According to a report from eMarketer, Internet use by Americans will peak at 80%. Currently only 55% of the U.S. population uses the Internet, which equates to about 58% of American households. The peak of 80% is expected to be reached within the next 10 years.
A UCLA study shows that the primary reason for non-connectivity given by those not yet connected to the Internet is the lack of a computer. Other reasons include no interest, fear of or ineptitude with technology, and privacy. Also included in the eMarketer report was a finding that the U.S. broadband audience accounts for about 50 million people, or nearly one-third of all Internet users. Of those 50 million, 17 million are households.
Read more on this topic at CNET.
I am surprised that Internet use will peak at 80% of American citizens, mostly because it is such a part of my daily life that it is hard for me to imagine living without it. For example, as I write this I am in a hotel that does not offer Wi-Fi access, and there have been at least 10 times in the last 90 minutes that I was frustrated for one reason or another that I could not get online. Whether it is to get an update on the war with Iraq, check a sports score, or send an e-mail, the lack of access is driving me nuts.
Granted, I am probably at the high end of the spectrum in regards to Internet use, and I am extremely comfortable with computers and the 'Net. But I can't help believe that if the other 20% of eventual non-'Netters had on opportunity to see all that the Web had to offer, they, too, would feel the same.
The World Wide Web is the world's greatest information resource. If its use does in fact peak at 80% then the other 20% are at a serious disadvantage. I understand people have other priorities and the cost of computers, broadband or dial-up, and other accounts add up; but the cost of not having access at some point soon will outweigh the financial burden, and those without will be left behind.
USER COMMENTS 32 comment(s)
|Really? (11:45am EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
“Of those 50 million, 17 million are households.”
The rest are ditches and ears of corn. - by Parsey
|define “internet use” (11:47am EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
so some people don't surf (ex. my mom who won't touch a computer). Are they the 20% that's talked about ? Cuz one way or the other, they will eventually have no choice as everything becomes connected. But that doesn't mean they will be forced to surf. It will be done “behind-the-scenes” as their fridges begin to order groceries, or their phone becomes VoIP, or their wrist watch updates the weather/stock in real-time. Will they be considered “online” at this point ? More importantly, will they consider themselves as being online ? - by Eyad
|Computers are cheap (11:52am EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
You can find a computer to basically access the internet for about $150.
The issue is people who don't currently use the internet don't readily see its value. Its only after they are shown how to use a browser and then turned loose on it for a while do they discover they can stop their newspaper subscriptions, keep in touch with people en masse cheaper, and explore their hobbies with greater ease and convienence. They can even surf for free if they have a simple phoneline.
I gave my aged uncle an old PC of mine and he orders his groceries, emails me, and checks his bank account online. I had to sit down and show him every little thing but it has enriched his life a great deal. The funny thing is he is smiling mostly because he doesn't have to buy Playboys anymore. - by Geekzilla
|the downsides of the net… (11:58am EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
There will always be people who are concerned with their privacy, and as the internet becomes more pervasive, it'll become a bigger issue for more non-sheeple. Then there are other issues – spam, pop-up ads, and the dwindling supply of free information. Maybe I'm just waxing nostalgic, but I really miss the days when I'd be able to sign on, go to a search engine, type in a query, and find tons of information on it without having to deal with any of those things. The dot-bombers popped up like weeds, and now the net is roughly the equivalent of a deserted industrial park. The information you find is spotty at best, or costs too much, and you have to close 15 popups to find the window you want buried in the mess, and you ned broadband just so a site will load in the same timeframe dialup used to do it without all the popups - by nostalgic
|Geekzilla (3:11pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
“don't readily see its value”
My dad: “I lived 72 years without it, I don't see why I need it now”.
My grandpa said the same thing about indoor plumbing. - by /sm
|The other 20% is… (3:17pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
The illiterate (babies and toddlers, etc.) and the old farts who cannot adapt. - by Affez Pow
|Uh… (3:27pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
>>> The illiterate (babies and toddlers, etc.) and the old farts who cannot adapt
I teach large roomfuls of 20-somethings who have little or no knowledge of the internet. At first, that surprised me because I too thought that the computer phobic were oldsters. This class has a long waiting list.
