http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Teg217&feedformat=atomDead Media Archive - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T14:05:10ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.25.2http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Analog/Digital_Transition&diff=6415Analog/Digital Transition2008-12-08T19:49:26Z<p>Teg217: /* Digital Communication */</p>
<hr />
<div>Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the analog/digital divide has been around for an extremely long time. Some see this binary dichotomy to go back to the differences between the slide rule and the abacus. More generally it can be seen as the difference between the body (outward, physical) and the mind (inward, psychological). This dichotomy may have been placed retroactively on such devices, but today, for many, the dichotomy has almost disappeared. As digital technologies creep into every aspect of our everyday lives, we see analog technologies taking a step back in retreat, causing major ripples in the way we live our lives. As a note, the use of the words analog and digital herein, apply both to the devices and machines they describe as well as the more theoretical ideas of our ways of experiencing life.<br />
<br />
==Differences==<br />
<br />
The differences between analog and digital can be very technical, or otherwise extremely intuitive. This wiki won’t deal with the specific technical differences, but more the intuitive and theoretical ones. As explained by Carol Wilder, the word analog comes from the Greek roots ana, meaning equivalent, and logos, meaning the structure of reality. Thusly, something that is analog in nature, refers directly to the way things are in reality, or is equivalent with such reality. “As a level of description, it [analog] is closer than digital coding to the physical world, closer to corporeality, more kinesthetic, tactile, more-dare I say-‘real.’” This can be compared to the “digital level of description” which “represents a more abstracted disembodied consciousness, which is at once more expansive and less visceral” (Wilder 252). In this sense it is an aesthetic difference between how we encounter life and experience the world around us.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Wilder quotes physiologist Ralph Gerard, who explored this dichotomy in 1951, explaining that “an analogical system is one in which one of two variables is continuous on the other, while in a digital system the variable is discontinuous and quantized” (243). It is from Gerard that we get the prototypical analog device, the slide rule, due to it’s continuous numbering, as well as meaning of spatiality, wherein the further down the number is, the larger it is, and the abacus as the prototypical digital device, due to the ‘on-or-off-ness’ of the beads, where they are either counted or not. This latter conception of digitalism has much to do with the language of binary, used by today’s more classic digital devices, in its uses of 1s and 0s.<br />
<br />
===Differences in Language===<br />
<br />
One last difference is seen in the different levels of human communication. Gregory Bateson addressed this issue in 1966, in the form of a question: “How does it happen that the paralinguistics and kinesics of men from strange cultures, and even the paralinguistics of other terrestrial mammals, are at least partly intelligible to us, whereas the verbal languages of men from strange cultures seem to be totally opaque?” (qtd. by Wilder 247). He goes on to explain that this is because written/spoken language is digital, due to the arbitrary assignment of words to their meanings, and paralinguistics are analog. Paralinguistics, all of the nonverbal communication as well as the way the words are spoken (pitch, etc.) are analog, because the meaning of this type of communication is directly related to it. Wilder further asserts that paralinguistics “is our primary means to communicate messages about relationship” and at times, written/spoken language can fall short of what we actually want to say in these situations, leaving paralinguistics as our only means of expressing ourselves (247-248). Interestingly, for the most part, it is solely written/spoken (digital) language that is transmittable using digital communication, and thus we lose a hugely powerful form of communication when communicating as such.<br />
<br />
==Transition and Effects==<br />
<br />
As stated earlier, the transition from analog to digital has been a long time coming, and the dueling ways of thinking and living have been around even longer. It has, however, taken until the latter half of the 20th century for the full transition to digital to really take effect. With personal computers, DVDs and CDs, the Internet and online communication, digital phone networks, etc. there is a real trend today towards the digitization of almost every aspect of our lives. One major signal could be the shutting down of the analog television broadcasting system in February of 2009. Another could be the transition that has taken place over the latter half of the 20th century in the US from an industrial economy to an information economy, as well as the rise of globalization, neither of which would have been possible without digital technologies. At this point in time, the transition can most obviously be seen in the wealthier areas of the world, and affects the younger generations, who have been brought up around these technologies, more so than the older generations. Even still, this transition is taking place and will slowly permeate into the poorer areas, and perhaps even the older generations.<br />
<br />
Wilder quotes Neil Postman in saying that “A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (240). This section attempts to examine some of these changes. The most encompassing change that the digital age brings is well described by Joohan Kim. He explains, <br />
<br />
“Before computers, different types of information required different types of communication channel…[and] also required distinctive methods for storage…but now, with computers, we can store all kinds of information with a single digital medium… This means that the computer would be the primary medium for human communications in the very near future… the medium called computer literally becomes an extension of our body” (102). <br />
<br />
Here we see, that the computer and digital technologies may literally become the medium through which we see, understand, and interact with the world. Again, this has not fully taken place as of yet, but is the direction we seem to be heading in. It is McLuhan’s prophecy come true, for many of the younger generations already communicate, consume culture, make friends, etc. through the computer and the Internet, using these technologies, as they were, as extensions of themselves. For many, a friendship is not a friendship until it is consummated on Facebook or similar social networking sites. There is definite resistance, but not much that can be seen amongst the young. <br />
<br />
While these are more abstract effects, this transition also has very real effects for the ways we experience the world in a more theoretical sense. These effects can be seen in three different, although connected ways: the way we see ourselves, the way we communicate, and the way we see the world.<br />
<br />
===Digital Self===<br />
<br />
The pervading use of digital technologies into our everyday lives can have enormous effects in our conceptions of self. Inherently, digital technologies are more inward focused. We interact with their external components, but these are connected to internal workings of which most of us have very little idea how they work. Alternatively, in the age of analog technologies, the majority of people could have some understanding of how their machines worked, and in fact, sometimes one could understand it simply from studying the mechanism. With digital technologies however, it takes increasingly specialized skills to achieve this type of understanding. The same could be said perhaps, in reference to ourselves. As digital technologies came more into our lives, we have taken to focusing inward on ourselves, so much so that it now takes specialized professions (psychologists, psychiatrists), to help us understand ourselves.<br />
<br />
Shanyang Zhao, in studying the effects of online communications by teenagers, found this exact idea in the creation of the digital self (his term for the online persona affected by those engaging on online communications): “The digital self is… more oriented toward one’s inner world, focusing on thoughts, feelings and personalities rather than one’s outer world, focusing on height, weight, and looks” (396). This is not to say that people who are connected online no longer care about their physical characters, it would be ridiculous to claim so, however in online communications, the psychological is discussed more, and more thoroughly, than in face-to-face dialogue, partially due to the anonymity digital communication can provide.<br />
<br />
===Digital Communication===<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, the difference between analog and digital is apparent even in the general discussion of face-to-face human communication. Words appear as digital communication, while body language, tone and rhythm of speech, etc, can all be considered analog communication. In communicating digitally, through online media, we lose these paralinguistic aspects of communication and are forced to allay the full meaning of our conversation through words. This can be thoroughly difficult when attempting to communicate something as intimate as feelings, where typically, words can fall short. Surely this type of issue has been apparent as well in communicating through earlier technologies before the advent of truly digital communication, as both letter writing and especially telegraphy are technically digital forms of communication since they convey solely the digital aspects of language.<br />
<br />
While the advent of videochatting and other, less text based, online communication methods brings some of the paralinguistic techniques to the table, the most important (especially to intimate communication), touch, has yet to be unlocked online. Furthermore, this sense is the very one that ties us to the analog world itself, the world we experience around us, for while we may see or hear things that are digital, we cannot touch them for they are not laid out in front of us tangibly. <br />
<br />
Although typically online communication is used to further the foundation between people that they establish in the ‘real world,’ it still does have effects in the way we communicate as human beings. The focus on the digital elements of language, and the leaving behind of the paralinguistic ones, could have major adverse effects on our relationships if online communication continues in popularity as it has. Even more so, the ability to easily and cheaply communicate with people the world over, erases spatio-temporal restraints and effectively erases the boundaries of bodies, which, while it could be a good thing in some circumstances, could also involve us in complete disembodiment, leaving our bodies aside and placing total importance on our minds, similar to the very nature of digital objects themselves, leaving us to ignore the reality around us.<br />
<br />
===Digital World===<br />
<br />
In dealing with the digital we deal in thing that are intangible. We can touch a computer, we can touch a DVD or a CD, but we cannot touch the contents they contain, for they are located in bits of information. Even further the experience of the world comes through to some through the Internet and their communications through it. In a real world example this can be seen in the constant need to photograph that many younger people have today. <br />
<br />
The great amounts of storage available on digital cameras have made it so that we can literally document everything that happens to us on a given day without having to reload the camera. Not having to develop anything, we can take these pictures immediately home and upload them. Instant memories. This is well and fine, but two issues arise. <br />
<br />
These pictures (until they are printed, which they usually aren’t) are not tangible, they have no holding in real life, and perhaps they are like memories in this way. Digital pictures however, like all pieces of digital information have the following quality: they are “durable” in that “we can work (save, reopen, play, write, paint, etc.) on [or view] them over and over again just as we do with physical objects” (Kim 91). Where they diverge from the physical however, is in this: “Unlike a photo image on paper, a digital photo image on a computer screen can be completely destroyed with a single stroke on a keyboard. A digital image can instantly be deleted, without leave any trace in the physical world” (Kim 94). Thus they both are and are not like physical objects. As memories however, they can either endure forever or be instantly deleted. They cannot be forgotten about and conjured up again years later in a haze. They are not memories. They are files. And yet, many photograph with such need, one would think they’d never remember the event again dare they have no files of it.<br />
<br />
Which brings up the second problem. This deep-seated need to document reality forces us to remove ourselves from reality, so much so that we may not even experience it whatsoever save from what we have photographed. Taking pictures is an event in and of itself, as opposed to the event going on around us. Not to mention that any number of various cameras at these events may produce various sets of memories so that one does not remember the event in full unless he/she gets all the sets of memories. Either way, the experience itself gets depleted, and boiled down to the forced, artificial, creation of it. <br />
<br />
This leads to the experience of the actual digital world. If our experiences of life are leading to a digital exploration of it we could ask the question, “Can ‘being-in-the-World-Wide-Web” be another way of becoming a “being-in-the-world’?” (Kim 88). This question itself works on both the levels of the Internet and simple digital experiences offline. In other words, if in the future, way down the line, we become bodies in space whose every experience comes through digital impulses (the ultimate death of analog) will it be the same as inhabiting the real world? In a far simpler restatement, is the digital real? It would seem it isn’t, however as time goes by and digitalism pervades further and further, perhaps it will become the only real, only the true death of analog will tell.<br />
<br />
==Resistance May Not Be Futile==<br />
<br />
“At one point I wondered why my teenage son-denizen of the digital age-covets my old analog vinyl records? Why has the New York subway system, encountered such resistance as they try to move riders from using analog brass tokens to digitized Metrocards? … Why do people who spend time online with each other want more physical contact, not less? (Wilder 241-242). While the transition to digital may seem imminent (albeit slow moving) examples such as these abound. People still carry around Polaroid cameras, in a report on CBS, Charles Osgood stated “that people ‘yearn for analog sound in this digital age’” (qtd. by Wilder 249). There is definite resistance to the movement into digital, and this is an aesthetic decision. More than aesthetic, this is a decision of feeling. For with the loss of analog we lose endearing qualities of the old. We lose the feel of a record in our hands, and the 'pops and hisses' we hear as it plays. We lose the click of the camera that while it may be reproduced digitally, will never sound like it did when actual mechanisms were making the it. And we lose the feeling of solidity, instead of metal and wood receiving plastic and silicon. Instead of being hugged, receiving hug messages from friends. The decision for many is that the experience of the ‘real’ means more that the experience of the high tech. This may be what keeps these analog experiences around, as while the digital pervades people shy away and yearn for the real.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Binkley, Timothy. "Digital Dilemmas." Leonardo. Supplemental Issue. 3 (1990): 13-19. J-Stor. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557889>. <br />
<br />
Kim, Joohan. "Phenomenology of Digital-Being." Human Studies 24 (2001): 87-111. J-Stor. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20011305>. <br />
<br />
Wilder, Carol. "Being Analog." The Postmodern Presence : Readings on Postmodernism in American Culture and Society. By Arthur A. Berger. New York: AltaMira P, 1997. 239-53. The New School. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://homepage.newschool.edu/~wilder/beinganalog.pdf>. <br />
<br />
Zhao, Shanyang. "The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others." Symbolic Interaction 28 (2005): 387-405. 09 Sept. 2005. Caliber. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/si.2005.28.3.387>.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Analog/Digital_Transition&diff=6172Analog/Digital Transition2008-12-03T03:22:48Z<p>Teg217: /* Works Cited */</p>
<hr />
<div>Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the analog/digital divide has been around for an extremely long time. Some see this binary dichotomy to go back to the differences between the slide rule and the abacus. More generally it can be seen as the difference between the body (outward, physical) and the mind (inward, psychological). This dichotomy may have been placed retroactively on such devices, but today, for many, the dichotomy has almost disappeared. As digital technologies creep into every aspect of our everyday lives, we see analog technologies taking a step back in retreat, causing major ripples in the way we live our lives. As a note, the use of the words analog and digital herein, apply both to the devices and machines they describe as well as the more theoretical ideas of our ways of experiencing life.<br />
<br />
==Differences==<br />
<br />
