DOCSLIB.ORG

11. Revenues, Expenses, and Investment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
11. Revenues, Expenses, and Investment 11. Revenues, Expenses, and Investment This section provides information on revenues, expenses, and investment by major local telephone companies. The information included in this section is calculated from some of the summary information in the Commission’s Automated Reporting Management Information Systems’ (ARMIS) 43-01 Reports. The original data plus more detailed data can be found in the ARMIS 43-01 Reports. These reports, along with the other seven ARMIS reports, are available for public inspection on the ARMIS Internet site at www.fcc.gov/wcb/eafs/. The source of the data in this section is the ARMIS 43-01, Annual Summary Report, filed by every incumbent local exchange carrier with operating revenues that exceed a specified threshold.1 The report is filed on a study area basis and includes data on revenues, expenses, and investment to enable the Commission to monitor the carriers' operations.2 For this section, information was derived from ARMIS 43-01 data for 2005 for the following tables: Table 11.1 - Revenues and Other Operating Items. Table 11.2 - Expenses and Taxes. Table 11.3 - Gross Investment. Table 11.4 - Total Investment Reserves (Row 1890 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report). Table 11.5 - Net Income (which is the difference between Table 11.1, Revenues and Other Operating Items, and Table 11.2, Expenses and Taxes). Table 11.6 - Average Net Investment (Row 1910 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report which is the difference between Table 11.3, Gross Investment, and Table 11.4, Total Investment Reserves). Table 11.7 - Total Operating Revenues (Row 1090 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report). Table 11.8 - Other Operating Income or Losses (Row 1290 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report). Tables 11.7 and 11.8 show the detailed items that when aggregated constitute Table 11.1, Revenues and Other Operating Items. 1 For year 2005 data, the threshold was year 2004 revenues in excess of $125 million. These carriers are classified as Tier 1 (Class A) carriers. 2 In year 2005, thirteen Tier 1 carriers furnished the data used in this report for 124 study areas. The data are for 48 states (all except Alaska and Hawaii), the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Smaller carriers that, in the aggregate, serve about 8% of the nation’s ILEC telephone lines do not file ARMIS data. 11 - 1 Table 11.9 - Total Operating Expenses (Row 1190 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report). Table 11.10 - Total Non-operating Items (Row 1390 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report). Table 11.11 – Taxes -- Federal, State, and Other (Rows 1490, 1590, and 1595 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report).3 Tables 11.9 through 11.11 show the detailed items that when aggregated constitute Table 11.2, Expenses and Taxes. Table 11.12 - Total Plant In-Service (Row 1690 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report). Table 11.13 - Total Other Investments (Row 1790 of the ARMIS 43-01 Report). Tables 11.12 and 11.13 show the detailed items that when aggregated constitute Table 11.3, Gross Investments. Each table in this section contains columns headed “Subject to Separations”, “Intrastate”, and “Interstate”.4 The “subject to separations” column reflects the total amount that is subject to separations allocations between the state and interstate jurisdictions pursuant to Part 36 of the Commission's rules. The “interstate” and “intrastate” columns reflect the amounts allocated to the interstate and state jurisdictions pursuant to those rules. In some instances, the “interstate” column also reflects FCC prescribed adjustments made after the separations process. These adjustments are made only at the interstate level; consequently, the “intrastate” and “interstate” columns may not necessarily add up to the “subject to separations” column. Each table also contains a column headed “Percent Interstate”. The data in this column are calculated by dividing the data in the “interstate” column by the data in the “subject to separations” column. Table 11.6 - Average Net Investment - has one additional column headed “Interstate Rate of Return”. The data in this column are calculated by dividing the data in the “interstate” column of Table 11.5 - Net Income - by the data in the “interstate” column of Table 11.6. 