Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5, 2004, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC”) and Cinergy Communications Company (“Cinergy”) (SBC and Cinergy are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30, 2004, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment was filed with the joint petition along with the statement of Xxxxx Xxxx, Director-Contract Management for Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and Interconnection. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9, 2004. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the amendment. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5June 13, 20042005, Illinois Bell Odin Telephone Company Exchange, Inc. (“SBCOdin”) and Cinergy Communications United States Cellular Operating Company of Chicago, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#1, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#4, LLC, and USCOC of Rockford, LLC (collectively “CinergyUS Cellular”) (SBC Odin and Cinergy US Cellular are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their interconnection a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30entered into on or about May 13, 20042005, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment Agreement was filed with the joint petition along with and supported by the statement of Xxxxx XxxxXxxx XxXxxxx, Director-Contract Management Assistant General Counsel for Southwestern Bell TelephoneFairPoint Communications, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and InterconnectionInc., the parent company of Odin. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9July 6, 20042005. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC on behalf of Xxxx, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the amendmentAgreement. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received. Nor are there any contested issues in this proceeding.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5June 13, 20042005, Illinois Bell XxXxxx Telephone Company (“SBCMcNabb”) and Cinergy Communications United States Cellular Operating Company of Chicago, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#1, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#4, LLC, and USCOC of Rockford, LLC (collectively “CinergyUS Cellular”) (SBC McNabb and Cinergy US Cellular are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their interconnection a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30entered into on or about May 13, 20042005, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment Agreement was filed with the joint petition along with and supported by the statement of Xxxxx XxxxXxxxxx Xxxxx, Director-Contract Management for Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and InterconnectionGeneral Manager of XxXxxx. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9July 6, 20042005. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC on behalf of McNabb, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the amendmentAgreement. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received. Nor are there any contested issues in this proceeding.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5March 26, 20042002, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBCAmeritech”) and Cinergy Communications Company McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc. (“CinergyXxXxxx”) (SBC Xxxxxxxxx and Cinergy XxXxxx are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their negotiated portions of an interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30March 26, 20042002, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment remaining portions of the Agreement were determined through an arbitration petition in Docket No. 01-0623. Ameritech and XxXxxx submit those portions of the Agreement to the Commission for review pursuant to the Order entered in Docket No. 01-0623. A copy of the Agreement was filed with the joint petition. Also accompanying the joint petition along with is a statement in support of the statement of Xxxxx Xxxxjoint petition from Xxxx Xxxxxx, Director-Contract Management Negotiations for Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P./Illinois Telephone Company/Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and InterconnectionNegotiations. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9April 10, 20042002. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC on behalf of Ameritech and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the amendmentAgreement. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5April 18, 20042000, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBCAmeritech”) and Cinergy GTE Communications Company Corporation (“CinergyGTE”) (SBC Ameritech and Cinergy GTE are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition petitions seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment amendments to their interconnection agreement agreements (“AgreementAgreements”) dated July 30February 9, 20042000, and May 5, 1997, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment was filed with amendments for which approval is sought in Docket 00-0297 were necessitated by various conditions in the joint petition along with FCC Order Approving the statement of Xxxxx Xxxx, DirectorSBC/Ameritech Merger. (“Merger Conditions”) The amendments for which approval is sought in Docket 00-Contract Management for Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and Interconnection0297 were negotiated between the parties. Pursuant to due notice, this matter these matters came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge Hearing Examiner of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September May 9, 20042000, at which time the matters were consolidated by the Hearing Examiner. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC on behalf of Ameritech, GTE, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement Statements of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit’s 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends Staff recommended approval of the amendmentamendments. At the conclusion of the latter hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5April 28, 20042003, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC”) and Cinergy Communications Company Quick-Tel Communications, Inc. (“CinergyQTC”) (SBC and Cinergy QTC are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30April 11, 20042003, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment was filed with the joint petition along with the statement of Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Director-Contract Management for Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company LP d/b/a SBC Southwestern Bell Telephone Company/Illinois Negotiations and InterconnectionBell Telephone Company Negotiations. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9May 20, 20042003. Appearances were entered by counsel for on behalf of SBC and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the amendment. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5October 24, 20042002, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBCAmeritech”) and Cinergy Communications Company Delta Phones, Inc. (“CinergyDelta”) (SBC Ameritech and Cinergy Delta are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their a negotiated interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30October 8, 20042002, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment A copy of the Agreement was filed with the joint petition. Also accompanying the joint petition along with is a statement in support of the statement of Xxxxx Xxxxjoint petition from Xxxx Xxxxxx, Director-Contract Management Negotiations for Southwestern Bell TelephoneAmeritech Services, L.P./Illinois Inc./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/Industry Markets. Petitioners’ October 24th filing was docketed as Docket No. 02-0695. On December 23, 2002, Petitioners filed a SBC Illinois Negotiations and Interconnectionverified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to aforementioned Agreement. A copy of the amendment as well as a statement in support of the amendment from Xxxx Xxxxxx accompanied the joint petition. The amendment specifically modifies the underlying Agreement by replacing the Appendix Performance Measurements in the underlying Agreement. Petitioners’ December 23rd filing was docketed as Docket No. 02-0860. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9November 12, 2004November 26, November 27, December 18, and December 30, 2002. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC on behalf of Ameritech, Delta, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement Docket Nos. 02-0695 and 02-0860 were consolidated at the request of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the amendmentAmeritech. At the conclusion of the December 30th hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5, 2004, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC”) and Cinergy Communications Company American Fiber Network, Inc. (“CinergyAFN”) (SBC and Cinergy AFN are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first third amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 3028, 2004, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment was filed with the joint petition along with the statement of Xxxxx Xxxx, Director-Contract Management for Southwestern Bell Telephone, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and Interconnection. Pursuant to due notice, this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9, 2004. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the amendment. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 5June 13, 20042005, Illinois Bell Xxxxx City Telephone Company (“SBCXxxxx”) and Cinergy Communications United States Cellular Operating Company of Chicago, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#1, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#4, LLC, and USCOC of Rockford, LLC (collectively “CinergyUS Cellular”) (SBC Xxxxx and Cinergy US Cellular are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of the first amendment to their interconnection a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) dated July 30entered into on or about May 13, 20042005, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(e) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The amendment Agreement was filed with the joint petition along with and supported by the statement of Xxxxx XxxxXxxx XxXxxxx, Director-Contract Management Assistant General Counsel for Southwestern Bell TelephoneFairPoint Communications, L.P./Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a SBC Illinois Negotiations and InterconnectionInc., the parent company of Xxxxx. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter came on for hearing before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on September 9July 6, 20042005. Appearances were entered by counsel for SBC on behalf of Xxxxx, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the amendmentAgreement. At the conclusion of the hearing the record was marked “Heard and Taken.” No petitions to intervene were received. Nor are there any contested issues in this proceeding.