Home Segment Report I-Cube 2008 (Version 1)

8/3/2019 Home Segment Report I-Cube 2008 (Version 1)

1/238

Home Segment ReportHome Segment ReportHome Segment ReportHome Segment ReportHome Segment ReportHome Segment ReportHome Segment ReportHome Segment Report

Home SegmentHome SegmentHome SegmentHome SegmentHome SegmentHome SegmentHome SegmentHome Segment

ReportReportReportReportReportReportReportReport

Worth its weight inWorth its weight in

solid goldsolid gold

|| IMRBIMRB

presents

IIIInternet IIIIn IIIIndia


2/238

2

Fight Piracy MisuseFight Piracy MisuseFight Piracy MisuseFight Piracy MisuseFight Piracy MisuseFight Piracy MisuseFight Piracy MisuseFight Piracy Misuse

The eTech Group|IMRB has made substantial resource investment in bringing out the I-Cube set of reports. These reports have been made available to you at value for moneyprice by spreading out the investment over a large subscriber base

Your investment can be put to waste by Piracy or misuse of this report. The contents ofthis report are meant exclusively for the internal consumption of M/s your staff. Weconsider any of the following as misuse / piracy:

Making available this report in part or whole to an associate viz., a venture capitalcompany or, any other independent entity having working relationship with you

Reproducing parts of this report as a content in portal / website either for exclusive

viewership of registered members or for general audience

Reproducing parts of the report in online or offline communication brought out in theinterest of promoting your company, without the written permission of the authors

Individuals / Employees making personal photocopies / soft copies of the report,which they could carry to another organization when they leave

We would be glad to clarify further on the above issues. Please help us in ensuring that wecontinue to deliver market insights at value for money prices. Fight piracy / misuse andhelp us serve you better


3/238

3

Table of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of ContentsTable of Contents

6-10Executive summary1.0

83-85Summary of urban Internet Users in India3.7

76-82Urban India estimate of Users3.6

64-75Universe of Active Internet Users in 30 cities surveyed3.5

52-63Universe of Claimed Internet Users in 30 cities surveyed3.4

45-51Universe of Computer literates in 30 cities surveyed3.3

40-44Universe of Individuals in 30 cities surveyed3.2

34-39Universe of Individuals, literates and English speaking Population in Urban India3.1

33-85The Urban Indian Internet User3.0

30-32All India trends for Homes2.3

19-29PC and Internet penetration among households in 30 cities surveyed2.2

Universe of Households in India

Indian Households2.0

2.1 12-18

11-32


4/238

4


146-154Barriers of Internet usage of Urban Indian Internet user8.0

135-145User Life Cycle of Urban Indian Internet user7.0

123-134Heaviness of Usage of Urban Indian Internet user6.0

111-122Main Purpose of accessing Internet of Urban Indian Internet

user

5.2

101-110Frequency of Internet Access of Urban Indian Internet user5.1

100-123Frequency and Purpose of Internet Access of Urban Indian Internet

user

5.0

Internet Access Points of Urban Indian Internet user4.0 86-99


5/238

5


227-237Annexure B:-Study Methodology and sampling procedure for Rural India

220-226Annexure A:- Study Methodology and sampling procedure for Urban India

203-208Internet Infrastructure in Rural India9.10

209-219

Universe of Rural Computer literates

Future of Internet in India10

195-202Heaviness of Usage of Rural Indian Internet user9.9

188-194Frequency and Purpose of Internet Access of Rural Indian Internet user9.8

181-187Internet Access Points of Rural Indian Internet user9.7

176-180Universe of Rural active Internet users9.6

172-175Universe of Rural claimed Internet users9.5

168-1719.4

164-167Rural Internet user9.3

159-163Rural Households9.2

Executive Summary

Internet in Rural India9

9.1 156-158

155-208


6/2386

1.0 Executive Summary1.0 Executive Summary1.0 Executive Summary1.0 Executive Summary1.0 Executive Summary1.0 Executive Summary1.0 Executive Summary1.0 Executive Summary

Approximately 20% growth has been observed in the total

number of claimed Internet users for the year 2007-08. The

claimed Internet user stands at 50 Mn across the country

Active Internet users who have accessed the Internet in last one

month has grown approximately at the rate of 25% over the last

year and is 36 Mn

The number of PC Owners has grown by more than 900% over

the last 10 years. With the growth of 36% from last year, PC

ownership has reached 7.8 Mn

With 25% growth in Internet subscriber base, the subscription

has reached 4.8 Mn in the year 2008


7/2387


There has been an overall increase in the ownership of IT

products across all SECs and town classes. Sizeable growth hasbeen observed in the number of broadband connections

There has been a significant increase of 4% in accessing Internetfrom offices. This is the result of IT automation in most of the

offices with increased Internet connectivity

Cyber caf access is more among those who use Internet on less

frequent basis. This varies from 11% among daily users to as high

as 64% among those who use Internet only 2-3 times a month

Average hours per week has increased 35% over 2007. The

duration has increased to 9.3 hours per week


8/2388


Email is the most accessed Internet service followed by the

informational search and entertainment

Among various user segments, a decrease in the share ofprofessional users and an increase in the share of adolescentusers has been observed. This could be attributed to:

Large infusion of Internet users in recent 1 yearHigh conversion of claimed users to active users

54% increase in the number of Heavy Internet Users has been

observed over the last year where as proportion of Light Usershas dropped from 30% to just 21%

Among the users who have not accessed the Internet in past one

month, have cited certain specific reasons such as:not understanding the usefulness of using the Internet

not feeling the need for using the Internet

Proximity and higher charges for Internet access in the cybercafes


9/2389


With 0.97% of penetration rate in rural areas, there are 5.5 Mnclaimed Internet users

Further, there are 3.3 million active Internet users and this leadsto 0.58% of active Internet user penetration in the rural

population

Highest percentage of penetration of PC literacy and Internetpenetration is found in southern states may be because of higher

literacy levels compared to the rest of the India

Another interesting phenomenon in Internet usage in rural Indiais that it is not limited by education. The rural populace may beusing Internet access provided by CSR activity by private

companies, kiosks installed and Community service centers bygovernment

Public places are predominant Internet access points for ruralpopulation- cyber caf being the most common avenue to accessInternet


10/23810


There is a stark difference in the heaviness of Internet usage in urbanand rural India. Most of the users in rural areas are light users, i.e.they use Internet for less than 2 hours a week

The highest proportion of light users belong to lower socio economicgroup. However, there is a small proportion of users who use Internetmore than 7.5 hours per week

Another significant phenomenon was observed in the Internet usagepatterns across age groups

For age groups below 46 years of age, as users mature with age,the time spent using Internet increasesAlthough, this does not hold true for users who are more than 45years of age

Even though females are more regular users than males, the Internetusage is proportionately lower in females than males. Heavy usage ofInternet is nearly non-existent among the females in rural India


11/238

Chapter 2:Chapter 2:Chapter 2:Chapter 2:Chapter 2:Chapter 2:Chapter 2:Chapter 2:

Indian HouseholdsIndian HouseholdsIndian HouseholdsIndian HouseholdsIndian HouseholdsIndian HouseholdsIndian HouseholdsIndian Households


12/23812

2.1 Universe of Households in2.1 Universe of Households in2.1 Universe of Households in2.1 Universe of Households in2.1 Universe of Households in2.1 Universe of Households in2.1 Universe of Households in2.1 Universe of Households in

IndiaIndiaIndiaIndiaIndiaIndiaIndiaIndia


13/23813

Households are studied based upon various parameters like: Geographical distribution,

population & Socio Economic Classification (SEC) of Chief Wage Earner

Rural constitutes maximum number of households (70%) with majority of them in villageswith population less than 2000

Approximately, one third of the total households reside in Urban India and around one-tenth in Top 8 metros. Nearly 60% of households reside in towns with population less than1 Mn

2.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.12.1.1 Indian Households UrbanIndian Households UrbanIndian Households UrbanIndian Households UrbanIndian Households UrbanIndian Households UrbanIndian Households UrbanIndian Households Urbanv/sv/sv/sv/sv/sv/sv/sv/s RuralRuralRuralRuralRuralRuralRuralRural

27%

14%

9%

50%

24%

32%

44%

Urban Rural

Less Than 2000

2000 to 5000

5000 Plus

Less than 0.5 MillionTown

0.5-1 Million Towns

Other Metros

Top 8 Metros

66 Million 153 Million

Source : NRS 2006


14/23814

2.1.2 Urban Geographical Distribution: Definition of Town Class2.1.2 Urban Geographical Distribution: Definition of Town Class2.1.2 Urban Geographical Distribution: Definition of Town Class2.1.2 Urban Geographical Distribution: Definition of Town Class2.1.2 Urban Geographical Distribution: Definition of Town Class2.1.2 Urban Geographical Distribution: Definition of Town Class2.1.2 Urban Geographical Distribution: Definition of Town Class2.1.2 Urban Geographical Distribution: Definition of Town Class

Top 8 Metros:Top 8 Metros: The top 8 towns in terms of population (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata,The top 8 towns in terms of population (Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata,Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune, Ahmedabad)Chennai, Bangalore, Hyderabad, Pune, Ahmedabad)

Other Metros:Other Metros: Other towns with more than 1 Million population (includes JaipuOther towns with more than 1 Million population (includes Jaipur,r,Lucknow, Coimbatore, etc.)Lucknow, Coimbatore, etc.)