- by tjack
|Prediction? (3:39pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
How can they possibly think that they can make a prediction like that. I wouldn't put a drop of worth to that. I don't know ANYONE who doesn't use the web. And I mean that very litteraly. If they aren't using it directly then they are having someone else email, or get info or pictures etc. - by Doc_Stihl
|Doc_Stihl (4:44pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
“How can they possibly think that they can make a prediction like that.”
Simple. Collect tons of meaningless statistics, crunch them in a mainframe for 3 or 4 days, then just pull a few numbers out of… pull my finger. - by /sm
|What percetage (4:47pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
Are kids 5 and under. I mean, hard to use a comnputer when you can't read. Pictures are fine, but internet usage is more text than anything. So, I could see that you would never get to 100%. and then you have those that are physically or mentally not capable. I mean, not 100% of the people can walk! - by It makes sense
|mainframe? (5:02pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
Does anybody still use mainframes? - by hoss
|The other 37 million (5:11pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
“Of those 50 million, 17 million are households”. No the other 37 million aren't Parsey's “ditches and ears of corn”. They're users with broadband in their WORKLACES, not their households. - by wilder1
|LOL! (5:13pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
>>> Does anybody still use mainframes
I'm betting you don't work for a large business! The answer is yes, quite a bit. Mainframes make a lot of money for IBM.
- by Jklm
|Broadband? (7:39pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
The 80% sounds reasonable to me. There are so many people who can barely read let alone know what to do with a computer. Plus, do you know how many people out there who can barely afford food and rent? These people don't surf the net either.
The part in this article I take exception to is the number of broadband users. They should really distinguish at home use from work use. There are not that many home users of broadband. - by Mitch
|Bull (9:58pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
There will be so many free Internet access points by 2007, I seriously doubt those statistics.
aggregate, filter, organize, analyze = bullshit - by diddly
|Interesting (10:16pm EST Fri Mar 28 2003)
Not long ago, if I had said that the WWW has little value I would be flamed to no end. Now all of a sudden, many of you who told companies they had to have a web presence are saying the WWW has little value. Imagine how many customers you would have now if you had told them that 8 years ago. Or told them not to spend any money on Y2K. Or set up some simple server protections and have told them not to spend a lot of money on security. It's amazing how easy it is to get and keep clients when you keep their best interest in mind instead of your own. I guess as a CS and business owner I look at ROI when I consult clients. - by tech
|Am I the only one… (5:29pm EST Sat Mar 29 2003)
Am I the only one that sees a real problem here? Just over half of our country is connected. Only half of the people in the most powerful country in the world have access to the internet. The internet revolution started almost a decade ago. There's something wrong here.
I personally don't know what I would do without net access. - by Leo
|In addition (5:31pm EST Sat Mar 29 2003)
In addition I would like to add that I believe every American deserves…
1. A place to live
Am I too far off base here?
- by Leo
|Leo (5:56pm EST Sat Mar 29 2003)
1 out of 4 aint bad :D
Little way to go yet tho - by B3ard3d1
|Access (6:11pm EST Sat Mar 29 2003)
During my unemployment stint, I used free Internet access at the library and local college to do my job searchs and submit resumes.
I think there might be a cap on how many homes have PC's but access is already available to most anyone for free. Even in Asia, Internet access is available for about 25-50 cents an hour at local shops, although your e-mail might have more viruses than the local whore.
I refurbished donated old PC's and gave them away to poor families with kids in school and set up Internet access in retirement homes. Half the fun was teaching people to use them.
I was in questionable territory when it came to the licensing the operating system. Most, but not all systems were provided with an legitimate disk of Windows 98.
