85% of Thais access the Net every day: Google

The Sunday Nation

Thai people’s digital consumption is growing faster than expected, with around 85 per cent of Thais accessing the Internet daily and 70 per cent using smartphones, according to the Google Consumer Barometer.

 

Google conducted a comprehensive survey looking at how Thais use the Internet and found the ease and practicality of "living online" becoming more of a reality in Thailand. Results of the survey were released on Friday.

It was found that Thais access the Internet more often as 85 per cent access the web daily and this rose to 92 per cent for people under 25.

Thais are getting more digitally-savvy as 69 per cent prefer to do tasks digitally and up to 80 per cent for people under 25.

Accessing the Internet via mobile devices was preferred as 70 per cent do this via smartphones.
 

 

Thais are multi-tasking as 58 per cent use connected devices while watching TV, but interestingly 88 per cent of content they access is not related to TV content they watch.

For online video usage, it found 45 per cent of Thais watching online videos on a daily basis. Thais are also more used to watching longer video, with 77 per cent watching videos longer than 5 minutes.

The Consumer Barometer is a public tool that delivers global insights on consumers' online behaviour. Working with TNS, Google conducted interviews across 56 countries to provide advertisers, agencies, journalists and academics with the most up-to-date digital insights.

 

Source: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/85-of-Thais-access-the-Net-every-day-Google-30294462.html

 

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2016-09-04

 

      If you Google the World internet access stats. Thailand doesn't rate a highly as quoted. Thailand is 24th in the number of persons with the net but only 27% of the population have access. Seems like the Govt is fudging figures again. Norway has 90%, only 5% more than Thailand?. Don't you believe it. Here are the figures....

                              http://www.internetlivestats.com/internet-users-by-country/

Hmm.... I suggest that it's highly unlikely that 85% of rural Thai will be accessing the Internet. Perhaps this relates to Bangkok? Or 85% of the 10% that own most of the assets of Thailand?

Soungs like more googley gobbledegook

Even if this figures are correct which I very much doubt that they are, why is this news?

I find it very hard to believe any of those figures.

 

Most especially that 85% access through either notebook or PC against 70% accessing through smartphone.

 

Edit: Unless of course they are talking about access during work-time....................................

Edited September 4, 20169 yr by chrisinth

50 minutes ago, gandalf12 said:

Even if this figures are correct which I very much doubt that they are, why is this news?

 

23 minutes ago, chrisinth said:

I find it very hard to believe any of those figures.

 

Most especially that 85% access through either notebook or PC against 70% accessing through smartphone.

 

Edit: Unless of course they are talking about access during work-time....................................

 

50% of those access the internet while riding a mocy or driving a car.

2 hours ago, bbbbooboo said:

Hmm.... I suggest that it's highly unlikely that 85% of rural Thai will be accessing the Internet. Perhaps this relates to Bangkok? Or 85% of the 10% that own most of the assets of Thailand?

 

  It might be 5 % in rural villages. 

Since it was the result of an internet survey of 639 people, it's not surprising that 85% of respondents access the interweb daily.  12% of respondents access it weekly.

 

People who don't have internet have no way to respond.  

 

https://www.consumerbarometer.com/en/graph-builder/?question=M6&filter=country:thailand

And of course not to forget, it's quality that counts not quantity  

If the Google barometer said 85% of Thais need to access the internet and their smart phones in order to play Candy Crush and check out Facebook I would believe that...

Sure sure 85%... Like this they mean:

 

No wonder it's so bloody slow.

regards Worgeordie

1 hour ago, lostinisaan said:

 

  It might be 5 % in rural villages. 

I live in a Rural Village in the middle of nowhere and i would say almost every house someone has access to Wi fi and the many many of the people have smart phones especially the secondary school age kids and parents....well over 5% in my area...

13 minutes ago, nongsangcity said:

I live in a Rural Village in the middle of nowhere and i would say almost every house someone has access to Wi fi and the many many of the people have smart phones especially the secondary school age kids and parents....well over 5% in my area...

 

 

     Yep, you're right. Let's say 10 to 20 %, but in no way close to 85 as in this research. 

 

        Just taking my wife's village as an example, you can see many kids on smart phones, but maybe only five houses are actually connected to the internet. 

