1. 1
Jessica Miedel
Rhetoric & Philosophy of Communication
FINAL PROJECT
The Invention of the Telephone and its Effect on Society
The telephone is the most widely used telecommunication device in the world, with
billions of phone sets in existence all over the globe (“Telephone,” 2015). Phones are easy to
use, relatively inexpensive, and allow for ‘personal’ communication interactions. The telephone
not only created a way to communicate with others regardless of distance and time, it has also
affected many other areas of human life---interpersonal communication, commerce, government,
culture, privacy, and more. In the following essay, I will examine some of the major implications
that the invention of the telephone has caused.
Most people ascribe the invention of the telephone to the Scottish-born American
scientist, Alexander Graham Bell. Bell studied speech and phonology in Edinburgh, Scotland
under his father and grandfather and then pursued further education in the same field at the
University of London (“Alexander Graham Bell,” 2009). Bell moved to Canada in 1870 and a
few years later established a school for the deaf in Boston, MA. In 1873, Bell began teaching
speech and vocal physiology at Boston University. Outside of the classroom, Bell rigorously
experimented with various kinds of transmitters, with the intention of creating a device that
could aid deaf students learning to speak. The basic principle of his experiments was to transmit
telegraph messages at the same time over a single wire. This research led Bell to imagine what
would eventually become the telephone. “If I could make a current of electricity vary in
intensity precisely as the air varies in density during the production of sound, I should be able to
transmit speech telegraphically” (“Alexander Graham Bell,” 2009).

2. 2
In 1875, Bell partnered with Thomas Augustus Watson, in hopes of making his idea into a
reality. One of their initial models consisted of two membrane receivers that were electronically
connected (also known as a liquid transmitter)--essentially, a sound wave would cause the first
membrane to vibrate which then created a current that traveled through an electromagnetic coil
that was connected to the second membrane (“A Visual History of the Telephone,” 2013). Once
this current reached the second membrane, it would vibrate the same sound. Although this
model only transmitted sounds, rather than intelligible human speech, it was a major step in the
invention process. History has it that the first test phrase spoken into Bell’s design was “Mr.
Watson, come here. I want you.” (“The Evolution of Telephones”). A year later, on February 14,
1876, Bell applied for the first U.S. patent for the telephone (“Telephone,” 2015).
As mentioned earlier, there has been much debate surrounding the question of who
invented the telephone. While Bell was awarded the first U.S. patent for the invention, several
others were working towards developing the telephone as well. During the early 19th century,
many researchers were working towards transmitting sound via electricity. Italian inventor
Antonio Meucci was credited with inventing the first basic phone in 1844. His model consisted
of a thin disk which vibrated when receiving or producing sound waves and an electrode. This
model was able to transmit sound; however, nothing close to the complexity of human speech.
About a decade later (1854), Frenchman Charles Bourseul devised a similar apparatus which
allowed for the transmission of basic sounds (“The Development of the Telephone,” 2006). In
Germany, Johann Philipp Reis developed a version of the telephone in 1861 that was made up of
a membrane in the form of a metallic strip that would periodically hit a metallic point that was
connected to an electrical circuit, which was capable of reproducing a single tone (“Telephone,”
2015). Back in the United States, Elisha Gray created a device that utilized a steel diaphragm

3. 3
and an electromagnet that could receive and replicate transmitted tones, also known as the
Harmonic telephone concept (“Telephone,” 2015). Gray, in fact, also filed an application for a
U.S. patent for the telephone, only a few hours after Bell submitted his. At this time, neither Bell
nor Gray actually had a working model of the telephone; however, the competition was high and
there was no time to waste. Those few hours made the difference and Bell was awarded the
patent (often said to be one of the most valuable patents in U.S. history).
The race was on to find an effective transmitter capable of transmitting human speech.
Up until this point, only simple tones were able to be reproduced by the existing telephone
models. While various inventors worked towards finding the perfect transmitter, it was Thomas
Edison who created the carbon transmitter, which was simple, cost-effective, and enduring. It
was used in the basic telephone model up until the 1970s (“Telephone,” 2015). Thus, the
telephone was created, most likely due to the combination of ideas and research from various
inventors of the 19th century.
Almost equally important as the invention of the telephone was the development of the
telephone system, which enabled telephone users to connect with other users. Only a few years
after Alexander Graham Bell was given the original telephone patent, the first telephone line was
built, as well as the first switchboard, and first operational phone exchange (“The Development
of the Telephone,” 2006). Three years after that, there were almost 50,000 telephones in use
(“The Development of the Telephone,” 2006). By 1910, 5.8 million phones were in use and the
transcontinental phone line was in operation by 1915. AT&T (American Telegraph and
Telephone Company) was established in 1885 by Bell and other associates, operating under the
slogan “one system, one policy, universal service” (“A Short History of the Telephone,” 2002).
This slogan was particularly appropriate considering their soon-to-be monopoly of the telephone

4. 4
industry, which subsequently lasted until the early 1980s. While other companies tried to enter
into the market, AT&T would ultimately buy them out. President Woodrow Wilson took action
in 1919 in an effort to stop this monopoly by granting the U.S. Post Office control of the
telephone lines; however, this only lasted for one year. After that, phone lines were back to
being privately owned, which meant they were once again under the ownership of AT&T. The
Federal Communication Commission (FCC) allowed this regulated monopoly under the
conditions that AT&T connected with competing local providers and the FCC had the final
approval of prices and policies (“A Short History of the Telephone,” 2002).
The earliest telephone systems were manually operated by a central switchboard. The
first telephone exchange was established in New Haven, Connecticut, which enabled up to 21
customers to reach one another (“Telephone,” 2015). In 1891; however, Almon Brown Strowger
patented the first automatic phone exchange service, which took away the need for an operator to
direct calls from a central switchboard. This idea originated from Strowger’s own paranoia that
his local operator was directing all his business calls to his competitor, which happened to be his
local operator’s husband (“The Evolution of Telephones”). Whether this was true or not, this
revolutionized the telephone system, making calls more private and run overall more efficiently.
This was necessary due to the telephone’s increasing popularity and larger phone traffic. The
introduction of the transistor in 1947 allowed phone switching based on electrical components
rather than electromagnetic switches, which also increased efficiency (“Telephone,” 2015).
By the mid 1950s, competition finally began to arise in the telephone industry, beginning
with the development of the Hush-a-Phone, which was designed by Tom Carter. Carter
eventually took this issue to court and the ruling resulted in the direct connection of any
telephone brand devices to the AT&T network (1968) (“A Short History of the Telephone,”

5. 5
2002). This ultimately ended the AT&T monopoly. In 1984, another court ruling made AT&T
give up its 22 local Bell exchanges to form seven Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOC).
Later, these seven companies would merge into four entities--Verizon, Qwest, BellSouth, and
SBC. Finally in 1996, the FCC passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was established to
allow competitors “access to their local lines at regulated wholesale rates”, which in turn enabled
long distance telephone service (“A Short History of the Telephone,” 2002). Since then, there
has been a steady trend of increasing competition in the telephone industry.
There are only a few basic components of the telephone (a major reason for its
widespread popularity). Above all, every telephone requires a power source, whether it be a
direct connection to an electrical outlet or a chargeable battery. The main parts of the telephone
are the receiver and transmitter. The receiver is responsible for converting electrical currents
into human speech (we hear this through the earpiece). The transmitter (mouthpiece), then,
converts vibrations of the human voice speaking into the phone into electrical currents, which
eventually flow into the receiver of the other person’s phone. Other parts of the telephone
include the dialer (allowing callers to delegate the number they want to connect to) and the ringer
(which alerts the user of an incoming call). The switch hook determines whether the telephone is
connected or ‘broken’ from the local loop (on the hook, disconnected, off the hook, connected).
Finally, newer telephone models have anti-side tone circuits, which reduce the distracting sound
of one’s own voice when speaking on the telephone (“Telephone,” 2015).
Since its original introduction, the telephone has gone through numerous changes and
advancements. In 1878, telephones with the transmitter and receiver on the same handle were
introduced to the NYC Exchange phone operators (“Telephone,” 2015). Telephones went
international in 1880, specifically the model titled, the Gower-Bell telephone, which were

