Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.folklore.computers > #159250 > unrolled thread

History--customer service training film--party lines

Back to article view | Back to alt.folklore.computers

Contents

  History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 10:13 -0800
    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 13:29 -0600
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> - 2016-02-13 17:09 -0400
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:23 -0800
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Walter Bushell <proto@panix.com> - 2016-02-14 15:50 -0500
          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:27 -0800
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Huge <Huge@nowhere.much.invalid> - 2016-02-15 09:45 +0000
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:20 -0800
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-02-13 14:33 -0800
    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-02-13 14:02 -0800
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Gerard Schildberger <gerard46@rrt.net> - 2016-02-13 14:28 -0800
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:13 -0800
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 14:29 -0800
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Charlie Gibbs <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> - 2016-02-14 00:53 +0000
      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 19:03 -0600
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 21:30 -0500
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-13 21:40 -0500
          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 19:30 -0800
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-13 22:33 -0600
              Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-14 00:24 -0500
                Re: History--customer service training film--party lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 12:57 -0600
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Michael Black <et472@ncf.ca> - 2016-02-14 00:05 -0500
              Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 21:21 -0800
                Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 17:30 +1100
                  Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "J. Clarke" <j.clarke.873638@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 02:33 -0500
                  Re: History--customer service training film--party lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 13:00 -0600
                    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-15 07:28 +1100
                    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Morten Reistad <first@last.name.invalid> - 2016-02-14 20:14 +0100
                      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines JimP <solosam90@gmail.com> - 2016-02-14 16:33 -0600
                    Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:23 -0800
                      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines mausg@mail.com - 2016-02-15 10:45 +0000
                        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Ahem A Rivet's Shot <steveo@eircom.net> - 2016-02-15 12:48 +0000
                        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-16 05:11 +1100
                      Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Peter Flass <peter_flass@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-16 18:52 -0700
                        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-18 11:37 -0600
                          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 20:57 -0800
                            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 21:11 -0800
                              Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> - 2016-02-18 21:15 -0800
                            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2016-02-19 01:04 -0600
                              Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "hgww" <hgww@gmail.com> - 2016-02-20 04:26 +1100
        Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-13 18:39 -0800
          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> - 2016-02-13 22:15 -0600
          Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "Joe Morris" <j.c.morris@verizon.net> - 2016-02-14 07:32 -0500
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-02-14 07:13 -0600
            Re: History--customer service training film--party lines hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com - 2016-02-14 17:21 -0800

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

#159250 — History--customer service training film--party lines

Youtube has a late 1940s Bell Telephone training film for its service
representatives on how to handle complaints about party line service.

The film is worthwhile to watch today just for good ideas on customer
service, which sadly so many companies (including the phone co) have
forgotten.  For instance, they tell the reps to sincerely listen to the
customer's problems and give a personal response.  Today, we have the
guy in India read a script of platitudes that we know are meaningless--
he's just reading nice words, but is bored and could care less.

The reps are told to be a good listener--let the customer get his
problem off his chest.  Then, get the facts, including the pertinent
details of the kind of difficult, when it started, frequency, etc.,
then take action to resolve the problem.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho2EhQf6AY0

Today, with most of us having a personal private telephone line in
our cellphone, it's hard to imagine not that long ago that telephones
were shared within a household.  Before that, several households had
to share a telephone line, known as a party line, until enough circuits
were built to give every home a private line and people could afford them.
That meant only one family could use the phone at a given time, the
other family (or families) had to wait until the line was clear.  Most
city party lines were shared by two people, but some rural party lines
were shared by four people or even ten people.  Listening in to other
conversations was a favorite rural pastime.

Party lines were cheaper than a private line.  I think modern technology
has eliminated them.

After WW II, there was a huge backlog in providing telephone service,
so most homes had party line service.

The problem got so bad Hollywood even made a comedy film about it,
"Pillow Talk", with Rock Hudson and Doris Day sharing a party line
and fighting over it.  It's shown on TCM from time to time.  

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#159256

On 2/13/2016 12:13 PM, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>

> Today, with most of us having a personal private telephone line in
> our cellphone, it's hard to imagine not that long ago that telephones
> were shared within a household.  Before that, several households had
> to share a telephone line, known as a party line, until enough circuits
> were built to give every home a private line and people could afford them.
> That meant only one family could use the phone at a given time, the
> other family (or families) had to wait until the line was clear.  Most
> city party lines were shared by two people, but some rural party lines
> were shared by four people or even ten people.  Listening in to other
> conversations was a favorite rural pastime.

