Kingsbury Commitment

Last updated

The Kingsbury Commitment is a 1913 out-of-court settlement of the United States government's antitrust challenge against the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) for the company's then-growing vertical monopoly in the telecommunications industry. In return for the government's agreement not to pursue legal action against the company as a monopolist, AT&T agreed to divest the controlling interest it had acquired in the Western Union Telegraph Company, and to allow non-competing independent telephone companies to interconnect with the AT&T long-distance network. [1]

Contents

History

1912 Bell System advertisement promoting universal service Bell System advertisement in Western Electric v1no1 News March 1912 promoting universal service.jpg
1912 Bell System advertisement promoting universal service

In 1907, Theodore N. Vail became president of AT&T for the second time. Immediately, he steered the company into a new direction, in terms of vision, company organization, and technology. He envisioned telephone service as a public utility, and the future of the American telephone industry as a unified system of companies under the lead of his company. This required technical standards understood and accepted by all players in the industry. He opened the market for the Western Electric Company, its manufacturing unit which the company had previously restricted to sell products only to the Bell System companies, so that independent operators could buy compatible apparatus. He organized a distinct research division within Western Electric to focus on basic research and development. AT&T had bought Bell-associated companies and organized them into new hierarchies. AT&T had also acquired many of the independents, and bought control of Western Union, giving it a monopolistic position in both telephone and telegraph communication. These efforts and Vail's vision were communicated to the public by marketing campaigns under the slogan One System — One Policy — Universal Service.

AT&T increasingly became a vertically integrated conglomerate. The government had been increasingly worried that AT&T and the other Bell companies were monopolizing the industry. A key strategy by the Bell System was to refuse to connect its long-distance network—technologically, by far the finest and most extensive in the nation—with independent carriers. Without the prospect of long-distance services, the market position of many independent operators became untenable. AT&T's strategies prompted complaints and attracted the attention of the Justice Department.

Agreement

Faced with a government investigation and a possible suit for antitrust violations, AT&T entered into negotiations that carried on for several months in 1913. [3] The conclusion came in form of a voluntary commitment in form of a letter by AT&T's Vice President Nathan Kingsbury, who secured approval by executives and the government representatives before submittal. In the letter, dated December 19, 1913, AT&T agreed with Attorney General James Clark McReynolds to divest itself of Western Union, to provide long-distance services to independent exchanges under certain conditions, and to refrain from acquisitions if the Interstate Commerce Commission objected. [4] Justice Department officials opined that the plan gave the government everything and more than they could have hoped to obtain in court, and it found the approval of President Woodrow Wilson, who expressed his admiration for the attitude and vision of the telephone company: [3]

My Dear Mr. Attorney General,

Thank you, for letting me see the letter from the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. It is gratifying that the company should thus volunteer to adjust its business to the conditions of competition. I gain the impression more and more, from week to week, that the business men of the country are sincerely desirous of conforming with the law, and it is gratifying, indeed, to have occasion, as in this instance, to deal with them in complete frankness and to be able to show them that all that we desire is an opportunity to co-operate with them. So long as we are dealt with in this spirit, we can help to build up the business of the country upon sound and permanent lines.

Cordially and sincerely yours,

Woodrow Wilson

The Commitment did not settle all differences between independents and Bell companies, but it did avert the federal takeover many had expected. AT&T was allowed to buy market-share, as long as it sold an equal number of subscribers to independents. Crucially, while the Kingsbury Commitment obliged it to connect its long-distance service to independent local carriers, AT&T did not agree to interconnect its local services with other local providers. Nor did AT&T agree to any interconnection with independent long-distance carriers. AT&T's connection with the Western Electric Company was not addressed and the independent manufacturers still could not sell into Bell's market place, but operators had to buy Bell equipment for standard trunks to be able to connect to the Long Lines network. [5]

Continued monopoly

Consequently, AT&T was able to consolidate its control over both the most profitable urban markets and long-distance traffic.

All telephone networks in the United States were nationalized during World War I from June 1918 to July 1919. Following re-privatization, AT&T resumed its near-monopoly position. The Willis Graham Act of 1921 allowed AT&T to acquire more local telephone systems with the genial oversight of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), effectively declaring the telephone business as a natural monopoly. By 1924, the ICC approved AT&T's acquisition of 223 of the 234 independent telephone companies. Between 1921 and 1934, the ICC approved 271 of the 274 purchase requests of AT&T. With the creation of the Federal Communications Commission by the Communications Act of 1934, the government regulated the rates charged by AT&T.

