Now, if someone would just come up with a way to send electric energy through the air we can get rid of these eyesores.
Posted on 12/11/2007 6:38:30 AM PST by Cagey
WASHINGTON (AP) - More than one in eight households have cell phones but lack traditional landline telephones, according to a federal study released Monday that tracks the country's growing dependence on wireless phones.
The data, reported twice a year, suggested that the number of households relying solely on cell phones may be growing more slowly than it had in the past. But the researchers said the slowdown might be due to changes in their survey, including altering the order of some questions and some of the wording.
"We don't know how much reflects reality and how much reflects changes in the questionnaire," said Stephen Blumberg, senior scientist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and an author of the report.
The report released Monday showed that for the first half of 2007, 14 percent of households had cell phone service but no landline telephones. That was less than 1 percentage point over the second half of 2006 - not a statistically significant difference.
For the second part of 2006, the increase in those households had been about 2 percent over the previous six-month period.
The growth of families reachable only by cell phone has been of special interest to the telephone industry, providers of 911 emergency services, and public and private polling organizations.
Pollsters typically rely on random calls to households with landline telephones, but some have begun reaching out to cell-phone users, which is more expensive and makes it harder to ensure their samples are truly random.
The federal data showed once again that young, poor, male and Hispanic people are likelier to have only wireless telephone service.
Nearly one in five Hispanic adults - 18 percent - have cell phones but no landline phones, the survey showed. That was up from 15 percent in the last half of 2006.
In addition for the first half of 2007,
_11 percent of white adults and 14 percent of black adults had only cell phone service.
_Roughly three in 10 people age 18 to 29 had only wireless telephones - more than double the portion of those age 30 and older who rely only on cell phones.
_14 percent of males and 12 percent of females only had cell phone service.
_About one in five poor people have only cell phones, about double the percentage for those who are not poor.
_59 percent of households have landlines and cell phones, and 24 percent have only landlines.
The National Health Interview Survey, conducted by the CDC, involved in-person interviews with people in 15,996 households conducted from January through June of this year.
Some day, landlines will be a thing of the past. I’m single, though not so young, but I rarely use my landline at home. I have 4 adult children. I know their cell #’s by heart, but can’t remember their landline #’s.
It makes perfect sense for people with unstable residency to avoid standard telephone service.
So poor people would rather have cells than landline phones? What is wrong with this picture?
Now, if someone would just come up with a way to send electric energy through the air we can get rid of these eyesores.
How poor are they if they have a cell phone? I bet they all have DVD players, too.
If the population switches significantly to cell technology, that will have to change, as will the requirement to bring in a utility bill to prove residence.
If you buy pay-as-you-go phones, your number will never be tied to a location.
My wife and I have cell phones for our primary phones instead of land lines. Land lines are a waste of money. $50+ dollars for a dial tone + all the taxes just so a telemarketer can call and interupt my dinner. If I want to talk to my parents in Richmond, I just go online and start a webchat with them. We are self-employed so cell phone service is the way to go.
A FEDERAL study to find that people like CELL PHONES?...................arrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!!................
Not having a landline hardly equates to poverty. I haven’t had one in years, and haven’t missed it. I no longer receive calls from the Paralyzed Transsexual Veterans, Police Benefit Association or other pseudo-charities not subject to “Do Not Call” exclusion.
Nicola Tesla figured out how to do that about a century ago but it is horribly inefficient
Not to mention all the hassles involved in changing your number when you move. Retaining our cell phone numbers when we moved to a different state was extremely convenient.
When I went cell only in 1998 my phone bills were cut from $120/month to $45/month and haven’t changed since. There was some spotty coverage even in large cities back then, but it wasn’t too bad. Cable providers were still working the bugs out of broadband internet access though.
Cell phones make far more sense. Poor people tend to move frequently and have bad credit.
Most landline providers require a credit check or a big deposit to start service. That assumes that the person isn’t living with several others in a rooming house. (Have fun when your roommate calls home to Guatemala from your number...)
Anyone can buy a prepaid phone with cash and have a number that won’t change when they move. If they can’t pay the bill, they just lose service until they can afford a new phone card.
I’ve got another group that keeps land-lines: folks like me who live in areas where the internet service provided by the cable company sucks, but the DSL service provided by the phone company is reliable.
I got sick to death of day-long internet service outages (while the cable TV I hardly watch came through fine). Since switching to DSL, the worst I’ve had to do is reboot the mode to restore service.
An old, old geezer comments: Cell phones are much more convenient (and are more expensive) than land lines. However, for safety purposes, cell phones reign supreme. For example, be some place on a dark and stormy night stuck in the snow or ditch, or have a dead battery. You can always get help. (Be sure and carry a phone book or phone numbers with you.)
I have my wife carry one for safety purposes.
Well, I can not speak for them but my husband and I have no land line. Where we live the cheapest land line is $47 per month, just for local calls.
We have two cell phones, family plan, free long distance, 500 minutes and it is $45 per month.
That is why we have no land line.
I live in a super-rural area and only have dialup, except when I bring my laptop to town and have wireless.
My cellphone works EVERYWHERE. Great coverage, no toll charges, etc.
This is wonderful technology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.