   

 

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Since it was the result of an internet survey of 639 people, it's not surprising that 85% of respondents access the interweb daily.  12% of respondents access it weekly.

 

People who don't have internet have no way to respond.  

 

https://www.consumerbarometer.com/en/graph-builder/?question=M6&filter=country:thailand

 

 

 That's damn true. Similar to people who've got no phones. They can hardly be molested and reached by any salesmen.....or in this case some government clowns doing a research. 

Complete and utter BS. I live in Bung Kan province where the majority of people are poor farmers with either no phone, or an old phone incapable of internet access. The mobilecarriers all provide terrible service and you cannot even get a signal strong enough for a voice call in much of the province.

It's mostly a generational class thing. Young Thais, rich and poor, have their mates and friends who school them. Educated older people use it as a matter of course. Poor older people are isolated.

2 hours ago, lostinisaan said:

 

 

     Yep, you're right. Let's say 10 to 20 %, but in no way close to 85 as in this research. 

 

        Just taking my wife's village as an example, you can see many kids on smart phones, but maybe only five houses are actually connected to the internet. 

   

 

my step son was the most popular boy in the village....25-30 friends a night in the front garden.....oh yes the Wi Fi is on.....i took down the front gate and replaced it with a turnstyle and started charging 10 baht for 10 mins.....funny he has no friends now....

56 minutes ago, spacelord said:

Complete and utter BS. I live in Bung Kan province where the majority of people are poor farmers with either no phone, or an old phone incapable of internet access. The mobilecarriers all provide terrible service and you cannot even get a signal strong enough for a voice call in much of the province.

 

 Dude, it's just a matter of who's living in that village. If it's a village with some foreign houses, be sure that there's internet.

 

    But you're right, I don't think that 5 houses in my wife's village are connected to the internet. A connection with an antenna is quite expensive and would be about three rice harvests expensive.

 

     I think a lot of them just play some stupid games they've downloaded when at a hotspot. 

 

     DTAC users don't even get a signal there. My AIS sometimes has a problem to find a connection, pretty dangerous for your brain, also taking a call on a very low battery can cause a tumor.

 

   but they don't teach that at school, because they don't know that.

 

Who would have taught them that?  Mai Phenn Rai. Bpop Phenn Janngg  

Edited September 4, 20169 yr by lostinisaan

Shouldnt it say "85% of thais with internet access are on it ALL day"?

5 hours ago, spacelord said:

Complete and utter BS. I live in Bung Kan province where the majority of people are poor farmers with either no phone, or an old phone incapable of internet access. The mobilecarriers all provide terrible service and you cannot even get a signal strong enough for a voice call in much of the province.

 

One of my wife's relatives doesn't even use an ATM.  She sends her husband to deposit and withdraw because she finds it too confusing.  Of course, all their kids are Facebook, Line, and CandyCrush addicts but she is certainly not in that 85% figure.  And plenty of other folks of her generation on the soi who can't be bothered with technology either.  

 

There's no way this survey was representative of the entire population.  It had to have been of respondents who already are online.  I can more easily believe that 85% of frequent internet users access the internet daily.  That makes much more sense.    

if I log in on my desktop , later my smart phone and then a laptop am I one person or 3 ?????

 

I have so many gmail accounts that I only used one or 2 months , if they counted each as a "person" the number would go down a long way , 

 

the LA Dodgers have 2 million fans a year at its games , but thats really 2 million people , if you went to 20 games are you 20 people ?

10 hours ago, lostinisaan said:

 

 Dude, it's just a matter of who's living in that village. If it's a village with some foreign houses, be sure that there's internet.

 

    But you're right, I don't think that 5 houses in my wife's village are connected to the internet. A connection with an antenna is quite expensive and would be about three rice harvests expensive.

 

     I think a lot of them just play some stupid games they've downloaded when at a hotspot. 

 

     DTAC users don't even get a signal there. My AIS sometimes has a problem to find a connection, pretty dangerous for your brain, also taking a call on a very low battery can cause a tumor.

 

   but they don't teach that at school, because they don't know that.

 

Who would have taught them that?  Mai Phenn Rai. Bpop Phenn Janngg  

 

Not according to this: 

 

According to Wikipedia The transmission power of a GSM handset is limited to a maximum of 2 watts in GSM 850/900 and 1 watt in GSM 1800/1900.

