I don't think that the position is similar. The level of 'ingenuity' of the overall system was lower. Fewer men were needed to understand each and every aspect of the system.
Now, each scientist is more specialized which means that they individually see less of the system. Additionally, the system is more complex. Together, this means that many more scientists have to be coordinated to make progress.
This is further complicated by knowledge protections. Bell Labs most likely had all relevant patents and copy rights. To reach the same level of fluidity of knowledge, an additional army of patent lawyers is needed.
An additional problem is that targeting quantum computer specifically takes away from the idea of 'no deadlines, objectives or progress reports'. This will be especially a problem in those proposed 'focused research organizations'.
What I don't want to understand is how Google could come so close and fail. They have 10% projects and moonshots. They have the monopoly-like income stream to fund it. But instead of creating progress, their products seem to get worse and worse.
How could one sustainably fund something like Bell Labs with company profits?
*edit: The more interesting question: Since the target of the Bell Labs, the 'universal connectivity' has been achieved, do we still need centralized labs for the next relevant innovations? Doesn't universal connectivity give us the potential to come up with something better? I believe that a social network is missing that is built to create scientific progress.