Editing Universal service (section)

===Bell system===
[[file:Bell System advertisement in Western Electric v1no1 News March 1912 promoting universal service.jpg|thumb|1912 Bell System advertisement promoting its slogan for universal service]]

In the early [[history of the telephone]] up until the early 20th century, telephone service was fragmented. The ability to make a telephone call depended on not just on both parties having telephones, but that their telephone companies used the same standards and that there was a physical interconnect of their networks. The term "universal service" originated with [[Theodore Newton Vail]], president of [[American Telephone & Telegraph]] (the original AT&T) and head of the [[Bell System]], in 1907 with the corporate [[slogan]] "One Policy, One System, Universal Service".<ref name="cato">
{{cite web | url=http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cjv14n2-6.html | publisher=[[Cato Institute]] | title=Unnatural Monopoly: Critical Moments |access-date=2009-06-14}}</ref><ref name="att milestones">{{cite web | url=http://www.corp.att.com/history/milestones.html | publisher=[[AT&T Inc.]] | title=AT&T Milestones in AT&T History |access-date=2009-06-14}}</ref><ref name="ct">{{cite web | url=http://www.cybertelecom.org/usf/ | publisher=Cybertelecom | title=Cybertelecom :: Universal Service | access-date=2010-09-15}}</ref> It was intended as a contrast to the "dual service" that had become common since the original Bell telephone patents expired in 1894, where [[independent telephone companies]] operated not only in non-Bell System markets, but also as a competitor in Bell markets.<ref>[http://www.cybertelecom.org/notes/att.htm#1894 Cybertelecom :: AT&T History]</ref>

These independent phone companies did not interconnect to the Bell System; though modern commentators<ref name="cato" /> suggest Bell refused to do so as an excuse for monopolization, it was argued then that phone systems of that day could not interconnect unless all phone companies used the same technology, as the Bell System did.  This required many businesses to maintain phones with both companies, or else risk losing customers who subscribed to the other phone company.

Vail argued that an interconnected phone system (the Bell System), operated by one company (AT&T) and with rates regulated by the government, would be superior to the dual system and would produce great social benefits, much like Hill's postal reforms.

Eventually, Vail prevailed in his views, first through state laws and ultimately through the [[Kingsbury Commitment]] of 1913, where AT&T agreed to several measures, including interconnection with non-competing independent phone companies, to avoid [[antitrust]] action, thus formalizing the Bell System monopoly.  Meanwhile, the [[Mann-Elkins Act]] of 1910 made AT&T subject to regulation by the [[Interstate Commerce Commission]].{{citation needed|date=March 2016}}

By 1913, [[AT&T Corporation|AT&T]] had favored status from U.S. government, allowing it to operate in a noncompetitive economic environment in exchange for subjection to price and quality service regulation. The government asserted that a monopolistic telephone industry would best serve the goal of creating a "universal" network with compatible technology country-wide for telephone consumers. Regulators emphasized limits on profits, enforcing "reasonable" prices for service, setting levels of depreciation and investment for new technology and equipment, dependability and "universality" of service. "Universal" was originally used by AT&T to mean, "interconnection to other networks, not service to all customers". After years of regulation, the term came to include infrastructural development of telephony and service to everyone at a reasonable price.<ref name="Aufderheide, P. 1999">{{cite book | last=Aufderheide | first=Patricia | title=Communications Policy and the Public Interest | publisher=Guilford Press | publication-place=New York | date=1999-01-15 | isbn=978-1-57230-425-3 | page=}}</ref>