The differences between analog and digital can be very technical, or otherwise extremely intuitive. This wiki won’t deal with the specific technical differences, but more the intuitive and theoretical ones. As explained by Carol Wilder, the word analog comes from the Greek roots ana, meaning equivalent, and logos, meaning the structure of reality. Thusly, something that is analog in nature, refers directly to the way things are in reality, or is equivalent with such reality. “As a level of description, it [analog] is closer than digital coding to the physical world, closer to corporeality, more kinesthetic, tactile, more-dare I say-‘real.’” This can be compared to the “digital level of description” which “represents a more abstracted disembodied consciousness, which is at once more expansive and less visceral” (Wilder 252). In this sense it is an aesthetic difference between how we encounter life and experience the world around us.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Wilder quotes physiologist Ralph Gerard, who explored this dichotomy in 1951, explaining that “an analogical system is one in which one of two variables is continuous on the other, while in a digital system the variable is discontinuous and quantized” (243). It is from Gerard that we get the prototypical analog device, the slide rule, due to it’s continuous numbering, as well as meaning of spatiality, wherein the further down the number is, the larger it is, and the abacus as the prototypical digital device, due to the ‘on-or-off-ness’ of the beads, where they are either counted or not. This latter conception of digitalism has much to do with the language of binary, used by today’s more classic digital devices, in its uses of 1s and 0s.<br />
<br />
===Differences in Language===<br />
<br />
One last difference is seen in the different levels of human communication. Gregory Bateson addressed this issue in 1966, in the form of a question: “How does it happen that the paralinguistics and kinesics of men from strange cultures, and even the paralinguistics of other terrestrial mammals, are at least partly intelligible to us, whereas the verbal languages of men from strange cultures seem to be totally opaque?” (qtd. by Wilder 247). He goes on to explain that this is because written/spoken language is digital, due to the arbitrary assignment of words to their meanings, and paralinguistics are analog. Paralinguistics, all of the nonverbal communication as well as the way the words are spoken (pitch, etc.) are analog, because the meaning of this type of communication is directly related to it. Wilder further asserts that paralinguistics “is our primary means to communicate messages about relationship” and at times, written/spoken language can fall short of what we actually want to say in these situations, leaving paralinguistics as our only means of expressing ourselves (247-248). Interestingly, for the most part, it is solely written/spoken (digital) language that is transmittable using digital communication, and thus we lose a hugely powerful form of communication when communicating as such.<br />
<br />
==Transition and Effects==<br />
<br />
As stated earlier, the transition from analog to digital has been a long time coming, and the dueling ways of thinking and living have been around even longer. It has, however, taken until the latter half of the 20th century for the full transition to digital to really take effect. With personal computers, DVDs and CDs, the Internet and online communication, digital phone networks, etc. there is a real trend today towards the digitization of almost every aspect of our lives. One major signal could be the shutting down of the analog television broadcasting system in February of 2009. Another could be the transition that has taken place over the latter half of the 20th century in the US from an industrial economy to an information economy, as well as the rise of globalization, neither of which would have been possible without digital technologies. At this point in time, the transition can most obviously be seen in the wealthier areas of the world, and affects the younger generations, who have been brought up around these technologies, more so than the older generations. Even still, this transition is taking place and will slowly permeate into the poorer areas, and perhaps even the older generations.<br />
<br />
Wilder quotes Neil Postman in saying that “A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (240). This section attempts to examine some of these changes. The most encompassing change that the digital age brings is well described by Joohan Kim. He explains, <br />
<br />
“Before computers, different types of information required different types of communication channel…[and] also required distinctive methods for storage…but now, with computers, we can store all kinds of information with a single digital medium… This means that the computer would be the primary medium for human communications in the very near future… the medium called computer literally becomes an extension of our body” (102). <br />
<br />
Here we see, that the computer and digital technologies may literally become the medium through which we see, understand, and interact with the world. Again, this has not fully taken place as of yet, but is the direction we seem to be heading in. It is McLuhan’s prophecy come true, for many of the younger generations already communicate, consume culture, make friends, etc. through the computer and the Internet, using these technologies, as they were, as extensions of themselves. For many, a friendship is not a friendship until it is consummated on Facebook or similar social networking sites. There is definite resistance, but not much that can be seen amongst the young. <br />
<br />
While these are more abstract effects, this transition also has very real effects for the ways we experience the world in a more theoretical sense. These effects can be seen in three different, although connected ways: the way we see ourselves, the way we communicate, and the way we see the world.<br />
<br />
===Digital Self===<br />
<br />
The pervading use of digital technologies into our everyday lives can have enormous effects in our conceptions of self. Inherently, digital technologies are more inward focused. We interact with their external components, but these are connected to internal workings of which most of us have very little idea how they work. Alternatively, in the age of analog technologies, the majority of people could have some understanding of how their machines worked, and in fact, sometimes one could understand it simply from studying the mechanism. With digital technologies however, it takes increasingly specialized skills to achieve this type of understanding. The same could be said perhaps, in reference to ourselves. As digital technologies came more into our lives, we have taken to focusing inward on ourselves, so much so that it now takes specialized professions (psychologists, psychiatrists), to help us understand ourselves.<br />
<br />
Shanyang Zhao, in studying the effects of online communications by teenagers, found this exact idea in the creation of the digital self (his term for the online persona affected by those engaging on online communications): “The digital self is… more oriented toward one’s inner world, focusing on thoughts, feelings and personalities rather than one’s outer world, focusing on height, weight, and looks” (396). This is not to say that people who are connected online no longer care about their physical characters, it would be ridiculous to claim so, however in online communications, the psychological is discussed more, and more thoroughly, than in face-to-face dialogue, partially due to the anonymity digital communication can provide.<br />
<br />
===Digital Communication===<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, the difference between analog and digital is apparent even in the general discussion of face-to-face human communication. Words appear as digital communication, while body language, tone and rhythm of speech, etc, can all be considered analog communication. In communicating digitally, through online media, we lose these paralinguistic aspects of communication and are forced to allay the full meaning of our conversation through words. This can be thoroughly difficult when attempting to communicate something as intimate as feelings, where typically, words can fall short. Surely this type of issue has been apparent in communicating through analog technologies as simple as letter writing, however, there are still two major differences. Firstly, these communiqué were typically used between people who knew each other, and not, as may be the case in online communication, between strangers (who may be intimately linked, however, even if they are ‘real world’ strangers). This has major impact, as communication as such is typically used by people who know each other, as an addition to the face-time they have together, whereas strangers would not have this face-time. Secondly, letter writing was not used as pervasively as online communication is today, to discuss all types of matters. Receiving a letter was a treat, it was not guaranteed. People online expect to see and communicate with others online at certain times. <br />
<br />
Additionally, with the advent of videochatting and other, less text based, online communication methods, some of the paralinguistic techniques can be called upon. The most important however (especially to intimate communication), is touch, which has yet to be unlocked online. Furthermore, this sense is the very one that ties us to the analog world itself, the world we experience around us, for while we may see or hear things that are digital, we cannot touch them, for they are not laid out in front of us tangibly. <br />
<br />
Although typically online communication is used to further the foundation between people that they establish in the ‘real world,’ it still does have effects in the way we communicate as human beings. The focus on the digital elements of language, and the leaving behind of the paralinguistic ones, could have major adverse effects on our relationships if online communication continues in popularity as it has. Even more so, the ability to easily and cheaply communicate with people the world over, erases spatio-temporal restraints and effectively erases the boundaries of bodies, which, while it could be a good thing in some circumstances, could also involve us in complete disembodiment, leaving our bodies aside and placing total importance on our minds, similar to the very nature of digital objects themselves, leaving us to ignore the reality around us.<br />
<br />
===Digital World===<br />
<br />
In dealing with the digital we deal in thing that are intangible. We can touch a computer, we can touch a DVD or a CD, but we cannot touch the contents they contain, for they are located in bits of information. Even further the experience of the world comes through to some through the Internet and their communications through it. In a real world example this can be seen in the constant need to photograph that many younger people have today. <br />
<br />
The great amounts of storage available on digital cameras have made it so that we can literally document everything that happens to us on a given day without having to reload the camera. Not having to develop anything, we can take these pictures immediately home and upload them. Instant memories. This is well and fine, but two issues arise. <br />
<br />
These pictures (until they are printed, which they usually aren’t) are not tangible, they have no holding in real life, and perhaps they are like memories in this way. Digital pictures however, like all pieces of digital information have the following quality: they are “durable” in that “we can work (save, reopen, play, write, paint, etc.) on [or view] them over and over again just as we do with physical objects” (Kim 91). Where they diverge from the physical however, is in this: “Unlike a photo image on paper, a digital photo image on a computer screen can be completely destroyed with a single stroke on a keyboard. A digital image can instantly be deleted, without leave any trace in the physical world” (Kim 94). Thus they both are and are not like physical objects. As memories however, they can either endure forever or be instantly deleted. They cannot be forgotten about and conjured up again years later in a haze. They are not memories. They are files. And yet, many photograph with such need, one would think they’d never remember the event again dare they have no files of it.<br />
<br />
Which brings up the second problem. This deep-seated need to document reality forces us to remove ourselves from reality, so much so that we may not even experience it whatsoever save from what we have photographed. Taking pictures is an event in and of itself, as opposed to the event going on around us. Not to mention that any number of various cameras at these events may produce various sets of memories so that one does not remember the event in full unless he/she gets all the sets of memories. Either way, the experience itself gets depleted, and boiled down to the forced, artificial, creation of it. <br />
<br />
This leads to the experience of the actual digital world. If our experiences of life are leading to a digital exploration of it we could ask the question, “Can ‘being-in-the-World-Wide-Web” be another way of becoming a “being-in-the-world’?” (Kim 88). This question itself works on both the levels of the Internet and simple digital experiences offline. In other words, if in the future, way down the line, we become bodies in space whose every experience comes through digital impulses (the ultimate death of analog) will it be the same as inhabiting the real world? In a far simpler restatement, is the digital real? It would seem it isn’t, however as time goes by and digitalism pervades further and further, perhaps it will become the only real, only the true death of analog will tell.<br />
<br />
==Resistance May Not Be Futile==<br />
<br />
“At one point I wondered why my teenage son-denizen of the digital age-covets my old analog vinyl records? Why has the New York subway system, encountered such resistance as they try to move riders from using analog brass tokens to digitized Metrocards? … Why do people who spend time online with each other want more physical contact, not less? (Wilder 241-242). While the transition to digital may seem imminent (albeit slow moving) examples such as these abound. People still carry around Polaroid cameras, in a report on CBS, Charles Osgood stated “that people ‘yearn for analog sound in this digital age’” (qtd. by Wilder 249). There is definite resistance to the movement into digital, and this is an aesthetic decision. More than aesthetic, this is a decision of feeling. For with the loss of analog we lose endearing qualities of the old. We lose the feel of a record in our hands, and the 'pops and hisses' we hear as it plays. We lose the click of the camera that while it may be reproduced digitally, will never sound like it did when actual mechanisms were making the it. And we lose the feeling of solidity, instead of metal and wood receiving plastic and silicon. Instead of being hugged, receiving hug messages from friends. The decision for many is that the experience of the ‘real’ means more that the experience of the high tech. This may be what keeps these analog experiences around, as while the digital pervades people shy away and yearn for the real.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Binkley, Timothy. "Digital Dilemmas." Leonardo. Supplemental Issue. 3 (1990): 13-19. J-Stor. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557889>. <br />
<br />
Kim, Joohan. "Phenomenology of Digital-Being." Human Studies 24 (2001): 87-111. J-Stor. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20011305>. <br />
<br />
Wilder, Carol. "Being Analog." The Postmodern Presence : Readings on Postmodernism in American Culture and Society. By Arthur A. Berger. New York: AltaMira P, 1997. 239-53. The New School. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://homepage.newschool.edu/~wilder/beinganalog.pdf>. <br />
<br />
Zhao, Shanyang. "The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others." Symbolic Interaction 28 (2005): 387-405. 09 Sept. 2005. Caliber. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/si.2005.28.3.387>.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Analog/Digital_Transition&diff=6171Analog/Digital Transition2008-12-03T03:22:09Z<p>Teg217: /* Resistance May Not Be Futile */</p>
<hr />
<div>Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the analog/digital divide has been around for an extremely long time. Some see this binary dichotomy to go back to the differences between the slide rule and the abacus. More generally it can be seen as the difference between the body (outward, physical) and the mind (inward, psychological). This dichotomy may have been placed retroactively on such devices, but today, for many, the dichotomy has almost disappeared. As digital technologies creep into every aspect of our everyday lives, we see analog technologies taking a step back in retreat, causing major ripples in the way we live our lives. As a note, the use of the words analog and digital herein, apply both to the devices and machines they describe as well as the more theoretical ideas of our ways of experiencing life.<br />
<br />
==Differences==<br />
<br />
The differences between analog and digital can be very technical, or otherwise extremely intuitive. This wiki won’t deal with the specific technical differences, but more the intuitive and theoretical ones. As explained by Carol Wilder, the word analog comes from the Greek roots ana, meaning equivalent, and logos, meaning the structure of reality. Thusly, something that is analog in nature, refers directly to the way things are in reality, or is equivalent with such reality. “As a level of description, it [analog] is closer than digital coding to the physical world, closer to corporeality, more kinesthetic, tactile, more-dare I say-‘real.’” This can be compared to the “digital level of description” which “represents a more abstracted disembodied consciousness, which is at once more expansive and less visceral” (Wilder 252). In this sense it is an aesthetic difference between how we encounter life and experience the world around us.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Wilder quotes physiologist Ralph Gerard, who explored this dichotomy in 1951, explaining that “an analogical system is one in which one of two variables is continuous on the other, while in a digital system the variable is discontinuous and quantized” (243). It is from Gerard that we get the prototypical analog device, the slide rule, due to it’s continuous numbering, as well as meaning of spatiality, wherein the further down the number is, the larger it is, and the abacus as the prototypical digital device, due to the ‘on-or-off-ness’ of the beads, where they are either counted or not. This latter conception of digitalism has much to do with the language of binary, used by today’s more classic digital devices, in its uses of 1s and 0s.<br />
<br />
===Differences in Language===<br />
<br />
