I remember when a bomb went off in the Post Office tower. There had been some delays in the post due to industrial action. The next day there was a cartoon in the paper. The police were sifting through the wreckage and a telegram was delivered: "Warning - a bomb has been placed in the PO tower...."
This is a fairly good answer and the sort of thing I was getting at.
When did telephones become common in every household? If I had had to guess I would have said it was before the 70's though?
In wealthier households possibly but for normal ( both what would be called working and middle class ) it was not the norm until the late 70's and in to the early 80's really . I remember my Nan and Grandad being on a party line at one point.
I still have the 3 birthday telegrams from my grandmother .. why telegrams? because she forgot to send a card and was a stickler for remembering birthdays ,anniversaries etc.. It was years before I realised that ! It was always exciting when the telegram delivery came (big motorbike)
In wealthier households possibly but for normal ( both what would be called working and middle class ) it was not the norm until the late 70's and in to the early 80's really . I remember my Nan and Grandad being on a party line at one point.
We got a telephone in 1970 and I wouldn't say our household was wealthy.
I forgot my mum's upcoming birthday once and forgot to post a card. I sent her a telegram to get me out of jail. Think it cost £1.75 and was about 1998-ish. I dictated it to person on phone at 7pm-ish and it was delivered with first class post following morning..... she was well chuffed. Can't remember what price of stamp was then but I think £1.75 was reasonably comparable to a conventional card/stamp combo.
As I've just posted ours were delivered by a bloke with a big motorbike and no I'm not mistaken about that, easy to compare to relatives 50CCs, so don't know how that came about!
This is a fairly good answer and the sort of thing I was getting at.
When did telephones become common in every household? If I had had to guess I would have said it was before the 70's though?
We didn't get a phone until 1970, when my father went to work in Germany for 2 years. We were only the 3rd household in the block of 12 flats to have a phone.
I went to a posh fee-paying school, with loads of rich girls, and there was only one other girl in my year who didn't have a phone (another scholarship girl, needless to say). The posh girls found the lack of a phone, and a car, very odd. Mind you, some of them thought it was weird that we didn't all have a pony in the paddock.
I'd say it was the 70's when it started to change. By the 80s, I think most people had them.
Although we'd always had a phone at home (born 1970), when I went to uni in 1989 the idea of having a phone in student digs was considered an expensive and unnecessary luxury, so we used the nearest phonebox instead.
As I recall it a home phone became a 'normal to have' item universally around the early/mid 90s. And not too long afterwards came the massive growth in usage and normalisation of the mobile phone.
That's if you could even get one! Well, you could get one but there was a looooong waiting list.
Telephones are the best argument against nationalising anything. It was noticiable soon after BT was privatised-and particularly after competition came along-that waiting lists and party lines disappeared. Why couldn't the government owned BT-or the Post Office when it owned the telephone system-have got off its lazy backside and delivered a customer-responsive system?
In the US, the rate of households in 1980 with no phone in the unit was 7%. In 1960 it was 21% who didn't have "telephone access", which could be a shared phone not in the unit.
Honestly, it never would have occurred to me that there were people who didn't have home phones after around 1950 or so. I suppose in addition to its other benefits, a telegram solved the problem of people who didn't have phones. In my lifetime (born in the late 70's), I've never known anyone to not have any kind of phone, and I grew up in a pretty poor area.
As of 2000, 2.4% of US households didn't have a phone (land line or cell phone) in the unit. I don't know how you even survive. You need to be able to give people a phone number to conduct all sorts of official business. Although it's actually getting less essential now as email is more accepted as an alternative. Even lots of homeless people have prepaid cell phones.
Telephones are the best argument against nationalising anything. It was noticiable soon after BT was privatised-and particularly after competition came along-that waiting lists and party lines disappeared. Why couldn't the government owned BT-or the Post Office when it owned the telephone system-have got off its lazy backside and delivered a customer-responsive system?
So true!!
Bought a house without a 'phone in 1979 and had to wait 10 months for a phone to be fitted. Bought a new house in 1985 and had the 'phone delivered and connected at a specified time before I moved into the house.
That's if you could even get one! Well, you could get one but there was a looooong waiting list.
If your house doesn't have a phone line, it takes quite a long time to get one even now.
I bought a house 2 years ago without a phone line and it took 6 weeks to get the phone line (and associated internet connection) installed. The pole to connect the line is just outside my garden, but it needs BT to do it, regardless of your provider (unless you are cable).
This is a fairly good answer and the sort of thing I was getting at.
When did telephones become common in every household? If I had had to guess I would have said it was before the 70's though?
I would put early 80s for household phones being 'normal' or usual.
I'm agreeing with annette, telegrams were a very special event. Weddings and century birthdays.
And let's not forget once upon a time before people generally had phones it was possible to send a postcard to someone living in the same town in the morning to arrange to meet for lunch, then send another in the afternoon to say thank you, which would arrive by the evening.
If your house doesn't have a phone line, it takes quite a long time to get one even now.
