Feldman, Jack (Jack) wrote:
>
> Chris Delling wrote "...the US is, IMHO, hopelessly behind in technology and
> telephones. (followed by the usual distorted conservative slap at our
> government :) ).
I would have said that the US was behind in its application, rather than its
technology, since commercial pressures are paramount (does the US still have
multi-party lines in rural districts where users have to count the rings?).
The UK,
by contrast, was way behind in technology until the last few years, but is now
up
there with the best of them, and it's universal. They did try, however. In
the '50s
the first stored program control exchange in the world by years was brought
into
service in London (Empress exchange) using valve technology. It worked, but
only up
to a certain level of traffic then it just stopped. It is said that the powers
that
be (non-tecnical) said "if that is what new technology does you can keep it"
and the
UK stayed largely Strowger (a Kansas undertaker, no less) for the next 30
years.
Indeed, a new design of Strowger switch was introduced as late as the '70s (it
also
was a failure but that is another long story). Some of the early Siemans 16
System
switches were a joy to behold en-mass - all polished steel, brass and black
ebonite.
When cross-bar and early electronic exchanges were introduced in the UK in the
late
'60s they were capable of supplying advanced services (such as push-button
telephones!) which were never implemented because of the universal service
requirement
- "If we can't provide it for all, we won't provide it for any".
Guess what I did for 30 years.
PaulH.
|