Many Americans Still Don't Have Home Net Access 313
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."
Does that include (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I could do the same thing at home, but even with at least 2 open access points around me I don't like the lack of reliability. Of course during a winter storm that cut out my connection I had some redundancy
Re:Does that include (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does that include (Score:4, Funny)
read the law (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the case of kiddie porn and homeland security, the authorities would come knocking on his door at 5 am -- they'd image his hard drive(s), they'd mess up his place, and they may even put him in hand cuffs, but that'd be the end of it. It's really the RIAA he would have to worry about, but t
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that is - your unused resources end at the network jack of your router. Everything past that belongs to somebody else - and while you pay for acess to those resources, that does not imply that you can give them away for free to anyone who happens to drive by.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 o
I would be willing to bet... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Either that or (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even a caveman can do it (Score:2, Funny)
What is this "No Internet" of which you speak?
I can understand this (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see this as a bad thing, just different.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I can understand this (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't that put you into the second third? That is, people for whom the Internet simply doesn't enrich their lives beyond where it already is?
Personally I only use the Internet for three things: reading Slashdot, playing Correspondence Chess, and occasional wikisurfing. Don't see much need for myspace and facebook and all those newfangled things kids these days play with. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
A little healthy "FUD" is a good thing. Malware, spyware, torjans, pr0n, phishing, spam, **AA law suits, key loggers, stolen identities, and yes even murder by luring. They are all real. They all can land you in real trouble. I would say the "FUD" is justified especially for a non-technical user.
I had broadband and got rid of it. I went back to dialup. There isn't anything legal out
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We're about to
To each their own. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Indeed. I'm one of the few people I know who does not own a cellphone, nor do I intend to get one in the forseeable future. I can't stand it when my land line rings. I don't need to carry that annoying crap with me every where I go.
I can just see it now
Re: (Score:2)
Not having one does save some cash though.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is the phone would always be turned off.
I'm the type of person who hates talking on the phone no matter the occasion or person. I don't even like ordering a pizza over the phone. I don't even like talking to my father whom I only see once every 5 years or so over the phone (though I do it anyway since it's our only means of communication, I still don't have to like it).
My wife is currently on vacation and there's undoubtedly dozens of messages waiting for us but I wouldn't even know becau
That's a rather silly objection (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Teens do, at least around here. I remember reading about it in the newspaper, in the 16-19 group 100.0% had a cell phone. That just doesn't happen very often, there's always some sort of wierdo that think they send mind control rays or whatever. No wonder really since there's hardly any public phones anymore, if you want to call someone and you're not at home, you must have a cell phone.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, it isn't really that needed to have internet access and personally I wish I could do without sometimes. (I often tell people when I am not at work if they need to get a hold of me to use the phone because of having to sit in front of the computer 8 hours a day makes me hate the internet... but I digress)
However, let me use an anology....
Using the inte
I am not surprised (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Broadband penetration . . . (Score:2)
. . . 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 analo
My parents are one of them (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
So? (Score:5, Insightful)
TV (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Source: http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P6186 [itfacts.biz]
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
Or do they like to put their mind into coast mode and have content spoon fed to them.
Yes.
Not too surprising (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Everything is relative. I remember when it cost you $100/month for a UUCP dialup connection, and that wasn't even an "always on" connection.
There are plenty of people paying $40/month for "basic" cable TV. I'll wager many (most?) of the people without Internet still pay for at least SOME level of Cable TV. There are usually several options for cable/DSL Internet, some of which are only barely faster than dial-up, but they are always on, more reli
I don't have access at home (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That's amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In other news.... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In other news.... (Score:5, Interesting)
I was at a nursing home the other day, getting a tour, and the manager pointed me to a computer with an internet connection. She said that it was "very popular with some of our residents...particularly those over the age of 90."
Over the age of 90? I asked her what she attributed that to:
"It's a trick you see. People who get to be 90 have a natural predisposition to wanting to live longer, and as part of living longer, they want to stay as involved in and be a part of society as much as possible, and the internet is a major part of society today."
Those numbers are comparable to cable TV. (Score:3, Informative)
This is about right. Cable TV hit about 60% market penetration by household in the US [ncta.com] 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. [websiteoptimization.com] Some other countries are higher, but they're mostly countries which are either very crowded or very cold.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
first they need electricity and inside plumbing (Score:2)
Not the cost and value in the same sentance (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Finally! (Score:2)
My faith in humanity is restored (Score:2)
Perhaps that is the 29% of Americans (Score:5, Funny)
And...? (Score:2)
How many have access elsewhere? (Score:2)
Show me someone without a net connection... (Score:2, Insightful)
Odd Ducks & Technology (Score:2)
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
Try lack of computers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Those polled went on to add... (Score:2)
I wouldn't, but.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Self selected sample (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with them or not, personalities like this transcend backwards bible thumping rednecks. You'll find people in all walks of life who will adopt unexpected
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless most people are somewhere other than work from 8-6, Monday through Friday.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, tha
Re:Self selected sample (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Self selected sample (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Um, I have something called a mirror?
-uso.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Sorry, try reading my post. I was responding to a comment about how there is NO poverty in the USA.
Straw man. Please quote where I said there was no poverty.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"You're kidding, right? The US really doesn't have much of a poverty problem." Which is a hair's breadth from saying there is none. Forgive me for ever so slightly exagerating what you said. Apply this to your point #2 and #4.
"Show me where the US Census Bureau measured caloric intake.
I can't point to census data, nor did I say that was what I was quoting. The 28 million figure is the figure routinely quoted by most major charity o
Re: (Score:2)
This guy has a point, a big one. The problem about thinking of poverty in the USA vs other places is you have to take the cost of groceries into account. Take milk for example. On a good day I pay $3.00/gal for milk or 37.5c/pint. This would be about $137 if one drank a pint a day, about $274 i
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, THIS is definition of poverty [census.gov] in the United States. No mention of caloric intake is provided, although the income thresholds are based on the food budget of the average American family. Since you mention hunger, this link [heritage.org] provides some analysis of poverty with respect to hung
Re: (Score:2)
28 million Americans live below the poverty level. That means they cannot meet their basic needs; food, clothing, shelter.
Incorrect. You are mistakenly assuming that the federal definition of poverty is the same as the logical definition of poverty. The Federal Poverty Level (from which your 28 million number is derived) is an aggregate statistical calculation based solely on annual income, adjusted for local cost of living and size of the family that income supports. They do not measure how often children go to bed hungry, nor how often a family's caloric intake is insufficient, nor how many pairs of decent trousers they hav
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
BUT
There is honest-to-god food insecurity in the US. Yeah I mean that all those poor
Lap of luxury (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I seem to recall there being plenty of those nutters on USENET "back in the day" as well, and a half dozen of them are no less shrill than a few thousand, as far as I can tell. Besides, their greater numbers makes them more entertaining [timecube.com].
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
I remember it differently (Score:3, Insightful)
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 wa
Re:And? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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'.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You sound just like our IT department. "If it wasn't for all the users, we'd have a really smooth running operation."
Obligatory Sherlock Holmes (Score:5, Funny)
You're posting on a Saturday, sir.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of *computer savvy* people (a small subset of computer users) feel that way.
Re: (Score:2)