One last difference is seen in the different levels of human communication. Gregory Bateson addressed this issue in 1966, in the form of a question: “How does it happen that the paralinguistics and kinesics of men from strange cultures, and even the paralinguistics of other terrestrial mammals, are at least partly intelligible to us, whereas the verbal languages of men from strange cultures seem to be totally opaque?” (qtd. by Wilder 247). He goes on to explain that this is because written/spoken language is digital, due to the arbitrary assignment of words to their meanings, and paralinguistics are analog. Paralinguistics, all of the nonverbal communication as well as the way the words are spoken (pitch, etc.) are analog, because the meaning of this type of communication is directly related to it. Wilder further asserts that paralinguistics “is our primary means to communicate messages about relationship” and at times, written/spoken language can fall short of what we actually want to say in these situations, leaving paralinguistics as our only means of expressing ourselves (247-248). Interestingly, for the most part, it is solely written/spoken (digital) language that is transmittable using digital communication, and thus we lose a hugely powerful form of communication when communicating as such.<br />
<br />
==Transition and Effects==<br />
<br />
As stated earlier, the transition from analog to digital has been a long time coming, and the dueling ways of thinking and living have been around even longer. It has, however, taken until the latter half of the 20th century for the full transition to digital to really take effect. With personal computers, DVDs and CDs, the Internet and online communication, digital phone networks, etc. there is a real trend today towards the digitization of almost every aspect of our lives. One major signal could be the shutting down of the analog television broadcasting system in February of 2009. Another could be the transition that has taken place over the latter half of the 20th century in the US from an industrial economy to an information economy, as well as the rise of globalization, neither of which would have been possible without digital technologies. At this point in time, the transition can most obviously be seen in the wealthier areas of the world, and affects the younger generations, who have been brought up around these technologies, more so than the older generations. Even still, this transition is taking place and will slowly permeate into the poorer areas, and perhaps even the older generations.<br />
<br />
Wilder quotes Neil Postman in saying that “A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (240). This section attempts to examine some of these changes. The most encompassing change that the digital age brings is well described by Joohan Kim. He explains, <br />
<br />
“Before computers, different types of information required different types of communication channel…[and] also required distinctive methods for storage…but now, with computers, we can store all kinds of information with a single digital medium… This means that the computer would be the primary medium for human communications in the very near future… the medium called computer literally becomes an extension of our body” (102). <br />
<br />
Here we see, that the computer and digital technologies may literally become the medium through which we see, understand, and interact with the world. Again, this has not fully taken place as of yet, but is the direction we seem to be heading in. It is McLuhan’s prophecy come true, for many of the younger generations already communicate, consume culture, make friends, etc. through the computer and the Internet, using these technologies, as they were, as extensions of themselves. For many, a friendship is not a friendship until it is consummated on Facebook or similar social networking sites. There is definite resistance, but not much that can be seen amongst the young. <br />
<br />
While these are more abstract effects, this transition also has very real effects for the ways we experience the world in a more theoretical sense. These effects can be seen in three different, although connected ways: the way we see ourselves, the way we communicate, and the way we see the world.<br />
<br />
===Digital Self===<br />
<br />
The pervading use of digital technologies into our everyday lives can have enormous effects in our conceptions of self. Inherently, digital technologies are more inward focused. We interact with their external components, but these are connected to internal workings of which most of us have very little idea how they work. Alternatively, in the age of analog technologies, the majority of people could have some understanding of how their machines worked, and in fact, sometimes one could understand it simply from studying the mechanism. With digital technologies however, it takes increasingly specialized skills to achieve this type of understanding. The same could be said perhaps, in reference to ourselves. As digital technologies came more into our lives, we have taken to focusing inward on ourselves, so much so that it now takes specialized professions (psychologists, psychiatrists), to help us understand ourselves.<br />
<br />
Shanyang Zhao, in studying the effects of online communications by teenagers, found this exact idea in the creation of the digital self (his term for the online persona affected by those engaging on online communications): “The digital self is… more oriented toward one’s inner world, focusing on thoughts, feelings and personalities rather than one’s outer world, focusing on height, weight, and looks” (396). This is not to say that people who are connected online no longer care about their physical characters, it would be ridiculous to claim so, however in online communications, the psychological is discussed more, and more thoroughly, than in face-to-face dialogue, partially due to the anonymity digital communication can provide.<br />
<br />
===Digital Communication===<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, the difference between analog and digital is apparent even in the general discussion of face-to-face human communication. Words appear as digital communication, while body language, tone and rhythm of speech, etc, can all be considered analog communication. In communicating digitally, through online media, we lose these paralinguistic aspects of communication and are forced to allay the full meaning of our conversation through words. This can be thoroughly difficult when attempting to communicate something as intimate as feelings, where typically, words can fall short. Surely this type of issue has been apparent in communicating through analog technologies as simple as letter writing, however, there are still two major differences. Firstly, these communiqué were typically used between people who knew each other, and not, as may be the case in online communication, between strangers (who may be intimately linked, however, even if they are ‘real world’ strangers). This has major impact, as communication as such is typically used by people who know each other, as an addition to the face-time they have together, whereas strangers would not have this face-time. Secondly, letter writing was not used as pervasively as online communication is today, to discuss all types of matters. Receiving a letter was a treat, it was not guaranteed. People online expect to see and communicate with others online at certain times. <br />
<br />
Additionally, with the advent of videochatting and other, less text based, online communication methods, some of the paralinguistic techniques can be called upon. The most important however (especially to intimate communication), is touch, which has yet to be unlocked online. Furthermore, this sense is the very one that ties us to the analog world itself, the world we experience around us, for while we may see or hear things that are digital, we cannot touch them, for they are not laid out in front of us tangibly. <br />
<br />
Although typically online communication is used to further the foundation between people that they establish in the ‘real world,’ it still does have effects in the way we communicate as human beings. The focus on the digital elements of language, and the leaving behind of the paralinguistic ones, could have major adverse effects on our relationships if online communication continues in popularity as it has. Even more so, the ability to easily and cheaply communicate with people the world over, erases spatio-temporal restraints and effectively erases the boundaries of bodies, which, while it could be a good thing in some circumstances, could also involve us in complete disembodiment, leaving our bodies aside and placing total importance on our minds, similar to the very nature of digital objects themselves, leaving us to ignore the reality around us.<br />
<br />
===Digital World===<br />
<br />
In dealing with the digital we deal in thing that are intangible. We can touch a computer, we can touch a DVD or a CD, but we cannot touch the contents they contain, for they are located in bits of information. Even further the experience of the world comes through to some through the Internet and their communications through it. In a real world example this can be seen in the constant need to photograph that many younger people have today. <br />
<br />
The great amounts of storage available on digital cameras have made it so that we can literally document everything that happens to us on a given day without having to reload the camera. Not having to develop anything, we can take these pictures immediately home and upload them. Instant memories. This is well and fine, but two issues arise. <br />
<br />
These pictures (until they are printed, which they usually aren’t) are not tangible, they have no holding in real life, and perhaps they are like memories in this way. Digital pictures however, like all pieces of digital information have the following quality: they are “durable” in that “we can work (save, reopen, play, write, paint, etc.) on [or view] them over and over again just as we do with physical objects” (Kim 91). Where they diverge from the physical however, is in this: “Unlike a photo image on paper, a digital photo image on a computer screen can be completely destroyed with a single stroke on a keyboard. A digital image can instantly be deleted, without leave any trace in the physical world” (Kim 94). Thus they both are and are not like physical objects. As memories however, they can either endure forever or be instantly deleted. They cannot be forgotten about and conjured up again years later in a haze. They are not memories. They are files. And yet, many photograph with such need, one would think they’d never remember the event again dare they have no files of it.<br />
<br />
Which brings up the second problem. This deep-seated need to document reality forces us to remove ourselves from reality, so much so that we may not even experience it whatsoever save from what we have photographed. Taking pictures is an event in and of itself, as opposed to the event going on around us. Not to mention that any number of various cameras at these events may produce various sets of memories so that one does not remember the event in full unless he/she gets all the sets of memories. Either way, the experience itself gets depleted, and boiled down to the forced, artificial, creation of it. <br />
<br />
This leads to the experience of the actual digital world. If our experiences of life are leading to a digital exploration of it we could ask the question, “Can ‘being-in-the-World-Wide-Web” be another way of becoming a “being-in-the-world’?” (Kim 88). This question itself works on both the levels of the Internet and simple digital experiences offline. In other words, if in the future, way down the line, we become bodies in space whose every experience comes through digital impulses (the ultimate death of analog) will it be the same as inhabiting the real world? In a far simpler restatement, is the digital real? It would seem it isn’t, however as time goes by and digitalism pervades further and further, perhaps it will become the only real, only the true death of analog will tell.<br />
<br />
==Resistance May Not Be Futile==<br />
<br />
“At one point I wondered why my teenage son-denizen of the digital age-covets my old analog vinyl records? Why has the New York subway system, encountered such resistance as they try to move riders from using analog brass tokens to digitized Metrocards? … Why do people who spend time online with each other want more physical contact, not less? (Wilder 241-242). While the transition to digital may seem imminent (albeit slow moving) examples such as these abound. People still carry around Polaroid cameras, in a report on CBS, Charles Osgood stated “that people ‘yearn for analog sound in this digital age’” (qtd. by Wilder 249). There is definite resistance to the movement into digital, and this is an aesthetic decision. More than aesthetic, this is a decision of feeling. For with the loss of analog we lose endearing qualities of the old. We lose the feel of a record in our hands, and the 'pops and hisses' we hear as it plays. We lose the click of the camera that while it may be reproduced digitally, will never sound like it did when actual mechanisms were making the it. And we lose the feeling of solidity, instead of metal and wood receiving plastic and silicon. Instead of being hugged, receiving hug messages from friends. The decision for many is that the experience of the ‘real’ means more that the experience of the high tech. This may be what keeps these analog experiences around, as while the digital pervades people shy away and yearn for the real.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Binkley, Timothy. "Digital Dilemmas." Leonardo. Supplemental Issue. 3 (1990): 13-19. J-Stor. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557889>. <br />
Kim, Joohan. "Phenomenology of Digital-Being." Human Studies 24 (2001): 87-111. J-Stor. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20011305>. <br />
Wilder, Carol. "Being Analog." The Postmodern Presence : Readings on Postmodernism in American Culture and Society. By Arthur A. Berger. New York: AltaMira P, 1997. 239-53. The New School. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://homepage.newschool.edu/~wilder/beinganalog.pdf>. <br />
Zhao, Shanyang. "The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others." Symbolic Interaction 28 (2005): 387-405. 09 Sept. 2005. Caliber. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/si.2005.28.3.387>.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=6169Main Page2008-12-03T02:59:13Z<p>Teg217: /* Dead Media Dossiers */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Media Archaeology'''<br />
<br />
[http://cultureandcommunication.org/galloway/2008spr-MediaArchaeology.html Media Archaeology course syllabus] (Spring 2008) <br />
<br />
Over the last decade or so, scholars in several disciplines have embarked on a series of media-archaeological excavations, sifting through the layers of early and obsolete practices and technologies of communication. The archaeological metaphor evokes both the desire to recover material traces of the past and the imperative to situate those traces in their social, cultural, and political contexts--while always watching our steps. This graduate seminar will examine some of the most important contributions to the field of media archaeology.<br />
<br />
The course follows a research studio format in which students undertake archaeological projects of their own in the area of forgotten, obsolete, or otherwise "dead" media technologies. This might include papyrus, Athanasius Kircher's seventeenth-century magic lantern, or the common slide projector, discontinued by Kodak in 2004. Our goal is to introduce students to the skills and resources necessary for producing rigorous research on such obsolete and obscure media. It will include an exposure to scholarship in media archaeology; an intensive introduction to research methods; instruction on the localization and utilization of word, image, and sound archives; and an emphasis on restoring media artifacts to their proper social and cultural context. The course stems from the premise that media archaeology is best undertaken, like any archaeological project, collaboratively. Hence the course follows a research studio model commonly used in disciplines such as architecture or design.<br />
<br />
= Dead Media Dossiers = <br />
<br />
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="20"<br />
<br />
<br />
||<br />
<br />
[[3D Television]]<br />
<br />
[[8-track Tape]]<br />
<br />
[[Analog/Digital Transition]]<br />
<br />
[[Autopen]]<br />
<br />
[[BeOS]]<br />
<br />
[[Camera Lucida]]<br />
<br />
[[Camera Obscura]]<br />
<br />
[[Car Phone]]<br />
<br />
[[Chirograph (Cyrograph)]]<br />
<br />
[[Civil Defense Siren]]<br />
<br />
[[Credit Card Imprinter]]<br />
<br />
[[Cyanotype (Architectural)]]<br />
<br />
[[Daguerreotype]]<br />
<br />
[[Discipline]]<br />
<br />
[[Data Visualization and Defunct Visual Metaphors]]<br />
<br />
[[Dumbwaiter]]<br />
<br />
[[Dymaxion House]]<br />
<br />
[[Ear Trumpet]]<br />
<br />
[[Electric Pen]]<br />
<br />
[[Enigma machine]]<br />
<br />
[[Experiential Typewriter]]<br />
<br />
[[Glass Harmonica]]<br />
<br />
[[HD-DVD]]<br />
<br />
[[Hierarchy]]<br />
<br />
[[Hip Pocket Records]]<br />
<br />
[[Hollerith Punch Card]]<br />
<br />
[[Homing Pigeons]]<br />
<br />
[[Hotel Annunciator]]<br />
<br />
<br />
||<br />
<br />
[[Kinora]]<br />
<br />
[[Magic Lantern]]<br />
<br />
[[Marginalia]]<br />
<br />
[[Marine Chronometer]]<br />
<br />
[[The Market]]<br />
<br />
[[Medieval Mariner's Compass]]<br />
<br />
[[Mechanical Television]]<br />
<br />
[[Megalethoscope]]<br />
<br />
[[MiniDisc]]<br />
<br />
[[Minitel]]<br />
<br />
[[Mood Ring]]<br />
<br />
[[Movable Type]]<br />
<br />
[[Mystical Writing Pad]]<br />
<br />
[[Nansen Passport]]<br />
<br />
[[Newspaper via Radio Facsimile]]<br />
<br />
[[NeXT Step]]<br />
<br />
[[Nickelodeon]]<br />
<br />
[[Notificator]]<br />
<br />
[[Old Color Spaces]]<br />
<br />
[[Panorama]]<br />
<br />
[[Parrots & Birds as Symbols of Surveillance]]<br />
<br />
[[Peruvian Quipu]]<br />
<br />
[[Phonograph Doll]]<br />
<br />
||<br />
<br />
[[Photographic Gun]]<br />
<br />
[[Picturephone]]<br />
<br />
[[Player Piano]]<br />
<br />
[[Pneumatic Tubes]]<br />
<br />
[[Polaroid Camera]]<br />
<br />
[[Political Effigies]]<br />
<br />
[[Roentgen Ray Tube]]<br />
<br />
[[Secretarial Letter Dictation]]<br />
<br />
[[Semaphore Telegraph]]<br />
<br />
[[Shorthand]]<br />
<br />
[[Smell Organ]]<br />
