Is technological regression a thing?

[empirestate]

Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.

Now, office phone systems were highly sophisticated and reliable, well into and through the '90s–technologically, this issue was long solved. Yet today, although we've made much greater and newer advances in technology, we still frequently use these older systems, except they now exhibit these problems that were formerly solved.

Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.

So my question is, is technological regression an actual thing? I don't mean just from a crotchety "back in my day/get off my lawn" standpoint. Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state? Has this been written about? What causes it?

[webny99]

Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state?

I'd venture to answer yes, but only to the extent that advances from earlier years have become obsolete. That is to say, if a technological advance is obsolete, it may not be worth investing in (and maintaining) to its full capability. But it's not that it can't be maintained, just that it doesn't need to be.

Very interesting question though.

[abefroman329]

Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.

I would chalk that up to user error - either the rep's stats include average length of the call they're on and they need to get rid of you in a hurry so they aren't subject to further scrutiny from their manager, or they just don't give a shit if you're transferred to the right department.

Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.

Even when I had an HD antenna, the reception was better than the reception my grandmother used to get from her set-top antennas (I also remember the picture quality going to shit when her upstairs or downstairs neighbor would vacuum).  I can't compare the reception from an HD antenna to a rooftop antenna, since I only remember my household having cable TV.

[empirestate]

Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state?

I'd venture to answer yes, but only to the extent that advances from earlier years have become obsolete. That is to say, if a technological advance is obsolete, it may not be worth investing in (and maintaining) to its full capability. But it's not that it can't be maintained, just that it doesn't need to be.

Very interesting question though.

To be clear, I'm thinking mainly of systems still in regular use–you know, not like the telegraph or anything. :-)

But yes, older systems tend not to be invested in by companies: both cable TV and copper telephone systems have been largely superseded by internet-based delivery of both services. However, in the case of broadcast TV, it was intentionally upgraded in such a fashion that the technology worked less well, rather than merely being abandoned in place. The reason for this is doubtless what you describe, but it's interesting that the regression would be intentional.

Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.

I would chalk that up to user error - either the rep's stats include average length of the call they're on and they need to get rid of you in a hurry so they aren't subject to further scrutiny from their manager, or they just don't give a shit if you're transferred to the right department.

Well, wait, which is it? User error (hit the wrong button and disconnected you by mistake) or user malfeasance (intentionally dropped the call for the reasons you mentioned)? User error would be an understandable result of technological advancement, as education about older systems is phased out. But user malfeasance would be a surprising new aspect to my question, and probably due to something separate from technology itself.

Even when I had an HD antenna, the reception was better than the reception my grandmother used to get from her set-top antennas (I also remember the picture quality going to shit when her upstairs or downstairs neighbor would vacuum).  I can't compare the reception from an HD antenna to a rooftop antenna, since I only remember my household having cable TV.

The reception is better when you get it, but the issue is that you get it less of the time. With old antennas, there was always some signal, good or bad. But with modern ones, there's either a perfect signal or no signal. No middle ground.

[abefroman329]

Is it an observed phenomenon that, while technology improves overall, specific advances from earlier years actually regress to a less functional state?

I'd venture to answer yes, but only to the extent that advances from earlier years have become obsolete. That is to say, if a technological advance is obsolete, it may not be worth investing in (and maintaining) to its full capability. But it's not that it can't be maintained, just that it doesn't need to be.

Very interesting question though.

To be clear, I'm thinking mainly of systems still in regular use–you know, not like the telegraph or anything. :-)

But yes, older systems tend not to be invested in by companies: both cable TV and copper telephone systems have been largely superseded by internet-based delivery of both services. However, in the case of broadcast TV, it was intentionally upgraded in such a fashion that the technology worked less well, rather than merely being abandoned in place. The reason for this is doubtless what you describe, but it's interesting that the regression would be intentional.

Here's an example: ever notice that you can't even trust a simple phone transfer these days? Say you're on the phone with customer service, tech support or whatnot. They go to transfer you to somebody else's phone, and half the time it doesn't even work and you just get disconnected.

I would chalk that up to user error - either the rep's stats include average length of the call they're on and they need to get rid of you in a hurry so they aren't subject to further scrutiny from their manager, or they just don't give a shit if you're transferred to the right department.

Well, wait, which is it? User error (hit the wrong button and disconnected you by mistake) or user malfeasance (intentionally dropped the call for the reasons you mentioned)? User error would be an understandable result of technological advancement, as education about older systems is phased out. But user malfeasance would be a surprising new aspect to my question, and probably due to something separate from technology itself.

Even when I had an HD antenna, the reception was better than the reception my grandmother used to get from her set-top antennas (I also remember the picture quality going to shit when her upstairs or downstairs neighbor would vacuum).  I can't compare the reception from an HD antenna to a rooftop antenna, since I only remember my household having cable TV.

