To the Editor of the "NorH-Cmiva Dany News."
Sir,—We wish to refer to the new rules as given out by the Shanghai Mutual Telephone Company, approved by the Shanghai Municipal fa an increase of Tls. 7 per annum for residential telephones, of Tls. 13 for business telephones, ete. No reason is given for such increase, It is 40 ordered and we the public are ex: pected to obey such resolution tacit-ask, why such Is' not the Ca. gaining sufficient m maintain itself under the pres to improve its present system: of introducing new methods, hence tthe increase in rate to cover thi pense. But we: believe any ponse for improvement must be pur down as capital; the proper thing: for the company to do is to call for: more capital, it, being utterly -unreasonable to charge the customers for expenses of this sort. We pay many to the. Telephone Ca, end] we, get service im return, ~-Who will guarantee' that, as We pay more, We will get better service in return? Who can ensure that the possible bettering of service will be to such degree as to make the present increase of payment well worth while?' Meanwhile we must say to the company, "Show us better service first and then we may be willing to pay more, but not at present."
Who knows what these new rules of the Telephone Ca. may lead to? The Company is a public monopoly; and it is dangerous when such a firm acts for its own interest, instead of for the public good. As a result of the increase of telephone rates, one may picture to oneself many shops at Shanghai, especially in a time of bad business as at present, which will find themselves unable to use telephones any more. What inconvenience and. what a blow to communication! The business the community will suffer and who.
to blame?
In the same notice to the subscrip bers, the Company forther announces that, beginning from January. 1, 1926, all clubs, hotels, ete,, should be placed on a message rate basis, that the charge be at the rate of five cents. er call with a minimum of 10 calls per exchange line per day, that all calls over 300 per month should have certain rebate and that in addition to. the usual installation fees, 4 deposit of Tls. 10 per line must be made. Such is the new method the Company seems to be introducing! A radically new basis for payment utterly irreconcilable with the other basis. Only one of the two gan be reasonable, certainly not both, 'And what is the' Company's motive sufficient to sell by itself, but must also employ agents and instruments J—al for its own profit! The Company orders this and permits that. How all authori tive!. While its own [profit is' unlimited, it seeks to res-forlet that of the subscriber to nothing but the rebate allowance. To Ibe more consistent and business-like, jit should be left to the clubs and Mnotels to decide whether they should sell to their customers at six cents] Jor seven cents per call.
But then there would be the Jdanger of less calls and consequent ly less profit to the Company. "We say once more how skilfully the Cam-any is seeking its own profit, and Jwith what jealously it is watching the profit even of its own agents fand instruments.
'What can we, the public, do when such tyranny is' attempted, nay, even approved? If perchance legal protests should fail and public opinion }be unheeded, the only course left would be to cease using telephones of Ca. In a final consideration, it is not the question of more or less pay that we mind so much: it is rather a fight for_ principle! We declare that the 8. M. T. [Ca as a public monopoly, has no ight to think only of its own pro-Jit and to disregard the general wel-Hfare of the public. It is injustice inst which we must demonstra tyranny which we must seek
}ing velepnories at prevent smoula How to overthrow. If we who are think fit not to use them any more because of the new rule, what al-awanees will the 8. M. T. Ca. give us for our original installation fees?
Thanking you in anticipation for the use of your valuable space, We are, ete., ano
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.