In 1956, AT&T and the Justice Department agreed on a consent decree to end an antitrust suit brought against AT&T in 1949. Under the decree, AT&T restricted its activities to those related to running the national telephone system and agreed to license patents it had developed without royalties. [6]

In 1968, FCC regulators intervened when the Bell System tried to prevent a mobile communications system, the Carterfone, from connecting to telephone lines. That decision established the principle that customers could connect any lawful device to the telephone network, even to offer a competing service. [7] In the mid 1970s, emerging long-distance competitors like MCI and Sprint faced the same tactic of denying interconnection, which regulators quashed, followed by a series of efforts by the Bell System phone companies to escalate the costs of interconnection as an indirect means of excluding competition. These battles resulted a large amount of antitrust litigation and ultimately led to the 1982 breakup of the Bell System.

In 1982, AT&T and the Justice Department agreed on tentative terms for settlement of antitrust suit filed against AT&T in 1974, under which AT&T divested itself of its local telephone operations, which became known as the "Baby Bells." In return, the Justice Department agreed to lift the restrictions on AT&T activities contained in the 1956 consent decree.

See also

Related Research Articles

Telecommunications in the Philippines are well-developed due to the presence of modern infrastructure facilities. The industry was deregulated in 1995 when President Fidel Ramos signed Republic Act No. 7925. This law opened the sector to more private players and improved the provision of telecom services are better and fairer rates, leading to the creation of many telecommunication service providers for mobile, fixed-line, Internet and other services.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications company</span> Organization that provides telephone and/or other telecommunications service

A telecommunications company is a kind of electronic communications service provider, more precisely a telecommunications service provider (TSP), that provides telecommunications services such as telephony and data communications access. Many traditional solely telephone companies now function as internet service providers (ISPs), and the distinction between a telephone company and ISP has tended to disappear completely over time, as the current trend for supplier convergence in the industry develops. Additionally, with advances in technology development, other traditional separate industries such as cable television, Voice-over IP (VoIP), and satellite providers offer similar competing features as the telephone companies to both residential and businesses leading to further evolution of corporate identity have taken shape.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">MCI Communications</span> Former telecommunications and networking company

MCI Communications Corporation was a telecommunications company headquartered in Washington, D.C. that was at one point the second-largest long-distance provider in the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications policy of the United States</span>

The telecommunications policy of the United States is a framework of law directed by government and the regulatory commissions, most notably the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Two landmark acts prevail today, the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The latter was intended to revise the first act and specifically to foster competition in the telecommunications industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Demarcation point</span> Boundary of a private and public network

In telephony, the demarcation point is the point at which the public switched telephone network ends and connects with the customer's on-premises wiring. It is the dividing line which determines who is responsible for installation and maintenance of wiring and equipment—customer/subscriber, or telephone company/provider. The demarcation point varies between countries and has changed over time.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bell Canada</span> Canadian telecommunications company

Bell Canada is a Canadian telecommunications company headquartered at 1 Carrefour Alexander-Graham-Bell in the borough of Verdun, Quebec, in Canada. It is an ILEC in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; as such, it was a founding member of the Stentor Alliance. It is also a CLEC for enterprise customers in the western provinces.

Universal service is an economic, legal and business term used mostly in regulated industries, referring to the practice of providing a baseline level of services to every resident of a country. An example of this concept is found in the US Telecommunications Act of 1996, whose goals are:

An incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) is a local telephone company which held the regional monopoly on landline service before the market was opened to competitive local exchange carriers, or the corporate successor of such a firm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Carterfone</span> Device to connects a two-way radio to the telephone system

The Carterfone is a device invented by Thomas Carter. It connects a two-way radio system to the telephone system, allowing someone on the radio to talk to someone on the phone. This makes it a direct predecessor to today's autopatch. The connection is acoustic -- sound travels through the air between the Carterfone and a conventional telephone that is part of the telephone system.

In telecommunications, interconnection is the physical linking of a carrier's network with equipment or facilities not belonging to that network. The term may refer to a connection between a carrier's facilities and the equipment belonging to its customer, or to a connection between two or more carriers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Breakup of the Bell System</span> 1982 U.S. government action to end AT&T Corps monopoly over telephone services

The monopoly position of the Bell System in the U.S. was ended on January 8, 1982, by a consent decree providing that AT&T Corporation would, as had been initially proposed by AT&T, relinquish control of the Bell Operating Companies, which had provided local telephone service in the United States. AT&T would continue to be a provider of long-distance service, while the now-independent Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs), nicknamed the "Baby Bells", would provide local service, and would no longer be directly supplied with equipment from AT&T subsidiary Western Electric.

A legal monopoly, statutory monopoly, or de jure monopoly is a monopoly that is protected by law from competition. A statutory monopoly may take the form of a government monopoly where the state owns the particular means of production or government-granted monopoly where a private interest is protected from competition such as being granted exclusive rights to offer a particular service in a specific region while agreeing to have their policies and prices regulated. This type of monopoly is usually contrasted with de facto monopoly which is a broad category for monopolies that are not created by government.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AT&T</span> American multinational telecommunications holding company

AT&T Inc. is an American multinational telecommunications holding company headquartered at Whitacre Tower in Downtown Dallas, Texas. It is the world's third-largest telecommunications company by revenue and the second-largest wireless carrier in the United States behind Verizon but ahead of T-Mobile. As of 2023, AT&T was ranked 13th on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations, with revenues of $122.4 billion.

