Only One Quarter of the Planet To Be Online By 2012

Stony Stevenson writes "Researchers are predicting that one quarter of the world's population will be connected to the internet within the next four years. According to the report by Jupiter Research, the total number of people online will climb to 1.8 billion by 2012, encompassing roughly 25 percent of the planet. The company sees the highest growth rates in areas such as China, Russia, India and Brazil. Overall, the number of users online is predicted to grow by 44 percent in the time period between 2007 and 2012." Is it just me or does that seem incredibly small?

It may be small...

[scubamage (727538)]

It does seem small, but you have to consider that most of the world doesn't live up to 'industrialized' and 'information age' standards of living. Its actually a pretty incredible number.

Re:It may be small...

[defnoz (1128875)]

In other news, 1/3 of the world's population don't have access to clean water and/or enough food. If only they could write about it in their blag.

Re:It may be small...

[damburger (981828)]

OK, I'm going to go completely outside the box for a moment and risk getting mocked for this, but what the hell...

What if we did get people without food and clean water online?

There is enough clean water for everyone. There is enough food for everyone. It isn't getting to the people that need it for various reasons; corruption, war, market failures. The common thread in these is a lack of correct information; corruption involves people deliberately misrepresenting information, war makes it dangerous to collect information, and market failures are normally trigged by bad information.

Areas where people starve are normally pretty opaque to information and that makes it harder to help people. If we were to give people in these areas better means of communication might it help allocate resources to solving the problems of food, water etc? It would be similar to how mobile phones were used to let the world know what was happening in Burma not long ago. Better information means better action.

Re:

[scubamage (727538)]

Well you also have to worry about warlords intercepting food shipments. Or people being afraid of food shipments (especially from the US) because they would use packaging designed to look exactly like unexploded bomblets. So a starving person had just as much of a chance of blowing themselves up as getting some poptarts. There is misinformation, but there are also a lot of powerplays with fear that are well known.

Re:It may be small...

[damburger (981828)]

Civilians in areas requiring aid could, if they were connected, report the movement of warlords (and as often, government troops) that might interrupt food shipments. Having lines of communication could also provide a way of verifying the contents of packages.

Re:It may be small...

[westlake (615356)]

Civilians in areas requiring aid could...report the movement of warlords...that might interrupt food shipments.

How do you keep the lines of communications open against the opposition of either the local warlord or whoever represents legitimate - centralized - authority? It can shorten your life to be in possession of a radio. The mesh network has the potential to expose everyone who is part of the mesh.

Re:

[T-Bone-T (1048702)]

How do you propose we get Internet access to these people? We can't even get food or water to them. You listed corruption, war, and market failures as reasons for that but then you ignore them when you start talking about the Internet. Food and water don't need much infrastructure for transport, just people. Unfortunately, the Internet doesn't work like that.

Re:It may be small...

[T-Bone-T (1048702)]

You are right about the military being able to set up advanced communications in a war zone but I doubt those systems are meant to stay for very long. It is a noble goal, but there are goals that should be reached first. The Internet is a luxury, not a basic necessity. Once the basic necessities are taken care of in a place, only then can we consider helping them acquire luxuries.

Re:

[Anne_Nonymous (313852)]

>> What if we did get people without food and clean water online?

C134n H20 4 ch34p!!! G3+ h3r w3t and h341thy!!! Fa5+ 5h1ppi4g, 10w pr1c3z!!!

Re:

[Omestes (471991)]

I kind of like people... Being one and all.

I'm as misanthropic as the next basement dweller, but I have some issues with forced sterilization, and mass murder. I can understand (if not fully agree) with people who think that other species/ecosystems have as much right to exist as we do, but when we even even further decided that they have MORE rights, then I get a little confused. Aren't we just another species, and our cities/town/ghettos just another ecosystem?

The way I see it, the best way to improve

Re:

[2.7182 (819680)]

Dead on! I think this just shows how oblivious some people are to how poor the world is in general compared to US etc.

Re:

[Sponge Bath (413667)]

Chances are there are already people who are living where the food and water are, and they will shoot you (or confine you to a refugee camp) if you try to move there and compete for those resources.

Re:

[daveatneowindotnet (1309197)]

Two problems jump to mind. First refugees aren't often treat well. See Zimbabwians (sp?) in South Africa. Second people without clean water are rarely in an economic situation which enables picking up and moving.

Re:

[IWannaBeAnAC (653701)]

They try to, but most countries discourage (at the point of a gun) such mass immigration. What do you think would happen if 2 billion poor people tried to enter the USA? Firstly, how would they get there? Secondly, would the USA let them in?

Re:It may be small...