<br />
[[Spirit Duplicator]]<br />
<br />
[[Spirit Photography]]<br />
<br />
[[Standardization]]<br />
<br />
[[Steenbeck]]<br />
<br />
[[Stereoscope]]<br />
<br />
[[Stock Ticker Machine]]<br />
<br />
[[Talking Book]]<br />
<br />
[[Talking View-Master]]<br />
<br />
[[Telautograph]]<br />
<br />
[[Telharmonium]]<br />
<br />
[[Typewriter]]<br />
<br />
[[The Victrola]]<br />
<br />
[[Virtual boy]]<br />
<br />
[[Wire Recording]]<br />
<br />
[[Wax Cylinder]]<br />
<br />
[[Zuse palimpsest]]<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= Critical Techniques =<br />
<br />
As a group we are developing a series of techniques that help facilitate the analysis of dead media artifacts. These questions are provisional and may not be appropriate for all artifacts. They are meant as tools for critical exploration. <br />
<br />
* "[[Pops and hisses]]" -- Pops and hisses refers to the background noise often heard on phonograph recordings resulting from inconsistencies in the underlying material. Research Question: What are the unavoidable, obtrusive material qualities of the substrate itself that enter into the medium's overall system of representation? <br />
<br />
* [[Skeuomorph, or the "click"]] -- Single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras make a clicking sound when taking a picture. The click results from a mechanical operation: an internal mirror moves aside and the shutter opens, exposing the film to light. Many of today's digital cameras have no shutter and no internal mirror, yet they still simulate the click using a digital audio sample. Why? Research Question: What qualities of the artifact are unnecessary at the material level but are still nevertheless necessary at the semiotic level? Where is the "click"? <br />
<br />
* Remediation -- Like the "click," remediation refers to the process through which older media formats are simulated, extended, coopted, modified, tamed, or rendered obsolete by new media formats. Research Questions: What came before this artifact? What newer medium came after? What traits are lost or preserved in the historical transformation from one system to another? <br />
<br />
* "Functional nonsense" -- Functional nonsense refers to actual material qualities of the medium that are necessary for the medium to function correctly but which have no semantic or semiotic purpose. A good illustration is the [[Chirograph (Cyrograph)|chirograph]] which requires that some word -- by custom it was often the word "chirograph" -- be inscribed across the midsection of a document. The word is then cut in half, certifying and authenticating the two pieces. The word "chirograph" is therefore highly functional, but semantically irrelevant. Research Question: What qualities of the artifact are unnecessary at the semiotic or semantic level but are nevertheless crucial to its functioning correctly?<br />
<br />
* Encoding -- Research Question: What symbolic system is used in the medium to encode and decode messages? <br />
<br />
* Digital versus analog -- Research Questions: What parts of the artifact conform to a model of representation using discrete sample points, and what parts use a continuously variable input? Are the two hybridized and if so how? <br />
<br />
* The "obvious" -- In every medium there are techniques and design conventions that result from the prevalent tendencies of the historical situation. For example, the problem of writing and reproduction in the modern period was "solved" using mechanical levers, metal type, presses and inks, while the problem of writing and reproduction in the late twentieth century was solved using an entirely different set of techniques: digital code, microchips, and LCDs. Research Question: What aspects of the medium result from large scale paradigms appropriate to the historical context? <br />
<br />
* The "arbitrary" -- Every medium also contains entirely unmotivated and unexplainable traits. Western writing runs left to right, top to bottom. But this convention is arbitrary. Research Question: What specific aspects of the medium have no material or semiotic reason for being? <br />
<br />
* Formal prohibitions/affordances -- Communications media often put clear limitations on where and how messages can originate and be received. Radio began as a two-way medium, but evolved into a broadcast medium. Research Questions: Who can read in this medium? Who can write in this medium? Is there an asymmetrical relationship between those who can send and those who can receive? What types of values are embedded in the affordances of the technology?<br />
<br />
* The "Hack" -- Given a set of formal prohibitions, do there exist alternate practices of use that change the intended outcome of the medium? For example, DJs "hack" record players when they "spin" records, using their hands to overcome the formal prohibitions of the record player, resulting in the advent of a new style of music. [[Hacking this assignment]]. [TODO: add to this -- mention improvisation, play.]<br />
<br />
* [[The "Cake Mix" effect]] -- Research Questions: What part of the process is streamlined, mechanized, or determined in advance, and what part of the process must be performed by the user? For example, Karaoke machines mechanize the instrumental part of a song, and the user performs the vocals. [TODO: add to this] Prior to the use of tape as a means of recording, the composer had to work with a finite set of possibilities and sounds. With the advent of tape, the sonic substance became malleable, and cuttable. What effect does the mechanized portion of the process have on the emergence of the new? What effect does the streamlined portion of the process have on the overall mode of representation?<br />
<br />
* [[The "Reversal"]] -- Is there a point where maximum efficiency within a medium forces it into obsolescence? Mapmaking was ridden with errors due to difficulties in measuring longitude, but once the Marine Chronometer made it possible to plot the exact coordinates of a given position in space, and the grid mapped upon geographic representations was perfected, it was no longer necessary to use a map for navigation since a course could be plotted without any geographic references. (Additional question/theory: Is a "sampling" medium capable of reversal, or is it only threatened by upgraded mediums that are more efficient? Is the Reversal only possible in a "programming" scenario?)<br />
<br />
* [[The "Break Boundary"]] -- Research Questions: Is there a point beyond which "the system generated by the artifact suddenly changes into another or passes some point of no return in its dynamic processes?" Or what specific reconfigurations in the spatio-temporal framework surrounding the media environment of the artifact might "break" the dynamics which it was attended to address? [DO OTHERS AGREE THIS IS WORTH ADDRESSING? a suggestion via McLuhan that might be worth talking about - perhaps an attribute that doesn't apply to the material framework of the object, but maybe one that is crucial in establishing the artifact's relevance and obsolescence?]<br />
<br />
* "Bad Weather" (non-diegetic influences?) -- The [[Semaphore Telegraph]] was unable to operate in fog. External inputs often influence the proper functioning of media. Research Questions: What external events exist that might cause the medium to operate in flawed or unexpected ways? Does the medium try to shield itself from the outside world? If so, how does this change the format in question?<br />
<br />
* "Guts" -- Some dead media, like the [[NeXT Step]], hide their internal guts inside a [[black box]]. Others like the [[Kinora]] expose their inner workings for all to see. The way in which a media object alternately reveals or hides its insides greatly influences how it is understood, used, and analyzed. Research Questions: Does the medium in question hide or reveal its own internal functioning? If the guts are displayed, does this "technologize" the medium or change it in other ways? If the guts are hidden, does this reify or fetishize the object in question?<br />
<br />
* "Iris vs. Hermes" -- Most media can be charted on a continuum between Iris and Hermes. Both Iris and Hermes were Greek gods of communication; Iris was a messenger for Hera, and Hermes for Zeus. Yet while Hermes facilitated communication by accompanying messages, guiding trade, appearing alongside travelers and otherwise chaperoning interconnections between people, Iris relayed messages by immanently internalizing them in the physically of her own body. For Iris, the medium is the message. Hermes however was more of a letter carrier, keeping the outer envelop distinct from the inner content of the message. Research Questions: Does the medium maintain a separation between the symbolic layer of the medium and the material substrate? Or does the physicality of the medium itself mean something without recourse to surface inscriptions?<br />
<br />
* [["The Sample vs. the Program"]] (Witnessing vs Interpreting / Feeling vs Perceiving) -- Some media can be inscribed by simply being turned on and allowed to feel, or sample the content they remediate - yet other media generate complete nonsense unless a highly specialized and refined language code or aesthetic has been mastered and applied in the process of inscription. Research Questions: Does the medium demand a great deal of analysis before the act of inscription, or does it appropriate material that can be processed and interpreted later? Does the noise of the medium illustrate a condition external to the user's actions (ie background noise) or does the noise illustrate imperfect execution of a symbolic system (misspellings, syntactical errors, grammatical nonsense, freudian slips etc.)? Does the medium demand a complex understanding of the given content (embodying an informational cultural bias) or does it appear to witness with an inhuman objectivity?<br />
<br />
* [[Mediatic Etymology]] - Proposes a methodology for theorizing the existence of dead media by inverting the process of remediation.<br />
<br />
* [[Where do media go to die?]] -- Some artifacts or representational practices may no longer perform a useful function or satisfy popular needs in the current media ecology, but they don't necessarily disappear. Research question: What constitutes a/the moment of death? Is the artifact or representational practice obsolete (outmoded or inoperable) or outright extinct?<br />
<br />
* "Luminescence" -- [TO DO - BEN?]<br />
<br />
* "Ideologies of adoption" -- [TO DO - ALEX?]<br />
<br />
* "Text / Paratext" -- [TO DO]<br />
<br />
= Background =<br />
<br />
Some entries in the archive are drawn from the [http://www.deadmedia.org Dead Media Project], an email list devoted to the topic started by [http://www.well.com/conf/mirrorshades Bruce Sterling] and more recently moderated by Tom Jennings. The email list is now dead.<br />
<br />
= Links = <br />
<br />
[http://www.experimentaljetset.nl/lostformats/01.html Lost formats] <br />
<br />
= Special Pages =<br />
<br />
[[:Special:Upload|Upload a File]]<br />
<br />
[[:Special:Allpages|All Pages]]<br />
<br />
[[:Special:Imagelist|All Uploaded Files]]</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Analog/Digital_Transition&diff=6168Analog/Digital Transition2008-12-03T02:58:42Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>Although it may seem counter-intuitive, the analog/digital divide has been around for an extremely long time. Some see this binary dichotomy to go back to the differences between the slide rule and the abacus. More generally it can be seen as the difference between the body (outward, physical) and the mind (inward, psychological). This dichotomy may have been placed retroactively on such devices, but today, for many, the dichotomy has almost disappeared. As digital technologies creep into every aspect of our everyday lives, we see analog technologies taking a step back in retreat, causing major ripples in the way we live our lives. As a note, the use of the words analog and digital herein, apply both to the devices and machines they describe as well as the more theoretical ideas of our ways of experiencing life.<br />
<br />
==Differences==<br />
<br />
The differences between analog and digital can be very technical, or otherwise extremely intuitive. This wiki won’t deal with the specific technical differences, but more the intuitive and theoretical ones. As explained by Carol Wilder, the word analog comes from the Greek roots ana, meaning equivalent, and logos, meaning the structure of reality. Thusly, something that is analog in nature, refers directly to the way things are in reality, or is equivalent with such reality. “As a level of description, it [analog] is closer than digital coding to the physical world, closer to corporeality, more kinesthetic, tactile, more-dare I say-‘real.’” This can be compared to the “digital level of description” which “represents a more abstracted disembodied consciousness, which is at once more expansive and less visceral” (Wilder 252). In this sense it is an aesthetic difference between how we encounter life and experience the world around us.<br />
<br />
Furthermore, Wilder quotes physiologist Ralph Gerard, who explored this dichotomy in 1951, explaining that “an analogical system is one in which one of two variables is continuous on the other, while in a digital system the variable is discontinuous and quantized” (243). It is from Gerard that we get the prototypical analog device, the slide rule, due to it’s continuous numbering, as well as meaning of spatiality, wherein the further down the number is, the larger it is, and the abacus as the prototypical digital device, due to the ‘on-or-off-ness’ of the beads, where they are either counted or not. This latter conception of digitalism has much to do with the language of binary, used by today’s more classic digital devices, in its uses of 1s and 0s.<br />
<br />
===Differences in Language===<br />
<br />
One last difference is seen in the different levels of human communication. Gregory Bateson addressed this issue in 1966, in the form of a question: “How does it happen that the paralinguistics and kinesics of men from strange cultures, and even the paralinguistics of other terrestrial mammals, are at least partly intelligible to us, whereas the verbal languages of men from strange cultures seem to be totally opaque?” (qtd. by Wilder 247). He goes on to explain that this is because written/spoken language is digital, due to the arbitrary assignment of words to their meanings, and paralinguistics are analog. Paralinguistics, all of the nonverbal communication as well as the way the words are spoken (pitch, etc.) are analog, because the meaning of this type of communication is directly related to it. Wilder further asserts that paralinguistics “is our primary means to communicate messages about relationship” and at times, written/spoken language can fall short of what we actually want to say in these situations, leaving paralinguistics as our only means of expressing ourselves (247-248). Interestingly, for the most part, it is solely written/spoken (digital) language that is transmittable using digital communication, and thus we lose a hugely powerful form of communication when communicating as such.<br />
<br />
==Transition and Effects==<br />
<br />
As stated earlier, the transition from analog to digital has been a long time coming, and the dueling ways of thinking and living have been around even longer. It has, however, taken until the latter half of the 20th century for the full transition to digital to really take effect. With personal computers, DVDs and CDs, the Internet and online communication, digital phone networks, etc. there is a real trend today towards the digitization of almost every aspect of our lives. One major signal could be the shutting down of the analog television broadcasting system in February of 2009. Another could be the transition that has taken place over the latter half of the 20th century in the US from an industrial economy to an information economy, as well as the rise of globalization, neither of which would have been possible without digital technologies. At this point in time, the transition can most obviously be seen in the wealthier areas of the world, and affects the younger generations, who have been brought up around these technologies, more so than the older generations. Even still, this transition is taking place and will slowly permeate into the poorer areas, and perhaps even the older generations.<br />
<br />
Wilder quotes Neil Postman in saying that “A new technology does not add or subtract something. It changes everything” (240). This section attempts to examine some of these changes. The most encompassing change that the digital age brings is well described by Joohan Kim. He explains, <br />
<br />
“Before computers, different types of information required different types of communication channel…[and] also required distinctive methods for storage…but now, with computers, we can store all kinds of information with a single digital medium… This means that the computer would be the primary medium for human communications in the very near future… the medium called computer literally becomes an extension of our body” (102). <br />
<br />
Here we see, that the computer and digital technologies may literally become the medium through which we see, understand, and interact with the world. Again, this has not fully taken place as of yet, but is the direction we seem to be heading in. It is McLuhan’s prophecy come true, for many of the younger generations already communicate, consume culture, make friends, etc. through the computer and the Internet, using these technologies, as they were, as extensions of themselves. For many, a friendship is not a friendship until it is consummated on Facebook or similar social networking sites. There is definite resistance, but not much that can be seen amongst the young. <br />
<br />
While these are more abstract effects, this transition also has very real effects for the ways we experience the world in a more theoretical sense. These effects can be seen in three different, although connected ways: the way we see ourselves, the way we communicate, and the way we see the world.<br />
<br />
===Digital Self===<br />
<br />
The pervading use of digital technologies into our everyday lives can have enormous effects in our conceptions of self. Inherently, digital technologies are more inward focused. We interact with their external components, but these are connected to internal workings of which most of us have very little idea how they work. Alternatively, in the age of analog technologies, the majority of people could have some understanding of how their machines worked, and in fact, sometimes one could understand it simply from studying the mechanism. With digital technologies however, it takes increasingly specialized skills to achieve this type of understanding. The same could be said perhaps, in reference to ourselves. As digital technologies came more into our lives, we have taken to focusing inward on ourselves, so much so that it now takes specialized professions (psychologists, psychiatrists), to help us understand ourselves.<br />
