Volume Ii Part 8 (1/2)
Second: that it is too expensive, and that the necessary first cost could not be justified.
Third: that it is too inflexible and could not adapt itself to special kinds of service.
Fourth: that it is all wrong from the subscribers' point of view as the public will not tolerate ”doing its own operating.”
_Complexity._ This first objection as to complexity, and consequent alleged unreliability and lack of economy should be carefully a.n.a.lyzed.
It too often happens that a new invention is cast into outer darkness by those whose opinions carry weight by such words as ”it cannot work; it is too complicated.” Fortunately for the world, the patience and fort.i.tude which men must possess before they can produce meritorious, though intricate inventions, are usually sufficient to prevent their being crushed by any such offhand condemnation, and the test of time and service is allowed to become the real criterion.
It would be difficult to find an art that has gone forward as rapidly as telephony. Within its short life of a little over thirty years it has grown from the phase of trifling with a mere toy to an affair of momentous importance to civilization. There has been a tendency, particularly marked during recent years, toward greater complexity; and probably every complicated new system or piece of apparatus has been roundly condemned, by those versed in the art as it was, as being unable to survive on account of its complication.
To ill.u.s.trate: A prominent telephone man, in arguing against the nickel-in-the-slot method of charging for telephone service once said, partly in jest, ”The Lord never intended telephone service to be given in that way.” This, while a little off the point, is akin to the sweeping aside of new telephone systems on the sole ground that they are complicated. These are not real reasons, but rather convenient ways of disposing of vexing problems with a minimum amount of labor. Important questions lying at the very root of the development of a great industry may not be put aside permanently in this offhand way. The Lord has never, so far as we know, indicated just what his intentions were in the matter of nickel service; and no one has ever shown yet just what degree of complexity will prevent a telephone system from working.
It is safe to say that, if other things are equal, the simpler a machine is, the better; but simplicity, though desirable, is not all-important.
Complexity is warranted if it can show enough advantages.
If one takes a narrow view of the development of things mechanical and electrical, he will say that the trend is toward simplicity. The mechanic in designing a machine to perform certain functions tries to make it as simple as possible. He designs and re-designs, making one part do the work of two and contriving schemes for reducing the complexity of action and form of each remaining part. His whole trend is away from complication, and this is as it should be. Other things being equal, the simpler the better. A broad view, however, will show that the arts are becoming more and more complicated. Take the implements of the art of writing: The typewriter is vastly more complicated than the pen, whether of steel or quill, yet most of the writing of today is done on the typewriter, and is done better and more economically. The art of printing affords even more striking examples.
In telephony, while every effort has been made to simplify the component parts of the system, the system itself has ever developed from the simple toward the complex. The adoption of the multiple switchboard, of automatic ringing, of selective ringing on party lines, of measured-service appliances, and of automatic systems have all const.i.tuted steps in this direction. The adoption of more complicated devices and systems in telephony has nearly always followed a demand for the performance by the machinery of the system of additional or different functions. As in animal and plant life, so in mechanics--the higher the organism functionally the more complex it becomes physically.
Greater intricacy in apparatus and in methods is warranted when it is found desirable to make the machine perform added functions. Once the functions are determined upon, then the whole trend of the development of the machine for carrying them out should be toward simplicity. When the machine has reached its highest stage of development some one proposes that it be required to do something that has. .h.i.therto been done manually, or by a separate machine, or not at all. With this added function a vast added complication may come, after which, if it develops that the new function may with economy be performed by the machine, the process of simplification again begins, the whole design finally taking on an indefinable elegance which appears only when each part is so made as to be best adapted in composition, form, and strength to the work it is to perform.
