Re: Qualtiy of wartime voice communications?

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 20:21:03 +0000 (UTC), hancock4@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>I don't think local calls would've been affected, but long distance
>calls over a great distance would've been of poor quality.

I seems to me that local calls in the war years in the U.S. had better
quality than the typical cell-phone conversation today. There may well
have been an improvement postwar in landline communications, however.

I can't really testify to long-distance calls, since they were so
expensive that one seldom made such calls, and most people did not
use phones to communicate with people in distant places. I do remember
call Concord MA from Brookline MA in 1945--was that long distance?
Forty miles, say. It cost 75 cents for three minutes, which I would
reckon to be $15 today by the most useful deflator. Put another way,
it represented about an hour and a half's work.

The voice quality was as good as local, but of course that was a far
cry from New York to Los Angeles.




-- all the best, Dan Ford

email warbird@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com
--

.

Quantcast