Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1907-05-23
INDEPENDENT PHONE PEOPLE
OPPOSED.
WOULD STOP COMPETITION
Provisions to Prevent Duplication
Meet Objectionable Permission
for ,seW System Where Another
Already Exists-Gas Men to Be
Heard Next
Madison, May %.

telephone interests of the state ap'
peared before the joint committee on
TRANSFORMATION of the senate and as
sembIy yesterday, asking that tele'
nhones be not included in the bill pro
viding for the regulation Of pubic
service utilities.
The principal objection to the regu-
lation of telephones, or rather such
regulation as this bill proposes, the in
dependents say. is that it will operate
to retard and possibly stop altogether
the growth Of the telephone business
and service In the state, except Sucn
extensions as the Wisconsin Tele.
phone company volunteered to put
in.
II. y. CritchfeId Of the Milwaukee
independent Telephone company made
the principal argument Of the after
noon. Others who appeared we're
Philip Sheridan Of Green Bay, F. {
Grant of GAINESVILLE. Edward Boiler Of
Shepoygan and r. NJ. BashfOTd. The
latter spoke as a citizen Of the stat ;.
MI. Critchfield began by explaining
that the Independent companies were
not opposed to any bill which would
provide for the protection Of the pub
lie without shutting off the develop
mont of the service. He asked that
the telephone companies be omitted
from the operation Of the bill because
the telephone as a public utility was
essentially different from other Itil
tiles and was 50 interdependent upon
the development in every village and
hamlet in the state that the kind Oh
regulation which might be applied
with success to any other utility
might be absolutely ruinous to the
telephone interests. He commended
that a gas company had monopoly
in the community where it operated,
and that the same was true Of electric
lighting, traction water heat and
power companies, but that the local
telephone company could not perfect
it's service without connection with
the local plants in other cities.
He laid considerable stress up1H
the thought that regulation Of any
utility has it's origin in necessity; that
70 Justify it there must be some actual
or threatened injury to the public.
He held that this condition did not
confront the people of Wisconsin, eX-
cept possibly in the case Of long dis
lance charges, and that the COmp3tl-
ton Of the independent companies
had served to keep down local rates
ana TO develop the service. He said
that this bill was based upon the -
SUMPTION that the telephone business
was a monopoly and that this mOnOpC
" was meeting the demand for Sery-
ice. This was Tot the condition He
held that the Bel and the independ-
ents together did not meet the de-
mand. and cited the t1Ct that WisCO /
sin las about one telephone to every
20 people. while other neiShbOrng
states have a telephone development
equal to one telephone for every ten
people. The theory of a regulated
monopoly was all right, he said, if
the monopoly really filled the field.
But he contended, that if it did ut
there was no way of developing the
telephone service in the state
Suppose" ne said, that a public
utility has all its resources tied up IL
property; how would the state go
about it to compel it to extend It's
lines? When that utility cannot raj
the money for extensions, then what
will the state do if the utility fails to
lines? This bill assumes that the
state has power to compel extension
Of service, but how can You accom-
plish this in actual, practical applica-
ton of the principle to the conditions
that might, and do i'll some instances,
EXIST"
Mr. Sheridan took the same view OF
the bill as Mr.. Critchfeld, expressing
the fear that it would hamper devel-
Opment Mr.. Boiler, who represents
one OF the independent companies
which has d contract with the Wis
consin Telephone company. considered
the provision to prevent duplication
highly advisable.
An Evening Session.
The hearing was continued at night
George P. Miller of Milwaukee ap-
pea1Tng for the Wisconsin Telephone
company. He said that his company
favored regulation. He had many
criticisms to make of the bill as to
the degree OF regulation and the man
ner of getting ut ii. He wanted
state regulation, With no powers, ex-
cept police powers left to the munich
palities He objected to the valua-
ton being made and placed upon the
books OF the company without being
subject to review by the courts. He
was especially impressed with the
tEat no license OF franchise shall be
granted for any public utility where
there is already a similar utility in
the field unless the railway commits
sion shall issue a certificate of neccs-
sity showing the need for a duphca-
ton of the utility. He said that un
less there was such protection offered
there could be no effective regulation
eff you want to serve the public with
low rates." he said, then you mus
provide that there shall not be more
utilities in the field than are neces
sary to furnish adequate and suffieten