On 6/26/2023 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
“People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only on >> wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,” >> Blumberg told us.
I cut the cord because my cell phone (using Wi-Fi calling) and my
landline (VoIP) both used the same cable with the same apparent
(non-risky) reliability. So why pay for 2 lines...
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
“People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,” Blumberg told us.
https://wapo.st/430fbww
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely onlyIt's been a bad few weeks to be a behavioral scientist...
on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,” Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink, more likely to smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.” That’s true even when researchers control for age, sex, race, ethnicity and income. >>>
On 6/26/2023 8:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
“People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only on >> wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,” >> Blumberg told us.
I cut the cord because my cell phone (using Wi-Fi calling) and my
landline (VoIP) both used the same cable with the same apparent
(non-risky) reliability. So why pay for 2 lines...
On 6/26/2023 11:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to relyIt's been a bad few weeks to be a behavioral scientist...
only on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky
behaviors,” Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink,
more likely to smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.”
That’s true even when researchers control for age, sex, race,
ethnicity and income. >>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/harvard-behavioral-scientist-aces-research-fraud-allegations
On 2023-06-26 12:32, AJL wrote:
I cut the cord because my cell phone (using Wi-Fi calling) and my
landline (VoIP) both used the same cable with the same apparent
(non-risky) reliability. So why pay for 2 lines...
Cell service here was adequate but imperfect up until a few years
ago. I had dumped the ISP (Cable) VoIP in favour of much cheaper
MagicJack VoIP and had that for 10 or 12 years. (US$120 / 5 years +
annual number reserving fees - unlimited long distance in North
America).
Noticed cell quality was improving (can hold a long call from my
basement w/o issues at all).
So dumped the VoIP too - cell only for a couple years now.
Am 26.06.23 um 18:32 schrieb AJL:
I cut the cord because my cell phone (using Wi-Fi calling) and my
landline (VoIP) both used the same cable with the same apparent
(non-risky) reliability. So why pay for 2 lines...
And here for private households landline is free for those who are
also buying the internet access.
Domestic calls being also free.
VOIP is standard anyway.
On 6/26/2023 11:12 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to relyIt's been a bad few weeks to be a behavioral scientist...
only on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky
behaviors,” Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink,
more likely to smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.”
That’s true even when researchers control for age, sex, race,
ethnicity and income. >>>
https://www.science.org/content/article/harvard-behavioral-scientist-aces-research-fraud-allegations
On 6/26/2023 10:31 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-26 12:32, AJL wrote:
I cut the cord because my cell phone (using Wi-Fi calling) and my
landline (VoIP) both used the same cable with the same apparent
(non-risky) reliability. So why pay for 2 lines...
Cell service here was adequate but imperfect up until a few years
ago. I had dumped the ISP (Cable) VoIP in favour of much cheaper
MagicJack VoIP and had that for 10 or 12 years. (US$120 / 5 years +
annual number reserving fees - unlimited long distance in North
America).
Noticed cell quality was improving (can hold a long call from my
basement w/o issues at all).
So dumped the VoIP too - cell only for a couple years now.
Likely depends on where you live in relation to the tower and/or how
busy it is. I've used the WiFi calling feature since I got my cell 3+
years ago. So could be things over the air here are better now...
On 6/26/2023 9:46 AM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Am 26.06.23 um 18:32 schrieb AJL:
I cut the cord because my cell phone (using Wi-Fi calling) and my
landline (VoIP) both used the same cable with the same apparent
(non-risky) reliability. So why pay for 2 lines...
And here for private households landline is free for those who are
also buying the internet access.
My ISP billing separates its services so I saved a few bucks by quitting
the landline.
Domestic calls being also free.
Same here (USA). Big change from when I was a kid and there were long >distance charges for calling across a town boundary. Us hams used to
beat the system with a local 2 meter mountaintop repeater/autopatch.
Wasn't very private though...
VOIP is standard anyway.
I think so here too now. My house (built in 2000) has actual phone >twisted-pair wires in the walls. I used them for a few years before I >switched. The company that serviced the wires is now installing fiber in
the area so I imagine my cable will soon be obsolete too...
