10% Of Americans Have Smartphone But No Broadband

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
According to a new report from the Pew Research Center, many Americans' only access to the internet is through their phone. :(

10% of Americans own a smartphone but do not have broadband at home, and 15% own a smartphone but say that they have a limited number of options for going online other than their cell phone.
Click to expand...
 
I purchased the 15GB family share plan from ATT when they were having a promotion to double it up to 30GB. Costs me $180 a month.

I no longer PC game/download much, but I still find myself using 10-20GB per month when tethering my smartphone to my PC. Now the remainder rolls over, so sometimes I get 50GB of data per month for $180 from ATT. I opted out of my grandfathered "unlimited" data which gets throttled anyways.

Now with sling TV & netflix, etc, I no longer pay comcast any money. yay. (comcast is the only internet service provider on cape cod, ma)
 
I would question if 10% is many ... also, if you look at the full breakdown you see that 15% have limited access to broadband, 10% have a smartphone exclusively for internet, and 7% overlap between the two ... based on that I am not sure what solution they are proposing here ... it seems to be a matter of finances and not availability for 3% (the people that seem to only have the smartphone for internet do so because they can't afford both and they chose the mobile option) ... for 7% smartphones are the only option ... and for 5% they choose neither option so they are living without broadband or without internet completely

until we have something like broadband power line internet I would expect that there is always going to be some small percentage of users who don't have access to broadband because of their location and the cost and difficulty (the 15% number is probably close to the steady state level ... with power we could get it into low single digits but it would likely never be 0%) ... if only 3% of users choose smartphone only because of the cost of maintaining two services, that also seems reasonable ... the 7% who only have access to smartphone might drop some with power line internet but even that is hardly "many" Americans ;)
 
Some of my family has access to spotty cable broadband internet; meaning that it may work today and might not work for another 2 weeks. This is completely unacceptable when there are children in the home. So now they are on cellphone broadband packages as the cellphones actually work.
 
There are 330 million people in the US. I find it had to believe that 33 million people don't have internet except for a phone..
 
No access to broadband at home here. My only internet access is through the cell provider albeit on an access point and not my phone.
 
If you have access to a phone line and the distance isn't too far to the station or whatev, you have the potential for ADSL. They went nuts expanding that way in Sweden, you could get ADSL way up north, far away from the middle of nowhere, where the buses don't run and you're likely to die alone if you get into any sort of medical emergency because that's how far away the help is.

At least they met their 90's goal of broadband being accessible to 9X% of all people.
 
True broadband is not available at my address, the neighbors have it...
 
Translation: 10% of Americans were given Obamaphones but not free internet and a free iPad... yet.
 
Carouselambra said:
There are 330 million people in the US. I find it had to believe that 33 million people don't have internet except for a phone..
Click to expand...

According to this wha'ts worse is that ~43 million Americans (13.25%) have no internet access at all.

of the 86.75% who do have internet, some (apparently ~10% according to this article) have it only on their phones.

Some still only have dialup.

It's amazing how things like this change, as you get out of the major population centers.
 
Some people just want to surf the web and read email. A good phone can do that now.
 
I work for the parent company of the PRC and I am going to find out some more info on this survey as it is very interesting to see that number being so high.
 
If I had unlimited, I might think about it. I get a good 35Mbps on my phone (up and down) with a decent LTE connection. Can share to up to 8 people for phone internet sharing. Home DSL is 25Mbps. DSL even gets a higher ping time.

Sad that a cell phone internet connection is better than my home internet connection. :(
 
There are a lot of rural areas around where I live that have no access to either cable or DSL for internet. They have access to land-line phone service due to federal legal requirements, but they are way too far out from the interconnect for DSL to work. They also have no access to cable and have to use Dish or similar for TV.

This leaves them with two options -- Satellite (e.g. HughesNet, which is expensive and slow) or using the cell phone as a hotspot or getting a separate MiFi unit.

The 10% number doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
 
Ur_Mom said:
If I had unlimited, I might think about it. I get a good 35Mbps on my phone (up and down) with a decent LTE connection. Can share to up to 8 people for phone internet sharing. Home DSL is 25Mbps. DSL even gets a higher ping time.

Sad that a cell phone internet connection is better than my home internet connection. :(
Click to expand...

Not surprising, there is competition in the mobile market.

There is still mass price collusion on an level that easily violates all sorts of anti-trust laws (that is unaddressed) but there is actual competition!
 
AthlonXP said:
I work for the parent company of the PRC and I am going to find out some more info on this survey as it is very interesting to see that number being so high.
Click to expand...

I read that and totally thought "Peoples Republic of China" :p
 
Zarathustra[H];1041523340 said:
I read that and totally thought "Peoples Republic of China" :p
Click to expand...

Pfft. Peoples Republic of China... China's People Republic.

PRC... SPLITTERS!
 
Zumino Zufeilon said:
Not surprising, there is competition in the mobile market.

There is still mass price collusion on an level that easily violates all sorts of anti-trust laws (that is unaddressed) but there is actual competition!
Click to expand...

