POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Amendment in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against as telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxxx stated that the Amendment meets the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Amendment for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Staff also recommended that the Commission require Illinois Bell to file with the Office of the Chief Clerk, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Amendment is approved, a verified statement that the approved Agreement is the same as the Amendment filed in this Docket with the Verified Petition.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Agreement in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against as telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff recommended that the Agreement be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Amendment in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against as telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxxx stated that the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Agreement for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Staff also recommended that, in order to implement the Illinois Bell-Mega Path Agreement, the Commission should require Illinois Bell, within five (5) days from the date the Amendment is approved, to modify its tariffs to reference the Amendment for each service affected. Such a requirement is consistent with the Commission’s Orders in previous negotiated agreement dockets and allows interested parties access to the Amendment. The following section of Illinois Xxxx’x tariffs should reference the Amendment: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 16, Section 18). Staff further recommended that, in order to assure that implementation of the Amendment is in the public interest, Illinois Bell should implement the Amendment by filing a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five (5) days from the date this Amendment is approved, that the approved Amendment is the same as the Amendment filed in this Docket with the Verified Petition. The Chief Clerk should place the Amendment on the Commission’s website under Interconnection Agreements.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Agreement in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against as telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxxx stated that the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Agreement be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended, and no evidence suggests that the instant Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Amendment in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act, determined that it meets the necessary requirements, and recommends that the Commission approve it for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Amendment in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2)(A) of the Act and determined that it met the necessary requirements. Under this Section, the Commission may reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or a portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxxx opined that the Amendment meets the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Amendment be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx. No issues were contested in this Docket.
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. (i) The Union
POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Amendment to the Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff recommended that the Agreement be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx.