Achievements in the past teach us that a machine may be made to do almost anything automatically if only the time, patience, skill, and money be brought to bear. This is also true of a telephone system. The primal question to decide is, what functions the system is to perform within itself, automatically, and what is to be done manually or with manual aid. Sometimes great complications are brought into the system in an attempt to do something which may very easily and cheaply be done by hand. Cases might be pointed out in which fortunes and life-works have been wasted in perfecting machines for which there was no real economic need. It is needless to cite cases where the reverse is true. The matter of wisely choosing the functions of the system is of fundamental importance. In choosing these the question of complication is only one of many factors to be considered.
One of the strongest arguments against intricacy in telephone apparatus is its greater initial cost, its greater cost of maintenance, and its liability to get out of order. Greater complexity of apparatus usually means greater first cost, but it does not necessarily mean greater cost of up-keep or lessened reliability. A dollar watch is more simple than an expensive one. The one, however, does its work pa.s.sably and is thrown away in a year or so; the other does its work marvelously well and may last generations, being handed down from father to son. Merely reducing the number of parts in a machine does not necessarily mean greater reliability. Frequently the attempt to make one part do several diverse things results in such a sacrifice in the simplicity of action of that part as to cause undue strain, or wear, or unreliable action. Better results may be attained by adding parts, so that each may have a comparatively simple thing to do.
[Ill.u.s.tration: WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY TYPICAL CHARGING OUTFIT AT DAWSON, GEORGIA]
The stage of development of an art is a factor in determining the degree of complexity that may be allowed in the machinery of that art. A linotype machine, if constructed by miracle several hundred years ago, would have been of no value to the printer's art then. The skill was not available to operate and maintain it, nor was the need of the public sufficiently developed to make it of use. Similarly the automatic telephone exchange would have been of little value thirty years ago. The knowledge of telephone men was not sufficiently developed to maintain it, telephone users were not sufficiently numerous to warrant it, and the public was not sufficiently trained to use it. Industries, like human beings, must learn to creep before they can walk.
Another factor which must be considered in determining the allowable degree of complexity in a telephone system is the character of the labor available to care for and manage it. Usually the conditions which make for unskilled labor also lend themselves to the use of comparatively simple systems. Thus, in a small village remote from large cities the complexity inherent in a common-battery multiple switchboard would be objectionable. The village would probably not afford a man adequately skilled to care for it, and the size of the exchange would not warrant the expense of keeping such a man. Fortunately no such switchboard is needed. A far simpler device, the plain magneto switchboard--so simple that the girl who manipulates it may also often care for its troubles--is admirably adapted to the purpose. So it is with the automatic telephone system; even its most enthusiastic advocate would be foolish indeed to contend that for all places and purposes it was superior to the manual.
These remarks are far from being intended as a plea for complex telephone apparatus and systems; every device, every machine, and every system should be of the simplest possible nature consistent with the functions it has to perform. They are rather a protest against the broadcast condemnation of complex apparatus and systems just because they are complicated, and without regard to other factors. Such condemnation is detrimental to the progress of telephony. Where would the printing art be today if the linotype, the cylinder press, and other modern printing machinery of marvelous intricacy had been put aside on account of the fact that they were more complicated than the printing machinery of our forefathers?
That the automatic telephone system is complex, exceedingly complex, cannot be denied, but experience has amply proven that its complexity does not prevent it from giving reliable service, nor from being maintained at a reasonable cost.
_Expense._ The second argument against the automatic--that it is too expensive--is one that must be a.n.a.lyzed before it means anything. It is true that for small and medium-sized exchanges the total first cost of the central office and subscribers' station equipment, is greater than that for manual exchanges of corresponding sizes. The prices at which various sizes of automatic exchange equipments may be purchased vary, however, almost in direct proportion to the number of lines, whereas in manual equipment the price per line increases very rapidly as the number of lines increases. From this it follows that for very large exchanges the cost of automatic apparatus becomes as low, and may be even lower than for manual. Roughly speaking the cost of telephones and central-office equipment for small exchanges is about twice as great for automatic as for manual, and for very large exchanges, of about 10,000 lines, the cost of the two for switchboards and telephones is about equal.