6. 6
distributed in countries such as Japan, Spain, and England (“The Evolution of Telephones”). A
few years later (1882), telephones created for individual households were developed by Charles
Williams, Jr.. These models were commonly mounted on the wall and their design remained
popular in the U.S. until the early 1950s. By 1892, models such as the Western Electric Folding
Cabinet were found in hotels, phone booths, as well as individual households (“The Evolution of
Telephones”). In the late 1890s, desk phones began being produced and by 1927, the E1A
Handset was on the market, which allowed the transmitter and receiver to be in the same
component (rather than the phone and a separate electrical box). By 1950, telephone quality had
significantly improved in regard to “audio quality, mechanical design, and physical
construction”. (“Telephone,” 2015). In 1963, electronic touch-tone dialing was developed (as
opposed to rotary dialing) (“A Visual History of the Telephone,” 2013). Also introduced in the
1960s was the videophone, in which callers could see the other person as they spoke on the
phone (paving the way for FaceTime, Skype and other visual-audio combinations in later years).
By the end of the 1980s, cordless phones were available and mobile phones were making their
entrance into the market as well (“The Evolution of Telephones”).
While the technical components of the telephone may initially seem irrelevant to its
societal influence, I think its structure is significant. Thinking about the names of the parts
themselves-- “earpiece, mouthpiece”-- this use of language is giving the telephone (a machine),
human qualities. Even the properties of the earpiece--the membrane, the metal ‘drum’ that
vibrates with sound--all quite similar to that of the human ear. Lewis Mumford has also
associated the machine with humanness. For example, in Technics and Civilization, Mumford
states, “From the beginning the machine was a sort of minor organism, designed to perform a
single set of functions” (p.11). The choice to apply the word ‘organism’ in this sentence seems

7. 7
more than coincidental. Further in the text, Mumford writes, “Bell’s telephone owes a similar
debt to physiology and to human play” (p.252). He then describes Bell’s father and grandfather’s
work with the culture of voice. Bell himself was a “scientific student of voice production and
made great strides in teaching deaf-mutes to talk. Out of this physiological knowledge and these
humane interests--grew the telephone: the receiver of which, upon the advice of a Boston
surgeon, Dr. C.J. Blake, was directly modeled upon the bones and diaphragm of the human ear”
(p.252). In a sense, we are replacing (or attempting to replace) life with the artificial machine.
Mumford says, “The clue to modern technology was the displacement of the organic and the
living by the artificial and the mechanical” (p.371). Only when “the organic image takes the
place of the mechanical one, one may confidently predict a slowing down of the tempo of
research, the tempo of mechanical invention, and the tempo of social change” (p.372).
Essentially, humans have interchanged the organic with the mechanic, many times, not even
consciously. Until we can return to the true sense of organic life, we will continue to be overrun
by technology and the social changes it induces.
Many scholars have associated technology as an extension (McLuhan) of man, or an
expression of the user’s self (Martin Mayer, from The Social Impact of the Telephone). The
extension and expression of self became not only possible, but necessary, at all times and places
due to changing communication technologies. During the early stages of the telephone, sound
quality was not as we know it to be in current times. Inventors scrambled to develop better
models, in hopes of achieving an exact replica of the human voice over telephone (Crowley &
Heyer). Again, we can see the ultimate goal of the machine to be as close to a living organism as
possible. Walter Ong also explored the connection between biology and technology, claiming

