Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » 53% Of US Homes Broadband Connected » Don't worry...
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Pure BS »
« I'm poor...  

Jerm

join:2000-04-10
Richland, WA

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?
Ahrenl

join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
·Verizon FIOS

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.
satellite68

join:2007-04-11
Louisville, KY

Re: Statistics...

said by Ahrenl See Profile :

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.
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus

said by Jerm See Profile :

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

Re: Statistics...

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


1 edit
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.

McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Round Rock, TX
·AT&T Southwest

said by Jerm See Profile :

Take all the phone books in the US ...
Then that may automatically eliminate all the folks that don't have landlines, but have only cell phones.

Fluker

join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN

Re: Statistics...

I totally agree.

On campus, the greater majority of people have a cell phone and broadband, but no landline.

I can't think of any student I know with a real phone. All of them have at least cable internet though. I doubt any of these people could have been included in this statistic if it were call based.

tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..

said by Jerm See Profile :


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 would agree if it were in fact random but it is not.

They called folks about broadband. That means only people with Wireline phones were included in the survey.

Did they randomly select x number of people and call those numbers ignoring non respondents or did they create a pool of numbers and call until they reached the number they needed to be statistical accurate? Each approach creates different biases.

When did they call and did they call at the same local time in each time zone?

/Tom
Forums » 53% Of US Homes Broadband ConnectedPure BS »
« I'm poor...  


Tuesday, 08-Dec 22:12:14 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [193] Sprint Sued For Distracted Driving Death
· [81] 3G Network Test Says AT&T Is Tops
· [72] Mediacom Unveils 105 Mbps Pricing
· [62] Sprint Poised For A Turnaround?
· [50] The Future Of Wi-Fi Is Bright
· [48] WPA Cracker: Test WPA-PSK Networks In 20 Minutes
· [47] Site Leaks Yahoo, Verizon Fed Data Share Pricing
· [44] Microwaving Your Innards Is Not 'Extreme'
· [39] Verizon LTE: 5-12 Mbps Downstream
· [18] Verizon Settles With NJ Over Misleading FiOS Marketing
Most people now reading
· Comcast refused to install 400' feet. [Comcast HSI]
· ICC Strats??? [World of Warcraft]
· IMG 1.7 (IMG Updates and Discussion) [Verizon FIOS TV]
· Man Downloads Child Porn "Accidentally," Faces 20 Years [Security]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· Servers UP!!! [World of Warcraft]
· Comcast Customers: Would You Prefer Metered Billing? [Comcast HSI]
· Account Hacked With Authenticator [World of Warcraft]
· [WIN7] Outlook express under Windows 7? [Microsoft Help]
· Realistic expectation's of all the CRTC hoopla [TekSavvy]