O.5O.5 1 Million towns:1 Million towns: towns with a population between 0.5 milliontowns with a population between 0.5 million 1 Million1 MillionTowns (includes Agra, Guntur, Varanasi, Warangal, etc.)Towns (includes Agra, Guntur, Varanasi, Warangal, etc.)

Less than 0.5 Million Town:Less than 0.5 Million Town: Towns with a population of less than 1 millionTowns with a population of less than 1 million

Particulars TownsPopulation

(in Mn.)

Households

(in Mn.)

Overall 431 250 65.5

Top 8 Metros 8 64 17.5

Other Metros 23 36 9.20.5 - 1 Million Population Towns 42 23 6.0Less than 0.5 Million Population Towns 354 127 32.8


15/238

15

2.1.3 Urban Socio2.1.3 Urban Socio2.1.3 Urban Socio2.1.3 Urban Socio2.1.3 Urban Socio2.1.3 Urban Socio2.1.3 Urban Socio2.1.3 Urban Socio--------Economic ClassificationEconomic ClassificationEconomic ClassificationEconomic ClassificationEconomic ClassificationEconomic ClassificationEconomic ClassificationEconomic Classification

A1A1A2B1B1B1B112- Middle/ Senior

A2A2B1B2CCC11-Junior

Officers/Executives

A2B1B2CCDD10Supervisor Level

B1B1B2CDDD09Clerical/Salesmen

A1A2B1B2DDD08Self-Employed Professionals

A1A1A1A2A2B1B107- 10+

A1A2A2B1B2B2C06- 1-10

A1A2A2B1B2CD05- None

Businessmen/Industrialists

A2A2B1B2CDD04Shop Owners

B2B2CCDDE203Petty Traders

B2B2CCDE1E202Skilled Worker

DDDDE1E2E201Unskilled worker

7654321OCCUPATION

Grad/PostGrad

(Prof)

Grad/PostGrad(Gen)

Somecollege butnot grad

SSC/HSC

School5-9 yrs

SchoolUp to 4 yrs

IlliterateEDUCATION

Socio Economic Classification (SEC) of an urban household is determined by Educationand Occupation of Chief Wage Earner (CWE) of the household

2 1 4 U b H h ld2 1 4 U b H h ld2 1 4 U b H h ld2 1 4 U b H h ld2 1 4 U b H h ld2 1 4 U b H h ld2 1 4 U b H h ld2 1 4 U b H h ld B k b SEC d TB k b SEC d TB k b SEC d TB k b SEC d TB k b SEC d TB k b SEC d TB k b SEC d TB k b SEC d T


16/238

16

13%19% 18%

13%8%

20%

23% 23%

20%

17%

22%

22%21%

23%

22%

45%35% 38%

44%53%

All India Top 8 Metros Small Metros 10-5 Lakhtowns

Less than 5Lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

2.1.4 Urban Households2.1.4 Urban Households2.1.4 Urban Households2.1.4 Urban Households2.1.4 Urban Households2.1.4 Urban Households2.1.4 Urban Households2.1.4 Urban Households -------- Breakup by SEC and TownBreakup by SEC and TownBreakup by SEC and TownBreakup by SEC and TownBreakup by SEC and TownBreakup by SEC and TownBreakup by SEC and TownBreakup by SEC and Town

ClassClassClassClassClassClassClassClass

Nearly half of the households of urban India fall in the cities with the range of lessthan 0.5 Mn population

However, Top 8 Metros account for more than 25% of the urban Indian households

Base: 65.5 Mn HHs

1 Million = 10 Lakhs

66 Mn 18 Mn 9 Mn 33 Mn6 Mn

Source: NRS 2006


17/238

17

2.1.5 Current and Potential Market by SEC2.1.5 Current and Potential Market by SEC2.1.5 Current and Potential Market by SEC2.1.5 Current and Potential Market by SEC2.1.5 Current and Potential Market by SEC2.1.5 Current and Potential Market by SEC2.1.5 Current and Potential Market by SEC2.1.5 Current and Potential Market by SEC

SEC A, B and C are the early adopters of new technologies due to high disposableincomes, more exposure to media and awareness of international developments

As the market in urban households in the above SECs nears maturity, the potential

market are the lower economic strata (i.e. SEC D and E).

13%

20%

22%

45%

SEC A

SEC B

SEC C

SEC D & E

Current MarketPotential Market

55%45%

Base: 66 Million HHs

Source : NRS 2006


18/238

18

27%

14%

9%

50%

Top 8 Metros

Small Metros

10-5 Lakh towns

Less than 5 Lakhtowns

2.1.6 Current and Potential Market by Town Class2.1.6 Current and Potential Market by Town Class2.1.6 Current and Potential Market by Town Class2.1.6 Current and Potential Market by Town Class2.1.6 Current and Potential Market by Town Class2.1.6 Current and Potential Market by Town Class2.1.6 Current and Potential Market by Town Class2.1.6 Current and Potential Market by Town Class

Base: 66 Million HHs

The Top 8 Metros and other metros (1 Mn+ towns) are the most relevant as newtechnologies are first to reach to these cities

We have also covered 0.5 Mn-1 Mn towns to ensure complete coverage of urban

households. It has been found that the Internet is increasingly being adopted bypopulation in these smaller towns

Potential Market Current Market

50%50%

Source : NRS 2006


19/238

19

2.2 PC and Internet Penetration

among Households in 30 cities

SurveyedThe 30 cities selected for the survey ensure a

geographical, linguistic and socio cultural spread. SEC A, B

and C households were selected within these cities. For the

top 8 Metros, we have also selected SEC D and E as theyare also exposed to technological advances in the metros


20/238


21/238

21

Understanding the overallUnderstanding the overallhierarchy of durable ownership tohierarchy of durable ownership to

build a framework for PCbuild a framework for PCpenetrationpenetration

Executive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive Summary


22/238

22

Executive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive SummaryExecutive Summary

Durable ownership of the respondents are examined to measure general levelof affluency as well as to examine the importance of IT-related products suchas Desktop PCs, Laptops and Internet connections in daily activities

Purchase of IT-related products has been rising in the last few years. DesktopPCs, on average, has a penetration rate of 24% across 30 cities as well as

SECs

An encouraging sign has been observed in PC ownership. Compared to theaverage, small metros and towns with 5-10 Lakh population have higherincidence

Penetration of Broadband Internet connections in top 30 cities has been foundto be 13%. This penetration is marginally higher in the top 4 metros

Laptop/Notebook purchases is 6% on average across cities and SECs. The rateof purchases is higher in small metros compared to other town classes

A uniform pattern has been found in the IT-related products. These purchasesare higher in SEC A and SEC B compared to other SECs

Interestingly, PDAs are gaining importance in durable purchases with highest inSEC A and SEC B. These devices do not seem to be a part of SEC C and SEC Dpurchases

2 2 2 Durables Penetration in Households2 2 2 Durables Penetration in Households2 2 2 Durables Penetration in Households2 2 2 Durables Penetration in Households2 2 2 Durables Penetration in Households2 2 2 Durables Penetration in Households2 2 2 Durables Penetration in Households2 2 2 Durables Penetration in Households


23/238

23

2.2.2 Durables Penetration in Households2.2.2 Durables Penetration in Households2.2.2 Durables Penetration in Households2.2.2 Durables Penetration in Households2.2.2 Durables Penetration in Households2.2.2 Durables Penetration in Households2.2.2 Durables Penetration in Households2.2.2 Durables Penetration in Households

11%VCD Player

10%Audio system with CD player

11%2 in 1/Home Stereo System

8%Camera - Digital

47%Scooter/motorcycle/mopeds

41%Refrigerator - Frost Free

6%Laptop/Notebooks Purchased

6%Below Rs. 4 lakh cars

7%Portable CD player/MP3 Player

8%Washing machine - Automatic

13%Internet Connection - Broadband

17%Washing machine - Semi Automatic

22%Camera - Ordinary

22%Refrigerator - Non-Frost Free

24%Desktop PC

28%Flat Colour TV 21/29'

41%DVD Player

63%Colour TV - Normal 14-29'

76%Cable connection from Cable Operator

Base: SEC A, B,C, D & E HHs among 30 cities-21.9 Mn

PENETRATIONDURABLES

0.2%Personal Digital Assistant

1%Video Game Console

1%Internet Data Card for Laptop

0.7%Laptop/Notebooks Provided byOffice/School/College

0.8%Video Recorder/Handy cam/Camcorder

0.8%iPod/USB Port based player

0.7%

2%

3%

0.2%Video Recorder/Camcorder

0.2%Rs. 8 lakh+ cars

Colour TV with Internet Surfing Facility

1%Premium TV2%Camera - SLR/Automatic Focus

Rs. 4-8 lakh cars

2%Home theatre system

2%VCR/VCP

3%Microwave oven

Vacuum Cleaner

3%Cable connection through DTH/Satellite

4%Air conditioner

4%Black & White

5%Internet Connection - Dialup/PSTN

Base: SEC A, B, C, D & E HHs among 30 cities-21.9 Mn

PENETRATIONDURABLES

2 2 3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2 2 3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2 2 3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2 2 3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class


