Neither of those make sense. There was not significant competition before divesture except from other modes (ie writing a letter, telegram). If you say the Bell System had no interest in the customer, then it would not have lowered rates to meet that "pent up demand", rather just put in more lines and made all the more money.
Again that fails to explain the continual rate reductions before divesture.
The Pennsylvania Railroad/Penn Central network was privately owned, maintained, and operated, then turned over to AT&T.
Other systems include private networks of SEPTA and the City of Philadelphia.
Would you name those big city locations and the time frames for which rationing was in effect?
But businesses and schools were heavy users of time sharing by the mid
1960s -- using dial-up Teletypes. Businesses were also getting dial up dataphone services between computers.That is a tarrif issue. Rates for a business and residential line are based on expected use. A non-profit is still considered a business. Seems to me a high volume BBS should've been classified as a business line due to high volume of use.
That was after divesture and the Bell System no longer existed at that point.
Could you provide specifics of the measurements, areas in question (presumably representing significant population centers, not just an isolated location), and the time frames?
Space IS a MAJOR issue. Real estate is expensive in growing areas, whether city or suburb. ESS takes up a far smaller footprint than the equivalent No 5 crossbar location.
Yes, it is. I believe you yourself said it was the to the advtg of common control equipment to get in and out of the call as quickly as possible. A faster common control can handle more calls.
Regulated monopolies were NOT _guaranteed_ a minimum rate of return. If they were Western Union would not have gone broke nor would the railroads. In some locations of the Bell System and even today, regulators mandate below-cost services for social reasons or deny rate increases.
As Pat pointed out, Ma Bell was under constant scrutiny by the news media and govt and advocates. Shareholder gadflies made a point of disrupting stockholders' meetings every year. Activists filed constant lawsuits against the system.
I guess to really answer that claim one would have to list the latest PBX offerings of the Bell System of 1970, their cost, and the competition's offerings.
How many third party PBXs were available in 1970?
Getting back to your claim the Bell System did nothing it didn't have to, let's not forget the Princess, Trimeline, Panel, Home Interphone, and Bell Chime units.
The Eng & Sci history of the Bell System describes a multitude of PBX systems and features.
All available on Bell PBXs of the 1960s.
Not in SxS, which required extra equipment. See Eng & Sci book.
Most families we knew did not bother paying extra for "premium" telephone *sets*, BUT *did* pay +extra+ for _extensions_ in various _rooms_ and particular of a house. Having three (3) phones-- 'basement', 1st fl, 2nd fl, was very _common_ to -save- steps.
Most families we knew did not bother paying extra for premium telephone sets, but did pay extra for extensions in various rooms and particular floors of a house. Having three phones -- basement, 1st fl,
2nd fl, was very common to save steps. [Side note: Are the emphasis symbols really necessary? Compare the two paragraphs above.]I'm not sure which claims you're referring to.
I'm not claiming the Bell System was perfect, however, my own experience as a customer in large organizations was that the service was generally excellent and the company responsive, and that rates were on a decline before divesture.
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I was talking about Robert Bonomi's claims that Bell System did just what the law required of them, and not much else, unless it worked to their advantage. PAT]