Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 7, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (hereinafter “SBC”) and Arch Wireless Operating Company, Inc. (“Arch Wireless”), filed a joint Petition for approval of the Paging Wireless Interconnection Agreement dated January 15, 2003 (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 Petition. A statement in support of the Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of SBC, and by Xxxx X. Xxxxx on behalf of Arch Wireless, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct 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 given in accordance with the law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was heard by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 26, 2003. Counsel for SBC and Staff appeared at the 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 February 7January 27, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (hereinafter “SBC”) and Arch Wireless Operating CompanyOneida Network Services, Inc. (“Arch WirelessOneida”), filed a joint Petition for approval of the Paging Wireless Interconnection a negotiated Traffic Termination Agreement dated January 152, 2003 (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 Petition. A statement in support of the Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of SBC, SBC Illinois and by Xxxx X. Xxxxx on behalf of Arch WirelessXxxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct 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 given in accordance with the as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was heard came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 26March 11, 2003. Counsel for SBC Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on March 11th, SBC, Oneida, and Staff appeared at the hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. The Xx. Xxx’x Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 7January 23, 20032001, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC “Ameritech Illinois) (hereinafter “SBC”) and Arch Wireless Operating CompanyLooking Glass Networks, Inc. (“Arch WirelessLooking Glass”), filed a joint Petition request for approval of the Paging Wireless Negotiated Interconnection Agreement dated January 15November 1, 2003 2000 (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 Petitionrequest. A statement in support of the Petition request was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx, on behalf of SBCAmeritech Illinois, and by Xxxx X. Xxxxx Xxxx, on behalf of Arch WirelessLooking Glass, stating that the facts contained in the Petition request for approval are true and correct 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 Divisioncorrect. Pursuant to notice given in accordance with the as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was heard came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge Hearing Examiner of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 2628, 20032001. Counsel for SBC and Staff appeared at filed the hearing and agreed 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. The Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx was admitted into evidence , and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On February 7November 1, 20032002, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC “Ameritech Illinois) (hereinafter “SBC”) and Arch Wireless Operating Company, Inc. Focal Communications Corporation of Illinois (“Arch WirelessFocal”), filed a joint Petition petition for approval of the Paging Wireless Third Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated January 15October 17, 2003 2002 (the “AgreementAmendment”), under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement Amendment was submitted with the Petition. A statement in support of the Petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxx, on behalf of SBCAmeritech Illinois, and by Xxxx X. Xxxxx Xxxxx, on behalf of Arch WirelessXxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the Petition petition are true and correct 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 given in accordance with the as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was heard came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on February 26December 4, 20032002. Counsel for SBC Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on December 4, Ameritech, Focal, and Staff appeared at the hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. The Xx. Xxx’x Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”