Discussion:
We Could Have Had Cellphones Four Decades Earlier
(too old to reply)
Rich
2017-06-13 03:03:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f

Quoting from the URL above:

The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945 -
not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday
Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using "handie-talkies,"
declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be
difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story,
would be formulated within months.

But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not allocate
spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until
1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully
distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic
delay.

...
mm0fmf
2017-06-13 16:17:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945 -
not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday
Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using "handie-talkies,"
declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be
difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story,
would be formulated within months.
But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not allocate
spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until
1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully
distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic
delay.
...
Typical bollocks written by an economist.
Whiskers
2017-06-13 17:18:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mm0fmf
Post by Rich
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945 -
not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday
Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using "handie-talkies,"
declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be
difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story,
would be formulated within months.
But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not allocate
spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until
1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully
distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic
delay.
...
Typical bollocks written by an economist.
As if bureaucratic inertia inside the USA had somehow stifled
technological advance over the entire planet.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Bob Eager
2017-06-13 18:48:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mm0fmf
Post by Rich
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in
1945 - not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home
Saturday Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using
"handie-talkies,"
declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that
process "won't be difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett
promised in the story, would be formulated within months.
But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not
allocate spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular
radio" until 1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not
be fully distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a
bureaucratic delay.
...
Typical bollocks written by an economist.
And of course we'd having been wearing backpacks to house the batteries.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Vassilis Spiliopoulos
2017-06-13 19:30:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bob Eager
Post by mm0fmf
Post by Rich
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in
1945 - not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home
Saturday Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using
"handie-talkies,"
declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that
process "won't be difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett
promised in the story, would be formulated within months.
But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not
allocate spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular
radio" until 1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not
be fully distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a
bureaucratic delay.
...
Typical bollocks written by an economist.
And of course we'd having been wearing backpacks to house the batteries.
If we had cellphones so much time back, everything would certainly be
different today.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The Real Bev
2017-06-13 20:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
If we had cellphones so much time back, everything would certainly be
different today.
For one thing, Superman would have to change clothes in the nearest
McDonald's restroom.
--
Cheers, Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However,
this is not necessarily a good idea...."
Michael Black
2017-06-14 01:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Real Bev
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
If we had cellphones so much time back, everything would certainly be
different today.
For one thing, Superman would have to change clothes in the nearest
McDonald's restroom.
That assumes early cellphones didn't cause home delivery to be more
important than fast food restaurants. Circa 1947, there were fast food
places, but not the chains that grew up later. If the cellphone came
first, maybe the chains would never develop, so there's bee no washrooms
for Superman to change in.

Did Superman really need the phone booth? Wonderwoman, at least in the
seventies tv show, just found a "private" place to spin and thus change
into her other outfit.

Michael
Larry Sheldon
2017-06-14 03:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Black
Post by The Real Bev
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
If we had cellphones so much time back, everything would certainly be
different today.
For one thing, Superman would have to change clothes in the nearest
McDonald's restroom.
That assumes early cellphones didn't cause home delivery to be more
important than fast food restaurants. Circa 1947, there were fast food
places, but not the chains that grew up later. If the cellphone came
first, maybe the chains would never develop, so there's bee no washrooms
for Superman to change in.
Did Superman really need the phone booth? Wonderwoman, at least in the
seventies tv show, just found a "private" place to spin and thus change
into her other outfit.
Never believable. No mirror, no lights, no blow-dryer, no curling iron, ...
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal
RS Wood
2017-06-14 13:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, The Real Bev wrote: >
Did Superman really need the phone booth? Wonderwoman, at least in the
seventies tv show, just found a "private" place to spin and thus change
into her other outfit.
I think we all know Superman could have done the spin too if he'd
wanted to. Running to the nearest phonebooth was simply a
pretext to root around for lost quarters and chewed
gum.

As for "could've, should've, would've" ... anything at all could
have happened earlier or later. But market forces, political
preferences, and industrial/commercial/military needs are what
drive innovation. We were working on other things
instead.