24/238

24

2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class

0.3 Mn0.8 Mn3.2 Mn5.2 Mn12.3 Mn21.9 Mn

2%4%9%5%6%6%Laptop/Notebooks Purchased

7%15%12%6%4%6%Below Rs. 4 lakh cars

7%11%8%11%4%7%Portable CD player/MP3 Player

4%16%9%7%7%8%Camera - Digital

6%13%13%4%8%8%Washing machine - Automatic

6%14%10%7%11%10%Audio system with CD player

15%16%15%14%8%11%VCD Player

10%16%9%11%11%11%2 in 1/Home Stereo System

2%10%12%11%14%13%Internet Connection - Broadband

22%18%21%8%19%17%Washing machine - Semi Automatic

16%17%18%22%24%22%Camera - Ordinary

43%28%29%17%21%22%Refrigerator - Non-Frost Free

8%27%30%24%23%24%Desktop PC

30%42%43%32%21%28%Flat Colour TV 21/29'

20%36%46%36%44%41%Refrigerator - Frost Free

40%45%48%38%40%41%DVD Player

65%76%78%66%28%47%Scooter/motorcycle/mopeds

66%50%53%56%70%63%Colour TV - Normal 14-29'

67%65%74%76%77%76%Cable connection from Cable Operator

Base: Households


25/238

25

2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class2.2.3 Durable Penetration by Town Class

0.2%1%3%0.9%0.9%1%Video Game Console

0.1%1%0.9%2%1%1%Premium TV

0.8 Mn3.2 Mn5.2 Mn12.3 Mn 0.3 Mn21.9 MnBase: Households

0.0%0.1%0.1%0.1%0.2%0.2%Personal Digital Assistant0.1%0.3%0.1%0.4%0.2%0.2%Video Recorder/Camcorder

0.1%0.4%0.3%0.2%0.2%0.2%Rs. 8 lakh+ cars

0.1%0.1%0.2%0.2%1.0%0.7%Colour TV with Internet Surfing Facility

0.4%1%0.8%0.3%0.9%0.7%Provided by Office/School/College

0.1%1%0.8%0.7%0.9%0.8%Video Recorder/Handy cam/Camcorder1%1%0.6%0.8%0.9%0.8%iPOD/USB Port based player

0.0%0.7%0.6%1.0%1%1%Internet Data Card for Laptop

1%4%3%3%2%2%Camera - SLR/Automatic Focus1%3%2%1%1%2%Rs. 4-8 lakh cars

2%2%5%1%2%2%Home theatre system

3%2%4%2%1%2%VCR/VCP

1%6%3%3%3%3%Microwave oven

1%8%4%1%2%3%Vacuum Cleaner13%8%5%3%3%3%Cable connection through DTH/Satellite

1%7%4%4%4%4%Air conditioner

3%5%4%3%4%4%Black & White

1%3%5%4%5%5%Internet Connection - Dialup/PSTN


26/238

26

2.2.4 Durable Penetration by SEC2.2.4 Durable Penetration by SEC2.2.4 Durable Penetration by SEC2.2.4 Durable Penetration by SEC2.2.4 Durable Penetration by SEC2.2.4 Durable Penetration by SEC2.2.4 Durable Penetration by SEC2.2.4 Durable Penetration by SEC

6.1 Mn5.4 Mn5.7 Mn4.6 Mn21.9 MnBase: Households

0%4%7%16%6%Laptop/Notebooks Purchased

0%2%6%20%6%Below Rs. 4 lakh cars

1%6%9%12%7%Portable CD player/MP3 Player

1%3%8%21%8%Camera - Digital

1%4%10%20%8%Washing machine - Automatic

2%7%13%20%10%Audio system with CD player

7%11%12%13%11%VCD Player

5%9%14%19%11%2 in 1/Home Stereo System

0%4%15%37%13%Internet Connection - Broadband

3%12%23%32%17%Washing machine - Semi Automatic

8%21%31%32%22%Camera - Ordinary

13%24%28%25%22%Refrigerator - Non-Frost Free

0.10%15%31%59%24%Desktop PC

13%25%34%43%28%Flat Colour TV 21/29'

18%36%52%65%41%Refrigerator - Frost Free

21%36%50%62%41%DVD Player

18%44%62%69%47%Scooter/motorcycle/mopeds

67%68%63%54%63%Colour TV - Normal 14-29'

64%78%81%82%76%Cable connection from Cable Operator

SEC D&ESEC CSEC BSEC ATotalDURABLES

This indicates that the particular SEC has a high percentage of penetration compared to the overallpercentage value



27/238

27


0.0%0.0%0.2%0.5%0.2%Personal Digital Assistant

0.7%0.6%0.8%0.6%0.7%Colour TV with Internet Surfing Facility

0.0%0.1%0.7%2%0.7%Laptop/Notebooks Provided byOffice/School/College

.1%.4%.6%2.4%.8%Video Recorder/Handy cam/Camcorder

0.1%0.8%0.9%2%0.8%iPOD/USB Port based player

0.0%0.3%1%4%1%Internet Data Card for Laptop

0.3%1%1%2%1%Video Game Console

6.1 Mn5.4 Mn5.7 Mn4.6 Mn21.9 Mn

0.0%0.0%0.2%0.8%0.2%Rs. 8 lakh+ cars

.0%.0%.2%.7%.2%Video Recorder/Camcorder

0.3%1%0.9%3%1%Premium TV

0.8%1%3%5%2%Camera - SLR/Automatic Focus

0.2%0.5%1%5%2%Rs. 4-8 lakh cars

0.4%1%3%5%2%Home theatre system

0.2%2%3%3%2%VCR/VCP

0.5%0.6%3.5%8.2%3%Microwave oven

0.0%0.7%2.7%8.1%3%Vacuum Cleaner

2%2%4%6%3%Cable connection through DTH/Satellite

0.2%1%4%13%4%Air conditioner

8%4%2%0.6%4%Black & White0.0%2%7%12%5%Internet Connection - Dialup/PSTN

Base: Households

SEC D&ESEC CSEC BSEC ATotalDURABLES

This indicates that the particular SEC has a high percentage of penetration compared to the overallpercentage value

2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class


28/238

28

52%56%

48% 49%52%

44%

33%30%

35%38% 36%

38%

15% 14% 17%13% 13%

18%

All 30 cities Top 4

Metros

Next 4

Metros

Small

Metros

10-5 lakh

towns

Less than 5

lakh towns

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class2.2.5 PC Ownership by SEC & Town Class

Base: PC OwningHHs, 30 citiessurveyed


5.9 Mn 0.03 Mn3.2 Mn 0.3 Mn1.3 Mn 1.0 Mn

SEC A and SEC B households own more than 70% of PCs across all town classes

However, share of PC ownership in SEC B and SEC C is a little higher in all themetros except the Top 4

2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class


29/238

29

2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class2.2.6 Internet Ownership by SEC & Town class

60% 58%63% 62% 64%

53%

32%32%

31% 34% 33%

30%

8%10%

6% 4% 4%

17%

All 30 cities Top 4

metros

Other 4

metros

Small

metros

5-10 Lakh

towns

Less than

5 lakhtowns

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

3.9 Mn 0.01 Mn2.5 Mn 0.1 Mn0.8 Mn 0.5 Mn

Most of the Internet owners largely belong to SEC A across targeted 30 cities.Internet ownership in SEC B is fairly high across 30 cities with 30% share

Pattern of Internet ownership in SEC C is polarised in nature with high

percentage found in Top 4 Metros and small metros. On an average, this percentagecomprises less than 10%

Base: InternetOwning HHs, 30cities surveyed



30/238

2.3 All India trends for homes2.3 All India trends for homes2.3 All India trends for homes2.3 All India trends for homes2.3 All India trends for homes2.3 All India trends for homes2.3 All India trends for homes2.3 All India trends for homes

2.3.1 PC Owner Base Trends2.3.1 PC Owner Base Trends2.3.1 PC Owner Base Trends2.3.1 PC Owner Base Trends2.3.1 PC Owner Base Trends2.3.1 PC Owner Base Trends2.3.1 PC Owner Base Trends2.3.1 PC Owner Base Trends


31/238

31

288 461732

1,073

1,550

2,550

3,861

5,723

7,805

3,359

1,886

36%

44%

47%

59%60%

48%

15%

32%

35%

22%

1997 - 98 1998 - 99 1999 - 00 2000 - 01 2001 - 02 2002 - 03 2003 - 04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

PC Owners Growth PC Owners

Decline in the growth percentage of PC ownership has been observed for year2007-08 over the last year

PC ownership includes number of Desktop and Laptop/Notebooks purchased anddo not account PCs provided by offices/colleges

Above figure does not include rural PC ownership

Figures in 000s

Base: All India PC Owning HHs

2.3.2 Internet Subscribers Base Trends2.3.2 Internet Subscribers Base Trends2.3.2 Internet Subscribers Base Trends2.3.2 Internet Subscribers Base Trends2.3.2 Internet Subscribers Base Trends2.3.2 Internet Subscribers Base Trends2.3.2 Internet Subscribers Base Trends2.3.2 Internet Subscribers Base Trends