There were at least 8 parties on our line. A card with special codes 
to dial if you wanted to call another party on the same line. You'd 
dial and hang up, and the phone would ring. When it stopped ringing 
that meant the other party had picked up, and you did too. And always 
the warning that in an emergency, you had to relinquish the line.

I had a little transistor amp scavenged from a dead cheap tape 
recorder so that I could listen without loading the line or having a 
live mic. I learned that the overwhelming majority of what people talk 
about is excruciatingly boring.

> Party lines were cheaper than a private line.  I think modern technology
> has eliminated them.

The last one I had (one other party) was in 1980. Commodity telephones 
won't work properly with them, due to the tricks they used to control 
which phone on the line would ring.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159266

Dave Garland <dave.garland@wizinfo.com> writes:

> I had a little transistor amp scavenged from a dead cheap tape 
> recorder so that I could listen without loading the line or having a 
> live mic. I learned that the overwhelming majority of what people talk 
> about is excruciatingly boring.

We had a (very rural) 2-party line until the late 80s. When the
nighbor's son hot puberty. he would call his girlfriend and they would
stay on the line, just *breathing* at each other. If they ever
*said* anything, I don't think I wanted to know.  But talk about
boring... 

-- 
Mike Spencer                  Nova Scotia, Canada

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159274

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 4:09:52 PM UTC-5, Mike Spencer wrote:


> We had a (very rural) 2-party line until the late 80s. When the
> nighbor's son hot puberty. he would call his girlfriend and they would
> stay on the line, just *breathing* at each other. If they ever
> *said* anything, I don't think I wanted to know.  But talk about
> boring... 

The above film includes a snippet were teenagers are hogging the party
line.

Today's teens will sit next to each other yet stare into their cell phones
and text away.  One would think a teen boy with his girlfriend would want
to do other stuff than texting...


Could anyone imagine if there was a shortage of cell phone frequencies
and they solved it by requiring callers to share the air space, just like
a party line?  (Which is how pre-cellular mobile phones worked.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159388

In article <87k2m8wc55.fsf@bogus.nodomain.nowhere>,
 Mike Spencer <mds@bogus.nodomain.nowhere> wrote:

> We had a (very rural) 2-party line until the late 80s. When the
> nighbor's son hot puberty. he would call his girlfriend and they would
> stay on the line, just *breathing* at each other. If they ever
> *said* anything, I don't think I wanted to know.  But talk about
> boring... 

Not to the parties involved.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159403

On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 3:50:33 PM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:

>  Mike Spencer  wrote:
> > We had a (very rural) 2-party line until the late 80s. When the
> > nighbor's son hot puberty. he would call his girlfriend and they would
> > stay on the line, just *breathing* at each other. If they ever
> > *said* anything, I don't think I wanted to know.  But talk about
> > boring... 
> 
> Not to the parties involved.

We had a neighbor who was a terrible gossip.  She would babble on and
on about the most trivial stuff from other people's lives.  She just
lived to hear gossip.  She got a job delivering community notices just
to have an excuse to peek in windows and observe comings and goings.

She also got a lot of it wrong.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159421

On 2016-02-15, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016 at 3:50:33 PM UTC-5, Walter Bushell wrote:
>
>>  Mike Spencer  wrote:
>> > We had a (very rural) 2-party line until the late 80s. When the
>> > nighbor's son hot puberty. he would call his girlfriend and they would
>> > stay on the line, just *breathing* at each other. If they ever
>> > *said* anything, I don't think I wanted to know.  But talk about
>> > boring... 
>> 
>> Not to the parties involved.
>
> We had a neighbor who was a terrible gossip.  She would babble on and
> on about the most trivial stuff from other people's lives.  She just
> lived to hear gossip.  She got a job delivering community notices just
> to have an excuse to peek in windows and observe comings and goings.
>
> She also got a lot of it wrong.

RumourNet (tm) is high bandwidth but low reliability.


-- 
I don't have an attitude problem.  If you have a problem with my
              attitude, that's your problem.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159273

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:30:15 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:

> The last one I had (one other party) was in 1980. Commodity telephones 
> won't work properly with them, due to the tricks they used to control 
> which phone on the line would ring.

