The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1912-08-02

| uOudH.
Col C. B. Edgar of the Oklahoma
City Times in recent editorial has
pointed out the benefits that come
fro mthe merging of competing tele-
phone plants, his reference to the
question of increased rates under a
monopoly undoubtedly being wholly in
connection with the sometime popu-
lar belief that such a monopoly might
result in unfair rates, rather than
with any question as to the need of
increased rates with larger telephone
exchanges. The editorial which has
caught the attention of many editors
and accordingly been published in
many papers is as follows
There is a movement - whether
from one concentrated center or not,
We do not know-for the. consolidation
of telephone systems. We know some
thing about it along the Missouri
river, down through Nebraska. Kan
sas, Missouri and Oklahoma, but
whether the same great organization
is extending through the east or not,
we do not know, but it seems that as
far east as Detroit. the telephone com
panies are being consolidated.
Unless the consolidation of these
various companies shall lead to the in
crease of rates nobody will object, for
the telephone business should be, and
by nature is monopoly. In towns
and cities where two companies have
existed, or are now existing, the peo-
pie are complaining bitterly. The
business people have to take both
phones to accommodate their custom
ers or to reach all their business as
sociates. Two phones on the desk
over two different lines are a nuisance.
1t is almost impossible TO tell which
one has been rung, and then when a
man gives you his telephone number.
you VIII be certain to get the wrong
system.
Besides, the two lines running par
allel are a nuisance that is unneces-
sary The stringing of telephone lines
all over town may be necessary nui-
sance 1--WE thing not, for they could
be put under ground). but duplicate
lines are certainly undesirable. In
duplication we therefore have the un-
necessary expense of The plant. un-
necessary expense of the llnes. and
large portion of the salary account en-
tirely unnecessary in the double sys
tenn. In the end, therefore, it would
seem that one system in town would
be altogether preferable to two.
Yet there is opposition to the con
.solidaticn of the lines, nearly always
because people fear the advance Of
rates and they loow with suspicion
upon anything in the nature Of mono
poly. This wear is ungrounded when
we consider that telephone companies.
like railroads. have been constructed
as common carriers and therefore
have come under the jurisdiction of
the commerce commissions. The COM
missions have power to regulate rates.
telephones. telegraphs. railroads. etc.
SO after all there is a great pre-
ponderanee of weight in favor of the
consolidation of telephone companies
In the long distance service the ad-
vantage also is very manifest in con
solidatfon. Even though the law com
pells the connection Of lines OF one
company with those of another. there
Is lack OF harmony and organization.
which would be obtained upder one
ownership Many people therefore.
who have examined the subject are
not averse to this consolidation move
ment that is going on
80