The limited number of nationwide carriers results in some price equality but I would hesitate to call it collusion (that would require that the competing companies all get together as a group and agree to the pricing strategy ... and there is no indication of that occurring) ... however, once markets reach penetration levels where 2-4 companies control 90%+ of the market we see little price movement unless a company wants to make a push to eliminate one of its competitors from the market (where we are with mobile where Verizon and AT&T together control 83% of the mobile market, while the combination of the big 4 carriers encompasses nearly 95% of the market)

We have similar situations with the big Airlines where the big 4 carriers (Southwest, Delta, United, and American) control nearly 70% of the market ... they don't need to collude on prices, they just need to monitor the market (or attempts by their competitors to adjust pricing) and make adjustments when they see successful market changes (like baggage fees, enhanced coach seating, elimination of meals, etc) ... the phone companies work the same way, they will watch what their competitors do and if they see something that works (elimination of unlimited data, tiered service, etc) then they will copy it ... it isn't collusion, just an artifact of market control by a few companies (they don't need to collude since they already control the majority of the market)
 
Zarathustra[H];1041523340 said:
I read that and totally thought "Peoples Republic of China" :p
Click to expand...

Maybe by "parent company" he really means the Politburo, or heaven. Heaven is totally considered the parent company of Zhongguo. ;)
 
amddragonpc said:
It's cheaper to get a smartphone than to have Comcast.
Click to expand...

If you are only talking about internet they probably aren't that far apart depending on the plan you get with the carrier ... most of the carrier plans are running in the $35-75 range for individual data plans (depending on your consumption, speed, and carrier of choice) ... family plans can get over $100 a month ... Comcast for stand alone internet is generally in the $50-70 range (I pay $125/month for AT&T, including the phone charge, and close to $140/month for Comcast for internet and full HD cable on multiple boxes) ... not that big a difference considering the AT&T is limited to 6GB/month while I have unlimited consumption on Comcast
 
with the new definition of broadband in the US....I am part of that 10%...have smartphone and 3mbps DSL at home
 
AthlonXP said:
I work for the parent company of the PRC and I am going to find out some more info on this survey as it is very interesting to see that number being so high.
Click to expand...

Isn't that high considering the size of the USA landmass, how most of that landmass is rural... Combined with how loth ISPs are to service rural America
 
ml_paladin888 said:
with the new definition of broadband in the US....I am part of that 10%...have smartphone and 3mbps DSL at home
Click to expand...

Same here. I am trying to get cable internet, but cable company doesn't think I have the lines. My smartphone can get 20-35 Mbps. But I blow through my tethering cap in like a day of watching HD over the internet.
 
Skripka said:
Isn't that high considering the size of the USA landmass, how most of that landmass is rural... Combined with how loth ISPs are to service rural America
Click to expand...

True. But, even a lot of urban areas are lacking choices and/or higher than 30Mbps speeds.

What sucks where I'm at is that we have fiber. Hell, we have 4 (going on 5) Amazon data centers in town. We have shit tons of fiber. Not 1/2 mile from my house, I have 2 companies running fiber. Yet, they are for commercial use only. They won't use it for residential. So, 25Mbps DSL is the best we can get. One of the companies does commercial and residential, so it's not so much of a business limitation. I know why they are doing it (not economically feasible for consumers yet...). But, it doesn't suck any less.

So much capability and capacity so close. It's frustrating. :/
 
Zarathustra[H];1041523263 said:
According to this wha'ts worse is that ~43 million Americans (13.25%) have no internet access at all.
Click to expand...

And even if it was available form $5 a month, most of them still wouldn't have internet access.

Some people (mainly older) just don't see the need for internet access.
A few people I work with (non-technical) don't have internet access at home. If they want to download a book to their kindle, they just go somewhere that has free wifi. Any email they just use their phone.
 
nutzo said:
And even if it was available form $5 a month, most of them still wouldn't have internet access.

Some people (mainly older) just don't see the need for internet access.
A few people I work with (non-technical) don't have internet access at home. If they want to download a book to their kindle, they just go somewhere that has free wifi. Any email they just use their phone.
Click to expand...

Go to the rural Midwest. The only Internet access to be had is Verizon LTE. Or dial up modem.
 
I just worry about those that want good internet, but can't get it. Even in the smaller towns (~2500-10000 people), the services suck. Out in the country where it's a mile to your neighbor? I understand completely. That's not cost friendly. Wireless may be an option, but you're still limited but location.

Many people have no need for internet, and that's cool. Not everyone is going to be a customer.
 
nutzo said:
And even if it was available form $5 a month, most of them still wouldn't have internet access.

Some people (mainly older) just don't see the need for internet access.
A few people I work with (non-technical) don't have internet access at home. If they want to download a book to their kindle, they just go somewhere that has free wifi. Any email they just use their phone.
Click to expand...

I know there ARE people like that, but they have to be a tiny minority.

Even my parents (Dad turning 70 this year, mom turned 59) are regular internet users, and my fiance's mom is probably even more tech savvy at 71.

