A new publication from the CDC, sent along by sociology professor Sangyoub Park, reports that only 13% of households in the U.S. are still cell phone-free; meanwhile, 27% of households have now abandoned their landline telephone altogether. The data, however, varies pretty tremendously by state. Rhode Island and New Jersey have the lowest proportion of wireless-only households at 13%, while Arkansas leads with 35%:
For more detail, here are the states in order:
Dr. Park wondered if part of what was driving the state-by-state difference was levels of poverty. Perhaps poorer families can’t afford both a landline and a cell phone and so they drop the former. A rough comparison of the data with rates of poverty in various states is suggestive (source):
So that’s interesting. But why does the CDC care? One way to collect survey data is to get a random selection of Americans (or some subset) through random digit dialings. These, however, tend to exclude cell phones. So the technological change is creating a methodological challenge. Now scholars using random digit dialing have to consider how the exclusion of 27% of households with cell phones only skews their data, perhaps by disproportionately excluding the poor. It’s a much more difficult case to make than when such methods excluded only the 2% of households with no phone service at all.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 31
Raquel — April 23, 2011
I would have guessed the people without landlines would mostly be the younger generations. I'm 28 and the only people I know with a landline are my grandparents. This would skew the survey data even more.
WG — April 23, 2011
I know that in Haiti, land line use is nearly non-existent, and if a person has access to a phone, it is almost always a cell. I think the reason is that it is cheaper/easier to install a tower as opposed to lines. I don't know if there is any connection to the charts above. My partner and I dropped our land line about 12 years ago and have only used our cells. It was just too costly to keep a land line...I can't remember exactly, but it was something like $30 for the line, $15 for the service/taxes, and $15 for long distance plus a per call rate. Forget that. I'll take a two cell phone family plan for $60 with unlimited minutes and no hassle. Peace of mind weighs in there as well.
Mantis Toboggan, MD — April 23, 2011
I'd be curious to see how much this exclusion would really affect the bias that is already present in a random phone survey.
It's known that poor people already shirk their civic resposibilities (see voting rates by income), so I doubt these inconsiderate people would be the ones who are responding when the CDC asks for information
Kayleigh — April 23, 2011
Well ... my father got rid of his land line over his cell when the economy collapsed in MO, so it's not surprising other states have done the same.
I was reading in a book called The Fourth Paradigm (about eScience) that there is a huge market for mobile health tech in non-industrialized countries because cellular phones are WAY more prevalent than networked computers AND clean water. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/collaboration/fourthparadigm/contents.aspx
Kobe — April 23, 2011
I would say it's a money thing. At this point, we feel like we "need" cells b/c we feel safer, it's more convenient, and the way we communicate has changed (texts and Facebook and email, especially for younger people). I would have a landline, but it just doesn't make sense financially. I wouldn't need to use it that often but I do need my cell. If I was making a ton of money, sure, I'd have one, but it seems silly to have both. (BTW, I make a decent salary far above poverty lines, and this is still a financial consideration for me.)
Erin — April 23, 2011
Most of the people I know who have landlines are either elderly or people that need one for DSL and/or their security service.
Emily — April 23, 2011
When I lived in rural Arkansas about four years ago, it was considered pointless to have a landline because phone lines were constantly battered by unpredictable storms. It was more practical to use a small, inexpensive service like Cricket Wireless (towers were far more reparable after storms than phone lines) and, if you could afford one, to get a phone with Web access. The only alternative Internet access most of us had was DSL, which was incredibly slow and impractical in rural areas. Better to access the Web and make calls on your cell phone. I use the past tense here because I'm not sure how accurate my claims are today, although I'd imagine most of them still hold true.
Sarah Rain — April 23, 2011
Random digit dialing does not exclude cell phones- they have random digits too. If you choose the exchanges or exact numbers from local listings, though, that excludes cell phones. And even area codes exclude some percentage of cell phones now because not everyone keeps a number in their local area code anymore.
What makes random digit dialing trickier now is that more people have more than one number they can be reached at, increasing their chances of selection, and the number of people per number varies in a way that no longer corresponds to household size.
I remember discussing this with a professor in the late 90's when cell phones were first being used by "normal" people. He believed that random surveying would be tricky for a while, but eventually we'd get to the point where every adult had their own personal number and that could actually make things easier. I think we're getting there. But non-random compliance/ willingness to participate is an even bigger problem now, I think.
island girl in a land without sea — April 23, 2011
call centers are prohibited from using random digit dialing to reach cell phone users. @ sarah rain is correct in that an autodialer can be programmed with cell phone exchanges, but the statute is what prohibits call centers from doing so.
beyond response rates, though, the issue for using mobiles for survey research is this: in contrast to landlines, which have no costs associated with *inbound* calls, some mobile plans still charge users for airtime. so if g*llup or n0rc or jd power calls to invite a person to participate in their survey, the respondent may incur charges from their provider as a consequence of survey participation. this places an undue burden on respondents who are on month-to-month plans or otherwise cannot upgrade to an unlimited calling plan.
aksourdoe — April 23, 2011
In Alaska, it is mainly a matter of infrastructure. There is little cell coverage away from the road corridor. We don't have the 200+ year lead of building roads, railways, power, etc., that makes the slotting in of new technology easier. Our basic infrastructure dates from WWII, and was thrown in haphazardly. The terrain and weather further north are another barrier to installing cell towers.