<br />
Shanyang Zhao, in studying the effects of online communications by teenagers, found this exact idea in the creation of the digital self (his term for the online persona affected by those engaging on online communications): “The digital self is… more oriented toward one’s inner world, focusing on thoughts, feelings and personalities rather than one’s outer world, focusing on height, weight, and looks” (396). This is not to say that people who are connected online no longer care about their physical characters, it would be ridiculous to claim so, however in online communications, the psychological is discussed more, and more thoroughly, than in face-to-face dialogue, partially due to the anonymity digital communication can provide.<br />
<br />
===Digital Communication===<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, the difference between analog and digital is apparent even in the general discussion of face-to-face human communication. Words appear as digital communication, while body language, tone and rhythm of speech, etc, can all be considered analog communication. In communicating digitally, through online media, we lose these paralinguistic aspects of communication and are forced to allay the full meaning of our conversation through words. This can be thoroughly difficult when attempting to communicate something as intimate as feelings, where typically, words can fall short. Surely this type of issue has been apparent in communicating through analog technologies as simple as letter writing, however, there are still two major differences. Firstly, these communiqué were typically used between people who knew each other, and not, as may be the case in online communication, between strangers (who may be intimately linked, however, even if they are ‘real world’ strangers). This has major impact, as communication as such is typically used by people who know each other, as an addition to the face-time they have together, whereas strangers would not have this face-time. Secondly, letter writing was not used as pervasively as online communication is today, to discuss all types of matters. Receiving a letter was a treat, it was not guaranteed. People online expect to see and communicate with others online at certain times. <br />
<br />
Additionally, with the advent of videochatting and other, less text based, online communication methods, some of the paralinguistic techniques can be called upon. The most important however (especially to intimate communication), is touch, which has yet to be unlocked online. Furthermore, this sense is the very one that ties us to the analog world itself, the world we experience around us, for while we may see or hear things that are digital, we cannot touch them, for they are not laid out in front of us tangibly. <br />
<br />
Although typically online communication is used to further the foundation between people that they establish in the ‘real world,’ it still does have effects in the way we communicate as human beings. The focus on the digital elements of language, and the leaving behind of the paralinguistic ones, could have major adverse effects on our relationships if online communication continues in popularity as it has. Even more so, the ability to easily and cheaply communicate with people the world over, erases spatio-temporal restraints and effectively erases the boundaries of bodies, which, while it could be a good thing in some circumstances, could also involve us in complete disembodiment, leaving our bodies aside and placing total importance on our minds, similar to the very nature of digital objects themselves, leaving us to ignore the reality around us.<br />
<br />
===Digital World===<br />
<br />
In dealing with the digital we deal in thing that are intangible. We can touch a computer, we can touch a DVD or a CD, but we cannot touch the contents they contain, for they are located in bits of information. Even further the experience of the world comes through to some through the Internet and their communications through it. In a real world example this can be seen in the constant need to photograph that many younger people have today. <br />
<br />
The great amounts of storage available on digital cameras have made it so that we can literally document everything that happens to us on a given day without having to reload the camera. Not having to develop anything, we can take these pictures immediately home and upload them. Instant memories. This is well and fine, but two issues arise. <br />
<br />
These pictures (until they are printed, which they usually aren’t) are not tangible, they have no holding in real life, and perhaps they are like memories in this way. Digital pictures however, like all pieces of digital information have the following quality: they are “durable” in that “we can work (save, reopen, play, write, paint, etc.) on [or view] them over and over again just as we do with physical objects” (Kim 91). Where they diverge from the physical however, is in this: “Unlike a photo image on paper, a digital photo image on a computer screen can be completely destroyed with a single stroke on a keyboard. A digital image can instantly be deleted, without leave any trace in the physical world” (Kim 94). Thus they both are and are not like physical objects. As memories however, they can either endure forever or be instantly deleted. They cannot be forgotten about and conjured up again years later in a haze. They are not memories. They are files. And yet, many photograph with such need, one would think they’d never remember the event again dare they have no files of it.<br />
<br />
Which brings up the second problem. This deep-seated need to document reality forces us to remove ourselves from reality, so much so that we may not even experience it whatsoever save from what we have photographed. Taking pictures is an event in and of itself, as opposed to the event going on around us. Not to mention that any number of various cameras at these events may produce various sets of memories so that one does not remember the event in full unless he/she gets all the sets of memories. Either way, the experience itself gets depleted, and boiled down to the forced, artificial, creation of it. <br />
<br />
This leads to the experience of the actual digital world. If our experiences of life are leading to a digital exploration of it we could ask the question, “Can ‘being-in-the-World-Wide-Web” be another way of becoming a “being-in-the-world’?” (Kim 88). This question itself works on both the levels of the Internet and simple digital experiences offline. In other words, if in the future, way down the line, we become bodies in space whose every experience comes through digital impulses (the ultimate death of analog) will it be the same as inhabiting the real world? In a far simpler restatement, is the digital real? It would seem it isn’t, however as time goes by and digitalism pervades further and further, perhaps it will become the only real, only the true death of analog will tell.<br />
<br />
==Resistance May Not Be Futile==<br />
<br />
“At one point I wondered why my teenage son-denizen of the digital age-covets my old analog vinyl records? Why has the New York subway system, encountered such resistance as they try to move riders from using analog brass tokens to digitized Metrocards? … Why do people who spend time online with each other want more physical contact, not less? (Wilder 241-242). While the transition to digital may seem imminent (albeit slow moving) examples such as these abound. People still carry around Polaroid cameras, in a report on CBS, Charles Osgood stated “that people ‘yearn for analog sound in this digital age’” (qtd. by Wilder 249). There is definite resistance to the movement into digital, and this is an aesthetic decision. The decision for many is that the experience of the ‘real’ means more that the experience of the high tech. This may be what keeps analog experience around, as while digital experience pervades, people shy away and yearn for the real. <br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Binkley, Timothy. "Digital Dilemmas." Leonardo. Supplemental Issue. 3 (1990): 13-19. J-Stor. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/1557889>. <br />
Kim, Joohan. "Phenomenology of Digital-Being." Human Studies 24 (2001): 87-111. J-Stor. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20011305>. <br />
Wilder, Carol. "Being Analog." The Postmodern Presence : Readings on Postmodernism in American Culture and Society. By Arthur A. Berger. New York: AltaMira P, 1997. 239-53. The New School. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://homepage.newschool.edu/~wilder/beinganalog.pdf>. <br />
Zhao, Shanyang. "The Digital Self: Through the Looking Glass of Telecopresent Others." Symbolic Interaction 28 (2005): 387-405. 09 Sept. 2005. Caliber. 29 Nov. 2008 <http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/si.2005.28.3.387>.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5937Picturephone2008-11-12T02:27:05Z<p>Teg217: /* Works Cited */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
[[Image:Videophone.jpg|thumb|right|(Wilford)]]<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
[[Image:picphonead.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for picturephone booth service. (Display Ad 16)]]<br />
<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone. (Sloane)]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.(Gould)]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
[[Image:Ichat.jpg|thumb|right|Demonstration of iChat using webcams from Apple website. (iChat)]]<br />
<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
"Display Ad 16--No Title" The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
"Display Ad 25--No Title" The Wall Street Journal. 04 Jan 1968, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
"iChat. Not being there is half the fun." Apple Official Website. <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/ichat.html><br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Wilford, John Noble. "Television Use is Nearing Reality." The New York Times 19 Mar 1967. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=File:Ichat.jpg&diff=5936File:Ichat.jpg2008-11-12T02:23:37Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5935Picturephone2008-11-12T02:22:48Z<p>Teg217: /* Works Cited */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
[[Image:Videophone.jpg|thumb|right|(Wilford)]]<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
[[Image:picphonead.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for picturephone booth service. (Display Ad 16)]]<br />
<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone. (Sloane)]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.(Gould)]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
[[Image:Ichat.jpg|thumb|right|Demonstration of iChat using webcams from Apple website. (iChat)]]<br />
<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
"Display Ad 16--No Title" The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
"Display Ad 25--No Title" The Wall Street Journal. 04 Jan 1968, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Wilford, John Noble. "Television Use is Nearing Reality." The New York Times 19 Mar 1967. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5934Picturephone2008-11-12T02:13:52Z<p>Teg217: /* Successive Technologies */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
[[Image:Videophone.jpg|thumb|right|(Wilford)]]<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
[[Image:picphonead.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for picturephone booth service. (Display Ad 16)]]<br />
<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone. (Sloane)]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.(Gould)]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
[[Image:Ichat.jpg|thumb|right|Demonstration of iChat using webcams from Apple website. (iChat)]]<br />
<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5933Picturephone2008-11-12T02:11:57Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
[[Image:Videophone.jpg|thumb|right|(Wilford)]]<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
[[Image:picphonead.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for picturephone booth service. (Display Ad 16)]]<br />
<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone. (Sloane)]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.(Gould)]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5932Picturephone2008-11-12T02:11:11Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:Videophone.jpg|thumb|right|(Wilford)]]<br />
<br />
The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
[[Image:picphonead.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for picturephone booth service. (Display Ad 16)]]<br />
<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone. (Sloane)]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.(Gould)]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=File:Videophone.jpg&diff=5931File:Videophone.jpg2008-11-12T02:10:16Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5930Picturephone2008-11-12T02:09:16Z<p>Teg217: /* Booth Service */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
[[Image:picphonead.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for picturephone booth service. (Display Ad 16)]]<br />
<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone. (Sloane)]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.(Gould)]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5929Picturephone2008-11-12T02:07:22Z<p>Teg217: /* Commercial Rollout and Hype */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone. (Sloane)]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.(Gould)]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=File:Picphonead.jpg&diff=5928File:Picphonead.jpg2008-11-12T02:06:55Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5927Picturephone2008-11-12T02:06:41Z<p>Teg217: /* Booth Service */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone. (Sloane)]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5926Picturephone2008-11-12T02:03:21Z<p>Teg217: /* Commercial Rollout and Hype */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone.]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:gramdpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5925Picturephone2008-11-12T02:02:59Z<p>Teg217: /* Commercial Rollout and Hype */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone.]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
[[Image:grandpa.jpg|thumb|right|Just one of the ways the Picturephone could be used, grandparents talking to their grandchildren.]]<br />
<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=File:Gramdpa.jpg&diff=5924File:Gramdpa.jpg2008-11-12T02:02:07Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5923Picturephone2008-11-12T02:00:34Z<p>Teg217: /* Booth Service */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
[[Image:businessmen.jpg|thumb|left|Businessmen demonstrating hatbands to client using picturephone.]]<br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=File:Businessmen.jpg&diff=5922File:Businessmen.jpg2008-11-12T01:59:08Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div></div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5921Picturephone2008-11-12T01:55:04Z<p>Teg217: /* Futurism */</p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
[[Image:bookad.jpg|thumb|right|Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)]]<br />
<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=File:Bookad.jpg&diff=5920File:Bookad.jpg2008-11-12T01:50:22Z<p>Teg217: Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)</p>
<hr />
<div>Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=File:Bookad.pdf&diff=5919File:Bookad.pdf2008-11-12T01:40:34Z<p>Teg217: Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)</p>
<hr />
<div>Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=File:Ad1.pdf&diff=5918File:Ad1.pdf2008-11-12T01:33:57Z<p>Teg217: Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)</p>
<hr />
<div>Advertisement for a book predicting the way of the future, including by the year 2000, being able to conduct all business by videophone. (Display Ad 25)</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5763Picturephone2008-11-05T16:18:01Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Commercial Rollout and Hype==<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successive Technologies==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5762Picturephone2008-11-05T16:16:49Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
==Creation==<br />
===Early Inception and Development===<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
===Booth Service===<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
===Further Testing===<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
==Hype==<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
===Usage For Deaf Individuals===<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
===Futurism===<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
==Skepticism==<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
==Failure==<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
==Successors==<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
==Works Cited==<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Main_Page&diff=5654Main Page2008-11-05T03:23:08Z<p>Teg217: /* Dead Media Dossiers */</p>
<hr />
<div>'''Media Archaeology'''<br />
<br />
[http://cultureandcommunication.org/galloway/2008spr-MediaArchaeology.html Media Archaeology course syllabus] (Spring 2008) <br />
<br />
Over the last decade or so, scholars in several disciplines have embarked on a series of media-archaeological excavations, sifting through the layers of early and obsolete practices and technologies of communication. The archaeological metaphor evokes both the desire to recover material traces of the past and the imperative to situate those traces in their social, cultural, and political contexts--while always watching our steps. This graduate seminar will examine some of the most important contributions to the field of media archaeology.<br />
<br />