8. 8
that oral speech is a biologically-created experience; it’s the essence of being human. Thus,
technology, then, is an extension of this biologically-created experience (from class discussion).
Initially, the public was not sure what to make of the telephone and viewed it more of a
novelty than a functional device. Historians often joke that not only did Bell have to invent the
telephone, but he also had to invent the uses for it. “During the first few decades of telephony,
industry marketers devised a variety of applications, including transmitting sermons,
broadcasting news, providing wake-up calls, and many other experiments... The industry spent
considerable time, especially in the nineteenth century, simply introducing the public to the
instrument and dispelling suspicions of it” (Crowley & Heyer, p.146). Bell and his partner
Watson publicized the telephone with opera, drama, music, and religious broadcasts until
articulate speech was able to be transmitted (Sidney H. Aronson from The Social Impact of the
Telephone, p.20-1). “Gradually the concept of ‘speaking’ or ‘talking’ telephone took hold, and
notions about usage changed accordingly” (Aronson, The Social Impact of the Telephone, p.23).
The first telephone subscribers were typically physicians, druggists, and businessmen.
Some businessmen were hesitant to replace the telegraph with the telephone; however, because
they preferred the written record of conversations that the telegraph produced (Crowley & Heyer,
p.147). While this is a new discussion entirely, this idea relates to the distinction between the
oral and written word, along with memory versus written record (a conversation for another
paper).
As telephone models improved and service became more efficient, the telephone slowly
made its transition into the residential market. “Between 1880 and 1893 the number of
telephones in the United States grew from about 60,000--roughly one per thousand people--to
about 260,000--or one per 250 people” (Crowley & Heyer, p.148). This rapid growth of the

9. 9
telephone industry brought the service to a new level--the telephone was no longer a novelty, it
was becoming a necessity to everyday life. “The telephone became an extension of self in
America more than anywhere else because of it was perceived as a utility with the function of
ubiquity: the more people had the telephone, the more valuable the service would be” (Mayer,
from The Social Impact of the Telephone, p.226). Ubiquity meaning, a state of being
everywhere all the time. This brings us to the concept of connectivity.
In the most basic sense, connectivity can be associated with being in touch/being in
interaction with the community around us. Prior to the telephone and other communication
technologies, being connected required being in the physical presence of other humans, engaging
in oral communication and other community-driven activities. The telephone has expanded the
traditional scope of connectivity. The ability to immediately talk to someone geographically far
away and perhaps even in a different time zone required a complete social reorganization of
society (Williams, p.79). This reorganization would account for the disappearance of geographic
and spatial social constraints. Jean Gottmann discusses this phenomenon in The Social Impact
of the Telephone, describing a “dispersal of settlement” (p.312) that was made possible due to
the telephone’s existence, which helped to develop as well as maintain relationships and linkages
despite geographic dispersal” (p.314). Further, “rarely does being connected anymore carry the
connotations of community, gossip, and storytelling” (Steve Jones from Culture, Technology,
Communication, p.55).
Allowing for connectivity beyond geographical barriers brings an undeniable
convenience to connecting with others; however, there is a greater danger for loss of meaning
and increased misunderstandings during telephone interactions. Telephone conversations
eliminate facial expressions, hand gestures, and body language. One can even argue that tone is

10. 10
not as evident through a secondary channel. Nonverbal communication refers to any
communication by means other than words (Knapp, 2014). Since a significant part of our
message meaning comes from nonverbal cues, the telephone does not completely convey human
communication. In fact, Walter Ong might describe messages sent through the telephone as
information rather than communication. Ong provides a definition for information as “a message
transmitted by a code over a channel through a receiving (decoding) device to a particular
destination” as opposed to communication, which he says is “the exchange of meanings between
individuals through a common system of symbols” (Ong, p.505). Further, “information does not
of itself involve meaning. It does not involve human consciousness, or consciousness of any
kind” (Ong, p.505). While the telephone creates the illusion of a speaker to listener transaction,
there is a mechanical channel that enables this transaction. The speech that we hear through the
receiver is only sound waves that have been converted into transmittable code and then imitated
back to the listener. Steve Jones writes, “I do not believe any form of technology can assist us to
better create and interpret messages--only we ourselves have the capacity to better those abilities.
It is most disheartening, perhaps dangerous, to believe that since machines have replaced some
forms of human labor they will replace human thought” (Culture, Technology, Communication,
p.65). Jones also notes, “Those demands make it more difficult than ever to engage with others
by non-technological means, and shave away the time we allot to personal interaction” (p.62).
Research shows that the telephone is often utilized as a coping mechanism for loneliness.
Mayer, in The Social Impact of the Telephone, describes the ringing of the telephone as a
“stimulating experience to most people in early middle age and younger, for whom it promised
relief from boredom” (p.232). Additionally, Mayer cites a study which indicates a higher
residential call average after 9pm, which he credits to loneliness (p.235). Ong discusses

