On Jun 22, 3:42 am, > [TELECOM Digest Editor's Note:
Sorry to disagree but in 1975 our home had two different service lines, one was flat rate, the other (my phone) was message rate. Not a problem at all, indeed, it was common in households with multiple lines. As mentioned, when I visited people's homes that had multiple phone lines, I would be directed to reach line to use.
The Bell System was not uniform. As we've seen, flat rate packages were called by different names in different places. It's entirely possible the tarrifs in your area would not allow different line types while in our area they did, so both our experiences were correct.
I know that in the 1970s phone rates and packages varied significantly from place to place. For some reason, Bell of Pennsylvania's rates ran cheaper. I recall being quite surprised at finding out in other cities flat rate service was very expensive, indeed, everying else (extension rental, message units, etc) were more expensive too. However, I think Bell of Pa INTRA state tolls were higher than what other states charged, however, maybe that cross subsidized local service.
In some places Bell wasn't making much money from local tarrifs because of inflation and local issues. While cities offered great economies of scale, they had problems too. In the 1960-70s urban problems -- vandalism, deadbeats, equipment theft, toll fraud, assaults, unqualfied labor pool, arson, crowded conduits -- became rather costly for the Bell System. Perhaps as a result in some cities they took a tougher line than others.
One thing the Bell System --and regulators -- did not like was "bootleg" customer-owned extension telephones. These became very popular in those years. Either surplus 300 sets or AE/ITT sets were available for sale from electronics stores for about $10-15. At $1/ month extension rental, these phones would pay for themselves in about a year or so. A lot of people resented paying that rental for an extension phone. But as mentioned, the regulators wanted that profit to cross-subsidize the cost of basic service. If you wanted only one phone set and message rate service, it was pretty cheap (party line was even cheaper). Remember, they gave you one telephone set as part of the monthly fee, it was the _additional_ extensions that cost rent.
Another legitimate reason Bell didn't like bootleg sets was interference with the network and repair costs _they_ got stuck with. Remember back then Bell was responsible for any and everything broken at _their_ cost. So, if someone messed up wiring a bootleg extension and shorted their line or created heavy static, then callers would be bothering the operator to verify the line and even a repair order might be generated. This happened a gerat deal; the phone company would trace out the trouble and order the offeder to remove the bootleg extension at once or their service would be cut off.
This applied to business customers too as well as early computer users. If you wanted to use a wired non Bell modem, you better have the interface protection installed.
As we know, at the time of divesture, Bell ceased to rent out extension phones and customers bought their own. This was going to happen regardless of Divesture because by that point Bell knew customers resented it and it was costing Bell more money to send out repairmen 24/7 than they were getting in rental revenue. The new Bell offered a repair contract -- at extra charge -- which was in essence what they were doing before as part of the montly service fee.
There was an excellent book about divesture, unfortunately I no longer have it and can't recall the title. But it discussed it from the point of view of regulators and company officials concerned with service quality. It is clear they all had some very legitimate concerns about the future. Some didn't come to pass as a result of new and better technology and lower rates, but others did as they feared and we just accept those nuisances today.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Well, Lisa, perhaps _your_ Bell telco was loose about multiple phones and classes of service in the same residence, but _my_ Bell telco (Illinois Bell) was not. Quite a few Chicagoans could tell you horror stories about having ordered that sort of service, and occassionally 'getting away with it' only to get caught later on and punished (by back-dated charges, etc.)And regards illigitimate extension phones you bootlegged and installed on your own, Illinois Bell was not very happy about those either. We had people who would insist that 'Bell could not tell the difference' as long as you kept all the ringers disconnected except for the one (phone you were paying for) and you did not unneccessarily tamper with any of the phones and you disconnected and took away the bootlegged phone(s) whenever you had a reason to call repair service. PAT]