The reception is better when you get it, but the issue is that you get it less of the time. With old antennas, there was always some signal, good or bad. But with modern ones, there's either a perfect signal or no signal. No middle ground.

(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.

(2) There is a middle ground - a glitchy, pixellated signal.

[kalvado]

(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.

I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude. Once upon a time I had to explain a person meaning of the word "lawsuit" after transfer fell through the third time (and it would be a serious one, actually) - just to help them stop enjoying the situation. That helped.... helped to devise a workaround  - he called destination office and asked them to call-back.

[bandit957]

Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.

The sad part is that I warned everyone this would happen, and they didn't listen. The FCC and the TV industry couldn't have possibly been stupid enough not to know it would happen, but they went ahead with it anyway.

The old way was so much better.

[bandit957]

Also, I think records were better than CD's.

[kalvado]

Another example is broadcast television: in the '80s, as I recall, if you were sitting in your living room in a large city and turned on the TV, you'd pick up all the local broadcast stations. If you were farther out of town, you might need an antenna on the roof, but you'd still get all of the stations. (They may be fuzzy, but they'd be there.) Today, that's no longer true, despite the technological problem of transmitting a broadcast signal having been solved long ago.

The sad part is that I warned everyone this would happen, and they didn't listen. The FCC and the TV industry couldn't have possibly been stupid enough not to know it would happen, but they went ahead with it anyway.

The old way was so much better.

Better for whom? For those with cable? Or for those who could use radio frequencies made available by the switch?
Yes it sucks for those at the edge of reception zone.

Also, I think records were better than CD's.

2-speed manual transmission is all what a person would ever need!

[jon daly]

I commute 2 hours a day and my only audio choice is radio. The reception these days does not seem as robust as it used to be when I was younger. I do not know if it is less robust antennas, or if it is interference from other wireless devices, or if it is just my imagination.

[Scott5114]

(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.

I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude. Once upon a time I had to explain a person meaning of the word "lawsuit" after transfer fell through the third time (and it would be a serious one, actually) - just to help them stop enjoying the situation. That helped.... helped to devise a workaround  - he called destination office and asked them to call-back.

Any more, the only thing threatening a lawsuit will do is cause customer service to refuse to help and refer you to the legal department.

[empirestate]

(2) There is a middle ground - a glitchy, pixellated signal.

Fair enough, and an apt example. The middle ground of today's broadcast signal is much less functional than the middle ground of yesterday's. You can't even remotely follow a program with the glitchy, pixellated signal, but you could work through the static and fuzz, to a greater or lesser extent.

I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude.

And those things that huge call centers suffer from (altitude?), are they causes, or symptoms, of a larger principle or law that's observable in our society? Or at least, are they one example of several unrelated phenomena that, nevertheless, could be grouped under the umbrella of technological regression?

Also, I think records were better than CD's.

Analog versions of most things seem to be of better quality than digital ones, because of sample rates/attenuation of data. To bring this very much back on topic, compare the best paper maps with the best available digitally-produced ones. More to the point, compare to the widespread absence of any digital maps of comparable quality to paper ones.

But analog records are prone to scratches, and paper maps are liable to tear, crease or be stained. So, must there always be a trade-off between better information from the old methods, and better consistency/reliability of that information from the new ones? Is it impossible to have an unscratchable sound recording of analog quality? a digital map with the precision of a paper one?

[kalvado]

(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.

I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude. Once upon a time I had to explain a person meaning of the word "lawsuit" after transfer fell through the third time (and it would be a serious one, actually) - just to help them stop enjoying the situation. That helped.... helped to devise a workaround  - he called destination office and asked them to call-back.

Any more, the only thing threatening a lawsuit will do is cause customer service to refuse to help and refer you to the legal department.

THAT was a special case. Blood dripping on a floor (literally) makes a strong case for criminal negligence when paperwork issues hold up on providing medical help.

[abefroman329]

(1) Either user error or user malfeasance, and the latter probably has little to do with technology, you are correct.

I never had transfer issues when calling company with a dedicated receptionist. Huge call centers may suffer from marginal training, worse if combined with personal altitude. Once upon a time I had to explain a person meaning of the word "lawsuit" after transfer fell through the third time (and it would be a serious one, actually) - just to help them stop enjoying the situation. That helped.... helped to devise a workaround  - he called destination office and asked them to call-back.

The less routine of a question, the more trouble I have finding someone who can answer it.  Most likely it's a lack of training and a function of high turnover among CSRs, meaning you don't actually have someone who's tenured long enough to be able to answer it.  Or it's because the CSR job has been outsourced to a country that doesn't emphasize flexibility or innovative thinking.  Either way, to bring it back to the original question, technology will only make it worse, not better.

