RSSStudy: US broadband access up overall, but down among the poor
By Jacqueline Emigh | Published July 3, 2008, 4:16 PM
When it comes to broadband Internet access in America, the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is widening, suggests a Pew Research report released on Wednesday called "Home Broadband Adoption 2008."
On the whole, about 55% of all Americans today have a high-speed Internet connection, up from only 47% in 2007, according to results released this week by the Pew Internet & American Life Project.
This growth rate of 17% represents an overall rise in comparison to the 12% growth rate demonstrated in the 2007 edition of the study.
In addition, three groups within the total US population showed especially strong increases in broadband adoption this year: rural Americans (up 23% since 2007); lower-middle income Americans, with household incomes between $20,000 and $40,000 (up 24%); and older Americans, aged 50 and over (up 25%).
On the other hand, among African Americans, broadband access rose only slightly, from 40% to 43%.
Moreover, in households with annual incomes below $20,000, access actually fell over the year, dropping from 28% to 25%.
Meanwhile, pricing for broadband access looks likely to have fallen from 2007 to 2008, as well. The authors of the study report a four percent decline in average broadband prices over the past two-and-a-half years or so, from $36 per month in December 2005 to $34.50 per month in April 2008.
Still, dial-up users -- who now comprise only 10% of Americans who go online -- gave price as the main reason for not stepping up to broadband. A total of 35% of those broadband users responded that "The price has to come down/be more affordable/cheaper." Only 10% said, "It would have to become available where I live." But 19% replied, "Nothing will convince me to get broadband."
Maybe some of those dial-up users will be forced into switching to broadband, anyway, or maybe not. As previously reported in BetaNews, Time Warner has pointed to plans to spin off AOL's dial-up accounts.
Yet after bailing out of the municipal Wi-Fi business, Earthlink recently cited dial-up access as an attractive alternative business model for that company to consider.
How does broadband access in the US rank in comparison to access in other countries? The jury is still out on that question, since various studies are coming up with conflicting findings.
Go figure. Why wasn't this article called "US Restaurant use up overall but down among the poor."
Since when does everything become a class warfare issue? This strikes me the same way as seeing a family on welfare with kids without clothes buying food with stamps while they are complaining about how their cell phone bill went up to $70 a month...
Our priorities are WAY out of whack...
Score: 0
So this is your idea of super secret "beta" news?
Score: 0
People are buying food instead of internet access???
HOW DARE THEY!!!!
This has got to be one of the dumbest articles I've seen posted here in a while.
"down among the poor".... No s***, Sherlock. Did you notice they weren't buying caviar either? Maybe you should do an article on that, I'm sure it would be just as enlightening.
Score: 0
the costs for broadband and cable are simply outrageous and the fcc should be damn ashamed and held accountable for allowing these companies to get away with fraud, abuse and price fixing.
Score: 0
Yet, America offers some of the slowest and most expensive high speed internet options of any developed nation. Go figure?
Score: 0
And we also have some of the most accessible internet anywhere via high speed and dialup via out extensive wired network - exactly what is lacking in much of the world where you assume all have high speed broadband!
The fact is, friends located in many of those meccas where you assume they have such wonderful access, the true access to service is extremely limited! It is ironic that serveral of these friends are principals in boith European and Asian based tier one wireless carriers, and they have NO internet access at their homes as the wired network is so extremely limited! In fact, wireless is what has served to connect much of the world simply because of the topology and cost of building and maintaining a wired network. otherwise they would have no communication link!
Score: 0
I'm just glad the FCC finally updated its definition on what "broadband" is. Do these statistics reflect the new definition? Otherwise, they're meaningless numbers.
Score: 0
what is it now?
Score: 0
Isn't broadband is anything that is faster that 56k modem.
Score: 0
I am retired on a fixed income. As gas and food prices rise, we are considering leaving the internet all together. It certainly is not a necessity to our well being.
I look for others on fixed incomes to start looking for ways to cut corners also.
Score: 0
I was going to say that myself but also throw in there people that are just outright destitute ... if you don't have the money, quite seriously, Internet is still not a necessity to this day. Phones? Really can't live without if you're still working. TV? You can get free OTA channels. Other than that I say eating and gas would trump the Internet card x 10.
