less bachelor pad.
funny thing though, the main reason i dont have it is because id just be spending all day looking at pr0n.... the weight thing is just a side effect i guess.
$14/mo for DSL certainly isn't breaking my bank, but for the most part, I don't do anything on the net (says the man in a slashdot posting) that I couldn't live without. I have it at home because my wife needs it for grad school, and I do my time sheets for work. The net is what you make of it, but for many it seems too much like watching tv, twiddling away the hours until death.
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
Quoting from this article ->http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature. html?id=110005242
"
But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden--the very model of a modern welfare state--were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low-income."
Man, I never thought I'd see a kook who could rival Archimedes (nee Ludwig) Plutonium for volume and sheer *density*, and I'm damned if I know how I missed out on timecube/Gene Ray all this time, but I just blew half an afternoon off trying to follow his shtick through, and hey, this is some King Kook Shit, Willis!
My favourite line culled from this afternoon's readings: In the Scientific Proof from Cubic Awareness Online,
From empirical inference, there exists chaos.Man, I'll say. And I started off intending to argue the 'more entertaining' assertion, but am rendered speechless and definitely consider myself heartily entertained.
Uncle![17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
1. E-mail? Hi, people have these things called phones.
2. IM? Hi, if you're not a teenage girl..
3. MySpace? Hi, if you're not a teenage girl..
4. Paying bills? Hi omgstampsandpostoffices.
5. Porn? Okay, I don't have an answer there.
Seriously, unless you like online games, require it for your job, or really like porn, you really don't need the internet.
I don't see why people are opposed to internet connectivity. I think that, even accounting for the negative aspects, having an internet connection can easily enrich anyone's life. It's not just about crappy flash games or MySpace.
Earlier this week, I was spending some time at a relative's house and their internet connection went down for two days. Being a college student, I am used to 24/7 high-speed access. I realized that I have these natural impulses to search for things on the net when I think of them. Just finished watching The Prestige? Check out Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB to see what other people thought of it and possibly to discuss it. Looking for an obscure item? Instead of hunting for hours or days driving around, give it a quick search. Want to find a place to eat? Look up locations of restaurants, reviews, etc., all in just a few seconds. Surely even people who don't see the value in the more "nerdy" aspects of the internet could see the value in these services, which are just few among many.
I don't know if it's good or bad, but when I don't have the net access to act on these information gathering impulses, it feels like I'm stuck on a remote island. While I'm sure some prefer this remoteness, I certainly don't. It's not that the Internet has taken over part of my life, but it is a relatively reliable tool to make life easier and more enjoyable in so many ways and I feel like something important is missing without it.
Well all that very well may be true. However what all the geeks here forget is that the US is a BIG place with a comparable population. It will be a LONG time before we're so addicted to the Internet that it becomes a requirement. There's a lot of things that are going to have to come together to make that true. "Sonner or later" really isn't saying anything. Sonner or later the sun will burn out too. However for all intents and purposes it's a meaningless thing to bring up. Right now most are looking a few generations ahead, and that's were this survey fits in.
The interenet IS useful, and were the needs or wants of the individual match what the internet provides, then there is acceptance. But as others have pointed out there are also many more times that it doesn't and one shouldn't feel sorry for those people, any more than if they didn't have a car.
"I do all my e-commerce shopping and YouTube-watching at work" was cited by 14 percent of Internet-access refuseniks. So, many people don't have home internet because they are unemployed/underemployed. And almost as many people don't need home internet because they have jobs where they spend all day on the internet instead of working.
Well, all this reading makes me feel like going outside for a walk. Bye
Does this study include dial-up? My friend in Louisiana has been using a 56k for the last 10+years since there is no DSL line in his neighborhood and he can't afford satellite wireless.
Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
Anyone who heads to the polls and participates in an election has a solemn duty to be informed. That means either four figures worth of periodical subscriptions or an Internet connection. I suspect most of these people are getting their ideas from TV and not from the Atlantic and the Economist.
Think about it. Most people cannot do simple arithmetic without a calculator or find a destination without a GPS direction finder. Of course they have no interest in Geography. A whole generation of kids has grown up dependent on a TV Tube and a game console for fun. I drive through my old neighborhood. The kids when I grew up formed gangs of bikers. Where did the bikers go? Think about all of the experimenting people did outside trying to entertain themselves as kids. Digging to China. Playing with model rockets. Firing them at each other. Blowing stuff up. Building go-carts and working with small engines. Playing basketball, football, baseball with our own rules and no supervision. Just horsing around.
I think you shouldn't even touch a computer until you are 14. People would be much better off. Maybe I have watched Terminator II too many times; but I am really starting to think about how the information age may not be 100% beneficial.
That's what I think.
"These numbers would be more useful compared with others, such as the percentage who choose not to read." ...RTFA, RTFS or even RTFP. Oh wait, you mean non-geeks, don't you?
"You know why? Because young Americans are still geographically illiterate according to this article. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/05 02_060502_geography.html.
It was also reported that about 23% of mature Americans cannot read a schedule! Further still, from one study, America's adults made no progress in their ability to read a newspaper, a book or any other prose arranged in sentences and paragraphs!"
Uh, huh. So in keeping with the posted story, by implication the people already on the internet can do all the above. So what does slashdot's grammer, spelling, and even math errors say? Maybe people don't want the internet because of all the arrogent SOB's they'd have to deal with, telling them they're too stupid to even own a computer let alone an internet connection.
I haven't used the Internet in years and I don't miss it. The last time I was on the Internet was back in 1995. I don't even use computers anymore. You make more money giving seminars about stuff you read in trade magazines.
exist in America.
And the figure seems to jibe with how many people STILL support George Bush...thirty percent in each case...
Hmmm...
