What's your hangup? Pew Research shows a decline in landline telephone use

Keep these numbers in mind when you hear about political polls as we head toward November elections. 26% of households do not have a landline, and are not likely represented in telephone surveys of "likely voters".

In the case of the landline phone, a rising thumbs-down verdict comes not just from the survey but also from the marketplace. According to a Pew Research Center analysis of government data, just 74% of U.S. households now have a landline phone.1 This is down from a peak of 97% in 2001.2
From the Pew Research report, The Fading Glory of the Television and Telephone

Well, who are they missing?

The latest estimates of telephone coverage, released last week by the National Center for Health Statistics, found that 25% of households (and 23% of adults) in the second half of 2009 had no landline service and only cell phone service (just 2% of households had no telephone service of any type). For certain subgroups in the population, the numbers are considerably higher: 30% of Hispanics are cell-only, as are 49% of adults ages 25-29.
From the Pew Research report, Assessing the Cell Phone Challenge

Wow, if you are hispanic and in your late 20's then it just looks like you are under represented in political surveys.
Before you start thinking this is an isolated situation, think again. The general trend is away from landlines.

(Pew Research, 2009)

Polls have a margin of error, depending on how many people are in the sample. The problem is that at some point very soon the polls will simply be wrong. You should anticipate getting a call on your cell phone in the near future. What the caller on the other end will not know is if you are standing in your home, or are driving down the road. The nature of the problem is that a perfectly reasonable landline activity will intrude in to your cellphone context, anywhere, placeless.
It will take years of society rule making to negotiate the right time/place involving a device whose killer app is its landline-ness-less.

It has taken a decade, or so, for a cell phone call to be an acceptable activity in some shared social spaces. Yakking on your phone at a fast-food restaurant when you are alone is pretty safe, unlike having your ringer going off in the middle of a movie theater during a movie.
Those calls are most likely you talking to somebody you know.

Now imagine it is a survey call on your cellphone.

seattlesportsblog: Thunder in OKC Means Lightning In Seattle....

People talking about people talking about a new arena. This time it is the NHL playing in the Tacoma Dome until a new arena is built in Seattle.
A few days ago somebody wanted to talk to me about an arena in King County. A few weeks before that somebody else asked me questions. And, before that. . .

There are some constants in all of these exercises (none of these are facts, just obvious assumptions): Key Arena is dead; there isn't an actual location for the new arena; the NBA and NHL will occupy the building; the building will be completely privately funded (people forget the municipal infrastructure service to an arena, but that can all get offset by some user fee/parking tax); there is always an assumed owner; the City of Seattle and the State of Washington are assumed to be of little or no use; the market is too big to ignore; the fans are better people than any of the other parties involved.

With that I give you the Seattle Lightening (next time, make sure you take a few swings at Jeff Smulyan, thanks).

The fact Leiweke was chosen as the new head of operations in Tampa and given part ownership is not a coincidence, it’s due to behind the scenes work with many people in this area on Clay’s Funhouse and on the fact the ownership in Tampa especially Jeff Vinick (now the 6th ownership group in less than 20 years) is looking for a way out of the failed Sun Belt hockey experience. Leiweke has gotten buildings done in Minnesota and a handful of other towns. He has the knowledge and the friendships in Seattle to do the same.

The St. Pete Times Forum in Tampa is tied to Lightning ownership, that makes an escape clause a moot point….There isn’t one…Whoever owns the team can pack up anytime they choose to and (pardon the pun) bolt.

The building issue in Seattle isn’t the issue (right now), where the issue lies is with some behind the scenes dealings (trust me, there are talks going on as I type this) about how long a team would be stuck in the Tacoma Dome as a “temporary venue” …Personally, I think it’s “if they come, we will build it”…

Leiweke is our best friend right now when it comes to an arena sport, and we need to keep up the goodwill during his TEMPORARY stay in Tampa. Remember folks, you might not like hockey..That’s fine…But you think an NBA team wouldn’t follow closely behind a Seattle Lightning strike?

Things about about to heat up….Get those season ticket deposits ready because 2011 isn’t that far off and Tampa is about to feel karma kick it square in the ass….Tampa Bay Mariners? Psssssh….Seattle Lightning, my how times change….

Read the whole thing, here,
seattlesportsblog: Thunder in OKC Means Lightning In Seattle....: "Thunder in OKC, Lightning In Seattle? By: Anonymous Tod Leiweke is gone to Tampa.....As a Seahawks fan it registers somewhere between 'Hey!..."

Now, go buy a New Seattle Arena, 2014 bumpersticker right now.

Are symphonies still 'too big to fail'? || Crosscut.com

This is strangely familiar.

Sounds like a broken business model, is this "dance halls for millionaires"?
The Sonics left, and things penciled out just fine. There are plenty things to do, and attraction in the area (fill in the rest of the anti-sports entertainment rant).
Let a private company blah, blah, blah.", and if they leave, they leave.
He [young French conductor Ludovic Morlot] is the Kevin Durant of maestros.
Well to-do people in luxury boxes and corporate ticket holders using the entertainment as a backdrop for their business dealings can find some other venue for that, we don't need (insert entertainment in a public building here).
I noticed that David Brewster did not mention how much public money we have pumped into our grand music hall, sort of skipped past that part.

Anyway, the Everett Symphony cut short/suspended much of its activity, many, many others are in a similar position.

I am sure somebody like Sherman Alexie (or, whatever the symphony equivolent is) would testify in federal court that the symphony is a cherished institution, and it would be disappointing for those that enjoy that form of entertainment. Still, it is much like other forms of entertainment that has had the benefit of public support in some way, but still fails as a business.

Having decades of joy go away would be sad, I can empathize. I know all of the arguments.

— Mr Baker

One of the interesting civic dramas in the next few years will be the effort to turn around the fortunes of the Seattle Symphony. I say "civic" drama, because the plight of these orchestras very much involves a city's reputation, particularly its ability to attract corporations and to serve as a symbol of a region's rising cultural reputation. Such orchestras are nearly always "too big to fail."

Are symphonies still 'too big to fail'? || Crosscut.com

Good luck with that argument.