I became interested in the topic after reading this (obviously slanted) article. One specific quote stands out to me:
Vail wrote in that year's AT&T Annual Report that government regulation, "provided it is independent, intelligent, considerate, thorough and just," was an appropriate and acceptable substitute for the competitive marketplace.
I tried to look it up, but I couldn't find a definitive answer. Also, the history of telecom companies in America seems very complex to me. What I am really looking for is some sort of data, or even meaningful anecdotal evidence, that could support one side or the other.
As a side question, it seems like after the breakup of AT&T, the amount of innovation coming from Bell Labs decreased, since Bell Labs no longer had access to AT&T's large pool of funding. Is this true, and if so, does the negative effect outweigh marketplace benefits that resulted from breaking up the monopoly?
Regarding Bell Labs, they stayed part of AT&T post-divestiture until 1996 when they were spun out into Lucent along with what had been Western Electric. There was a ton of stuff coming out of the labs during that time. The No. 5 ESS was introduced during the early 1980s and is still the switching platform for a huge amount of local lines. Many developments have been made on that over the years. Also a lot of work was done on the No. 4 ESS which is still the workhorse of the toll phone network that AT&T runs. The last major central processor retrofit (the No. 1B Processor) was introduced in 1992 for instance. The Labs were also responsible for big advances in wireless LANs, C++ came out of there in the mid-1980s, a number of other programming languages, a lot of work on optics, and even work on DNA computing.