New-York tribune., 1901-03-10
TELEPHONE MONOPOLY OR COMPETITION

TELEPHONE MONOPOLY OR COMPETITION
The decision of the United States Circuit
Court invalidating the Berliher telephone pat
ent has given n great impetus TO speculation
over the possibilities of independent telephone
companies. In st. Louis, Pittsburg. Baltimore
Cleveland, Rochester. indianapolis, Syracuse
and some other cities independent service in
competition with the Bell system is main
tained with a considerable degree of success and
popularity, and much talk is heard of the in
VasiOn of rivals into the New-York field OF
course the Boston decision will be appealed
from and may be overthrOwn but assuming
that what is at present established as the law
Will on review be sustained, and taking il for
granted that with the legal door opened in
dependents will compete in good faith with the
Bell companies, and not merely start up for
strike" and 10 be bought out, the question re-
ours to the possibilities of divided telephone
service.
Anything TO which the word monopoly is at
tached is commonly regarded as something TO
be broken up. 1t should not be forgotten, how
ever. that the telephone business is in sense
a natural monopoly. The more completely the
telephone lines Of n city or larger area are
under the control OF one company the better
for the patrons Of the telephone. This sort of
monopoly is not dependent on patents or fran
chises. Give 10 rivals the free right TO every
appliance the Bell people have and the oppOr-
tunity to parallel their lines at will, and still
forces would be working quite outside the com
peting companies to bring them together either
by absorption or in friendly interchange of bust
ness. or through the creation of telephone
trust. In the towns where independent COM
panies operate the general usefulness of
toll in Al
cess. Lawyers, doctors business men and all
others who have relations with the general pub
lie are obliged TO pay for a double telephone
service. This robs them of whatever advantage
might accrue from lowering of rates under COM
petition. The usefulness Of a telephone Is large
ly conditioned by the number of other people
who can be reached by ii. To find that half of
your business or social acquaintances are on
some other line and cannot be connected with
you is discOuraging. In the end the company
with the largest patronage must occupy the
field exclusively and telephones are inn
proved and the area is widened within which
cheap and satisfactory conversation is possible
the company that put the subscriber in
communication with the largest number OF cities
and give the most extended service must tri-
umph
Rivalry may be useful in Fastening the reduc-
ton or rates and forcing those already in the
field TO give the public the benefit of every
economy as well as of every improvement But
In the long run single system Is inevitable
That single system may he Of operation
rather thah ownership, and 10 that extent the
natural tendency TO monopoly may be checked
At present subscribers of one company have no
access TO the subscribers of rival A tele-
phone company is NOT a common carrier. as are
obliged TO take goods and messages from rival
and In turn hand them over TO a rival if des-
uhed TO points only on iCs lines. Courts in
some States show growing tendency to as
siniiate TO the law Of common carriers the rules
governing the conduct of new business more or
less connected with public convenience. Pos
sioiy the law may be judicially developed to