I'm going to dump my landline very soon--not to save money, but to
save me from all the spam I get on it.
On 2023-06-26 14:11, AJL wrote:
Likely [home cell service] depends on where you live in relation to
the tower and/or how busy it is.
More like the equipment keeps being upgraded - technology and or
capacity. I haven't noticed any new tower sites - and there are
mapping apps that tell you where they are -
my carrier (Rogers) hasn't added any locations near here in 10+
years.
But service has improved over the past 5 years or less.
I've used the WiFi calling feature since I got my cell 3+ years
ago. So could be things over the air here are better now...
Yep - worth some experiments to see if it has improved.
On 6/26/2023 3:06 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
I'm going to dump my landline very soon--not to save money, but to
save me from all the spam I get on it.
Yup. I had a lot of spam with my landline too. I subscribed to a spam
blocker at the time and that cut them down but didn't eliminate them.
With my cell I just leave the Do Not Disturb feature on all the time
with only my contacts allowed through. Course I realize not everyone can
do that...
On 6/26/2023 2:41 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-26 14:11, AJL wrote:
Likely [home cell service] depends on where you live in relation to
the tower and/or how busy it is.
More like the equipment keeps being upgraded - technology and or
capacity. I haven't noticed any new tower sites - and there are
mapping apps that tell you where they are -
When I moved to this Phoenix suburb in 2000 the population was 20K. Now
it's over 100K. So I imagine capacity improvement here was important
with my carrier.
my carrier (Rogers) hasn't added any locations near here in 10+
years.
I've never checked my tower locations. But the ones I've seen near me
are painted like palm trees. Really look dumb...
But service has improved over the past 5 years or less.
I've never had a service complaint in my area but then I don't use the
phone all that much. Mainly just for browsing when out and about killing
time waiting for you know who.
I've used the WiFi calling feature since I got my cell 3+ years
ago. So could be things over the air here are better now...
Yep - worth some experiments to see if it has improved.
A couple of years back I had a 20 hour power outage (no WiFi) and the
service worked well enough to use the power company's app for update
info. So it may be just fine. But the WiFi calling works just fine so
why change?
On 2023-06-26 19:13, AJL wrote:
the ones [cell towers] I've seen near me are painted like palm
trees. Really look dumb...
In NH/CT, they sometimes look like pine trees. Not horrible, but
...
When I read my cellco. T&Cs for WiFi calling, coupled to what happens
if I'm traveling outside Canada, and the exceptions, etc. I find it
less bother to simply leave WiFi calling off.
On 6/26/2023 4:47 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-26 19:13, AJL wrote:
the ones [cell towers] I've seen near me are painted like palm
trees. Really look dumb...
In NH/CT, they sometimes look like pine trees. Not horrible, but
...
We had a good chuckle when we saw our first painted palm tree cell
tower. Even funnier, it was (and still is) planted in the middle of an
RV storage yard. A real natural setting...
When I read my cellco. T&Cs for WiFi calling, coupled to what happens
if I'm traveling outside Canada, and the exceptions, etc. I find it
less bother to simply leave WiFi calling off.
Not sure what you mean here. Perhaps your service is different. My WiFi Calling automatically uses any WiFi my phone is connected to and then automatically reconnects to the cell service when it loses the signal. I haven't had to mess with it in years.
On 2023-06-26 20:20, AJL wrote:
On 6/26/2023 4:47 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
When I read my cellco. T&Cs for WiFi calling, coupled to what
happens if I'm traveling outside Canada, and the exceptions,
etc. I find it less bother to simply leave WiFi calling off.
Not sure what you mean here. Perhaps your service is different. My
WiFi Calling automatically uses any WiFi my phone is connected to
and then automatically reconnects to the cell service when it
loses the signal. I haven't had to mess with it in years.
Just comes down to reading the T&Cs and the many mentions of possible
fees
and some issues wrt to emergency numbers and location services.
Probably not a big deal, but wherever I go there is sufficient
coverage or I can wait for more coverage.
