One thing not taken into account on this rant (and it is just a big rant) is the incredible increase in scale. Nearly everyone has a phone and can make phone calls now and we're almost 8 billion people. The old, understandable, analog system would have never scaled like this. Quality didn't degrade because of greed or degeneracy. It was a trade-off and I say the level of access we have now trumps whatever nostalgia people feel for the past decades.
You may be correct that we made the right choice with the tradeoff, but saying that the old system worked better (for those who could use it) is not nostalgia. Audio quality (and communication ability) on zoom is objectively far worse than it was over analog copper lines.
What? My Zoom call (I actually use MS-Teams) can include dozens of people, with video, who are from all over the world. The old phone system wasn't able to do that - especially at the cost of Zoom. People today would be shocked to know what our monthly phone bill cost was back in the day in today's dollars and the lack of value purchased for that money.
Not really. Transmissions were perhaps reliable, clear and fixed, low latency, but the bandwidth was still quite limited (64kbps). I still remember first time I used the yahoo! voice chat (VoIP using DSL on my end) with a decent sound card and head-set. It sounded like my peer was in the same room (1v1, voice only then -- with multi-party the sound quality degenerated quickly).
The reliability, clarity, and fixed low latency were nothing to sniff at, and ISDN didn't lose on quality by any means. In a different universe, it might have gone on to be a dominant technology.
The data rate was 64kbps. The audio frequency bandwidth of G.722, the most widely compatible codec over ISDN, is about 7kHz. Typical analog phone line bandwidth was about 3kHz, so a single ISDN BRI D-channel call was already twice the bandwidth of analog. This was sufficient for ISDN to be suitable for links between sports arenas and FM broadcast stations, for example. Other codecs with better compression (like MPEG) over bonded D-channels for 128kbps, could provide more like 20kHz audio bandwidth (in stereo!), which is close enough to "broadcast quality" 22kHz to be useful for coast-to-coast broadcasts and remote studio recording.
In our timeline, however, Carterfone and the breakup of AT&T opened the doors for all kinds of development in voice-band modem technology. 56K modems were good enough, and they worked with existing last-mile equipment on existing POTS lines, leaving ISDN to find a niche with small business and broadcast. When "always-on" DSL entered the market to compete for Internet subscribers, ISDN was finished. People cared more about data rates than latency, more about the Internet than point-to-point links, and the market ISDN was aiming for had moved on by the time it arrived. Rapid deployment of fiber and T1/E1 quickly ate up whatever was left of ISDN's apple... not because ISDN wasn't very good at what it did, just because people didn't much care about what it was good at.
Which, I suppose, brings us back to the point of the article: advances come with drawbacks.
Unconvinced. In the same room you wouldn't wear a head-set, would you? :-)
Also Mumble at 64kbps can sound really good. Anyways, didn't do/have that the time, so no comparison.
World population by late 1990s was 6 billion. Landline audio phone calls were reliable with fixed guaranteed bandwidth, albeit expensive. Today there are more people, but has there been a linear increase in 1:1 calls? More bridge/group/conferencing calls, yes.
But not in the 2nd/3rd world or in rural areas or poorer areas in the first. I would suggest that the ubiquity was in the wealthiest sections of the 1st world, not the western world.
