Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
190 <br /> design. We feel that such attributes must be implemented throughout the <br /> network, even throughout the class 4 and class 5 office levels and to the <br /> larger remotes of class 5 offices. We have asked for a plan affecting <br /> both administrative and physical-structure-of-network components to <br /> address this issue. <br /> We have brought forth substantive issues of subscribers needs for high <br /> availability, dependability, and reliability of the telecommunications <br /> network, which, perhaps, are higher than the current criteria demand. <br /> Because we were aware of the separate postures of the Local Exchange <br /> Companies and the Interoffice Carriers, we asked for separate responses <br /> so that each could address the questions of such failures from its own <br /> perspective. We raised questions of reliability and responsibility, <br /> and again called for a plan to avoid such crises in the future. We <br /> also asked that the North Carolina Utilities Commission survey, and <br /> perhaps adjust, the relationships between the companies so that the <br /> subscribing public is served better than 11+ days of massive failure. <br /> After a substantial and complete meeting with AT&T representatives <br /> where a much better perspective of the impact of failure was gained, and <br /> after the individual filings by the respondents, we drew on <br /> recommendations of the companies and proposed that the Commission order <br /> 1) a direct connection between Centel and AT&T for interLATA services, <br /> and 2) that any new interLATA construction be to a separate AT&T Point <br /> of Presence. <br /> The separate replies by the respondents vividly substantiates the major <br /> difference in operating postures of each of the respondents on the <br /> matter of interconnection. <br /> In its filing of December 12, 1986, AT&T says, ". . .The design of <br /> the local exchange network and how that local network will be used <br /> to provide access to interexchange carriers is primarily the <br /> responsibility of the local exchange company. . .the method by which <br /> AT&T traffic is delivered to AT&T' s Point of Presence is a local <br /> company decision. " <br /> In its filing of the same date, Centel says, "Central. . .has no <br /> control over AT&T or any other interexchange carrier in <br /> establishing Points of Presence. . .Central will provide access <br /> connections to any interexchange carrier. . .Central does not have <br /> an obligation to construct facilities to meet any interexchange <br /> carrier directly. . . " <br /> On the same date, General says, " [it] . . .would defer to the <br /> response of Central and AT&T. . .The location of AT&T's Point of <br /> Presence is a decision to be made by AT&T. . . " <br /> Each respondent seems to imply that it is the other's responsibility to <br /> design, and make, the interconnection. There clearly must be more to <br /> this issue to protect the public's interest and necessity. Public <br /> choice (as between AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc.) can instill a great deal of <br /> responsibility in the quest for market share. As for the Local <br /> Exchange Companies with the exclusive franchises, the Utilities <br /> 2 <br />