Common Contracts
6 similar Interconnection Agreement contracts
INTERCONNECTION, RESALE AND UNBUNDLINGInterconnection Agreement • August 31st, 2024
The filing of this arbitrated Agreement with the Illinois Commerce Commission in accordance with the Arbitration Decision, dated December 3, 1996 (the “Decision”) of the Illinois Commerce Commission, with respect to AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc.’s Petition for Arbitration of Interconnection Terms, Conditions and Prices from GTE North Incorporated and GTE South Incorporated, in their respective service areas, 96- AB-005, does not in any way constitute a waiver by either AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc., GTE North Incorporated or GTE South Incorporated of any right which any such Party may have to appeal to a competent court of law, or to petition the Illinois Commerce Commission for reconsideration of, any determination contained in the Decision, the Hearing Examiner’s Proposed Arbitration Decision, dated November 8, 1996 (the “Proposed Decision”), with respect to the Petition, or any provision included in this Agreement pursuant to the Decision or the Proposed Decision.
Standard Contracts
INTERCONNECTION, RESALE AND UNBUNDLINGInterconnection Agreement • July 28th, 2024
The filing of this arbitrated Agreement with the Illinois Commerce Commission in accordance with the Arbitration Decision, dated December 3, 1996 (the “Decision”) of the Illinois Commerce Commission, with respect to AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc.’s Petition for Arbitration of Interconnection Terms, Conditions and Prices from GTE North Incorporated and GTE South Incorporated, in their respective service areas, 96- AB-005, does not in any way constitute a waiver by either AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc., GTE North Incorporated or GTE South Incorporated of any right which any such Party may have to appeal to a competent court of law, or to petition the Illinois Commerce Commission for reconsideration of, any determination contained in the Decision, the Hearing Examiner’s Proposed Arbitration Decision, dated November 8, 1996 (the “Proposed Decision”), with respect to the Petition, or any provision included in this Agreement pursuant to the Decision or the Proposed Decision.
INTERCONNECTION, RESALE AND UNBUNDLINGInterconnection Agreement • June 15th, 2023
The filing of this arbitrated Agreement with the Illinois Commerce Commission in accordance with the Arbitration Decision, dated December 3, 1996 (the “Decision”) of the Illinois Commerce Commission, with respect to AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc.’s Petition for Arbitration of Interconnection Terms, Conditions and Prices from GTE North Incorporated and GTE South Incorporated, in their respective service areas, 96- AB-005, does not in any way constitute a waiver by either AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc., GTE North Incorporated or GTE South Incorporated of any right which any such Party may have to appeal to a competent court of law, or to petition the Illinois Commerce Commission for reconsideration of, any determination contained in the Decision, the Hearing Examiner’s Proposed Arbitration Decision, dated November 8, 1996 (the “Proposed Decision”), with respect to the Petition, or any provision included in this Agreement pursuant to the Decision or the Proposed Decision.
INTERCONNECTION, RESALE AND UNBUNDLINGInterconnection Agreement • October 16th, 2022
The filing of this arbitrated Agreement with the Illinois Commerce Commission in accordance with the Arbitration Decision, dated December 3, 1996 (the “Decision”) of the Illinois Commerce Commission, with respect to AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc.’s Petition for Arbitration of Interconnection Terms, Conditions and Prices from GTE North Incorporated and GTE South Incorporated, in their respective service areas, 96- AB-005, does not in any way constitute a waiver by either AT&T Communications of Illinois, Inc., GTE North Incorporated or GTE South Incorporated of any right which any such Party may have to appeal to a competent court of law, or to petition the Illinois Commerce Commission for reconsideration of, any determination contained in the Decision, the Hearing Examiner’s Proposed Arbitration Decision, dated November 8, 1996 (the “Proposed Decision”), with respect to the Petition, or any provision included in this Agreement pursuant to the Decision or the Proposed Decision.
INTERCONNECTION, RESALE AND UNBUNDLINGInterconnection Agreement • March 9th, 2005 • Pennsylvania
The filing of this arbitrated Agreement with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in accordance with the Opinion and Order, approved December 5, 1996, and entered December 6, 1996 (the “Order”), of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission with respect to AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc.’s Petition for Arbitration to Establish an Interconnection Agreement with GTE North, Inc. (the “Petition”), Docket No. A-310125F0002, does not in any way constitute a waiver by either AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc. or GTE North, Inc. of any right which any such Party may have to appeal to a competent court of law, or to petition the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission for reconsideration of, any determination contained in the Order, the Recommended Decision of the Arbitrator, dated October 10, 1996 (the “Recommended Decision”), with respect to the Petition, or any provision included in this Agreement pursuant to the Order or the Recommended Decision.
INTERCONNECTION, RESALE AND UNBUNDLINGInterconnection Agreement • December 17th, 2004 • Pennsylvania
The filing of this arbitrated Agreement with the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission in accordance with the Opinion and Order, approved December 5, 1996, and entered December 6, 1996 (the “Order”), of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission with respect to AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc.’s Petition for Arbitration to Establish an Interconnection Agreement with GTE North, Inc. (the “Petition”), Docket No. A-310125F0002, does not in any way constitute a waiver by either AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc. or GTE North, Inc. of any right which any such Party may have to appeal to a competent court of law, or to petition the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission for reconsideration of, any determination contained in the Order, the Recommended Decision of the Arbitrator, dated October 10, 1996 (the “Recommended Decision”), with respect to the Petition, or any provision included in this Agreement pursuant to the Order or the Recommended Decision.
