| This makes no sense. It's like the author has zero knowledge of the relevant history, including things I learned in high school American history. Don't read it unless you want to get dumber. At the very least, here's some of the missing real-world context. The Mann–Elkins Act made the telephone system a common carrier in 1910, fully 11 years before this scenario. You couldn't legally "have their legal permission" for this practice. 100 years ago would have been part of the trust-busting of Taft and Wilson, at the end of the Progressive Era. AT&T had to do business bearing that in mind - something Google doesn't have to do now. More specifically, AT&T and the US government even had an out-of-court agreement concerning possible monopoly behavior - the Kingsbury Commitment - that ended with the Willis Graham Act of 1921 which said the ICC could regulate AT&T as a natural monopoly. Google doesn't face that now. > "PRESIDENT: [Clearly alarmed] Monitor every call? Are you joking?" One operator per phone call = very expensive. Ads won't pay for that. There wasn't the automation ability to play those recorded advertisement. As it was, a vast army of switchboard operators was needed just to make the system work. > "we give out the number of another beauty salon instead" They wouldn't be surprised. That's exactly what happened. That's supposedly the reason for creating an early automatic telephone exchange. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strowger_switch The quote attributed to him is: "No longer will my competitor steal all my business just because his wife is a BELL operator." > "You will bankrupt all of these businesses. .. That’s why we cap it at 25%." AT&T knew how to extract a profit. Quoting https://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/att.htm ] "Having secured its monopoly position, AT&T engaged in the 1880s in a series of rate hikes under the justification of expanding the service. The public faced with no alternative service responded negatively. Responses included establishing legal authority to regulate the rates (See Common Carriage) and also the establishment of municipal networks." Had AT&T taken this hypothetical Google advice, the public would have responded even more strongly. > "Well, we already have a word for that. It’s called bribery, Mr. Google" Are you kidding me? They would have said "It's called lobbying, not pax." The 1920s C-suite would have had no qualms with the idea of lobbying in the interests of corporate power. The WP entry for "Lobbying in the United States" even includes a political cartoon from 1889, titled "The Bosses of the Senate" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#... , linking to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Bosses_of_the_Se... . > We divested our telegraph business ages ago. WHAT!? They didn't leave the telegraph business until 1991. Here's a copy of their press release. http://www.baudot.net/docs/att--exits-telegraph-biz.pdf . |
