Many Americans See Little Point To Web: Survey

The second annual National Technology Scan conducted by Park Associates, a Dallas-based technology market research firm, have found that 29% of U.S. households (31 million homes) do not have Internet access and do not intend to subscribe to an Internet service over the next 12 months. The survey noted that 44% of these households say they are not interested in anything on the Internet, 22% say they cannot afford a computer or the cost of Internet service, 17% say they are not sure how to use it, 14% say using it at work meets their need and 3% said the Internet doesn't reach their homes. The study also found U.S. broadband adoption grew to 52% over 2006, up from 42% in 2005. Roughly half of new subscribers converted from slower-speed, dial-up Internet access while the other half of households had no prior access.

News source: InformationWeek

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft puts brakes on Soapbox video sharing

Next Story

TV Guide to Offer Web Video Search Tool

47 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I agree. If America is so bad then why are people from other countries sometimes literally dying to come here.

As for the survey. Yep my parents are octogenarians and have never used a computer never mind the internet. They say they have lived all these years without it and survived this long. I would say that most people over 65 years old don't surf the net. This alone accounts for a lot of non internet users. I tell my parents that having the internet is like having the public library in your own home.

The heck with socialist medicine. If you are 80 years old and need by-pass surgery, the government says sorry you are too old and that cost too much we can't help you.

paesan said,
I agree. If America is so bad then why are people from other countries sometimes literally dying to come here.

For the same reason so many people are dying to come into Paris Hilton - because she's the talk of the town.

I'm not too surprised; I know one older gentleman I worked with who only used the Internet at work, and from his standpoint is was designed for one purpose: buying airline tickets online. Whenever I was on the computer looking up something he would ask "Hey, looking for a good flight?" And I would say "No, I'm downloading something" or whatever. But I don't think he ever did anything else on the Internet. Ever. Except e-mail of course. They did include email usage when they refer to the 'Internet' right?

Frankly, living in a foreign country now, I don't know how I'd fare without Internet access (at least email); talking by phone to my parents even for a short time would cost far more that one month of high-speed Internet access here in Bulgaria.

What does this have to do about the Web? Title should read: "Many Americans See Little Point to The Internet: Survey"... Also, what happened to the people who didn't want to fill out the survey since they were playing World of Warcraft on the Internet, and the people who were too busy talking to other people on IRC/msn/Jabber etc.

Wait in 10 years, that number will drop dramatically. When I was about 6 years old, Doom had come out and I grew up using and educating myself with a computer. My sister is 7 years old where they are already using computers in a lab.

No, actually the "Internet" is not a luxury because it is required for effective communications in school and business. Good luck getting any government benefits or unemployment if you do not have an internet connection. If you get sued, may the luck be with you, "because you are going to need it."

Most schools, at least the ones I have been to, do not actually do paper transactions. If they do, they cost extra. The same can be said of business. Communications are primarily handled by teleconference, secure IM, secure P2P, or encrypted email. There is just no way of doing face to face visits anymore because a lot of our clients are not in the States.

The perspective of those who see it as unnecessary, are those who were in adulthood prior to the technology coming of age. I was in my early teens at the time.

This is not to argue with the basic premise of prior posts. You can of course live without net access. By the same token you can live without a car, a word processor, and electricity “at least if some regions.” Your life, however, would be affected. If you, however, never knew the technology existed your life would likely not change. People could take public transportation or walk. You could use a typewriter. Even electricity is not essential for most activities (of people a few generations removed).

These are all innovations that made life easier. What is a convenience to one person is a necessity to another. It all really depends on perspective. It can basically be summarized as the technology that you are the most comfortable around is what was prevalent during your childhood to young adult years (at least that has been a hypothesis suggested by many).

Sorry my neighborinos, some of my fellow Canadians still believe that having a government monopoly is a good thing for the people. Anything that feeds a collective and denies the individual is worse than poverty. I really enjoyed the part where LTD claims certain social services are life-saving, just like when our monopolistic government-ran health care system denies treatment as it is "too expensive". Too bad our taxes weren't as low as they are in the US so we could purchase private insurance that would have paid for said treatment! I would prefer to die by my own will (as monetary inefficiency is in a capitalist society), than by the will of a greater power (such as government).

DClark said,
Sorry my neighborinos, some of my fellow Canadians still believe that having a government monopoly is a good thing for the people. Anything that feeds a collective and denies the individual is worse than poverty. I really enjoyed the part where LTD claims certain social services are life-saving, just like when our monopolistic government-ran health care system denies treatment as it is "too expensive". Too bad our taxes weren't as low as they are in the US so we could purchase private insurance that would have paid for said treatment! I would prefer to die by my own will (as monetary inefficiency is in a capitalist society), than by the will of a greater power (such as government).

Well good luck huddling in a street corner dying without anybody noticing/caring about you. You have some sick and twisted ideas about who should live and die, thats for sure.
Monetary inefficiency? You know the government implements capitalism and controls it, right? so you would still die due to a greater power (as they control taxes, fees, etc), so I fail to see how your argument is valid.

The money you'd save on the tax breaks would be no where near what you'd have to pay if you had the burden of the total cost of private health care.

And who exactly is stopping you from the short drive to the U.S to receive whatever care you can afford? Heck who is stopping you from emigrating and ridding yourself of the evil socialist government that steals from the...everybody and gives to the...everybody.

An average American pays half the taxes (25% of total income, after earnings and spending) that an average Canadian pays (50%) (Soure: Fraser Institute). So if I am making 60k a year, 30k goes back to the government (as opposed to 15k for those evil Americans who brought us the internet). I have 15k leftover to buy some insurance, that happens to compete for a good price as it is not a monopoly (remember: competition is good for the consumer). When you hear about those socialist-propaganda horror stories of people paying $30k for a night in a hospital, it is because those figures are based on having NO insurance (or not being able to claim on a social service program).

I will note that social services is a necessity for those in need of it, I just oppose the concept of banning private insurance options for those who can afford such ventures (aka two-tier system). Monopolies are a no-no, why do you think Microsoft gets in trouble all the time (along with every other big business)? And why don't I just move to the US? Because that would be ineffective towards my career of changing how this government functions!

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill

I don't see a point to it either really. If mine was turned off tomorrow, to be honest it wouldn't really bother me that much.

Most people who think they need it is just that, they "think" they need it. We've been doing just fine for thousands of years without it.

The Internet is a convenience, nothing more. Yes, we don't need it to live, but we can do without lots of things and still survive. Many people choose to have internet because it makes many tasks easier. Some people choose to have it, and some choose not to. It doesn't make you crazy either way.

South Carolina is working on a plan to offer FREE wireless Internet service to all of its citizens. That will certainly be a good thing to those who can't afford it, or those who live in the backwoods where broadband is not available.

Also,
1. Many older couples will see no use for the internet and they will not change their lifestyle to accomdate online shopping or browsing because they've being doing without it for 50 years or more

2. 12.6% of residents in the U.S are under the povery line ($10,000/year) can't afford it

The internet, is really a luxery that many can do without.

Maybe they should divide it up in age groups, because that 29% could be old people, although that is a rather large figure, but then again U.S.A is a rather large country.

...44% of these households say they are not interested in anything on the Internet...

Right. These are the same people who hate asparagus or broccoli, even though they've never tasted it before.

MioTheGreat said,
"44% of these households say they are not interested in anything on the Internet"

It's all those hicks living in backwater towns, where they prefer the company of sheep for lone nights x)

Aero Ultimate said,
It's all those hicks living in backwater towns, where they prefer the company of sheep for lone nights x)

Spot on.