Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 23, 2001, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and Looking Glass Networks, Inc. (“Looking Glass”), filed a joint request for approval of the Negotiated Interconnection Agreement dated November 1, 2000 (the “Agreement”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151, et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the request. A statement in support of the request was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx Xxxxx, on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and Xxxx X. Xxxx, on behalf of Looking Glass, stating that the facts contained in the request for approval are true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Hearing Examiner of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 28, 2001. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which was admitted into evidence. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Agreement. At the hearing, Staff indicated that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding, and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 23February 7, 20012003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (hereinafter “Ameritech IllinoisSBC”) and Looking Glass NetworksArch Wireless Operating Company, Inc. (“Looking GlassArch Wireless”), filed a joint request Petition for approval of the Negotiated Paging Wireless Interconnection Agreement dated November 1January 15, 2000 2003 (the “Agreement”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151, 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the requestPetition. A statement in support of the request Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx Xxxxx, Xxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of Ameritech IllinoisSBC, and by Xxxx X. Xxxx, Xxxxx on behalf of Looking GlassArch Wireless, stating that the facts contained in the request for approval Petition are true and correctcorrect to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Illinois Commerce Commission Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx, of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to notice as required by given in accordance with the law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing was heard by a duly authorized Hearing Examiner Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 2826, 20012003. Counsel for SBC and Staff filed appeared at the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which was admitted into evidence. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Agreement. At the hearing, Staff indicated hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding, . The Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 2327, 20012003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (“Ameritech IllinoisSBC”) and Looking Glass NetworksOneida Network Services, Inc. (“Looking GlassOneida”), filed a joint request Petition for approval of the Negotiated Interconnection a negotiated Traffic Termination Agreement dated November 1January 2, 2000 2003 (the “Agreement”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151, §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the requestPetition. A statement in support of the request Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, SBC Illinois and by Xxxx X. Xxxx, Xxxxx on behalf of Looking GlassXxxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the request for approval Petition are true and correctcorrect to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Hearing Examiner Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 28March 11, 20012003. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which was admitted into evidence. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Agreement. At the hearinghearing on March 11th, SBC, Oneida, and Staff indicated appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding, . Xx. Xxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 23November 1, 20012002, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“Ameritech Illinois”) and Looking Glass Networks, Inc. Focal Communications Corporation of Illinois (“Looking GlassFocal”), filed a joint request petition for approval of the Negotiated Third Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated November 1October 17, 2000 2002 (the “AgreementAmendment”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. 151, §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement Amendment was submitted with the requestPetition. A statement in support of the request Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx XxxxxXxxx Xxxxxx, on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and Xxxx X. Xxxxby Xxxxx Xxxxx, on behalf of Looking GlassXxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the request for approval petition are true and correctcorrect to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Hearing Examiner Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 28December 4, 20012002. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which was admitted into evidence. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Agreement. At the hearinghearing on December 4, Ameritech, Focal, and Staff indicated appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding, . Xx. Xxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”