21% of Americans Aren't Using the Internet

No wonder why they don't know what is going on, they are glued to the boob tube (TV aka the Golden Calf) watching the talking heads ramble about meaningless garbage on Fox or CNN. If not network news its MTV and American Idol.

2252 people? Isn't this sample way too small?

thats a very small sample to draw a conclusion for whole America LOL really? only 2.2k adults? and its done over phone and cell phone... ok why not like public survey or other none tech surveying... how about asking others who have Internet if they have adults who never connect on the net.. that might work for an online study lol though not very accurate

"This figure isn't just based on broadband, it includes dial-up users too, and one fifth of Americans just aren't online."

There are still people on dial-up?? I would do without too if that was a choice...Jeez...back to my 85mps down, 5mps up speed connection...

21% of Americans aren't using the Internet. Probably another 30%-40% probably shouldn't be because they're kinda dumb and wouldn't know how to use it resourcefully or they just spend all their time on Facebook. But back to those 21%, we're probably talking for the most part about senior citizens that didn't grow up with computers. The rest of them are probably too dumb to add 1 + 1, let alone use a computer.

Expanding high speed internet service is a priority for the federal government? Are they stupid?

21% of Americans are also over age 55, according to the 2000 census.

Hm...

All I am hearing when reading this is "pew, pew, pew" lasers going off...

Those are the one's being throttled because their ISP sucks.

On a more serious note, read up on Google's deal with Verizon...

well, it would be hard to get a good sample size, people into the internet screen their calls or don't even have landlines, and they can't do it on the internet, because that would be biased.

Is it lonely up there on your pedestal?

Twenty-one percent of the population may actually be smarter than we think.

i want to see it split into smaller demographics, most of that 21% was probably from the 65 and older bracket

Man, I would love to see some age analysis on those non-users.

Who cares they are obviously not reading this LOL

Buddy of mine doesn't have Internet cause he can't afford. Should be a city government issue to provide free wifi to the city

As they say the only free cheese is in the mousetrap.

Actually a survey size of 2,200 people allows for a very manageable survey with a high certainty. For example, the Gallup Polls that correctly predicted the 2008 election with a sample size of 3,050 had only 2.1% error. The reason why the survey was conducted over cellphones and phones is that pseudorandomness is easily attained. A public survey has regional bias and asking internet users if they know people who do not use the internet has a socioeconomic bias. While using mail would have been suitable, it has a much higher overhead with not noticeable benefits over a phone survey. From the information given in this article, the survey looks as if it could be very accurate; however, I do not know any other details about it.

The 21% of americans view technology as witchcraft and voodoo.

as time goes on, this percentage will drop dramatically..its all about the age of the user. people who grow up in the internet world, will endorse it. but you can never get everyone to have internet. for some, its just too much against their policies and views.

but how i feel about this is, YES WE NEED HIGH-SPEED INTERNET. nope, not talking about super fast cable. I'm talking about what the chinese have. why can't we have what they have? its ridiculous. its America. China is communist and they still have better internet than us.

Why don't you pay for him? He's your buddy, right?

Pew pew... Pew pew pew..

I can't imagine my 90 years old grandma with a laptop on her legs!

Any chance any of these people desperately want to play StarCraft 2?

i asked 20 of my friends if they have an iphone, 18 said yes. therefore i can say that 90 percent of america has an iphone.

How about: 79% of Americans are using the internet.

About 1 in 3 actually do practice witchcraft and voodoo in secret and in public. When ask many deny it. The New Age movement is nothing more than an offshoot of the occult that has been watered down and sugar coated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-d [...] 03785.html

ummm, no not really... are you? Improving the country's aging and largely outdated telecommunications infrastructure really should be amongst the federal governments four top long term priorities right now, along with healthcare, education, and energy. And in fact the Obama administration has made it a priority, although it has taken a backseat lately to more immediate issues like the BP oil spill and immigration. Something has to be done soon to jump start the stagnant and overpriced state of the US ISP industry.