For all except the largest exchanges, therefore, the greater first cost of automatic apparatus must be put down as one of the factors to be weighed in making the choice between automatic and manual, this factor being less and less objectionable as the size of the equipment increases and finally disappearing altogether for very large equipments. Greater first cost is, of course, warranted if the fixed charges on the greater investment are more than offset by the economy resulting. The automatic screw machine, for instance, costs many times more than the hand screw machine, but it has largely displaced the hand machine nevertheless.
_Flexibility._ The third argument against the automatic telephone system--its flexibility--is one that only time and experience has been able to answer. Enough time has elapsed and enough experience has been gained, however, to disprove the validity of this argument. In fact, the great flexibility of the automatic system has been one of its surprising developments. No sooner has the statement been made that the automatic system could not do a certain thing than forthwith it has done it. It was once quite clear that the automatic system was not practicable for party-line selective ringing; yet today many automatic systems are working successfully with this feature; the selection between the parties on a line being accomplished with just as great certainty as in manual systems. Again it has seemed quite obvious that the automatic system could not hope to cope with the reverting call problem, _i. e._, enabling a subscriber on a party line to call back to reach another subscriber on the same line; yet today the automatic system may do this in a way that is perhaps even more satisfactory than the way in which it is done in multiple manual switchboards. It is true that the automatic system has not done away with the toll operator and it probably never will be advantageous to require it to do so for the simple reason that the work of the toll operator in recording the connections and in bringing together the subscribers is a matter that requires not only accuracy but judgment, and the latter, of course, no machine can supply.
It is probable also that the private branch-exchange operator will survive in automatic systems. This is not because the automatic system cannot readily perform the switching duties, but the private branch-exchange operator has other duties than the mere building up and taking down of connections. She is, as it were, a door-keeper guarding the telephone door of a business establishment; like the toll operator she must be possessed of judgment and of courtesy in large degree, neither of which can be supplied by machinery.
In respect to toll service and private branch-exchange service where, as just stated, operators are required on account of the nature of the service, the automatic system has again shown its adaptability and flexibility. It has shown its capability of working in harmony with manual switchboards, of whatever nature, and there is a growing tendency to apply automatic devices and automatic principles of operation to manual switchboards, whether toll or private branch or other kinds, even though the services of an operator are required, the idea being to do by machinery that portion of the work which a machine is able to do better or more economically than a human being.
_Att.i.tude of Public._ The att.i.tude of the public toward the automatic is one that is still open to discussion; at least there is still much discussion on it. A few years ago it did seem reasonable to suppose that the general telephone user would prefer to get his connection by merely asking for it rather than to make it himself by ”spelling” it out on the dial of his telephone instrument. We have studied this point carefully in a good many different communities and it is our opinion that the public finds no fault with being required to make its own connections.
To our minds it is proven beyond question that either the method employed in the automatic or that in the manual system is satisfactory to the public as long as good service results, and it is beyond question that the public may get this with either.
_Subscriber's Station Equipment._ The added complexity of the mechanism at the subscriber's station is in our opinion the most valid objection that can be urged against the automatic system as it exists today. This objection has, however, been much reduced by the greater simplicity and greater excellence of material and workmans.h.i.+p that is employed in the controlling devices in modern automatic systems. However, the automatic system must always suffer in comparison with the manual in respect of simplicity of the subscriber's equipment. The simplest conceivable thing to meet all of the requirements of telephone service at a subscriber's station is the modern common-battery manual telephone. The automatic telephone differs from this only in the addition of the mechanism for enabling the subscriber to control the central-office apparatus in the making of calls. From the standpoint of maintenance, simplicity at the subscriber's station is, of course, to be striven for since the proper care of complex devices scattered all over a community is a much more serious matter than where the devices are centered at one point, as in the central office. Nevertheless, as pointed out, complexity is not fatal, and it is possible, as has been proven, to so design and construct the required apparatus in connection with the subscribers'
telephones as to make them subject to an amount of trouble that is not serious.