The only person I can think of in my family who doesn't use the internet is my Grandmother who is in her 90s...
 
mdburkey said:
There are a lot of rural areas around where I live that have no access to either cable or DSL for internet. They have access to land-line phone service due to federal legal requirements, but they are way too far out from the interconnect for DSL to work. They also have no access to cable and have to use Dish or similar for TV.
Click to expand...

We visited some old friends of the wife a few year ago that live in a remote area (think farms and cattle).
There is no cable, no DSL, and no cell phone coverage. There is a limited cell signal (no data) in a nearby town.

Only internet access is dial-up, and even that is a toll call, so they don't use it much.
 
The only ISP that offers broadband to where I live (pretty much the middle of farmland nowhere) is the TELCO with DSL which offers up to 20 mbps, but I only bought their 10 mpbs service because I don't really need very much performance for just checking e-mails, pretending to write blogs, and cat pics. Cellular service is totally marginal with basically no one offering a decent signal but since I don't have a phone anyway, it's not that important to me. It would really be awful to be on just a phone's internet access though. Cat pics need a physical connection to be reliable.
 
nutzo said:
We visited some old friends of the wife a few year ago that live in a remote area (think farms and cattle).
There is no cable, no DSL, and no cell phone coverage. There is a limited cell signal (no data) in a nearby town.

Only internet access is dial-up, and even that is a toll call, so they don't use it much.
Click to expand...

Why do people choose to live in places like this?
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
It would really be awful to be on just a phone's internet access though. Cat pics need a physical connection to be reliable.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be a fan of it either, but remember a lot of the people who are doing this are young urban kids.

Urban cell coverage tends to be very good but capacity constrained (in other words, many bars, but lower bandwidth bench results than in the suburbs.

Suburban cell coverage I have found to be pretty decent. More dead zones than in the city, but still available most of the place, and when you have full signal you can actually get speed tests in the multiple 10's of Mbits per second.

More often these people live alone or have roommates who also use their phones for internet, so there is no one home who uses internet when their phone isn't there. They also typically don't have desktops or servers like most of us do, but use their cellphones to tether to their laptops when they need to.

In a situation like that, it IS usable. I wouldn't be happy like that, but it is usable.

Personally if I had to drop either mobile data or land based broadband based on cost, I'd probably drop the mobile data and get by on a cheap dumb burner phone. But I'm a geek, and in my mid 30's, so that whole snapchatting thing the kids are doing these days is uninteresting to me anyway :p
 
Thanks to the state of NJ who reclassified 4G as broadband, the US got a huge boost in broadband pent ration figures. Joking about the last part and not the first.
 
Ur_Mom said:
True. But, even a lot of urban areas are lacking choices and/or higher than 30Mbps speeds.

What sucks where I'm at is that we have fiber. Hell, we have 4 (going on 5) Amazon data centers in town. We have shit tons of fiber. Not 1/2 mile from my house, I have 2 companies running fiber. Yet, they are for commercial use only. They won't use it for residential. So, 25Mbps DSL is the best we can get. One of the companies does commercial and residential, so it's not so much of a business limitation. I know why they are doing it (not economically feasible for consumers yet...). But, it doesn't suck any less.

So much capability and capacity so close. It's frustrating. :/
Click to expand...

It's the free market in action. Will it make you money? Could you make more money spending the money on some other project? Unless those questions answer out, you don't build it, the market states it's not a good action.

Many of the urban areas with good service combine three things. They're one of the super urban coastal areas directly on a major back bone for finance, defense, education, very important. The local government stepped in and threatened to classify the internet as a public utility or just flat out built it on it's own. Or three the government paid the ISP to build the infrastructure along side public transit projects.

Market speaking, the people have way tooo fast internet already. Rural areas shouldn't be fucking served at all unless they are willing to pay tens of thousands per customer to help with the lines, and suburbia should be in the same situation.

Roads should work the same way to once we give them to the market, paying for roads outside of the North East or Calfironia doesn't make market sense.
 
Zarathustra[H];1041523524 said:
Why do people choose to live in places like this?
Click to expand...

I've heard rumors that people who live in the middle of nowhere do it because they're pervs who hang around at home without enough undergarments but not risk getting peeked at through windows that look at the walls of someone else's house.

Also, everyone snapchats these days! It's like a thing now. Stop being old and start doing it too!

I do get what you mean about coverage and bandwidth though so it kinda makes sense. Besides that, it really is becoming more practical for most people to get by with just a phone as their only device. I even personally know someone who is kinda nerdy but only geeks out on her phone. It's really funny to see a tiny little screen propped up in front of a bluetooth keyboard, though I admit it's kinda cool in an "aw, that's cute!" way.
 
I would be one of those 10%

I currently pay $60/month for unlimited everything through t-mobile, and using various tricks, I can get unlimited LTE tethering. My LTE speeds are usually in the 30-70 Mbit range

If you are already paying for internet access on your phone, why pay for separate access for your house?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top