A short history of instantaneous distance communication

The telephone was the first device to become widely available that provided a means of instantaneous communication between individuals at different locations. For social interaction it, of course, had the advantage (compared to correspondence by letter) that those communicating could hear each others’ voices. Looked at from a more practical point of view we can say that, particularly for business use, it had two advantages over the public postal system. It allowed decisions, such as orders for goods, to be communicated instantly. A second – related – advantage was that it allowed information gathering in an interactive way – where questions can be asked and further questions arising from those questions asked, in a way which might not be easily done by letter within a reasonable timeframe.

Semaphore towers, which also provided instant communication, existed long before telephones became available, but the nature of the infrastructure meant that they were not means of instantaneous personal communication in the same way as telephones became, because the individual wishing to communicate would have to write their message and deliver it to the semaphore operator (or travel to the semaphore tower and dictate the message on the spot). And the later telex and fax, which used electric cables, were never, in practice, a means of instantaneous personal communication for business because offices tended to have a single (or a limited number of) central fax or telex machines rather than having machines on everyone's desk as was typically the case with telephones once they caught on.  

Telephone use increased gradually during the 20th Century, coming into widespread use in the second half of the century. By the end of the 20th Century, email – which had the same two practical advantages (instantaneous and interactive) as the telephone, over the post – was increasingly being used. But by this time mobile phones were becoming common and so mobile phones, which could be carried anywhere, had a temporary advantage over email which generally required a computer. Although PDAs (personal digital assistants), which provided email capability in a pocket device, existed, they were fiddly to use because, in order to fit  on a pocket device, the keys needed to be much smaller than the width of a finger. They were also expensive and most people, if they had to choose and could not afford both, would buy a mobile phone rather than a PDA or a hybrid. In 2007 the first smartphone combining, in a single device, a mobile phone with easy-to-use email capabilities, appeared. Smartphones have a "soft" keypad which can be made to appear and disappear, to increase or decrease in size as the smartphone is rotated, and to change from alphabetic to numeric/symbol, as required, thus solving the conundrum of having reasonably sized keys on a pocket device. With such advantages, and decreases in price due to mass production, sales of smartphones quickly took off and, since around 2010, virtually all mobile phone sales have been smartphones with email and instant messaging capability. 

Annual OFCOM Communications Market Reports have shown (COVID-19 lockdown aside) a year on year reduction in call volume and call duration since smartphones were introduced. Many people prefer email communication to a voice call because it can take less time. If you call, the person you are calling may not be available. You can leave a voice message for them to ring you back but, when they do, you may not be available, so the time taken for you to listen to the ringing tone, leave a message, and for the other person to listen to the message, ring and wait for you to answer, is unproductive time. Delivery of an email is virtually instantaneous but does not require the two people in communication to be available at precisely the same time. For some purposes instant messaging may be preferable.  

Some people can find it stressful to talk to someone without being able to see their facial expressions – particularly someone they do not know well. And, even if it does not cause stress, communicating by voice, without being able to see, alters the callers' behaviours to a degree. In face to face conversation, there are natural pauses, and we can also discern, by body language, when someone is thinking before replying and distinguish that from a shocked silence, or a deliberate silence of disapproval. In face to face communication sometimes body language is used to indicate a response without words being used at all. When using the telephone we try to keep talking and avoid pauses because we know (from our own experience) that the other person may find pauses disconcerting or might misunderstand them. “The phone went silent” is a staple of many a novel, used for dramatic effect. We know that it matters. So whereas in a face to face conversation people if necessary take time to think before responding, in voice calls there is pressure to avoid silence. Video conferencing does not completely avoid this phenomenon because the video quality is rarely as good as real life and unless a dedicated line is used there will be some slight delay which is offputting. In addition, particularly if more than two people are in the conference, the lack of any equivalent of peripheral vision means that it is difficult for participants to read the reactions and demeanour of everyone present. Different people react to the artificiality and pressure to avoid silence, at different times, in different ways. They may repeat something they have already said, or say the first thing which comes into their mind - while they think of a more considered response. This can cause misunderstanding. Or they may feel pushed into making a definite response when ideally they would have wanted to think more about it first. Of course with email or instant messaging you can’t see body language either but they avoid the stress and potential for misunderstanding inherent in the artificial situation of having to avoid natural silences in conversation. Even with instant messaging there is inevitably a short delay between each message if only because of the time it takes to type, and everyone is used to there being a delay so that slightly longer delays while each party takes time to think before replying are not disconcerting (as they would be in a voice conversation).

Talking about legal matters in a voice call has its own particular risks. You don’t want to take action based on a misunderstanding of advice being given, and it can be difficult, in a voice call, for a lawyer to fully convey all the qualifications and options. There is also the possibility of the lawyer not fully appreciating the facts as you have described them on which any advice will be based. Despite these potential problems solicitors traditionally talked to clients on the telephone because that was expected. It is also profitable – every minute on the telephone is charged at the fee-earner’s hourly rate and short calls are traditionally rounded up to the nearest 6 minutes (one tenth of an hour). The charge includes the time taken to write up a file note of the conversation. In addition solicitors will typically speak in a qualified way (e.g. “It could be the case that…if so…”). Solicitors generally instruct barristers to provide specialist advice at strategic points and to draft key documents (as well as to represent the client at hearings) and because of this solicitors generally make a practice of qualifying what they say – not just on the telephone but in letters and emails as well – because they are aware that more definitive (or even different) advice may in due course be given by a specialist barrister. Broad brush advice which commences with "if" is less likely to be misunderstood (and perhaps less likely to cause difficulty if misunderstood because it is unlikely to be relied on when making any major decision). 

If you analyse a typical voice call, it includes quite a lot of repetition and small talk which may be agreeable in a social call but can waste time in business settings. There is also the question of keeping a record. Email is its own record but you have to make an effort to write down what is said in a voice call. That takes more time.

If you are buying an important service (as distinct from buying standard manufactured goods), or if you want to talk over an important matter with a professional advisor, you might feel that you want to meet them and talk face to face, but where face to face communication is not essential many people prefer to use email rather than make a voice call.

Of course there are a few situations where a voice call is essential – 999 calls to the emergency services, for example, where there is threat to life and limb, and every second may count. And there are other occasions where it is highly desirable - calling the garage to see if your car is ready to collect where you need a quick answer because if it is ready you need to leave in time to get there before they close. But in most situations – leaving aside social calls where voice has its own importance (or business calls where there is a social element because you happen to be on friendly terms with the other party) voice calls are becoming less frequent. In fact virtually all mobile phone service plans now provide for unlimited voice calls and the price depends on the amount of data used alone - it is economic for operators to provide voice calls free because they are relatively insignificant compared to data usage.

Many business websites do not show a phone number and Google My Business, for example, only requires businesses to have either a website or a phone, not both.  

In the past people expected solicitors to be available on the phone when they rang but increasingly email is being used and when solicitors contact clients it is usually by letter or email, rather than by telephone. If you ring there is no guarantee that you will actually be able to speak to the solicitor normally dealing with your case – they may not be available. Someone else may say “can I help?” which you may welcome or dread – it is not always easy to say “No. I want to speak to...” when someone is keen to help instead. Many solicitors' firms now have a system where if you want to speak by phone you fill in a panel on their website to book a call-back for a particular time and, rather than use this, probably a majority of clients now find it easier to contact their solicitors by email, rather than phone, most of the time.  

With 98% of adults in the UK having a smartphone with email capability, the use of voice calls for business communication is becoming something of a rarity.

This page was lasted updated in July 2024.          Disclaimer