11. 11
computerized communication as an “overwhelming preoccupation with achieving intimacy
[which] is indicative of a haunting frustration: the more information we flood in to facilitate
intimacy, the more virtual everything is. How do I know that the one I am electronically
communicating with in the one I think he or she is?” (Ong, p.515). We see the dangers of the
telephone taking away the genuineness of face-to-face conversation. We chase intimacy via the
telephone, and in some ways, can achieve it; however, it will never reach the level of intimacy of
physical closeness and in-person interaction. Our social reality (because of the telephone)
extends beyond contiguous space (Wurtzel & Turner, from The Social Impact of the Telephone,
p.257).
In addition, we associate connectivity with security. For example, think about a horror
film in which the ax-murderer cuts the telephone lines of the house in which he is about to
attack. This creates the feeling of the person being trapped and helpless. The telephone is
sometimes referred to as a “life-line”, which also indicates a dependence based on security
(Williams, p.80). Another example of this is the modern-day assumption that people are safer
when they have a cellphone on them---The telephone functions as a source of safety. Senior
citizens are also encouraged to have convenient access to their telephones, in case they have a
health emergency. Dialing 9-1-1 still remains the most common solution/action recommended
when facing danger. This form of connectivity extends beyond a need for social connection-- It
becomes a means necessary for humans to feel physically comforted and in arms reach of help if
needed.
External to physical safety, communicating via the telephone rather than a face-to-face
conversation provides a shield that stands between speaker and listener (Mayer, from The Social
Impact of the Telephone). Thus, the telephone provides psychological security as well. Bad

12. 12
news might be easier to deliver via a mediated communication experience. Hanging up the
phone is a quick escape, or not answering the phone altogether to avoid a particular conversation
are examples of using the device as a shield of social interaction. We see this unraveling in our
everyday conversations. For instance, people often say “it’s rude to break up with someone over
the phone” or “I really need to talk to you about this in person, not over the phone”. This
thought lends to Marshall McLuhan’s famous, “the medium is the message”.
Frederick Williams explores the idea of media stereotypes, in which we hold a particular
attitude towards the technology itself. “They may affect not only our thoughts about our medium
but also what we expect when we are dealing variously with messages or materials associated
with that medium. This reflects Marshall McLuhan’s famous phrase, ‘the medium is the
message’” (p.240). For example, when we receive a telemarketing call, most of us immediately
dismiss the service or product the person on the other line is trying to sell, before we even hear
the details of said product or service. We have developed preexisting attitudes about telephone
marketing--that whatever is being sold via the telephone is a rip-off or a scam. When important
news is delivered to someone via a phone call, one might devalue the importance of it. For
example, instead someone might say, “I just had to tell you this in person...”.
The elimination of the distance barrier has also accounted for urban sprawl--that is, it is
no longer necessary to live in a city in order to be a part of business, engage in social activities,
etc. Jean Gottmann describes the concept of the “anti-politan”, which is the growth of settlement
beyond city limits (The Social Impact of the Telephone, p.304). The telephone has allowed for
distance to be a non-issue in all affairs. In addition, it’s proven useful in large Republics, which
governments can now control from a centralized point (Crowley & Heyer, p.150). This
contributes equally to globalization.

