CBS News/ April 23, 2011, 11:21 AM

Percentage of cell phone-only U.S. homes doubles

A new federal study says more than a quarter of homes in the United States now have only a wireless phone, and no "landline."

That percentage doubled in three years.

Among the findings of the survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics:

-- More than one-in-four U.S. homes, or 26.6 percent, had only a wireless phone as of June 2010, up from 13.6 percent in 2007.

-- The percentage of wireless-only homes increased in every state, ranging from 35.2 percent in Arkansas to 12.8 percent in Rhode Island and New Jersey.

-- Rhode Island and New Jersey were the lowest at 12.8 percent of adults and children in cellular-only households. Next was Connecticut, at 13.6. New York was at 17 percent, and California at 18 percent.

-- By contrast, Arkansas had the highest concentration of people in cell-only households, at 35.2 percent. Next were Mississippi, at 35.1 percent, Texas at 32.5 percent, North Dakota, at 32.3 percent, Idaho at 31.7 percent, and Kentucky at 31.5 percent.

"There are really three factors at play here," personal finance expert Carmen Wong Ulrich said on "The Early Show on Saturday Morning." "One is the affordability of cell phones. Folks with tight budgets are less likely to be able to carry a landline and a cell phone. That's regional, as well.

"But age is a big factor. Especially in the Northeast, where folks are older, they're less likely to have the cell phone.

"Forty-four percent of folks between the age of 18-and-30 are wireless only. That's a huge number. And a lot of young adults will never have a land line in their lives.

"Also, in terms of renters versus homeowners ... 47 percent of renters are wireless-only, (because) they're moving around. They're more mobile."

But is going wireless-only right for you? Ulrich says there are several important factors to consider beyond cost alone.

© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
12 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
shadycreek says:
Landline call quality is generally much better and none of those annoying (only slightly detectable) delays in voice when speaking cel to cel. Ugh. Give me a landline any day.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
nonwzisgdnwz says:
Over 55, and cell phone only, for two years now. Cable service was only $10 more a month, and far more dependable for our internet. (Internet service with former landline phone company only got 10% of the connectivity we were supposed to be getting, and continually crashed. Geek son measured this on the outdoor meter after 'repair work' twice done by landline phone company failed to improve connection.)

Now more than one computer can be on at a time, we enjoy HGTV and Netflix, when the phone rings we know who it's for, and--NO more political, market research, and fund-raising calls! Have yet to discover a reason to miss our old landline.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
cktirumalai says:
What a long way we have come from the rotary phone. Dialling seven digits (ten with the area code) might be seen as hard work now.
I understand that the cell-phone cannot automatically indicate the caller's location on a 911 call.
Candadai Tirumalai
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
26spudtc says:
I have a landline and a cell phone. Landline are more stable than cell phones. Cell phone users tend to change their phone numbers far more frequently than people who have landlines. I keep my landline so that all our relatives all the country are able to reach us. I also keep my landline because my house alarm is connected through it. Sorry, CBS, but linelines will be around 20 years from now. Terre Martin Torrance, CA
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
erasmus111 says:
I got a cell phone for emergencies only. I do not want to have to use a cell phone all the time. I don't want a brain tumor.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Jaylah54 says:
It was a simple decision for me. I had to have a cell phone for medical reasons (my doctor needs to be able to reach me immediately at any time of day or night).

I couldn't afford both a cell phone and a land-line, so the land line went when I got my cell phone.

As for the 911 problem, in my community, you can "register" your cell-phone number with the local 911 service.
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Scooter68 says:
Let's see in NW Arkansas we were paying $57.00 a month for the most basic landline and their "free" 100 mins of long distance calling. Oh but lest we forget you still had to pay extra taxes when you used those 'free' minutes. Another cell phone line (We transferred our landline number to cellular service) now costs us $20.00 a month and we get unlimited long distance cell-to-cell.

No contest. It's simply basic economics. Of course no cell service can be an issue but basically it would make no sense to set up with a celluar company that doesn't have coverage at your house - unless you are never home. Duh!
reply
linkicon reporticon emailicon
slatep says:
I get absolutely no signal on my cell phone where I live.

My landline works every time and is my lifeline as my address appears on 911 computers making it easy for emergency responders to find me.

This is not to mention all the hoopla about cell phones being able to track your every move for the last yeae, and GOD only knows what other information can be gathered by the government if they so choose.

If anything goes wrong and you are in a dead zone, you could very well wind up dead yourself.

Technology is a good thing, but sometimes it can go too far.
reply
jmailbox replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
You know what's annoying about this article? Why is the Center of Diesease Control doing a research project on it? I mean, isn't that out of their scope of work? Shouldn't the FCC be the one wasting our tax dollars on this survey?
Pipsqueako replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Then you are an idiot for choosing THAT cell phone company. Do your research before you purchase something like cell service (especially if you are under contract)... Instead of whining in the comments about how your service doesn't work.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
skeezix06 says:
Another consideration. Rural areas don't have access to cable as a way to get access to the internet. If they can't afford the excessive costs and restrictions on the few alternative internet sources available (most of us can't) their choices are either landlines or satellite.
reply
senca67 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
I think you ment cell service and satellite, which is what we also face where we live.
See all 12 Comments