Back then I was in Halifax, West Yorkshire, England. We didn't even get a phone until 1975. Nowhere to my knowledge did any kind of delivery of food until well into the 80's.
To call Canada back then, we had to call the International Operator, at least 3 or 4 days in advance, give them a date, time and number we needed to call and on the appointed date and time our phone would ring. It was the International Operator confirming our call, at this point we were told the maximum time we could stay on, this was dependent on how busy the lines to Canada were, we were then put through. A few minutes before the end of the call, the Operator with interrupt, reminding us of the time remaining, then one final warning with 15 seconds to go, then dead air.
The UK was never as attached to the telephone as Canada was, at that time. I should also point out that a phone call ALWAYS cost you something, there was no such thing as a free call, even calling you next door neighbor, was charged a minimum, which I think back then was about 6p or 9 cents, the cost of the International call was astronomical.
Back in those days, I got the impression England was behind the times in a few things. However, while I never called England back then, I recall the costs were a few dollars. Of course, in those days, it was long distance to call across Winston Churchill Blvd., from Oakville to what is now Mississauga. And here's an example of how a call was made, before we got direct long distance dialing. Maybe we should bring back operators, so we don't have to dial our one calls. ;-)
No, the whole area was 416. 905 didn't appear until 1993 and by that time you could make a local call from Oakville to Scarborough. Back in the 60s and earlier, long distance was expensive. The phone system was entirely analog, with vacuum tube and relay technology that required a lot of maintenance. So, even a short distance was "long distance". Direct distance dialing appeared here in the late '50s or so. It was advances in technology that enabled dropping long distance charges. I now can call anywhere in Canada toll free. I guess it was in the early 70s that the drop in charges started happening. Now, if they'd only drop the need to dial 1 first.
As for TV, I seem to recall that in England, the choices were either the BBC or the BBC. ;-)
Growing up in Oakville, I had 6 channels to choose from, 2 Toronto, 1 Hamilton and 3 Buffalo.
Before packet switching networking was implemented for telephone, making a long distance call required two copper conductors from end to end, often by multiple operators working in tandem. There were a limited number of lines between Canada and the UK so there were long wait times for an open line. That's what made long distance so expensive and that's 'WHY they don't make new telephones to make long distance calls WITHOUT a computer.'
Modern fibre networking allows for millions of simultaneous phone calls over one conductor with all switching being done automatically by computers. Long distance costs for telephone companies have been reduced by several orders of magnitude. Costs to consumers have not kept pace, especially with well established telephone companies. The prices paid for long distance calls are close to 100% profit. Long distance charges are simply a way to pay for company management and investors top 1% lifestyles.
There's a bit more to it than that. Initially, transatlantic calls were over radio links. Then, in 1957 (IIRC) the first cable capable of voice calls was put in service. Next came satellite links, but because of the time it took to go up to the satellite and back, a satellite channel was typically paired with a cable channel, so that in one direction, the call would go through the satellite and through the cable in the other. All this was still analog. What really caused a big shift in telecom was the move to digital, starting in the mid '60s. This allowed cheaper, better quality calls, without all the fussy analog gear.
Incidentally, I started working in the telecom industry in 1972 and have worked with everything from analog, vacuum tube based, voice carriers to voice over IP and lots more in between. I have seen a lot of changes in that time.
I have set up systems with both single and dual fibres. Both can carry the exact same traffic. Major trunks would use 2 fibres, but the connection to the end customer is often a single fibre. Given the incredible bandwidth (~2 petabits/s) fibre supports, there's no problem with a using single fibre and different wavelengths. In fact, several wavelengths can be used, each supporting a separate connection. Coarse Divisision Wavelength Multiplexing (CWDM) is frequently used to connect to customers. The wavelengths are separated with filters based on diffraction grating.
I am talking about individual phone calls. Each call would be multiplexed with possibly millions of others over a single connection. It would make no sense to establish a single, dedicated connection for each call. That would be done with packet switching to take advantage of the available bandwidth.
