U.S. Home Internet Access up to 75%

waytoomuchcoffee writes "Over 200 million U.S. residents now have access to the internet at home, or 3/4 of the U.S. population. This is quite a jump, as only 51% of U.S. homes had access to the internet in August of 2000. Interestingly, among age/gender groups, internet access is highest among females 35-54."

Not surprising

[YanceyAI]

Interestingly, among age/gender groups, Internet access is highest among females 35-54.

Surprising to male /.ers perhaps, but not us girls...I spend eight hours a day on a T-3 at work and five nights a week on my cable connection at home. Typical home activities include updating my Web page, trolling forums, email/messaging friends, playing competitive leagues Counter-Strike, and shopping. At work, when I'm not /.ing, I'm a communications coordinator (writer & designer). I use the 'Net for research, purchasing, and communication with my colleagues.

You guys keep being surprised, but women make up half the work force where we spend a lot of time on computers. We buy more than half of all electronic devices and more than half of all computer games (and no they are not all for our spouses/children).

Wake up boys. This is no more news than females voting and driving!

That said, I've noticed the net is slowing down at home and at work. Do we have the infrastructure for all of America to be online (and with blazing connections)?

computers

[bsharitt]

I didn't know computer ownership was that high

Oh yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

These new comers with their DSL will never have the joy of crawling around at 2400 baud. Nothing but FTP or gopher.

These kids today!

Re:computers

[LostCluster]

That's the bottom line, Internet-capable computers are getting very close to joining the telephone, running water, and television as being assumed to be in every home in the USA.

useless report

[Anonymous Coward]

I ceased to take this seriously as soon as I realized that whoever wrote this POS didn't seem to understand that "internet" != "web".

Inevitable

[Mr. Certainly]

How can we not be "connected"? Its become narly manditory (if not already so) for secondary schools to teach internet skills. It's only a natural thing to have the students ask their parents for an internet connection: "We need to do our projects" is often the case. Granted, teens do use it for many other things, but that's not the point. How many state websites have money saving online forms for Car Registration, etc? If you do it via hardcopy, you often have to pay X number of dollars to process it. But it's less online more than not. Want more information about a product or service? Check out the company's website! Want to play the latest game or get a new pc part? You better have the internet, since the company may not have bothered to send the correct drivers with the product, check their online driver download section! You might be lucky if they have an option for you to buy the update CD and pay for shipping for a 6-8 week later delivery. It's becoming more and more difficult to use the "I don't have internet" excuse. It's not a merely sending email and for up and coming companies to use the web. It's invaded our everyday lives. For better or worse, we need to conform or perish.

Issues

[torinth]

#1) This is a press release. It is in the interest of the Nielsen group to exaggerate these figures. The more people who they show as on the internet, the more advertisers who will buy their data.

#2) The data was collected using random-digit dialing. Obviously, the people who don't have phones are more likely to not have internet access too. I wouldn't discount this factor.

#3) It's very vague what question they actually asked people. Does it include "is there a library within 50 miles of you that has internet access?" Given their natural bias towards inflating the numbers, you can't discount them incorporating those results into their totals.

It's great if more people are online, but these figures and percentages need to be taken with a grain of salt.

More statistical bull

[Mycroft_514]

Their method of counting internet access is flawed. Their method would count me four times, and my wife three.

And then you count my mother-in-law and while she has "access", she has never been online. Her access is just to get e-mail.

So there you have it. 6 accounts out of 8 counted that are not valid. How many more of them are not valid as well?

Re:Not surprising

[prgrmr]

That said, I've noticed the net is slowing down at home and at work. Do we have the infrastructure for all of America to be online (and with blazing connections)?

I don't think it's the infrastructure or lack thereof so much as the viri, spyware, spam, pop-ups, pop-unders, and poor configurations and security. We need to do more to improve the signal-to-noise ratio.

Re:And yet...

[glpierce]

" 3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what bandwidth is."

3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what frequency their phone uses.

3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what DVD region they are in.

3 out of 4 people will not be able to tell you what the RIAA is...or the MPAA...or the FCC...

...I think you get my drift.

Access does not mean they use it .. sigh

[Anonymous Coward]

I have access to my my neighbours Porsche ( and keys ), still I won't use it.. Having access and using it is something completely different.

BS Research Inc.

Interestingly, among age/gender groups, internet

[Le Marteau]

Interestingly, among age/gender groups, internet access is highest among females 35-54.

Why is that interesting? We all know that females like to yak it up, and the net is a natural for them. It's not like its all that difficult to get on the net. You don't exactly have to know how to operate a slide rule, or be into anime, in order to slap an AOL coaster into your machine and give them your credit card number.

Re:And yet...

[cK-Gunslinger]

What about driving? I put about 15,000 miles per year on my car, but I have no idea how an automatic transmission works. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.

