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?
...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.
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?
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.
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.
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 my immediate family, 1 out of 5 of our 'households' doesn't have internet access because he doesn't care, 'he can get stuff done at work'.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
You're posting on a Saturday, sir.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
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.
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)
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.
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.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
29 percent of American households consist of "really old people".
That's not funny! Global warming killed my father...and raped my mother!
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
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.
28 million Americans live below the poverty level. That means they cannot meet their basic needs; food, clothing, shelter. THAT IS POVERTY. No, its not as bad as many places in the world, but IT IS BAD.
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
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.
who are not obese.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
...and I'll show you someone who isn't much interested in learning about the universe.
You can be "below the poverty line" and have a DVD recorder, digital cable, fast broadband and a reasonably new computer...how do I know?
Um, I have something called a mirror?
-uso.
What you hear in the ear, preach from the rooftop Matthew 10.27b
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
If one cannot put 2000 calories (on average) in one's belly every day that is poverty. I've met many such people. I can introduce you to them if you think they don't exist. Straw man, fallacy of proof by example. No one said they don't exist.
There are 28 million such people in the USA. Show me where the US Census Bureau measured caloric intake.
But to say there is NO poverty in the USA is just fucking stupid and heartless. To claim that anyone said there was no poverty when no one said any such thing is even fucking stupider.
And yes asshole I have personally witnessed worse poverty in Asia. And yes asshole I do something about it. I have personally donated nearly $100,000 to Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders. My will leaves everything to those two organizations, which I hope will be at least a two or three million dollars when I am done. I am an personal investor and my personal philosophy is to live simply so that I can give that amount of money to organizations that tend to the world's poorest. So go fuck yourself. Your saintly self-righteousness is quite impressive. You are obviously a better person than all the rest of us. Good job.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
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.
"download music/movies/TV shows" doesn't matter to some people. I, for instance, believe in respecting the rights of content creators. I'm phrasing it that way to avoid the usual arg about whether downloading that sort of thing, in a manner that's contrary to the wishes of the creator, constitutes theft. As a rule, I don't believe in infringing their rights, save where they try to infringe mine--for instance, I'll rip CDs to disk, or make backups of electronic downloads. So long as I don't distribute, that's Fair Use, so far as I'm concerned.
"no ability to download software" is completely wrong. There were several mechanisms, such as FTP.
"no online banking or bill-paying" many of which are completely broken, which leads to much fraud, identity theft, etc. The masses just want stuff, now. Corporations build it, often very poorly, while shifting as much of the financial load (recovering from identity theft, etc.) onto the masses as possible.
"no Wikipedia or Google" I have problems with Wikipedia, in that I've found them wrong too many times, and I've neither the time nor the desire for the Games of Wikifiddlers. Nor do I think Google is some unalloyed Good Thing. Raising either of these points on Slashdot leads to flamage, but the points are still valid.
It's curious that you refer to Google's revenue as "obscene," yet still seem to think that they're a completely Good Thing, as in "Take away the scale up and you lose Google." Without the scale, we wouldn't *need* Google, at least in a search context. Plus, even Google admits that as much as 20% of their index is garbage generated by spamdexers and robots.
I'm *not* saying Wikipedia or Google are evil, useless things. I use both, all the time. But always hearing that they're the greatest things since sliced bread is *so* stale.
This is all moot: the internet is going to do pretty much nothing but grow. Economics and Metcalfe's Law are going to drive it. To me, that's pretty much a no-brainer. But it's become much more of a sewer of spam, malware, automated attacks, astroturfing, consensus reality, privacy invasions, etc. I can see how people who were early users might be a bit nostalgic.
In it's early days, the Internet was an amazing thing. Now, it's *still* an amazing thing. I get a bit nostalgic, too, at times. But it still presents so much scope for interesting work. While I think Sturgeon, like Murphy, was an optimist, there are some total jewels out there, in terms of Web sites, development tools, security tools, pretty much name your own category, in fact. I pretty much regard Wikipedia and Google as jewels in the rough, BTW.
Almost *nothing* in life is a proven, unalloyed good. Not Google, not Wikipedia, not the introduction of the masses to the Internet. On a pessimistic day, I'd strike the 'almost'.
What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
where the loudest voice to be heard was the Geek on Campus and CompuServe still charged you by the hour.
fifteen years reading posts like these has left me wondering if the true Geek ever loses his adolescent sense of entitlement: that the Internet - by rights - should be his private playground and everything to be found there his for the taking.
You sound just like our IT department. "If it wasn't for all the users, we'd have a really smooth running operation."
Have gnu, will travel.
$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.