32/238

32

461732

1,073

1,5501,886

2,550

3,861

7,805

5,723

288

4,846

25 126318 624

8371,025

1,304

2,927

3,878

58%

54%51%

76%

68%

62%

54%

43%

27%

9%

1997 -98

1998 -99

1999 -00

2000 -01

2001 -02

2002 -03

2003 -04

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

PC Owners Internet Subscribers % PC Owners with Internet subscribers

Direct relation between PC ownership and Internet subscribers has been witnessedover the years

Although number of subscribers are increasing for year 2007-08, there is a declinein the Internet subscribers growth rate over the past year

Above figure does not include rural PC and Internet ownership

Figures in 000sBase: All India Internet Owning HHs


33/238

Chapter 3:

The Urban Indian Internet User


34/238

3.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.1 Universe of Individuals, literatesUniverse of Individuals, literatesUniverse of Individuals, literatesUniverse of Individuals, literatesUniverse of Individuals, literatesUniverse of Individuals, literatesUniverse of Individuals, literatesUniverse of Individuals, literates

and English speaking population inand English speaking population inand English speaking population inand English speaking population inand English speaking population inand English speaking population inand English speaking population inand English speaking population in

Urban IndiaUrban IndiaUrban IndiaUrban IndiaUrban IndiaUrban IndiaUrban IndiaUrban India

3.1.1 Individuals in India: Urban V/s Rural3.1.1 Individuals in India: Urban V/s Rural3.1.1 Individuals in India: Urban V/s Rural3.1.1 Individuals in India: Urban V/s Rural3.1.1 Individuals in India: Urban V/s Rural3.1.1 Individuals in India: Urban V/s Rural3.1.1 Individuals in India: Urban V/s Rural3.1.1 Individuals in India: Urban V/s Rural


35/238

35

26%

14%

9%

51%

24%

32%

44%

Urban Rural

Less Than 2000

2000 to 5000

5000 Plus

Less than 0.5 MillionTown

0.5-1 Million Towns

Other Metros

Top 8 Metros

For this study, NRS 2006 data has been utilised, which shows All India populationat 818 Mn (12+ population)

Nearly 31% of this population resides in urban areas

40% of the urban market is located in cities with population of over 1 Mn

Source : NRS 2006250 Mn 568 Mn

3.1.2 Individuals3.1.2 Individuals3.1.2 Individuals3.1.2 Individuals3.1.2 Individuals3.1.2 Individuals3.1.2 Individuals3.1.2 Individuals SEC & Town ClassSEC & Town ClassSEC & Town ClassSEC & Town ClassSEC & Town ClassSEC & Town ClassSEC & Town ClassSEC & Town Class


36/238

36

13%19% 18%

12%8%

20%

23% 23%

19%

17%

22%

22% 21%

23%

22%

46%36% 38%

45%53%

All India Top 8 Metros Small Metros 10-5 lakh

towns

Less than 5

lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

The top 8 metros have a marginally higher proportion of SEC A than the smaller towns

Overall, population of SEC D&E is 46% in the cities covered for the study. In smalltowns, expectedly, the share of SEC D&E is more than 50%

Source : NRS 2006

250 Mn 127 Mn64 Mn 23 Mn36 Mn

3.1.3 Urban Literate Population by SEC & Town Class3.1.3 Urban Literate Population by SEC & Town Class3.1.3 Urban Literate Population by SEC & Town Class3.1.3 Urban Literate Population by SEC & Town Class3.1.3 Urban Literate Population by SEC & Town Class3.1.3 Urban Literate Population by SEC & Town Class3.1.3 Urban Literate Population by SEC & Town Class3.1.3 Urban Literate Population by SEC & Town Class


37/238

37

16%22% 22%

16%11%

23%

23%26%

24%23%

23%

24%21%

22%24%

37%32% 30%

38%42%

All India Top 8 Metros Small Metros 10-5 lakhtowns

Less than 5lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

Top 8 metros have the highest literacy levels of 85%

Literacy levels reduce as we go down to the smaller towns

205 Mn 55 Mn 31 Mn 19 Mn 100 MnSource : NRS 2006

3.1.4 English Speaking Urban Population: SEC & Town3.1.4 English Speaking Urban Population: SEC & Town3.1.4 English Speaking Urban Population: SEC & Town3.1.4 English Speaking Urban Population: SEC & Town3.1.4 English Speaking Urban Population: SEC & Town3.1.4 English Speaking Urban Population: SEC & Town3.1.4 English Speaking Urban Population: SEC & Town3.1.4 English Speaking Urban Population: SEC & Town



38/238

38

30%35% 35%

29%22%

32%32% 33%

32%

32%

20%18% 17%

20%

23%

18% 15% 14% 19% 23%

All India Top 8 Metros Small Metros 5-10 lakh

towns

Less than 5

lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A


42% of all literates at all India urban level speak English

86 Mn 31 Mn 15 Mn 8 Mn 32 Mn

Source : NRS 2006

3.1.5 Summary: Relevant Universe3.1.5 Summary: Relevant Universe3.1.5 Summary: Relevant Universe3.1.5 Summary: Relevant Universe3.1.5 Summary: Relevant Universe3.1.5 Summary: Relevant Universe3.1.5 Summary: Relevant Universe3.1.5 Summary: Relevant Universe


39/238

39

Total Urban Population ~ 250 Mn

Total Literate Population ~ 205Mn

Total English Knowing~ 86 Mn

(34% of the urban

population)

31% of the urban population are English-knowing and are immediate segment thatexperiment with new technologies


40/238

3.23.23.23.23.23.23.23.2 Universe of Individuals in 30Universe of Individuals in 30Universe of Individuals in 30Universe of Individuals in 30Universe of Individuals in 30Universe of Individuals in 30Universe of Individuals in 30Universe of Individuals in 30

Cities SurveyedCities SurveyedCities SurveyedCities SurveyedCities SurveyedCities SurveyedCities SurveyedCities Surveyed

10,915,6254,029,5452,620,8702,380,6601,884,550Mumbai

TotalSEC D & ESEC CSEC BSEC ATown Classification

3.2.1 Universe of Individuals in the 30 Cities


41/238

41

8,260,031-2,705,8903,133,9692,420,172Small Metros Total

1,63,999543000550,0001271,000Small Towns Total

945,980355,344375,076215,559Vishakhapatnam

504,180138,395195,587170,198Bhopal

1,349,935488,397504,120357,417Nagpur

667,328185,862262,748218,718Surat

465,665126,444168,247170,975Allahabad

79,611,00022,939,00019,295,00020,688,00016,689,000All Total

369,903147,654151,15671,094Jalgaon

314,310121,537128,98063,793Thrissur

336,714141,497132,85062,367Bellary

343,072132,312137,01573,746Panipat

6,958,969-2,381,1102,634,0311,943,828Non-Metros Total

782,813357,616240,172185,025Chandigarh

507,349144,325197,867165,156Trichy

426,500135,573163,675127,252Durg

352,34681,181115,290155,874Bhubaneswar

956,875367,974411,248177,654Guwahati

1,088,909354,442410,089324,378Indore

997,008268,219344,572384,217Jaipur

901,364323,954380,265197,145Coimbatore

1,325,167402,390561,146361,631Ludhiana

1,200,481410,534421,610368,337Lucknow

706,118220,933238,512246,672Vadodara

811,890285,882319,271206,736Kochi

1,229,093439,535458,503331,055Patna

18,523,0006,318,0004,293,0004,453,0003,459,000Next 4 Metros Total

3,645,9871,017,5041,045,069968,525614,888Pune

5,331,2902,246,8081,206,4481,175,724702,310Ahmadabad

4,863,8492,087,208889,324957,310930,007Hyderabad

4,681,874966,4811,152,1581,351,4411,211,794Bangalore

45,869,00016,621,0009,915,00010,467,0008,866,000Top 4 Metros Total

10,223,2243,426,8622,149,5682,518,1212,128,673Chennai

13,645,3824,969,0392,783,6683,146,9982,745,676Kolkata

11,084,7684,195,5542,360,8932,421,2212,107,100Delhi

30 cities werelisted andcovered for thesurvey

The citiesselected ensurea geographical,linguistic and

socio culturalspread.

SEC A, B,Chousehold wereselected withinthese cities.

