Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22, 2005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and IDT America, Corp (“IDT America”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of IDT America, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14, 2005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 2219, 2005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and IDT AmericaXO Communications Services, Corp Inc. (“IDT AmericaXO Communications”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd 12th Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaXO Communications , stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 147, 2005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record “Heard and Taken” on September 136 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-136-05).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August October 22, 20052012, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, USCOC of Central Illinois, LLC, USCOC of Illinois Bell RSA #4, LLC, and United States Cellular Operating Company of Chicago, LLC (“USCOC”) and Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and IDT America, Corp (“IDT AmericaICTC”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd the Negotiated First Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by an Interconnection Agreement under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ §151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant joint petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois, ICTC and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaUSCOC, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14November 15, 20052012. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statementAt the hearing on November 15, ICTC and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22December 23, 20052002, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Ameritech Illinois”) and IDT AmericaCook Inlet/Voicestream Operating Company, Corp LLC, By Voicestream PCS BTA 1 Corporation, its agent, and Voicestream Wireless Corporation (collectively “IDT AmericaVoicestream”), filed a joint petition Petition for approval of a 2nd the Fourth Amendment to their interconnection agreement the Interconnection Agreement dated November 18, 2002 (the “Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (the “the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petitionPetition. A statement in support of the instant petition Petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of SBC Ameritech Illinois, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxx Xxxxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaVoicestream, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief. Illinois Commerce Commission Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, true and correctof the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14January 7, 20052003. Prior to Counsel for Ameritech Illinois and Staff appeared at the hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this hearing date, Staff filed the proceeding. The Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, was admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22January 19, 20052006, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company Verizon North, Inc., Verizon South, Inc. (“SBC IllinoisVerizon”) and IDT AmericaNavigator Telecommunications, Corp LLC (“IDT AmericaNavigator”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd Amendment to negotiated agreement that amends the terms of their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10effective December 1, 2005, and that is governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The A copy of this No. 2 Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC IllinoisXxxxxxx, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx XxXxxxxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaNavigator, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information knowledge and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14February 22, 20052006. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the No. 2 Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record “Heard and Taken” on September 13January 31, 20052006. See ALJ Notice (91-1331-0506).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22May 16, 20052008, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC AT&T Illinois”) and IDT AmericaVertex Broadband, Corp Corp. d/b/a AthenaTel d/b/a Reason to Switch d/b/a TownLink Communications d/b/a INT Connections (“IDT AmericaVertex”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”)the Interconnection Agreement dated May 7, that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by 2008 under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, AT&T Illinois and by Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaVertex, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by a the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14June 9, 20052008. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in of the Commission’s Telecommunications DivisionDivision on June 6, 2008. In his written statementAt the hearing on June 9, 2008, AT&T Illinois, Vertex and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22October 1, 20052001, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Ameritech Illinois”) and IDT AmericaTelseon Carrier Services, Corp Inc. (“IDT AmericaTelseon”) filed a joint request for approval of the negotiated Interconnection Agreement dated August 14, 2001 (the “Agreement”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd Amendment to their interconnection agreement under Sections 252(a)(1) and (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by Section 252 e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 151, et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself Agreement was submitted with the petitionrequest. A statement in support of the instant petition request was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx Xxxx X. Xxxx on behalf Xxxxxx, Director of SBC IllinoisNegotiations for Ameritech and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaGeneral Counsel for Xxxxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, request for approval are true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14October 17, 20052001. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which was admitted into evidence. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the AmendmentAgreement. The Administrative Law Judge waived At the hearing hearing, Staff indicated that there were no unresolved issues in this matter andproceeding, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22October 21, 20052003, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois) (hereinafter “IBTC”) and IDT AmericaCypress Communications Operating Company, Corp Inc. (“IDT AmericaCypress”), filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a joint petition Petition for approval of a 2nd the First Amendment to their interconnection agreement the Interconnection Agreement dated September 25, 2003 (the “Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petitionPetition. A statement in support of the instant petition Petition was also filed filed, along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC IllinoisIBTC, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx X. XxXxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaCypress, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief. Commission Staff (“Staff”) filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, true and correctof 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 was scheduled for hearing heard by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14November 12, 20052003. Prior to Counsel for IBTC and Staff appeared at the hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this hearing date, Staff filed the proceeding. The Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, was admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22November 3, 2005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and IDT America, Corp Cordia Communications Corp. (“IDT AmericaCordia”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd 3rd Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10October 24, 2005, and governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaXxxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and At the rules and regulations early onset of the Commission, this matter was scheduled for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14, 2005. Prior to this hearing datecase, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record “Heard and Taken” on September 13November 30, 2005. See ALJ Notice of Ruling (912-131-05).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22February 9, 2005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC IllinoisSBC”) and IDT AmericaCenturyTel Fiber Company II, Corp LLC (“IDT AmericaCenturyTel”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd the Second Amendment to their interconnection agreement the parties’ Interconnection Agreement dated February 2, 2005 (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxx, Xx., on behalf of SBC IllinoisSBC, and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx, on behalf of IDT AmericaCenturyTel, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, are true and correct. On March 21, 2005, Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled for hearing by assigned to a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 14, 2005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing ALJ determined that there were no disputed issues in this proceeding and that no evidentiary hearings would be required. This matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and was marked the record “Heard and Taken” on September 13April 6, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 22July 11, 20052008, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC AT&T Illinois”) and IDT AmericaNorlight, Corp Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Communications (“IDT AmericaNorlight”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 2nd the 4th Amendment to their interconnection agreement the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2, 2008 (“AmendmentAgreement”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by ) under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment itself to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, AT&T Illinois and by Xxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of IDT AmericaNorlight, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by a the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September August 14, 20052008. Prior to this hearing date, Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in of the Commission’s Telecommunications DivisionDivision on August 13, 2008. In his written statementAt the hearing on August 14, 2008, Norlight did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).”