Talk:Internet access

Image

In that image, internet access in the US is less than 25%. That data must be extraordinarily old, or otherwise wrong (the high end of the chart is about 20% of a nation's population being "internet users"). The Jade Knight (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's recent (June 2007), it's in tens of thousand, so you have to multiply the figures by 10⁴, which for the USA gives a percentage of more than 60% (205,320,000/300,000,000). 16@r (talk) 04:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Countries where Internet access is available to the majority of the population"

The list of countries is vague as to how the list has been compiled. The section title is too long, and content is subjective. We need to decide on how to define "majority" and whether the list is based on total users or internet penetration or both.

128.146.27.45 (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless map

The map gives the internet connection density times the number of inhabitants of a country. Now who on earth could be interrested in that? It's the internet connection density we want to know. On top of that, the scale is rather weird. Why not round numbers? DirkvdM (talk) 07:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logic of second paragraph

The second paragraph begins to discuss a topic (speed) that is not relevant to the issue of access. It may be a good paragraph, but it belongs in another article, or under a separate subheading here. Furthermore, its first sentence seems to promise to define speed then wanders off without fulfilling the promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertdfgcvb (talk • contribs) 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, the phrase "new media" is constantly repeated implying that it has a special meaning. What is it? Does new media mean internet? This should be clearly defined at first mention.

simplistic analogy needed?

I came to this article because of an issue I don't understand. How can electrical/phone wires carry signals up and down at the same time? And, by logical extension, to what extent are such internet connections "elastic" in terms of carrying capacity?

This comes from my thoughts of a non-elastic old technology (water flowing through a water pipe). It is clear that internet connectivity breaks that analogy in terms of two-directional flow, but to what extent does the analogy apply? Only to old-tech dialup service?

My lack of understanding may be explained by the fact that I'm old, but I think children will also ponder this analogy. Wikipedia is for everybody, right? A little help? Ertdfgcvb (talk) 02:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ertdfgcvb (talk • contribs) 02:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]