In the year 2040 we'll lament that we could've had flying cars in
2017, but were working on virtual reality gaming headsets and
self-driving ubers instead. Waa waa waa.
The Real Bev
2017-06-15 05:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Black
Post by The Real Bev
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
If we had cellphones so much time back, everything would certainly be
different today.
For one thing, Superman would have to change clothes in the nearest
McDonald's restroom.
That assumes early cellphones didn't cause home delivery to be more
important than fast food restaurants. Circa 1947, there were fast food
places, but not the chains that grew up later. If the cellphone came
first, maybe the chains would never develop, so there's bee no washrooms
for Superman to change in.
Did Superman really need the phone booth? Wonderwoman, at least in the
seventies tv show, just found a "private" place to spin and thus change
into her other outfit.
I'm sure it must have been explained long ago, but I can't help but
think that Superman must have left an awful lot of clothing in telephone
booths over the years. Granted, reporters aren't expected to wear
expensive suits, but having to buy a new cheap ensemble (including
shoes) every day would add up pretty quickly even if he shopped at Goodwill.

And why didn't we see a lot of homeless people wearing the blue suits
they just happened to find in phone booths?
--
Cheers, Bev
"I've seen a look in dogs' eyes, a quickly vanishing look
of amazed contempt, and I am convinced that basically dogs
think humans are nuts." -- John Steinbeck
Andy K.
2017-06-15 07:55:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:14:54 -0700
Post by The Real Bev
I'm sure it must have been explained long ago, but I can't help but
think that Superman must have left an awful lot of clothing in telephone
booths over the years. Granted, reporters aren't expected to wear
expensive suits, but having to buy a new cheap ensemble (including
shoes) every day would add up pretty quickly even if he shopped at Goodwill.
And why didn't we see a lot of homeless people wearing the blue suits
they just happened to find in phone booths?
Perhaps he merely switches the clothes to wear his ClarkKent suit
beneath the Superman suit instead of other way around?

BR
--
AndyK
Whiskers
2017-06-15 11:10:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andy K.
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:14:54 -0700
Post by The Real Bev
I'm sure it must have been explained long ago, but I can't help but
think that Superman must have left an awful lot of clothing in telephone
booths over the years. Granted, reporters aren't expected to wear
expensive suits, but having to buy a new cheap ensemble (including
shoes) every day would add up pretty quickly even if he shopped at Goodwill.
And why didn't we see a lot of homeless people wearing the blue suits
they just happened to find in phone booths?
Perhaps he merely switches the clothes to wear his ClarkKent suit
beneath the Superman suit instead of other way around?
BR
Or he folds the civilian clothes up into a very small package and stows
it in his utility belt. (He is the one with a utility belt, isn't he?)
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Nyssa
2017-06-15 12:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Whiskers
Post by Andy K.
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:14:54 -0700
Post by The Real Bev
I'm sure it must have been explained long ago, but I
can't help but think that Superman must have left an
awful lot of clothing in telephone
booths over the years. Granted, reporters aren't
expected to wear expensive suits, but having to buy a
new cheap ensemble (including shoes) every day would add
up pretty quickly even if he shopped at Goodwill.
And why didn't we see a lot of homeless people wearing
the blue suits they just happened to find in phone
booths?
Perhaps he merely switches the clothes to wear his
ClarkKent suit beneath the Superman suit instead of other
way around?
BR
Or he folds the civilian clothes up into a very small
package and stows
it in his utility belt. (He is the one with a utility
belt, isn't he?)
No, that was Batman.

But the clothing issue was explained in the comics version
of Superman by showing that he had a special pouch in his
cape to stow his Clark Kent clothing after making the
change.

I could understand folding the suit and shirt, but never
could figure out how he folded the shoes and hat.

Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
Andy K.
2017-06-15 12:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:37:18 -0400
Post by Nyssa
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
Were you one of those kids who always wondered that if we ever invented
teleporters, stepping into one would mean killing yourself, while a
copy of you steps out the other end? Because I was. :-)

BR
--
AndyK
Whiskers
2017-06-15 15:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andy K.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:37:18 -0400
Post by Nyssa
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
Were you one of those kids who always wondered that if we ever invented
teleporters, stepping into one would mean killing yourself, while a
copy of you steps out the other end? Because I was. :-)
BR
I still am!
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Nyssa
2017-06-15 15:50:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andy K.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:37:18 -0400
Post by Nyssa
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
Were you one of those kids who always wondered that if we
ever invented teleporters, stepping into one would mean
killing yourself, while a copy of you steps out the other
end? Because I was. :-)
BR
No, but I always worried about ending up in a parallel
universe instead.

