Cordless phone (Nov, 1970)

Well, it is cordless. I doesn’t look all that convenient to tote around though.

Cordless phone

Shown in its recharging tray (immediate right), the Satellite Phone communicates via radio to a transponder (center), which is connected to the phone line. Transmitter and receiver built into a phone (far right) make it cordless. It’s $395 with charger from Keltner Research, 2126 S. Kalamath, Denver, Colo. 80223.

  1. Blurgle says: April 21, 20089:32 pm

    How soon we forget. It wasn’t meant to tote around: it was meant to be used as an extension.

    At this point telephones (at least where I live) didn’t connect to the home telephone line via plugs. The line was hard-wired and ran from the phone box through a hole in the wall directly to the phone. Because of this and because the phone company had a monopoly on the installation of phone lines (and it sometimes took them weeks or months to come out), it was a hassle to put in a second line. This gizmo, if it worked, would have eliminated the wait and hassle.

    $395 is a lot of money, though.

  2. Charlie says: April 21, 200810:23 pm

    True, I was also thinking it would be convenient to take out side in the backyard, where you’re not really moving around much, but you’d like a phone when you need it.

  3. Blurgle says: April 22, 200812:13 am

    I’m often surprised at how much so many items have gone down in price since the 60s and 70s. I found an old 1976 Eaton’s catalogue (Eaton’s was a Canadian department store, now defunct) that I’d like to blog about when I move into my new place in June. It was a world without the Walkman, a world without CDs or cellphones (or real cordless phones). It was also a world without much clothing made from natural fibres, if this catalogue is any sign. Polyester on every page.

    I could write an entire article on how some man-made textiles have succeeded beyond the inventors’ expectations while others have failed miserably. Nylon is possibly the greatest success story: it’s used in everything from toothbrushes to winter coats to bath mats to bulletproof jackets to socks to soup ladles to tents. It sheds water and oil, cleans easily, is incredibly hard-wearing (sock wool is usually 5% nylon), and can take the correct formulation of dye very well.

    Polyester is probably the biggest loser. It’s flammable, it snags and pills, it fades quickly and will shed dye when wet, it can’t always be cleaned (especially if the stain is oil-based), and it’s expensive. But when it was new, it was advertised as carefree because it doesn’t wrinkle easily. (But when it does wrinkle, you can’t get the crease out.)

    The post-war era was a time when anything new was assumed to be superior simply because it was new. We hadn’t learned yet that ‘carefree’ meant ‘can’t be successfully cared for’, in the same way that the ‘never needs sharpening’ knives can’t be sharpened.

Submit comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.