On 6/26/2023 3:06 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
I'm going to dump my landline very soon--not to save money, but to
save me from all the spam I get on it.
Yup. I had a lot of spam with my landline too. I subscribed to a spam
blocker at the time and that cut them down but didn't eliminate them.
With my cell I just leave the Do Not Disturb feature on all the time
with only my contacts allowed through. Course I realize not everyone can
do that...
Sound quality of landlines is still superior to mobile connections.
On 6/26/2023 11:12 PM, AJL wrote:
On 6/26/2023 10:21 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Sound quality of landlines is still superior to mobile connections.
I was chatting on the phone with the wife tonight. She's visiting
relatives in ID while I'm still in AZ (USA). The call was so clear that
I could hear and understand folks talking in the background. Better than
any landline I remember from the past. But perhaps landlines have
improved here too..
HD Voice on a mobile phone is far superior to a POTS copper landline connection unless you're a very weak mobile signal area.
On 6/26/2023 10:21 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Sound quality of landlines is still superior to mobile connections.
I was chatting on the phone with the wife tonight. She's visiting
relatives in ID while I'm still in AZ (USA). The call was so clear that
I could hear and understand folks talking in the background. Better than
any landline I remember from the past. But perhaps landlines have
improved here too..
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
This applies to the US.
(Yes, we know Europeans, esp. in the north, are even more "wireless").
The data is gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
- who began tracking this around 2000 as they wanted to know if there
were correlations to health outcomes. They also worried that cell phone
use might reduce their ability to gather statistics (through phone interviews) and skew their data.
Key findings (2022).
Wireless only: 72.7%
Landline and wireless: 25.4%
Landline only: 1.3%
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,” Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink, more likely to smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.” That’s true even when researchers control for age, sex, race, ethnicity and income. >>>
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only
on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,”
Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink, more likely to
smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.” That’s true even >> when researchers control for age, sex, race, ethnicity and income. >>>
This sounds completely spurious. Do they offer any plausible reason for how landline usage or not affects unrelated behaviours?
Or are we all to look forward to debauched lives when we're free of landlines? I wonder what's holding us back?
On 6/26/2023 11:12 PM, AJL wrote:
On 6/26/2023 10:21 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Sound quality of landlines is still superior to mobile connections.
I was chatting on the phone with the wife tonight. She's visiting
relatives in ID while I'm still in AZ (USA). The call was so clear that
I could hear and understand folks talking in the background. Better than any landline I remember from the past. But perhaps landlines have
improved here too..
Jorge is wrong of course?.
HD Voice on a mobile phone is far superior to a POTS copper landline connection unless you're a very weak mobile signal area.
"Since an HD voice call is defined as delivering at least twice the
sound range of a traditional phone call, an HD voice call will have a
range of about 7 kHz -- or more." Copper tops out at about 3300 Hz.
However the number of landlines that still have a dedicated copper pair
back to the central office is not that great anymore. You may have
copper between the home the node, then fiber (FTTN) from the node. Increasingly you have FTTH and if you're still using an analog landline
phone then you have some sort of an ATA (analog telephone adapter). Or
you may have coax to the home from fiber on the pole
On 6/26/2023 5:42 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
On 2023-06-26 20:20, AJL wrote:
On 6/26/2023 4:47 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
When I read my cellco. T&Cs for WiFi calling, coupled to what
happens if I'm traveling outside Canada, and the exceptions,
etc. I find it less bother to simply leave WiFi calling off.
Not sure what you mean here. Perhaps your service is different. My
WiFi Calling automatically uses any WiFi my phone is connected to
and then automatically reconnects to the cell service when it
loses the signal. I haven't had to mess with it in years.
Just comes down to reading the T&Cs and the many mentions of possible
fees
Guess YMMV. No extra fees on mine.
and some issues wrt to emergency numbers and location services.
My WiFi Calling settings has has an emergency location information page
where you can enter your address for 911 calls.
Probably not a big deal, but wherever I go there is sufficient
coverage or I can wait for more coverage.