Nyssa, who has plenty of other things to worry about instead
these days
Andy K.
2017-06-15 21:02:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 11:50:33 -0400
Post by Nyssa
Post by Andy K.
Were you one of those kids who always wondered that if we
ever invented teleporters, stepping into one would mean
killing yourself, while a copy of you steps out the other
end? Because I was. :-)
BR
No, but I always worried about ending up in a parallel
universe instead.
That's ok, it would not be you, but rather your copy who would end up
there. An ample punishment for stealing your identity!
--
AndyK
Paul Sture
2017-06-16 21:50:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nyssa
Post by Andy K.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:37:18 -0400
Post by Nyssa
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
Were you one of those kids who always wondered that if we
ever invented teleporters, stepping into one would mean
killing yourself, while a copy of you steps out the other
end? Because I was. :-)
BR
No, but I always worried about ending up in a parallel
universe instead.
My introduction to the idea of a parallel universe came from a talk on
the Flat Earth Society when I was 11 or so. If you set off around the
world you would end up in a parallel copy. That theory kind of fell
down if instead of going East to West, you started going off at
different angles...
Post by Nyssa
Nyssa, who has plenty of other things to worry about instead
these days
In my mid to late twenties, my work was in much demand and having a
clone or two to despatch to multiple clients would have been very handy.
The philosophical problem was how I could persuade the clones to exist
on nothing so I could collect all the money they earned. :-)
--
Everybody has a testing environment. Some people are lucky enough to
have a totally separate environment to run production in.
Paul Sture
2017-06-16 21:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Andy K.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:37:18 -0400
Post by Nyssa
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
Were you one of those kids who always wondered that if we ever invented
teleporters, stepping into one would mean killing yourself, while a
copy of you steps out the other end? Because I was. :-)
That was the idea in a film about an escapologist I saw a few years ago.
He was somehow cloning himself and letting the original (or was it the
copy?) in the tank of water die. A heavy trunk was wheeled out of the
theatre every night, containing the spare body.
--
Everybody has a testing environment. Some people are lucky enough to
have a totally separate environment to run production in.
Huge
2017-06-17 08:40:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Sture
Post by Andy K.
On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 08:37:18 -0400
Post by Nyssa
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
Were you one of those kids who always wondered that if we ever invented
teleporters, stepping into one would mean killing yourself, while a
copy of you steps out the other end? Because I was. :-)
That was the idea in a film about an escapologist I saw a few years ago.
He was somehow cloning himself and letting the original (or was it the
copy?) in the tank of water die. A heavy trunk was wheeled out of the
theatre every night, containing the spare body.
"The Prestige". Excellent movie. David Bowie has a small part as Nikolai
Tesla.
--
Today is Pungenday, the 22nd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
The Real Bev
2017-06-16 18:24:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nyssa
Post by Whiskers
Post by Andy K.
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 22:14:54 -0700
Post by The Real Bev
I'm sure it must have been explained long ago, but I
can't help but think that Superman must have left an
awful lot of clothing in telephone
booths over the years. Granted, reporters aren't
expected to wear expensive suits, but having to buy a
new cheap ensemble (including shoes) every day would add
up pretty quickly even if he shopped at Goodwill.
And why didn't we see a lot of homeless people wearing
the blue suits they just happened to find in phone
booths?
Perhaps he merely switches the clothes to wear his
ClarkKent suit beneath the Superman suit instead of other
way around?
He couldn't even get a tattoo under his skin-tight Superman suit.
Post by Nyssa
Post by Whiskers
Or he folds the civilian clothes up into a very small
package and stows
it in his utility belt. (He is the one with a utility
belt, isn't he?)
No, that was Batman.
But the clothing issue was explained in the comics version
of Superman by showing that he had a special pouch in his
cape to stow his Clark Kent clothing after making the
change.
So Mrs. Clark knew he was going to need a place to stow his normal
clothing? Did we ever know how she managed to sew something that's
apparently impervious to bullets? No, they didn't have superglue back
then :-(
Post by Nyssa
I could understand folding the suit and shirt, but never
could figure out how he folded the shoes and hat.
Not to mention his wallet and reporter-stuff. Thank god tablets hadn't
been invented then!
Post by Nyssa
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
Who didn't?
--
Cheers, Bev
I'm not saying we should kill all the stupid people, I'm just
saying let's remove all the warning labels and let the problem
sort itself out.
Paul Sture
2017-06-16 21:32:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nyssa
Post by Whiskers
Or he folds the civilian clothes up into a very small
package and stows
it in his utility belt. (He is the one with a utility
belt, isn't he?)
No, that was Batman.
But the clothing issue was explained in the comics version
of Superman by showing that he had a special pouch in his
cape to stow his Clark Kent clothing after making the
change.
I could understand folding the suit and shirt, but never
could figure out how he folded the shoes and hat.
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as
a kid
You weren't alone. I'm now trying to remember which teacher explained
the importance of film continuity to us. He quoted an example of a
film's hero driving to a train station, taking a 100 mile train journey
and emerging at the destination station to get into the same car.

