Waterbury evening Democrat., 1907-01-07
TELEPHONE SERVICE NA 4FI tffNN
0M Company Expects is See
 Asplrants For Franchises.

ture the old question of the inde- pendent telephone and It's advantages to the residents and telephone users in the state of Connecticut is being agitated about the state. In every way this matter .is being brought before the people and in almost every case from the view point of the in- dependent promoter.
 He brings forward as his two vital points the reduction in rates and the alleged improvement in service, both pertinent questions to the telephone user. The other side of the case, namely the inconvenience caused by two telephone companies operating the same territory, is completely ig- nored, while as matter of fact this Is a feature. which should be as thoroughly considered by the public as the rate question.
 Telephone service is unique in that | 1t is absolutely different from any other commodity that is placed on the market. It Is different from every other kind of goods, that is placed on the market in that, unlike for instance, water, gas or electricity there must be two people or more to make it valuable and also unlike any other commodity, in that 1t is sold for the benefit of no one person but for the entire public. Primarily and at all times it should be remem- bered that the telephone is for the convenience of the public at large. Anything that lessens this feature of the telephones usefulness naturally decreases the value of telephone con- munication.
 One of the vital things, from the subscribers view point, is the in- convenience of two telephones. In cities where two honest companies are in operation, each one doing it's best to give the highest grade of ser vice and not companies organized 1 for the purpose of floating stock, the arrogance of two companies is recognized.
 Two rival companies in a city, al- lowing that both have a stronghold, results in a division in the popula- tion into two sections in proportion to the number of subscribers taking service with new company. To quote the report of the New York Business Mems association which, through experts especially hired for the purpose, exhaustively looked into the question of telephone cempeti- tion; while single system pro- notes general intercommunicatio two systems make it impracticable. Two systems therefore restrict great ly the ability of the telephone, seri- ously impair its value and impede its commercial development.
 Competition in telephone service does not offer a choice of benefits but compels choice of evils-either half service or a double price From the point of view of the sub sc.iber, one great objection to two telephones system is plain. It would become, for instance, an absolute necessity for the business man to have both telephones in order to be in touch with his patrons. Allowing that he installed the two telephones at rate equal to the cost of one at the present time, a state of affairs not at all likely, he would fail to receive from either the service for which his money is paid.
 For example, the business man de- sires to reach customer and that in hurry. He has two telephones and naturally two telephone directories. He has forgotten which of the two systems the man he is looking for has-and it is absurd to assume that every man has both systems. He picks up one book. looks for the name of the desired party only to find that he has the wrong directory. This means that he has to go to the other directory and repeat the performance. It is also equally fair to assume that in his hurry even after he has found the correct number he may remove the receiver from the wrong instru- ment. This means loss of time and as time saved is one of the values of the telephone, this advantage is com pletely wiped out.
 An example of the inconvenience of competitive telephone service is shown in the statement of promi- nent physician in one of the large western cities where competition is in force. He said that where he had formerly had but one telephone in each of his three places of business