Age, income, education and place of residence contribute to surfing habits ...Read the full article
This conversation is closed
- Skip to the latest comment
-
Jay Sherman from Ottawa, Canada writes: So rich, urban folks have more access to the internet? Fascinating!!! In other news, the sun came up this morning, and it's expected to tomorrow as well! What great studies we're seeing! Let me call Professor Obvious and congratulate him!
- Posted 12/06/08 at 11:31 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
A Canadian Girl from Toronto, Canada writes: That's great to hear. My online magazine basically targets this group.
- Posted 12/06/08 at 11:35 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Tracey Lauriault from Ottawa, Canada writes: It would be absolutely wonderful if the full name of the report along with a url were provided whenever a journalist refers to one or more so when an entire article is based on it!
- Posted 12/06/08 at 12:05 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Vlad Mayzel from Vancouver, Canada writes: I think some of the cause and effect are reversed here.
I think those who make $95k /yr are making it thanks to their ability to stay current and relevant, and the Internet is a tool for that. Those who make $24k and less are making that little exactly because they do not surf the internet and disconnected from the trends and the big picture. Also Internet is the greatest educational tool. So those who do not use it stay behind and make less.
Just my 2 cents...
Vlad.- Posted 12/06/08 at 12:25 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Hugh Draper from Canada writes:
What about the successful people who have the luxury of being able to ignore the internet sewer, and concentrate on productive activity instead?- Posted 12/06/08 at 12:54 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Cowtown boy from Calgary, Canada writes: Since I'm reading this article I guess you can lump me into one of the above classes.
- Posted 12/06/08 at 1:52 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Lee Metz from Edmonton, Canada writes: This could just be me, but in Alberta where the average rent for a 2 bedroom appartment is $1000/mth, is it at all shocking that those people making $24,000/yr and less don't have much internet useage?? After taxes, food, clothes, gas, insurance, etc...where would the money come from to purchase a computer and then pay a monthly fee to access the internet. Let's take an educated guess and say the person who did the research on this makes, hmm let me see, $95k/yr or more. Apparently research grants are not handed out based on common sense. Maybe if my chosen profession doesn't work out I could try my hand at research. My first project could be "9 out of 10 urban cats use litter boxes while only 4 out of 10 farm cats use the litter box" Stay tuned!
- Posted 12/06/08 at 8:08 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Lou Bix from Canada writes: People of the north get screwed on bandwidth.
If you can get bandwidth, you end up paying more and getting less bandwidth. I pay 50 a month and only gey 1.5 MG down and 500K up. Everyone I know in Toronto on a wireless net connection gets anywhere from 3 -6 MG down for 5 bucks a month less.
If you have to go with a Sat connection you get 500 down and 100 up for 55 a month. The sad thing is you don't even get those lame speeds with Xplornet. On the 500K package down you might be lucky to get 300 Down, unless you want to go on the net a 3AM.
The sheeple are getting screwed and the Harper gov seems to think everything is all good. We need the Gov to set some rules so we don't get ripped off.- Posted 13/06/08 at 4:39 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
vincent furnier from Montreal, Canada writes: I agree somewhat with Vlad's comment above, certainly in more urban-based/ white collar professions, although it obviously depends on one's career. I doubt that a career in forestry or agriculture would be made or broken by Internet use or the lack thereof.
Still, for many of us having the Internet today is as crucial as having the phone was twenty years ago. It's like that Marshall McLuhan principle - "the medium is the message" - where a new technology profoundly changes the way society operates. One can choose not to participate, but one risks being left behind as more and more job listings, educational content, communications, are based online.
BTW: Nowadays the Internet is available to anyone who wants it. I spent a summer in a tiny farming town on the prairies where IT use tends to be low; even there the local cubby-hole-sized library had a computer with an Internet hookup anyone could use.- Posted 13/06/08 at 7:51 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Spivack GlobeFeedback from Canada writes: The article states that, "In terms of income, 91 per cent of households that generate more than $95,000 a year surfed the Net, almost double the 47 per cent of users in households that generate less than $24,000."
The choice between eating and surfing the internet seems simple to me.
The question to ask is, "How many families make more than $95K per year and how many make less that $24K?" Then make the right mathematical comparision and come to a better conclusion.
The internet should be availbe to more than those with homes in the Muskokas.- Posted 13/06/08 at 8:33 AM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
-
Deas, She Wrote from New York, United States writes: I'd like to report a grammatical error in the article title. It should be: "Internet report shows rich digital diversity in Canada."
PS - I don't know about up in Canada, but in the States there is a lot of effort and taxes spent to help the poor access the net, including free use of machines, free training, subsidized purchase prices, etc.- Posted 13/06/08 at 4:20 PM EST | Alert an Editor | Link to Comment
Comments are closed
Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.
Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff
Alert us about this comment
Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.
Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.