Why would you want one, though? My new house is wired for phones in every room, but I've never gotten phone service for them. I'm thinking about having the ugly sockets removed from the wall next time I paint. I haven't had land line service in over a decade. It's relatively infrequent that I even use my smartphone for voice calls these days.
In the US, the rate of households in 1980 with no phone in the unit was 7%. In 1960 it was 21% who didn't have "telephone access", which could be a shared phone not in the unit.
Honestly, it never would have occurred to me that there were people who didn't have home phones after around 1950 or so. .
The American experience is a very different one to ours; you were always ahead of the UK on things like fridges, phones, cars, TV sets. We still had food rationing well into the 50s let alone the luxury of fridges to put the food in....and let alone phones at home! We were badly battered and bankrupted by the war, remember. The recent TV drama about Cilla Black (set ca. 1964) showed her having to take calls from her manager in a public phone box near her street. Only the rich in Britain could've dreamt of having a telephone in their own homes in that decade. It wasn't until the 70s that it became normal for regular families (but even then my grandparents had to share a line with their neighbours). This graph shows that at the start of the 70s most British homes didn't have a phone but during that decade the majority got one.
The posh girls found the lack of a phone, and a car, very odd. Mind you, some of them thought it was weird that we didn't all have a pony in the paddock.
I'd say it was the 70's when it started to change. By the 80s, I think most people had them.
Telephones are the best argument against nationalising anything. It was noticiable soon after BT was privatised-and particularly after competition came along-that waiting lists and party lines disappeared. Why couldn't the government owned BT-or the Post Office when it owned the telephone system-have got off its lazy backside and delivered a customer-responsive system?
Yes, privatising BT was a very good thing. Partly because you can actually have genuine competition in the telecoms sector, unlike the utilities where I still find it bizarre that you can have loads of middle men selling you gas, water and electricity for varying amounts.
BT might still have the bulk of the fixed network, but by no means all of it - with the cable and mobile operators. In fact, technically, BT doesn't have anything either as it's a different division - so the lines/exchanges aren't the BT you or I would buy services from.
Whereas trains are the best argument against de-nationalising anything.
British Rail wasn't much better than BT. I am not saying railway privatisation is brilliant, although the newer management contracts are far better than previous franchises, but we've seen a massive improvement in the railways since the 1990s. It's also a lot safer than it has ever been, even if we did have to have some rather nasty accidents to finally sort that side out.
I'd say that privatisation of the railway is a good thing (and an EU requirement) but could and should have been done differently. Renationalising it is not a solution and wouldn't save money (or would save money but to the detriment of the service). Not that any party has any plans to do this, whatever might be said before the next election.
Management contracts, like the way TfL manages things, means companies getting paid a fixed fee to run a service. They don't keep the revenue from ticket sales and are paid a bonus if they can increase business, with a share of the revenue then.
I prefer this than imagining a state run railway where at the first mention of the need to make cuts, the railway will be the first casualty, just as it was before.
Yes, privatising BT was a very good thing. Partly because you can actually have genuine competition in the telecoms sector, unlike the utilities where I still find it bizarre that you can have loads of middle men selling you gas, water and electricity for varying amounts.
BT might still have the bulk of the fixed network, but by no means all of it - with the cable and mobile operators. In fact, technically, BT doesn't have anything either as it's a different division - so the lines/exchanges aren't the BT you or I would buy services from.
British Rail wasn't much better than BT. I am not saying railway privatisation is brilliant, although the newer management contracts are far better than previous franchises, but we've seen a massive improvement in the railways since the 1990s. It's also a lot safer than it has ever been, even if we did have to have some rather nasty accidents to finally sort that side out.
I'd say that privatisation of the railway is a good thing (and an EU requirement) but could and should have been done differently. Renationalising it is not a solution and wouldn't save money (or would save money but to the detriment of the service). Not that any party has any plans to do this, whatever might be said before the next election.
Management contracts, like the way TfL manages things, means companies getting paid a fixed fee to run a service. They don't keep the revenue from ticket sales and are paid a bonus if they can increase business, with a share of the revenue then.
I prefer this than imagining a state run railway where at the first mention of the need to make cuts, the railway will be the first casualty, just as it was before.
We have the most expensive public (ie in effect private) transport in Western Europe. I can't see how that's been a great victory...except for the people who make all the big profits while taking millions in tax payers subsidies too. In the days of nationalisation governments in this country chose not to adequately fund the rail system. Other countries like Germany made different decisions. Neither were in private hands.
Comments
When the PO sold them off for next to nothing, local kids could be seen for years running around on them
In my days in Telegraphs they were called Junior Postmen. That was a bit later than the kind shown in the photo though!
That's if you could even get one! Well, you could get one but there was a looooong waiting list.
In wealthier households possibly but for normal ( both what would be called working and middle class ) it was not the norm until the late 70's and in to the early 80's really . I remember my Nan and Grandad being on a party line at one point.
And, even better, Mercury.