Even over copper, multiplexing was used, other than for "the last mile". Initially it was Frequency Division Multiplexing (FDM). The old copper pair systems could carry 12 channels. Microwave links also used FDM, with hundreds of channels. Then, with digital systems, Time Division Multiplexing (TDM) was used and made the network more reliable and flexible. With TDM, there are DS0 carrying 64 Kb, DS1 (1.544 Mb) which is 24 DS0 and DS3 (45 Mb), 28 DS1. Next came SONET, which carried 1 or more DS3s, up to 192 of them at ~10 Gb/s. SONET (Synchronous Optical Network) is carried over fibre. These days, with the shift to IP, yes there's a mix of packets from a variety of sources and, instead of using TDM & SONET, the entire bandwidth is just used to carry packets.
US$499 (close to CD$700) is a bit steep for what it does but I see the attraction. A small laptop would do the same thing. Just get someone to rip out the extraneous programs and install a locked down word processor as the main shell. A laptop with a minimal install of Linux and one of the many word processors that are available would do the trick. It would likely be cheaper as well.
^I dont think that would do it. I think what im looking for is an electronic typewriter word processor that has the same type of LARGE screen as a laptop that DIGITALLY types each letter on paper wthout mechanical moving parts as in older electronic typewriters,(maby even a digital type-hammer[animated hammer on a narrow retangular transparent screen thats the width of the hammer and length all the way across and thats not a real mechanical hammer of course] that moves(digitally animated) across the paper(page) as you type each letter) and of course you also have the option to type and edit before its typed on paper. Its a wonder why they dont want to make any improvements to the most advanced 1990's electronic word processor typewriter? Its like they abandoned it because of the computer. Electronic typewriters were big back then, they can be big again with newer technology. (I think i invented or have ideas of a number of new ways this could be accomplished on this thread if done right).
Perhaps it's because once you have an advanced electronic typewriter, you've got a computer that can do so much more than just be a typewriter. Computers are cheap. You want a word processor, then get a computer, add appropriate software and a printer. Those devices you want aren't being made because there's no market for something that will be less capable and will cost much more.
^ I could imagine, if it would be possible to make or manufacture, what i just described would cost $2999 apon release, maby $499 after 5 years??? Maby 10 to 30 years from now they'll be able to manufacture it at a low price of $99 apon release and millions will buy it.
I love this as your signature, "I haven't lost my mind. It's around here...somewhere...", applies to this thread??? (I want to click in a laughing smiley thing here but it doesnt happen using a ps3 with old browser.....oh i know, need a lap top. I guess im one of those types that don't care for upgrading or constant upgrading, except for a typewriter.(please insert laughing smiley here since i can't)-(i bet ya can with your lap tops. OH you can't, finally 1 thing your lap tops cannot doo, unless i buy my own- "haha".
Tried to search but couldn't find anything relevant to this. Apologies if this is a repeat question.
I have an HP17-by0008ca laptop. I have two Dell Monitors. One is an older model, one was purchased within the last year. The older model does run on HDMI, and the other one does as well...
My Asus router is set for automatic updates, assume that includes firmware I changed internet providers about 2 months ago. went from 60 / 10 with VMedia ( Cogeco cables) and now at 500 / 500 fibre with MNSi in Windsor area. My 5G wifi signal (iPhone 7) has been between steady 160- 200 Mbps...
Worth considering if you use a consumer grade router.
Avoid Consumer Routers
I use pfSense for my firewall/router and before that Linux. Both are updated frequently. While the WRT based routers are more likely to be updated, even they have problems. For example, I have an old Linksys...
I have a ton of home videos and pictures going back a long time. Many of the VHS tapes have been copied to DVD data disks....some to DVDs. So now I have folders of disks and boxes of yet to be copied tapes.
It looks like disks, while they will last a long time will suffer from a lack of optical...
Hello. I have no idea if I am posting this in the right place. A google search of connect daytek display to chromebook lead me here. I am not computer savy at all. I have an older daytek monitor that I would like to connect my chromebook to in order to watch the world series. The hdmi...
A forum community dedicated to Canadian TV, computing and home theatre owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, displays, troubleshooting, styles, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!