3 Beginning in 1999, mid-sized companies (incumbent carriers other than the Bell operating companies and GTE subsidiaries) no longer report taxes to different governments separately. Therefore, Table 11.11 shows the sum of rows 1490 and 1590 for the BellSouth, Qwest, SBC, and Verizon subsidiaries and row 1595 for the mid-sized companies. 4 These are reported in columns (f), (g), and (h) in the ARMIS 43-01 Reports. The numbers are in thousands of dollars. 11 - 2 Table 11.1 Revenues and Other Operating Items ($000) - 2005 State Subject to Percent Study Area Interstate Intrastate Code Separations Interstate All Reporting Local Exchange Companies $95,665,415 $62,608,456 $33,056,955 34.55 Bell Operating Companies 87,334,432 56,843,794 30,490,631 34.91 Other Reporting Local Exchange Companies 8,330,983 5,764,662 2,566,324 30.80 CenturyTel of Alabama, LLC - Northern Alabama AL 97,103 71,494 25,609 26.37 CenturyTel of Alabama, LLC - Southern Alabama AL 127,012 88,331 38,681 30.45 BellSouth - Alabama AL 1,307,355 907,322 400,033 30.60 Verizon California - Contel - Arizona AZ 7,993 5,266 2,727 34.12 Qwest - Arizona AZ 1,428,719 845,013 583,707 40.86 AT&T - Southwestern Bell - Arkansas AR 684,519 473,787 210,731 30.79 Verizon California - Contel - California CA 291,986 189,145 102,841 35.22 Citizens Telecom. of California - Shasta - California CA 122,573 64,529 58,044 47.35 Verizon - Northwest - West Coast California CA 8,011 6,738 1,272 15.88 Verizon California - GTE - California CA 2,585,822 1,656,558 929,264 35.94 AT&T - Pacific Telesis - Pacific Bell - California CA 8,130,139 5,528,414 2,601,725 32.00 SureWest Telephone CA 134,331 97,944 36,388 27.09 Qwest - Colorado CO 1,793,022 1,075,999 717,023 39.99 AT&T - Southern New England Telephone CT 1,413,138 944,678 468,459 33.15 Verizon Delaware DE 329,148 188,371 140,778 42.77 Verizon Washington, D.C. DC 601,189 353,990 247,199 41.12 Verizon Florida FL 1,473,015 907,156 565,859 38.42 BellSouth - Florida FL 4,138,724 2,697,265 1,441,459 34.83 Sprint - Florida FL 1,285,039 837,703 447,337 34.81 ALLTEL Georgia Communications GA 240,062 178,479 61,583 25.65 BellSouth - Georgia GA 2,943,076 1,875,116 1,067,960 36.29 Verizon - Northwest - Idaho ID 107,362 57,130 50,232 46.79 Qwest - Idaho South ID 306,822 182,444 124,378 40.54 Qwest - Idaho North ID 19,152 11,355 7,796 40.71 Verizon North - Contel/Illinois IL 78,600 48,427 30,174 38.39 Verizon South - Illinois IL 18,744 12,485 6,259 33.39 Verizon North - Illinois IL 376,425 241,169 135,256 35.93 AT&T - Ameritech - Illinois Bell IL 3,224,576 2,240,702 983,874 30.51 Verizon North - Contel/Indiana IN 120,955 76,250 44,706 36.96 Verizon North - Indiana IN 468,143 294,855 173,288 37.02 AT&T - Ameritech - Indiana Bell IN 1,114,461 782,588 331,874 29.78 Sprint - United Telephone Company of Indiana IN 156,364 106,955 49,409 31.60 Iowa Telecommunications Services - Iowa IA 60,124 43,004 17,120 28.47 Iowa Telecommunications Services - Iowa North IA 78,975 59,050 19,925 25.23 Iowa Telecommunications Services - Iowa System IA 51,007 38,448 12,560 24.62 Qwest - Iowa IA 569,230 343,317 225,913 39.69 AT&T - Southwestern Bell - Kansas KS 701,394 439,741 261,652 37.30 Kentucky ALLTEL - London KY 67,151 48,156 18,995 28.29 Kentucky ALLTEL - Lexington KY 292,015 194,218 97,796 33.49 Cincinnati Bell Telephone - Kentucky KY 132,272 110,677 21,596 16.33 BellSouth - Kentucky KY 785,821 538,979 246,843 31.41 BellSouth - Louisiana LA 1,395,188 972,540 422,647 30.29 Verizon New England - Maine ME 444,494 296,025 148,470 33.40 Verizon Maryland MD 2,172,020 1,366,091 805,929 37.11 Verizon New England - Massachusetts MA 2,364,011 1,463,890 900,121 38.08 Verizon North - Michigan MI 400,462 285,135 115,327 28.80 AT&T - Ameritech - Michigan Bell MI 2,496,495 1,766,479 730,017 29.24 Qwest - Minnesota MN 1,084,764 662,507 422,256 38.93 BellSouth - Mississippi MS 1,023,209 751,317 271,892 26.57 CenturyTel of Missouri - Central Missouri MO 60,515 37,722 22,793 37.67 CenturyTel of Missouri - Belle-Hermann MO 3,332 1,949 1,383 41.51 CenturyTel of Missouri - Southern Missouri MO 19,331 13,666 5,665 29.31 CenturyTel of Missouri - Southwest Missouri MO 174,221 119,775 54,446 31.25 AT&T - Southwestern Bell - Missouri MO 1,483,565 977,604 505,961 34.10 Sprint - United Telephone of Missouri MO 181,456 126,144 55,312 30.48 Qwest - Montana MT 231,520 148,670 82,849 35.78 ALLTEL - Nebraska NE 173,951 124,320 49,631 28.53 Qwest - Nebraska