There were two methods to control ringing.  One was to tune the ringers
to different frequencies.  The other was to set the ground and bias, giving
four combinations (beyond four lines coded ringing was needed).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159277

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 4:20:44 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 2:30:15 PM UTC-5, Dave Garland wrote:
> 
> > The last one I had (one other party) was in 1980. Commodity telephones 
> > won't work properly with them, due to the tricks they used to control 
> > which phone on the line would ring.
> 
> There were two methods to control ringing.  One was to tune the ringers
> to different frequencies.  The other was to set the ground and bias, giving
> four combinations (beyond four lines coded ringing was needed).

And yet another was just to crank (ring) a number of "shorts" and "longs",
all phones would ring,  but (supposedly) only the callee should/would pickup 
the phone.  One size fits all. _________________________ Gerard Schildberger
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159269

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:13:18 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> Youtube has a late 1940s Bell Telephone training film for its service
> representatives on how to handle complaints about party line service.
> 
> The film is worthwhile to watch today just for good ideas on customer
> service, which sadly so many companies (including the phone co) have
> forgotten.  For instance, they tell the reps to sincerely listen to the
> customer's problems and give a personal response.  Today, we have the
> guy in India read a script of platitudes that we know are meaningless--
> he's just reading nice words, but is bored and could care less.
> 
> The reps are told to be a good listener--let the customer get his
> problem off his chest.  Then, get the facts, including the pertinent
> details of the kind of difficult, when it started, frequency, etc.,
> then take action to resolve the problem.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho2EhQf6AY0
> 
> Today, with most of us having a personal private telephone line in
> our cellphone, it's hard to imagine not that long ago that telephones
> were shared within a household.  Before that, several households had
> to share a telephone line, known as a party line, until enough circuits
> were built to give every home a private line and people could afford them.
> That meant only one family could use the phone at a given time, the
> other family (or families) had to wait until the line was clear.  Most
> city party lines were shared by two people, but some rural party lines
> were shared by four people or even ten people.  Listening in to other
> conversations was a favorite rural pastime.
> 
> Party lines were cheaper than a private line.  I think modern technology
> has eliminated them.
> 
> After WW II, there was a huge backlog in providing telephone service,
> so most homes had party line service.
> 
> The problem got so bad Hollywood even made a comedy film about it,
> "Pillow Talk", with Rock Hudson and Doris Day sharing a party line
> and fighting over it.  It's shown on TCM from time to time.

I knew a guy that ran two (rural ND) party-line telephone, er..., party
lines.   Each line had around twenty phones.

The two lines were not connected, but they could be if they rang the
operator owner to do a cross-connect, after he rung the target customer
and the party-line customer picked up.

To get someone on your party line, you cranked (rang) the, er..., cranker,
each crank would cause ALL of the other phones to ring.  To get someone in
particular, you'd (say) crank:  short, short, long,  and that would indicate
that the  short-short-long  party was to pick up.   Of course, being rural
America, most everybody picked up (after a while) to listen in.  Both
systems weren't connected to town in any way (initially),  and each ran on
a single   "#6"  cell,  which he said lasted about two months.

As more and more people would listen in, the volume/loudness of the speakers
would diminish such that hardly anybody could hear each other,  and someone
would yell, "get the hell off the phone, you rubberneckers!",  or some such
language.  As the owner got richer, they upgraded to having two  "#6"  cells
for each of the two telephone lines.   He (the owner) and his brother bought
and installed the telephone poles, bought the wire and crank phones, and
strung the wire.   A few years later, they connected to the central Ma
Bell office in the nearest town, about eight miles away.  They were bought
out by Ma Bell in 1947.   Ma Bell didn't want the old crank-only telephones,
so the owner stored them in his attic.  He once  (in the 1950's)  asked a
Ma Bell telephone repair man if the old crank phones were of any value, and
he said, well, they have a lot of copper in them;  break them apart for the
scrap metal  (which he did --- he got a handful of dollars for the copper
in the forty or so crank-phones).

When he found out from me (in the mid 1990's) of their worth, he was beside
himself when he found out how much money he threw out the window  (to break
up the wooden housing to get to the copper parts).

