Grand Forks herald. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1916-1955, 1917-10-19

1t withdrew and the city was without
telephone service. for about two years.
1t ie claimed that about the year
1887 the Northwestern Telephone Ex-
change Co., installed an exchange in
this city which it has operated cons
'tinuously ever since; 1t obtained q
franchise fro mthe city August S, 1890,
h right of this company to use the
streets will be reported upon by the
committee separately herefrom; this
company furnishes both local and long
distance.
The indifference and incapicity of
the Northwestern Telephone Exchange
Co., management and the defective
service and negligent operation of its
local exchange produced such public
evaporation and irritation that in
1903, the city granted a franchise since
assigned to and under which the Tri-
State Telegraph and Telephone Co., is
now and has been for 10 or IL years
past operating an exchange fur
nishing both local and long distance
or toll service.
The Tri-State franchise provides for
a measure of regulation and control
vested in the city council, a franchise
tax amounting to about 500 per year.
and the city has the privilege. at the
expiration Of 20 years, or in 1924, to
pulc the exchange and equipment.
There are about 5000 telephones in
use in the city and East Grand Forks,
which is also served through the local
exchanges; these instruments are
divided almost equally between the
two exchanges and there are probably
from 500 to $50 Implications, leaving
from 1880 to $500 actual telephone
subscribers for both phones; the per-
centage Of duplicated phones in this
city is perhaps a little less than the av-
erage; these duplicated phones are al
most invariably business phones cost
ing from $3.50 to $500 per month
so that the city of Grand Forks and
us people are losing from $4,000 to
$4,000 per month by a of the
duplicated telephone systems without
tne PHYSICAL connection thereof and in
service.
Regulation and Physical Connection.
full power of regulation of all pub
nc utlhues has always been vested in
tne state but it never has been exer-
cisco as to telephones until 1915 when
W senate Bill l39 the telephone SOM
panles were placed under the control
OF h Railroad Commissioners and
under which duplication of svstens
rs forbidden except by permission of
the commission. W
per. ~ or this act provides in sub
sIdnce that every telephone
snail permit physical connection and
1urnlsn telephone service with any
other system. at any common point.
wherever public convenience and nee
esslty requires. and it will no result
IN substantial injury to the owners or
Users tnereof or in substantial detri-
ment to the service.
A demand probably should he
made upon the telephone companies
Tor physical connection and in the
event OF a refusal or neglect to COM
ply herewith, then a complaint
should be made to the railway COM
mlssloners which would fix a date for
a nearing at which testimony would
pe taken upon which the commits
sloners would determine whether or
n such connection was a. public con-
venience n necessity and would not
result in substantial injury to the
owners or users Of the telephone or
IN substantial detriment to the SER
vice: if the connection was not made
or rates agreed upon within a rea-
sonable time by the companies. the
commission would have authority to
require the connection to be made
and to fix the rate.
/. Physical Connection q Remedy.
Physical connection is but an in
adequate remedy for the adverse re.
suits attendant upon duplication Of
telephones; it is but an a~melioration
thereof; the true remedy will come
with single service and complete
state or municipal regulations or con-
troll, in h absence of which physical
connection should be had at the ear
Hest convenient moment.
The interest of the public demands
such physical connection without re-
curing the payment in the first in
stance OF compensation for all posi-
Bile losses of business. 1t is true that
the companies may be obliged to fur
nish facilities to transmit business or
iginatlng on lines other than their
own, but this is rue to a much great
er extent in enforcing physical con-
nection Of railways; in some cases it
may be necessary to add new lines to
accommodate increased business. but
this also was tru to a much greater
extent in the case of railway connec-
tons.
Physical connection will not relieve
all duplication OF phones and sys-
tens: many business houses would.
and do now, require two or more
phones of n system upon which to
transact its %usiness, and even with
physical connection. it would still re-
quire as many phones as at present.:
but physical connection would relieve
many business houses from the nee
essity and expense of duplicated
phones and it would do away with
all necessity for duplicated phones in
residences, and in addition it would
add to the convenience. utility and
desirability Of which ever phone was
installed, singly; the physical connec-
ton with the other system would al
ways be a. great convenience and in
cases Of emergency such as sickness.
storms. etc, it might well be of in
estimable value.
/ Physical connection would be of
great value also in connection with
the toll business and ought to in
crease the toll receipts of both com
panies: with physical connection a
subscriber Of the Northwestern sys-
tenn could make use of the Tri- State
toll lines and vice versa, where at
present he is compelled perhaps in
stormy weather. to go to a pay station
or to the central ofice with all the in
convenience and annoyance thereof.
besides being called away from. his
business OF home.
IT there were no duplication of
nhones. then one company would fur
nish all the service for one price: the
real and ultimate purpose of the
phone as a public utility is to furnish
complete service at the minimum
price and your committee believes
that. as a matter Of law. these public