As I've just posted ours were delivered by a bloke with a big motorbike and no I'm not mistaken about that, easy to compare to relatives 50CCs, so don't know how that came about!
We didn't get a phone until 1970, when my father went to work in Germany for 2 years. We were only the 3rd household in the block of 12 flats to have a phone.
I went to a posh fee-paying school, with loads of rich girls, and there was only one other girl in my year who didn't have a phone (another scholarship girl, needless to say). The posh girls found the lack of a phone, and a car, very odd. Mind you, some of them thought it was weird that we didn't all have a pony in the paddock.
I'd say it was the 70's when it started to change. By the 80s, I think most people had them.
As I recall it a home phone became a 'normal to have' item universally around the early/mid 90s. And not too long afterwards came the massive growth in usage and normalisation of the mobile phone.
Telephones are the best argument against nationalising anything. It was noticiable soon after BT was privatised-and particularly after competition came along-that waiting lists and party lines disappeared. Why couldn't the government owned BT-or the Post Office when it owned the telephone system-have got off its lazy backside and delivered a customer-responsive system?
Honestly, it never would have occurred to me that there were people who didn't have home phones after around 1950 or so. I suppose in addition to its other benefits, a telegram solved the problem of people who didn't have phones. In my lifetime (born in the late 70's), I've never known anyone to not have any kind of phone, and I grew up in a pretty poor area.
As of 2000, 2.4% of US households didn't have a phone (land line or cell phone) in the unit. I don't know how you even survive. You need to be able to give people a phone number to conduct all sorts of official business. Although it's actually getting less essential now as email is more accepted as an alternative. Even lots of homeless people have prepaid cell phones.
So true!!
Bought a house without a 'phone in 1979 and had to wait 10 months for a phone to be fitted. Bought a new house in 1985 and had the 'phone delivered and connected at a specified time before I moved into the house.
If your house doesn't have a phone line, it takes quite a long time to get one even now.
I bought a house 2 years ago without a phone line and it took 6 weeks to get the phone line (and associated internet connection) installed. The pole to connect the line is just outside my garden, but it needs BT to do it, regardless of your provider (unless you are cable).
I would put early 80s for household phones being 'normal' or usual.
I'm agreeing with annette, telegrams were a very special event. Weddings and century birthdays.
*waves at annette*
Why would you want one, though? My new house is wired for phones in every room, but I've never gotten phone service for them. I'm thinking about having the ugly sockets removed from the wall next time I paint. I haven't had land line service in over a decade. It's relatively infrequent that I even use my smartphone for voice calls these days.
Whereas trains are the best argument against de-nationalising anything.
The American experience is a very different one to ours; you were always ahead of the UK on things like fridges, phones, cars, TV sets. We still had food rationing well into the 50s let alone the luxury of fridges to put the food in....and let alone phones at home! We were badly battered and bankrupted by the war, remember. The recent TV drama about Cilla Black (set ca. 1964) showed her having to take calls from her manager in a public phone box near her street. Only the rich in Britain could've dreamt of having a telephone in their own homes in that decade. It wasn't until the 70s that it became normal for regular families (but even then my grandparents had to share a line with their neighbours). This graph shows that at the start of the 70s most British homes didn't have a phone but during that decade the majority got one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-12058944
In the US, the rate of households in 1980 with no phone may have been 7% but here it was 30%.
As for the OP's point of why telegrams persisted. Try reaching someone on a ship by phone in the 80s.
Ponies in the paddock? ;-)
Yes, privatising BT was a very good thing. Partly because you can actually have genuine competition in the telecoms sector, unlike the utilities where I still find it bizarre that you can have loads of middle men selling you gas, water and electricity for varying amounts.
BT might still have the bulk of the fixed network, but by no means all of it - with the cable and mobile operators. In fact, technically, BT doesn't have anything either as it's a different division - so the lines/exchanges aren't the BT you or I would buy services from.
British Rail wasn't much better than BT. I am not saying railway privatisation is brilliant, although the newer management contracts are far better than previous franchises, but we've seen a massive improvement in the railways since the 1990s. It's also a lot safer than it has ever been, even if we did have to have some rather nasty accidents to finally sort that side out.
I'd say that privatisation of the railway is a good thing (and an EU requirement) but could and should have been done differently. Renationalising it is not a solution and wouldn't save money (or would save money but to the detriment of the service). Not that any party has any plans to do this, whatever might be said before the next election.
Management contracts, like the way TfL manages things, means companies getting paid a fixed fee to run a service. They don't keep the revenue from ticket sales and are paid a bonus if they can increase business, with a share of the revenue then.
I prefer this than imagining a state run railway where at the first mention of the need to make cuts, the railway will be the first casualty, just as it was before.
We have the most expensive public (ie in effect private) transport in Western Europe. I can't see how that's been a great victory...except for the people who make all the big profits while taking millions in tax payers subsidies too. In the days of nationalisation governments in this country chose not to adequately fund the rail system. Other countries like Germany made different decisions. Neither were in private hands.