NE 329,923 201,092 128,831 39.05 Sprint - Central Telephone - Nevada NV 463,946 300,071 163,875 35.32 Verizon - Contel Nevada NV 26,765 13,516 13,249 49.50 AT&T - Pacific Telesis - Nevada Bell NV 197,379 120,942 76,436 38.73 11 - 3 Table 11.1 Revenues and Other Operating Items - Continued ($000) - 2005 State Subject to Percent Study Area Interstate Intrastate Code Separations Interstate Verizon New England - New Hampshire NH $433,773 $265,098 $168,674 38.89 Verizon New Jersey NJ 3,264,850 1,918,106 1,346,744 41.25 Sprint - United Telephone Company of New Jersey NJ 128,889 76,634 52,255 40.54 Qwest - New Mexico NM 525,573 315,244 210,328 40.02 Valor Telecommunications of Texas - New Mexico 1 NM 33,454 20,606 12,849 38.41 Valor Telecommunications of Texas - New Mexico 2 NM 33,911 21,439 12,472 36.78 Citizens Telecom.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Before the Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of ) ) Section 63.71 Application of ) ) File No. Bellsouth Telecommunications, L
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Section 63.71 Application of ) ) File No. BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC ) Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC ) Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated ) Michigan Bell Telephone Company ) Nevada Bell Telephone Company ) Pacific Bell Telephone Company ) Southwestern Bell Telephone Company ) The Ohio Bell Telephone Company ) Wisconsin Bell, Inc. ) ) For Authority Pursuant to Section 214 of ) The Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, ) To Discontinue the Provision of Service ) SECTION 63.71 APPLICATION OF AT&T AT&T Services, Inc., on behalf of its affiliates, BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Alabama, AT&T Florida, AT&T Georgia, AT&T Kentucky, AT&T Louisiana, AT&T Mississippi, AT&T North Carolina, AT&T South Carolina, and AT&T Tennessee; Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC, d/b/a AT&T Illinois; Indiana Bell Telephone Company, Incorporated, d/b/a AT&T Indiana; Michigan Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Michigan; Nevada Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Nevada; Pacific Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T California; Southwestern Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Arkansas, AT&T Kansas, AT&T Missouri, AT&T Oklahoma, and AT&T Texas; The Ohio Bell Telephone Company, d/b/a AT&T Ohio; and Wisconsin Bell, Inc., d/b/a AT&T Wisconsin, (collectively referred to herein as “AT&T”) applies for authority under Section 214(a) of the Communications Act, as amended (“the Act”), 47 U.S.C. § 214, and Section 63.71 of the Federal Communications Commission’s (“Commission”) rules, 47 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC AT&T Tariff ILL. C.C. NO. 22 D/B/A AT&T Illinois D/B/A AT&T Wholesale Part 22 S
    Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC AT&T Tariff ILL. C.C. NO. 22 d/b/a AT&T Illinois d/b/a AT&T Wholesale Part 22 Section 23 PART 22 - Resale Local Exchange Service 23rd Revised Sheet 1 SECTION 23 - Resale Local Exchange Services - Competitive Related This section sets forth the Local Exchange Services made available by Illinois Bell Telephone Company to Carrier for resale to its customers. General terms, conditions, service and feature descriptions as described in Illinois Guidebook, Part 4 and herein apply where appropriate, unless otherwise specified in this Part. The application thereof is to Carrier with regard to service ordering, repair requests or billing responsibility and to Carrier’s Customer when designating service location, use, activation, configuration, or sizing. 1. NETWORK ACCESS LINES 1.1 Network Access Line Rate Schedule (For service description, see Illinois Guidebook, Part 4, Section 2.) In addition to the following monthly rates, the End User Common Line charge and Service Provider Number Portability (SPNP) monthly charge apply. Access Area Description/Billing Codes A B C Business Direct Line NALCA NALMA NALSA Single Line Subscribers, each line $255.79(I) $341.42(I) $380.99(I) Multiline Subscribers, each line 255.79(I) 341.42(I) 380.99(I) P.B.X. Trunk/1/ Single Line Subscribers, each trunk - STF Not Applicable 255.79(I) 341.42(I) 380.99(I) - STF Applicable .04 .18 .17 Multiline Subscribers, each trunk - STF Not Applicable 255.79(I) 341.42(I) 380.99(I) - STF Applicable .04 .18 .17 Customer Owned Pay Line 0.00 2.78 6.49 COPTS Coin Line 1.39 5.67 9.72 /1/ P.B.X.
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T Debt Information
    AT&T Inc. and Subsidiary Debt Detail - September 30, 2010 This chart shows the principal amount of AT&T Inc.'s and its subsidiaries' outstanding long-term debt issues as of the date above. AT&T intends to update this chart quarterly after filing its Form 10-Q or Form 10-K with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Outstanding Long-term Notes and Debentures Amount Outstanding at Unconditional Guarantee Entity (Original Issuer) Maturity Coupon Maturity Date Current Portion Long-term Portion Total by AT&T Inc. SBC Communications Inc. $1,000,000,000 5.300% 11/15/2010 $1,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000 AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. $3,000,000,000 7.875% 3/1/2011 $3,000,000,000 - $3,000,000,000 SBC Communications Inc. $1,250,000,000 6.250% 3/15/2011 $1,250,000,000 - $1,250,000,000 BellSouth Corporation $1,000,000,000 4.295% 4/26/2021 (a) $1,000,000,000 - $1,000,000,000 Yes BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. $152,555,337 6.300% 12/15/2015 $24,012,263 $128,543,074 $152,555,337 Ameritech Capital Funding Corporation $59,802,300 9.100% 6/1/2016 $7,299,540 $52,502,760 $59,802,300 Various $112,492,335 Various Various $103,734,725 $8,757,610 $112,492,335 BellSouth Corporation $1,000,000,000 6.000% 10/15/2011 - $1,000,000,000 $1,000,000,000 AT&T Corp. $1,500,000,000 7.300% 11/15/2011 - $1,500,000,000 $1,500,000,000 Yes Cingular Wireless LLC $750,000,000 6.500% 12/15/2011 - $750,000,000 $750,000,000 SBC Communications Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Telecommunications Law
    RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS LAW ANGELA D. O’BRIEN* INTRODUCTION It has been four years since President Clinton signed the revolutionary and ambitious Telecommunications Act of 19961 (“TA 96” or “the Act”) in order to remove barriers to competition in the local telecommunications market and provide all Americans with access to affordable telecommunications service. Since that time, and particularly within the past year, there have been a large number of regulatory and judicial decisions at the federal and state levels that endeavor to implement the goals of the Act and to regulate telecommunications carriers under specific provisions of state law. This Article reviews some of the significant developments in federal and Indiana telecommunications law2 for the period of October 1, 1998 to October 31, 1999. I. IMPLEMENTATION OF LOCAL COMPETITION The Act’s goal is to eliminate barriers to local competition in the telecommunications marketplace by requiring that incumbent local exchange carriers (“ILECs”) provide access to their networks to competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”). This access is facilitated by requiring ILECs (1) to permit a requesting new entrant in the [ILEC’s] local market to interconnect with the [ILEC’s] existing local network and thereby use the [ILEC’s] network to compete with the [ILEC] in providing telephone services (interconnection); (2) to provide its competing * J.D., 1998, Indiana University School of Law—Indianapolis. The author is an Associate in the Chicago office of Mayer, Brown & Platt and a former Associate of Barnes & Thornburg, Indianapolis. The views expressed in this Survey are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the attorneys at Mayer, Brown & Platt or Barnes & Thornburg.
    [Show full text]
  • Illinois Bell Telephone Company AT&T Tariff ILL. C.C. NO. 22 D/B/A
    Illinois Bell Telephone Company AT&T Tariff ILL. C.C. NO. 22 d/b/a AT&T Illinois d/b/a AT&T Wholesale Part 22 Section 3 PART 22 - Resale Local Exchange Service 1st Revised Sheet 1 SECTION 3 - Resale Local Exchange Services Cancels Original Sheet 1 This section sets forth the Local Exchange Services made available by Illinois Bell Telephone Company to Carrier for resale to its customers. General terms, conditions, service and feature descriptions as described in Illinois Guidebook, Part 4 and herein apply where appropriate, unless (T) otherwise specified in this Part. The application thereof is to Carrier with regard to service ordering, repair requests or billing responsibility and to Carrier’s Customer when designating service location, use, activation, configuration, or sizing. 1. NETWORK ACCESS LINES (For service description, see Illinois Guidebook, Part 4, Section 2.) (T) The connecting facility between a Carrier’s Customer’s premises and a serving central office providing Carrier’s Customers access to the dial network for placing and receiving calls. Prices are determined by the access area. Issued: April 30, 2014 Effective: May 1, 2014 By W. Karl Wardin, Regional Vice President - Regulatory 225 West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60606 ATT TN IW-14-0019 Illinois Bell Telephone Company, LLC AT&T Tariff ILL. C.C. NO. 22 d/b/a AT&T Illinois d/b/a AT&T Wholesale Part 22 Section 3 PART 22 - Resale Local Exchange Service 37th Revised Sheet 2 SECTION 3 - Resale Local Exchange Services 1. NETWORK ACCESS LINES (cont’d) 1.1 Network Access Line Rate Schedule For service description, see Part 4, Section 2 of this Tariff.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Telephone and Telegraph Company Divestiture: Background, Provisions, and Restructuring
    Report No. 84-58 E I -. <I?....*- ".YII. -n, -- THE AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH COMPANY DIVESTITURE: BACKGROUND, PROVISIONS, AND RESTRUCTURING b Y Angele A. Gilroy Specialist in Industrial Organization Economics Division COLLECTION WKI HEKN !CNTUCKY LIBRARY April 11, 1984 11 i :::A L.'~~-l.ii.e makes jucn research available. without parti- ::;I.. in lr:m\ !orrns inc!uding studies. reports. cornpila- ;,)I!., I!:<?\[>. :md l:a~kqroi~ndhrietings. Cpon request. CRS .. ., :i ~ !>!r::z:rrir.e.;in ann1~-zingle+slative proposals and -tl:..b. :!nd in s>w;sinq the possible effects of these proposals . < :!I irie.The Ser~ice'ssenior specialists and ii,:c( r :iil.,;ii ?is are also at-aiiable for personal consultations ;xi-ir :.t>.;!?ecri\-elieid.; t~f'expertise. ABSTRACT On January 1, 1984, The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) di- vested itself of a major portion of its organizational structure and functions. Under the post-divestiture environment the once fully-integrated Bell System is now reorganized into the "new" AT&T and seven Ladependent regional 5olding ?om- panies -- American Information Technologies Corp., 3ell Atlantic Corp., 3ell- South Corp., NYNEX Corp., Pacific Telesis Group., Southwestern Bell Corp., and U.S. West, Inc. The following analysis provides an overview of the pre- and post-divestiture organizational structure and details the evolution of the anti- trust action which resulted in this divestiture. CONTENTS ABSTRACT ................................................................ iii INTRODUCTION ............................................................ 1 1 . BELL SYSTEM CORPORATE REORGANIZATION .............................. 3 A . Predivestiture Bell System Corporate Structure ................ 3 B . Divested Operating Company Structure .......................... 5 C . Post-Divestiture AThT Organizational Structure ................ 7 11.
