Vail versus Morgan: Control of the Start-Up Bell System

Through years of teaching the history of the information and communication industry I have been confounded by what appears to be a specific reversal of attitude of AT&T in dealings with independent telephone companies (independents). I am referring to corporate policy between the years 1907 and 1913. Before Theodore Vail returned to AT&T in 1907, the corporation was regarded as a most predatory monopoly. Policy seemed to be, buy or force the independents out of business and don't let them connect to AT&T interstate circuits. That policy was closely followed until the 1913 Kingsbury Commitment reversed it completely. Something happened to the company, or to Vail, during this time period to cause a profound change in business focus. Did Vail have a non-predatory philosophy all along but lack authority to enforce it? Did religion impact his mindset or did some other profound experience help change his mind? Was it the pressure of the "trust busters" in Washington that forced the change? Or were the changes just a result of good business sense? I think J R Morgan really was the robber baron, and Vail was the white knight that set AT&T on the right path for the next 70 years.