The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-05
LOCAL TELEPHONE Rates
Judge Wilson's Vigorous Reply TO
the Letter of Mr. Samuel Ross.
The President of the Chesapeake md
Potomac Company Declares That
Head of the New Corporation
Are Inaccurate and Misleading.

=
ment in reply to circular letter recently
made public by Samuel Ross, President Of
the Washington Telephone Company:
ITO Whom 1t May Concern: The Chesa-
peake and Potomac Telephone Company
recently issued to its subscribers who were
affected thereby a letter announcing re-
duction of rates for telephone service and
mileage, to take effect January 1, 1901. l
have received frem various sources cir
eular letter over the signature of Mr.. Sam
uel Ross, of this city. dated December "a
last, which declares that the letter of the
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com
pauy, above alluded to. is simply method
of defeating the bill FOR the incorporation
of the Washington Telephone Company,
now on the Senate calendar MIR. Ross
charges the Chesapeake and Potomac Com
pany with a want OF good faith in max
ing changes in rates, and attempts to sus-
tain that charge by statements designed
10 say that the revenues Of the Chesapeake
and Potomac Company are increased by
these changes. Some of his statements are
short of the whole truth, and his circular
letter is generally incorrect and mislead-
ing, and, as he seeks to promote his en-
terprise by misrepresenting (probably I'M
Intentionally the Chesapeake and Poto-
mac Telephone Company, l submit the fol-
lowing facts:
at is true, as stated by him, that in his
pending bill the offer is made to furnish
business telephones at s4S and residence
telephones at $50 per year, but he has not
yet made any showing that the service can
be furnished at these rates l assert that
such rates will not pay the cost of operat-
ing and maintaining such plant as he
mentions and a reasonable return on the
capital invested. When Mr.. Ross discovers
a method Of doing business at less than
cost and making profit, he will have sup
piled long felt want, and be indeed
bsnefactor.
The greater part of this circular let
ter is devoted 10 an attempt to show that
there has been no real reduction in the
rates of the Chesapeake and Potomac Tele-
phone Company. In support of this asser-
ton 1t is stated that the reduced rate of
s4S per year. which is advertised, is for
service for six parties on a line, and that
while there is a nominal reduction to the
crease in the receipts OF the company in
that it receives s2ss for a single wire as
against s36 proposed TO be charged by the
new company
Inaccurate and Misleading.
This is entirely inaccurate and mis-
leading, as an indication of the profits that
the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone
Company would derive from single line,
the inference sought to be suggested by
Mr. Ross being that while the company
receives but s125 for unlimited service
upon metallic circuit, by placing six
parties on line, it receives s2SS for the
same thing.
He does not call attention to the fact
that connected with this six-party line
there are six telephones the expense of
installing and maintaining, which is five
times greater than the expense of Install
ing and maintaining the telephone for
which the maximum rate is charged nor
does he mention the fact that the expense
of operating the six telephones is much
greater than the expense of operating
one; nor does he speak of the loops of
copper wire, varying in length from one
eighth to one-half mile, that have to be
strung and maintained from the cable
terminal to each OF the six telephones
When these things are considered, the
fallacy of the deductions of Mr. Ross be-
comes apparent.
THE same is true of the rate of $50 for
measured service at residences upon six !
party lines, as to which Mr.. Ross says:
For a measured service residence tele- |
phone the Chesapeake and Potomac Com !
pany has announced pretended reduced I
rate of $50, with six parties on line, or |
$50 for single wire. and this covers |
only Goo calls In addition to the con- |
siderations just stated, this statement is
erroneous in the further respect that it |
asserts that the use Of the line is limited |
to but 800 calls. For $50 year 500 out |
going calls are allowed each telephone, or !
$500 in all, and the number OF incoming |
calls that may be received is unlimited.
Aside from this, the two rates above
discussed land which are the only rates
criticised by Mr.. Ross IN his letter. are |
not and are not intended to be 'reduc- |
tions' of rates existing before their adop- |
tion. They are new rates. established and |
applied TO classes of service and equip
ment never before muse in this city and |
have been introduced for the purpose of |
furnishing persons OF moderate needs |
with an inexpensive service by means of
the best equipment. The rates of the
Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com
pany for unlimited service with metallic |
circuit, long distance equipment, have |
been substantially reduced. The mileage |
charges have also been reduced as fol- |
lows:
Old Present |
Mileage Charges. Rate. Rate. |
One party line. per quarter mile. SO % IS % |
Two party line per quarter mile. % 3 % |
Three or more parties. per quarter
mile 90 % /
Mileage Charges.
mileage charges are made by all tele-
phone companies that have been engaged |
in business long enough to know that it
costs much more to construct and main |
tain line two miles long than another
one mile long. 1t has however, been the
effort Of the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone Company to reduce mileage
charges as much as possible For this
purpose it was decided to establish in
the city of Washington five exchange dis
triets instead of one. and in anticipa-
tion o. the establishment OF the four new |
exchanges. the mileage charges were |
taken of upon all telephones located |
within radius Of one mile OF each of the |