Common use of FINDINGS AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS Clause in Contracts

FINDINGS AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS. The Commission, having considered the entire record herein, is of the opinion and finds that: (1) Ameritech and Delta are telecommunications carriers as defined in Section 13-202 of the Public Utilities Act (“Act”), 220 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq., which provide telecommunications services as defined in Section 13-203 of the Act; (2) the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof; (3) the facts recited and conclusions reached in the prefatory portion of this Order are supported by the record and are hereby adopted as findings of fact and law; (4) the Agreement and amendment do not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the Agreement and amendment and are not contrary to the public interest; nor are the Agreement and amendment inequitable, inconsistent with past Commission orders, or in violation of state or federal law; (5) in order to assure that the implementation of the Agreement and amendment is in the public interest, Ameritech should (i) implement the Agreement by filing a verified statement with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified joint petition, and

FINDINGS AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS. The Commission, having considered the entire record herein, is of the opinion and finds that: (1) Ameritech and Delta Easton are telecommunications carriers as defined in Section 13-202 of the Public Utilities Act (“Act”), 220 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq., which provide telecommunications services as defined in Section 13-203 of the Act; (2) the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof; (3) the facts recited and conclusions reached in the prefatory portion of this Order are supported by the record and are hereby adopted as findings of fact and law; (4) while the Agreement and amendment do does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the Agreement Agreement, Ameritech has failed to demonstrate that its 11-State Plan is consistent with the pubic interest and amendment and are not contrary to the public interest; nor are the Agreement and amendment inequitable, inconsistent with past prior Commission orders, or in violation of state or federal law; (5) in order to assure that the implementation of because the Agreement and amendment is in not consistent with the public interest, Ameritech it should be denied; (i6) implement the denial of this Agreement by filing does not have any precedential affect on any future negotiated agreements or Commission orders; and (7) all objections, motions, and petitions in this proceeding that have not specifically been ruled on should be disposed of in a verified statement manner consistent with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified joint petition, andfindings and conclusions herein.

FINDINGS AND ORDERING PARAGRAPHS. The Commission, having considered the entire record herein, is of the opinion and finds that: (1) Ameritech and Delta Royal are telecommunications carriers as defined in Section 13-202 of the Public Utilities Act (“Act”), 220 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq., which provide telecommunications services as defined in Section 13-203 of the Act; (2) the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties hereto and the subject matter hereof; (3) the facts recited and conclusions reached in the prefatory portion of this Order are supported by the record and are hereby adopted as findings of fact and law; (4) while the Agreement and amendment do does not discriminate against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the Agreement Agreement, Ameritech has failed to demonstrate that its 11-State Plan is consistent with the pubic interest and amendment and are not contrary to the public interest; nor are the Agreement and amendment inequitable, inconsistent with past prior Commission orders, or in violation of state or federal law; (5) in order to assure that the implementation of because the Agreement and amendment is in not consistent with the public interest, Ameritech it should be denied; (i6) implement the denial of this Agreement by filing does not have any precedential affect on any future negotiated agreements or Commission orders; and (7) all objections, motions, and petitions in this proceeding that have not specifically been ruled on should be disposed of in a verified statement manner consistent with the Chief Clerk of the Commission, within five days of approval by the Commission, that the approved Agreement is the same as the Agreement filed in this docket with the verified joint petition, andfindings and conclusions herein.