Sounds reasonable. Only once that I can remember that it actually saved
me. I had no service at a grandkids house. After I hooked to her WiFi I
had service. From then on when I went there the phone automatically
hooked to the WiFi and I had service...
Am 27.06.23 um 01:13 schrieb AJL:
On 6/26/2023 3:06 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
I'm going to dump my landline very soon--not to save money, but to
save me from all the spam I get on it.
Yup. I had a lot of spam with my landline too. I subscribed to a spam
blocker at the time and that cut them down but didn't eliminate them.
With my cell I just leave the Do Not Disturb feature on all the time
with only my contacts allowed through. Course I realize not everyone can
do that...
Here the market leader and also other providers offer very powerful
tools to stop that. We do not spam calls anymore. On top Filters can be
set with variables: "+1*" would ban all numbers from the US as an
example. Whitelisting is also possible. It takes a little effort but it
is worth it.
Sound quality of landlines is still superior to mobile connections.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
This applies to the US.
(Yes, we know Europeans, esp. in the north, are even more "wireless").
The data is gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)
- who began tracking this around 2000 as they wanted to know if there
were correlations to health outcomes. They also worried that cell phone
use might reduce their ability to gather statistics (through phone
interviews) and skew their data.
Key findings (2022).
Wireless only: 72.7%
Landline and wireless: 25.4%
Landline only: 1.3%
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only
on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,”
Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink, more likely to
smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.” That’s true even >> when researchers control for age, sex, race, ethnicity and income. >>>
This sounds completely spurious. Do they offer any plausible reason for how landline usage or not affects unrelated behaviours?
Or are we all to look forward to debauched lives when we're free of landlines? I wonder what's holding us back?
Am 27.06.23 um 09:33 schrieb Chris:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only
on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,”
Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink, more likely to >>> smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.” That’s true even >>> when researchers control for age, sex, race, ethnicity and income. >>>
This sounds completely spurious. Do they offer any plausible reason for how >> landline usage or not affects unrelated behaviours?
Or are we all to look forward to debauched lives when we're free of
landlines? I wonder what's holding us back?
This article is more for fun. We no nothing about the way the data were gathered and the question of statistical relevance is not answered at all.
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-06-27 03:33, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
This applies to the US.
(Yes, we know Europeans, esp. in the north, are even more "wireless"). >>>>
The data is gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) >>>> - who began tracking this around 2000 as they wanted to know if there
were correlations to health outcomes. They also worried that cell phone >>>> use might reduce their ability to gather statistics (through phone
interviews) and skew their data.
Key findings (2022).
Wireless only: 72.7%
Landline and wireless: 25.4%
Landline only: 1.3%
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only
on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,”
Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink, more likely to >>>> smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.” That’s true even
when researchers control for age, sex, race, ethnicity and income. >>>
This sounds completely spurious. Do they offer any plausible reason for how >>> landline usage or not affects unrelated behaviours?
Read the article. These are statistician's statisticians.
They're not implying causation.
Nor am I.
The main take is more settled, older people (traditional values?) are
less likely to cut the landline. (And in the NE US it is skewed by
Verizon's service offering).
Or are we all to look forward to debauched lives when we're free of
landlines? I wonder what's holding us back?
They're not implying that cutting landlines causes risky behaviours.
I know, I should have added a :-^)
Did you read the actual article?
I did not. I don't follow random links on the internet and don't have
access to WaPo. I have looked at your CDC report.
The data are not self consistent as wireless ppl are also more likely to be healthier, more active and less prone to diabetes.
I also wouldn't call one day of drinking more than 4-5 drinks at any time during the last 12 months as particularly risky behaviour.
Reads like a statistical anomaly to me. When dealing with unweighted survey numbers all sorts can pop up. Even if correcting for some factors.
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2023 11:12 PM, AJL wrote:
On 6/26/2023 10:21 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Sound quality of landlines is still superior to mobile connections.
I was chatting on the phone with the wife tonight. She's visiting
relatives in ID while I'm still in AZ (USA). The call was so clear that
I could hear and understand folks talking in the background. Better than >>> any landline I remember from the past. But perhaps landlines have
improved here too..
