Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-10-04
THESOUTHERN BELLS PROGRESS
TOWARD MONOPOLY.

4 Il
The interview with Manager Bonney,
sof the Southern States Telephone Com
IS any, given elsewhere to-day, contains
interesting data. Let us look at them
3 and their bearing on the present tele-
phone situation for moment.
The Southern Bell Company gave as
its reason for raising it's rates for bust
ness phones TO $50 year that lit was
& losing from 81 600 to $4,000 year on its
old rates. This was its contention be-
fore the Committee of the Board of
Trade and Business MEMS Association,
and has been its contention through
out.
How does this appear in the light of
Il Mr.. Bonney's Interview? Mr.. Bonney
says chat at the advent of the Southern
a States Telephone Company in the local
Y Held the Southern Bell Company, which
then had a monopoly. was charging $40
IS year for residence phones. The
Southern States charged s25 year for
residence phones, and found that it
could probably operate it's system at
U that figure. The Southern Bell did not
content itself with meeting the $50 per
annuIn charge of the Southern States;
iteEcnt its residence rate, from $40 a
year to s1S, reduction at stroke of
S22S from its own, and of 81 from the
rate of the Southern States. Thus. the
Fell Company made the very rate of
which It complains. and which it says
mafo it Impossible for 1t to operate its
system profitable. In other words, 1t
is now seekinglto profit by it's own i'll
doing by making business men pay for
the alleged losses occasioned by its own
rate cutting.
Another interesting bit of history re-
called by Mr. Bonney is that the Bell
Company inaugurated it's system here
and operated until after the advent OF
the Southern States without having
asked 81 for, or secured, any franchise
~ tsoever freraa the city. After the
system of the Southern States was put
IN, under a franchise granted by the
city, and after the Bell Company had
cut rates. the Bell Company was reluct
Antly compelled to accept the franchise
rom the city republlshed in these col
y nmns In last Sundays edition), on pain
"a of being forced to remove it's poles and
Tres from the city streets. With the
TERMS Of this franchise. according to
y All Bonney, the Southern Bell has
s. never compiled. Although Its franchise
cont aimed the following plain, manda-
+ tory clause: The Bell Telephone and
= elegraph Company, it's successors and
assigns. shall not furnish service al
+ ates beloto those charged by any other
teisphone company in the city of Nor
for the same service the Bel
81 Company maintained its SIS rate for
q residences instead of complying with
Is ciassse of Its franchise, which re.
4 Tired it to raise It's residence rate to
x he rate charged by the Southern
stes) Thus, not only was the Bel
COMPANY responsible for the alleged
toss of which 1t complains, and which
J; offers In excuse for now raising rates
ia business houses. but, according to
"a d. I5onney. dt actually violated plain
siston OF Its franchise to bring about
Il ne MI eyed loss.
Ism trangs as It may seem, neither the
81 hose business 1T was to see that
lie Bell DmpAry complied with Its
( Etranrh Use. nor The Southern States
conpany to whose interest, as we'll as
q the Interest pf the citizens Of Nor