Part of the problem is that many Americans are completely unaware of this issue. The US ranks around 17th in the world in terms of broadband availability, bandwidth, and price per Mbps. I think that places pretty much every other developed nation in the world ahead of us, except for maybe Australia... lol.

I remember reading an article around three years ago that listed average nation wide bandwidth for certain countries and being struck by just how low the US was. At the time it was around 1.3 Mbps, being lead by practically all of Europe and with South Korea and Japan on top. Japan was around 60 Mbps. While at the same time the US GDP is over twice that of Japan, the second largest economy in the world. I think we can do a little better, and again something has to be done soon to salvage the situation.

Why? Says who? Why should city taxpayers pay for internet access? Are you one of those mindless government tit lovers who think government should just pay for everything anyone ever wants? Yes - the internet is a WANT, not a NEED.

... it's a very sufficient sample size, and considering the source this survey is probably pretty legit. Have either of you ever taken a stats class?

The big issue we face here in the US versus other countries is the fact that other countries had NO infrastructure in place until the past decade, decade and a half, so they got to build from scratch without any existing users to worry about when it came to things like downtime on the networks for upgrades. The US is so far behind because we have lines that are many many years old (Cable systems have been around since the 60's), and it is very costly and time consuming to dig up and replace old lines in regard to cost to the consumer base and time for permits to be set in place. Keep in mind the ISP industry still has to make money in order to continue existing, so upgrades will come as it is cost effecient to both provider and consumer.

Fun fact, the company with the most fiber laid out right now, Sprint, is at that point because of the government. Sprint is actually an acronym for Southern Pacific Railroad INTernational, and back in the mid 1800's when the government was giving away land for dirt cheap, it was giving it away free to railroad companies with the condition that they build rails on it. So every RR Co laid track in every place they could, so Sprint actually owned the vast majority of the land that they've laid fiber in keeping them out of the grueling process of obtaining permits, and they've been laying it since the late 80's early 90's when the tech became available.

The ultimate goal of "Big Cable" is to deliver "Fiber to the user" as right now they are fiber to the node, but getting fiber past the node not only requires reengineering the plant, but actually doing reconstruction at consumer housing, which all takes time and money.

And as far as having free service to people, I'll just say you get what you pay for and people will start complaining how something that's free doesn't work as well as what someone who pays a premium gets. And if there was free broadband it would probably perform as well as Centurylink DSL, which is the worst rated ISP in terms of average speed in every region it's available. I for one am in favor of subsidized internet in high population areas due to other higher costs of living, like what some major cities have done with other utilities like water, electric, and gas, leaving users in those areas with low bills in the $5-15 range, and continuing tiered LOS for those who want more speed.

I am totally against WiMax and other wireless net services as they are completely gimmicky and unreliable, I've had Clear in two states, HI because I was in the Navy and going out to sea constantly and it was more convenient to have a service I could suspend without getting a tech out, and Las Vegas because I carried it over with me, and realized for the price of a 6mb clear connection I could get the 10mb cable connection that would be stable, my Clear connection hit 6mb on speedtests once in a blue moon, otherwise I was averaging 1.5 mbps. You never get your advertised speeds unless conditions are perfect, and God forbid the weather should get fussy because you'll suffer then too. So offering a city-wide WiFi service would not only be poor quality, but it would also be highly unsecure. I honestly don't see the wireless internet lasting much longer, because the only people who actually need it are those who are travelling by public transport and need to do work on the go, or possibly students who don't want to access school networks. Otherwise a dedicated landline will provide faster, more stable, and more secure internet.

As for dialup, I'm just waiting for those old to die. Honestly, those are the types of people who give no rhyme or reason to stay dialup, even when presented with the fact that a lot of companies actually have a basic 1-1.5mbps connection for like 10-15 bucks. Those people are the kind of bastards that hold us back from progress because they would probably get the FCC in on it if ISP's pulled all dial up support claiming discrimination, like they did for people who refuse to get set top boxes for their cable service and want HBO or some other premium, forcing cable companies to provide those boxes for free, just stripped down of all guide info and all OD services and only allowing access to those specific channels over 100. That's 500 bucks the companies have to eat, with absolutely no rental fee to buffer it.