According to a Radio-Electronics.com article "GSM Power Control and Power Class" the base station controls handset power output in the range 2-19 which is 39 dBm to 5 dBm.

According to Wikipedia, 39 dBm is around 8 W and 5 dBm is 3.2 mW.

8 W is certainly more than a thousand times stronger than 3.2 mW.

There is some inconsistency in this information, but if we take 3.2 mW to 2000 mW to be the actual range, a 625 X range is still not too far from the claim.

when phone's battery is low

There is no direct causative link between handset battery charge level and handset transmit power level.

Regardless of battery charge, when you are standing next to a transmission tower your handset is only outputting the minimum power needed to communicate. Not the maximum.

As the above linked article should make clear, the power level of the handset is determined by the base station and is adjusted so that the base station can receive the handset signal clearly.

A low base-station signal level indicated at the handset will usually correlate with a need for the handset to transmit at higher power in order to reach through the distance or obstacle that is causing the weakness of the received base-station signal.

A low battery level may indicate only that you have been playing Angry Birds for too long, or forgot to charge your handset last night and may have absolutely no correlation to current effective distance between handset and base-station.

Conclusion

Whilst a 1000 fold variation in power is of the right order of magnitude, your handset's battery level indicator is not a useful indicator of the amount of "radiation" currently emitted by the handset (in talk mode).

 

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13807/does-a-cell-phone-emit-1000-times-more-radiation-when-its-battery-is-low

44 minutes ago, muzmurray said:

 

Not according to this: 

 

According to Wikipedia The transmission power of a GSM handset is limited to a maximum of 2 watts in GSM 850/900 and 1 watt in GSM 1800/1900.

According to a Radio-Electronics.com article "GSM Power Control and Power Class" the base station controls handset power output in the range 2-19 which is 39 dBm to 5 dBm.

According to Wikipedia, 39 dBm is around 8 W and 5 dBm is 3.2 mW.

8 W is certainly more than a thousand times stronger than 3.2 mW.

There is some inconsistency in this information, but if we take 3.2 mW to 2000 mW to be the actual range, a 625 X range is still not too far from the claim.

when phone's battery is low

There is no direct causative link between handset battery charge level and handset transmit power level.

Regardless of battery charge, when you are standing next to a transmission tower your handset is only outputting the minimum power needed to communicate. Not the maximum.

As the above linked article should make clear, the power level of the handset is determined by the base station and is adjusted so that the base station can receive the handset signal clearly.

A low base-station signal level indicated at the handset will usually correlate with a need for the handset to transmit at higher power in order to reach through the distance or obstacle that is causing the weakness of the received base-station signal.

A low battery level may indicate only that you have been playing Angry Birds for too long, or forgot to charge your handset last night and may have absolutely no correlation to current effective distance between handset and base-station.

Conclusion

Whilst a 1000 fold variation in power is of the right order of magnitude, your handset's battery level indicator is not a useful indicator of the amount of "radiation" currently emitted by the handset (in talk mode).

 

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/13807/does-a-cell-phone-emit-1000-times-more-radiation-when-its-battery-is-low

 

 I didn't Google before I wrote my post, sorry.

 

    But you'll find a lot of different answers to the question if a mobile phone's more dangerous with an empty battery.

 

     he point is that it's trying to stay connected which makes the radiation higher.

 

     Cell phones emit more radiation while low on strength of its network's signal.
When the typical network strength received by a cell phone reaches lesser than about 12-14 a.s.u (Analog Signal Units), the cellphone automatically tries to send/receive more powerful signals so as to "reach" the nearest cell tower more efficiently and sustain a call, or its idle "connected" condition.

Battery has got nothing to do with this phenomenon. When low on battery, in fact, if the signal goes low, the battery drains out even faster due to increased radiation.

 

    That's a guy who believes that it's true, while you find many others who say it's not true.

 

    Of course would guys who sell phones write that it's harmless. But what about all the other crap that you should take a phone call with your left ear?

   Anyway, if the radiation is higher, or not. I don't want to  find it out by calling on low battery.

 

    https://www.quora.com/Do-cell-phones-emit-more-radiation-while-low-on-battery-Why-or-why-not

 

    There's so much bs on Wikipedia, a lot of that isn't even true. What do specialists say? 

 

   

Edited September 5, 20169 yr by lostinisaan