8/13/2002 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

At the same time, AT&T's new billing programs were not identifying ESSX stations correctly and Carrier Line Charges were being assessed at a rate approximately 8 times higher than they were supposed to be. We finally contacted a person at the AT&T executive office level who could not believe what he heard from his operational support team, he was told that their mechanized system was incapable of identifying the circuits correctly and that a fix was months away. For the next several months, we received an automatic credit that would negate the inappropriate charges we were getting. Since AT&T continued to exhibit an increasing inability to correctly handle our business, we "PIC'd"(Presubscribed Interexchange Carrier) a few new lines to Sprint instead of AT&T for a trial. This prompted a call from an AT&T representative who convincingly argued that she could combine our accounts, get us a lower usage rate and get us a credit for some of the previous months of minimum billing charges. It took Vanessa Bell a couple of months to get the information together and soon the result surfaced. Utilities received a bill from AT&T with regulatory charges for over two hundred lines and billing for long distance usage from lines which were not used by Utilities. It was not surprising to Staff to find that the reason Vanessa Bell was not returning our calls was that she had joined the ranks of those who are no longer employed by AT&T. We withheld payments to AT&T for nearly three months while they attempted to identify what lines were being billed where. We finally received the necessary information to determine how to appropriate the charges, but are still faced with monthly battles with AT&T because the billing is not correct. ANALYSIS: By AT&T's own admission, we know their software has been incapable of correctly handling the automatic information feed from the local operating telephone company. Their billing does not provide the detail necessary to determine the accuracy of the charges reflected on their bill Unfortunately, most of the long distance carriers have gone to their own billing and may be suffering from some of the same problems that have plagued AT&T; however, some promise billing that appears to be more functional than what we are currently receiving from AT&T. The major long distance carriers seem to chase each other on rates and are generally fairly close in their fees. Since most of Indian River County's long distance is carried over SUNCOM, the value of the overflow long distance usage is relatively insignificant (approximately $300 per month.) There are some indications that the local operating telephore company may soon be allowed into the inter - LATA long distance market. This would likely be the most appealmg billing arrangement for the County, but only after the current restrictions are lifted will we know if the local operating company will be o [Tering competitive rates. For a solution to the immediate problem, it seems imperative that Indian River County select a different inter -LATA long distance provider. It also seems prudent that since the monetary value of the usage charges for an entire year for this service falls below the $5,000 purchasing threshold, Staff should be directed to change the selection of the overflow long distance provider as requu-ed to take advantage of new rate plans and promotions. Should rates be such that a savings would occur in using a carrier other than SUNCOM for the 1+NPA-T_X{ (1+10 digit long distance direct dial) then it seems prudent that STAFF would be directed to change the least cost routing programming in the County's PBX's and the dialing instructions for Centrex Stations to take advantage of the lowest rates. August 13, 2002 48 ,:, tii