Common use of POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES Clause in Contracts

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Second Amendment, as corrected, 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. Xxxxxx 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 Second Amendment, as corrected, be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxx and the Concurrence of Commission Staff. There are no contested issues in this docket.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Second Amendment, as corrected, this Amendment 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. Xxxxxx 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 Second Amendment, as corrected, Agreement be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxx and the Concurrence of Commission StaffXxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Second Amendment, as corrected, Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Agreement 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 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. Xxxxxx stated Staff Witness Xxxxxxx opined that the Agreement 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 Second Amendment, as corrected, Amendment be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxx and the Concurrence of Commission StaffX. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Second Amendment, as corrected, Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff reviewed the Agreement 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 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 convenience, and necessity. Xx. Xxxxxx stated Xxxxxxx opined that the Agreement 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 Second Amendment, as corrected, Amendment be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of XxX. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx. Xxxxxx and the Concurrence of Commission Staff. There are no No issues were contested issues in this docketDocket.

POSITIONS OF THE PARTIES. No party contended that the Second Amendment, as corrected, 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. Xxxxxx 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 Second Amendment, as corrected, Amendment be approved by the Commission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxx and the Concurrence of Commission StaffXxxxxxx. There are no contested issues in this docket.