Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T07:10:06.810Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Competition in a Network Industry: The Telephone Industry, 1894–1910

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

David Gabel
David Gabel
Affiliation:
Associate Professor, Queens College and Graduate Center, Department of Economics, City University of New York, Flushing, NY 11367, and Affiliated Research Fellow, Center for Telecommunications and Information Studies, Columbia University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The re-emergence of AT&T as the dominant firm in the telephone industry resulted from its adopting a predatory response to entrants. AT&T's strategy was effective because government regulations and capital market imperfections provided the incumbent with a first-mover advantage that prevented challengers from entering simultaneously in all markets.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 54 , Issue 3 , September 1994 , pp. 543 - 572
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), “Conference Held at Boston, January 23, and 24, 1900: Telephone Service and Charges,” AT&TCA.Google Scholar
American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T), “Defendants' First Statement of Contentions and Proof,” United States v. AT&T, 74–1698 (D.D.C.).Google Scholar
American Telephone and Telegraph Corporate Archive (AT&TCA), Warren, NJ.Google Scholar
Anderson, George, “The Telephone Situation: Its Causes and its Future,” 10 12, 1906, AT&TCA.Google Scholar
Areeda, Phillip, and Turner, Donald, “Predatory Pricing and Related Practices Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act,” Harvard Law Review, 88 (02 1975), pp. 697–733.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atwater, M. D., “The History of the Central Union Telephone Company,” 08 26, 1913, AT&TCA.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H., The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (New York, 1978).Google Scholar
Bornholz, Robert, and Evans, David S., “The Early History of Competition in the Telephone Industry,” in Evans, David S., ed., Breaking Up Bell: Essays on Industrial Organization and Regulation (New York, 1983), pp. 7–40.Google Scholar
Burns, Malcolm R., “Predatory Pricing and the Acquisition Cost of Competitors,” Journal of Political Economy, 94 (04 1986), pp. 266–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carosso, Vincent, Morgans: Private International Bankers, 1854–1913 (Cambridge, MA, 1987).Google Scholar
Central Union News (various dates), New York Public Library.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., The Visible Hand: Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, MA, 1981).Google Scholar
City Record [New York] (various dates).Google Scholar
Commercial and Financial Chronicle (various dates).Google Scholar
Connecticut Legislature, Connecticut Judiciary Hearings: Telephone Matters (Hartford, 1905).Google Scholar
Daily Telephone News (various dates), New York Public Library.Google Scholar
Danielian, N. R., AT&T: The Story of Industrial Conquest (New York, 1939).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission, Investigation of the Telephone Industry in the United States (Washington, DC, 1939).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission Accounting Department, Long Lines Department: Financial and Operating Summary (Washington, DC, 04 15, 1936).Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission Accounting Department, Report on American Telephone and Telegraph Company Corporate and Financial History (Washington, DC, 01 16, 1937), 3 vols.Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission Accounting Department, AT&T Securities Investments (Washington, DC, 01 25, 1937), 5 vols.Google Scholar
Federal Communications Commission Accounting Department, Control of Communications: Control of Independent Telephone Properties (Washington, DC, 06 15, 1937), 3 vols.Google Scholar
Finance (various dates), New York Public Library.Google Scholar
Fischer, Claude, “Technology's Retreat: The Decline of Rural Telephony, 1920–1940,” Social Science History, 11 (Fall 1987), pp. 295–327.Google Scholar
Garnet, Robert, The Telephone Enterprise: The Evolution of the Bell System's Horizontal Structure (Baltimore, 1985).Google Scholar
Hendrick, Burton J., The Age of Big Business: A Chronicle of the Capture of Industry (New Haven, 1919).Google Scholar
Johnson, F. G., “Experience of a Pioneer Physician in Northern Wisconsin,” Wisconsin Medical Journal, 38 (July 1939), pp. 576–88.Google Scholar
Joskow, Paul, and Klevorick, Alvin, “A Framework for Analyzing Predatory Pricing Policy,” Yale Law Journal, 89 (12 1979), pp. 213–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Journal of Commerce and Commercial Bulletin (various dates).Google Scholar
