The Washington times., 1911-05-01
BUSINESS MEN PAY
HEAVY, UNCERTAIN
RATE ON TELEPHONE
Company Will Not Make
Contract for Unlimited
Service.
EXTRA CHARGES MORE
THAN INITIAL PRICE
Bills Are From Hundred and Fifty
Dollars to Two Hundred and
Fifty Per Instrument.

If you'll walk into any store or office
in Washington and ask the proprietor
how much he pays for telephone service,
you will discover why Representive Carl
c. Anderson of Ohio has stirred up a
hornets nest among friends of the teTe-
phone company with his bill establish
ing legal telephone rates.
The difference between what Washing
ton business men are paying and what
they would pay under the Anderson bill
is about as great as the difference be-
tween the sun and the moon, If not
greater.
The Anderson bill provides that the
rate for business telephones on a single
circuit shall be $50 per annum with ser
vice unlimited. Some firms in Washing
ton are paying $3.50 Q year under the
company's self-made prices.
That's the reason there's certain to be
a lively row over the Anderson bill. The
telephone company is not without
friends in Congress, and these may be
expected TO stand up in meeting and
speak out when the time comes.
Just to Start Something.
4isdI . lllC ICdSOu NIL <AIlutI sui has
introduced a resolution for investigation
of the telephone company. He doesn't
contend that the rates specified in his
bill are the rates that should be charged
IN justice to the company and to tele-
phone users. He offers the bill merely
as basis to start work on. The in
Vestigation, which he proposes to have
conducted by the House District Com
mittee, is to produce the Information
upon which reasonable rates can be
founded.
1t is impossible to arrive at any spe-
cific conclusion in attempting to ascer-
tain what are the rates by the year for
business telephones in Washington, be-
cause the company Will not make a
contract for a stipulated sum per an
mum. The Washington business man
must pay a certain fixed sum for each
telephone, or the basis of a certain
number of calls. All calls over the fixed
number are charged al so much per call.
The company will not permit a firm to
buy unlimited service, no matter what
II is willing to pay. Therefore, the only
. way to learn how much a Washington
business man pays per annum for tele-
phone service is to find the total amount
of money he pays the company. The
bills OF no two men will be the same,
and no one man will pay the same
amount in any two years. Each pays
by the call, and not by the month or
year.
. O, - Some Specific Figures.
That these bills run into big figures
Is demonstrated by the evidence of seve-
raj firms, from whom The Washington
Times has obtained information as to
telephone charges.
One of the large retail mercantile es-
Establishments of the city, doing a busi-
ness of about $750,0O0 per annum, today
h. Fur 1lNrr -1FNrr
what ii has paid the telephone company
in the last year. It's fixed charges-for
the maximum number of calls allowed
under its contract-were $40l40. Its
charges for additional calls, at 211 cents
per call. were S76S.91, making a total of
S1,170.3l
This concern has six separate tele-
phone circuits running into its estab-
lishment, corresponding to six different
telephones. It is therefore paying $195. 05
per annum for each telephone. There's
considerable difference between that fig
ure and $50, which 1t would pay If the
Anderson bill became law.
Would Save Big Sum.
Another retail firm, doing a business
of about 100000 a year, has paid for
telephone service in the last year $50. SO.
OF this, sS50.55 was in fixed charges and
Sl51.SS for extra calls at cents each
This company has but two circuits,
which means that its telephones cost
S2SO96 each per annum. The margin in
favor Of the telephone company on this
business over what it would receive If
II got but $50 year for these telephones
Is considerable, and explains why ii
VIII be surprising If the Anderson bill
isn't severely attacked.
Inquiry among other business firms
reveals that the cost of bus ness teIe-
lhones in Washington runs from s15O 70
$50 year. Throughout the whole bust
ness section of the city complaint
aga; INST the company for its charges is
freelv expressed. Everywhere approval
is gwen the present movement in Con-
Eress' looking to sweeping investigA-
t1on and the fixing OF legal rates at
lower figures. The fact that the rates
are made by the company and not by
law is resented. and gives rise to the
belet that they are unjustifably high.
The cornpany's rates for residence
telephones also need Investigation. II
VIII make contract for a one-party
telephone at SSs per annum, but with
of cents for each additional call
Less Than Two Calls a Day.
This allows the subscriber less than
two calls a day for his s39. The COM
pany will furnish a telephone on a two
party line at $50 a year, but in that
case the subscriber is limited to one
for all additional calls. Another resi-
dence contract gives the subscriber
telephone on a four-party line for S36
a year, but limits him to 800 calls
year, with 5 cents for each additional
call. The company makes q fiat rate of
&S per annum for unlimited service
through residence telephone on
single line.
For these rates the Anderson bill SUBJ
stftutes fat rate OF $50 per annum,
and demands unlimited service on a
one-party line for each subscriber. This
provision is also bound to arouse oppo-
sition.
Mr.. Anderson said today he would
bring up his telephone bill and resolu-
tion before the House District Commit
tee. Of which he is a member, at his
first opportunity.