Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On June 13, 2005, Xxxxx City Telephone Company (“Xxxxx”) and 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 “US Cellular”) (Xxxxx and 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 a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) entered into on or about May 13, 2005, 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 Agreement was filed with the joint petition and supported by the statement of Xxxx XxXxxxx, Assistant General Counsel for FairPoint Communications, Inc., the parent company of Xxxxx. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on July 6, 2005. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of Xxxxx, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the Agreement. 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 June 13, 2005, Xxxxx City XxXxxx Telephone Company (“XxxxxMcNabb”) and 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 “US Cellular”) (Xxxxx McNabb and 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 a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) entered into on or about May 13, 2005, 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 Agreement was filed with the joint petition and supported by the statement of Xxxx XxXxxxxXxxxxx Xxxxx, Assistant General Counsel for FairPoint Communications, Inc., the parent company Manager of XxxxxXxXxxx. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on July 6, 2005. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of XxxxxMcNabb, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the Agreement. 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 June 13, 2005, Xxxxx City El Paso Telephone Company (“XxxxxEl Paso”) and 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 “US Cellular”) (Xxxxx El Paso and 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 a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) entered into on or about May 13, 2005, 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 Agreement was filed with the joint petition and supported by the statement of Xxxx XxXxxxx, Assistant General Counsel for FairPoint Communications, Inc., the parent company of XxxxxEl Paso. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on July 6, 2005. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of XxxxxEl Paso, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the Agreement. 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 June 13, 2005, Xxxxx City Odin Telephone Company Exchange, Inc. (“XxxxxOdin”) and 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 “US Cellular”) (Xxxxx Odin and 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 a negotiated traffic termination agreement (“Agreement”) entered into on or about May 13, 2005, 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 Agreement was filed with the joint petition and supported by the statement of Xxxx XxXxxxx, Assistant General Counsel for FairPoint Communications, Inc., the parent company of XxxxxOdin. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on July 6, 2005. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of XxxxxXxxx, US Cellular, and Commission Staff (“Staff”). The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the Agreement. 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 June 13September 17, 20052003, Xxxxx City Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“XxxxxSBC”) and United States Cellular Operating Company of Chicago, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#1, LLC, USCOC of Illinois RSA#4, LLC, and USCOC of RockfordCityNet Illinois, LLC (collectively “US CellularCityNet”) (Xxxxx SBC and US Cellular CityNet are referred to collectively as “Petitioners”) filed with the Illinois Commerce Commission (“Commission”) a verified joint petition seeking the Commission’s approval of a negotiated traffic termination an interconnection agreement (“Agreement”) entered into on or about May 13dated September 3, 20052003. The Agreement is a result of CityNet’s adoption of the terms of the interconnection agreement between SBC and Sprint Communications Company, pursuant to Sections 252(a)(1) and 252(eL.P., under Section 252(i) of the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (“TA96”), 47 U.S.C. 151 et seq. The Agreement was filed with the joint petition and supported by the statement of Xxxx XxXxxxxXxxxx Xxxx, Assistant General Counsel Xx., Director-Contract Management for FairPoint CommunicationsSouthwestern Bell Telephone, Inc., the parent company of XxxxxL.P. d/b/a Southwestern Bell Telephone Company/Illinois Bell Telephone Company Negotiations and Interconnection. Pursuant to due notice, a hearing was held in this matter before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Springfield, Illinois on July 6October 8, 20052003. Appearances were entered by counsel on behalf of Xxxxx, US Cellular, SBC and Commission Staff (“Staff”)) and by CityNet’s regional vice president. The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxx A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunication’s Division, was admitted into the record as Staff Exhibit 1. In the Verified Statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommends approval of the Agreement. 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.