Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 27, 2003, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (“SBC”) and Oneida Network Services, Inc. (“Oneida”), filed a joint Petition for approval of a negotiated Traffic Termination Agreement dated January 2, 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 Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois and by Xxxx Xxxxx on behalf of Xxxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on March 11, 2003. 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 and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 27August 26, 20032004, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois) (“SBC”) and Oneida Network Global Crossing Local Services, Inc. (“OneidaGlobal”), ) filed a joint Petition petition for approval of a negotiated Traffic Termination the Second Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated January 2August 23, 2003 (the “Agreement”)2004, 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 Petitionpetition. A statement in support of the Petition petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois and by Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxxx, XXX on behalf of XxxxxxGlobal, stating that the facts contained in the Petition petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on March 11October 4, 20032004. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on March 11thOctober 4, SBC, Oneida, SBC Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxx’x Mr. Xxxxxxx’s Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 278, 20032009, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (SBC Illinois) (“SBCIllinois Bell”) and Oneida Network ServicesIllinois Bell Telephone Company and Everycall Communications, Inc. d/b/a All American Home d/b/a Local USA (“OneidaEverycall”), filed a joint Petition petition for approval of a negotiated Traffic Termination the Interconnection Agreement dated January 2December 31, 2003 (the “Agreement”)2008, under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Agreement was submitted with the Petitionpetition. A statement in support of the Petition petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois Xxxxxxxx Xxxx and by Xxxx Xxxxx on behalf of XxxxxxEverycall, stating that the facts contained in the Petition petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on March 11February 10, 20032008. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on March 11thFebruary 10, SBC, Oneida, Illinois Bell and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxx’x Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 27August 24, 20032004, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois) (“SBC”) and Oneida Network ServicesVarTec Telecom, Inc. (“OneidaVarTec”), ) filed a joint Petition petition for approval of a negotiated Traffic Termination the Sixth Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated January 2August 18, 2003 (the “Agreement”)2004, 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 Petitionpetition. A statement in support of the Petition petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois and by Xxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxx on behalf of XxxxxxVarTec, stating that the facts contained in the Petition petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on March 11October 4, 20032004. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on March 11thOctober 4, SBC, Oneida, SBC Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxx’x Mr. Xxxxxxx’s Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On January 27February 25, 20032004, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois) (“SBC”) and Oneida Network ServicesOnePoint Communications Illinois, Inc. LLC (“OneidaOnePoint”), filed a joint Petition for approval of a negotiated Traffic Termination the Fourth Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated January 2February 20, 2003 (the “Agreement”)2004, 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 Xxxxx X. Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of SBC Illinois and by Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of XxxxxxOnePoint, stating that the facts contained in the Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on March 11April 19, 20032004. Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxx Xxx Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. At the hearing on March 11thApril 19, SBCSBC Illinois, OneidaOnePoint, and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxx’x Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”