[benwiggy (1262536)]

I think you fail to understand how difficult it is to move out of the sort of extreme and dire poverty that persists in the world.
Try moving to a more abundant farming area, whose inhabitants look upon you as an outsider who is muscling in on their scarce resources.
Try moving from a rural existence, where your food comes from your labours, to the city, where you must buy your food with money. (Where unskilled labour is dirt cheap.
Try getting a passport without spending a large amount of money.
Try getting a visa to Europe or US if you come from Africa.

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes.

Re:It may be small...

[Cro Magnon (467622)]

Before you judge a man, walk a mile in his shoes.

Interesting saying. I'd guess most of those people don't even have shoes.

Re:It may be small...

[aurispector (530273)]

Seriously! Doesn't anyone read the news? Most of the world's population lives in abject poverty compared to western standards. All you need to is see that pic of the world at night from space - lights visible in the US, Europe, Japan and a few scattered major cities - everything else is dark.

Re:Not small at all

[antirelic (1030688)]

"IPv4 uses 32-bit (four-byte) addresses, which limits the address space to 4,294,967,296 (232) possible unique addresses. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4 [wikipedia.org]

Thats alot of people using a system that never really intended to accommodate such a massive volume of users.

Re:It may be small...

[cunamara (937584)]

But then again, roughly one half of the Earth's population lives on $3 per day or less. I would imagine that their priorities aren't broadband and a laptop. Not dying today from malnutrition might rqank a little higher on their priorities.

Re:

[darthflo (1095225)]

$3 per day is $91.43 per (average) month, enough for FiOS ($42.99) and a rather nicely configured ThinkPad (Business Leases starting at $31/mo). What else could one possibly want?
(Additional investments: Box (60 sheets) o' Kleenex: $2, Bottle (2oz) o' Neutrogena hand lotion: $4.) ;)

Re:

[Dolda2000 (759023)]

Yes, I agree completely. To us Slashdot readers, it might be hard to imagine a world without broadband access to the Internet, but even disregarding the fact that the vast majority of the Earth's population just doesn't have the economy to consider playing around on the Internet, to people who aren't programmers, the Internet is almost exclusively just a way to communicate with other people. And, believe or not, but there are lots of other ways to do that.

To me, 25% seems almost incredibly much. I'd have

Re:

[CastrTroy (595695)]

<Strangelove>
We must not let there be an information gap!
</Strangelove>

Re:

[cayenne8 (626475)]

"Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know what's going to be said. But, if you have enough to eat, a place to live, and decent medical care, what else do you really need?"

Hookers!

:-)

But seriously...I don't need this stuff, and I don't need you. I don't need anything except this ashtray.

And that's it and that's the only thing I need, is this. I don't need this or this. Just this ashtray. And this paddle game, the ashtray and the paddle game and that's all I need. And this remote control. The ashtray, the paddle game, a

Re:

[dotancohen (1015143)]

But seriously...I don't need this stuff, and I don't need you. I don't need anything except this ashtray.

You jerk. [wikipedia.org]

1.8 Billion with a B

[sweatyboatman (457800)]

Seriously, it's just you.

Is it just me...

[debest (471937)]

... or do you not realize how poor most of the planet is?

Re:

[schnikies79 (788746)]

I don't think you realize the true definition of poor.

No one is going to by an Eee on $3/day. No matter what the price.

Re:Eee etc...

[dreamchaser (49529)]

Most people in industrialized nations has access to TV today

There, fixed it for you.

It is small, but...

[tidewaterblues (784797)]

Without seeing the survey I can't confirm this, but I would suspect that they are only counting Internet connections to the home or office. The number is much larger when you consider the number of people in developing and 3rd world nations who access the Internet in public venues, like cafes and libraries. But getting a good count here would be very complex.

Re:

[OpenSourceNut (1136825)]

I have yet to see an internet cafe here in India. Two types of people exist.. the ones with access to the internet because they work in software and make money.. and the day laborers who don't know what a computer is.

There is no middle ground. You will not see a day laborer hitting up a cafe to check his email. Just no.

Is it just me or does that seem incredibly small?

[by Anonymous Coward]

THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID!!!

Not small at all

[elrous0 (869638)]

It's easy for us 1st world Westerners to forget what life is like most people in China, India, Africa, etc. Sure, things are getting better in those places, but that's only for the middle and upper class.

It's not bad at all considering.

[jeiler (1106393)]

About one quarter of the world doesn't have electricity. (1.6 B according to IEA [iea.org], 2 B according to Greenpeace [greenpeace.org]).

25% of the Planet?

[iTowelie (1118013)]

Isn't that all of us? I thought the Earth was covered by 75% water? iT

Re:

[junglee_iitk (651040)]

No, 75% of the Earth is covered by almost 100% water.

Thanks, I will be here all day :)

yes, it's small

[xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707)]

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], there are 1.407 billion people online in 2008. So they're predicting a 30% increase over 4 years? Considering in the 1990s we would have had a 1500% increase over 4 years (again, using Wikipedia as a source: 100% increase per year), that seems remarkably underwhelming.

IPv4

[smitty97 (995791)]

So then 4,294,967,296 addresses should be enough for everybody

Re:

[kellyb9 (954229)]

If addresses were statically assigned to one person yes. But they aren't. I use one address at work, one address at home. Most people probably do. Then consider how many addresses are being used to the billions of servers floating out there. Considering all of this, it's amazing they've been able to stretch v4 so far with NAT and other techniques.

Not a fair normalization...

[Orleron (835910)]

The number of people online divided by the world's population is a not fair comparison. Think of all the infants and toddlers that aren't online because they are too young, or all the people who are too disabled to use the Internet. Even if you theoretically included the people who didn't have electricity or money to get onto the 'net in the calculation, it still doesn't make sense to include those who are otherwise not physically able to use a computer if they had one. I would like to see the percentage of people on the 'net relative to the number of people who CAN be on the yet, as in physically able.

And quite of a lot them...

[bhunachchicken (834243)]

... will be using dial up.

Illiteracy

[onosson (1107107)]

I thank the overall literacy rate must be related to this - even abundant access to a computer won't mean much if you can't read. According to the OLPC website [laptop.org], "Most of the nearly twoâ"billion children in the developing world are inadequately educated, or receive no education at all. One in three does not complete the fifth grade." Also, let's not forget that much of the world does not have access to electricity on a regular basis. Also from the OLPC website [laptop.org]: "...XO can be recharged by human power. This is a critical advance for the half-billion children who have no access to electricity."

Not surprised.

[PalmKiller (174161)]

When you consider that some people live in huts and hunt their food, food which varies from plants to animals to other people...it really don't seem odd that not everyone is surfing to me. In all seriousness though, very little of the planet can afford such frivolous things like the internet, or even running water for that matter.

Re:

[AutopsyReport (856852)]

It is fascinating to see how far behind other areas of the world are. No electricity, no plumbing. They've never heard of the Internet before, and probably never a computer. And here we are, complaining about a lack of iPhone features and net neutrality.

You have to wonder -- by the time the rest of the world catches up to where we are today, where will we be?

It's just you...

[bushboy (112290)]

... in reality, it's incredibly large!

Having lived in what is effectively a third world country, South African, for about 15 years, one thing is painfully obvious when compared with life in a first world country. The vast majority of people have little to no access to electricity, let alone the internet!

It's very hard to understand this unless you witness it first hand - it's all to easy to think "but surely everyone needs to be on the internet?"

The reality is for most of humanity, the struggle to put food on the plate and shelter themselves is the main driving force in their daily lives.

I'm therefore suprised at how many people are online, not how few - completely the opposite reaction to the parent.

Tool or toy.

[ROMRIX (912502)]

Is it just me or does that seem incredibly small?

Firstly you need to think of how many third world countries there are and also developed nations where there is a vast agricultural society where the internet is just an irrelevant "fancy" for city dwellers to keep themselves entertained. You and I might find the internet a necessary tool for our trades and daily lives but going back 20 or 30 years, could you see yourself becoming so dependent on such a device as a people? Instant information and communication have become woven into the very fabric of who we are but there are many more people out there that simply have no use for it. It steals idle time like heroin steals life. You only need to walk away from it for a few days, or hours in some cases, to feel its draw. Many that have fell into its grasp cannot free themselves, their very livelihood depends on it. For others, the majority it seems, it is simply a useless tool or senseless toy to occupy the minds of those who have access to it. To them it's as useful as a canoe is to a desert goat herder.

Perspective

[Gothmolly (148874)]

It is just you. There are literally billions of people who have not heard of WoW, a MacBook, or your parents' basement. There IS a whole world out there, you know, in that room outside the server room, where the sky is sometimes blue and sometimes black with little white led lights, where the HVAC is on the blink half the time. You know that big room?

Legit users or just more spam ?

[billcopc (196330)]

China, Russia, India and Brazil... is it a coincidence that those are the four main countries whose traffic I drop from my servers ? 99.44% of the traffic is spam, and the remainder is irrelevant to my business. If they love my snarky comments so much, they can use a proxy or VPN (yeah, right!)

Is Jupiter Research basically saying I need to unblock those folks ? Or are they really suggesting we'll have even more botnet slaves online by 2012 ?

Only 1.8 billion?

[geekoid (135745)]

1.8 billion people online is fantastic. Sure we want more, but let's not forget that a whole lot of people!

1.8 billion people communicating outside there immediate sphere of influence. The lower the bar to knowledge, the better the global society will be.

I predict...

[hackstraw (262471)]

that in 2008 only 50% of the planet will have a telephone.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_sub-media-telephone-subscribers [nationmaster.com]

Re:

[Omestes (471991)]

You MUST live in poverty, to not be able to afford a "Y" or "O" key, or a comma key. Sucks to be you, perhaps we can get the UN to airdrop some keys to Anonymous Cowardisitan.