For a picture of a    # 6   cell:

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battery_sizes#/media/File:R40-Burgess.jpg

______________________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
 
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159275

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 4:02:50 PM UTC-6, Gerard Schildberger wrote:
> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 12:13:18 PM UTC-6, hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
> > Youtube has a late 1940s Bell Telephone training film for its service
> > representatives on how to handle complaints about party line service.
> > 
> > The film is worthwhile to watch today just for good ideas on customer
> > service, which sadly so many companies (including the phone co) have
> > forgotten.  For instance, they tell the reps to sincerely listen to the
> > customer's problems and give a personal response.  Today, we have the
> > guy in India read a script of platitudes that we know are meaningless--
> > he's just reading nice words, but is bored and could care less.
> > 
> > The reps are told to be a good listener--let the customer get his
> > problem off his chest.  Then, get the facts, including the pertinent
> > details of the kind of difficult, when it started, frequency, etc.,
> > then take action to resolve the problem.
> > 
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho2EhQf6AY0
> > 
> > Today, with most of us having a personal private telephone line in
> > our cellphone, it's hard to imagine not that long ago that telephones
> > were shared within a household.  Before that, several households had
> > to share a telephone line, known as a party line, until enough circuits
> > were built to give every home a private line and people could afford them.
> > That meant only one family could use the phone at a given time, the
> > other family (or families) had to wait until the line was clear.  Most
> > city party lines were shared by two people, but some rural party lines
> > were shared by four people or even ten people.  Listening in to other
> > conversations was a favorite rural pastime.
> > 
> > Party lines were cheaper than a private line.  I think modern technology
> > has eliminated them.
> > 
> > After WW II, there was a huge backlog in providing telephone service,
> > so most homes had party line service.
> > 
> > The problem got so bad Hollywood even made a comedy film about it,
> > "Pillow Talk", with Rock Hudson and Doris Day sharing a party line
> > and fighting over it.  It's shown on TCM from time to time.
> 
> I knew a guy that ran two (rural ND) party-line telephone, er..., party
> lines.   Each line had around twenty phones.
> 
> The two lines were not connected, but they could be if they rang the
> operator owner to do a cross-connect, after he rung the target customer
> and the party-line customer picked up.
> 
> To get someone on your party line, you cranked (rang) the, er..., cranker,
> each crank would cause ALL of the other phones to ring.  To get someone in
> particular, you'd (say) crank:  short, short, long,  and that would indicate
> that the  short-short-long  party was to pick up.   Of course, being rural
> America, most everybody picked up (after a while) to listen in.  Both
> systems weren't connected to town in any way (initially),  and each ran on
> a single   "#6"  cell,  which he said lasted about two months.
> 
> As more and more people would listen in, the volume/loudness of the speakers
> would diminish such that hardly anybody could hear each other,  and someone
> would yell, "get the hell off the phone, you rubberneckers!",  or some such
> language.  As the owner got richer, they upgraded to having two  "#6"  cells
> for each of the two telephone lines.   He (the owner) and his brother bought
> and installed the telephone poles, bought the wire and crank phones, and
> strung the wire.   A few years later, they connected to the central Ma
> Bell office in the nearest town, about eight miles away.  They were bought
> out by Ma Bell in 1947.   Ma Bell didn't want the old crank-only telephones,
> so the owner stored them in his attic.  He once  (in the 1950's)  asked a
> Ma Bell telephone repair man if the old crank phones were of any value, and
> he said, well, they have a lot of copper in them;  break them apart for the
> scrap metal  (which he did --- he got a handful of dollars for the copper
> in the forty or so crank-phones).
> 
> When he found out from me (in the mid 1990's) of their worth, he was beside
> himself when he found out how much money he threw out the window  (to break
> up the wooden housing to get to the copper parts).
> 
> For a picture of a    # 6   cell:
> 
>  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battery_sizes#/media/File:R40-Burgess.jpg
> 
> ______________________________________________________ Gerard Schildberger

Note that most of rural ND didn't get electricity until the mid to late 
1940's, and batteries were expensive (for a radio, especially since those
vacuum tubes needed current to heat the filament).  Some farmers had wind
generators for a few light bulbs and radio.   But mostly, they were used
to charge up a lead-acid battery for when you needed the power.  Radios
and wind generators where not cheap,  but radios were one of the few 
luxuries (for news and entertainment, other than a piano or somesuch).  