Jorge is wrong of course?.
HD Voice on a mobile phone is far superior to a POTS copper landline
connection unless you're a very weak mobile signal area.
"Since an HD voice call is defined as delivering at least twice the
sound range of a traditional phone call, an HD voice call will have a
range of about 7 kHz -- or more." Copper tops out at about 3300 Hz.
Joerg is not wrong, because he was describing VOIP ("VOIP is standard anyway."). VOIP isn't "Copper".
Whether the sound quality of (VOIP) landlines "is still superior to
mobile connections", is probably mainly dependent on the quality of the handsets involved. A landline handset is likely to have a better
microphone and a larger speaker than a mobile handset.
Yes, we still have a (VOIP) landline. Mainly because of cost-reasons
and having a different failure-mode than our smartphones.
However the number of landlines that still have a dedicated copper pair
back to the central office is not that great anymore. You may have
copper between the home the node, then fiber (FTTN) from the node.
Increasingly you have FTTH and if you're still using an analog landline
phone then you have some sort of an ATA (analog telephone adapter). Or
you may have coax to the home from fiber on the pole
Indeed. Our (VOIP) landline is HFC-based (Hybrid fiber-coaxial). I
think 30Mbps is enough for voice! :-)
On 2023-06-27 08:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2023 11:12 PM, AJL wrote:
On 6/26/2023 10:21 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Sound quality of landlines is still superior to mobile connections.
I was chatting on the phone with the wife tonight. She's visiting
relatives in ID while I'm still in AZ (USA). The call was so clear that >>> I could hear and understand folks talking in the background. Better than >>> any landline I remember from the past. But perhaps landlines have
improved here too..
Jorge is wrong of course?.
HD Voice on a mobile phone is far superior to a POTS copper landline
connection unless you're a very weak mobile signal area.
"Since an HD voice call is defined as delivering at least twice the
sound range of a traditional phone call, an HD voice call will have a
range of about 7 kHz -- or more." Copper tops out at about 3300 Hz.
Joerg is not wrong, because he was describing VOIP ("VOIP is standard anyway."). VOIP isn't "Copper".
Whether the sound quality of (VOIP) landlines "is still superior to mobile connections", is probably mainly dependent on the quality of the handsets involved. A landline handset is likely to have a better
microphone and a larger speaker than a mobile handset.
In quality mobile phones these things don't matter much - the
engineering of small speakers and microphone transducers is very
different than the "primitive" stuff of traditional handsets.
Indeed the former are engineered for a wider bandwidth, esp. on the
speaker side.
[...]Yes, we still have a (VOIP) landline. Mainly because of cost-reasons
and having a different failure-mode than our smartphones.
Indeed. Our (VOIP) landline is HFC-based (Hybrid fiber-coaxial). I
think 30Mbps is enough for voice! :-)
In such systems they will allocate a tiny sliver of BW for VoIP - and
it's not in the same frequency bucket as the IP traffic (or wasn't when
I had a similar setup some years ago). Nor is VoIP in the same TCP/IP mapping.
(Not talking cheap "Magic Jack" or similar 2nd grade solutions which use
the basic internet connection).
On 2023-06-27 03:33, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
This applies to the US.
(Yes, we know Europeans, esp. in the north, are even more "wireless").
The data is gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) >>> - who began tracking this around 2000 as they wanted to know if there
were correlations to health outcomes. They also worried that cell phone >>> use might reduce their ability to gather statistics (through phone
interviews) and skew their data.
Key findings (2022).
Wireless only: 72.7%
Landline and wireless: 25.4%
Landline only: 1.3%
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only
on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,”
Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink, more likely to >>> smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.” That’s true even >>> when researchers control for age, sex, race, ethnicity and income. >>>
This sounds completely spurious. Do they offer any plausible reason for how >> landline usage or not affects unrelated behaviours?
Read the article. These are statistician's statisticians.
They're not implying causation.
The main take is more settled, older people (traditional values?) are
less likely to cut the landline. (And in the NE US it is skewed by Verizon's service offering).