Since that day, I have tended to notice continuity gaffes. A common
manifestation is an immaculate hair-do and maybe clothes after events
which in real life would leave one quite dishevelled.
--
Everybody has a testing environment. Some people are lucky enough to
have a totally separate environment to run production in.
Bob Eager
2017-06-16 21:55:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Paul Sture
Post by Nyssa
Post by Whiskers
Or he folds the civilian clothes up into a very small package and
stows it in his utility belt. (He is the one with a utility belt,
isn't he?)
No, that was Batman.
But the clothing issue was explained in the comics version of Superman
by showing that he had a special pouch in his cape to stow his Clark
Kent clothing after making the change.
I could understand folding the suit and shirt, but never could figure
out how he folded the shoes and hat.
Nyssa, who used to actually wonder about those things as a kid
You weren't alone. I'm now trying to remember which teacher explained
the importance of film continuity to us. He quoted an example of a
film's hero driving to a train station, taking a 100 mile train journey
and emerging at the destination station to get into the same car.
Since that day, I have tended to notice continuity gaffes. A common
manifestation is an immaculate hair-do and maybe clothes after events
which in real life would leave one quite dishevelled.
The one I liked best years ago was in the original episodes of "Randall
and Hopkirk (Deceased)". Not exactly continuity, but ...

Jeff Randall had a Vauxhall car (Creata I think) - a white one.
Registration RXD 996F.

In at least one episode, that week's baddies also had a white Cresta -
not part of the plotline, though. RXD 997F. Still on the DVLA database -
3.3 litres!

They obviously got a good promotional deal from Vauxhall!
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Michael Black
2017-06-13 17:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945 -
not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday
Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using "handie-talkies,"
declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be
difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story,
would be formulated within months.
But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not allocate
spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until
1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully
distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic
delay.
I glanced at it, I didn't see an explanation of what was meant in 1947.
Remember, people now say Star Trek invented cellphones, because the
communicators look like what cellphones became.

It is right, tv got a massive segment of the radio spectrum after WWII, at
a time when there wasn't much use for the higher frequencies, but just as
technology was evolving (WWII gave a boost to UHF and microwave
technology, due to radar development and such) to make technology work at
higher frequencies. So yes, just about any new radio service added after
WWII had to be carved out of an existing radio service, no new space
available until transistors and ICs made the upper UHF and low microwave
frequencies move viable, sometime in the eighties.

But in 47 or 48, the US FCC allocated frequencies in the 450MHz band for
"citizen band". You needed a license, but no testing, it wasn't a hobby
band. But it was too high in frequency at the time, so either junk
equipment that didn't work very well, or expensive equipment that was out
of range of most people.

Mobile radio even into the sixties with transistors meant a big radio in
the trunk, and a control head on the dashboard. It was expensive and big
and heavy, not viable for the masses. Even if other issues could be
resolved, that would be limiting as to how many could use it.

But cellphones became viable because they had fixed infrastructure. They
were low power radios, relying on infrascture everywhere to make it work.
Tha wouldn't happen until transistors. But also, the notion of "cells",
alllowed for the reuse of frequencies a short distance away. Mobile
phones in 1947 meant some central tower and the transmitter there and in
the car had to be "high power" to make contact, so that frequency couldn't
be reused in that area.

I can't see cellphones happening in 1947, the system counts on a computer
in the mobile unit, and at the "base" end, and computers were too
expensive and big to make it viable then.

So it wasn't about frequency allocation, though that mattered with time.
It was tube technology couldn't make it work, and was too expensive.

