Sitting in my office with the door closed I only have to call "Mary" and my secretary will kindly respond and be ready to give me help. Similarly, I can call "Brenda" or "Richard" at home and my wife or son will reply. But when I want to make a telephone call I have to key in 11 or more digits with my finger, and then wait for the electronics to achieve the same objective - a one to one connection.

When I am in Scotland or America, why can't I just say "Mary" or "Brenda" and have them appear directly in my ear within an instant - or receive an "I'm busy" whisper? I'd also like my computers to respond to my call by name.

Can technology do this? I think so. Would people want or like it? Perhaps. Would it pose new threats and problems? Definitely. But so did the telephone in 1876.

Ten years ago I had a voice-activated phone in my car capable of dialling people by name. Today there are modern versions on the market - but without the necessarily discreet headset, memory bank and speed of processing. So why can't I buy the facility to call anyone I know by name, anytime or anywhere, and save the wear and tear on my eyes, brain and fingers?

The need to remember numbers and the frustration of having to wait for access seem out of kilter with much of my IT life. It is probably because no-one has thought that it would be a facility we might like. None of this is impossible and would not take a lot of engineering. The speech recognition and activation processing can now be accommodated on a single chip for more than 100 named people, while the more complex inquiries and access to those we don't regularly call could be dealt with by memory and recognition embedded in the network along with the powerful processing required.

Why can't I buy the facility to call anyone I know by name, anytime or anywhere, and save the wear and tear on my eyes, brain and fingers?

So imagine a future then where the 100 most-talked-to people you know are always on tap instantly, by name, and moreover, where you are on tap for them. Of course there may be hundreds more whom you seldom talk to who can be contacted by name through the network. For these you might accommodate a little more delay for the privilege.

Would we be able to cope with a no-warning "hello" followed by a direct but ethereal conversation? Would we see a total loss of control of incoming information and access, be swamped and unable to escape? I think not. While our immediate reaction might be slight panic at the prospect, we already cope with exactly this situation in a world that is not electronic. The world of industry, the crowded room, the open field, sporting event, and home sees us all on instant call - always on the real life line. Solitude and thought are still possible - we are still in control.

A subtle difference is of course the connection by sight, and our most subtle means of communication over a distance, facial expression, gesture and body language. The telephone is already an intrusive instrument capable of butting into conversations in a way that is not always socially acceptable. Could it just be that our desire for instant communication will see us accepting the ultimate intruder - just a voice in the ear.

Peter Cochrane holds the Collier Chair for the Public Understanding of Science & Technology at the University of Bristol. His home page is:
http://cochrane.org.uk