Score: 0
I have to take a qualified exception to your issue.
First, I say qualified as the cost of broadband from many providers, cable in particular where it costs between $30-$50/month, is absolutely obscene.
But when you can get ADSL from AT&T (I know, I know) for between $14-18/month and you can add unlimited North American landline calling and long distance for ~$25 a YEAR with SkypeOut, that is not that bad.
And I wonder - how many are talking of doing this while still maintaining the absurd cost of cable TV?? If anyone still has cable TV and are complaining about internet access, there is no point to this discussion.
Regardless of income, I am AMAZED at how many spend $75-~100 a month on cable TV, plus another $75-100 on a cell phone, and then still have a land line, and internet access and who knows what else. I would suggest that the values of the consumers needs a radical overhaul rather than simply listening to so many complain about the prices.
Score: 0
Absolutely! Thank you! A voice of reason is so welcome indeed.
I'm tired of seeing all of these whiney articles about how the poor should be given free broadband (or subsidized) or free TVs or free cable. Horsehockey!
What they should be given is the skills needed to gain a better job. I'm all for paying for daycare for their children while they are in school. I'm all for assisting them with expenses for housing and food while they are in school.
But giving them free internet access? Go to the library - that's already subsidized and you can have your free internet access. Free TV - tough crap - learn to read a book - broaden your mind - not your butt.
You know when times get tough, the first thing that goes in my house is cable. The library lets me borrow all the books I can read for free. I keep the internet at it's lowest point because I can search for jobs and keep in touch with friends. But if it came between my family eating and the internet it would be my family and I wouldn't be standing at the welfare line asking that someone pay for my cable so that I could sit on my butt and lose what little I have left for a brain.
All these people with their hands out, thinking that they are entitled to all the luxuries in life need to have someone kick them in the butt and break their thumbs (think about it).
I worked long and hard to get where I am today and it could all change tomorrow, but I'll be darned if I'm going to demand that my lifestyle should be given to someone else because they're "entitled" to it. Why am I not entitled? Why are we all entitled? Because that would be completely and utterly stupid.
Unfortunately there are too many people in government (and to a larger extent our school systems) who think that we should be spoon fed everything. But just what they want to feed us, mind you.
I think as a nation we need to take a long hard look at ourselves and figure out what path we want to take come election 2008. I don't think either candidate is going to be a blessing to this nation. But I quake at the thought of what would happen if we had a democratic congress and a democratic president (Hillary or Obama).
You think we have a high deficit now, just wait until people start lining up at the government trough with their hands out and they start shoveling money out like it was growing on trees.
Their idea of fiscal responsibility is taking the money from those who work for a living (aka you and I) and giving it to those who don't. For all Obama and Hillaries talk about how they can relate to the "little guy" out there. They live in fancy mansions, have money up the wazzoo and do little if any real work.
Talk about smoke on the water.
Score: 0
And I wonder - how many are talking of doing this while still maintaining the absurd cost of cable TV?? If anyone still has cable TV and are complaining about internet access, there is no point to this discussion.
Not that I'm thinking of dropping my internet access *of all things...), but...
My cable TV service costs me $20 a month (Channels 2-22, local and basic only). That's it. I can get my BSG fix online (@ $52 a month for 10mbit).
Score: 0
I would suggest saving the $20/month for local off air channels. ;-)
It would be cheaper to buy an antenna, and even if you were in an apartment, it is generally (their is a qualified word!) easier to get several tenants to share the cost of an external distributed antenna. Otherwise a low cost amplifier interior antenna can be used - at a substantial continuing savings. ;-)
Just a thought for those for whom TV is important.
Score: 0
Already have the antenna, for the bedroom set. (The HD variety that you get the $40 rebate on, if you are motivated enough to send for it)
Now I get damn near every channel (at least int he bedroom) in multiple varieties (Cable/OTA-4:3, 720-16:9, and if the channel offers it, 1080-16:9).
*shrug*
The only HD set I have is the small on int he bedroom anyway. "Ima gonna wait" on the big expensive one in the family room until our current big expensive one dies. :)
Score: 0