Almost all washing machines at that time were gasoline driven, so doing 
the wash in winter was a royal pain in the neckhole as the washing machine
motor had to be outside, or at the very least, vented to the outside.   
Pouring gasoline (for the motor's tank) inside the house was not to be done
lightly,  as there was always a fire going in the kitchen stove.  There
were a few gasoline-powered refrigerators, but most farmers had to make
do with ice obtained from nearby rivers or sloughs (for the summertime). 


Note that (for party-line telephones), with four rings, you could "address"
(for the callee) thirty unique party-line subscribers.   Three rings could
address fourteen unique subscribers.   Note that each ring could be a "long"
or a "short".   Not exactly using base 3, since there was no  "zero"  when
cranking (ringing). ___________________________________ Gerard Schildberger
 
  




 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159300

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 5:28:59 PM UTC-5, Gerard Schildberger wrote:

> Note that (for party-line telephones), with four rings, you could "address"
> (for the callee) thirty unique party-line subscribers.   Three rings could
> address fourteen unique subscribers.   Note that each ring could be a "long"
> or a "short".   Not exactly using base 3, since there was no  "zero"  when
> cranking (ringing).

From an old Bell System publication:

The number of magneto telephone. that can be connected on the same line 
varies, ranging from 1 to 40 or more. However, a line having more than 
20 or 30 telephones connected to it, is usually very unsatisfactory
from a service standpoint, except in a case of necessity or for temporary 
service, the reason for this being that a line having so many telephones is
found to be in use almost continuously, the bells ringing at, very frequent
intervals and the users almost sure to be "rung in the cars" or otherwise 
interrupted during a telephone conversation.

Another publications suggests a maximum of ten stations per line.

Many rural telephone lines were set up as a farmers' cooperative, with
very little financing, so they could have numerous stations on it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159276

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 5:02:50 PM UTC-5, Gerard Schildberger wrote:

> and each ran on
> a single   "#6"  cell,  which he said lasted about two months.

They made a special No. 6 dry cell for telephone use. Normally two cells
were used, but for long lines they used three cells.  I think they lasted
at least a year unless they got a lot of use.

I saw an ad by a company from India for modern magneto phones.  They have
the advantage of simplicity and ruggedness for rural applications.

Some US railroads used magneto phones into the 1980s.


> When he found out from me (in the mid 1990's) of their worth, he was beside
> himself when he found out how much money he threw out the window  (to break
> up the wooden housing to get to the copper parts).

Heck, I threw out ancient junk from the garage that I was told was
obsolete and worthless, then I found it had some value on e-bay.



> For a picture of a #6 cell:

As a kid, I would buy them to use for electrical experiments.  They'd
last forever.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159289

On 2016-02-13, hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com <hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:

>> For a picture of a #6 cell:
>
> As a kid, I would buy them to use for electrical experiments.  They'd
> last forever.

I stole the pair that powered our doorbell, which we never used anyway.

-- 
/~\  cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ /  I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
 X   Top-posted messages will probably be ignored.  See RFC1855.
/ \  HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored.  Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159295

On 2/13/2016 4:02 PM, Gerard Schildberger wrote:

> I knew a guy that ran two (rural ND) party-line telephone, er..., party
> lines.   Each line had around twenty phones.
>
> The two lines were not connected, but they could be if they rang the
> operator owner to do a cross-connect, after he rung the target customer
> and the party-line customer picked up.
>
> To get someone on your party line, you cranked (rang) the, er..., cranker,
> each crank would cause ALL of the other phones to ring.  To get someone in
> particular, you'd (say) crank:  short, short, long,  and that would indicate
> that the  short-short-long  party was to pick up.   Of course, being rural
> America, most everybody picked up (after a while) to listen in.  Both
> systems weren't connected to town in any way (initially),  and each ran on
> a single   "#6"  cell,  which he said lasted about two months.
>
> As more and more people would listen in, the volume/loudness of the speakers
> would diminish such that hardly anybody could hear each other,  and someone
> would yell, "get the hell off the phone, you rubberneckers!",  or some such
> language.  As the owner got richer, they upgraded to having two  "#6"  cells
> for each of the two telephone lines.   He (the owner) and his brother bought
> and installed the telephone poles, bought the wire and crank phones, and
> strung the wire.   A few years later, they connected to the central Ma
> Bell office in the nearest town, about eight miles away.  They were bought
> out by Ma Bell in 1947.   Ma Bell didn't want the old crank-only telephones,
> so the owner stored them in his attic.  He once  (in the 1950's)  asked a
> Ma Bell telephone repair man if the old crank phones were of any value, and
> he said, well, they have a lot of copper in them;  break them apart for the
> scrap metal  (which he did --- he got a handful of dollars for the copper
> in the forty or so crank-phones).
>
> When he found out from me (in the mid 1990's) of their worth, he was beside
> himself when he found out how much money he threw out the window  (to break
> up the wooden housing to get to the copper parts).
>

