Old Stockholm Telephone Tower
Posted3 months agoActive3 months ago
en.wikipedia.orgTechstoryHigh profile
calmpositive
Debate
20/100
TelecommunicationsHistoryNetworking
Key topics
Telecommunications
History
Networking
The Old Stockholm Telephone Tower, a historic telecommunications hub, sparks discussion about the evolution of telephone networks and their infrastructure.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
1m
Peak period
22
48-60h
Avg / period
6.5
Comment distribution52 data points
Loading chart...
Based on 52 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 2, 2025 at 3:12 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 2, 2025 at 3:13 AM EDT
1m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
22 comments in 48-60h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 9, 2025 at 1:26 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
ID: 45447057Type: storyLast synced: 11/20/2025, 8:00:11 PM
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
But it wasn't 1:1, so you would have lets say 100 homes connected to a local exchange, and that local exchange would have say 20 lines to the next exchange in the network. That placed limits on the amount of concurrent connections you could have from one area - if 21 homes all tried to call people in the next city over, at least one of them would get a signal that all circuits are full and they would have to try again later. It drastically reduced the amount of lines you need between local exchanges though.
I guess it helped that phone calls were quite expensive, so people generally made very short calls. I haven’t really thought about this before but one of the main reasons for the pricing system could have been the facts that you mentioned.
In Sweden, the pricing system was tiered. Same area code (roughly: same municipality) = lowest rate. Neighbouring area codes = higher rate. Outside of that = highest rate. The rate was halved after 6pm. A reason for lowering the rates in the evening might have been that there were far less business users calling after 6pm.
One of the reasons I remember the pricing system is that my parents would not be happy if I dialed in to a modem pool before 6pm :)
Before I was born, the telephone company in Sweden (Televerket, later Telia) started to upgrade their system to use digital telephone exchanges (AXE). But there were of course still some kind of hard limit for how many concurrent calls they could handle, so I guess that’s why they kept the pricing system for a while.
This is partly speculation on my part, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plain_old_telephone_service
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_telegraph
Using a switch, each connection is a literal physical circuit. Multiplexing allows multiple circuits per phone line (through frequency separation at the carrier-frequency level), and much early telephony research involved increasing the multiplexing capacity and consequent issues.
With packet-switched networks, the only circuits are the interconnects between routers, and each individual data packet can take a different route. Subject to quality of service / service level agreements (QoS / SLA), it's possible to support far more distinct individual connections over packet-switched networks, though there still remains a maximum total bandwidth. For time-sensitive modalities (e.g., realtime voice or video), excess traffic leads to congestion and buffering, distortion, or interference, so limits remain. But they're far more generous than with circuit-based networks.
Put another way, packets give a greater assurance of establishing a link between any two nodes, whilst circuits give a greater assurance of a minimum bandwidth floor between those nodes. If you can get a connection, circuit-based line quality is often (though not always) superior, in terms of consistency, clarity, and low latency.
In the US, a PRI can handle up to exactly 23 concurrent, native g.711u phone calls. That's it's capacity: No more, and no less. It's always 23, with each concurrent call using exactly 64kbps of symmetric bandwidth....just because that's the number of B channels provided.
But if we take that same PRI and make it do IP packets instead using MLPPP, then our capacity is actually reduced. By adding the magic of packet switching, we also add overhead. And with that added overhead, we can only get only get ~19 g.711u calls through that same circuit.
(Now, sure: In a bigger picture, that PRI may be better utilized as an IP pipeline than as a dedicated telephony circuit. It's certainly more flexible that way.
But packetization is not something that automatically improves capacity. It often does the opposite.)
From some quick DDGing, PRI (primary rate interface) is one of several possible options for a packet-switched telephony system, and is specifically contrasted with SIP VOIP connections in this article:
<https://enterprise.spectrum.com/support/faq/voice-and-collab...>
NB, "always 23" ... unless you're in Europe, in which case 23 === 30.
More on PRI vs. SIP: <https://enterprise.spectrum.com/support/faq/voice-and-collab...>.
(Other than being able to spell PRI and the above articles, I've no knowledge on the topic.)
