Slashdot Mirror
When the Senate Tried To Ban Dial Telephones
An anonymous reader writes "With the Senate now looking to have the government block access to websites it deems to be bad (which seems to be called 'censorship' in other countries), it's worth pointing out that the Senate doesn't exactly have a good track record when it comes to deciding what technologies to ban. Back in 1930, some Senators came close to banning the dial telephone, because they felt that it was wrong that they had to do the labor themselves, rather than an operator at the other end."
"For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press 3."
-- Alice Kahn
Maybe the Senate was far more forward thinking than any of us give them credit for.
John
"Gotta save those phone operators jobs!" This is really no different than those backwards member states (i.e. OR and NJ) that don't allow self-pumping of gasoline. They probably would outlaw self-dialing too if they had thought of it.
Every time I drive through NJ I pump my own gas, not because I'm anti-full service, but because they move so damn slow. I have better things to do than sit in my car for ten minutes waiting for an attendant to show up, especially if I still have a 2 hour drive ahead of me.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
news for nerds, stuff that matters. from 1930.
Just because they didn't want to lift a finger to do something as simple as dial a telephone, that doesn't mean they need to ban it for the rest of us. The Senate is FAMOUS for passing laws that affect them (or affect everyone except them - you know, we get Social Security, they get a really sweet pension).
If they deem a website to be "bad", I have no problem with them blocking it from their own servers, but leave me alone. I can block things at my router quite easily, thank you. Should I be afraid that the Senate will try to ban toilet paper, because they can't manage to wipe their own asses?
I need trepanation like I need a hole in the head.
There's a massive difference between banning a technology and censoring websites. The reasoning behind each is different, the methodology, and the possible reactions and methods of circumvention. About the only parallel is "government doing thing that it really shouldn't be."
They're not even talking about banning a technology this time. It's not like they're saying "ban the Internet." This is a really weak excuse to bash the government and bring up something ridiculous and idiotic from the past. Do people really need an excuse to bash the government? Aren't there enough legitimate reasons to complain? Do we really need a story going "Look, you think censorship on the web is bad? 80 years ago, they were too lazy to dial their own damn phones! Isn't government so damn wacky?"
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
They tried to make the telephone company put back the non-dial phones IN THE SENATE ITSELF. This is similar to me demanding that the phone company turn off my call display, and Slashdot running the story as "Slashdot user attempts to ban call display!!" No attempt was made to ban them.
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
They tried to ban the dial telephone because the operator's union had a lot of clout in congress and was afraid of losing jobs.
Remember, every piece of legislation that goes through congress has a special interest group behind it.
Given the fact that US economy is being destroyed because of the huge monthly trade deficit, caused by the US labor force being uncompetitive, which all came around due to government regulations, taxation, wage laws, subsidies, monopoly creation, setting interest rates, printing of money, waging wars, destruction of competition etc., the US Constitution needs to be fixed. Without a basic fix to it, the economy will continue plummet, until the hyper-inflationary depression hits and then a long restructuring process will start probably following a period of very bad civil unrest possibly with lots of intermediary bloodshed.
Here is the fix (and I am not a lawyer, so this needs to be solidified to fit both the letter and the spirit)
Congress shall pass no law, that changes the status of any entity in a way that allows that entity to get any preferential treatment in economy.
What I am trying to say is that government must not be able to affect economy through any law, this way no matter how much money is spent bribing the government, it's of no use and cannot result in a favorable economic outcome for those, who are doing the bribing.
This concerns anything at all that deals with economy, be it minimum wage, social security, income taxes, corporate welfare, bailouts, stimulus packages, setting interest rates, printing money (all this should be privatized), creating federal institutions that insure any type of lending or borrowing or depositing or any other moral hazard.
Gov't shouldn't be able to change the economic outcome by providing any monopolistic powers, providing exclusive trading rights, creating any discrimination in the market place, setting any laws that fix prices or contracts or whatever.
I hope my point is clear and obviously again, I am not a lawyer.
This is the only way to keep economy Free and going and not having it broken by various violent intervention by a government, which clearly ends up badly.
You can't handle the truth.
it's only hazardous for retarded people. retarded people shouldn't drive, if we have DMV that's working.
It's actually not. It's a bullshit excuse to pass protectionist policies, of the same kind that New York used to pass a law saying every automobile needed to be preceded by someone carrying flags to warn people it was coming: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_laws
The proof is that there are not mass casualties across the world from gasoline pump accidents as compared to Oregon and New Jersey.
