I'm surprised that "the lowest telephone penetration exists in central cities". According to 'Falling though the net: A survey of the "Have Nots" in rural and urban area', only 79.8 percent have a telephone in central cities, followed by rural (81.6) and urban (81.7). I can't understand why. I would expect the contrary. Could anybody explain me why? I don't have a clue.
Furthermore, the definition of central city it's not clear to me. I'm very confused, especially when I read "there is no relation between data for central city and data for urban versus rural." What does it mean? Maybe that it is not possible to do a comparison between data because they doesn't share the same population scale?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Some people in central cities are very, very poor -- imagine the worst neighborhoods in places like New York and LA. Poor people in the inner city may also feel that they do not need their own telephone as much as people in rural areas would, because if they had an emergency they could go to a neighbor's apartment or use a payphone.
ReplyDelete