> NB, "always 23" ... unless you're in Europe, in which case 23 === 30.
I believe I was very specific about the locality I was referring to, but I am appreciative of the seemingly-disingenuous pedantry that is apparently unfettered by such arcane concepts as "context".
It wasn't clear from your comment (or the source I'd read) that PRI is circuit based.
The fact that circuits can be multiplexed (whether through frequency-separation, timeslicing, or other mechanisms, see <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiplexing> for general MUXology) is irrelevant. They are still circuits. And there are limits to how many circuits can be maintained at a single time, regardless of the apparent endpoint combinatorial possibilities.
Packet-based switching has far greater capacity and flexibility, as I, my sources, and several other comments to this thread, have noted.
Pedantry aside, you seem to be confirming my initial point.
We have data flowing at rate N. It fits perfectly and precisely through a pipe of N size, with no room to spare (as is the way of a PRI).
We add to this data additional packetization overhead that was never present before.
So where we once had N, we now have N + >0.
That's more than N. The pipe is still only N, though -- it hasn't changed at all. The data no longer fits; it cannot fit.
Capacity is thus reduced by the addition of packetization.
The philosophical battle was centralist vs decentralised, for-purpose vs generic infrastructure, single-mode vs. multi-mode network applications, circuit-switched guaranteed QoS vs. best-effort packets, waterfall vs. iterative development and investment. Packets won for general purpose networking, because the nature of physics and bureaucracy meant the cost and time savings for operators and users were substantial.
And I agree, completely: There's very good reasons for packet-switched networks having won over TDM technologies like PRI, with IP to tie it altogether. What we've arrived at is beautifully generic in that the packets themselves don't care at all about what combination of lower layers were used to get them from A to B. However it gets there, it's just IP. That's really neat.
Latency-wise, I'm a little torn: With the latency involved in a normal phone call on my normal cell phone today, I find that I "talk over" people on phone calls more than I did decades ago in the TDM days. The pacing is very different than it was.
Sometimes, when the echo cancellation fails at some level, I can hear myself echo from the far end of a call.
That echo is annoying, but I mention it because it is something that lets me hear the latency of the call. It's often on the order of 500ms RTT...which is quite a lot. We never had latency like that in the TDM days for domestic calls.
(Historically, in TDM world: The voice data always arrived at the right time and there was also always a place to put it at the right time. It was real-time instead of best-effort, so there just wasn't any utility to having any large buffers along the way: The timing was either resolutely correct or it didn't work at all. Things are a lot mushier today.)
It seems plausible that if the phone had only just been invented, you'd initially set up small systems that would in fact allow any line to connect to any line. That'd be fine for maybe even a few dozen lines. But as the image shows, that doesn't scale too well.
Under PSTN, public-switched telephone networks, a not-infrequent occurrence, especially when calling long-distance, was to get a message "all circuits are busy". When each call was literally a circuit, and the "switch" (the central telephone exchange) made and broke those circuits as calls began and ended, my understanding (not my area of expertise, but one of some interest) is that this meant that all available interchange connections were occupied. For long-distance, this was typically far lower than for local calls (most phone traffic is local), and for international calls, lower still. The first transatlantic telephone cable could support only 36 simultaneous calls, in 1956. Calls were short, expensive, and all but exclusively for business and government subscribers.
<https://hamhistory.org/first-transatlantic-telephone-cable/>
I'd expect that the Stockholm exchange probably supported a few hundred simultaneous calls, probably a few (a dozen or so perhaps) per operator, who had to physically connect each call.
A lot of phone systems saturated themselves when things first shut down. Probably not physical copper constraints but the virtual interconnects between providers:
https://productioncommunity.publicmobile.ca/t5/Get-Support/A...
https://archive.ph/D9qQ4
There were also systems outages, such as the 1988 Hinsdale switching station which took out phone service to most of the Chicago area (both local and long-distance):
"1988 PHONE CRISIS TIED TO 1 BROKEN POWER LINE" (1988)
Turns out that that switch was a SPOF:
To make sure such a crisis doesn`t happen again, Illinois Bell Telephone Co. announced Friday it is embarking on a $80-million, five-year program to construct a complete duplicate telephone network system throughout its Chicago suburban operation and to redesign its fire protection systems.
