TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse

Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse

Wesrock@aol.com
Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:26:14 EDT

In a message dated Sat, 16 Apr 2005 16:41:55 -0600, DevilsPGD <
ihatespam@crazyhat.net> writes:

> In message <telecom24.164.6@telecom-digest.org> Colin
> <colin@sutton.wow.aust.com> wrote:

>> The Sydney Morning Herald reports on a challenge between 93 year old
>> telegraph operator transmitting morse code to an 82 year old with a
>> manual typewriter, and youngsters sending a text message. The text
>> message was received 18 seconds after the message was already on
>> paper.

>> http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/04/14/1113251739401.html

> Sure, but much of that 18 seconds was in network transmission time,
> but the telegraph has a (by comparison) severely limited "network"

> Let's try another test; let's send the same message to each of five
> different recipients randomly selected out of a possible thousand
> recipients, then travel to a randomly selected location within two
> city blocks and send a new message to those five people again.

> Anybody want to bet that by the time the telegraph operator gets his
> system reconnected to send to the second recipient, the phone user
> will have finished walking to the randomly selected location (sending
> the first batch of five messages while walking?)

Press wires and railroad wires were routinely set up to send to
multiple locations. Many Western Union and other telegraph wires were
set up the say way. They were largely replaced by teletypewriter
because of the costs involved in having a receiving operator in each
of perhaps hundreds of locations.

Wes Leatherock
wesrock@aol.com

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: mc: "Re: Can I Substitute a NiMH Battery for NiCd in a Cordless Phone?"
Go to Previous message: Robert Bonomi: "Re: Texting is Slower Than Morse"
May be in reply to: Colin: "Texting is Slower Than Morse"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page