The course follows a research studio format in which students undertake archaeological projects of their own in the area of forgotten, obsolete, or otherwise "dead" media technologies. This might include papyrus, Athanasius Kircher's seventeenth-century magic lantern, or the common slide projector, discontinued by Kodak in 2004. Our goal is to introduce students to the skills and resources necessary for producing rigorous research on such obsolete and obscure media. It will include an exposure to scholarship in media archaeology; an intensive introduction to research methods; instruction on the localization and utilization of word, image, and sound archives; and an emphasis on restoring media artifacts to their proper social and cultural context. The course stems from the premise that media archaeology is best undertaken, like any archaeological project, collaboratively. Hence the course follows a research studio model commonly used in disciplines such as architecture or design.<br />
<br />
= Dead Media Dossiers = <br />
<br />
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="20"<br />
<br />
<br />
||<br />
<br />
[[3D Television]]<br />
<br />
[[8-track Tape]]<br />
<br />
[[Autopen]]<br />
<br />
[[Camera Lucida]]<br />
<br />
[[Camera Obscura]]<br />
<br />
[[Car Phone]]<br />
<br />
[[Chirograph (Cyrograph)]]<br />
<br />
[[Civil Defense Siren]]<br />
<br />
[[Credit Card Imprinter]]<br />
<br />
[[Daguerreotype]]<br />
<br />
[[Discipline]]<br />
<br />
[[Data Visualization and Defunct Visual Metaphors]]<br />
<br />
[[Ear Trumpet]]<br />
<br />
[[Electric Pen]]<br />
<br />
[[Enigma machine]]<br />
<br />
[[Experiential Typewriter]]<br />
<br />
[[Glass Harmonica]]<br />
<br />
[[Hierarchy]]<br />
<br />
[[Hip Pocket Records]]<br />
<br />
[[Hollerith Punch Card]]<br />
<br />
[[Homing Pigeons]]<br />
<br />
[[Hotel Annunciator]]<br />
<br />
<br />
||<br />
<br />
[[Kinora]]<br />
<br />
[[Magic Lantern]]<br />
<br />
[[Marine Chronometer]]<br />
<br />
[[The Market]]<br />
<br />
[[Medieval Mariner's Compass]]<br />
<br />
[[Mechanical Television]]<br />
<br />
[[Megalethoscope]]<br />
<br />
[[MiniDisc]]<br />
<br />
[[Minitel]]<br />
<br />
[[Mood Ring]]<br />
<br />
[[Movable Type]]<br />
<br />
[[Mystical Writing Pad]]<br />
<br />
[[Nansen Passport]]<br />
<br />
[[Newspaper via Radio Facsimile]]<br />
<br />
[[NeXT Step]]<br />
<br />
[[Notificator]]<br />
<br />
[[Panorama]]<br />
<br />
[[Peruvian Quipu]]<br />
<br />
[[Phonograph Doll]]<br />
<br />
||<br />
<br />
[[Photographic Gun]]<br />
<br />
[[Picturephone]]<br />
<br />
[[Player Piano]]<br />
<br />
[[Pneumatic Tubes]]<br />
<br />
[[Polaroid Camera]]<br />
<br />
[[Political Effigies]]<br />
<br />
[[Roentgen Ray Tube]]<br />
<br />
[[Semaphore Telegraph]]<br />
<br />
[[Shorthand]]<br />
<br />
[[Smell Organ]]<br />
<br />
[[Spirit Duplicator]]<br />
<br />
[[Spirit Photography]]<br />
<br />
[[Standardization]]<br />
<br />
[[Steenbeck]]<br />
<br />
[[Stereoscope]]<br />
<br />
[[Talking Book]]<br />
<br />
[[Telautograph]]<br />
<br />
[[Telharmonium]]<br />
<br />
[[Typewriter]]<br />
<br />
[[The Victrola]]<br />
<br />
[[Virtual boy]]<br />
<br />
[[Wire Recording]]<br />
<br />
[[Wax Cylinder]]<br />
<br />
[[Zuse palimpsest]]<br />
<br />
|}<br />
<br />
= Critical Techniques =<br />
<br />
As a group we are developing a series of techniques that help facilitate the analysis of dead media artifacts. These questions are provisional and may not be appropriate for all artifacts. They are meant as tools for critical exploration. <br />
<br />
* "[[Pops and hisses]]" -- Pops and hisses refers to the background noise often heard on phonograph recordings resulting from inconsistencies in the underlying material. Research Question: What are the unavoidable, obtrusive material qualities of the substrate itself that enter into the medium's overall system of representation? <br />
<br />
* [[Skeuomorph, or the "click"]] -- Single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras make a clicking sound when taking a picture. The click results from a mechanical operation: an internal mirror moves aside and the shutter opens, exposing the film to light. Many of today's digital cameras have no shutter and no internal mirror, yet they still simulate the click using a digital audio sample. Why? Research Question: What qualities of the artifact are unnecessary at the material level but are still nevertheless necessary at the semiotic level? Where is the "click"? <br />
<br />
* Remediation -- Like the "click," remediation refers to the process through which older media formats are simulated, extended, coopted, modified, tamed, or rendered obsolete by new media formats. Research Questions: What came before this artifact? What newer medium came after? What traits are lost or preserved in the historical transformation from one system to another? <br />
<br />
* "Functional nonsense" -- Functional nonsense refers to actual material qualities of the medium that are necessary for the medium to function correctly but which have no semantic or semiotic purpose. A good illustration is the [[Chirograph (Cyrograph)|chirograph]] which requires that some word -- by custom it was often the word "chirograph" -- be inscribed across the midsection of a document. The word is then cut in half, certifying and authenticating the two pieces. The word "chirograph" is therefore highly functional, but semantically irrelevant. Research Question: What qualities of the artifact are unnecessary at the semiotic or semantic level but are nevertheless crucial to its functioning correctly?<br />
<br />
* Encoding -- Research Question: What symbolic system is used in the medium to encode and decode messages? <br />
<br />
* Digital versus analog -- Research Questions: What parts of the artifact conform to a model of representation using discrete sample points, and what parts use a continuously variable input? Are the two hybridized and if so how? <br />
<br />
* The "obvious" -- In every medium there are techniques and design conventions that result from the prevalent tendencies of the historical situation. For example, the problem of writing and reproduction in the modern period was "solved" using mechanical levers, metal type, presses and inks, while the problem of writing and reproduction in the late twentieth century was solved using an entirely different set of techniques: digital code, microchips, and LCDs. Research Question: What aspects of the medium result from large scale paradigms appropriate to the historical context? <br />
<br />
* The "arbitrary" -- Every medium also contains entirely unmotivated and unexplainable traits. Western writing runs left to right, top to bottom. But this convention is arbitrary. Research Question: What specific aspects of the medium have no material or semiotic reason for being? <br />
<br />
* Formal prohibitions/affordances -- Communications media often put clear limitations on where and how messages can originate and be received. Radio began as a two-way medium, but evolved into a broadcast medium. Research Questions: Who can read in this medium? Who can write in this medium? Is there an asymmetrical relationship between those who can send and those who can receive? What types of values are embedded in the affordances of the technology?<br />
<br />
* The "Hack" -- Given a set of formal prohibitions, do there exist alternate practices of use that change the intended outcome of the medium? For example, DJs "hack" record players when they "spin" records, using their hands to overcome the formal prohibitions of the record player, resulting in the advent of a new style of music. [[Hacking this assignment]]. [TODO: add to this -- mention improvisation, play.]<br />
<br />
* [[The "Cake Mix" effect]] -- Research Questions: What part of the process is streamlined, mechanized, or determined in advance, and what part of the process must be performed by the user? For example, Karaoke machines mechanize the instrumental part of a song, and the user performs the vocals. [TODO: add to this] Prior to the use of tape as a means of recording, the composer had to work with a finite set of possibilities and sounds. With the advent of tape, the sonic substance became malleable, and cuttable. What effect does the mechanized portion of the process have on the emergence of the new? What effect does the streamlined portion of the process have on the overall mode of representation?<br />
<br />
* [[The "Reversal"]] -- Is there a point where maximum efficiency within a medium forces it into obsolescence? Mapmaking was ridden with errors due to difficulties in measuring longitude, but once the Marine Chronometer made it possible to plot the exact coordinates of a given position in space, and the grid mapped upon geographic representations was perfected, it was no longer necessary to use a map for navigation since a course could be plotted without any geographic references. (Additional question/theory: Is a "sampling" medium capable of reversal, or is it only threatened by upgraded mediums that are more efficient? Is the Reversal only possible in a "programming" scenario?)<br />
<br />
* [[The "Break Boundary"]] -- Research Questions: Is there a point beyond which "the system generated by the artifact suddenly changes into another or passes some point of no return in its dynamic processes?" Or what specific reconfigurations in the spatio-temporal framework surrounding the media environment of the artifact might "break" the dynamics which it was attended to address? [DO OTHERS AGREE THIS IS WORTH ADDRESSING? a suggestion via McLuhan that might be worth talking about - perhaps an attribute that doesn't apply to the material framework of the object, but maybe one that is crucial in establishing the artifact's relevance and obsolescence?]<br />
<br />
* "Bad Weather" (non-diegetic influences?) -- The [[Semaphore Telegraph]] was unable to operate in fog. External inputs often influence the proper functioning of media. Research Questions: What external events exist that might cause the medium to operate in flawed or unexpected ways? Does the medium try to shield itself from the outside world? If so, how does this change the format in question?<br />
<br />
* "Guts" -- Some dead media, like the [[NeXT Step]], hide their internal guts inside a [[black box]]. Others like the [[Kinora]] expose their inner workings for all to see. The way in which a media object alternately reveals or hides its insides greatly influences how it is understood, used, and analyzed. Research Questions: Does the medium in question hide or reveal its own internal functioning? If the guts are displayed, does this "technologize" the medium or change it in other ways? If the guts are hidden, does this reify or fetishize the object in question?<br />
<br />
* "Iris vs. Hermes" -- Most media can be charted on a continuum between Iris and Hermes. Both Iris and Hermes were Greek gods of communication; Iris was a messenger for Hera, and Hermes for Zeus. Yet while Hermes facilitated communication by accompanying messages, guiding trade, appearing alongside travelers and otherwise chaperoning interconnections between people, Iris relayed messages by immanently internalizing them in the physically of her own body. For Iris, the medium is the message. Hermes however was more of a letter carrier, keeping the outer envelop distinct from the inner content of the message. Research Questions: Does the medium maintain a separation between the symbolic layer of the medium and the material substrate? Or does the physicality of the medium itself mean something without recourse to surface inscriptions?<br />
<br />
* [["The Sample vs. the Program"]] (Witnessing vs Interpreting / Feeling vs Perceiving) -- Some media can be inscribed by simply being turned on and allowed to feel, or sample the content they remediate - yet other media generate complete nonsense unless a highly specialized and refined language code or aesthetic has been mastered and applied in the process of inscription. Research Questions: Does the medium demand a great deal of analysis before the act of inscription, or does it appropriate material that can be processed and interpreted later? Does the noise of the medium illustrate a condition external to the user's actions (ie background noise) or does the noise illustrate imperfect execution of a symbolic system (misspellings, syntactical errors, grammatical nonsense, freudian slips etc.)? Does the medium demand a complex understanding of the given content (embodying an informational cultural bias) or does it appear to witness with an inhuman objectivity?<br />
<br />
* [[Mediatic Etymology]] - Proposes a methodology for theorizing the existence of dead media by inverting the process of remediation.<br />
<br />
* [[Where do media go to die?]] -- Some artifacts or representational practices may no longer perform a useful function or satisfy popular needs in the current media ecology, but they don't necessarily disappear. Research question: What constitutes a/the moment of death? Is the artifact or representational practice obsolete (outmoded or inoperable) or outright extinct?<br />
<br />
* "Luminescence" -- [TO DO - BEN?]<br />
<br />
* "Ideologies of adoption" -- [TO DO - ALEX?]<br />
<br />
* "Text / Paratext" -- [TO DO]<br />
<br />
= Background =<br />
<br />
Some entries in the archive are drawn from the [http://www.deadmedia.org Dead Media Project], an email list devoted to the topic started by [http://www.well.com/conf/mirrorshades Bruce Sterling] and more recently moderated by Tom Jennings. The email list is now dead.<br />
<br />
= Links = <br />
<br />
[http://www.experimentaljetset.nl/lostformats/01.html Lost formats] <br />
<br />
= Special Pages =<br />
<br />
[[:Special:Upload|Upload a File]]<br />
<br />
[[:Special:Allpages|All Pages]]<br />
<br />
[[:Special:Imagelist|All Uploaded Files]]</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5644Picturephone2008-11-05T03:14:13Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of the videophone for decades.<br />
<br />
=Creation=<br />
==Early Inception and Development==<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and was being tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this to occur, it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55, although it is unclear whether or not this was a public demonstration), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, as people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face.” There were however, some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions on the service and equipment, as well as the public’s desire for a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
==Booth Service==<br />
In June of 1964 “exploratory commercial service” began in three US cities. Booths with Picturephones were put in at the Prudential Building in Chicago, the National Geographic Society Building in Washington, as well as Grand Central Station in New York. These booths were accessible to the major public by appointment with telephone attendants who would put through all the necessary arrangements. Interestingly, Bell Labs itself admitted just a few years later in its report that “The attractiveness of this service is limited since both parties must go to a public booth to converse. It is apparent that this type of offering does not meet the needs of our customers” (Carson 286). Additionally, the exorbitant price of $21 between Washington and Chicago, $27 between Chicago and New York, and $16 between Washington and New York, couldn’t have helped (each price was for the first three minutes with additional fees per minute afterwards, “Picture Phones Go Into Service”).<br />
<br />
Either way, the booths were reported on, even if not used, extensively. Their installation was inaugurated with Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson making the first call to a Bell employee. The service was available from 9 AM to 10 PM, seven days a week. At this time, a spokesman reported that eventually Picturephones would “link most major cities here and abroad.” Although he gave no forecast as to when they would be available in people’s homes. The screens used on this model of the Picturephones were the size of 4 3/8 inches by 5 3/4 inches (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
At this time, there are some interesting ideas in usage that appear in the New York Times for these Picturephone booths. In one, a couple from New Jersey, shop for a house in Chicago, from the booth in Grand Central. How the couple is shown these houses through a booth is unexplained, (perhaps with pictures of the homes), however it is one way, among many that the booth was used (“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone’”). Another interesting application was that used by businessmen to make sales of products, without having to leave their respective cities of operations. This gives the opportunity for ‘face-to-face’ contact, as well as demonstration of the product without cost (both of time and money) or travel. Although it might have been costly to use the booths, it made sense for businessmen, as they could make the money back from the sale, and also save money that would have been spent on traveling (Sloane). At this time then, the Picturephone was used mostly for businesses and corporations. This is where Bell would expend much of their efforts for now.<br />
<br />
==Further Testing==<br />
At this time, (April 1965), another test was started among the actual Bell Labs managerial staff. This would allow for greater critical interest among the participants, as well as greater freedom in making modifications to the equipment as the testing was done in-house. Next, trials were conducted within various other business settings to understand how the system could be used in a business environment. The trial involved employees both in New York and Chicago. Finally, more testing was done in various other corporate settings using variations on the older model, which resulted in the creation of the Mod II (Carson 286-91). The difference between the older Mod I and the Mod II include a larger screen, a better camera tube, as well as a separate control unit, unattached to the display, which can zoom in and out (“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units”). These corporate settings within which the Picturephone was used was only within the realm of the trials thus far; corporations could not yet buy the systems.<br />
<br />
=Hype=<br />
