Cyclopedia of Telephony and Telegraphy, Vol. 2 / A General Reference Work on Telephony, etc. etc.

by American School of Correspondence

For all except the largest exchanges, therefore, the greater first cost of automatic apparatus must be put down as one of the factors to be weighed in making the choice between automatic and manual, this factor being less and less objectionable as the size of the equipment increases and finally disappearing altogether for very large equipments. Greater first cost is, of course, warranted if the fixed charges on the greater investment are more than offset by the economy resulting. The automatic screw machine, for instance, costs many times more than the hand screw machine, but it has largely displaced the hand machine nevertheless.

Flexibility. The third argument against the automatic telephone system—its flexibility—is one that only time and experience has been able to answer. Enough time has elapsed and enough experience has been gained, however, to disprove the validity of this argument. In fact, the great flexibility of the automatic system has been one of its surprising developments. No sooner has the statement been made that the automatic system could not do a certain thing than forthwith it has done it. It was once quite clear that the automatic system was not practicable for party-line selective ringing; yet today many automatic systems are working successfully with this feature; the selection between the parties on a line being accomplished with just as great certainty as in manual systems. Again it has seemed quite obvious that the automatic system could not hope to cope with the reverting call problem, i. e., enabling a subscriber on a party line to call back to reach another subscriber on the same line; yet today the automatic system may do this in a way that is perhaps even more satisfactory than the way in which it is done in multiple manual switchboards. It is true that the automatic system has not done away with the toll operator and it probably never will be advantageous to require it to do so for the simple reason that the work of the toll operator in recording the connections and in bringing together the subscribers is a matter that requires not only accuracy but judgment, and the latter, of course, no machine can supply. It is probable also that the private branch-exchange operator will survive in automatic systems. This is not because the automatic system cannot readily perform the switching duties, but the private branch-exchange operator has other duties than the mere building up and taking down of connections. She is, as it were, a door-keeper guarding the telephone door of a business establishment; like the toll operator she must be possessed of judgment and of courtesy in large degree, neither of which can be supplied by machinery.

In respect to toll service and private branch-exchange service where, as just stated, operators are required on account of the nature of the service, the automatic system has again shown its adaptability and flexibility. It has shown its capability of working in harmony with manual switchboards, of whatever nature, and there is a growing tendency to apply automatic devices and automatic principles of operation to manual switchboards, whether toll or private branch or other kinds, even though the services of an operator are required, the idea being to do by machinery that portion of the work which a machine is able to do better or more economically than a human being.

Attitude of Public. The attitude of the public toward the automatic is one that is still open to discussion; at least there is still much discussion on it. A few years ago it did seem reasonable to suppose that the general telephone user would prefer to get his connection by merely asking for it rather than to make it himself by "spelling" it out on the dial of his telephone instrument. We have studied this point carefully in a good many different communities and it is our opinion that the public finds no fault with being required to make its own connections. To our minds it is proven beyond question that either the method employed in the automatic or that in the manual system is satisfactory to the public as long as good service results, and it is beyond question that the public may get this with either.

Subscriber's Station Equipment. The added complexity of the mechanism at the subscriber's station is in our opinion the most valid objection that can be urged against the automatic system as it exists today. This objection has, however, been much reduced by the greater simplicity and greater excellence of material and workmanship that is employed in the controlling devices in modern automatic systems. However, the automatic system must always suffer in comparison with the manual in respect of simplicity of the subscriber's equipment. The simplest conceivable thing to meet all of the requirements of telephone service at a subscriber's station is the modern common-battery manual telephone. The automatic telephone differs from this only in the addition of the mechanism for enabling the subscriber to control the central-office apparatus in the making of calls. From the standpoint of maintenance, simplicity at the subscriber's station is, of course, to be striven for since the proper care of complex devices scattered all over a community is a much more serious matter than where the devices are centered at one point, as in the central office. Nevertheless, as pointed out, complexity is not fatal, and it is possible, as has been proven, to so design and construct the required apparatus in connection with the subscribers' telephones as to make them subject to an amount of trouble that is not serious.

Comparative Costs. A comparison of the total costs of owning, operating, and maintaining manual and automatic systems usually results in favor of the automatic, except in small exchanges. This seems to be the consensus of opinion among those who have studied the matter deeply. Although the automatic usually requires a larger investment, and consequently a larger annual charge for interest and depreciation, assuming the same rates for each case, and although the automatic requires a somewhat higher degree of skill to maintain it and to keep it working properly than the manual, the elimination of operators or the reduction in their number and the consequent saving of salaries and contributory expenses together with other items of saving that will be mentioned serves to throw the balance in favor of the automatic.

The ease with which the automatic system lends itself to inter-office trunking makes feasible a greater subdivision of exchange districts into office districts and particularly makes it economical, where such would not be warranted in manual working. All this tends toward a reduction in average length of subscribers' lines and it seems probable that this possibility will be worked upon in the future, more than it has been in the past, to effect a considerable saving in the cost of the wire plant, which is the part of a telephone plant that shows least and costs most.

Automatic vs. Manual. Taking it all in all the question of automatic versus manual may not and can not be disposed of by a consideration of any single one of the alleged features of superiority or inferiority of either. Each must be looked at as a practical way of giving telephone service, and a decision can be reached only by a careful weighing of all the factors which contribute to economy, reliability, and general desirability from the standpoint of the public. Public sentiment must neither be overlooked nor taken lightly, since, in the final analysis, it is the public that must be satisfied.

Methods of Operation. In all of the automatic telephone systems that have achieved any success whatever, the selection of the desired subscriber's line by the calling subscriber is accomplished by means of step-by-step mechanism at the central office, controlled by impulses sent or caused to be sent by the acts of the subscriber.

Strowger System. In the so-called Strowger system, manufactured by the Automatic Electric Company of Chicago, the subscriber, in calling, manipulates a dial by which the central-office switching mechanism is made to build up the connection he wants. The dial is moved as many times as there are digits in the called subscriber's number and each movement sends a series of impulses to the central office corresponding in number respectively to the digits in the called subscriber's number. During each pause, except the last one, between these series of impulses, the central-office mechanism operates to shift the control of the calling subscriber's line from one set of switching apparatus at the central office to another.