[kalvado]

And those things that huge call centers suffer from (altitude?), are they causes, or symptoms, of a larger principle or law that's observable in our society? Or at least, are they one example of several unrelated phenomena that, nevertheless, could be grouped under the umbrella of technological regression?

My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.

[empirestate]

The less routine of a question, the more trouble I have finding someone who can answer it.  Most likely it's a lack of training and a function of high turnover among CSRs, meaning you don't actually have someone who's tenured long enough to be able to answer it.  Or it's because the CSR job has been outsourced to a country that doesn't emphasize flexibility or innovative thinking.  Either way, to bring it back to the original question, technology will only make it worse, not better.

I think we can leave aside those instances where employees simply can't (or won't) figure out how to resolve a problem, even if they intentionally hang up on me under the pretense of "transferring" the call to someone else. What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?

Or, if that isn't something you've observed personally, what about some other examples of regression that you've experienced? I just don't want us to get too sidetracked on the issue of terrible customer service, which is really a whole other topic and probably quite separate from the technology issue.

My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.

So how would you say that fits in to the original question? (Or don't you?)

[kalvado]

My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.

So how would you say that fits in to the original question? (Or don't you?)

It is definitely not a matter of technology as in society's ability to perform technical tasks.
I am going to touch political issues a bit - not party vs party, but yet;  and I would respect moderator's request not to continue. I will outline my answer though.

First world values human labor, especially in financial terms. It came to the point that it is too expensive for anyone - including those in US - to pay for US labor without second thought. And if it has to be - it is cheapest that can do the job...

[bandit957]

Better for whom? For those with cable? Or for those who could use radio frequencies made available by the switch?
Yes it sucks for those at the edge of reception zone.

The old way was better for anyone who doesn't have cable.

[bandit957]

I commute 2 hours a day and my only audio choice is radio. The reception these days does not seem as robust as it used to be when I was younger. I do not know if it is less robust antennas, or if it is interference from other wireless devices, or if it is just my imagination.

Two reasons: 1) Radios aren't as good as they used to be. 2) The FCC has made the dial too crowded.

[kalvado]

Better for whom? For those with cable? Or for those who could use radio frequencies made available by the switch?
Yes it sucks for those at the edge of reception zone.

The old way was better for anyone who doesn't have cable.

Which is already a minority - 99 out of 126 million households in US have paid TV (cable, satellite.. ), and number of internet-only households grows..

[vdeane]

Better for whom? For those with cable? Or for those who could use radio frequencies made available by the switch?
Yes it sucks for those at the edge of reception zone.

Not just the edge of reception.  If you put my address into a system like TVFool, it says I have strong signal on all the major channels.  In practice, however, that is not the case.  CBS is the only station to come in loud and clear consistently without messing around with my antenna (on the other hand, when it has issues, there is nothing I can do about it, either).  FOX, NBC, and ABC come in year round, though they often require me to mess around with the antenna.  PBS, CW, etc. only come in during the colder months and even then always require a large amount of futzing around with the antenna to be watchable.

Honestly, I'd take a SD analog signal that was watchable consistently over an HD signal that is often choppy or gone.  No change of me ever getting cable, either; I don't watch enough TV to make it worthwhile (particularly since most of what I watch is on the broadcast channels anyways), and in any case, I don't want to have to deal with a box (and therefore a third remote and having to change inputs whenever I want to watch TV) when my TV's built-in tuner works perfectly fine.

[1995hoo]

See my avatar. Technological regression is real.

[empirestate]

My impression about huge call centers is that it is hard low-wage job where people are paid by the hour and successful resolution of calls is not the top performance metrics.
At the end of the day, you get what you pay for - even if you're not the one who pays directly for the service.

So how would you say that fits in to the original question? (Or don't you?)

It is definitely not a matter of technology as in society's ability to perform technical tasks.

How about some of the other examples? The TV thing, or analog vs. digital recording? Those wouldn't be due to peoples ability to perform technical tasks, would they?

[Revive 755]

Also, I think records were better than CD's.

Debatable if more than sound quality is considered.  I don't recall cars every having record players or there being a portable record player that listened to while walking.

[abefroman329]

What about just those cases where someone actually does attempt to transfer a call–or an automated system does it–and the transfer simply fails to happen correctly?

I work for a credit card company - that just doesn't happen.

Or, if that isn't something you've observed personally, what about some other examples of regression that you've experienced? I just don't want us to get too sidetracked on the issue of terrible customer service, which is really a whole other topic and probably quite separate from the technology issue.

I mean, I think technology begat terrible customer service, but...

Technology takes away flexibility. I can't tell a kiosk at McDonalds I want, say, well-done bacon or an untoasted bun. An airline kiosk can't put me on an earlier flight I'm not actually entitled to take. A hotel app will let me pick my own room, but can't recommend one based on a specific set of criteria I can give to a front desk clerk.

And I'm not sure social media is good for society overall, either.