ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA | Don't worry...
These increases will still be spun to "US broadband sucks". |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| I'm poor...
and I have cable internet access... don't think I could stand dial up even if I did have a landline. Besides, phone line + dial up OR DSL is still more expensive than having the "normal" Cox interweb package.
I think these #'s would be different if it were available in more areas. Many "rural" areas near here have DSL, but that's not true for many areas of the country. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| reply to ColorBASIC
Re: Don't worry...
quote:
The findings for the study, "Broadband Access and Service in the Home 2007," are based on a telephone survey of 1,600 randomly selected households across the country. The overall sample has a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 2.5%
Can anyone say flawed statistical methodology? How random? What percentage of those "randomly selected" households were in statisically-favorable-to-the-intended- outcome areas? |
|
ColorBASIC
8-bit Fun
Premium
join:2006-12-29
Corona, CA
1 edit | True; usage rates may be much much higher.  |
|
BF69
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | Pure BS
A what is "broadband" do they use the governemnt standard of 200 Kbps? That's glorifed dial-up in my book.
Also you can't tell anything from 1600 people. Maybe 16,000 then I'd take a poll more seriously. |
|
Jerm
join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA
| reply to satellite68
Statistics...
Thats the beauty of statistics, the results of a small sample are generally spot on when comparing against the "whole".
I'm not sure why you think it would be flawed. I mean how much better can you get than a random sample? They calculated to margin of error as +/- 2.5% so that should give us some sense of accuracy. I guess you'd have to know their exact method to know if it was flawed. Take all the phone books in the US and randomly select 1600 households via computer and call them up - doesn't seem too hard to me, and I'm not sure why you'd be wanting more accuracy than that.
There are a few arguments that could be made though. For example the people have to have phone service. But in general I think the statistic is probably correct and seems to fly in my book. Why do you think otherwise? |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to amungus
Re: I'm poor...
You aren't poor, you live in Manhattan! |
|
WayneHolmes
join:2006-12-23
Mountlake Terrace, WA
| reply to BF69
Re: Pure BS
Assuming the same sampling methodology, increasing the sample size will reduce the margin of error.
We can argue about how the sample is determined, but for that conversation to be significant would require that we both have Doctorates in Statistics or Mathematics. I don't, so will defer to anyone with the appropriate mathematical background to talk about sample determination. (I haven't used those neurons since college. )
In case people are interested, here is a link that offers some fairly understandable background on issues around margins of error and sampling techniques.
»www.wku.edu/~david.neal/statisti···ml#Table
Wayne |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
3 edits | reply to ieolus
Re: I'm poor...
said by ieolus  :You aren't poor, you live in Manhattan! He isn't in Manhattan in New York City, but Manhattan Kansas, home of Kansas State University. »www.k-state.edu/welcome/
Probably in college on his parents dime. So he may be poor.
--
--
Internet News
My BLOG
My Web Page |
|
DufiefData
join:2006-06-13
Gaithersburg, MD
| "Income still plays a major role"
The report also notes that income still plays a major role: "68% of all households with annual incomes over $50,000 now get broadband, compared to 59% last year; and 39% of all households with annual incomes under $50,000 get broadband, compared to 27% last year."
I'm shocked! You mean people prioritize and make choices based on how much money they have to spend?! Could this also be true about food and transportation??? |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Jerm
Re: Statistics...
Statistical Bias is very easy to manufacture, so I would first look at who provides their funding, and why the research was done in the first place. I'm not saying the numbers are incorrect.
I do find it interesting that the under $50,000 households % of broadband users is growing faster than the over $50,000 households. Maybe they're only lower overall because they're generally less informed. |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to WayneHolmes
Re: Pure BS
The reduction in margin of error going from a sample population of 1,600 to 16,000 is statistically insignificant. Let's pretend that it's a linear relationship (which it's certainly not). That would mean that the error would move from 2.5% to .25%, and the mean would move the difference of 2.25%... It would be relatively the same result.. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Jerm
Re: Statistics...
said by Jerm :I mean how much better can you get than a random sample? A representative sample... Random samples are not always representative.
--
Prove it... |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | How many people stuck on dial up couldn't participate because those collecting the data couldn't call them? |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
| reply to Ahrenl
said by Ahrenl :Statistical Bias is very easy to manufacture, so I would first look at who provides their funding, and why the research was done in the first place. I'm not saying the numbers are incorrect. Thank you, that's what I would've said sooner had you not beaten me to the punch. |
|
satellite68
join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY
1 edit | reply to Jerm
Your assumption is incorrect; you are assuming that they followed your example-"randomly" calling 1600 households.
I doubt that happened here. This issue is highly politicized and often these kind of surveys are funded by (gasp) the major telecoms and/or policymakers or their brethren. I'm betting they "prequalified" the respondents to get the outcomes requested/demanded by whomever funded this survey.
It's easy to lie with statistics. |
|
zemus
join:2001-01-13
Brooklyn, NY | reply to DufiefData
Re: "Income still plays a major role"
no it could not. |
|
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| reply to satellite68
Re: Don't worry...
said by satellite68 : quote:
The findings for the study, "Broadband Access and Service in the Home 2007," are based on a telephone survey of 1,600 randomly selected households across the country. The overall sample has a statistical margin of error of plus or minus 2.5%
Can anyone say flawed statistical methodology? How random? What percentage of those "randomly selected" households were in statisically-favorable-to-the-intended- outcome areas? How many of these 1600 have non-broadband Internet (AKA Dial-Up) or have no Internet access?
IOW: Did they keep calling households until they get 1600 Internet Users and thus rejected 3200 households with no Internet (Thus meaning that Internet access was only 33% of the 4800 households actually called)?
Note: My 3200 non-Internet number is a manufactured number to show how the numbers could be slanted and does not mean that I claim/think the ratio of non-Internet to Internet households is that high. |
|
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308 | 56k
I use. |
|
ieolus
Support The Clecs
join:2001-06-19
Duluth, GA | reply to TKJunkMail
Re: I'm poor...
I was joking.  |
|
