Evening star., 1938-07-20
INTERSTATE AREA
TELEPHONE RATES
STUD|EDBYF.C.C. c.
Services in Sections Akin
to D. c. Subject of Probe
Begun in Texas.
NO REGULATORY BODIES
CONTROL SUCH SECTORS
Difference in Costs to City and
Suburban Users for Same
Calls Pointed Out.
Nv WILLIAM ]. WHEATLEY.

BY WILLIAM j. WHEATLEY.
Telephone exchange rates involving
services across State lines. such as
between the District and nearby areas
Of Maryland and Virginia, now are
being studied by the Federal Com
munications Commission. A special
investigation has been inaugurated
IN the Kansas City (KansD area,
where. it was said. the telephone COM
pany is seeking to provide flat-rate
telephone service to several towns
where toll service is now in operation.
The services would cross State lines.
1t developed at the offices of the
Communications Commission that in
the case of the local area neither
Federal. State nor District of Columbia
bodies have taken jurisdiction over
these interzone rates. Furthermore. it
was pointed out, rates between this
city and nearby territory have never
been filed with the national regulatory
body.
Study May Be Guide.
There is apparent ambiguity in the
act governing the power of the Federal
body over the exchange rates and it
was indicated that the commissions
study of the Kansas City situation
may serve as a guide to action it will
take in controlling these rates. There
are number of similar situations in
various parts of the country. such as
New York and New jersey. New York
and Connecticut, and Philadelphia,
Pa. and Camden, N J.
The Communications Act purports
to take from the commission juris-
diction over exchange rates crossing
State lines where regulated by State
commissions. However, it is the con-
tention OF commission tariff experts
that even Congress cannot confer
jurisdiction over interstate rates on
the States, and the Supreme Court
held as much some years ago in the
Wabash railroad rate case.
Pending completion of the investi-
CATION and the Kansas City report,
which will serve as test, it was in
dicated that nothing will be done here
or in similar arrears in the absence of
formal complaint by some citizen
or group.
Variance in Costs.
1t costs subscribers in nearby Mary
land. it was pointed out, about so cents
more per month than it does residents
OF the District for the same services.
In other words, it was added, person
In the District can use the facilities
nf 10 10 TO
into nearby Maryland at a cheaper
rate than a person in the same terri
tory in Maryland can use similar IA
cilities to talk into the District.
The Communications Act defines
telephone exchange service" as serv-
tenn of exchanges within the same
exchange area operated to furnish
subscribers service of the character
ordinarily furnished by a single ex-
change
However, in the belief of tariff ex-
perts, exchange services in two areas
cannot be interconnected and called
part of the same area where the
two sections are across State lines.
Such a system, it was asserted, if
allowed to grow, would build up a
so-called zone where nobody would
have control over the rates, as is
apparent now in the interzone areas.
If allowed to continue, for instance.
it was contended, then ultimately it
could grow between two cities such
as Baltimore and Washington, called
an interzone rate. but really an inter
state service and without the realm
Of regulation.