leaders in the early spread of telephone service

About 1893, the country leading the world in telephones per 100 persons (teledensity) was Sweden.  Telephone service in Sweden developed through a variety of institutional forms: the International Bell Telephone Company (a U.S. multinational), town and village co-operatives, the General Telephone Company of Stockholm (a Swedish private company), and the Swedish Telegraph Department (part of the Swedish government).  Since Stockholm consists of islands, telephone service offered relatively large advantages. Competition between Bell Telephone and General Telephone, and later between General Telephone and the Swedish Telegraph Dept., was intense.

The U.S. rose to world leadership in teledensity with the rise of many independent telephone companies after the Bell patents expired in 1893 and 1894. In 1893, the U.S. was considerably behind Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Norway in teledensity.  By 1914, the U.S. was the world leader in teledensity and had more than twice the teledensity of Sweden, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Norway. The relative good performance of the U.S. occurred despite competing telephone networks not interconnecting.[1]

While every country is unique and special, competition between telephone service providers, including between private companies and state departments, seems to have been generally important in spurring provision and adoption of telephone service.  State-owned telephone service monopolies were associated were relatively lower teledensity.[2]  At least in the U.S., a private monopoly (Bell patents) was also associated with relatively lower teledensity. Across the world, telephone industry structures early in the twentieth century were diverse and dynamic.  Business failures, business consolidations, new entry and nationalizations were common. Such changes indicate competition at a broader institutional level.

International comparisons of telephone industry developments and arguments about the merits of different forms of ownership and industry structure were common early in the twentieth century.  The International Bureau of the Telegraph Union produced yearly statistical comparisons of countries’ telephone services.[3] After the U.S. had assumed world leadership in teledensity, AT&T and its supporters highlighted international comparisons of teledensity in arguing for the superiority of private provision of telephone service.  That argument did not prevail internationally.  The more meaningful contest seems to have been between bureaucratic organization and decentralized innovation.  For wireline telephone service,  bureaucratic organization prevailed. The general trend worldwide through to the final decade of the twentieth century was toward state monopoly provision of telephone service.

*  *  *  *  *

Data: international and intercity comparisons of teledensity, 1893-1914 (Excel version)


[1] “[A]round 1904-1914, more than 55% of the US population lived in cities or towns where there were two unconnected telephone exchanges.”  Mueller, Milton (1993), “Universal service in telephone history: A reconstruction,” Telecommunications Policy 17(5) p. 359.  Competing networks also did not interconnect in Sweden.

[2] See Wallsten, Scott (2001), “Ringing In The 20th Century: The Effects Of State Monopolies, Private Ownership, And Operating Licenses On Telecommunications In Europe, 1892-1914,” (October 2001). World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2690; SIEPR Policy Paper No. 00-0037. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=281092

[3] These statistics appear annually in Journal Télégraphique.  The International Bureau of Telegraph Administrations, a Bern-based technical arm of the International Telegraph Union, published the Journal Télégraphique.  It did not explicitly rank countries by teledensity.

email and telephone policy

My thinking and creativity here, as valuable or invaluable as it is, I offer freely to everyone.

If you have a question regarding some topics that this blog addresses, please ask the question as a comment to the relevant blog post. I will respond with a comment or blog post in accordance with my interest, time, and knowledge. By this means, both your question and my response will be freely available to everyone.

I would prefer not to receive emails or telephone calls regarding this blog.  Any email to me regarding topics on this blog will be considered for posting on this blog unless the writer explicitly requests that I keep the email private. I am unlikely to respond to email that the writer wants to be kept private.  Similarly, I am unlikely to agree to call you to discuss what I have written on this blog.

My email address:

The Internet enables sharing of unprecedented scope.  I want to participate in the Internet’s amazing new possibilities for sharing.  Please do not unnecessarily narrow our scope of sharing down to you and me.

from mass media to communication

In 1932, about a decade after radio broadcasting began in Germany, a German playwright declared:

As for the radio’s object, I don’t think it can consist merely in prettifying public life.  Nor is radio in my view an adequate means of bringing back cosiness to the home and making family life bearable again.  But quite apart from the dubiousness of its functions, radio is one-sided when it should be two-.  It is purely an apparatus for distribution, for mere sharing out.  So here is a positive suggestion: change this apparatus over from distribution to communication. The radio would be the finest possible communication apparatus in public life, a vast network of pipes.  That is to say, it would be if it knew how to receive as well as to transmit, how to let the listener speak as well as hear, how to bring him into a relationship instead of isolating him.  On this principle the radio should step out of the supply business and organize its listeners as suppliers.[*]

The “vast network of pipes” is now here.  It’s call the Internet.  May the suppliers prosper!

*  *  *  *  *

[*] Bertolt Brecht, “Der Rundfunk als Kommunikationsapparat” in Blätter des Hessischen Landestheaters, Darmstadt, No. 16, July 1932, trans. in Brecht, Bertolt, and John Willett (1964), Brecht on theatre: the development of an aesthetic (New York: Hill and Wang) p. 52.