Microsoft could do a bunch of good by making older OS's available for dirt cheap. Of course I would prefer free with no legal BS. - by diddly
|umm (12:03am EST Sun Mar 30 2003)
What's the internet? - by far
|hm (3:30am EST Sun Mar 30 2003)
do you know that kids that are as young as 10 are really computer literate??? they do it purely for the sake of gaming though, and you all thought gaming was useless, by the time they grow up and realize they need a life other than gaming, they will be extremely pc literate and have an advantage over some kid that just sits around a console his life - by hm
|Lets not forget… (2:12pm EST Sun Mar 30 2003)
That 99.9% of statistics are useless. - by Gei
|More TV's than PC's? Nah! (3:25pm EST Sun Mar 30 2003)
I know that over 95% of US households had telephone access several years ago and even more had televisions. So 80% peak penetration for internet access doesn't sound right.
Once web-surfing becomes as trivial as watching TV — with much better interaction — surely internet access will exceed television and telephone rates?
What about people like me, for example, who haven't turned on the telly for years and email a hundred more times than telephone? - by greg (P)
|And… (4:08pm EST Sun Mar 30 2003)
>>> Lets not forget…
That 99.9% of statistics are useless.
… and what I always like to mention, 81.7% of all statistics is made up on the spot.
|Yes… (4:16pm EST Sun Mar 30 2003)
>>> What about people like me, for example, who haven't turned on the telly for years and email a hundred more times than telephone?
When I moved yet again, I found out very quickly that the delay in getting internet service was much, much worse than having the telephone delayed.
I send out very little physical mail, phone use is minimal, but I do have a Radio Shack Amplified Rabbit Ears for my 13″ TV. Almost the same.
I've also noticed that the internet has replaced most TV watching for many of the teenagers teach. The phone however… They make up for our non-usage many times over!
- by tjack
|no TV either (12:48am EST Mon Mar 31 2003)
I use the net for all my news and mail.
Got everyone in the family hooked up on computers. At first they all claimed they had no use for them, now they can't live without them.
In the article, 2007 was the projected date for that statistic. Given the economy sucks, it might a close figure for that date but it won't be the peak.
I hope we have all learned to take consultants, analysts and statisticians with a grain of salt. - by greg d
|computers (9:00am EST Mon Mar 31 2003)
i am the co-manager of an apartment complex which legally operates as a non profit for very low to middle income persons. we are trying to open a community center within the complex and hoping to have a adequately supplied library and computer room if we receive donations of computers, printers, etc. (none donated to date) preliminary surveys indicate that about 60% of our residents have no access to the net but would love to have a chance to try it. we are hoping that the “build it and they will come” theory works! - by mark
|Good luck! (1:05pm EST Mon Mar 31 2003)
I wish you luck. I have depleted all my stock and must find new resources for recycled computers as I recently relocated. You are the kind of guy I was looking for when I refurbished PC systems.
I recommend a classified add asking for a donated system. I also used Goodwill and Salvation Army stores to get peripherals for the systems I set up.
I'll do my best to make that stupid 80% statistic wrong. Might break some copyright laws, but if I don't charge anything I hope to get minimal punishment if caught.
|computers (1:51pm EST Mon Mar 31 2003)
thanks for the suggestions diddly. - by mark
|Leo (3:32pm EST Mon Mar 31 2003)
“In addition I would like to add that I believe every American deserves…
1. A place to live
2. A Doctor
3. A Church
4. Net access
Am I too far off base here?”
Well, every American has access to ONE of those- the one that is guranteed in the Constitution. (hint- it ain't housing, health care, or even electricity) - by /sm
|diddly (3:37pm EST Mon Mar 31 2003)
“Might break some copyright laws, but if I don't charge anything I hope to get minimal punishment if caught”
Copyright violation is only a criminal offense if you do it for profit (NOTA)or break an encryption system (DMCA).
No matter what M$ says, if you have physical access to a real install windows disk Microsoft can go psis up a rope. Unles, of course, you actually signed a legally binding contract that gives them extra-legal copyright protection. - by /sm