On June 30, 1970 the Bell Telephone System rolled out a commercial Picturephone service in Pittsburgh. Again, initially this service was used only by businesses, however even still, one executive from the Bell Company stated his view “that the economic and social impact of electronic face-to-face communication would equal that made by the introduction of telephonic voice conversation in New Haven in 1878.” Additionally estimates were made that rates would be low enough to make Picturephones feasible in homes by the 1980s. This network only worked intra-Pittsburgh, however even still, the article goes on to praise the Picturephone and its capabilities for the future. The Picturephone will be able to dial up computers and be used as a computer display to show balance sheets, stock market prices, and inventories. Long distance job interviews, facsimile capabilities, as well as long distance contract signings were all promised by the article. In addition: “Home users will be able to shop by Picturephone, visit a library or hospital, hold family reunion or attend a lecture…. The police can display photographs or sketches of wanted persons. A salesman can call his office computer for information to answer a customer’s questions or to find out what is in stock.” These are all the future uses that this new technology, finally available commercially promised. Finally, versions that could handle color and three-dimensional pictures were being worked on for rollout in the future (Janson). <br />
<br />
Additionally, within the business world, in 1966 (when booths had been the sole availability of Picturephones) it had already been speculated by Eastern Airlines that Picturephones might help the travel industry, with the need for business trips being negated and runways being less congested (Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit”). In December of 1970, it had been announced that Picturephones were placed in many of the offices of the President’s top aids. (“Picturephones Placed in Offices of Tope Aides at White House”). In 1975, a court case was tried with the use of Picturephones. The lawyers were in New York, while the judges were in Washington (“TV Phone to Link Lawyers in City to Judges in Capital”). These are just a few examples of the ways people were using, and aspired to use, the Picturephone in the late 60s and early 70s. There was also talk of the device being used in hospitals and in education. <br />
<br />
==Usage For Deaf Individuals==<br />
One of the more interesting ways that the Picturephone was supposed to have been able to be used was for deaf people. Because of the sight capabilities of the device, Deaf Individuals could communicate through sign language and lip reading. In fact, two deaf teenagers took part in the inauguration of the Booth system in 1964 (“Picture Phones Go Into Service”). <br />
<br />
==Futurism==<br />
One of the most interesting ways the Picturephone was described though, was in how futuristic it was. This can be seen in some of the myriad uses given in articles about the device, simple speculation on how it could possibly be used once it is universally accepted. It was seen as the way of the future to have cheap Picturephone service, and be able to have this infrastructure as the main system of telephony in America. This is the sum of these articles. Every single one seems to yearn for the time in which we can all see each other whenever we want regardless of distance. And yet the technology just seemed to fade away as time moved on. As though the way of the Jetsons wasn’t meant to be for us.<br />
<br />
=Skepticism=<br />
As early as 1956 editorials appeared that eschewed the up and coming technology. This is before the technology was even revealed to the public. John Gould, in his article, states “I can’t help asking why the Bell Boys spend so much time and energy, not to mention expense, to develop the picture-phone when there are still so many bugs still to be ferreted out of the talking kind.” He continues to assert (in highly purposeful hyperbole) that soon after the Picturephone is introduced for widespread use “Pool rooms will close, rush-hour transportation will be even more inadequate, the birthrate will go up, we’ll need more and more schools, the tax rate will climb to hardship heights, financing will fail, the steel industry will go into a decline and we’ll have a depression.” All this because some guy called home to say he’d be late on a Picturephone (as opposed to a regular phone), saw his wife, and decided he had to get home immediately. He concludes, that even if the Picturephone is horrible, the novelty will amaze everyone, and “the more I think about it, the more I’d like to have one.” Thus, even in this entirely scathing and facetious article, he concludes that even he wants one, and the novelty wears on. <br />
<br />
In another editorial, “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough,” the Picturephone is written off as an old trick: “Picturephone service is old hat; it has been demonstrated to work, and will be offered commercially in selected areas next year” (Pierce). This as early as 1970, when the service isn’t even yet offered commercially, much less in people’s homes and it is already considered by some to be old technology. The next day, another editorial appears, “The Burdens of Technology,” that warns of new technologies: “Young and old people are questioning the values of technological progress; the accusation is that technology deals only with material values and pays no attention to other values and pays no attention to other values that have to do with peace of mind, love, happiness, even contemplation.” Later in this same editorial the author discusses the Picturephone that will change the way we live (Fubini). He does not address whether this device will help any of the earlier problems that technology has failed to. We can only assume that he does not believe so. These issues though, along with the unbearably high expectations that the idea of futurology had ascribed to the device can perhaps help elucidate as to why the device failed so miserably, without ever really getting off the ground in the consumer market.<br />
<br />
=Failure=<br />
In July of 1971, a full year after the Picturephone service went commercial, an article appears in the NY Times that describes its slow growth as disappointing to the Bell company. They had predicted that along with the 25 Picturephones ordered at the time the service was released, 150 more would be ordered within the year. In actuality, since its release, 16 had been installed and 8 disconnected. Of those, only 12 are even able to dial outside the building, the others merely being used for in-house intercoms. One user called it an impersonal form of communication, as both you and the person you’re talking to show up grey. This comes less than a decade after its premier at the World’s Fair where the Picturephone had been described as more personal than the telephone. In this same article, another Bell spokesman guesses that they would not be available for use in residences until the 1990s (Rensberger). The date had gotten pushed back again. <br />
<br />
An article looking back, in April of 2000, suggests that the main testament to the failure of this product was a “gap between what can be created and what people actually want” (Guernsey). There are many issues involved in this, most pervasively that of privacy. Because the phone can ring at any given time, would people want to be seen at any given time? Another issue could be that of inattentiveness, While on the telephone, one can many do many other things without the person on the other line realizing, whereas a videophone would require one’s full attention. <br />
<br />
Nonetheless, “in1972, AT&T pulled the plug.” In addition to the reasons above, this may have been due to facts like the high cost of the product, as well as the low acceptance level (as one can only use the product if the recipient of the call has one too), however, one AT&T historian says it may be much simpler: “It turned out that it wasn’t entirely clear that people wanted to be seen on a telephone” (qtd. in Guernsey).<br />
<br />
=Successors=<br />
For years, indeed decades after, new types of technologies were rolled out along the same lines. Many different teleconferencing technologies had been adopted, although none that really changed the face of business, as they were slow to be accepted by many. Many different telephone add-ons that would enable video to be transmitted in addition to audio were rolled out, but not accepted by most. The only vastly successful technology to really take hold and penetrate into the homes of many has been the web cam. These Internet cameras are now built into monitors, and can be purchased separately, relatively inexpensively, and are used through high-speed Internet to connect people thousands of miles away. The reason for their success is, perhaps, because of the low price of the camera, as well as the lack of price for service, since they work through the Internet many people have anyway. For now, this is the best choice many have of actually seeing their loved ones from a distance, and the Picturephone remains a distant memory.<br />
<br />
=Works Cited=<br />
Carson, D.N. “The Evolution of Picturephone Service.” The Telephone: An Historical Anthology Ed. George Shiers 1977. Reprinted from Bell Laboratories Record,Vol. 46, October 1968. Pp.282-291<br />
<br />
Fubini, Eugene. “The Burdens of Technology” The New York Times. 12 Jan 1970, New York NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone is Here At Last!”. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Aug 1955. Chicago, Il. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Gould, John. “Picture, Please!” The New York Times. 16 Sep 1956. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Guesnsey, Lisa. “The Perpeetual Next Big Thing.” The New York Times. 13 Aug 2000. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Janson, Donald. “Picture-Telephone Service Is Started in Pittsburgh.” The New York Times. 1 Jul 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“N.J. Couple Selects Home by ‘Picturephone.’” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Phones Go Into Service.” The New York Times. 25 Jun 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” The New York Times. 12 May 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Picturephones Placed in Offices Of Tope Aides at White House.” The New York Times. 3 Dec 1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Pierce, John R. “Technology: Miracles Aren’t Enough.” The New York Times. 11 Jan1970. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Rensberger, Boyce. “Growth of Picturephones Disappoints Bell System.” The New York Times. 3 Jul 1971. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
Sloane, Leonard. “Picturephone Helps to Sell Over Hundreds of Miles.” The New York Times. 3 Jan 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Television Phone Used From Fair to California.” The New York Times. 21 Apr 1964. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“TV Phone to Link Lawyers In City to Judges in Capital.” The New York Times. 7 Nov 1965. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Video Phone Held an Aid to Transit.” The New York Times. 19 Jun 1966. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.<br />
<br />
“Westinghouse Tests New Phone Units.” The New York Times. 6 Feb 1969. New York, NY. Accessed through ProQuest.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Picturephone&diff=5632Picturephone2008-11-05T00:59:57Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[image: /Users/Tzvi/Desktop/Untitled1.jpg|thumb|250px|right| Early Ad (ProQuest)]<br />
<br />
The videophone, for much of the 20th century, seemed like the logical successor to the telephone. Millions were interested in buying it and using it, and there were many interested parties who wanted to see it come about from an engineer’s perspective. In actuality, however, the technological and economical barriers always kept the device one step behind mass expectations, leading to what one AT&T historian calls “the most famous failure in the history of the Bell system” (qtd. in Guernsey). The Bell Laboratories version, dubbed the Picturephone, was the most publicized incarnation of videophone for decades, thus this wiki discusses mainly this version.<br />
<br />
=Early Inception and Development=<br />
The idea to send pictures along with a telephone signal had been around and been tinkered with in Bell Laboratories “as early as 1927,” at this time however, the technology was not available to be able to do so with any efficiency or reliability. For this it took until the mid-1950s. At this time, with the invention of the transistor, as well as the availability of “inexpensive and reliable camera and display tubes,” finally, “technology was beginning to catch up with the concept” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
Concurrently, on August 23rd 1955, across the country, two California mayors spoke to each other through a videophone from about a mile away from each other. This was the first demonstration of a videophone, which had been developed by Kay Lab in San Diego. At this time, spokesmen predicted the videophone would make a large impact on American life sometime in the 1960s, at first in factories and hospitals. At this demonstration, the device consisted of a camera and two television screens, one seven inches, used to see oneself, and the other ten inches, used to see the person one is talking to. Again, this demonstration was between subjects only a mile apart from each other. (“Gawkie-Talkie Telephone”). <br />
<br />
Back at Bell Labs in New Jersey, in October of 1959, the Mod I Picturephone (Bell’s name for the videophone) was being put into the final phases of development “specifically for trial use.” And by 1964 the Mod I was ready for testing. The equipment came in three parts: a display, a specially modified telephone, and a power source. “The display unit contained a cathode-ray picture tube, a vidicon camera tube, the scanning, synchronization and other video circuits, and a loudspeaker. The telephone unit contained a conventional telephone handset, a microphone (to permit ‘hands-free’ operation), a set of touch-tone pushbuttons, and other push buttons for video control” (Carson 284).<br />
<br />
The “general public’s first exposure” (which could possibly be contended by the above example in ’55), came at the World’s Fair in April 1964. Booths were set up at the World’s Fair in New York, as well as at Disneyland, in Anaheim California, and members of the general public were allowed, for the first time, to actually try the new technology to talk to, and see, people across the country. Opinions were generally favorable for the service, people enjoyed the “added personal touch of face-to-face,” however, there were some complaints about the equipment itself, mostly about the size and clarity of the picture, as well as the difficulty in keeping oneself centered onscreen. These opinions, on the service and equipment, as well as how badly participants wanted a Picturephone were all recorded by Bell employees as a trial run for the system (Carson 284-6). Interestingly, in an article covering this event in the New York Times, a Bell spokesman is quoted to have said “the instrument would not be available to the public in the near future” (“Television Phone Used”). A quite near month later, meanwhile, the following headline appears in the same newspaper: “Picture Telephone Ready Next Month; Will Link 3 Cities.” This article discusses the next faze of development for the Picturephone: booths.<br />
<br />
=Early Representations of Car Phones in Society=<br />
Before Car Phones became what they were as most people understand them today, many people had different ideas as to what would make a great portable telephone. Here are a few examples of some of these bumps along the way.<br />
[[image: ad-carphone.jpg|thumb|right|250px|The Front Cover of the Seattle Times Claiming the Arrival of the Automobile Phone]]<br />
==Collins Wireless Telephone==<br />
Before Car Phones became a widespread phenomenon, there were several instances of people beginning to grapple with the concept of a "car phone." The first of these instances surrounded the Collins Mobile Telephone, and subsequent scandal thereafter. Fredick Collins, obsessed with the idea of creating Wireless Telegraphy after Marconi invented his wired telegraph, and spent much of his life attempting to makes these dreams a reality. In wanting to create a mobile telegraph, and subsequently, telephone, Collins saw the primary use to be used in cars. From an article in Modern Electronics from 1903:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><br />
"Mr. Collins proposes to eliminate this decidedly adverse feature of automobiling by employing the wireless telephone. Consequently every garage or shop will be equipped with the wireless telephone, as they are now with the tire pump and ignition plugs, and this latter day telephone will always be set up ready for use. Likewise, every auto will be provided with a portable wireless telephone. Then in the event of the inevitable accident the 'phone can be taken out, set up ready for use and communication established with the nearest garage, and an auto with men and needful mechanism sent post haste to the scene to repair it." (Collins Wireless Telephone)</blockquote><br />
<br />
Unfortunately, while Collins did have a short distance radio telephone (something closer to a walkie talkie than a telephone) working, his inventions never lived up to his "wild claims," and after several counts of stock fraud and fraudulent demonstrations, he was forced to close up shop, and his mobile automobile telephone was never realized.<br />
<br />
==Other Ideas for Automobile Telephone==<br />
The Car Phone had many iterations of entrepreneurs and inventors trying to formulate exactly what the device was, as well as what it could be. Notable patents which were passed included works by Charles H. Kikby, who invented what he called the "Automobile Telephone" in 1932. This was simply a bank of payphones which was positioned into place where people who could make calls without having to leave their car (Automobile Telephone Patent).<br />
<br />
Another interesting false start for the Car Phone is outlined in a patent for the "Automobile Radio and Communication System." This technology, patented by Alfred N. Goldsmith in 1939 allowed for vehicles within close proximity to talk to each other through their pre-existing car radios, much like CB radios that Long Haul Truckers use to communicate with each other today (Automobile Radio and Communication System Patent).<br />
<br />
The important consideration to remember is that the invention of the car phone was an organic development of technology, a type of hack to allow for mobile telephones to be used in a place where they could be marketed and used by individuals.<br />
<br />