Or are we all to look forward to debauched lives when we're free of
landlines? I wonder what's holding us back?
They're not implying that cutting landlines causes risky behaviours.
Did you read the actual article?
On 6/26/2023 10:21 PM, Joerg Lorenz wrote:
Sound quality of landlines is still superior to mobile connections.
I was chatting on the phone with the wife tonight. She's visiting
relatives in ID while I'm still in AZ (USA). The call was so clear that
I could hear and understand folks talking in the background. Better than
any landline I remember from the past. But perhaps landlines have
improved here too...
On 6/26/2023 3:06 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
I'm going to dump my landline very soon--not to save money, but to
save me from all the spam I get on it.
Yup. I had a lot of spam with my landline too. I subscribed to a spam
blocker at the time and that cut them down but didn't eliminate them.
With my cell I just leave the Do Not Disturb feature on all the time
with only my contacts allowed through. Course I realize not everyone can
do that...
On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 16:13:03 -0700, AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
On 6/26/2023 3:06 PM, Ken Blake wrote:
I'm going to dump my landline very soon--not to save money, but to
save me from all the spam I get on it.
Yup. I had a lot of spam with my landline too. I subscribed to a spam
blocker at the time and that cut them down but didn't eliminate them.
Spam is almost the only kind of calls I get on my landline. I've told everyone I know never to call me on it anymore.
With my cell I just leave the Do Not Disturb feature on all the time
with only my contacts allowed through. Course I realize not everyone can
do that...
It's rare that a spammer calls my cell phone.
AJL <noemail@none.com> wrote:
With my cell I just leave the Do Not Disturb feature on all the
time with only my contacts allowed through. Course I realize not
everyone can do that...
It's rare that a spammer calls my cell phone.
On 2023-06-27 09:39, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
On 2023-06-27 03:33, Chris wrote:
Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
This sounds completely spurious. Do they offer any plausible reason for how
An article in the WaPo. I'll put a gift link below.
This applies to the US.
(Yes, we know Europeans, esp. in the north, are even more "wireless"). >>>>>
The data is gathered by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) >>>>> - who began tracking this around 2000 as they wanted to know if there >>>>> were correlations to health outcomes. They also worried that cell phone >>>>> use might reduce their ability to gather statistics (through phone
interviews) and skew their data.
Key findings (2022).
Wireless only: 72.7%
Landline and wireless: 25.4%
Landline only: 1.3%
<<< “People who have cut the cord” — abandoning landlines to rely only
on wireless — “are generally more likely to engage in risky behaviors,”
Blumberg told us. “They’re more likely to binge drink, more likely to >>>>> smoke and more likely to go without health insurance.” That’s true even
when researchers control for age, sex, race, ethnicity and income. >>> >>>>
landline usage or not affects unrelated behaviours?
Read the article. These are statistician's statisticians.
They're not implying causation.
Nor am I.
The main take is more settled, older people (traditional values?) are
less likely to cut the landline. (And in the NE US it is skewed by
Verizon's service offering).
Or are we all to look forward to debauched lives when we're free of
landlines? I wonder what's holding us back?
They're not implying that cutting landlines causes risky behaviours.
I know, I should have added a :-^)
Did you read the actual article?
I did not. I don't follow random links on the internet and don't have
access to WaPo. I have looked at your CDC report.
The link provided is a "gift link" from WaPo - so you don't need
"access" - the link is the access - free of charge.
The data are not self consistent as wireless ppl are also more likely to be >> healthier, more active and less prone to diabetes.
I also wouldn't call one day of drinking more than 4-5 drinks at any time
during the last 12 months as particularly risky behaviour.
It's their definition - and it's at "least" 1 day which includes ...
Reads like a statistical anomaly to me. When dealing with unweighted survey >> numbers all sorts can pop up. Even if correcting for some factors.
I'll give credence to the NCHS. I assume they have competent
statisticians and analysts.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 05:22:27 |
| Calls: | 6,666 |
| Files: | 12,213 |
| Messages: | 5,335,949 |