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? |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| 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. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to Jerm
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. |
|
McSummation
Mmmm, Zeebas Are Tastee.
Premium,MVM
join:2003-08-13
Round Rock, TX
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :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. |
|
tschmidt
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-12
Milford, NH
 ·Hollis Hosting
·Verizon Online DSL
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to Jerm
said by Jerm :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 |
|
Fluker
join:2005-04-07
West Lafayette, IN
| reply to McSummation
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. |
|