CB of course became bigger in 1958 when 27MHz was taken from the hams and
turned into an allocation for the people. But 23 channels (in the
seventies it went up to 40) was never enough, especially since at 27MHz
when the band opened up, lots of interference from afar.

It was only with cellphones, and after they got cheap, that the average
person got access to the radio waves, and most don't think in terms of
radio but telephone. And a cellphone is useless without the
infrastructure.

I would point out that Robert Heinlein had passing references to mobile
phones in some of his juvenile books, "Between Planets" maybe being the
most mentioned. But in an earlier story or novel, I forget what but it
was from 1939 or 41, he mentions having to overcome technological issues
before "portable phones" became viable, he's a bit more specific though
not deeply. That's foreshadowing.

Michael
Kerry Imming
2017-06-13 17:51:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
That wouldn't happen until transistors.
Don't forget fiber optics (1970s?) that provided cheap long distance to
connect the base stations.

- Kerry
The Real Bev
2017-06-13 19:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Black
Remember, people now say Star Trek invented cellphones, because the
communicators look like what cellphones became.
I don't suppose Dick Tracy's Two-Way Wrist Radio (clearly and frequently
labeled as such) counted.
--
Cheers, Bev
Sign on restroom hand-dryer:
"Push button for a message from your congressman."
Michael Black
2017-06-14 01:21:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Real Bev
Post by Michael Black
Remember, people now say Star Trek invented cellphones, because the
communicators look like what cellphones became.
I don't suppose Dick Tracy's Two-Way Wrist Radio (clearly and frequently
labeled as such) counted.
Nobody ever seems to refer to Dick Tracy as showing the future of
technology. I used to like the little asides that explained in detail
some of his gadgetry. But, the comic disappeared locally a long time ago,
certainly by the mid-seventies if not early seventies. I don't know if
that was how it went overall, but if it did, it might account for a loss
of remembering the gadgetry.

Michael
Sylvia Else
2017-06-17 03:37:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945 -
not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday
Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using "handie-talkies,"
declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be
difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story,
would be formulated within months.
But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not allocate
spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until
1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully
distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic
delay.
...
So, we managed to avoid the infernal devices for forty years. That has
to be a plus.

Sylvia.
Larry Sheldon
2017-06-17 04:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Rich
http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/11/we-could-have-had-cellphones-f
The basic idea of the cellphone was introduced to the public in 1945 -
not in Popular Mechanics or Science, but in the down-home Saturday
Evening Post. Millions of citizens would soon be using
"handie-talkies,"
declared J.K. Jett, the head of the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC). Licenses would have to be issued, but that process "won't be
difficult." The revolutionary technology, Jett promised in the story,
would be formulated within months.
But permission to deploy it would not. The government would not allocate
spectrum to realize the engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until
1982, and licenses authorizing the service would not be fully
distributed for another seven years. That's one heck of a
bureaucratic
delay.
...
So, we managed to avoid the infernal devices for forty years. That has
to be a plus.
I sometimes forget about that.
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal
Marko Rauhamaa
2017-06-17 06:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Sylvia Else
The government would not allocate spectrum to realize the
engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until 1982, and licenses
authorizing the service would not be fully distributed for
another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic delay.
So, we managed to avoid the infernal devices for forty years. That
has to be a plus.
I sometimes forget about that.
I don't understand what's so infernal about them.

Anyway, I happen to own the book "Wireless Nation"

<URL: https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/wireless-nation-james-b-murra
y/1112003831?ean=9780738206882>

which tells the story of how America finally got cell phones. You might
not think you could write a page turner on such a boring topic, but a
page turner it is. Hilarious and informational.

The main factor that delayed the arrival of cell phones in the US was
that the investors didn't understand the value of a cell phone when the
wired phone network was affordable and ubiquitous. They didn't get the
point of being reachable anywhere and at all times.


Marko
Sylvia Else
2017-06-17 09:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Sylvia Else
The government would not allocate spectrum to realize the
engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until 1982, and licenses
authorizing the service would not be fully distributed for
another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic delay.
So, we managed to avoid the infernal devices for forty years. That
has to be a plus.
I sometimes forget about that.
I don't understand what's so infernal about them.
We have to listen to people's inane conversations about their lives on
buses and trains, and probably before long, aircraft (if not already).