13. 13
In regard to globalization and culture, some scholars fear that the telephone’s ability to
cross boarders will lead to a more homogenized world, eliminating local identities (Edward
Comer, from Key Thinkers for the Information Society, p.96). Since technology tends to be
expensive, the governments with the most money have control over the technology and
consequently, the information that the technology is transmitting. James Beniger studied
information processing and its relation with control and concluded that society’s ability to
control is directly proportional to its development of information technologies” (Crowley &
Heyer, p.302). Harold Innis explores the concept of ‘commoditisation of culture’, which enables
capitalist interests to expand their reach and improve efficiencies in ways in which they see fit
(ethnocentrism), ignoring the unique needs and desires of individual local cultures (Edward
Comer, from Key Thinkers for the Information Society, p.101). In regard to efficiency, humans
rely on scientific facts and numbers when determining ‘best practices’; however, scholars warn
against universalism such as this. Edward Comer cites Lewis Mumford in Key Thinkers... in
which Mumford warns of “the overvaluing of exact methods and measurable data separated from
their historical context” (p.111). Life is abstract and most answers do not lie in the black or
white. This over-quantification of information is creating standards that simply cannot and will
not apply in all cultures; however, technology and those whom control it, do not take this into
consideration, which leads to various social problems. James Beniger also notes the apparent
shift of government administration, shifting from intuition-based judgments to logical and
statistical rules and algorithms (Crowley & Heyer, p.306). While this leads us somewhat astray
from the direct implications of the telephone, it’s important to keep in mind when thinking about
what the telephone eventually paved or will pave way for in the future.

14. 14
Although the telephone has influenced various parts of society, one of the most apparent
consequences of the invention is the expansion of commerce. The telephone ultimately lifted the
connection between transportation and communication. Since its introduction, the telephone
enabled messages to move independently of geography (James Carey, from Crowley & Heyer,
p.150). After the Industrial Revolution, which focused on the efficiency of producing goods, we
then entered the “Control Revolution”, which emphasized the marketing and distribution of these
goods (James Beniger, from Crowley & Heyer, p.301). Telephones, “diminished space as a
differentiating criterion in human affairs” (James Carey from Crowley & Heyer, p.155).
Whereas prior to the telephone (and telegraph), businesses and trade operated only on the local
level, now trade could extend beyond single towns and cities. The free-flow of information on
prices and competition in other areas allowed for a nationalization and eventually globalization
of commerce. Information, which is almost just as important as the product or service itself,
became time and space identical, leveling the playing field for all business participants. Price
divergence decreased significantly since now all buyers and sellers knew what everyone else was
charging. This was the beginning of the “Information Society”, which holds the value of
information above all else (Crowley & Heyer, p.307). The ability to exchange information so
easily simultaneously created the ability of producers to gain instant feedback from consumers
and the industry itself, so they could better adjust and enhance their product to fit the needs and
trends of the market (May, p.5). Through telegraph and telephone technologies, companies could
expand their consumer base, while still operating in a centralized location. In addition,
businesses could separate divisions of the company to better accommodate the tasks and needs of
that particular department. For example, administrative work could be carried out in a city
center, while the warehouse and production sites remained in more rural locations, to cut rental

15. 15
costs (Jean Gottmann, The Social Impact of the Telephone, p.309). Now that trade could occur
independently of geography, Karl Polanyi warned of the dangers of a globalized economy.
“Polanyi believed that, over time, the economy became ‘disembedded’ from its social bases, that
is, people engaged in economic exchanges simply for the benefit those exchanges bestowed upon
the individual. This disembedding resulted in negative societal consequences because people
began to engage in economic exchanges for personal gain at the expense of the larger societal
need or potential advantage” (Kenneth S. Rogerson, from Key Thinkers, p.141). This lends to
the idea that local communities and their greater goods become lost with the introduction of
technology (in this case, the telephone). Furthermore, wealthy communities that control these
technologies and information, will have total control of how other economies will operate
(pricing, marketing methods, labor regulations, ‘efficient’ production, etc.). “Monopolies of
knowledge tend to polarize societies into a mass of the ignorant and a knowledge elite.
Monopolies of knowledge encourage centralization of power. Those who control knowledge
have the power to define reality” (“Harold Innis”). Those who own the knowledge not only own
commerce, the own reality itself.
From Innis’ perspective, local communities no longer have a voice. Traditionally, an
effective worldwide community centered around participation of all of the members. When
differing opinions are no longer taken into account and only one social group has the final say on
the rules and culture of a community, the true sense of community is lost. Since community has
also been such a strong anchor in the human condition, many fear what will happen when this
element is lost from society.
Hannah Arendt often criticized technology for its blending of the private and public
spheres. She claims that technology enables people to do public activities in the home, which