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Many technologies follow a saturation curve--slow take-off, sudden surge, then leveling off. I'll never forget the story about the town that didn't have TV until the 1970s. Then of course, there are those who just don't want something, or weren't raised with it. The Amish don't have cars. Your grandparents may have no desire for a net connection either. Once the older generation passes on, we should be close to having filled up the natural market for this technology. It may never penetrate as much as some other innovations, such as electrity which can light the night, or the phone which can summon emergency help. Compared to that, the ability to send an e-mail or download videos of rednecks blowing up home-made firecrackers just isn't compelling enough for many people. If they can find a social circle that feels the same way, 'net penetration may not reach the high 90 percent that some of these other techs have.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I live 20 minutes drive from a small city in Canada (pop. ~110000), the best internet connection available is 28.8 kbps dialup, broadband access is not available and I doubt it ever will be. Satellite (latency) and wireless (stability) are not viable options. It will probably never be economical for a cable provider to lay the coax or the phone company to install DSL equipment here.
The internet grows less and less usable each day on dial-up. I have to resort to using Lynx more and more often to get the text I want from pages. I don't (can't) use YouTube and lots of other content on the web. What is most frustrating is that the majority of sites don't need all this high bandwidth crap, yet still do not provide lo-fi versions of their sites. (Thus the more and more frequent need to use Lynx or turning off css and images in firefox). Don't get me started on Flash... Flashblock for Firefox has enabled me to browse the web with a full browser where otherwise I could not. If I see a page that is flash only, I close it right away, there is just no point. Were it not for flashblock flash would make many more pages unviewable for me.
I'm betting I'm not the only one who has these experiences, eventually I may just cancel the dialup account, as internet and mail content continues to bloat with huge amounts of crap that contains very little information.
So, for all you page designers out there, flash is evil, NEVER place text in images (save logos), the "alt" attribute is your friend, thumbnails are good (for the love of god, don't just resize the full image), OPTIMIZE any images you do use (I recommend something like Adobe ImageReady), thankfully hardly anyone uses java applets anymore, but that is only because flash is so popular now... in summary - thinkofthebandwidthhandicapped!
So part of this statistic may be many dial-up users like me just getting frustrated and giving up.
P.S. and when mass mailing the latest "funny" video to all your friends, please leave the dialup users off your list, thanks.
Many Americans Still Don't Have Home... but they use internet from the libraries...
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
In Australia last week we had a Politician promising to spend billions of dollars to get a high speed internet connection into every home. Why does every home need faster internet?
I can understand it for business in many cases (by by no means even most businesses), but for home?
The best explanation that came up was to download Movies faster. Hrrm.
It is NOT a high priority of the nation to be able to download movies fast.
That is a triviality.
Similarly, while there is occasional use for Internet in a home.... some businesses rudely insist that they be contacted and bills paid through it.... it really isn't critically useful. My wife pops on once a week to read emails, but she could easily, happily do with out that. My kids would go play physical, non-computer games without it, which would be a good thing.
I never ever push people into getting internet. It doesn't make their lives "better".
Could you still get pr0n back then? If yes, I think we could safely say that a large contingent of /. would not mind the 'old internet'.
The people who don't have cable modems will be called Morlocks.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Back at Intel in 1999 - 2001 we were working on a lot of Ease-of-Use issues (with Microsoft and the top OEMs) to fix the most common reasons "normal people" struggled with or caused returns of perfectly functional PCs. A large study by this group asked people a number of questions about usage - problems and .... interest in using a PC if it was easier to use .......... this study yielded the same results ---- about 30% of people see no use for a computer in their daily home life -- no interest -- no desire to have connectivity.
Its not the years, its the mileage
You know, there is a reverse to that. Suppose you want to create the conditions where you could plausibly deny that something illegal that you're doing, stemmed from you? Your best bet would just be to leave the router opened up.
If you really don't break any laws when you go online, congratulations. But many people probably earn themselves 5-10 in federal prison (based on the maximum sentences) before breakfast.
A little plausible deniability might be a feature to many.
if you find out from your ISP that you're over bandwidth for the month because some wardriving pr0nsurfer grabbed a few G of kiddy pr0n through your wireless AP AND the Feds want a look at your HD, you've got a problem.
Tech Public Policy stuff
they simply don't have computers at home. IMO, the Baby Boomer generation is the last one this is going to be true of.
Tech Public Policy stuff
with most of the holdouts seeing little use for it in their lives,
These ..."lives" you are talking about are keeping them from participating in SL. But how can this be?
This site puts the US at a relatively high IP rate, so I'd gather that many users get their internet fix from work or school.
...and I'll show you someone who's afraid of thinking.
What use is the World WIDE Web to the NARROW minded american?
.. because they didn't realise they live in America. They thought they live in Texas.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
and your sad attempts to tear down someone who couldn't care less about you, APK. You are less than nothing. Do you cry yourself to sleep at night knowing you have accomplished nothing of real value in your life? Do you occasionally get so angry at yourself that you scream in frustration and punch the walls, the pillows, anything you can find?
I know I've affected others' lives in a positive way. I am lucky enough to have many people who love me and to love them in return. But you? You have nothing and no one. When you die, your funeral will be short and witnessed by a few who will shake their heads sadly and say, "Pity he had to go before ever really growing up." Then they will move on, and you will be forgotten.
Forever.
+++ATH0
In other news....
President Bush's approval rating has sunk to a new low of 29 percent. Asked about his failing popularity, the president responded "The internets are controlled by an elite liberal agenda. I have a plan to provide open access to the internet. Fox News will take over the responsibilities of SDN czar. Err, uh, NDS car, ummm. Fool me once... DNS minister."
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Because you are such a sad, sad little boy who pretends to be an adult.
"lol!"
You sad little fool.
+++ATH0
Comment removed based on user account deletion