People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a real
person to have a conversation on their phones.

As drivers we have to watch out for pedestrians who'll step into the
road at any moment because they're focussed on their phones, not on the
road.

And so on.

Sylvia.
Marko Rauhamaa
2017-06-17 10:32:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
I don't understand what's so infernal about them.
We have to listen to people's inane conversations about their lives on
buses and trains, and probably before long, aircraft (if not already).
In Finland, we have moved to the post-phone age. It's pretty rare to see
or hear anybody on the phone. All kinds of instant messaging has all but
replaced voice communication. In fact, cold-calling somebody could be
considered a bit rude; rather, you should send a text asking them to
call you.
Post by Sylvia Else
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a
real person to have a conversation on their phones.
I remember that being a problem with some teenagers in the 90's.
Post by Sylvia Else
As drivers we have to watch out for pedestrians who'll step into the
road at any moment because they're focussed on their phones, not on
the road.
I remember one such incident. It happened in Italy, but it was the
driver who was at fault because he didn't slow down before the
crosswalk.


Marko
Michael Black
2017-06-18 00:10:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
I don't understand what's so infernal about them.
We have to listen to people's inane conversations about their lives on
buses and trains, and probably before long, aircraft (if not already).
In Finland, we have moved to the post-phone age. It's pretty rare to see
or hear anybody on the phone. All kinds of instant messaging has all but
replaced voice communication. In fact, cold-calling somebody could be
considered a bit rude; rather, you should send a text asking them to
call you.
I notice on the bus, not that I take the bus too often, there are now lots
of people using cellphones, but yes, they are generally texting or doing
something other than speaking. I dont' know whether it's "politeness" or
if many have generally moved on from "talking on the phone". I get the
imrpession that some find texting better, I can see the point but these
aren't people who came online to type, they are the ones who wanted
contact with their family and friends.

Michael
Sylvia Else
2017-06-18 01:49:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Sylvia Else
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a
real person to have a conversation on their phones.
I remember that being a problem with some teenagers in the 90's.
Some years ago, I was trying to have a conversation with my manager, but
every time his phone rang, which it did frequently, he broke off our
conversation to answer it. I tried to get him to take it off the hook,
but he wouldn't.

My eventual solution was to return to my desk, and call him on the
phone. That, of course, had the same effect of making it engaged to
other calls that taking it off the hook would have had, but he seemed
much more comfortable with that arrangement.

??????

Sylvia.
Vassilis Spiliopoulos
2017-06-18 09:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Sylvia Else
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a
real person to have a conversation on their phones.
I remember that being a problem with some teenagers in the 90's.
Some years ago, I was trying to have a conversation with my manager, but
every time his phone rang, which it did frequently, he broke off our
conversation to answer it. I tried to get him to take it off the hook,
but he wouldn't.
My eventual solution was to return to my desk, and call him on the
phone. That, of course, had the same effect of making it engaged to
other calls that taking it off the hook would have had, but he seemed
much more comfortable with that arrangement.
??????
Sylvia.
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
The more time passes, the more interesting this becomes :D
Michael Black
2017-06-18 14:48:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Sylvia Else
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a
real person to have a conversation on their phones.
I remember that being a problem with some teenagers in the 90's.
Some years ago, I was trying to have a conversation with my manager, but
every time his phone rang, which it did frequently, he broke off our
conversation to answer it. I tried to get him to take it off the hook, but he
wouldn't.
I knew someone who "hated" technology, but as soon as she got home, she'd
check the answering machine, and then call back any important calls. That
was despite her young daughter anxious to see her. The phone did seem to
take precedence, and she didn't think of it (or her car) as technology.


Michael
Vassilis Spiliopoulos
2017-06-18 20:41:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Michael Black
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Sylvia Else
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a
real person to have a conversation on their phones.
I remember that being a problem with some teenagers in the 90's.
Some years ago, I was trying to have a conversation with my manager,
but every time his phone rang, which it did frequently, he broke off
our conversation to answer it. I tried to get him to take it off the
hook, but he wouldn't.
I knew someone who "hated" technology, but as soon as she got home,
she'd check the answering machine, and then call back any important
calls. That was despite her young daughter anxious to see her. The
phone did seem to take precedence, and she didn't think of it (or her
car) as technology.
Michael
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
Roger Blake
2017-06-18 21:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
It is probably more about a level of technology that one feels comfortable
with. (For example, I would be happy as a clam to be back in 1960 but
would not care to go so far back in time that there were no flush toilets.)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Sheldon
2017-06-18 21:50:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
It is probably more about a level of technology that one feels comfortable
with. (For example, I would be happy as a clam to be back in 1960 but
would not care to go so far back in time that there were no flush toilets.)
I don't think it is "point in time" so much as "who controls who".

