, "What forces the business man to take two telephones? The same thing that forces him to advertise his goods in two newspapers in a town instead of one - to reach the people" (Telephony 1906, p. 11, quoted in Mueller 1997, p. 95). A newspaper monopoly would obviate the need for placing advertisements in multiple newspapers, but at the cost of lower circulation and higher prices. The evidence suggests that, on balance, competition between local telephone providers provided significant benefits to consumers. 22 Subscribers who purchased 20 United States V. W. Elec. Co., 673 F. Supp. 525, 537-38 (D.D.C. 1987). Iowa Utils. Bd., 525 U.S. at 416-17 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Verizon, 535 U.S. at 545 (Breyer, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). 22 In the discussion that follows, we again draw on the excellent revisionist histories of the early telephone industry cited in note 17 as well as several other leading histories. See Brock (1981); Robinson (1989). The Regulation of Local Telephone Networks service from both the Bell System and the independent were able to obtain access to five to ten times the number of subscribers for a total price that was roughly the same or less than that paid during the monopoly period. 23 At the same time, benefits from eliminating competition in favor of unified service provided through a single telephone network were attenuated by the fact that most telephone subscribers only sought to communicate with a relatively small group of other people. As we noted in Chapter 4, heterogeneity of consumer preferences can render an equilibrium with multiple incompatible systems optimal. Indeed, most customers needed only to purchase one service, as groups tended to segregate themselves into discrete user communities clustered on one phone system or the other. As a result, the benefits of unifying these systems were minimal, and even those benefits could be easily realized by using public pay phones or the free phone service provided by bars and other local