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
I recently moved to Oregon from another state. If you were here, and asked why someone has to pump your gas - you will be told immediately not that 'gasoline is dangerous', but that the legislation 'creates jobs'. I often pull into an empty gas station and need to wait up to 10 minutes just for someone to swipe my credit card in the machine for me, press the button that corresponds to the grade of fuel I prefer, lift the nozzle from the machine and place it in my tank hole. They then wander off to service the next person. The pump will run more slowly if the station is busy as the attendant ineffectively tries to manage his workload by making the time to fill longer. Often when the pump does stop, you will have to remain seated for another 2 minutes before they remember to return and replace the nozzle in the pump. I drive an older car - and have actually had professional gas attendants forget to replace my gas cap before I drive off. Also, the argument could be made that this is actually more dangerous because the pump is not constantly observed / managed / stood near by the individual who is also concerned for the car. It's a wonderful example of how government can create jobs by injecting inefficiency into a market - ultimately wasting time and money that I would posit could more effectively be utilized in a free-er market.
In summary - it's just as ridiculous as it sounds.
Ping Bob.Jones.SanFransisco.USA
"Hello?"
"Sorry Bob, just seeing if this damned handset works."
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Americans are heavily influenced by movies. In 2001 a movie titled Zoolander was released and there was a dramatic increase in gasoline fight accidents. As a result, several states had to ban people from pumping their own gas.
When I rented a car in Oregon, learning that I wasn't allowed to fill it, was a totally weird experience. And when the guy told me "You can't, state law," seriously, I thought he was pulling this tourist's leg. It had to be a scam. It just had to.
It wasn't.
I wonder if Oregonians feel that same strangeness when they pull up at a non-OR gas station and nobody comes out to "help" them.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
ATT did not invent the dial phone. a Missouri undertaker did. this was good ol' fashioned corporate hardball at work.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Secondly, any "savings" for this method will NOT be passed on to you, they will go to slightly greater corporate profits.
You greatly overestimate the ability of food retailers to retain extra margin. This is an insanely competitive industry that competes heavily on price. You definitely see some of the savings because if the supermarket doesn't pass it on, the one down the street will. Walmart has built their whole business model on this premise. Only way they can retain the margin is if they have no local competition since groceries are mostly a local business.
Thirdly if such savings, in a fantasy world, WERE passed on to you, then you would see fresh produce for $0.98 per pound instead of $0.99 per pound. Face it, the company has passed on the cost of labor onto you, the consumer. And you think self-checkout is an advance and it makes no sense to do it otherwise!
Self checkout is simply automation. With enough volume (and supermarkets have huge volume) automation allows companies to reduce labor costs. This sort of self checkout automation is not unique to any single company so it is unlikely any supermarket will be able to retain all of the savings due to the thin margins and intense price competition.
All roads and all infrastructure can and should be built privately. I definitely am not interested in a gov't doing any of this.
Space travel, highways, schools, fire and emergency response, utilities and financial, wilderness, it is all best suited for private hands to handle.
For example, if the ocean was owned by a number of private entities, BP wouldn't behave the way they did because:
1. Nobody would set any liability caps for them.
2. They would have to buy adequate insurance to cover any event.
3. They would follow all necessary procedures to prevent spills.
4. If a spill occurred they would have enough equipment somewhere on standby to deal with this.
5. Private owner would sue their ass off if there was a spill.
6. Private owners surrounding the areas where the spill occurred would sue their ass off.
7. It would be possible to file a class action lawsuit against them, and that's what Justice system should be doing.
Gov't causes a recession (plenty of which happened before gov't started messing with them) to turn into a depression.
Recession is a bust of a boom/bust cycle, it's a necessary part of the cycle, just like any engine there are a number of cycles, each must be followed to keep the economy going, because any inefficiency in allocation of resources must be addressed, and they are addressed with bust.
Keynesians decided to stop the bust from happening, and gov't loved it because it could then avoid shrinking of its size and spending.
==
Space travel and all other endeavors are best handled by private interests and will be handled by private interests anyway. Gov't can only show us all how wasteful they are at doing this.
You can't handle the truth.
Yeah, much better idea is to make sure you can get through Jersey to stop in Pennsylvania or New York for gas. That way, you can pay more per gallon for the privilege of pumping it yourself. That'll show'em.
Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.