Additionally D& E were alsocovered in theTop 8 metros

3.2.2 Universe of Individuals in SEC A,B C,D&E in the 30 Cities3.2.2 Universe of Individuals in SEC A,B C,D&E in the 30 Cities3.2.2 Universe of Individuals in SEC A,B C,D&E in the 30 Cities3.2.2 Universe of Individuals in SEC A,B C,D&E in the 30 Cities3.2.2 Universe of Individuals in SEC A,B C,D&E in the 30 Cities3.2.2 Universe of Individuals in SEC A,B C,D&E in the 30 Cities3.2.2 Universe of Individuals in SEC A,B C,D&E in the 30 Cities3.2.2 Universe of Individuals in SEC A,B C,D&E in the 30 Cities


42/238

42

21% 19% 19%28% 32%

20%

26%

23% 24%

38%36%

40%

24%

22% 23%

34% 32%40%

28%36% 34%

30 CitiesSurveyed Top 4 Metros Next 4Metros Small Metros 10-5 lakhtowns Less than 5lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

81 Mn 46 Mn 18 Mn 12Mn 3 Mn 1.3 Mn

Population in cities is skewed towards Top 4 metros which account for 57% of the overall

individuals

While Next 4 metros contribute 22%, Small metros 15% and Non-metros contribute 14% of

the total population

Source : NRS 2006

3.2.3 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals3.2.3 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals3.2.3 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals3.2.3 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals3.2.3 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals3.2.3 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals3.2.3 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals3.2.3 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals


43/238

43

School Kids: All those studying in school above 8 years of age. Most studentswill be in the age group of 8-17 although a proportion will be over 18 years

College Going Students: All those studying in college (graduate, post-graduate

and doctoral). Most students will be in the age group of 18-23 although aproportion will be below 18 and over 23 years

Young Men: These are men in the age group of 21-35 years who are not schoolor college students. This segment includes all those who are employed as well asunemployed

Older Men: These are men in the age group of 36 to 58 years and include all inthis age group whether employed or not

Working Women: These are women in the age group of 21 years to 45 years

and employed outside home

Housewives: These are women above 20 years of age and not working. Thissegment includes housewives as well as non-working young women who are notschool or college-going students

3.2.4 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals in3.2.4 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals in3.2.4 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals in3.2.4 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals in3.2.4 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals in3.2.4 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals in3.2.4 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals in3.2.4 Demographic Segmentation of Individuals in

30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities


44/238

44

30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities30 cities

16%

13%

15%23%

5%

28%

School GoingKids

College Going

Young Men

Older Men

WorkingWomen

Non WorkingWomen

Base: 81 Mn

30 cities in 2008

Non-working women form the largest section of the population and working women form

the lowest

Males who are capable of working form nearly 40% of the population composition of India


45/238

3.3 Universe of Computer3.3 Universe of Computer3.3 Universe of Computer3.3 Universe of Computer3.3 Universe of Computer3.3 Universe of Computer3.3 Universe of Computer3.3 Universe of Computer

literates in 30 citiesliterates in 30 citiesliterates in 30 citiesliterates in 30 citiesliterates in 30 citiesliterates in 30 citiesliterates in 30 citiesliterates in 30 cities

Computer Literates have been defined as those who know

how to use a computer. While this term does not signify

the extent of computer usage, it essentially means that a

computer literate is able to work on a computer withoutassistance

Key FindingsKey FindingsKey FindingsKey FindingsKey FindingsKey FindingsKey FindingsKey Findings


46/238

46

Of total English-knowing population, approximately 50%individuals claim to be computer-literates

Around 50% of the total computer-literate population resides in

the top 4 metros

There is a growth of 18% over last year in computer literacy to

38 Mn in 2008

There is an increase in computer-literates in top 4 metros while

a decline in other cities

3.3.1 Computer Literates by SEC & Town Class3.3.1 Computer Literates by SEC & Town Class3.3.1 Computer Literates by SEC & Town Class3.3.1 Computer Literates by SEC & Town Class3.3.1 Computer Literates by SEC & Town Class3.3.1 Computer Literates by SEC & Town Class3.3.1 Computer Literates by SEC & Town Class3.3.1 Computer Literates by SEC & Town Class 3030303030303030

citiescitiescitiescitiescitiescitiescitiescities


47/238

47

35% 36%30%

38% 37% 38%

32% 30%

31%

38% 38% 40%

23% 21%23%

25% 25% 22%11% 13% 16%

All 30 cities Top 4 Metros Next 4

Metros

Small Metros 10-5 lakh

towns

Less than 5

lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

Of total English knowing population approximately 45% individuals claim to be computer literates

Highest computer literate individuals belong to SEC A followed by SEC B, C and D among all the town classes

Around 50% of the total computer literate population resides in top 4 metros

Base:30 cities in 200838 Mn 18.6 Mn 10 Mn 6.8 Mn 1.7 Mn 0.7 Mn

3.3.2 Computer Literate3.3.2 Computer Literate3.3.2 Computer Literate3.3.2 Computer Literate3.3.2 Computer Literate3.3.2 Computer Literate3.3.2 Computer Literate3.3.2 Computer Literate SEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsBase:


48/238

48

34% 33% 31% 30%37% 35%

39%35% 39%

37%31%

32%

27%32% 30%

23% 22% 23%

10% 10% 11%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

11.7 Mn 15.4 Mn 20.5 Mn 29 Mn

There is a growth of 18% in computer-literate population in 2008 over last year. The

computer-literate individuals in 30 cities is 38 Mn

While share of SEC A and SEC B in computer literate population has remain steady. Share

of SEC C and SEC D, however, has been increasing over the years

32 Mn30 cities in 2007-0826 cities in 200622 cities in 200416 cities in 2000-2003

38 Mn

3.3.3 Computer Literates: Town Class Over the3.3.3 Computer Literates: Town Class Over the3.3.3 Computer Literates: Town Class Over the3.3.3 Computer Literates: Town Class Over the3.3.3 Computer Literates: Town Class Over the3.3.3 Computer Literates: Town Class Over the3.3.3 Computer Literates: Town Class Over the3.3.3 Computer Literates: Town Class Over the

YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears Base:


49/238

49

30 cities in 2007-0826 cities in 200622 cities in 200416 cities in 2000-2003

58% 59% 57%

47% 46% 49%

28% 26%

21%28% 27%

26%

14% 15%

14% 21%20%

18%

8%4%

5% 4%

2% 2%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Less than 5 lakh towns

5-10 Lakh towns

Small Metros

Other 4 metros

Top 4 metros

11.7 Mn 15.4 Mn 20.5 Mn 29 Mn 32 Mn 38 Mn

No major difference in pattern for computer literates across town classes was witnessed

compared to last year

Share of non-metros and small towns have remained steady while share of Top 4 metros

has slightly increased

Computer Literates are Increasing in top 4 MetrosComputer Literates are Increasing in top 4 Metros


50/238

50

There is an increase in computer

literates in top 4 metros while

decline in other cities

34%29%

17% 26%22%

8%

89%

14%

41%

95%

61%

5%

8%6%

19%

2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Top 4 metros Other 4 metros others

Year-on-Year growth rate of

computer literate population isshowing upward trend for top 4

and other 4 metros as

compared to 2006

24%26%49%2008

27%27%46%2007

25%28%47%2006

22%21%57%2004

15%26%59%2003

10%28%58%2001

OthersOther 4 MetrosTop 4

MetrosYear

Growth rate of computer literates

3.3.4 Computer Literate3.3.4 Computer Literate3.3.4 Computer Literate3.3.4 Computer Literate3.3.4 Computer Literate3.3.4 Computer Literate3.3.4 Computer Literate3.3.4 Computer Literate By Demographic Segments over the YearsBy Demographic Segments over the YearsBy Demographic Segments over the YearsBy Demographic Segments over the YearsBy Demographic Segments over the YearsBy Demographic Segments over the YearsBy Demographic Segments over the YearsBy Demographic Segments over the Years

Base:30 cities in 2007 08


51/238

51

30 cities in 2007-08

26 cities in 2006

22 cities in 2004

16 cities in 2000 - 2003

Proportion of computer literates among the demographic segment has been constant

over the years

28%24% 21% 21% 22% 20%

16%18%

19% 19%22%

22%

21%21% 22% 24%

25%21%

16% 18% 18% 16%

14%

17%

7% 6% 6% 7%6%

7%

12% 13% 14% 13% 11% 13%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Non Working Women

Working women

Older men

Young men

College going

School kids

11.7 Mn 15.4 Mn 20.5 Mn 29 Mn 32 Mn 38 Mn


52/238

3.4 Universe of Claimed Internet3.4 Universe of Claimed Internet3.4 Universe of Claimed Internet3.4 Universe of Claimed Internet3.4 Universe of Claimed Internet3.4 Universe of Claimed Internet3.4 Universe of Claimed Internet3.4 Universe of Claimed InternetUsers in 30 citiesUsers in 30 citiesUsers in 30 citiesUsers in 30 citiesUsers in 30 citiesUsers in 30 citiesUsers in 30 citiesUsers in 30 cities

A claimed user is defined as the one who claims that he/shehas ever used Internet. This gives us a clear indication as to

how many Indians have at least experienced the Internet once

in their lifetime

Key FindingsKey Findings

A i t l 15% th h b b d i th t t l


53/238

53

Approximately 15% growth has been observed in the total

number of claimed Internet users for the year 2007-08

Number of claimed Internet users has increased in the top 4

metros while it has decreased in other cities

Share of SEC A in claimed Internet users has reduced over the

years whereas share of other SECs has increased

Between males and females, claimed Internet users percentage

is nearly constant over the years

Claimed Internet users share in different age groups has

remained constant over the years

3.4.1 Claimed Internet Users by SEC & Town Class3.4.1 Claimed Internet Users by SEC & Town Class3.4.1 Claimed Internet Users by SEC & Town Class3.4.1 Claimed Internet Users by SEC & Town Class3.4.1 Claimed Internet Users by SEC & Town Class3.4.1 Claimed Internet Users by SEC & Town Class3.4.1 Claimed Internet Users by SEC & Town Class3.4.1 Claimed Internet Users by SEC & Town Class 3030303030303030

citiescitiescitiescitiescitiescitiescitiescitiesBase:


54/238

54

30 cities in 2008

43% 43% 41% 43% 40%44%

32% 30% 32%36%

37%

39%

21% 22% 20%

21% 23%17%

4% 5% 6%

All 30 Cities Top 4 Metros Next 4Metros

Small Metros 10-5 lakhtowns

Less than 5lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

25 Mn 12 Mn 6 Mn 5 Mn 1 Mn 0.4 Mn

Nearly half of the claimed Internet users are from the top 4 metros. SEC D& E users are

accessing Internet from large metros. Population in lower economic strata (SEC D&E) from

small and non-metros have yet not adopted Internet as one of their activities

3.4.2 Claimed Internet User3.4.2 Claimed Internet User3.4.2 Claimed Internet User3.4.2 Claimed Internet User3.4.2 Claimed Internet User3.4.2 Claimed Internet User3.4.2 Claimed Internet User3.4.2 Claimed Internet User Town Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over the

YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsBase:30 cities in 2007-2008


55/238

55

64%

55% 55%50% 47% 50%

26%

28%26%

25%25%

24%

10%16%

13%20%

20% 19%

6% 5%6% 5%2% 2%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

less than 5 lakh towns

5-10 lakh towns

Small Metros

Next 4 metros

Top 4 metros

5.2 Mn 6.5 Mn 9.4 Mn 17.4 Mn 21.9 Mn 25 Mn

30 cities in 2007 200826 cities in 200622 cities in 200416 cities in 2000-2003

Approximately 15% growth has been seen in the total number of claimed Internet users for

year 2007-08

Claimed Internet Users have increased in Top 4 MetrosClaimed Internet Users have increased in Top 4 MetrosClaimed Internet Users have increased in Top 4 MetrosClaimed Internet Users have increased in Top 4 MetrosClaimed Internet Users have increased in Top 4 MetrosClaimed Internet Users have increased in Top 4 MetrosClaimed Internet Users have increased in Top 4 MetrosClaimed Internet Users have increased in Top 4 Metros

OthersOther 4 MetrosTop 4M t

Year


56/238

56

7%

45%

67%

18% 21%

35% 35%

77%

26%

10%

100%

73%

142%

41%

6%

2003 2004 2006 2007 2008


The year-on-year growth rates

among the other 4 metros and

rest of the cities is declining

26%24%50%2008

28%25%47%2007

25%25%s50%

2006

21%26%55%2004

16%28%56%2003

10%26%64%2001

OthersOther 4 MetrosMetros

Year

Number of claimed Internet users

are increasing in top 4 metros

while it is decreasing other cities

3.4.3 Claimed Internet User3.4.3 Claimed Internet User3.4.3 Claimed Internet User3.4.3 Claimed Internet User3.4.3 Claimed Internet User3.4.3 Claimed Internet User3.4.3 Claimed Internet User3.4.3 Claimed Internet User SEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the YearsSEC Over the Years -------- 3030303030303030

citiescitiescitiescitiescitiescitiescitiescitiesBase:30 cities in 2007 2008


57/238

57

51%46% 49% 45% 42% 43%

31%31% 28% 30% 33% 32%

18%23% 23%

22% 22% 21%

3% 4% 4%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

5.2 Mn 6.5 Mn 9.4 Mn 17.4 Mn 21.9 Mn 25 Mn

30 cities in 2007-200826 cities in 2006

22 cities in 200416 cities in 2000-2003

Share of SEC A is reducing over the years as number of claimed Internet users in

other SECs is increasing

3.4.4 Claimed Internet User3.4.4 Claimed Internet User3.4.4 Claimed Internet User3.4.4 Claimed Internet User3.4.4 Claimed Internet User3.4.4 Claimed Internet User3.4.4 Claimed Internet User3.4.4 Claimed Internet UserAge Groups Over the YearsAge Groups Over the YearsAge Groups Over the YearsAge Groups Over the YearsAge Groups Over the YearsAge Groups Over the YearsAge Groups Over the YearsAge Groups Over the Years

Base:


58/238

58

3% 2% 2% 2% 2% 4%

12% 13% 11% 10% 12%11%

34% 34%33% 33%

36% 32%

32% 31%31% 32%

33%33%

10% 12%11% 13%

11% 13%

9% 8%12%

9% 7% 7%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

46+ years

36-45 years

24-35 years

18-23 years

13-17 years


59/238

59

70% 70% 71% 70% 69% 68%

30% 30% 29% 30% 31% 32%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Female

Male

5.2 Mn 6.5 Mn 9.45 Mn 17.4 Mn 21.9 Mn 25 Mn 26 cities in 200622 cities in 2004

16 cities in 2000-2003

Over the years, among claimed Internet users, gender differences have been found to

be constant. However, the share of Females accessing the Internet has risen marginally

3.4 .6 Claimed Internet User3.4 .6 Claimed Internet User3.4 .6 Claimed Internet User3.4 .6 Claimed Internet User3.4 .6 Claimed Internet User3.4 .6 Claimed Internet User3.4 .6 Claimed Internet User3.4 .6 Claimed Internet User Demographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the Years


60/238

60

18% 16% 16% 14% 16% 15%

22% 26% 25%23%

26% 27%

27% 25% 26%27%

28% 26%

15% 16% 17% 17%14%

16%

8% 8% 7% 9% 7% 9%

10% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Housewives

Working women

Older men

Young men

College going

School kids

5.2 Mn 6.5 Mn 9.4 Mn 17.4 Mn 21.9 Mn 25 Mn Base:

30 cities in 2007-200826 cities in 200622 cities in 200416 cities in 2000-2003

In 2008, there has been an increase in number of claimed Internet users in the

demographic segments of working women and older men. This indicates that Internet

is increasingly being accessed from workplaces

3.4.7 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.7 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.7 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.7 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.7 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.7 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.7 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.7 Proportion of Computer Literates and

Claimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet Users Town Class & SECTown Class & SECTown Class & SECTown Class & SECTown Class & SECTown Class & SECTown Class & SECTown Class & SECB


61/238

61

18,624

9,998

6,785

674

13,12012,027

8,533

4,068

24,801

12,396

5,997 4,774

10,557

7,985

5,291

968

37,748

1,666

1,262 372

55%

80%

24%

62%66%

76%

70%

60%

67%66%

Total Top 4

Metros

Other 4

Metros

Small

Metros

5-10lakh

cities

less than 5

lakh cities

SEC A SEC B SEC C SEC D & E

PC Literates Claimed Internet Users Proportion (Claimed Internet user V/s PC literates)

Base:

30 cities in 2008

The average proportion of computer to Internet usage across town class is 66%. A point of

interest is that this proportion is higher in non-metros than other town classes.

Only 24% of SEC D/E use Internet as compared to an average of approximately 69% for the

other SECs

Figures in 000s

3.4.8 Proportion of Computer Literates &3.4.8 Proportion of Computer Literates &3.4.8 Proportion of Computer Literates &3.4.8 Proportion of Computer Literates &3.4.8 Proportion of Computer Literates &3.4.8 Proportion of Computer Literates &3.4.8 Proportion of Computer Literates &3.4.8 Proportion of Computer Literates &

Claimed Internet Users: By DemographicsClaimed Internet Users: By DemographicsClaimed Internet Users: By DemographicsClaimed Internet Users: By DemographicsClaimed Internet Users: By DemographicsClaimed Internet Users: By DemographicsClaimed Internet Users: By DemographicsClaimed Internet Users: By DemographicsBase:


62/238

62

7,498

8,374 8,105

6,268

2,575

4,929

3,646

6,5746,342

2,187

3,914

2,138

49%

79% 78%

62%

83%

44%

School GoingKids

College GoingStudent

Young Men Older Men WorkingWomen

Non-workingWomen

PC literates Claimed Internet Users Proportion (Claimed Internet users V/s PC literates)

30 cities in 2008

A high proportion of computer literate to the claimed Internet user has been is found in the

working women and lowest in Non-working women

Figures in 000s

3.4.9 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.9 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.9 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.9 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.9 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.9 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.9 Proportion of Computer Literates and3.4.9 Proportion of Computer Literates andClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet UsersClaimed Internet Users Age and GenderAge and GenderAge and GenderAge and GenderAge and GenderAge and GenderAge and GenderAge and Gender

Base:


63/238

63

4,749

10,35511,294

3,671

13,684

5,261

2,419

24,065

7,984

1,8863,141

8,2927,937

2,668878

16,818

73%

60%

70%

58%

36%

56%

77%

51%

46 years Male Female

PC literates Claimed Internet users Proportion ( Claimed Internet users vs. PC literates)

Base:

30 cities in 2008

The proportion of claimed to active Internet user is the highest for the age group of 18-23

years

Figures in 000s


64/238

3.53.53.53.53.53.53.53.5 Universe of Active InternetUniverse of Active InternetUniverse of Active InternetUniverse of Active InternetUniverse of Active InternetUniverse of Active InternetUniverse of Active InternetUniverse of Active Internet

users in 30 citiesusers in 30 citiesusers in 30 citiesusers in 30 citiesusers in 30 citiesusers in 30 citiesusers in 30 citiesusers in 30 cities

A subset of Claimed Internet users, Active Internet Users are

defined as those who have accessed Internet at least once in the

last one month. They are the regular users of Internet and are

aware of the recent trends and applications emerging on theInternet


Maximum number of active Internet users belong to SEC A


65/238

65

Maximum number of active Internet users belong to SEC A

followed by SEC B, C and D among all the town classes

Over the years, share of the top 4 cities have been going up and

in other cities there has been a decline in the total number ofactive Internet users

Share of SEC A has been reducing over the years since number

of active Internet users from other SECs has increased

Active Internet users percentage is almost constant over the

years across different demographic segments and betweenmales and females

3.5.1 Active Internet User3.5.1 Active Internet User3.5.1 Active Internet User3.5.1 Active Internet User3.5.1 Active Internet User3.5.1 Active Internet User3.5.1 Active Internet User3.5.1 Active Internet User Town Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over theTown Class Over the

YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears

3 1 Mn 4 9 Mn 7 5 M 13 2 M 15 4 M 17 9 M

Base:30 cities in 2007-2008


66/238

66

62% 59%55%

51% 49% 52%

28%28%

28%

26%26%

24%

10% 13%

12%18% 19%

18%

5% 5% 6% 4%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Non metros

Small metros

Other 4 metros

Top 4 metros

3.1 Mn 4.9 Mn 7.5 Mn 13.2 Mn 15.4 Mn 17.9 Mn30 cities in 2007 200826 cities in 2006

22 cities in 200416 cities in 2000-2003

Approximately, 16% growth has been seen in the total number of active Internet users for

the year 2007-08

There has been a rise in active Internet users in Top 4 Metros. This population in othercities have decreased by a small measure

3.5.2 Active Internet Users by SEC & Town3.5.2 Active Internet Users by SEC & Town3.5.2 Active Internet Users by SEC & Town3.5.2 Active Internet Users by SEC & Town3.5.2 Active Internet Users by SEC & Town3.5.2 Active Internet Users by SEC & Town3.5.2 Active Internet Users by SEC & Town3.5.2 Active Internet Users by SEC & TownClassClassClassClassClassClassClassClass

Base:

30 cities in 200817.9 Mn 9.3 Mn 4.4 Mn 3.2 Mn 0.8 Mn 0.3 Mn


67/238

67

42% 39%45% 47% 44% 45%

31%29%

31%

35%

37%

38%

23%26%

20%

17% 20% 16%

4% 6% 4%

All 30 cities Top 4 Metros Other 4

Metros

Small Metros 5-10 lakh

towns

less than 5

lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

30 cities in 2008

Highest active Internet users belong to SEC A followed by SEC B, C and D among all the

town classes

Around 50% of the total active Internet users population resides in top 4 metros

Active Internet Users across Town ClassActive Internet Users across Town ClassActive Internet Users across Town ClassActive Internet Users across Town ClassActive Internet Users across Town ClassActive Internet Users across Town ClassActive Internet Users across Town ClassActive Internet Users across Town Class

OthersOther 4metros

Top 4metros

Years


68/238

68

Over the years, share of the top

4 cities is going up and in other

cities, there is decline in the

total number of active Internet

users

50% 43%

63%

12%

58%53%

63%

17%

105%100%

138%

32%

23%

7%

2%

0%

40%

80%

120%

160%

2003 2004 2006 2007 2008


22%24%52%2008

25%26%49%2007

23%26%51%2006

17%28%55%2004

13%28%59%2003

10%28%62%2001

metrosmetros

There is decline in the year-on-

year growth rate for the other 4

metros and other cities while

growth rate for Top 4 metros is onrise for year 2008

3.5.3 Active Internet User3.5.3 Active Internet User3.5.3 Active Internet User3.5.3 Active Internet User3.5.3 Active Internet User3.5.3 Active Internet User3.5.3 Active Internet User3.5.3 Active Internet User SEC over the yearsSEC over the yearsSEC over the yearsSEC over the yearsSEC over the yearsSEC over the yearsSEC over the yearsSEC over the years

Base:30 cities in 20083.1 Mn 4.9 Mn 7.5 Mn 13.2 Mn 15.4 Mn 17 9 Mn


69/238

69

56%46% 48% 46% 45% 42%

30%

30% 28% 30% 31%31%

14%

24% 24% 22% 22%23%

2% 2%4%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

30 cities in 2008

30 cities in 200726 cities in 200622 cities in 200416 cities in 2000

-2003

3 9 7.5 Mn 13.2 Mn 15.4 Mn 17.9 Mn

Share of SEC A is reducing over the years as number of active Internet users from

other SECs is increasing specially in SEC C, D & E

3.5.4 Active Internet User3.5.4 Active Internet User3.5.4 Active Internet User3.5.4 Active Internet User3.5.4 Active Internet User3.5.4 Active Internet User3.5.4 Active Internet User3.5.4 Active Internet UserAge Groups Over theAge Groups Over theAge Groups Over theAge Groups Over theAge Groups Over theAge Groups Over theAge Groups Over theAge Groups Over the

YearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYearsYears

3.1 Mn 4.9 Mn 7.5 Mn 13.2 Mn 15.4 Mn 17.9 Mn

Base:30 cities in 200730 iti i 2008


70/238

70

2% 1% 1% 1% 1% 2%

13% 13% 11% 10% 10% 9%

37%37% 36% 34% 38% 35%

30% 30%31% 35%

34%

38%

10% 12% 12% 14%13% 12%

8% 7% 8% 6%4% 5%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

46+ years

36-45 years

24-35 years

18-23 years

13-17 years


71/238

71

70%74% 74% 77%

70% 71%

30%26% 26% 23%

30% 29%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Female

Male

5 3 5 17.9 Mn 22 cities in 2004

16 cities in 2000-2003

Similar to claimed Internet user, the gender composition of active Internet users have

remained constant over the years

3.5.6 Active Internet User3.5.6 Active Internet User3.5.6 Active Internet User3.5.6 Active Internet User3.5.6 Active Internet User3.5.6 Active Internet User3.5.6 Active Internet User3.5.6 Active Internet User Demographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the YearsDemographic Segments Over the Years

Base:3.1 Mn 4.9 Mn 7.5 Mn 13.2 Mn 15.4 Mn 17.9 Mn


72/238

72

19% 16% 15% 12% 14% 12%

23% 27% 26%

26% 21% 27%

26% 26% 27% 32%33%

30%

13%15% 17% 15% 15% 14%

9%8% 7% 9% 11% 11%

10% 7% 8% 6% 6% 6%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Non working women

Working women

Older men

Young men

College going

School going kids

30 cities in 2007-2008

26 cities in 200622 cities in 200416 cities in 20002003

In 2008, the share of males in the age group of 24-35 years has decreased

marginally. Similar decrease has been found in school-going kids

On the other hand, share of College-going students in active Internet user population

has increased. This increase could be due to online search of general or educationalinformation

3.5.7 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.7 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.7 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.7 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.7 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.7 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.7 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.7 Proportion of Claimed and Active InternetUsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsers Town Class and SECTown Class and SECTown Class and SECTown Class and SECTown Class and SECTown Class and SECTown Class and SECTown Class and SEC

24,801 85%

Base: 30 cities in 2008

Figures in 000s


73/238

73

12,396

5,9974,774

709968372

,

5,291

7,985

10,557

1,262

315

17,941

4,0585,610

7,563

790

3,1944,367

9,275

75% 73% 72% 73%72%

63%67%

77%

70%

All 30

cities

Top 4

Metros

Other 4

Metros

Small

Metros

5-10

lakh

towns

Less

than 5

lakh

towns

SEC A SEC B SEC C SEC D &

E

Climed Internet Users Active Internet Users Proportion (Active vs. claimed internet users)

Proportion of claimed to active Internet users is 73% on an average across all SECs

The proportion of claimed to active Internet user across all town classes is 72% on an

average

3.5.8 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.8 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.8 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.8 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.8 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.8 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.8 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet3.5.8 Proportion of Claimed and Active Internet

UsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsers DemographicsDemographicsDemographicsDemographicsDemographicsDemographicsDemographicsDemographics Base:30 cities in 2008


74/238

74

6,5746,342

2,138 2,187

3,6463,914

2,056

5,423

4,799

2,181

1,030

2,452

96%

63%

47%

86%

73%

60%

School GoingKids

College GoingStudent

Young Men Older Men WorkingWomen

Non-workingWomen

Claimed Internet users Active Internet users Proportion (Active vs. claimed internet users)

The average proportion of claimed to active Internet user is 70% across all demographics

segments

Highest proportion of claimed to active Internet user is found in the working women andlowest in non-working women

