Common use of PROCEDURAL HISTORY Clause in Contracts

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 11, 2008, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and Norlight, Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Communications (“Norlight”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2, 2008 (“Agreement”) under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of Norlight, 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 the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August 14, 2008. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008. At the hearing on August 14, 2008, Norlight did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 1113, 20082001, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Ameritech Illinois”) and NorlightRCN Telecom Services of Illinois, Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Communications (“NorlightRCN”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th Second Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2May 18, 2008 2001 (the “Agreement”), under Sections 252(a)(1) under Section and 252 (e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 151, et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇, on behalf of Ameritech Illinois, and by ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of NorlightRCN, 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 the a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August 1415, 20082001. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008Division. At the hearing on August 1415, 2008, Norlight did not appear. AT&T Illinois Staff and Staff Ameritech appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 11June 10, 2008, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and NorlightCenturyTel Fiber Company II, Inc. LLC d/b/a Cinergy Communications LightCore, a CenturyTel Company (“NorlightCenturyTel”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2May 23, 2008 (“Agreement”) under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 252 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of Norlight▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, information, and belief. On July 2, 2008, the parties filed a Joint Motion to Correct the Statement in Support of the Joint Petition. Staff filed the Verified Statement of ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on July 9, 2008. Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and regulations of the Commission, this matter came on for hearing by the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August July 14, 2008. Staff previously filed At the Verified Statement of hearing on July 14, 2008, ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008. At the hearing on August 14, 2008, Norlight did not appear. The Administrative Law Judge granted the Joint Motion in Support. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no other unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 11August 22, 20082005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T SBC Illinois”) and NorlightIDT America, Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Communications Corp (“NorlightIDT America”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th a 2nd Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2, 2008 their interconnection agreement (“AgreementAmendment”) under ), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 252 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. ▇ on behalf of AT&T Illinois SBC Illinois, and by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of NorlightIDT America, stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct are, 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 came on was scheduled for hearing by the a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August September 14, 20082005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008. At the hearing on August 14, 2008, Norlight did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and marked the record was marked “Heard and Taken” on September 13, 2005. See ALJ Notice (9-13-05).”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 11June 30, 20082009, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and NorlightMatrix Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Matrix Business Technologies d/b/a Trinsic Communications (“NorlightMatrix”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th 11th Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2June 19, 2008 (“Agreement”) under 2009 pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of NorlightMatrix, 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 the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August 14July 29, 20082009. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of ▇. A. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13July 15, 20082009. At the hearing on August 14July 29, 20082009, Norlight ▇▇▇▇▇▇ did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 11May 5, 20082009, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and Norlight, Globalcom Inc. d/b/a Cinergy First Communications of Ohio (“NorlightGlobalcom”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th 8th Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2April 29, 2008 (“Agreement”) under 2009, pursuant to Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of NorlightGlobalcom, 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 the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August 14June 10, 20082009. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of ▇. A. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13May 15, 20082009. At the hearing on August 14June 10, 20082009, Norlight Globalcom did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”

PROCEDURAL HISTORY. On July 11August 19, 20082005, and pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T SBC Illinois”) and NorlightXO Communications Services, Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Communications (“NorlightXO Communications”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th a 12th Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2, 2008 their interconnection agreement (“AgreementAmendment”) under ), that is dated August 10, 2005, and governed by Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. §§ 252 151 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th Amendment to the Agreement itself was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the instant petition was also filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of AT&T Illinois SBC Illinois, and by ▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of NorlightXO Communications , stating that the facts contained in the petition are true and correct are, 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 came on was scheduled for hearing by the a duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August 14September 7, 20082005. Prior to this hearing date, Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇, a Policy Analyst in the Commission’s Telecommunications Division. In his written statement, ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ recommended the approval of the Amendment. The Administrative Law Judge waived the hearing in this matter and, by ruling, admitted the Verified Statement of ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008. At the hearing on August 14, 2008, Norlight did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement 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 July 1117, 2008, pursuant to 83 Illinois Administrative Code Part 763, Illinois Bell Telephone Company (“AT&T Illinois”) and NorlightT-Mobile USA, Inc., T-Mobile Central LLC, and Powertel/Memphis, Inc. d/b/a Cinergy Communications (collectively, “NorlightT-Mobile”), filed a joint petition for approval of the 4th 2nd Amendment to the Interconnection Agreement dated July 2May 23, 2008 (“Agreement”) under Section 252 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (47 U.S.C. § 252 et seq.) (“the Act”). The 4th 2nd Amendment to the Agreement was submitted with the petition. A statement in support of the petition was filed along with verifications sworn to by ▇▇▇▇▇ ▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇, ▇▇. on behalf of AT&T Illinois and by ▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ on behalf of NorlightT-Mobile, 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 the duly authorized Administrative Law Judge of the Commission at its offices in Chicago, Illinois, on August 14, 2008. Staff previously filed the Verified Statement of ▇. A. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ of the Commission’s Telecommunications Division on August 13, 2008. At the hearing on August 14, 2008, Norlight T-Mobile did not appear. AT&T Illinois and Staff appeared and agreed that there were no unresolved issues in this proceeding. Subsequently ▇▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇’▇ Verified Statement was admitted into evidence and the record was marked “Heard and Taken.”