I suspect most of us tossed/junked/cannibalized stuff 50 years ago 
that would have been worth a nice sum today. But the trick is to know 
exactly which stuff that is in advance, have a 50 year horizon to plan 
for (I certainly don't), and have ample storage space to stash it in. 
I certainly destroyed a large number of cathedral style radios (my 
compatriots generically called them "Philco junk sets") for the 
handful of parts that might still be useful.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159303

In article <n9ojkq$uqt$1@dont-email.me>, dave.garland@wizinfo.com 
says...
> 
> On 2/13/2016 4:02 PM, Gerard Schildberger wrote:
> 
> > I knew a guy that ran two (rural ND) party-line telephone, er..., party
> > lines.   Each line had around twenty phones.
> >
> > The two lines were not connected, but they could be if they rang the
> > operator owner to do a cross-connect, after he rung the target customer
> > and the party-line customer picked up.
> >
> > To get someone on your party line, you cranked (rang) the, er..., cranker,
> > each crank would cause ALL of the other phones to ring.  To get someone in
> > particular, you'd (say) crank:  short, short, long,  and that would indicate
> > that the  short-short-long  party was to pick up.   Of course, being rural
> > America, most everybody picked up (after a while) to listen in.  Both
> > systems weren't connected to town in any way (initially),  and each ran on
> > a single   "#6"  cell,  which he said lasted about two months.
> >
> > As more and more people would listen in, the volume/loudness of the speakers
> > would diminish such that hardly anybody could hear each other,  and someone
> > would yell, "get the hell off the phone, you rubberneckers!",  or some such
> > language.  As the owner got richer, they upgraded to having two  "#6"  cells
> > for each of the two telephone lines.   He (the owner) and his brother bought
> > and installed the telephone poles, bought the wire and crank phones, and
> > strung the wire.   A few years later, they connected to the central Ma
> > Bell office in the nearest town, about eight miles away.  They were bought
> > out by Ma Bell in 1947.   Ma Bell didn't want the old crank-only telephones,
> > so the owner stored them in his attic.  He once  (in the 1950's)  asked a
> > Ma Bell telephone repair man if the old crank phones were of any value, and
> > he said, well, they have a lot of copper in them;  break them apart for the
> > scrap metal  (which he did --- he got a handful of dollars for the copper
> > in the forty or so crank-phones).
> >
> > When he found out from me (in the mid 1990's) of their worth, he was beside
> > himself when he found out how much money he threw out the window  (to break
> > up the wooden housing to get to the copper parts).
> >
> 
> I suspect most of us tossed/junked/cannibalized stuff 50 years ago 
> that would have been worth a nice sum today. But the trick is to know 
> exactly which stuff that is in advance, have a 50 year horizon to plan 
> for (I certainly don't), and have ample storage space to stash it in. 
> I certainly destroyed a large number of cathedral style radios (my 
> compatriots generically called them "Philco junk sets") for the 
> handful of parts that might still be useful.

This is kind of like the Spanish melting down Mesoamerican art to make 
crappy looking gold and silver coins that didn't actually add to the 
wealth of spain.  

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159304

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, Dave Garland wrote:

> On 2/13/2016 4:02 PM, Gerard Schildberger wrote:
>
>> I knew a guy that ran two (rural ND) party-line telephone, er..., party
>> lines.   Each line had around twenty phones.
>> 
>> The two lines were not connected, but they could be if they rang the
>> operator owner to do a cross-connect, after he rung the target customer
>> and the party-line customer picked up.
>> 
>> To get someone on your party line, you cranked (rang) the, er..., cranker,
>> each crank would cause ALL of the other phones to ring.  To get someone in
>> particular, you'd (say) crank:  short, short, long,  and that would 
>> indicate
>> that the  short-short-long  party was to pick up.   Of course, being rural
>> America, most everybody picked up (after a while) to listen in.  Both
>> systems weren't connected to town in any way (initially),  and each ran on
>> a single   "#6"  cell,  which he said lasted about two months.
>> 
>> As more and more people would listen in, the volume/loudness of the 
>> speakers
>> would diminish such that hardly anybody could hear each other,  and someone
>> would yell, "get the hell off the phone, you rubberneckers!",  or some such
>> language.  As the owner got richer, they upgraded to having two  "#6" 
>> cells
>> for each of the two telephone lines.   He (the owner) and his brother 
>> bought
>> and installed the telephone poles, bought the wire and crank phones, and
>> strung the wire.   A few years later, they connected to the central Ma
>> Bell office in the nearest town, about eight miles away.  They were bought
>> out by Ma Bell in 1947.   Ma Bell didn't want the old crank-only 
>> telephones,
>> so the owner stored them in his attic.  He once  (in the 1950's)  asked a
>> Ma Bell telephone repair man if the old crank phones were of any value, and
>> he said, well, they have a lot of copper in them;  break them apart for the
>> scrap metal  (which he did --- he got a handful of dollars for the copper
>> in the forty or so crank-phones).
>> 
>> When he found out from me (in the mid 1990's) of their worth, he was beside
>> himself when he found out how much money he threw out the window  (to break
>> up the wooden housing to get to the copper parts).
>> 
>
> I suspect most of us tossed/junked/cannibalized stuff 50 years ago that would 
> have been worth a nice sum today. But the trick is to know exactly which 
> stuff that is in advance, have a 50 year horizon to plan for (I certainly 
> don't), and have ample storage space to stash it in. I certainly destroyed a 
> large number of cathedral style radios (my compatriots generically called 
> them "Philco junk sets") for the handful of parts that might still be useful.
>
>
It's that very process of junking that raises the current prices.

If everything had been kept, then there'd probably be enough supply for 
demand, and hence the price would be low.  Indeed, some of the demand is 
likely due to rarity, an everyday item isn't as interesting for most 
people.

So there's that time of obsolescence, something new coming along so the 
"old" is no longer interesting, and "the old" gets junked rapidly.  The 
owners don't want it, and neither does anyone else.  There is a slight 
secondary market, the people who can't afford the new so they'll make do 
with the castoffs, but they are buying cheap what others don't want.

So the stuff gets tossed, "I don't need it, it's doesn't do the latest 
things, and nobody else wants it".

Then time passes, and there is nostalgia or whatever, and they want what 
they used to have, or want what they couldn't afford when they were young. 
SO what remains is in higher demand, and since the attrition happened, 
supply is more limited, and prices thus higher.

There will always be the collector who just collects, so they bought or 
scrounged when things were cheap, and never got rid of that stuff.  But 
those are a minority.  I remember about 1972, a former teacher offered me 
an Atwater Kent radio, because he was turning the cabinet into a liquor 
cabinet.  I had the insides of the radio for a while, but didn't keep it.
At the time, old radio collecting wsa a very fringe thing. Then later it 
became a much bigger thing.

Early home computers were generally collectible all along, because they 
never sold that many.  But once they became a more consumer thing, say 
1977, the numbers started going up.  Some Apple II's may carry a premium 
price, but there were so many of them that generally they don't.  Too many 
were sold (over a decent number of years) and lots were kept in the back 
of the closet, probably the new cost too high for someone to scrap until 
much later. It gets worse even later, since computers got fairly generic 
as things moved on, and sold terribly well.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159314

On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:35:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:


> It's that very process of junking that raises the current prices.
> 
> If everything had been kept, then there'd probably be enough supply for 
> demand, and hence the price would be low.  Indeed, some of the demand is 
> likely due to rarity, an everyday item isn't as interesting for most 
> people.

I don't know if this is a myth, but I heard that old comic books are
rare and worth money because they were something people didn't 
bother to save.  In contrast, you can't even give away old National
Geographics because they're so commonplace--people would always keep
them*.



