Browse
Search
Agenda - 11-05-1990
OrangeCountyNC
>
Board of County Commissioners
>
BOCC Agendas
>
1990's
>
1990
>
Agenda - 11-05-1990
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/8/2017 10:08:25 AM
Creation date
11/8/2017 9:59:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Date
11/5/1990
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Agenda
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
390
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
PA <br />proposal would cost $2.46 monthly for residence lines <br />and $5.53 per month for business lines. <br />These proposals do reflect an attempt on the part of <br />the phone companies to respond to the County's long - <br />standing concerns about excessive tolls assessed to <br />phone customers in Orange County. However, the <br />proposals would recover any immediate toll loss over <br />the long -term for both phone companies. Historically, <br />EAS plans approved in other regions of North Carolina <br />have been based on rates that allow phone companies to <br />recover equipment costs, but with no provision for <br />lost toll recovery. <br />The question then is: Do we accept any of these <br />proposals, or do we request that the Utilities <br />Commission consider a traditional EAS approach that <br />does not provide for phone companies to recover all <br />toll loss? <br />We believe the latter would be in the long -term <br />best interests, both individually and collectively, of <br />the citizens of Orange County. The present long <br />distance structure is an exception to normal practice <br />in North Carolina, with the County divided into six <br />separate toll exchanges served by four different <br />companies. it has resulted in decades of Orange <br />County customers paying more than necessary for long <br />distance service. The current structure is particu- <br />larly expensive for small businesses and individual <br />households. Annual telephone costs incurred by the <br />County in providing services to citizens throughout <br />Orange County would likely drop significantly. <br />Historical figures developed by the Public Staff of <br />the Utilities Commission during the discussion earlier <br />this year of Triangle -wide EAS reveal that equipment <br />cost recovery for the phone companies would be <br />achieved at flat rates substantially .lower than those <br />proposed by the companies. We propose that EAS be <br />provided by each telephone company operating in Orange <br />County at monthly rates that permit the companies to <br />recover costs but with no toll loss recovery. Our <br />proposed monthly flat rate EAS charges, contrasted <br />with those of the telephone companies are: <br />Company Proposal County Proposal <br />Residence <br />Business <br />Residence <br />Business <br />Southern Bell (CH) <br />$ .73 <br />$ 2.01 <br />$ <br />.10 <br />$ <br />.30 <br />Centel (Hillsborough) <br />$ 2.46 <br />$ 5.53 <br />$ <br />.40 <br />$ <br />1.05 <br />Mebane Home Telephone <br />$ <br />.80 <br />$ <br />2.10 <br />GTE (Durham) <br />$ 3.73 <br />$ <br />.25 <br />$ <br />.65 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.