Figures in 000s

3.5.9 Proportion of Claimed Users & Active3.5.9 Proportion of Claimed Users & Active3.5.9 Proportion of Claimed Users & Active3.5.9 Proportion of Claimed Users & Active3.5.9 Proportion of Claimed Users & Active3.5.9 Proportion of Claimed Users & Active3.5.9 Proportion of Claimed Users & Active3.5.9 Proportion of Claimed Users & ActiveInternet UsersInternet UsersInternet UsersInternet UsersInternet UsersInternet UsersInternet UsersInternet Users by Age & Genderby Age & Genderby Age & Genderby Age & Genderby Age & Genderby Age & Genderby Age & Genderby Age & Gender Base: 30 cities in 2008

Figures in 000s


75/238

75

878

2,668

7,9378,292

3,141

1,886

351

1,599

5,189

16,818

7,984

2,090

880

6,7386,283

12,752

76%

65%60%

79% 81%

47%

67%

40%

46 years Male Female

Claimed Internet users Active Internet users Proportion ( Active Internet users vs. Claimed Internet users)

The proportion of claimed to active Internet users is the highest in the age group of 24-35

years. This indicates that Internet is being increasingly used in workplaces

The gender differences in the proportion of claimed to active Internet users has not been

found to be significantly high


76/238

3.63.63.63.63.63.63.63.6 Urban India Estimate ofUrban India Estimate ofUrban India Estimate ofUrban India Estimate ofUrban India Estimate ofUrban India Estimate ofUrban India Estimate ofUrban India Estimate ofUsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsersUsers

3.6.1 Computer Literate Population3.6.1 Computer Literate Population3.6.1 Computer Literate Population3.6.1 Computer Literate Population3.6.1 Computer Literate Population3.6.1 Computer Literate Population3.6.1 Computer Literate Population3.6.1 Computer Literate Population 20082008200820082008200820082008

72 Mn 29 Mn 15 Mn 8Mn 20 Mn


77/238

77

31% 34% 33%26% 27%

30%30% 32%

32% 27%

24%22% 22%

27%26%

16% 14% 14% 16%20%

All India Top 8 metros Small metros 10-5 Lakhtowns Less than 5Lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

72 Mn 15 Mn 8Mn 20 Mn

Of the total 86 Mn English speaking population, 83% are computer literates (i.e. 72 Mn)

This indicates that PC literacy and usage is directly linked with English speaking

50 Mn 18 Mn 11 Mn 6 Mn 15 Mn

3.6.2 Claimed Internet Users Population3.6.2 Claimed Internet Users Population3.6.2 Claimed Internet Users Population3.6.2 Claimed Internet Users Population3.6.2 Claimed Internet Users Population3.6.2 Claimed Internet Users Population3.6.2 Claimed Internet Users Population3.6.2 Claimed Internet Users Population All IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll India --------Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008


78/238

78

37%43%

38%30% 31%

32%

31%32%

34% 31%

23%21%

21%27%

24%

9% 5% 9% 9%14%


Less than 5Lakh towns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

Of 72 Mn computer literates, 50 Mn claim to have used the Internet in the past

More than 50% of such claimed Internet users are in the metro towns, indicating that

there are opportunities in non-metros and small towns

9% 5% 8% 8%

3.6.3 Active Internet User Population3.6.3 Active Internet User Population3.6.3 Active Internet User Population3.6.3 Active Internet User Population3.6.3 Active Internet User Population3.6.3 Active Internet User Population3.6.3 Active Internet User Population3.6.3 Active Internet User Population All IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll IndiaAll India--------Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008

36 Mn 14 Mn 7 Mn 4 Mn 12 Mn


79/238

79

37%41% 42%

34% 31%

31% 30%32%

34%31%

23%24% 18%

24%

24%

9% 8% 8%

14%


Lessthan 5 Lakhtowns

SEC D & E

SEC C

SEC B

SEC A

Trends similar to claimed Internet users have been found in active Internet user. Most of

the active Internet users are from metros.

3.6.4 Computer Literate as a Proportion of Individuals3.6.4 Computer Literate as a Proportion of Individuals3.6.4 Computer Literate as a Proportion of Individuals3.6.4 Computer Literate as a Proportion of Individuals3.6.4 Computer Literate as a Proportion of Individuals3.6.4 Computer Literate as a Proportion of Individuals3.6.4 Computer Literate as a Proportion of Individuals3.6.4 Computer Literate as a Proportion of Individuals

(over the years)(over the years)(over the years)(over the years)(over the years)(over the years)(over the years)(over the years)


80/238

80

29%

13%

17%

20%

24%25%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Proportion ( PC literate vs. Individuals)

Over the years, there has been a steady increase in the proportion of computer literates

that of individual population in the country

In urban India, the computer literacy rate has reached 30%; indicating promising trend

towards widespread Internet adoption

3.6.5 Claimed Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals &3.6.5 Claimed Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals &3.6.5 Claimed Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals &3.6.5 Claimed Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals &3.6.5 Claimed Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals &3.6.5 Claimed Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals &3.6.5 Claimed Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals &3.6.5 Claimed Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals &

Computer LiteratesComputer LiteratesComputer LiteratesComputer LiteratesComputer LiteratesComputer LiteratesComputer LiteratesComputer Literates

Proportion (Claimed Internet user vs. Individuals) Proportion (Claimed Internet user vs.computer litera


81/238

81

20%

28% 28%31%

54%

68% 69%

17%

13%

6%4% 5%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

In urban areas, 1 in 5 individuals claim to have used the Internet sometime in the past.70% of computer literates are claimed Internet users

The growth in proportion of claimed Internet users among computer literates has not been

as high as seen in the past

3.6.6 Active Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals,3.6.6 Active Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals,3.6.6 Active Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals,3.6.6 Active Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals,3.6.6 Active Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals,3.6.6 Active Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals,3.6.6 Active Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals,3.6.6 Active Internet Users as a Proportion of Individuals,

Computer Literates & Claimed Internet Users (Over the Years)Computer Literates & Claimed Internet Users (Over the Years)Computer Literates & Claimed Internet Users (Over the Years)Computer Literates & Claimed Internet Users (Over the Years)Computer Literates & Claimed Internet Users (Over the Years)Computer Literates & Claimed Internet Users (Over the Years)Computer Literates & Claimed Internet Users (Over the Years)Computer Literates & Claimed Internet Users (Over the Years)


82/238

82

14%

14%18%

21%

36%

47%50%50%

63%

68%66%

69%72%

12%9%

4%3%2%

2001 2003 2004 2006 2007 2008

Proportion (Active Internet user vs. Individuals)

Proportion (Active Internet user vs.computer literates)

Proportion (Active Internet user vs. Claimed Internet user)

In 2008, in urban India, the growth of the active Internet users is found to be lower than

previous years

In all the proportions illustrated above, the growth has been found to a little lower than

previous years


83/238

3.73.73.73.73.73.73.73.7 Summary of Internet UsersSummary of Internet UsersSummary of Internet UsersSummary of Internet UsersSummary of Internet UsersSummary of Internet UsersSummary of Internet UsersSummary of Internet Usersin Indiain Indiain Indiain Indiain Indiain Indiain Indiain India

3.7.1 The Internet Usage Funnel3.7.1 The Internet Usage Funnel3.7.1 The Internet Usage Funnel3.7.1 The Internet Usage Funnel3.7.1 The Internet Usage Funnel3.7.1 The Internet Usage Funnel3.7.1 The Internet Usage Funnel3.7.1 The Internet Usage Funnel Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008Year 2008


84/238

84

Total Urban Population ~ 250 Mn

Total Literate Population ~ 205 Mn

Total English Knowing~ 86 Mn

Total Computer Literate ~ 72 Mn

Total Claimed Users ~ 50Mn

Total Active Users ~ 36Mn

3.7.2 Spread of Users by Town Class in Urban3.7.2 Spread of Users by Town Class in Urban3.7.2 Spread of Users by Town Class in Urban3.7.2 Spread of Users by Town Class in Urban3.7.2 Spread of Users by Town Class in Urban3.7.2 Spread of Users by Town Class in Urban3.7.2 Spread of Users by Town Class in Urban3.7.2 Spread of Users by Town Class in UrbanIndiaIndiaIndiaIndiaIndiaIndiaIndiaIndia

250 Mn Urban Individuals 72 Mn PC Literates


85/238

85

26%

14%

9%

51%

39%

21%

12%

28%

37%

21%

12%

30%

37%

20%

10%

33%

50 Mn Claimed Internet Users36 Mn Active Internet Users

Top 8 Metros

Small Metros (1 Mn + Towns)

10-5 Lakh towns

Less than 5 lakh towns


86/238

Chapter 4:Chapter 4:Chapter 4:Chapter 4:Chapter 4:Chapter 4:Chapter 4:Chapter 4:

Internet Access PointsInternet Access PointsInternet Access PointsInternet Access PointsInternet Access PointsInternet Access PointsInternet Access PointsInternet Access Points


Significant changes have not been observed in Internet accesspoints as compared to last year


87/238

87

Access from cyber cafes and schools/colleges have remainedconstant at around 58% and 17%, respectively

However, a minor decrease of 1% has been observed in

access from cyber cafesAccess from college as a main access point have increasedamong college-going students by 8%, decreasing theiraccess from homes and cyber caf

Home Segment Report I-Cube 2008 (Version 1)

Documents

Transcript of Home Segment Report I-Cube 2008 (Version 1)