> Early home computers were generally collectible all along, because they 
> never sold that many.  But once they became a more consumer thing, say 
> 1977, the numbers started going up.  Some Apple II's may carry a premium 
> price, but there were so many of them that generally they don't.  Too many 
> were sold (over a decent number of years) and lots were kept in the back 
> of the closet, probably the new cost too high for someone to scrap until 
> much later. It gets worse even later, since computers got fairly generic 
> as things moved on, and sold terribly well.

FWIW, I recently discarded a lot of old computer junk, and no one was
the least bit interested in even _seeing_ any of it, let alone in wanting
it.


* I had a bunch of old Geographics (the library was giving them away),
but I found almost all the articles boring.  There were a few early 
technical articles, but they were more on cutesy color pictures of a
closeup of a circuit card or spectrum diffraction, and text was more of
a press release.  What is far more interesting to me are the old ads.

For instance, back in the 1920s, a lead company extolled the value of
lead as a useful additive to paint (which it indeed was), while today
lead paint is blamed for a lot of problems.  In the 1940s, the company
that made the ethyl lead additive for gasoline pushed its advantages.
Various major corporations would take out dignified full page ads 
extolling their company's research or virtues.  In WW II, the ads 
pleaded with people _not_ to buy their products or use them sparingly.  

I suspect the Geographic's readership was in mostly affluent households,
and ad space was costly.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159322

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:30:30 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:35:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>
>
>> It's that very process of junking that raises the current prices.
>> 
>> If everything had been kept, then there'd probably be enough supply for 
>> demand, and hence the price would be low.  Indeed, some of the demand is 
>> likely due to rarity, an everyday item isn't as interesting for most 
>> people.
>
>I don't know if this is a myth, but I heard that old comic books are
>rare and worth money because they were something people didn't 
>bother to save.  In contrast, you can't even give away old National
>Geographics because they're so commonplace--people would always keep
>them*.

Same with the Classic Comics. Cost was $1.25, when I checked about
1980, they were worth less than that. My parents tossed out, 1980
prices, $700-800 worth of my comics. They figured I wouldn't want them
after Navy boot camp. I had Silver Surfer, Haunted Tank, Easy Company,
and Fantastic 4 number ones. And several issues after that. I think I
had some Spiderman Annuals to.

-- 
JimP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#159325

On Sat, 13 Feb 2016, JimP wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Feb 2016 19:30:30 -0800 (PST), hancock4@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, February 13, 2016 at 9:35:36 PM UTC-5, Michael Black wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's that very process of junking that raises the current prices.
>>>
>>> If everything had been kept, then there'd probably be enough supply for
>>> demand, and hence the price would be low.  Indeed, some of the demand is
>>> likely due to rarity, an everyday item isn't as interesting for most
>>> people.
>>
>> I don't know if this is a myth, but I heard that old comic books are
>> rare and worth money because they were something people didn't
>> bother to save.  In contrast, you can't even give away old National
>> Geographics because they're so commonplace--people would always keep
>> them*.
>
> Same with the Classic Comics. Cost was $1.25, when I checked about
> 1980, they were worth less than that. My parents tossed out, 1980
> prices, $700-800 worth of my comics. They figured I wouldn't want them
> after Navy boot camp. I had Silver Surfer, Haunted Tank, Easy Company,
> and Fantastic 4 number ones. And several issues after that. I think I
> had some Spiderman Annuals to.
>
When I was buying comics, they were 15 and 25 cents each.  And I got rid 
of my collection about the time I got rid of my Tom Swift Jr. books and my 
Tom Corbett SPace Cadet books, selling them to a used book store for a 
pittance.

It took me about 23 years before I saw another Tom Corbett book, a pair of 
them in a used book store window, I rushed over the next day, paid five 
dollars each for them.  And haven't seen any since.  Luckily those are at 
Project Gutenberg, so I've read the whole series, about seven books, in 
recent years.  I had a nearly complete set, but not all of them.

I've read some Tom Swift Jr. books since, they used to be common at used 
book sales, but that tapered off.  I ended up buying about six last 
summer, at 5.00 each, at one used book store.  A mix of some I'd never 
read, and some I had once owned.

I'd love to have the comic books back, simply so I could relive that 
period.  But I won't spend money to duplicate them, even if I could 
remember details about issue numbers.  But I got nothing for them when I 
got rid of them, so I'd have been so much better off keeping them.

   Michael

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 3  [1] 2 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.folklore.computers

csiph-web