    [Show full text]
  • AT&T and the Changing World of Telecommunications
    Book Review Essay The Titanic Remembered: AT&T and the Changing World of Telecommunications Telecommunications in Turmoil: Technology and Public Policy, by Ger- ald R. Faulhaber.* Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1987. 186 pages. $26.95. Glen 0. Robinsont Gerald R. Faulhaber's Telecommunications in Turmoil: Technology and Public Policy1 chronicles the breakup of AT&T consequent to Judge Harold Greene's approval of the Justice Department-AT&T consent set- tlement in 1982 (colloquially known as the modified final judgment or MFJ).2 Some saw the breakup as a disaster on the order of the sinking of the Titanic:' "they were sad when the great ship went down.' 4 While people mourned the Titanic as a human tragedy, however, probably no one thought of the AT&T breakup in quite that way; Ma Bell was not, after all, mom. Still, she was held in fairly high regard. In contrast to other monopolists we've loved to hate-railroads, gas utilities, broadcast * Associate Professor of Public Policy and Management, The Wharton School, University of Penn- sylvania; director, Fishman-Davidson Center for the Study of the Service Sector; formerly director of strategic planning and financial management at AT&T. t John C. Stennis Professor of Law, University of Virginia; B.A., Harvard, 1958; J.D., Stanford, 1961. The author served as an FCC Commissioner from 1974-76, when some of these events oc- curred, This may account for the occasional defensive tone of my remarks: although the statute of limitations has expired on my participation in FCC decisions, cognitive dissonance is still at work.
    [Show full text]
  • STATE of ILLINOIS ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION Illinois
    STATE OF ILLINOIS ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION Illinois Bell Telephone Company : : Petition for Arbitration of : 11-0083 Interconnection Agreement with Big : River Telephone Company, LLC. : ARBITRATION DECISION DATED: June 14, 2011 11-0083 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY .................................................................................... 1 II. APPLICABLE AUTHORITY .................................................................................. 2 III. ISSUES IN DISPUTE ........................................................................................... 4 IV. RECIPROCAL COMPENSATION -- BILL-AND-KEEP ......................................... 4 A. Issue 1: Should the ICA provide for a bill-and-keep arrangement for traffic that is otherwise subject to reciprocal compensation but is roughly balanced? .................................................................................................. 4 1. Introduction ..................................................................................... 4 2. Staff summary of the law governing reciprocal compensation ........ 5 3. AT&T Position ................................................................................. 8 4. Big River’s Position ....................................................................... 12 5. Staff’s Position .............................................................................. 14 6. Exceptions and Replies ................................................................. 16 B. Issue No. 2: If a bill-and-keep arrangement
    [Show full text]
  • Telephomania: the Contested Origins of the Urban Telephone Operating Company in the United States, 1879-1894
    Telephomania: The Contested Origins of the Urban Telephone Operating Company in the United States, 1879-1894 Richard John Great Cities Institute College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs University of Illinois at Chicago Great Cities Institute Publication Number: GCP-05-02 A Great Cities Institute Working Paper JUNE 2005 The Great Cities Institute The Great Cities Institute is an interdisciplinary, applied urban research unit within the College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Its mission is to create, disseminate, and apply interdisciplinary knowledge on urban areas. Faculty from UIC and elsewhere work collaboratively on urban issues through interdisciplinary research, outreach and education projects. About the Author Richard John is Associate Professor of History in the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He may be contacted at [email protected]. Great Cities Institute Publication Number: GCP-05-02 The views expressed in this report represent those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Great Cities Institute or the University of Illinois at Chicago. This is a working paper that represents research in progress. Inclusion here does not preclude final preparation for publication elsewhere. Great Cities Institute (MC 107) College of Urban Planning and Public Affairs University of Illinois at Chicago 412 S. Peoria Street, Suite 400 Chicago IL 60607-7067 Phone: 312-996-8700 Fax: 312-996-8933 http://www.uic.edu/cuppa/gci UIC Great Cities Institute Telephomania: The Contested Origins of the Urban Telephone Operating Company in the United States, 1879-1894 This essay reconsiders the origins of the urban telephone exchange in the United States in the formative era of commercial telephony that stretched from 1879 and 1894.