==The Media Creates Mystique: The Shoe and Bat Phone==<br />
[[image: batphone.jpg|thumb|left|200px|bat phones were in use a good 15 years before widespread American adoption <br />
(Private Online)]]<br />
[[image: shoephone.jpg|thumb|right|150px|Hello? Chief? (Private Online)]]<br />
<br />
<br />
There were many cases of mobile telephony which existed in fiction, which were technically feasible, but not yet available to the general public. Two of the best known examples are the "Batphone" and Maxwell Smart's Shoe phone. Such visualizations of the near-future gave such television shows a feeling of excitement and provided a glimpse of what the future could allow. While both of these examples may seem slightly silly,they serve to help us understand the awareness the public had on the uses and purposes of mobile telephones, and to normalize their benefits and use to the general public.<br />
<br />
=Mainstream Adoption and Societial Proliferation=<br />
[[image: motorolla.jpg|thumb|right|250px|1981 (Proquest)]]<br />
==Marketing==<br />
Upon first entering the market place, the car phone was promoted as a crucial facilitator for the modern businessperson, and eventually for the modern family. Large telecommunications companies promoted the new technology as a way for “people with drive [to] improve their performance” (Chicago Tribune). As evidenced by Western Union’s mid 80’s ad campaign, the car phone was marketed as a tool for success. The advertisements appeal to people with high-end cars, whose time is in high demand such as young business professionals. One advertisement from a 1984 edition of the LA Times makes claims about producing a phone that is finally “worthy of the car it goes into” and addresses “people in the fast track [who] don’t have time to wait up to half an hour for a telephone line” (LA Times). <br />
<br />
This kind of ad tactic was crucial to the success of the car phone because the initial purchase price was astronomical, even by today’s standards for cellular technology. Initially, the price of just the phone could reach up to $3,000, however as the technology became newer the price of phones fell to around $1,000 (Mehegan). Due to this prerequisite, advertisers targeted the young business elite, a demographic with expendable cash and a desire to progress in the business world. Ads emphasize the advantage owners of a car phone would have over other businessmen, working hard to imbue the technology with status and clout. Like many technologies, the car phone was marketed as a solution to a problem that consumers had barely yet thought of: being unable to work when not at work. The car phone, in conjunction with early personal computers, marked the beginning of a generation of technology based on the idea of constant accessibility. An idea that the medium simultaneously introduces, and resolves for the early 1980’s business person.<br />
<br />
The car phone coincided with the beginnings of a great technological boom, one which we are still experiencing. At the time, new technology was blossoming all around the unwitting consumer. In an economically stable time when many young college graduates were scoring high earning jobs, the flashy new media with a high initial investment rate found a toehold. All of this was facilitated by the popularization of credit cards, and an overall abstraction of money. In 1988 the U.S. government officially started accepting credit cards, separating the concept of money from dollar bills at the most official state level (Tolchin). This ultimately linked the power of the consumer with the new buying demographic of young urban professionals, a group which would later colloquialize itself into the category “yuppies” (Batutis).<br />
<br />
<br />
==The Symbiosis of Beepers and Mobile Car Phones==<br />
An interesting parallel technology which also became popular at the same time as the car phone was the beeper. Socially the beeper served as a way in which to contract an individual when they may have not been close to an identifiable phone, and were perhaps used to contact people at times in which they couldn’t take a call, much in the same way SMS messages are used today. While beepers are technically separate devices, they did rely on the same network, and allowed more people to stay in contact with a network which could scale to levels of everyone having their own personal car phone.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Shortcomings==<br />
The new technology of the car phone had a few limitations that were met with social outcry. First, the car phone proved to be a much less private medium than the business elites who invested in them would have preferred. The early cellular technology on which the phone functioned was easily eavesdropped by electronic scanners (Colleen). These scanners were legal, and easily obtained from any electronics store. People would scan car phones maliciously and purely for the entertainment (Costa). This worried many car phone users, and privacy was a concern like never before. Some invested hundreds of dollars for scramblers, however most people just ignored the threat (Colleen). <br />
<br />
Second, another shortcoming of the car phone was that actually speaking on it was a driving hazard. The niche of the media itself caused public disgruntlement as the technology which was marketed to keep you safer and more in touch, actually was likely to cause you to get into a crash (“Hello”). Around the late 80’s, more strict car phone regulations were in place, or at least, more stern warnings (Ward). This was merely the beginning of a long battle between the “use anywhere” idea of ever advancing technology, and safety. For example, only since the summer of 2008 is it required to use a hands free device while driving in the State of California.<br />
<br />
=Death=<br />
<br />
Despite its popularity and a solid following of enthusiasts, advances in technology (specifically digital technology), sounded the death knell for the car phone. <br />
<br />
<br />
==Enhanced 9-1-1 (E911)==<br />
<br />
In 1996 the FCC introduced wireless Enhanced 911 (E911) so that mobile phones could now provide 911 dispatchers with information technology that allows them to locate the geographical position of mobile phones and see the mobile telephone number of the originating call (FCC).<br />
<br />
When the car phone was first introduced to consumer markets it was targeted at the wealthy (most commonly businessmen). It was first promoted as an integrated status-symbol and business device that allowed individuals to perform their jobs more efficiently by staying connected while out of the office. However, the large successful adoption of the car phone by businessmen drove up the device's popularity and broadened its consumer market reach. Car phone users became more diverse - for example, it was common for housewives, who spent much of their days running errands and driving children around in their cars, to use car phones to keep in touch while out of the house.<br />
<br />
In order to appeal to the new consumer market the promotion of car phones switched from focusing on business capabilities to focusing on mobility. And, as consumers began to demand such mobility they also began to expect similar standards of service on their car phones as were available on land-line telephones. However, it was this shift in focus that paved the way to the death of the car phone. This is because, ironically, the death of the car phone was brought about by the Federal Communication Commission’s desire to improve emergency service. Ultimately, since the car phone lacked E911, consumers were unable to integrate it fully into their lives - it lacked basic and fundamental properties found in land-line phone services. This meant that the car phone was not mobile enough because it was incapable of replicating the ability of landlines to always be connected (i.e., always have 911 available). <br />
<br />
Prior to 1996, people who called 911 on mobile phones had to access their service providers (to verify subscription service from a cellular service provider) before their call was put through to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). In 1996 the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) ruled that a 911 call must instead go directly to a PSAP. Furthermore, the FCC required that all mobile phones manufactured and sold after February 13, 2000 using analog networks must have a method for processing 911 calls (FCC). <br />
<br />
The FCC implemented the E911 rules in two phases. In 1998, Phase I required carriers to identify the call’s originating number and provide it to PSAPs. It also required that the location of the caller be accurate to within 1 mile. In 2001, Phase II required carriers to provide the latitude and longitude of 911 calls within 50 to 300 meters. The deployment of E911 also required either upgrades for existing equipment or the development of new equipment (FCC).<br />
<br />
==Analog==<br />
<br />
In February 2008 the Federal Communications Commission allowed mobile operators, the largest including AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless, to shut down their analog (AMPS – Advanced Mobile Phone System) networks, the successor to the IMTS network. Unfortunately, all car phones were operating on this analog system. At the same time, rural mobile operators also shut down AMPS. This resulted in all mobile phones being serviced by digital networks (GSM – Global System for Mobile Communications or CDMA – Code Division Multiple Access). The outcome was that all mobile phones (including the large established base of car phones) operating on analog networks (approximately 1% of all mobile phones) became inoperable (Washington Post). <br />
<br />
Analog technology (along with the car phone) failed because it was unreliable compared to digital technology; using analog service for communication with a car phone often led to voice distortion and complete loss of signal. This increased consumers' fears over the lack of safety - what would happen if they got into a car accident in an area not covered by a good analog signal? If they were unable to notify proper authorities with their car phone, would they not receive necessary assistance?<br />
<br />
=Future=<br />
[[image: onstar.jpg|thumb|right|250px|OnStar]]<br />
==OnStar==<br />
So what has replaced the car phone? One of the early entrances into the in-vehicle communication category following the car phone was OnStar. In 1995 OnStar was created by General Motors (GM), Electronic Data Systems, and Hughes Electronics Corporation. However, GM became responsible for designing, integrating, and distributing OnStar capabilities for vehicles. <br />
<br />
OnStar is an in-vehicle three-button safety and security system that provides:<br />
<blockquote><br />
* 24-hour access to an advisor<br />
* Connection to emergency services<br />
* Hands-free calling<br />
</blockquote><br />
:: (OnStar)<br />
<br />
[[image: bluetooth.jpg|thumb|left|250px|Bluetooth (via Lexus)]]<br />
<br />
==Bluetooth==<br />
But not all drivers need, want, or have access to all the services built into OnStar. Instead, the advancement of technology, specifically mobile phones on digital networks, has become the most popular alternative. One of the reasons for their success is that most digital phones are able to use Bluetooth, a short-range wireless communications technology capable of replacing the cables needed to connect devices (invented in 1994). It has achieved global acceptance and is successful at connecting any Bluetooth enabled device, anywhere in the world, to other Bluetooth enabled devices (up to 7) in close proximity (approximately 30 feet). Bluetooth is able to simultaneously handle both data and voice transmissions – this provides innovations such as a hands-free headset for voice calls (Bluetooth). In short, Bluetooth has become the perfect substitute for the car phone. <br />
<br />
Lexus has been one of the leaders in implementing Bluetooth technology in their automobiles in the past few years. The company manufactures some of the world’s most technologically sophisticated vehicles – including many that come with built in Bluetooth as a standard feature. This technology works by connecting any Bluetooth equipped cell phone to the vehicle itself – allowing calls to be made and received through the car’s built-in touch screen or controls on the steering wheel. Drivers can talk without holding their cell phone and hear through the car’s audio system (Lexus).<br />
<br />
Bluetooth’s hands-free capability has increased the technology’s popularity globally. For example, in 2004 Japan (like many other parts of the world) began enforcing stricter laws and penalties against using a cell phone while driving. However, because Bluetooth allows drivers to stay more focused on the road and less on their phone calls, it has allowed drivers to stay connected even with the new laws. In turn, this has increased the popularity and production of Bluetooth technologies in cars around the world (The Nikkei Weekly, Japan).<br />
<br />
<br />
Both OnStar and Bluetooth are modern day examples of what the car phone was intended to do but was unable to do successfully. Had the car phone not been limited by the lack of E911 (full mobility) and the structure of analog I would imagine it would have incorporated many of the capabilities (i.e., safety, mobility, convenience) that have made OnStar and Bluetooth so successful today.<br />
<br />
<br />
=Works Cited=<br />
<br />
Batutis, Michael. “Yuppies: Who are they?” St. Petersburg Times. Lexis Nexis. 25 May 1987. <lexisnexis.com><br />
<br />
Bluetooth. “Basics.” Bluetooth. 25 Sept. 2008. <http://www.bluetooth.com/Bluetooth/ Technology/Basics.htm>. <br />
<br />
Car Phone Seattle Times ad, via FCC , 1903 <http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/radio/ideas.html><br />
<br />
Costa, Louisa. “Car Phone Sales up Despite Scanners.” Sydney Morning Herald. Lexis Nexis. 3 Dec 1986. <lexisnexis.com>.<br />
<br />
Colleen, Ryan. “Bookie Spends $18,000 to Thwart Electronic Snoops.” Sunday Mail. Lexis Nexis. 29 Mar. 1987. <lexisnexis.com><br />
<br />
Cooper et al. Radio Telephone System. Cooper et al., assignee. Patent 3906166. 1975.<br />
<br />
"Display Ad 1503 -- No Title. " New York Times (1857-Current file) [New York, N.Y.] 3 May 1981,WC5, ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2005). ProQuest. NYU. 3 Oct. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com/><br />
<br />
"Display Ad 63 -- No Title. " Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) [Los Angeles, Calif.] 1 Dec. 1986, c4. ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986). ProQuest. NYU. 3 Oct. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com/><br />
<br />
"Display Ad 63 -- No Title. " Los Angeles Times (1886-Current File) [Los Angeles, Calif.] 19 Jun 1984, e7. ProQuest Historical Newspapers Los Angeles Times (1881 - 1986). ProQuest. NYU. 3 Oct. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com/><br />
<br />
"Display Ad 20 -- No Title. " Chicago Tribune (1963-Current file) [Chicago, Ill.] 31 Mar. 1986, pg A5, ProQuest Historical Newspapers Chicago Tribune (1849 - 1986). ProQuest. NYU. 3 Oct. 2008 <http://www.proquest.com/> <br />
<br />
"Display Ad 540 -- No Title." New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.:Sep 28, 1975. p. 165 (1 pp.)<br />
<br />
Dubilier, William, "The Collins Wireless Telephone" Modern Electrics, August, 1908 via (http://www.sparkmuseum.com/COLLINS2.HTM) <br />
<br />
Farley, Tom. "History of the Mobile Phone." Mobile Telephone History. Privatelone (via FCC). 14 Oct. 2008 <http:// http://www.privateline.com/pcs/history.htm>.<br />
<br />
Farley, Tom. "Mobile Phone History." Mobile Phone History. 20 Feb. 2002. 14 Oct. 2008 <http://affordablephones.net/historymobile.htm>.<br />
<br />
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). “Enhanced 9-1-1 (E911).” FCC. 25 Sept. 2008. <http://www.fcc.gov/hspc/factsheets/enhanced911.pdf>. <br />
<br />
Federal Communications Commission (FCC). “Enhanced 911 – Wireless Services.” FCC. 25 Sept. 2008. <http://www.fcc.gov/pshs/services/911-services/enhanced911/Welcome.html>. <br />
<br />
Goldsmith, Alfred N. AUTOMOBILE RADIO AND COMMUNICATION. Radio Corporation of America, assignee. Patent 2138598. 1938.<br />
<br />
“Hello? Hello? Cruuuunch!” Newsweek. Lexis Nexis. 9 July, 1984. Pg. 59. <lexisnexis.com> .<br />
<br />
Kikby, Charles H. AUTOMOBILE TELEPHONE. CHARLES H. KIKBY, assignee. Patent 1912376. 1933.<br />
<br />
Lexus. “Bluetooth Phone – Overview.” Lexus. 22 Sept. 2008. <http://lexus.letstalk.com>. <br />
<br />
Mehegan, David. “Cellular One Turns Up the Heat.” The Boston Globe Online. Lexis Nexis. 31 Oct. 1988. <lexisnexis.com>.<br />
<br />
OnStar. “OnStar Explained.” OnStar. 22 Sept. 2008. <http://www.onstar.com/us_English/jsp/ explore/index.jsp>. <br />
<br />
Shimbun, Nihon Keizai. “Carmakers using Bluetooth for Wireless Convenience.” The Nikkei Weekly [Japan]. 15 Jan. 2007. ProQuest. NYU. 23 Sept. 2008. <http://www.proquest.com>. <br />
<br />
Tolchin, Martin. “U.S. Plans Wide Use of Credit Cards.” The New York Times. Lexis Nexis. 1 Mar. 1988. <lexisnexis.com>.<br />
<br />
Ward, Daniel. “Using car phones on the move ‘a danger.’” The London Times. Lexis Nexis. 2 Mar. 1987. <lexisnexis.com><br />
<br />
Washington Post. “Most Analog Cellular to Fade Away Next Week.” Washington Post. 15 Feb. 2008. ProQuest. NYU. 23 Sept. 2008. <http://www.proquest.com>.</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=NUMBER_TWO&diff=5310NUMBER TWO2008-10-18T23:33:14Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''Place ideas for second dossier here'''<br />
<br />
Martine Phelan-Roberts: Talking View Master<br />
<br />
Jesse Seegers: blueprints<br />
<br />
Allison McCarthy: Polaroid Camera<br />
<br>Bill Procida: Ticker Tape<br />
<br />
Mike Sokolov: Virtual Boy<br />
<br />
Lisa Garcia: Nickelodeons<br />
<br />
Tzvi Gerstle: Videophone</div>Teg217http://cultureandcommunication.org/deadmedia/index.php?title=Enigma_machine&diff=4994Enigma machine2008-10-05T19:12:03Z<p>Teg217: </p>
<hr />
<div>[[Image:annunciator.JPG|thumb|right|Enigma Machine]]<br />
<br />
==History of the Enigma==<br />
<br />
==Enigma Basics==<br />
<br />
==Military Necessity==<br />
<br />
== Enigma Machine: How it Works==<br />
<br />
== Enigma Machine: How it was Used ==<br />
<br />
===Enciphering===<br />
<br />
===Deciphering===<br />
<br />
==Aftermath==<br />
<br />
==References==<br />
<br />
*[[Allsop, F. C.]] ''Practical Electric Bell Fitting, a Treatise on the Fitting-up and Maintenance of Electric Bells and All the Necessary Apparatus, with Nearly 150 Illustrations.'' (London : E & F. N. Spon, 1892).</div>Teg217