WI: Teleprinters instead of telephones?

MrP

Banned
Not sure whether to post this in pre- or post-1900, as it sort of straddles the line.

A couple of decades ago, when cell phones began taking off in a big way, few predicted that as a result live audio communication would decline and be largely superseded by texting. So what if the telephone had remained an also-ran technology such as, say, pneumatic tubes, and the dominant method of point-to-point telecommunication from the turn of the 20th century had instead remained text-based, relying on personal teleprinters?
 
What you're describing is basically a fax machine, and I don't see them really filling the same niche as phones. With a telephone, you don't have to stock it with paper and ink, and it's much more convenient to just talk than to sit down and write something out.
 
I find this idea interesting, however for it to be possible you'd have to transfer it to a digital screen instead of printout as quickly as possible.
 
Teleprinter means something like fax or at least telex. It arrives on the machine, but who notices you if it's been read or not? That's the single advantage of a phone. You're instant with somebody and if someone doesn't want to answer your call, it's a silent treatment and time to employ a lawyer.
 
You would need a supporting technology which allows "multiplexing" of multiple teleprinter conversations onto a single transmission line. It takes longer to "type" something than it does to "say" something, but the proper technology would allow transmission at a lower overall cost (you would not need to dedicate a transmission circuit to a single conversation as was required in the early days of the telephone network).
 

MrP

Banned
A lot like the telegraph except you type as you're preparing message and maybe when sent machine translates it to correct morse code?
Well, that's what teleprinters were. They had typewriter keyboards and translated the text into Morse code. Incoming messages were likewise translated back and printed out.

They were bulkier than telephones but that's in part because in OTL they were mostly used by corporations. I'm assuming that smaller models could have been developed for personal use.

_89821020_0f60c7e7-0038-4e9c-a788-440b84b85e83.jpg
 
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091204/0003037194.shtml

The basic story is that Western Union worked out a way to gain a monopoly on the telegraph, and then worked out a deal with the Associated Press, whereby all AP papers would use Western Union, and none would support the creation of a competing telegraph company. From all of this, there is even the suggestion that a presidential election was stolen. It's a worthwhile read.
That's what I've read before. That in the 1800s, Western Union was a pretty substantial monopoly.

Dearly like to see this motha get a run for its money!
 
I remember these; pretty tough to work though those with experience could type quite fast. It had a bell so you'd hear when a message was incoming. Also you were able to terminate transmission which usually happened when the inexperience called up at night and the recipient wanted to continue sleeping.
The machines were huge and would need development to hit the broad market. With wireless telegraphy you could even have a portable though you'd need a cart to trolley along... :D
 
Breaking the Western Union's Remittance Monopoly

Oct. 14, 2015

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=14866

' . . . Western Union, which recently acquired Moneygram, another direct competitor, and they work with local banks. In Haiti's case they have a consortium of six banks that dominate this market. . . '

' . . . But in the case of the poorest people on the planet, sending a $100 payment to Haiti, it's about $13 to do that. . . '
Charging low-income persons 13% (!) to send money.

So, Western Union still a quasi-monopoly more than a hundred years later. Interesting, isn't it?
 
Top