Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 19, 2005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and XO Communications Services, Inc. (“XO Communications”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 12th Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of XO Communications , stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 7, 2005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record “Heard and Taken” on September 6 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-6-05).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 19May 16, 20052008, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC AT&T Illinois”) and XO Vertex Broadband, Corp. d/b/a AthenaTel d/b/a Reason to Switch d/b/a TownLink Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a INT Connections (“XO CommunicationsVertex”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 12th Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”)the Interconnection Agreement dated May 7, that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by 2008 under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, AT&T Illinois and by Xxxx Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx on behalf of XO Communications Vertex, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by a the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 7June 9, 20052008. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications DivisionDivision on June 6, 2008. In his written statementAt the hearing on June 9, 2008, AT&T Illinois, Vertex and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 6 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-6-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 19December 23, 20052002, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Ameritech Illinois”) and XO Communications ServicesCook Inlet/Voicestream Operating Company, Inc. LLC, By Voicestream PCS BTA 1 Corporation, its agent, and Voicestream Wireless Corporation (collectively “XO CommunicationsVoicestream”), filed a joint petition Petition for approval of a 12th the Fourth Amendment to their interconnection agreement the Interconnection Agreement dated November 18, 2002 (the “Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (the “the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petitionPetition. A statement in support of the instant petition Petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of XO Communications Ameritech Illinois, and by Xxx Xxxxxx on behalf of Voicestream, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, Petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief. Illinois Commerce Commission Staff filed the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, true and correctof the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September January 7, 20052003. Prior to Counsel for Ameritech Illinois and Staff appeared at the hearing and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this hearing date, Staff filed the proceeding. The Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of X. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 6 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-6-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 19October 1, 20052001, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Ameritech Illinois”) and XO Communications Telseon Carrier Services, Inc. (“XO CommunicationsTelseon”) filed a joint request for approval of the negotiated Interconnection Agreement dated August 14, 2001 (the “Agreement”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 12th Amendment to their interconnection agreement under Sections 252(a)(1) and (“Amendment”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by Section 252 e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 151, et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself Agreement was submitted with the petitionrequest. A statement in support of the instant petition request was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx Xxxx X. XxxxXxxxxx, Xx. on behalf Director of SBC IllinoisNegotiations for Ameritech and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, and by Xxxx Xxxxxx on behalf of XO Communications General Counsel for Xxxxxxx, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, request for approval are true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by before a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 7October 17, 20052001. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division, which was admitted into evidence. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the AmendmentAgreement. The Administrative Law Judge waived At the hearing hearing, Staff indicated that there were no unresolved issues in this matter andproceeding, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 6 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-6-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 19May 5, 20052009, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC AT&T Illinois”) and XO Globalcom Inc. d/b/a First Communications Services, Inc. of Ohio (“XO CommunicationsGlobalcom”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 12th the 8th Amendment to their interconnection agreement (“Amendment”)the Interconnection Agreement dated April 29, that is dated August 102009, 2005, and governed by pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, AT&T Illinois and by Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx on behalf of XO Communications Globalcom, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by a the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 7June 10, 20052009. Prior to this hearing date, Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications DivisionDivision on May 15, 2009. In his written statementAt the hearing on June 10, 2009, Globalcom did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 6 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-6-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 19December 29, 20052004, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Illinois”) and XO Communications ServicesNorlight Telecommunications, Inc. (“XO CommunicationsNorlight”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 12th Amendment to their interconnection agreement negotiated Interconnection Agreement dated December 22, 2004 (the “AmendmentAgreement”), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. Xxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Illinois, and by Xxxx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, on behalf of XO Communications Norlight, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, to the best of their knowledge, information and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 7January 25, 2005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, Xx. Xxxxxxx which recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived At the hearing hearing, SBC Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this matter andproceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement, by rulingi.e., Staff Ex. 1, was admitted the Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx into evidence evidence, and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 6 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-6-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On August 19July 13, 20052001, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“SBC Ameritech Illinois”) and XO Communications ServicesRCN Telecom Services of Illinois, Inc. (“XO CommunicationsRCN”), filed a joint petition for approval of a 12th the First Amendment to their interconnection agreement the Interconnection Agreement dated May 18, 2001 (the “AmendmentAgreement”), that is dated August 10, 2005, under Sections 252(a)(1) and governed by Section 252 (e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 151 151, et seq.) (“the Act”). The Amendment itself Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by Xxxxx X. XxxxXxxx Xxxxxx, Xx. on behalf of SBC Ameritech Illinois, and by Xxxx Xxxxxx X. Xxxx, on behalf of XO Communications RCN, stating that the facts contained in the petition are, are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information information, and belief, true and correct. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter was scheduled came on for hearing by a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on September 7August 15, 20052001. Prior to this hearing date, Staff filed the Verified Statement of A. Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, a Policy Analyst in Xxxxxxx of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statementAt the hearing on August 15, Staff and Ameritech appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Xx. Xxxxxxx recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Xxxxxxx’x Verified Statement of Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxx was admitted into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 6 , 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-6-05).”