Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1919-07-02

The following decisions have been
made public by the Public Utilities
Commission:
A Telephone Sale
A decision has been rendered by
the Public Utilities Commission dis
missing without prejudice the appli-
cation of the Monroe & Brooks Tele-
lhone Co. to purchase and the New
England Telephone & Telegraph Co.
to sell the property of the latter con-
nected with the Monroe exchange
md the application of the New Eng
land Telephone & Telegraph Co. to
purchase and the Monroe & Brooks
Telephone Co. to sell the latter's
telephone facilities connected with
the Searsport exchange. The de-
cision says in part:
1--WE are forced to the conclusion
that if the proposed purchase and
sale should be authorized those GUS
toners who are now being served by
the New England Co. would receive
service of less value, service which
they are not accustomed to. and
service which they expressly say
they do not want. 1t is true that
this service would be obtained at n
price less than the New England
patrons are now paying, but these
patrons find no fault with the
charges which they have to meet and
express satisfaction with the char
ecter Of the service they are re-
ceiving.
In the Searsport territory which
the New England Co. seeks to ac-
guire for it's sole occupancy, those
Monroe & Brooks service would re-
ceive New England service and
Hould have to pay New England
rates. No patrons from Searsport
appeared at the hearing and we have
in no way received any information
as to how these patrons feel with
reference to the change and have no
knowledge as to whether they have
Teen fully and definitely informed
as to what the change actually
means to them.
But unless both petitions are to
he granted we do not understand
that either can be granted. because
the petitions themselves show that
there is to be merely an exchange of
property between the two COM
panies, no money payment provided
Tor or contemplated, and, as we I'M
derstand it, no desire upon the part
CT the New England Co. to buy for
ash the facilities of the Monroe &
Brooks Co. connected with the Sears
tort exchange.
I'm any event, there is nothing in
the petition upon which we could act
with reference to the Searsport ex-
change unless we also took favorable
action along the lines suggested in
both matters. The evidence entirely
fails to satisfy us that either petition
should be granted and there are
numerous considerations which force
us to the conclusion that neither
should he granted.
I'm order that the matter may be
held somewhat open we shall dis
rliss both petitions without prejudice.
If later the Monroe & Brooks Co.
succeeds in putting its facilities into
such shape that it is giving practi-
cally the same kind of service that
the New England Co. is giving, it may
we'll follow that the patrons of both
companies will themselves feel that
elimination of plant and expense
duplication is desirable and will not
resist what will amount to con-
solidation. But at the present time
the Monroe & Brooks Co. ia not in
shape, and we know Of no way that
it can place itself in a position to so
rehabilitate its facilities as to give
anywhere near the kind of service to
which the New England patrons
lave been accustomed and which
they seem to DESIRE"