Metroliner telephone article 4095

James Robinson

That's not the way it happened. I think you're comparing today's technological circumstances against that of the past.

In the 1960s and 1970s technology did not advance as quickly as it does today. Today, every few years the price of electronic computers drops while the power grows. Back in the 1960s this was going on, too, but at a much slower pace. A piece of gear would last in service would typically last 10 years in primary service before retirement, then would be used 5 more years in secondary (used) service. (I've seen business many machines in service for 35 years! It wasn't cost effective to replace them.) Today gear lasts 3-4 years and it's junked. Technology gear was extremely expensive back then, and not something you abandon after just a few years.

Further, behind the scenes (like the old Volkswagons) the Bell System was continually making subtle improvements to the network to improve efficiency and hold costs down.

When Sprint and MCI came along, they took off the high profit segment of the market leaving Bell stuck with the entrails. The FCC long ago set--as national policy--uniform national rates. In other words, a long distance call was the same charge regardless of the costs to complete. People on high volume circuits (ie NYC to Washington) subsidized those on low volume circuits (ie Butte to Billings). If Bell was allowed, it could've easily undercut MCI's and Sprint's rates and raised them in high cost areas, but that wasn't FCC policy. Further, Bell maintained very high reliability standards--if Sprint or MCI failed--which they often did--they just told their customers to use Bell.

Under the regulatory system Bell was mandated to work under, customers who wanted Sprint or MCI should've been requird to take ALL their service from them. So if they wanted a rural area or there was network trouble, they would've been SOL. In that case, it would not have been such a bargain. Or, Bell should've been allowed to charge cost sensitive rates instead of averaged rates.

The Bell Labs history "Engineering & Science--Switching" describes the varied Bell System business products of that time. I've seen them in service. Pre-Divesture Bell offered an excellent product line and service to back it up. I am not sure there were significant cost-benefit--and service--benefits to other equipment prior to the breakup. (The few I saw in service were pretty lousy, saved money yes but not good quality). I've seen several organizations that owned their own private switchgear abandon it and go to Bell to get better service. (SEPTA city transit was one, Phila city govt was another.)

I do agree that certain pricing policies could've been adjusted, but again, that was due to express government policy of cross subsidization. Diviesture had nothing to do with that. Business customers paid a premium to keep residential service low. Now we pay a surcharge on our bills to do the same thing.