Common use of STAFF’S POSITION Clause in Contracts

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment, based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred that the Amendment meets the standards set forth in the Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the contract and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. No party contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. Staff also recommended that the Commission require AT&T Illinois, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Amendment is approved, to modify its tariffs to include the Amendment to the negotiated agreement for each service provided. Also, the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment, based on Amendment in this docket in the standards set forth context of the Amendments contained in the dockets cited above and in the context of the criteria contained in Section 252(e)(2252(e)(2)(A) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: Subsection (a) only if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any a portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such an agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. In the Verified Statements cited in Staff’s Motion, Staff recommended stated that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred that the Amendment meets Amendments meet the standards set forth in the Telecommunications Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, of 1996 since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does they do not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is carriers not a party to the contract Amendments, and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent they are consistent with the public interest, convenience or and necessity. No party contended Staff represented that the Amendment in this docket is substantially the same as the Amendments in the dockets cited above and recommended the Commission approve the Amendment in this case for the same reasons. Staff recommended in the Verified Statements that in order to ensure that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to in the public interest. Staff also recommended that , SBC Illinois should implement the Commission require AT&T IllinoisAmendment by filing, within five (5) days from of approval by the date upon which the Amendment is approvedCommission, to modify its tariffs to include the Amendment to the negotiated agreement for each service provided. Also, a verified statement with the Chief Clerk should of the Commission that the approved Amendment is the same as the Amendment filed in this docket with the verified petition. Staff further recommended that that the Chief Clerk place the Amendment Amendments on the Commission's ’s web site under "“Interconnection Agreements." Staff's ” These recommendations are reasonable and they should be adoptedadopted in this proceeding.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment, Agreement based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Agreement be approved by the AmendmentCommission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred stated that the Amendment meets the standards set forth in the Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the contract Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment to the Agreement would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. No party contended that the Amendment this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. In addition, Staff also recommended recommends that the Commission require AT&T IllinoisAmeritech to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Amendment to the Agreement is approved, to modify its tariffs to include with the Amendment to Office of the negotiated Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved agreement for each service providedis the same as the one as the Agreement filed in this docket with the Verified Petition. Also, Staff also recommends that the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment agreement on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment, First Amendment to the Agreement based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the AmendmentAmendment to the Agreement, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. XxxxxxxXx Xxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred Xxx stated that the First Amendment to the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the contract Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment to the Agreement would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. No party contended that the Amendment Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. In addition, Staff also recommended that the Commission require AT&T IllinoisSBC to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Amendment to the Agreement is approved, with the Office of the Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved Amendment to modify its tariffs to include the Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this Docket with the Verified Petition. Staff also recommended that the Chief Clerk place the Amendment to the negotiated agreement for each service provided. Also, the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment Agreement on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the very same Amendment, between SBC and other carriers, in dockets 03-0451, 03-0453 and several other dockets, based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: this subsection if it finds that that: (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve the Amendment, for the reasons set forth in In the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred that the Amendment meets the standards set forth Statements in the Act 03-0451 and that it is consistent with the public interest. 03-0453, Staff has concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment to the Agreement should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Also in those dockets, Staff has concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the contract Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. No Staff has represented that the Amendment in this docket is uniform in nature, and that the Amendment here is identical in substance to the previously mentioned dockets. Staff also represent that it cannot conceive of a situation in which its recommendation for approval would change. There are no contested issue in this docket. Moreover, no party has contended that the Amendment is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. In the Verified Statements in 03-0451 and 03-0453, Staff also recommended that the Commission require AT&T IllinoisSBC to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Amendment Agreement is approved, to modify its tariffs to include with the Office of the Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved Amendment to the negotiated agreement for each service providedAgreement is the same as the Amendment filed in this Docket with the Verified Petition. Also, Staff also recommended that the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's These recommendations are reasonable and they should be adoptedadopted in this proceeding.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment, Agreement based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Agreement be approved by the AmendmentCommission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. XxxxxxxXxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred Xxx stated that the Amendment Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment Agreement does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the contract Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment Agreement would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. No party contended that the Amendment this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. In addition, Staff also recommended recommends that the Commission require AT&T IllinoisAmeritech to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Amendment Agreement is approved, to modify its tariffs to include with the Amendment to Office of the negotiated Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved agreement for each service providedis the same as the one as the Agreement filed in this docket with the Verified Petition. Also, Staff also recommends that the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment Agreement on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." . Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment, Second Amendment to the Agreement based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve approved the AmendmentSecond Amendment to the Agreement, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. Xxxxxxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred stated that the Second Amendment to the Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, since similarly-similarly- situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the contract Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. No party contended that the Amendment to the Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. In addition, Staff also recommended that the Commission require AT&T IllinoisAmeritech to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Amendment to the Agreement is approved, to modify its tariffs to include with the Office of the Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved Amendment to the negotiated agreement for each service providedAgreement is the same as the Amendment filed in this Docket with the Verified Petition. Also, Staff also recommended that the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted.

STAFF’S POSITION. Staff has reviewed the Amendment, Agreement based on the standards set forth in Section 252(e)(2) of the Act. Under this Section, the Commission may only reject an agreement, or any portion thereof, adopted by negotiation under subsection: subsection (a) if it finds that (i) the agreement, or any portion thereof, discriminates against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (ii) the implementation of such agreement, or a portion thereof, is not consistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. Staff recommended that the Commission approve Agreement be approved by the AmendmentCommission, for the reasons set forth in the Verified Statement of Xx. XxxxxxxXxx. Xx. Xxxxxxx averred Xxx stated that the Amendment Agreement meets the standards set forth in the Act and that it is consistent with the public interest. Staff concluded that, since similarly-situated carriers can enter into essentially the same contract, the Amendment should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Staff concluded that the Amendment Agreement does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier that is not a party to the contract Agreement and that the implementation of the Amendment Agreement would not be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity. There are no contested issues in this docket. No party contended that the Amendment this Agreement is discriminatory or contrary to the public interest. In addition, Staff also recommended recommends that the Commission require AT&T IllinoisAmeritech to file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Amendment Agreement is approved, to modify its tariffs to include with the Amendment to Office of the negotiated Chief Clerk, a verified statement that the approved agreement for each service providedis the same as the Agreement filed in this Docket with the Verified Petition. Also, Staff also recommends that the Chief Clerk should place the Amendment Agreement on the Commission's web site under "Interconnection Agreements." Finally, Staff recommends that Ameritech file, within five (5) days from the date upon which the Agreement is approved, modify its tariffs to reference the negotiated agreement. The following section of Ameritech’s tariffs should reference the Agreement between American and Xxxxxx and Ameritech Illinois: Agreements with Telecommunications Carriers (ICC No. 21, Section 19.15). Staff's recommendations are reasonable and they should be adopted.