After President Nixon took office in 1969, Clay T. Whitehead, Special Assistant to the President, pushed to establish an executive office dedicated to telecommunications policy. The White House Office of Telecommunications Policy (OTP) was established in 1970. In 1978, it was merged, along with the Commerce Department's Office of Telecommunications, into the newly created National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

<i>United States v. AT&T</i> (1982) 1982 case in U.S. antitrust law

United States v. AT&T, 552 F.Supp. 131 (1982), was a ruling of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, that led to the 1984 Bell System divestiture, and the breakup of the old AT&T natural monopoly into seven regional Bell operating companies and a much smaller new version of AT&T.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bell System</span> American telephone service monopoly (1877-1982)

The Bell System was a system of telecommunication companies, led by the Bell Telephone Company and later by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), that dominated the telephone services industry in North America for over 100 years from its creation in 1877 until its antitrust breakup in 1983. The system of companies was often colloquially called Ma Bell, as it held a vertical monopoly over telecommunication products and services in most areas of the United States and Canada. At the time of the breakup of the Bell System in the early 1980s, it had assets of $150 billion and employed over one million people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">AT&T Corporation</span> American telecommunications company (1885–2005)

AT&T Corporation, commonly referred to as AT&T, an abbreviation for its former name, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, was an American telecommunications company that provided voice, video, data, and Internet telecommunications and professional services to businesses, consumers, and government agencies.

The Willis Graham Act of 1921 effectively established telephone companies as natural monopolies, citing that "there is nothing to be gained by local competition in the telephone industry." The law effectively released AT&T from terms of its Kingsbury Commitment, allowing the company to acquire competing telephone companies under the oversight of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). It was enacted by the 67th United States Congress and signed into law by President Warren G. Harding on June 10, 1921.

The history of AT&T dates back to the invention of the telephone. The Bell Telephone Company was established in 1877 by Alexander Graham Bell, who obtained the first US patent for the telephone, and his father-in-law, Gardiner Greene Hubbard. Bell and Hubbard also established American Telephone and Telegraph Company in 1885, which acquired the Bell Telephone Company and became the primary telephone company in the United States. This company maintained an effective monopoly on local telephone service in the United States until anti-trust regulators agreed to allow AT&T to retain Western Electric and enter general trades computer manufacture and sales in return for its offer to split the Bell System by divesting itself of ownership of the Bell Operating Companies in 1982.

The General Toll Switching Plan was a systematic nationwide effort by the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) of organizing the telephone toll circuits and cable routes of the nation, and of streamlining the operating principles and technical infrastructure for connecting long-distance telephone calls in North America. This involved the design of a hierarchical system of toll-switching centers, a process that had found substantial maturity by 1929. The switching plan was principally operated by the Long Lines division of the Bell System in cooperation with independent telephone companies under the decree of the Kingsbury Commitment, reached with the United States government in 1913. The General Toll Switching Plan was a system manually operated by long-distance telephone operators. It was the forerunner of an automated system called Nationwide Operator Toll Dialing that was begun in 1943, which eventually led to Direct Distance Dialing (DDD) within the framework of the North American Numbering Plan decades later.

References

  1. "Milestones in AT&T History". Archived from the original on 2008-09-28. Retrieved 2011-10-25.
  2. Western Electric News, Volume 1 (1) p.25 (March 1912).
  3. 1 2 The Government and the A. T. & T. Company, Telephone Engineer, Vol. 11 (1) pp.13 (January 1914)
  4. Adam D. Thierer, UNNATURAL MONOPOLY Cato Journal, Fall 1994
  5. Telephone Engineer, Vol. 11 (1) p. 3 (January 1914)
  6. Watzinger, Martin; Fackler, Thomas A.; Nagler, Markus; and Schnitzer, Monika. "How Antitrust Enforcement Can Spur Innovation: Bell Labs And The 1956 Consent Decree", Yale University, January 9, 2017. Accessed March 8, 2024. "We study the 1956 consent decree against the Bell System to investigate whether patents held by a dominant firm are harmful for innovation and if so, whether compulsory licensing can provide an effective remedy... The consent decree contained two main remedies. The Bell System was obligated to license all its patents royalty-free and it was barred from entering any industry other than telecommunications."
  7. Pollack, Andrew. "The Man Who Beat A.T.& T.", The New York Times , July 14, 1982. Accessed March 8, 2024. "He is the man who broke the American Telephone and Telegraph Company's monopoly on telephone equipment. It was in 1968 that the Federal Communications Commission, in what was known as the Carterfone case, ruled that non-Bell equipment could be attached to the telephone system. That decision gave birth to a giant industry of Bell competitors and led to vast changes in telephone service that are still being felt today."

Further reading