My controlling my environment is good. ("toilets" [flush or not] is a
good example of good technology).

My environment controlling me is bad. (electronic leashes, GPS
trackers, etc. are all bad.)
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal
bartc
2017-06-19 09:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
It is probably more about a level of technology that one feels comfortable
with. (For example, I would be happy as a clam to be back in 1960 but
would not care to go so far back in time that there were no flush toilets.)
I don't think it is "point in time" so much as "who controls who".
My controlling my environment is good. ("toilets" [flush or not] is a
good example of good technology).
My environment controlling me is bad. (electronic leashes, GPS
trackers, etc. are all bad.)
The A/C in a car is a good example.

If you have control of it, then that's great.

If you're a passenger, then you have to remember to bring a coat no
matter how hot it is outside.
Larry Sheldon
2017-06-19 18:45:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bartc
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
It is probably more about a level of technology that one feels comfortable
with. (For example, I would be happy as a clam to be back in 1960 but
would not care to go so far back in time that there were no flush toilets.)
I don't think it is "point in time" so much as "who controls who".
My controlling my environment is good. ("toilets" [flush or not] is a
good example of good technology).
My environment controlling me is bad. (electronic leashes, GPS
trackers, etc. are all bad.)
The A/C in a car is a good example.
If you have control of it, then that's great.
If you're a passenger, then you have to remember to bring a coat no
matter how hot it is outside.
Good one!

Similar--house with spouse.

OAT = 83°
A/C at full crank

"space heater" at my feet, also at "full crank:.
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal
Paul Sture
2017-06-19 21:53:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by bartc
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
It is probably more about a level of technology that one feels comfortable
with. (For example, I would be happy as a clam to be back in 1960 but
would not care to go so far back in time that there were no flush toilets.)
I don't think it is "point in time" so much as "who controls who".
My controlling my environment is good. ("toilets" [flush or not] is a
good example of good technology).
My environment controlling me is bad. (electronic leashes, GPS
trackers, etc. are all bad.)
The A/C in a car is a good example.
If you have control of it, then that's great.
If you're a passenger, then you have to remember to bring a coat no
matter how hot it is outside.
Individually heated seats are good. They are a great hit with the ladies
:-)

At one time in my life I did a lot of computer installations, mostly in
full size server rooms with aircon to suit. My standard installation
kit included a warm pullover and jeans because some of those rooms could
be quite cold, especially in hot parts of the world.
--
Everybody has a testing environment. Some people are lucky enough to
have a totally separate environment to run production in.
Huge
2017-06-18 21:27:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
Post by Michael Black
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Sylvia Else
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a
real person to have a conversation on their phones.
I remember that being a problem with some teenagers in the 90's.
Some years ago, I was trying to have a conversation with my manager,
but every time his phone rang, which it did frequently, he broke off
our conversation to answer it. I tried to get him to take it off the
hook, but he wouldn't.
I knew someone who "hated" technology, but as soon as she got home,
she'd check the answering machine, and then call back any important
calls. That was despite her young daughter anxious to see her. The
phone did seem to take precedence, and she didn't think of it (or her
car) as technology.
Michael
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
Isn't there a saying that stuff already invented when you're born is just
natural, stuff invented until you're 40 is "Wow, technology!" and stuff
invented after that is just plain creepy?
--
Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 23rd day of Confusion in the YOLD 3183
I don't have an attitude problem.
If you have a problem with my attitude, that's your problem.
Bob Eager
2017-06-18 23:03:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
Post by Michael Black
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Sylvia Else
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a
real person to have a conversation on their phones.
I remember that being a problem with some teenagers in the 90's.
Some years ago, I was trying to have a conversation with my manager,
but every time his phone rang, which it did frequently, he broke off
our conversation to answer it. I tried to get him to take it off the
hook, but he wouldn't.
I knew someone who "hated" technology, but as soon as she got home,
she'd check the answering machine, and then call back any important
calls. That was despite her young daughter anxious to see her. The
phone did seem to take precedence, and she didn't think of it (or her
car) as technology.
Michael
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
It's fashionable.
--
Using UNIX since v6 (1975)...