    [Show full text]
  • Raines V. Illinois Bell Telephone Company 2012 Il. APP (1St) 113679
    1-11-3679 2012 Il. APP (1st) 113679 FIFTH DIVISION December 7, 2012 No. 1-11-3679 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT JONIKKA Q. RAINES, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of ) Cook County. Plaintiff-Appellant ) ) No. 2009-L-003682 v. ) ) ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE ) Honorable Joan E. Powell, COMPANY D/B/A AT&T ILLINOIS ) Judge Presiding ("ILLINOIS"), ) ) Def e n d a n t - A p p e l l e e . ) JUSTICE TAYLOR, delivered the judgment of the court. Presiding Justice McBride and Justice Palmer concurred in the judgment. ORDER ¶1 Held: Where appellant did not provide a sufficient record of the proceedings below to evaluate the merits of the appeal, the order entered by the trial court dismissing the case was presumed to be in conformity with the law and have a sufficient factual basis. ¶ 2 Plaintiff Jonikka Q. Raines, pro se, appeals from an order of the circuit court of Cook County dismissing her complaint against her former employer, Illinois Bell Telephone Co., for breach of contract, violation of Title VII, lack of due process under the 14th amendment and 1-11-3679 fraud for failure to state a cause of action. Plaintiff alleges that defendant wrongfully terminated her by falsely claiming that she had retired. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. ¶ 3 I. BACKGROUND ¶4 Initially, we note that plaintiff has only provided us with a common law record, and has not included a transcript of the proceedings below.
    [Show full text]
  • The At&T Agreement
    UIC Law Review Volume 15 Issue 3 Article 1 Summer 1982 The At&T Agreement: Reorganization of the Telecommunications Industry and Conflicts with Illinois Law, 15 J. Marshall L. Rev. 563 (1982) Frederic D. Tennenbaum Michael P. Hurst Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Contracts Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, and the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Frederic D. Tennenbaum, The At&T Agreement: Reorganization of the Telecommunications Industry and Conflicts with Illinois Law, 15 J. Marshall L. Rev. 563 (1982) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol15/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE AT&T AGREEMENT: REORGANIZATION OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY & CONFLICTS WITH ILLINOIS LAW FREDRIC D. TANNENBAUM* & MICHAEL P. HURST** INTRODUCTION*** On January 8, 1982, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T) and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) signed a stipulation,1 seeking to dismiss the largest anti- trust case in history.2 Under the proposed stipulation, the DOJ's suit against AT&T would be dismissed without prejudice and the provisions of the 1956 consent decree would be substantially * Assistant Attorney General of Illinois, Public Utility Division; J.D. University of Wisconsin, 1981; B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, eco- nomics, Ohio Wesleyan University, 1978.
    [Show full text]
  • CHC Appendix
    APPENDIX COORDINATED HOT CUT (CHC)/AT&T-13STATE AT&T-13STATE/TCG ST. LOUIS 020106 APPENDIX COORDINATED HOT CUT (CHC) 000065 APPENDIX COORDINATED HOT CUT (CHC)/AT&T-13STATE AT&T-13STATE/TCG ST. LOUIS 020106 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................................................1 CHC SERVICE DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................................................................2 CHC PRICING ...............................................................................................................................................................3 000066 APPENDIX COORDINATED HOT CUT (CHC)/AT&T-13STATE AT&T-13STATE/TCG ST. LOUIS 020106 APPENDIX COORDINATED HOT CUT (CHC) 1. INTRODUCTION This Appendix sets forth terms and conditions for Coordinated Hot Cut (CHC) provided by the applicable AT&T Inc. (AT&T) owned Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) and CLEC. 1.1 AT&T Inc. (AT&T) means the holding company which directly or indirectly owns the following ILECs: Illinois Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Illinois, Indiana Bell Telephone Company Incorporated d/b/a AT&T Indiana, Michigan Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Michigan, Nevada Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Nevada, The Ohio Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Ohio, Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California, The Southern New England Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Connecticut, Southwestern Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T Arkansas, AT&T Kansas, AT&T Missouri, AT&T Oklahoma and/or AT&T Texas and/or Wisconsin Bell, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Wisconsin. 1.2 AT&T-13STATE - As used herein, AT&T-13STATE means AT&T SOUTHWEST REGION 5-STATE, AT&T MIDWEST REGION 5-STATE, AT&T-2STATE and AT&T CONNECTICUT the applicable AT&T-owned ILEC(s) doing business in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Wisconsin.
    [Show full text]