The decline in rural subscription of telephone 1902-1940
Fischer pointed out a decline for farmers in telephone subscription between 1902 and 1940. According to Figure 4 (p. 93), the percentages of rural households with telephone are less than 5% in 1902, about 30% in 1912, 39% in 1920, and 25% in 1940. In terms of absolute value, 2.5 million farms had telephones in 1920 and only 1.5 million in 1940. With a decline in both percentage and absolute value, I think the evidence is clear and valid.
Fischer analyzed and compared different explanations for this decline, combining the methods of a historian and of a sociologist. Scrutinizing previous commentaries, he came up with 3 potential explanations: 1) disinterest of the large companies; 2) the poor quality of many mutuals’ service; and 3) the increasing availability of other communication technologies. Analyses against other historical facts in the same period, such as the adoption rate of automobile and electricity, led him to conclude that none of these explanations suffice. Then he conducted some statistical analyses, as a sociologist would have, and found that financial strain, substitute technologies (like automobile), and perhaps marketing decisions all contribute to the decline in rural households’ telephone subscription.
I think Fischer’s analysis is convincing, and demonstrates a strength in his method. This decline highlights his points on the importance of the institutional, economic, and political contexts and on the mythic nature of “the internal logic of technology”. Even for a “successful” technology, its development and adoption are affected by various factors external to the technology itself, such as the general financial situation, sellers’ marketing strategy, customers’ priority list, the government’s policies, and development and adoption of other related technologies.