One telephone circuit I installed a few years ago involved using seven different types of connections - everything from a microwave link to a section of abandoned WWII copper cabling to get to the site.
Even in the larger communities the cell phone service is nothing like what is available in the Lower 48. Money is an issue as well - the companies here have a monopoly, and have no qualms about charging for minimal coverage and services.
Syd — April 23, 2011
Honestly, it's a lot of things. Money; if poor people can only afford one phone bill, they're going to pay for the most convenient one (the cell can be rung anywhere, the landline can only be accessed sometimes). Even people who can afford it easily may not want to throw money away for a phone bill and handset that rings like once a month, mostly for telemarketers. Age; in theory, my roommates and I (ages 23, 22, and 20 respectively) could afford our own cell phones plus pitch in for a landline, but since each of us already has a phone, why bother? All of our friends, families, and work contacts already have our cell numbers. Convenience; I know so many people who are at work 8 hours a day, and have commutes ranging from 30 minutes to 4 hours combined, plus any time they're out for their own leisure. If there's 24 hours in a day, and they're asleep or out of the house for 20 of those hours, most of the time, they can be reached ONLY by cell phone, so if anyone's calling their landline, it's just ringing in an empty house. This goes double for people who travel for work
Also, if everyone in the family old enough to use the phone regularly has a cell phone, there's no fighting over who needs the phone right now, or moaning when someone forgets a message. :P
kristin — April 23, 2011
Poverty could be a factor, but I think age is likely even more of a factor. The only people I know who still have landlines are older people--some of whom don't have cell phones. Everyone in our family has a cell phone, so we ditched our landline when we moved.
With our current cable and internet package, adding a landline would actually make the whole package cost a little less, but that would just mean dealing with telemarketers again. No thanks.
Eve P. — April 24, 2011
For my household, I know that cost is the single biggest factor in our having only mobile phones. When you pay so much a month for the mobiles, why pay even more for a home phone that's rarely used? Even when we had a landline, people would tend to default to calling the mobiles. Another factor is the convenience of only having to keep track of your one line and one voicemail. Also, a separate number for each person means everyone automatically gets only their own calls, which is nice. (I think this is also part of why people often default to calling mobiles -- they know they will get the person they're looking for, rather than whoever happens to be home.)
Eve P. — April 24, 2011
I think it's also worth noting that mobile phone reception plays a part in who ditches the landline. Our best friends were also wireless only, until their recent move to an area where the mobile reception is poor. So, now, out of necessity, they have a landline, but they would have continued to be wireless-only if they got reception at home.
Village Idiot — April 24, 2011
You still can't beat a land line for privacy, both in a legal and a technical sense (as long as it's not cordless). That may only be tangentially related to this post, but sometimes we forget some of the trade-offs we're making when "upgrading" our technology (I put 'upgrade' in quotes because in my opinion exchanging mobility and convenience for privacy is a trade-off, not an upgrade which would be mobile, convenient, AND private).
As recent news stories about phone tracking emerge and as more police begin to carry devices that can initiate a complete memory dump of your cell phone in 90 seconds (and are enthusiastically using them during traffic stops in Michigan, apparently), these questions will start to get a little more pertinent.
High-tech device designed to bypass the 4th and 5th Amendments in under 90 seconds while-u-wait: http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html
Hide your phone as you drive through Michigan: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp
Kristin — April 24, 2011
Wealth always matters but, thinking about it, I'm certain that geographical coverage also matters. My family in Vermont has to have both because there is no cell service at their house (or really, their town). I'm not sure of cell coverage in the areas in red above, so it is just my guess.
Evan — April 24, 2011
I think this somewhat assumes that given the choice, a reasonable person would chose to have both. I find that unlikely - the most reasonable choice is have a cellphone, it's portable, it does other useful things like text, and for many surf the internet and make fart noises.
There would be no real benefit paying for a phone that sits there seeing no use.
Another way to interpret this map is that dark red states above are most likely to hold onto a tradition, even if it adds no value to their life, if given the choice.
Alix — April 24, 2011
The only calls I was getting on my landline were sales calls and surveys. Why keep it? I'd moved several times, and my cell phone was the only number that remained the same, so that's what everyone called me on.
Jen — April 24, 2011
Way back in 2005 my friends joked that "land lines are for rich people." Now I'm pretty sure the jokes would be "land lines are for old people."
sushux — April 24, 2011
Many of my friends in my area of CA have a land line just for the DSL, but don't have a phone connected to it. So maybe DSL vs. Cable is something to consider? Cable is more expensive, and is often bundled with cable TV, which I don't watch. Instead, I watch shows on the internet.
DakotaMark — April 26, 2011
The cost of residential land-line phone service increased considerably after MCI began selling long distance service. The lawsuits that followed led to the breakup of AT&T and the proliferation of long distance carriers in the early 1980s. Before that, long distance fees were much, much higher than they are now. Most long distance use (aside from Mother's Day) at the time was by businesses and a portion of the revenue went to subsidize residential phone service. Without the subsidies, residential rates soared.