<https://www.chicagotribune.com/1989/03/11/1988-phone-crisis-...>
But what if you then connect a second pair of phones, leaving the first patch in place? 4998 choices for A by 4997 for B again divided by two. And so on, until you place the 2500th patch on the board. But then there's more division to do, because there are 2500! different sequences to fill the board with that exact same pattern. It's a fun little combinatorics exercise.
Still, pretty astronomical.
When you made a call, your local operator would have connected you either to a local number on their own board, or to another local board as needed. That second operator would have then connected you to the desired number.
Each board would only have limited connection lines to each other board (or to a branch exchange). So if all the connections from board A to board B (or to the branch exchange) were in use, the caller would have to try again later.
Each wire carries just one signal at a power that would easily interfere with others, they needed relatively thick wires separated from each other. You see pictures of poles with lots of cross bars carrying lots of wires in this period.
Once amplification was practical they could use the thin telephone wires bundled together in a cable, each wire carrying a much fainter signal that can be easily amplified as needed.
Amplification existed but it took the vacuum tube to get it affordable and reliable for each circuit to have its own amplification.
As for why you didn't see similar constructions in other cities, this was definitely an unusually large telephone office for the time. In the US, a city exchange of the late 20th century would usually have just hundreds of lines, many of them multi-party. Telephone companies scaled up by building more exchanges, rather than a single very large one. When they got into these kinds of subscriber numbers at an exchange, the F1/F2 cable scheme was in use to avoid this kind of wiring. It does seem to be the case that telephone adoption was unusually rapid in Sweden, I find one (poorly sourced) claim that there were some 4,800 telephone subscribers in Stockholm in 1886 which would very likely make it the most telephone-rich city in the world. The situation of the tower seems to have developed in part because its builder, Allmänna, was consolidating the Stockholm telephone market through acquisitions and made a decision to centralize the many acquired customers onto on exchange.
What I'm a little confused about here is the lack of cables. The other big reason you didn't see constructions like this in the US, even in places like New York City, is because subscriber loops were quickly moved into lead-sheathed, paper-insulated multi-pair cables. These could contain hundreds of pairs. Cables were pretty much reaching maturity when this tower was built. I am curious as to the reason that multi-pair cables were not adopted more quickly in Stockholm, but it may be as simple as the considerable investment in this tower making open wire the preferred option for its short lifespan. In any case, the common claim that underground cables obsoleted the tower rings hollow to me, or at least misses an important detail, as aboveground cables were already in use in the 1880s. I suspect that modernization to cables was just deferred in Stockholm until it happened to also make sense to move to duct or pipe systems. In the US, it was more common that telephone exchanges switched to overhead (aerial) cable to manage exactly the wire sprawl issue that this tower exemplifies, and then only later (if ever) started to bury cables.
This article has more photos of the tower, but unfortunately not much more technical history: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-stockholm-telephone-tow...
And this includes some photos of other parts of the Stockholm telephone network. The tower was not the only impressive construction required to manage this many open-wire pairs: https://thehistoryinsider.com/when-the-sky-over-stockholm-wa...
For some perspective here - it took until the mid-80s for most of Germany to be connected to a phone line. That is, the 1980s.
I recently talked about that with my father after I found a postcard from one of my uncles from the early 80s confirming meeting and dinner plans. While I remember them always having a phone they were one of the households only connected in the mid 80s - which in retrospect explains some of the things I've found odd about them when talking to them by phone. It was a new thing for them.
(My parents got connected early on - my mother used to work for the post office in the phone exchange, and one of the perks of the job was priority for getting a phone line. Which also explained why we had an old grey phone, while pretty much all my friends had a relatively modern - for the time - one: they all only somewhat recently got phones)
https://www.reddit.com/r/HalfLife/comments/e809fn/cant_help_...
I can imagine lots of lessons learned from telephone networking helped shape ideas around computer network design.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redevelopment_of_Norrmalm?wpro...