Keller, Morton, The Life Insurance Enterprise, 1885–1910: A Study in the Limits of Corporate Power (Cambridge, MA, 1963).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koller, Roland H., “The Myth of Predatory Pricing—An Empirical Study,” Antitrust Law and Economics Review, 4 (Summer 1971), pp. 105–23.Google Scholar
Langdale, John V., “The Growth of Long-Distance Telephony in the Bell System: 1875–1907,” Journal of Historical Geography, 4 (04 1978), pp. 145–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latzke, Paul, A Fight With an Octopus (Chicago, 1906).Google Scholar
Lee, John, The Economics of Telegraphs and Telephones (London, 1913).Google Scholar
Lipartito, Kenneth, The Bell System and Regional Business: The Telephone in the South, 1877–1920 (Baltimore, 1989).Google Scholar
Lipartito, Kenneth, “System Building at the Margin: The Problem of Public Choice in the Telephone Industry,” this Journal, 49 (June 1989), pp. 323–36.Google Scholar
McGee, John, “Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case,” Journal of Law and Economics, 1 (10 1958), pp. 137–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacMeal, Harry, The Story of Independent Telephony (Chicago, 1934).Google Scholar
Mathews, G. C., “The Truth About State Regulation of Utilities in Wisconsin,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 54 (July 1914), pp. 303–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moody, John, The Masters of Capital: A Chronicle of Wall Street (New Haven, 1919).Google Scholar
Moody's Classified Investments, (New York, 1905).Google Scholar
New England Telephone, The Telephone: A Description of the Bell System with Some Facts Concerning the So-called ‘Independent’ Movement (Boston, 1906), Widener Library, Harvard University.Google Scholar
New York Tribune (various dates).Google Scholar
Nichols, Harry P., “Report of the Bureau of Franchises Upon the Application of the Atlantic Telephone Company,” 10 12, 1905, AT&TCA.Google Scholar
Nichols, Harry P., “Result of Investigation of the Operation of a Dual System of Telephones in Various Cities,” 11 21, 1906, AT&TCA.Google Scholar
Ordover, Janusz A., and Saloner, Garth, “Predation, Monopolization, and Antitrust,” in Schmallensee, Richard and Willig, Robert, eds., Handbook of Industrial Organization (Amsterdam, 1989), pp. 537–96.Google Scholar
Read et al. v. Central Union Telephone Company, Superior Court of Cook County Illinois, Chancery General Number 299,689. All documents cited are available in AT&TCA.Google Scholar
Redlich, Fritz, The Molding of American Banking: Men and Ideas (New York, 1951), vol. 2.Google Scholar
“Report of the Fourth Annual Convention of the Independent Telephone Association” (1900), 12, box 11274, Museum of Independent Telephony, Abilene, KS.Google Scholar
Salop, Steven, and Schiffman, David, “Raising Rivals' Costs,” American Economic Review, 73 (05 1983), pp. 267–71.Google Scholar
Sears, Vinton, A., , Telephone Development: Status of the Industry, Scope and Effect of Competition (Boston, 1905).Google Scholar
Stehman, Warren J., The Financial History of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (Boston, 1925).Google Scholar
Telephone Securities Weekly (various dates), New York Public Library.Google Scholar
Telephony (various dates).Google Scholar
Tirole, Jean, The Theory of Industrial Organization (Cambridge, MA, 1989).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Telephone and Telegraphs: 1907 (Washington, DC, 1910).Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonial Times to 1970 (Washington, 1975), vol. 2.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of Justice, Plaintiff's First Statement of Contentions and Proofs, United States v. AT&T, 74–1698 (D.D.C).Google Scholar
United Telephone Voice (various dates), Museum of Independent Telephony, Abilene, KS.Google Scholar
Vanderlip, Frank., Collection. Columbia University, New York.Google Scholar
Wasserman, Neil, From Invention to Innovation: Long-Distance Telephone Transmission at the Turn of the Century (Baltimore, 1985).Google Scholar
Weik, Jesse, “The Telephone Movement: Another Point of View,” Atlantic Monthly, 97 (02 1906), pp. 263–69.Google Scholar
Weiman, David, and Levin, Richard, “Preying for Monopoly: The Case of Southern Bell, 1894–1912,” Journal of Political Economy, 102 (02 1994), pp. 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Western Electrician (various dates).Google Scholar
Whitney, L. N., “Report on Conditions in Indiana,” 08 1907, box 11275, Museum of Independent Telephony, Abilene, KS.Google Scholar
Wisconsin State Historical Society (WSHS), Madison, WI.Google Scholar
Wisconsin Telephone News (various dates), Wisconsin Bell Telephone, Milwaukee, WI.Google Scholar
Yamey, Basil S., “Predatory Price Cutting: Notes and Comments,” Journal of Law and Economics, 15 (04 1972), pp. 129–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar