Microsoft: Internet users will double to 4 billion worldwide by 2020

You might think that everyone uses the Internet, but you would be wrong. That's according to a recent report from Microsoft that examines the current state of cybersecurity in the world. Microsoft claims that the number of Internet users will double to about four billion by the year 2020.

The report says that the number of Internet users will grow substantially in China, India and the continent of Africa in the next seven years. Microsoft adds:

This change, coupled with a consistently evolving cybersecurity threat landscape will require governments around the world to look more broadly than ever before to understand the impact of the decisions that are being made today.

The report, titled "Measuring the Impact of Policy on Global Cybersecurity,” looks at how a number of different factors could affect cybersecurity for different countries in the world. Those factors include education, law enforcement, public policies and more. Microsoft says that its results show that the countries that have the lowest amount of malware infection rates had more PCs, a higher rate of health care, more stable governments and better broadband Internet access.

By contrast, countries with the highest malware infection rates had lower literacy among their populace, along with more crime and a lower amount of broadband Internet access. Microsoft said, "On average, these countries or regions had three times more malware than the highest performing countries, an average piracy rate of 68 percent and fewer than 10 percent of these countries had signed international treaties or codes of conduct on cybercrime."

Source: Microsoft | Image via Microsoft

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's super-long infographic gives us the data on big data

Next Story

PC component company Syba seemingly compromised

16 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Um... There is not already 4 billion online... wow that's hard to believe when everyone over the age of fetus has a smartphone!

My ISP upped its monthly internet charge by $5 a month.

Our speeds have yet to be increased to compensate against this increase. This is against competitors like Verizon and Comcast, who increased speeds without increasing costs.

I have a strong feeling it was due to Hurricane Sandy forcing them to waste millions rebuilding the infrastructure across the tri-state area; there is no other explanation other than greed. They haven't even fixed all the problems yet and we still suffer from packet loss during below freezing temperatures and severe congestion issues on peak days.

ISP is Cablevision, for anyone wondering.

Oh, and no IPv6 yet; still working on it.

My ISP is Cablevision as well and just to offset what you've wrote, they haven't raised rates in 10yrs while Comcast and otehrs have increased prices (and speeds) several times since 2008 (3 i can count).

Last year Cablevision upgraded speeds from 30Mbps to 50Mbps for "FREE" which is the tier I have. I get full 50/8Mbps speeds all the time. Before that, many years ago they upgraded everyone from the base tier of 8Mbps to 15Mbps which is now the standard. That's also without a fee increase. So i would suggest you call them and keep doing so till they fix your problems. The only competition around here (CT) is AT&T U-Verse which is not really competition at all.

I would agree they raised prices because of Sandy related costs but that's not a cost one can expect them to just absorb. Then again, $5 increase in over 10yrs is not that big of a deal IMO, Think of it as a 50 cent increase over the last 10yrs.

Telecoms don't care still. Big part of all these users are NAT-ed. Unallocated ranges ran dry a good year ago, big scaremongering and all, world and dog's still fine.
I keep thinking that IPv6 is a sh*t idea. Telling there's enough addresses for every refrigerator, light bulb and family of fleas is a sh*t idea. NAT is how it should have been from the start - one house, one IP, just like the real address. Can't afford mighty big router? Your own lookout.

Phouchg said,
Telecoms don't care still. Big part of all these users are NAT-ed. Unallocated ranges ran dry a good year ago, big scaremongering and all, world and dog's still fine.
I keep thinking that IPv6 is a sh*t idea. Telling there's enough addresses for every refrigerator, light bulb and family of fleas is a sh*t idea. NAT is how it should have been from the start - one house, one IP, just like the real address. Can't afford mighty big router? Your own lookout.

Although NAT is a good solution, you do realize that IPv6 is more than just a larger number of addresses, right?

There are new things in IPV6, from types of security to multicasting, and it also helps speed up things by avoiding circular routing errors, etc.

Even if we were to keep only the IPv4 addresses, it is in our best interest to encourage the adoption of the new IPv6 packet format.

I don't people realize how much IPv6 is used already and is being translated via 6to4 tunneling and other migration technologies, that is an 'overhead' burden on IPv4.

A lot of home 'NAT' routers are doing the lifting of managing internal IPv6 addressing, and cramming the IPv6 packet format into things like 6to4 just to keep applications working and maintain security.

So, ya the addressing is 'huge' for IPv6, in fact so large it could assign an IP address to every grain of sand on all the beaches on earth, but this expanded address range is not the most important aspect of IPv6, just a natural progression of the additional need for more address when the standard was designed.

They should have add just two more group of digits. 275 trillion IPs would be more than enough at least for next 200 years. Hex IPs is a pure nightmare.

Two more groups would mean 6 bytes. Kind of unwieldy. Although 16 probably is an overkill. Even the short form is confusing as hell.

I didn't mean that the idea or new stuff as such was a sh*t idea. It's that they've stepped into the same boat again of confusing prefixes, reservations, huge unused ranges. Add to that, if I've understood correctly, address may be holding metadata in addition to routing information, such as type of device.