Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-07-12
Telephone Rates,

The action of the Chesapeake and Poto-
mac Telephone Company in voting to pass
! the regular dividend at this time attracts
| public attention to the affairs of that cor
| poration in their rela ton to the community.
| The reasons for this denial of profits to the
stockholders relate exclusively TO exrraor-
binary expenses to which the company has
been and is about to be subjected. One of
these is the requirement, owing to lack of
congressional action until this session on
the application for an extension of the con-
Quits. to erect poles and aerial lines at
times over circuitous routes. These poles
are now to become useless, and the WIRE
according to the president of the company,
will be sold for old junk. The reason next
cited for passing the dividend is the large
expense to which the company has been
put in conducting litigation growing out of
/ the rate reduction act of 1898. The public
cannot Sympa thize with the company in
| this complaint, for it deliberately subjected
| itself to those court proceedings by defy
| ing the pronounced wish of Congress and
| the people. Next Is cited the heavy expense
of the laying of conduirs under the recent
act Of Congress.
| The Presidents statement notes the fact
| that the telephone use has increased In the
District during the past four years from
1000 to 1000, through the Introduction of
| low rates" It also notes that the public
pay station rate has been reduced from ten
to five cents. notwithstanding these rate
changes by popularizing the service, the
company. of course, hopes in the end to De
| benefited by the reduction, though there
| must be a considerable temporary loss"
One of the most insistent claims of the
telephone company in its fight against rate
reduction by statute has been that as the
telephone service grows, that is to say, as
the number of subscribers and other tele-
phone users increases, the cost of the SER
vice increases and consequently the more
necessary is it to charge higher rates. Now
here is a refutation of the claim in the Ian
guage of the company's leader. The loss of
the dividend is due TO certain extraordinary
expenses, not to the increase of the bust
ness coincidentai with the decrease of the
rates. Why did the company decrease the
Understanding that they were in the net
reduced, which is a question--if not to Sc
cure more users and to make more money?
Why, for instance, was the public pay sta
ton rate cut down one-haIf, if not to invite
more calls and so increase the receipts?
The telephone company may answer
| specifically as it has heretofore answered
| is merely an equalization, whereby the tel
| ephone use is paid for according to its
| quantity and that the large user is not per-
| mitted to secure equal service with the
small user for the same rate while the
| small user is not required to pay as high a
| rate as the large user. But the company
/ has at the same time claimed repeatedly
| that the net rate per telephone and per
| message was reduced, while the business
! has grown How is this compatible with
| the old claim that use-increase causes cost
| increase?
| The community contends that the rates
| should be reduced by Congress and not by
| the company at its own whims and under
| it's own regulations, just as the gas rate
| was some years ago reduced by Congress
| 1t holds futher that such corporation
serving the public and using the public
! spaces, should be compelled to obey the
| mandates Of the community, expressed
| through It's legislative representatives