Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1931-03-18
Hand Phone Profit
Held $4,000 Yearly
20 the Editor of The star:

70 the Editor Of The Star:
January IS, 1880, wrote the Chesa-
peake & Potomac Telephone Co. as fol-
lows:
Il am an interested reader Of your
advertisements. Your altruism as por-
trayed by them is striking. No end OF
the earth is unreached, no bowel Of 1t
unexplored, no alchemy unferreted, no
mechanism untried but that your sub
scribers may be benedciaries.
IAN instance will illustrate why I
am constrained to be dubious. Unque5-
tionably the one-piece transmitter
ceiver is a superior product. This you
place in the homes of subscribers at
rental Of so cents per month. It's cost
of production or purchase cannot con-
ceivably be exorbitant as compared
with that which you supply rent free.
A subscriber for more than 20 years,
with three transmitter-rece l sub
NIT I am no beneficiary of this par
itcular betterment. At the same rate
and for the same period to benefit by
this improvement you assess me nearly
$400. You preclude my benef1ting my
self, for though I can purchase the
same article or its like in the open
market for some $40 you prohibit my
you rent for use OF yours.
ITO me it is surprising that the Pub
lie Utilities Commission, seeking the
veal of the people, has not long ago
discontinued this practice. I hope you
act before it does, for action by it is
necessarily but a matter of time. May
I await your reply to the following
suggestions?
at final rental rate which shall be
the difference In purchase price be-
tween it and the rent-free article
"'(2) That it be supplied to old sub
scribers upon request at final rental
rate not greater than the purchase price.
"'(3) That subscribers be permitted
to purchase from you or others on ap-
proved type of this article on guarantee
that it shall remain in use some, say
five, years, ownership to revert to you
in case the service is discontinued
March 5, while still awaiting reply
to the above suggestions, your columns
carried a news item concerning hand
phones in which the telephone COM
pany was alleged to have supplied to
the Public Utilities Commission many
figures. The item stated, "the company
claims that by proper multiplication,
addition and subtraction" the installa-
ton of this innovation would inure in
yearly loss in its net income of $4,000.
BY the same mathematical procedures
the company's own figures show 1t to
receive a yearly return of more than
$50 900 on a permanent investment OF
far less than 5000 900. Yearly increase
in the use Of hand phones-for new
subscribers about one-half as costly as
replacing for old makes-yearly in
creaseS this profit. The subscriber, hav-
ing paid the cost Of the phone in about
one and half years, pray, what is he
paying for thereafter?
To benefit by this improvement he
must supply the funds which permit
the corporation to. purchase it, to re-
tain ownership of it and perennially to
penalize him for use Of it. incidentally.
a piece of phone wire longer than z
feet, in the course of time, will cost
him who needs and uses it mighty
sum. Many men espouse Government
ownership; still await reply to my
letter; corporate unfairness is the
answer.
WILLIAM H WILSON, NJ. D.