The Palatka news and advertiser. [volume] (Palatka, Fla.) 1908-19??, 1914-11-13

Board of Public Utility Commissioners, March 81,
1914.
There is unquestionably no need for the du-
plication of telephone facilities in the village of
Addison It will unquestionably be to the advan-
tage of all concerned if the telephone facilities OF
the community are furnished and maintained
through one organization rather than through
two"-Michigan Railroad Commission, February
II, 1918.
1.-TWO telephone companies affording identi-
cal facilities in the same community constitute
burden, not convenience, and in the opinion OF
the Commission should not be encouraged" ok
lahoma Corporation Commission, April IL, 1913
"The service to the subscriber where there
are two exchanges maintained in a town OF the
size of Soper is usually worth about two-thlrds as
much as the service would be worth if the tele-
phones were in one exchange. "-Oklahoma Cor
poration Commission, April 30, 1913.
at can be no longer seriously doubted that
with regulation the widest and most ethclent TEL
ephone service as we'll as the lowest rates, are
possible only when one operating company has
the entire business of a community or territory.
It is waste of capital and disadvantage to the
public to have two such corporations competing
with each other for the telephone business, en-
numbering the streets with two sets OF poles ana
wire forcing large proportion of the population
to paw for both services and the rest to be salts
fled with restricted service in that they can only
reach the one set of subscribers. NEBRASKA
State Railway Commission, June 26, 1913.
A CHOICE OF EVILS.
'"The general considerations in favor OF I'M
flied and comprehensive operation OF public utlll-
ties as against rival service in the same locality,
are perhaps stronger in the of telephone ser
vice than in the case of other pubic utlltles. 10
the consumer of gas, water or electric current it
usually matters but little, directly, whether his
neiqhbors take service from the same source OF
suppv In telephone service, however, lntercOm-
mrnication is the heart of the matter Subscrlb-
ers to rival exchanges in the same community are
separated from each other, except under the pen
altv of subscribing to both companies. The COM
rotInication of the Merchants Association OF New
York addressed on June 20, 1905, to the Board OF
Estimate and ApportiOnment in opposition to the
GRANT of franchise to any Independent company
in that city, puts the matter in nut shell, where
it says:
"Competition in telephone service does not
offer choice of benefits, but cOmpels choice OF
evils-either half service or double price"
The New Orleans Board of Trade, in its re
port in 1908 reached the same conclusion, and
concluded that
"The interests of the city will be best served
bv having only one system; provided always,
that the proper regulations as to service rates
and extension of it's business can be enforced so
as to safeguard the rights of the public"
There doubtless have been cases where for
time competition in telephone service resulted,
or seemed to result, in lowered prices and improv-
ed service.
"rThe Board therefore, is strongly of opinion
that as general proposition competitive tee-
phone service is not necessary and proper for the
public convenience, and does not properly con-
serve the public interests New Jersey Board
of Public Utility Commissioners, May 49,. 1913.