At the other extreme? People in Rhode Island, Connecticut and New Jersey still hold their land lines, and they have the lowest concentrations of people whose houses only use cell phones.
The study, published Wednesday, was part of an annual survey conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics. Information from interviews has been mixed to the census data to draw a map of cell use only by the State.
Its conclusions reflect the trends of behavior of consumers who are driven by age, mobility, and in a strange twist, poverty. According to Stephen Blumberg, the researcher who conducted the study, nearly 40% of adults living in poverty only use cell phones, compared with about 21 percent of adults with higher incomes.
There seems to be many reasons for this. Cell phones have become more affordable. The barrier of owning one is lower with pay-as-you-go plans. Some countries allow subsidies for residents with low income to apply to wireless bills. And increasingly, those who can not afford the two types of phones choose their cell phone.
This is, of course, a long way since the days when mobile phones exclusively belonged to wealthy business people. In fact, the richest areas - New England, New York, California – had among the lowest concentrations of cellular households only.
Rhode Island and New Jersey were lower to 12.8% of adults and children of cellular households only. Just before was Connecticut 13.6. New York was at 17 percent and California at 18 per cent.
However, Arkansas had the highest concentration of persons in household cell only, to 35.2%. Then was Mississippi at 35.1%, Texas to 32.5%, Dakota North to 32.3% Idaho to 31.7% and Kentucky to 31.5%.
Those who were more nomadic were more likely to use cell phones only. Forty - seven per cent of tenants were wireless only, compared to 15% of the owners, said Mr. Blumberg.
Age is another important factor. Forty - four percent of the people aged 18 to 30 are users of cell only, compared to only 18% of people over 31 years, said Mr. Blumberg.
Only some of the places with the lowest concentrations of cellular households were also the oldest. According to Andrew a. Beveridge, a Professor of sociology at Queens College, in Connecticut was seventh oldest state in the country by median age in 2009, Rhode Island is the eighth and New Jersey was 11th.
"It would not surprise me if this expression"Residential phone number"is going the way of the dial telephones and lines of party," said Mr. Blumberg. "Instead of teaching a child a home phone number, the child will be taught number of Mom and dad number and number of grandmother."
California seems to be an exception to the rule. He was one of the lowest concentrations of cell phone only households, although its median age makes it the youngest sixth State, according to the 2009 census data.
James e. Katz, Director of the Center for Mobile Communication Studies at Rutgers University, said one reason could be the generous subsidies that the State gives residents with low incomes for local calls to landlines.
While some States are participating in a plan that grants apply to cellular phone service, California is not something that hides what would otherwise be the much higher rates of households cellphone only, said Dr. Katz.
Another factor seemed to be the prevalence of landlines. In 2000, Mississippi was no. 2, Puerto Rico, for the part of residents who do not have a home phone number, according to the census data. Arkansas was no. 4. In the two States, the number was less than 7 per cent of households.
Robert Gebeloff contributed reporting from New York.
