if you have to ask, you definitely don't remember before 1984.

phones were paid per line (and they monitored for multiple line usage)

You mean 1 phone line to the house could incur multiple charges if more than 1 phone was plugged in? If so, sounds like the video provider model (Cable Sat and LEC provided Video per box)? Heck, I'd argue that the "family bundle" is the same thing in the cellular world.

touch tone was extra

For a period of time, that made sense, for people that wanted that service. Once the switches were all digital, not so much...

at one point you had to buy the phone from Bell at a premium cost

Just like today with cell or cable boxes. Word is that the larger telcos expect a ruling on this eventually..just a matter of when (1 yr or 20 yrs??) Let "Walmart" or or other stores sell the handsets, let the manufacturers develop to spectrum requirements and eliminate the need to purchase "subsidized" phones. Phones as an excuse for pricing is pathetic....like arguing the internet wouldn't have grown without free computers.

high base prices

This will become the norm. Infrastructure costs. High Install Fees, lower monthly (shorter/non-existent contracts) Low Install Fees, higher monthly (longer contracts) and anywhere between...at the end of the day the base prices need to reflect a balance between the fixed costs of infrastructure and the revenues generated by third parties that want to use the infrastructure to sell their services.

every feature cost extra (call waiting, caller ID, etc)

Amen. Some of this has to do with the local regulatory bodies (telephone companies) and license fees by vendors (per user). Nevertheless, we pay for it, it just ain't itemized. It might be argued that the people that use those features are "feature hogs" in the same manner as the people that use their bandwidth are "bandwidth hogs". Costs are per user regardless of use usage under typical licensing agreements.

long distance charges

Those are slowly being replaced by on-net/off-net charges (and/or data usage caps). Cellular companies are training us to the new model as the users are becoming younger and "no nothing better". Instead of LD, the future WILL BE data usage related. The BOCs (and Cable Companies) will put forth relatively good arguments that they need to rationalize the costs of providing bandwidth to the users, therefore, per bit pricing will work. Of course per bit pricing only makes sense when there is perfect competition...(until then we are stuck with imperfect competition)

overseas long distance charge premium

that scrapes the surface.

That really hasn't gone away....at least on my cell phone plan. As with all rates, it is all about arbitrage and political objectives. (how do you ensure everyone has connectivity to the network?) International has gone down for a reason (sometimes "illegal"). There is a reason Ma Bell invested...the same reason our "Universities" invest in research. Do some background checking on Netscape, Google....these companies were not born of profit...they were born of "government blessings and grants" through colleges. The ATT monopoly on communications was never fully altruistic, but certainly not without cost to ATTs original business model back in the day...(100 years ago?) Frankly, the tech that was invented isn't too far from what the Gov does today via universities to produce viable business , ...(which are not reducing costs...more sad to not subsidize education than communications in this day and age, no?)