Because of this, I try not to get too riled up when I talk to people who get pop-ups and viruses, or don't know their CPU/System specs, or want to buy a P4 3.2GHz to play games with, but still use the onboard video. I wouldn't want my mechanic to constantly belittle me because I don't know how to adjust my own timing belt or the optimum gap on my spark plugs.

We can't all be experts at *everything.* There's just too much technology we interact with on a daily basis. That's why it *is* the manufacturer's responsibility to produce "easy to use" systems. Otherwise, we'd all be sitting around 24-hours a day, reading the owner's manuals to our new DVD player's remote.

Re:More statistical bull

[zx75]

Just an aside to your statement (which is indeed valid), your grandmother is in fact 'connected' even though you do not regard her as such. Email does require internet access, and though she may not 'surf the web' she is indeed connected to it. Limited usage is still validly classified as usage.

For example, if I own a radio, but only turn it on to check the weather for 30 seconds each morning, I would still be classified as someone who 'listens to the radio' though the time spent is negligable (sp?).

Isn't it funny? Stats from my bum

[saskboy]

It's strange that only 70% of homes in the USA have an Internet capable computer, yet 75% of homes have the Internet?

Maybe WebTV is an explanation, but it could be something more sinister. Perhaps these figures are wrong?

I'd bet the figures are wrong, as I've just made up the "70%" stat. Sorry if I had alarmed you there for a moment...

Re:And yet...

[SecGreen]

>> It astonishes me that people don't care to learn about something they use every day, for perhaps hours on end.

Quick, answer these questions:

How many tumblers are in the lock on your house/apartment door. How about in your car door? Your ignition?

What voltage is on your home phone line? What's the ring voltage? What's the max ring current?

What frequency is your favorite TV channel transmitted on? What is the bandwidth? Modulation scheme? How about the encoding for the IR your remote control sends to your TV to turn it on?

If we required users of all these devices to understand them the way us "geeks" understand computers, no-one would use cars or telephones, watch TV, or lock their doors.

People who understand things like computers often have a mistaken perception that understanding them is easy, and that everyone should. It's generally a position taken by people who want to belittle others (the "lusers") and make themselves feel better.

Re:Not surprising

[YanceyAI]

It doesn't say most hardcore developers, it says most Internet users...

Also consider that women do most of the desk work in the US, using computers to do their jobs...

Get out of your tech-hole and realize most people use the Internet daily for work and daily for entertainment and staying in touch. Women slightly more than half the population.

And actually, I would guess hardcore developers aren't on the Net when they are at work. Aren't they are coding???

Re:And yet...

[Kiryat Malachi]

You know, I choose to view people who get viruses and pop-ups as equivalent to people who can't figure out how to check their oil and refill their washer fluid.

Bad analogies.

[metalhed77]

There's a fundamental difference between computers and these things. Computers are interacted with on a low level. I've used locks my whole life and will never have to open one up. A computer is so complex that even the simplest tasks can cause problems. For instance, few people have a decent grasp of the directory structure. Yes, the simple directory structure. This is a constant problem when they want to open a file with something other than the program that saved it and that program has a different default open folder.

Your examples would make sense if say, the ring voltage on your phone had to be randomly calibrated to fluctuating levels manually (silly isn't it?), but it doesn't. The problem isn't with users , but with computers themselves. Computers NEED to be learned or need to be simpler.

Re:And yet...

[Srin Tuar]

>We can't all be experts at *everything.*

I'm sorry, but not knowing what bandwidth is is like a driver not knowing what his speedometer measures. And heck, most people figure out how to set the time on their microwave or alarm clock.

Why should it be any different with computers?

Sure, we can't all be experts, but can we all not be drooling idiots at least?

Re:And yet...

[Kiryat Malachi]

And yet, half the "geeks" out there can't tell me how CMOS works.

They can write Perl and PHP, but ask them what a transistor is and their faces go blank.

Then you ask the EE who designs low-level CMOS VLSI designs how the electrons move inside the transistors, and he probably gives a decent explanation, but if you ask him why, blank look.

So you go talk to the physicist. Who can probably explain why the electrons move around the way they do.

But I bet he can't write perl scripts.

Re:And yet...

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Does not knowing the voltage on my home phone line allow telemarketers to use my line to make more calls to other people?

Does not knowing the frequency and bandwidth of my favorite TV channel mean that script kiddies can use my TV to knock TV stations off the air?

Noone cares if you don't know these things because your lack of knowledge does not negatively affect other people.

But when someone gets their brand new Dell on the internet and doesn't know not to hit 'no' when IE asks them if they want to install that cute plugin, or doesn't know not to open that cool new screensaver some nice person in argentina just sent them, or not to buy that discount v1aGr4 they just received a SPECIAL OFFER for means that everyone else has that much more spam in their inboxes every day, and that much more bandwidth is abused by script kiddies DDOSing each other...

It is the same situation for driving cars. It is illegal to drive a car on public roads if you are completely ignorant about how a car works because your ignorance can clearly cause harm to other people. You don't have to know how an automatic transmission works, but you do need to know which pedal slows you down and which speeds you up.

It would be fine if these people could be brought onto the internet in such a way that their lack of knowledge cannot bring any harm to other people's systems.

terrible, terrible analogies

[boarder]

Does your lack of knowledge about the number of tumblers in your door lock make it easier for a thief to crack? No. Will I ever, EVER need to know how many tumblers or even that there are tumblers in order for me to use a lock? No. The exact same questions can be asked about your other stupid analogies.

In the past couple weeks I've had to act as phone support for friends trying to configure their IP address to use their network. To even USE a computer for what it is designed you need training. I can't tell you how many times my friends who use computers everyday have tried to email me an mp3 and have only sent their winamp playlists... or told me all of their files were deleted when Word or Excel couldn't find a file that was in the recent docs list.

These are basic tasks that can't be performed without knowledge of how the computer works. BASIC tasks. Do you need a manual to use your phone, TV, or remote? No. Do you need a manual to program phone numbers in memory, add new devices to a remote, hook up 20 cables for a home theatre system? Yes (for non-geeks). Advanced tasks are the only times when you need training. Basic tasks for a computer require training. If you don't know the modulation scheme for your TV or the ring voltage of your phone, can a hacker come in and destroy it? No. Just using a computer opens it up for malicious activity.

Even worse is the analogy people use with car engines. Sure, I don't know what the tension is supposed to be on my old cable clutch, or how much pressure is in the hydraulic clutch... but does that hinder my ability to use it how it was designed? No. Can you just put a 12 year old in the driver seat and expect that kid to a) know how to operate the vehicle, and b) not kill people when they do? No. You have to be trained to use a car for its basic function to be usable. Same with a computer. Its basic function is complex and requires knowledge to use correctly and responsibly.

Why female is more?

[sunheshan2001]

I remember that many prior surveys said men use Internet than women do. Women are more "computer anxious" than men. But this survey has a different results. Why?

Re:More statistical bull

[rixstep]

she has never been online. Her access is just to get e-mail

Uh - hello? Flawed: what's the all-time killer app?

Otherwise I agree. 'There's lies, goddamned lies, and statistics', said your author Mr Clemens I believe.

Re:And yet...

[Strange Ranger]

Big Differences:

-Your car can do ONE thing plus some comforts, your computer can do many many things. Therefore it behooves a user to learn how to apply the computer to many different tasks. The car.. you just drive it.

-People don't expect to be able to call somebody on the phone and get walked through an oil filter change - a simple thing. But they do expect a help desk to be able to "just fix" their computer over the phone, automagically. Their ignorance causes their frustration as much as anything.. so that ignorance should be the first thing to fix.

-You can't pull your computer into jiffy lube and have all the routine maintenance done for you while you read People Magazine. Therefore you need to learn how to do it yourself, or pay for a service that comes to you, like lawn care. Those are the 2 choices. Ignoring routine maintainence through ignorance is in no way excusable. Your worm ridden machine effects everybody! Same as an unsafe car.

-If you're so ignorant you don't know the difference between the steering wheel and the other 4 wheels, you can't get a car, but if you think your monitor is your computer and your computer is your pentium hard drive you can still get a computer, yet you have no business owning one. I can forsee a day when people have to pass a netizens test just like a drivers test. Ignorance is EXPENSIVE. And there's no damn excuse for that level of ignorance.

AFAIK, only in the USA is it cool to boast ignorance. I.e. - "Antivirus stuff, firewalls, I don't have time for that techie crap, can't you just make it work?" -- that's acceptable to most, but "Oil change, radiator fluid? Tread wear on my tires, I don't have time for that mechanic crap? Just fix it" Everybody knows THAT's unacceptable. WTF???

Re:Issues

[Cthefuture]

The more interesting question is whether the very small subset of people who actually agree to participate are typical of the population as a whole.

From personal experience I'd say no. I'm willing to bet it's 35-54 year old females.

Doubtful

[gtrubetskoy]

I find these numbers a bit hard to believe. I'd much rather see how many people have personal e-mail accounts than "access to the internet". If I regularly visit the library or the mall and have once or twice browsed the web on one of those public kiosks - does this mean I have access to the Internet? I think according them it's a yes.

There are 4 people living in my house. I definitely have access to the internet, my wife doesn't care about computers and my kids are too young to understand it. So in our house it is 1 out of 4 people, and I know people who do not have any kind of Internet access in their home because they don't even own a computer.

So I'm a bit skeptical about these numbers. I'm guessing there is probably about 200 million actually capable of using the internet in this country (of the whole population, some are too young, some too old, some are unable for other reasons - ill (mentally or otherwise), in jail, etc.).