Use the BIG mirror service in the UK:
http://www.mirrorservice.org
Kerr Mudd-John
2017-06-19 08:07:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vassilis Spiliopoulos
Post by Michael Black
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Sylvia Else
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a
real person to have a conversation on their phones.
I remember that being a problem with some teenagers in the 90's.
Some years ago, I was trying to have a conversation with my manager,
but every time his phone rang, which it did frequently, he broke off
our conversation to answer it. I tried to get him to take it off the
hook, but he wouldn't.
I knew someone who "hated" technology, but as soon as she got home,
she'd check the answering machine, and then call back any important
calls. That was despite her young daughter anxious to see her. The
phone did seem to take precedence, and she didn't think of it (or her
car) as technology.
Michael
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
Tell me a logical point on why someone should hate technology?
God says so.
--
Bah, and indeed, Humbug
Jerry Peters
2017-06-17 20:28:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
Post by Larry Sheldon
Post by Sylvia Else
The government would not allocate spectrum to realize the
engineers' vision of "cellular radio" until 1982, and licenses
authorizing the service would not be fully distributed for
another seven years. That's one heck of a bureaucratic delay.
So, we managed to avoid the infernal devices for forty years. That
has to be a plus.
I sometimes forget about that.
I don't understand what's so infernal about them.
We have to listen to people's inane conversations about their lives on
buses and trains, and probably before long, aircraft (if not already).
People prioritise their phones - they'll stop a conversation with a real
person to have a conversation on their phones.
As drivers we have to watch out for pedestrians who'll step into the
road at any moment because they're focussed on their phones, not on the
road.
Not to mention the other drivers who are so busy babbling on their
phones that they don't notice the *red* light in front of them.

I now always wait if I'm first at a traffic light to make sure the
other drivers are paying attention and are going to stop.
Roger Blake
2017-06-18 20:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
I don't understand what's so infernal about them.
...
that the investors didn't understand the value of a cell phone when the
wired phone network was affordable and ubiquitous. They didn't get the
point of being reachable anywhere and at all times.
THAT'S what makes them so infernal. I am not at all aboard with the
idea of being reachable anywhere and at all times and see no value in
it. Quite the contrary, it is an annoyance at best.

In fact while I do have a cell phone, I leave it off and with the battery
out most of the time. (It's mainly for emergency use since there are
almost no pay phones any more.)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marko Rauhamaa
2017-06-18 20:43:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
I don't understand what's so infernal about them.
...
that the investors didn't understand the value of a cell phone when
the wired phone network was affordable and ubiquitous. They didn't
get the point of being reachable anywhere and at all times.
THAT'S what makes them so infernal. I am not at all aboard with the
idea of being reachable anywhere and at all times and see no value in
it. Quite the contrary, it is an annoyance at best.
In fact while I do have a cell phone, I leave it off and with the
battery out most of the time. (It's mainly for emergency use since
there are almost no pay phones any more.)
You don't *have* to carry a cell phone. For the rest of us, it's often a
godsend.


Marko
Larry Sheldon
2017-06-18 21:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roger Blake
Post by Marko Rauhamaa
I don't understand what's so infernal about them.
...
that the investors didn't understand the value of a cell phone when the
wired phone network was affordable and ubiquitous. They didn't get the
point of being reachable anywhere and at all times.
THAT'S what makes them so infernal. I am not at all aboard with the
idea of being reachable anywhere and at all times and see no value in
it. Quite the contrary, it is an annoyance at best.
In fact while I do have a cell phone, I leave it off and with the battery
out most of the time. (It's mainly for emergency use since there are
almost no pay phones any more.)
I had no idea just how scary that MO can be (I share a I don't pull the
battery, I do have the default ring-tone set to "silence", and very view
non-default settings in "contacts", and I am not even bashful about
ignoreing the noise, or leaving in in a distant part of the house).

But I got a frightening wake-up call when my car broke down electrical
system fail) in a hostile big city (redundant terms) and my cell-phone
battery exhausted. Best shot at a telephone of any sort was the Weird
Phoods store in whose lot I had taken refuge.
--
quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
-- Juvenal
Loading...