TELECOM Digest OnLine - Sorted: Re: Bell Divestiture

Re: Bell Divestiture
19 Jun 2005 19:38:27 -0700

> [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]

Well, isn't that how all businesses work? Geez, they're not a charity
or a non-profit.

Mr. B.'s writing seemed very indignant when he said the Trimline and
Princess phones were only used to make extra profit. Again, isn't
that what businesses do? If the customers didn't like the premium
sets, they wouldn't have rented them. Yet they did. Obviously it was
a win-win -- the customers got something they wanted (and were willing
to pay for), and the company made money. What is so wrong with that?

Anyway, as far as the claim they merely followed the law, I believe
they spent quite a bit of money designing both the 300 and 500
telephone sets. The 500 G handset -- still in use today fifty years
later -- was carefully researched to be as comfortable and fit as many
people as possible. As a monopoly, the phone company did NOT have to
go to that much trouble. Further, they had a renown industrial
designer, Henry Dreyfus, design the set itself. This effort was not
cheap, and certainly not required by law or service.

As to the claims of not being able to support BBS's demands for new
lines, I believe that occured well after Divesture, so it was not a
Bell System problem (assuming it was as widespread as claimed).

Post Followup Article Use your browser's quoting feature to quote article into reply
Go to Next message: Robert Bonomi: "Re: Bell Divestiture"
Go to Previous message: Joseph: "Re: Is it Possible to Buy a Cell Phone With no Plan?"
TELECOM Digest: Home Page