One in four drop landlines in some states
At least one in seven US households has no landline telephone service according to a newly-published study. In some states, one in four homes is now cellphone-only.
The state-by-state figures, which cover 2007, show 14.7 percent of homes did not have a fixed-line telephone service. A separate report covering the national picture in the first half of 2008 put that figure at 17.5 percent which, although subject to a margin of error, suggests the proportion of homes that have switched entirely to cellphones may be rising.
The new figures comes from a wider study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) which looked at a range of health and lifestyle issues. The CDC says the findings are significant for the health industry as it means research carried out solely through calls to landlines may be unrepresentative of the population as a whole.
In last year’s presidential election there were some theories that opinion polls might underestimate support for Barack Obama as he was more popular with younger voters who had opted to go without a landline, for example while studying away from home.
In the CDC study, the disparity involves location. While Northeastern states such as Vermont, Delaware and Connecticut have barely 5 percent of homes without a landline, the figure tops 25 percent in Oklahoma and Utah.
While there are exceptions, the general trend is that states with more rural areas have the highest proportion of homes without landlines. On the surface that doesn’t seem to make much sense given that cellphone reception is usually best in the most densely populate regions.
However, it’s possible that the lower availability of broadband services in rural areas means that people living there have less incentive to keep subscribing to a landline telephone service.
Related Posts:
March 13th, 2009
Landlines are pretty redundant. Why let yourself get tied down with the expense and hassle of something that provides minimal benefit.
March 13th, 2009
We cut our landline five years ago. At $35 a month that is quite a savings.