16. 16
decreases public participation (The Human Condition). Without a physical space for people to
come together to discuss their differing perspectives, as well as their similar ones, an effective
community cannot exist. The telephone encourages public activities to be accomplished in the
private sphere since it eliminates the need for people to leave their homes to talk with each other.
For example, telephone surveys are an effective way to gather information; however, they do not
allow for any discussion or conversation. Arendt argues that we get our best knowledge and
conclusions from public discourse. A telephone survey is only a one-way transmission of
communication. There is no grappling with opinions or varying views, no compromising, and no
sharing of meaning taking place. Without the sharing of meaning, our communication is void of
any substance.
Another aspect of the public and private sphere is the right to privacy. “Privacy forms the
core of concerns about how information about ourselves will traverse the highway. Will anyone
be able to ‘tap’ into the data stream and fish out our credit or medical records” (Steve Jones, from
Culture, Technology, Communication, p.57). When the telephone still operated via a localized
switchboard, many feared that operators were eavesdropping on their conversations. The
telephone, even today, invites the potential for eavesdropping, since someone can always pick up
another phone on the same line and listen in. Currently, it’s not uncommon for phone records to
be gathered to prove or disprove someone’s whereabouts and/or activities. “Our privacy is to a
large degree not based on the need to control what is ‘inside’ us already, but to control what
escapes us and enters domains other than our own ‘private,’ and to conversely control that which
does enter our own private sphere” (Steve Jones, from Culture, Technology, Communication,
p.58). In this sense, the telephone allows for uninvited communication--whether it be
telemarketing, prank phone calls, or simply calls from people we do not wish to speak with.

17. 17
Since the invention of caller-identification, this issue has been somewhat remedied; however, it’s
still not completely avoidable.
Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone to allow easier and more accessible
communication exchange. One can assume he certainly could not have predicted the vast array
of implications his invention ultimately caused. Many people might consider the telephone a
lesser ‘evil’ technology but it indeed set the tone for other communication technologies down the
line. We can see the telephone’s influence on almost every aspect of life--interpersonal
communication, commerce, private and public spheres, cultural studies, politics, community
activities, government, and more. Going forward in our media ecology studies, it’s essential to
examine and remember older technologies so that we may better face future technologies. While
it is impossible to predict the exact consequences of current technologies, such as the internet
and mobile devices, we can look to the past for a better understanding and possible solutions to
the technological saturation we now find ourselves in.
Works Cited
Alexander Graham Bell. (2009). A&E Networks. Retrieved on March 05, 2015 from
http://www.history.com/topics/inventions/alexander-graham-bell.
The Development of the Telephone. (2006). Retrieved on March 05, 2015 from
www.elon.edu/e-web/predictions/150/1870.xhtml
The Evolution of Telephones. CBS News. Retrieved on March 04, 2015 from
www.cbsnews.com/pictures/the-evolution-of-telephones/
A Short History of the Telephone. (2002). Retrieved on March 04, 2015 from
<bpastudio.csudh.edu/fac/lpress/471/hout/telecomHistory/>.
Telephone. (2015). In Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Retrieved from
www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/585993/

18. 18
A Visual History of the Telephone. (2013). Retrieved on March 04, 2015 from
www.cnn.com/2012/06/28/world/gallery/phone-history/
Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Knapp, M.L., Hall, J.A., & Horgan, T.G. “Nonverbal Communication in Human Interaction,
Eighth Edition”. Boston: 2014. Print. Wadsworth.
Ess, C., & Sudweeks, F. (Eds.). (2001). Culture, Technology, Communication: Towards an
Intercultural Global Village. Albany: New York Press.
Williams, F. (1987). Technology and Communication Behavior. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Mumford, L. (1934). Technics & Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pool, I. (Ed.). (1977). The Social Impact of the Telephone. Cambridge: The Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
May, C. (Ed.). (2003). Key Thinkers for the Information Society. London: Routledge.
Crowley, D., & Heyer, P. (Eds.). (2007). Communication in History: Technology, Culture,
Society. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.