Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Americans Abandoning Wired Home Internet, Shows Study (seattletimes.com)

Posted by msmash on from the get-those-wires-out-of-my-face dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Americans as a whole are growing less likely than before to have residential broadband, according to new data on a sample of 53,000 Americans. In plain English, they're abandoning their wired Internet for a mobile-data-only diet -- and if the trend continues, it could reflect a huge shift in the way we experience the Web. The study, conducted for the Commerce Department by the U.S. Census Bureau, partly upholds what we already knew. Low-income Americans are still one of the biggest demographics to rely solely on their phones to get online. Today nearly a third of households earning less than $25,000 a year exclusively use mobile Internet to browse the Web. That's up from 16 percent in 2013. They're often cited as evidence of a digital divide; families with little money to afford a home Internet subscription must resort to free Wi-Fi at libraries and even McDonald's to do homework, look for jobs and find information. But people with higher incomes are ditching their wired Internet access at similar or even faster rates. In 2013, 8 percent of households making between $50,000 and $75,000 a year were mobile-only. Fast-forward a couple of years, and that figure is 18 percent. Seventeen percent of households making between $75,000 and $100,000 are mobile-only now, compared with 8 percent two years ago. And 15âpercent of households earning more than $100,000 are mobile-only, versus 6 percent in 2013.

18 of 352 comments (clear)

  1. Isn't that -more- expensive? by mccalli · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not American, but I would have thought that mobile data is more expensive than wired? Certainly that's the case in the UK.

    1. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by Infiniti2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but unless the usage is very large, it's generally cheaper to just buy the mobile data plan and not also have a home ISP. And, most people will never give up their mobile data access.

    2. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by IcyWolfy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I get Unlimited (2GB at 4G speeds, rest at 2G speeds) for $39.99/mo.
      Cheaper than Comcast's home internet offerings.

    3. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by transami · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you have to choose between a cell phone and a home Internet connection, which are you going to choose?

      --
      :T:R:A:N:S:
    4. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by chiefmojorising · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Internet, of course -- I can make voice calls using a myriad of apps and devices that way. Besides, there isn't any cell coverage here.

    5. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And by cheap/lazy you mean their shareholders aren't interested in 100+ year ROI.

    6. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by Comboman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but they are usually received with a level of dismissal that I can only assume is "we barely have a business case to have the wires down your street." Flag as Inappropriate

      More likely it's "we don't have any competition on your street."

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    7. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you like to use any of those streaming video services?

      If so, then mobile internet is out. You will blow through your cap in an evening.

      Keeping the wired broadband makes a lot of sense if you're not so poor that you have to do without Netflix, Amazon Prime, or HBO Now. On the other hand, cheap wired internet is still going to be cheaper than any mobile plan.

      I would tend to attribute the mobile fixation of poor people on innumeracy and stupidity.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    8. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > you still need a phone.

      You don't need a smart phone.

      You don't need a mobile phone either.

      It's just a luxury you've grown accustomed to.

      You don't "need" the single most expensive option available both in terms of service costs and the price of equipment.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by IMightB · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm getting tired of this argument. The ISP's and telco's have been subsidized to the tune of billions by taxpayers, for no benefit. The only times that service seems to improve is when someone like google or the local government says that they are start offering fiber to an area, then every ISP/telco/local monoploy starts suing and claiming that they are going to upgrade. If the locals drop the project due to lawsuits, then the telcos drop their improvements as well. It's not a metter of size of the US. It's a matter of pure greed.

    10. Re:Isn't that -more- expensive? by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't understand how or why someone who is living below the poverty line would even have a smartphone and pay for a dataplan, it really sounds like poor prioritization skills to me.

      This is exactly why a lot of poor remain poor.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  2. It's a utility, you idiots.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Internet is a utility. You can have it at home, expect it when you travel around, and so on. So why is the government letting ISPs scam us?

  3. It is mostly crap, when you can get it by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't even get wired home internet. All I can get is a WISP which charges $80/mo for 200GB at 7.5 Mbps peak (supposed to be up to 10 Mbps, but... fail)

    DSL is hot garbage, cable companies overcharge and try to bone you at every opportunity...

    Maybe if we could get some fair laws surrounding internet access? But our government is currently only concerned with making sure they can spy on us.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Comcast by johnsmithperson123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Followed by this article: 98% of Americans abandoning broadband say that lousy ISPs were the primary reason for doing so. "Even 4G LTE is cheaper than the rippoff prices" said one user. "Verizon wouldn't offer us any FIOS, so this was our only non-DSL option." another claimed. In other news, Google Fiber and FIOS are holding onto 90% of users.

  5. Eh? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    100% the fault of cable companies and shit ISP's.

    They want to keep the USA as a third world country as far as internet connectivity goes.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Eh? by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I think it's both true and untrue. I think it is more expensive to wire up the US because we have a lot of land area and people sprinkled through it fairly liberally. I think it's bullshit because telecom execs have collected piles of bonus money while failing to meet broadband penetration targets, after we paid them to do so. That is to say, it is more expensive, but we could clearly have accomplished it, and we did not because of fraud.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. I want to know the questions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the average user is being asked if they use wired broadband, but use wifi they'll say no even though their wifi router is being fed by it.

  7. Caps are bad for bulk downloads by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    My phone is 3 to 4 times faster than my basic cable (15/0.8) at home.

    But how fast would it complete, say, a 30 GB download of a game purchased on Steam? Cable at 15 Mbps completes it in 5 hours; cellular Internet would take months because of the much smaller cap that most cellular ISPs enforce.