Transparent Estimation of Internet Penetration from Network Observations

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8995)


The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) provide Internet penetration statistics, which are collected from official national sources worldwide, and they are widely used to inform policy-makers and researchers about the expansion of digital technologies. Nevertheless, these statistics are derived with methodologies, which are often opaque and inconsistent across countries. Even more, regimes may have incentives to misreport such statistics. In this work, we make a first attempt to evaluate the consistency of the ITU/OECD Internet penetration statistics with an alternative indicator of Internet penetration, which can be measured with a consistent methodology across countries and relies on public data. We compare, in particular, the ITU and OECD statistics with measurements of the used IPv4 address space across countries and find very high correlations ranging between 0.898 and 0.978 for all years between 2006 and 2010. We also observe that the level of consistency drops for less developed or less democratic countries. Besides, we show that measurements of the used IPv4 address space can serve as a more timely Internet penetration indicator with sub-national granularity, using two large developing countries as case studies.


Gross Domestic Product Address Space Internet Service Provider Border Gateway Protocol IPv4 Address 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Internet growth versus economic and political indicators, October 2014.
  2. 2.
    Best, M.L., Wade, K.W.: The internet and democracy: Global catalyst or democratic dud? Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 29(4), 255–271 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dainotti, A., Benson, K., King, A., Claffy, K., Kallitsis, M., Glatz, E., Dimitropoulos, X.: Estimating Internet address space usage through passive measurements. ACM SIGCOMM Comput. Commun. Rev. (CCR) 44(1), 42–49 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Datanet India Pvt. Ltd.: (2014).
  5. 5.
    Gleditsch, K.S.: Expanded trade and GDP data. J. Confl. Resolut. 46, 712–724 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groshek, J.: The democratic effects of the Internet, 1994–2003. Int. Commun. Gaz. 71(3), 115–136 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huffaker, B., Fomenkov, M., Claffy, K.: Geocompare: A comparison of public and commercial geolocation databases. CAIDA Technical report, May 2011.
  8. 8.
    ICAT: Turkish electronic communications sector quarterly market reports (2013).
  9. 9.
    ITU: Telecommunications development sector.
  10. 10.
    ITU: Handbook for the collection of administrative data on telecommunications/ ICT, 2011 (2011).
  11. 11.
    ITU: Manual for measuring ICT access and use by households and individuals (2011).
  12. 12.
    ITU: World telecommunication/ICT indicators database (2013).
  13. 13.
    Jerven, M.: Poor numbers: How We Are misled by African Development Statistics and What to Do About It. Cornell University Press, Ithaca (2013)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kende, M.: Global Internet report. Internet Society (2014)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lehr, M., Lear, E., Vest, T.: Running on empty: The challenge of managing Internet addresses. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Telecommunications Policy Research Conference (TPRC), Arlington, VA, USA, September 2008Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Marshall, M.G., Jaggers, K.: Polity IV project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2012 (2013).
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Maxmind: GeoIP2 Databases.
  19. 19.
    Milner, H.V.: The digital divide: The role of political institutions in technology diffusion. Comp. Polit. Stud. 39(2), 176–199 (2006)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Oyelaran-Oyeyinka, B., Lal, K.: Internet diffusion in Sub-Saharan Africa: A cross-country analysis. Telecommun. Policy 29(7), 507–527 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rød, E.G., Weidmann, N.B.: Empowering activists or autocrats? The Internet in authoritarian regimes. J. Peace Res. 52(3), (2015, forthcoming)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Roeller, L.H., Waverman, L.: Telecommunications infrastructure and economic development: A simultaneous approach. Am. Econ. Rev. 91(4), 909–923 (2001). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sridhar, K.S., Sridhar, V.: Telecommunications and growth: Causal model, quantitative and qualitative evidence. Econ. Polit. Wkly. 41(25), 2611–2619 (2006). Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    SWITCH: Swiss National Research and Education Network (NREN).
  26. 26.
    United Nations: Millenium development goals (2014).
  27. 27.
    United Nations Department of Economic & Social Affairs: United Nations e-government survey (2014).
  28. 28.
    University of California, Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology and the International Rice Research Institute: Global Administrative Areas Dataset (2012).
  29. 29.
    University of Oregon: Route Views Project.
  30. 30.
    WEF: Global information technology report (2014).
  31. 31.
    Weidmann, N.B., Kuse, D., Gleditsch, K.S.: The geography of the international system: the cshapes dataset. Int. Interact. 36(1), 86–106 (2010). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    World Intellectual Property Organization: Global Innovation Index (2014).

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and Public AdministrationUniversity of KonstanzKonstanzGermany
  2. 2.University of Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain
  3. 3.Foundation of Research and Technology Hellas (FORTH)HeraklionGreece
  4. 4.Computer Engineering and Networks Laboratory (TIK)ETH ZurichZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations