DOCSLIB.ORG

Verizon Communications Inc

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Verizon Communications Inc. Section 272 Biennial Agreed Upon Procedures Report for the engagement period January 3, 2001 to January 2, 2003. (Redacted Version) TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A Procedures for Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Verizon Global Networks, Inc., Verizon Select Services Inc, and Verizon Global Solutions, Inc. Appendix B Procedures for CODETEL International Communications Inc., TELUS Communications Inc., TELUS Communications (Quebec) Inc., Compania Anonima Nacional Telefonos de Venezuela, and Telecom New Zealand USA Limited Appendix B-1 Procedures for Former GTE Section 272 affiliates, Step D Appendix C Follow-up Procedures on the Prior Engagement Appendix D Procedures for Subsequent Events Attachment A Objective VIII: Performance Measure Results Attachment B Objective VIII: Linear Graphs Attachment C Verizon’s Response to Comments on the Biennial Section 272 Report filed on June 2001 As part of Verizon’s response to the Follow-up Procedures on the Prior Engagement (Reference Appendix C), Verizon included their response, dated June 11, 2002, to comments on the Verizon Biennial Section 272 Reports filed by PricewaterhouseCoopers on June 11, 2001 and June 18, 2001. Attachment D General Standard Procedures for Biennial Audits Required Under Section 272 of the Communications Act of 1934, as Amended Attachment E Verizon’s Comments on the Verizon Biennial Section 272 Report filed on June 12, 2003 PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED Appendix A enumerates the procedures performed in connection with the Bell Operating Companies (“Verizon BOC”)1 and Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (“ILEC”)2 of Verizon Communications, Inc. (collectively referred to as the “Verizon BOC/ILEC” or the “Company” or “Management”), and the Section 272 affiliates3. Objective I: Affiliate Shall Operate Independently from the BOC 1. We inquired of management whether there have been any changes in the certificate of incorporation, bylaws, articles of incorporation, or the legal and/or “doing business as” (“DBA”) names, since the last engagement period (January 3, 2000 through January 2, 2001), for Verizon Long Distance (“VLD”), Verizon Enterprise Solutions (“VES”), Verizon Global Networks Inc. (“GNI”), and Verizon Select Services Inc. (“VSSI”). Management indicated that there have been no changes to the certificates of incorporation, to the bylaws, to the legal names, or to the DBA names for VLD, VES, GNI, and VSSI. We obtained and inspected the certificates of incorporation and bylaws for Verizon Global Solutions Inc. (“GSI”). We noted that GSI was established as a Delaware corporation separate from the Verizon BOC/ILEC. Management indicated that the Delaware General Corporation Law refers to the articles of incorporation as the certificates of incorporation. We obtained and inspected the certificates of incorporation, bylaws, and articles of incorporation for Verizon Long Distance, Virginia Inc. (“VLD-VA”), Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Virginia Inc. (“VES-VA”), and Verizon Global Networks, Virginia Inc. (“GNI- VA”). We noted that VLD-VA, VES-VA, GNI-VA, and VSSI-VA were established as Virginia corporations separate from the Verizon BOC/ILEC. We inquired of management and management indicated the following: “VLD-VA, VES-VA, GNI- VA, and VSSI-VA do not have their own books and records. These entities were never used and accordingly these entities never had any revenues or entered into any transactions, even though they were listed as parties on certain contracts.” 2. We obtained and inspected Verizon’s corporate entities' organizational charts as of September 30, 2002. We confirmed with legal representatives of the Verizon BOC/ILECs and of the Section 272 affiliates the legal, reporting, and operational corporate structure of the Section 272 affiliates. We obtained written confirmations from the legal representatives noting that: • VLD is owned by Verizon Communications Inc. 1 For the purposes of this document, Bell Operating Companies refers to Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon New England, Inc., Verizon – Washington, D.C., Inc., Verizon – Maryland, Inc., Verizon – Virginia, Inc., Verizon – West Virginia, Inc., Verizon – New Jersey, Inc., Verizon – Pennsylvania, Inc., Verizon – Delaware, Inc. 2 For the purposes of this document, Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier refers to Verizon California, Inc., Verizon Florida, Inc., Verizon Hawaii, Inc., Verizon Mid-States (Contel of the South, Inc.), Verizon Midwest (GTE Midwest, Inc.), Verizon North, Inc., Verizon Northwest, Inc., Verizon South, Inc., Verizon Southwest (GTE Southwest, Inc.), Verizon West Coast, Inc., Puerto Rico Telephone Company, The Micronesian Telecommunications Corp. (In addition, for the purpose of this engagement, Verizon Advanced Data Inc. (VADI), and Verizon Advanced Data Inc. – Virginia (VADI – VA) are to be treated as ILECs after the September 26, 2001 order, Bell Atlantic/GTE Merger, 16 FCC Rcd 16915 (2001.) 3 For the purposes of this document, the Section 272 affiliates are Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global Networks, Inc., Verizon Select Services Inc. (formerly GTE Communications Corp.), and Verizon Global Solutions, Inc. PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED Appendix A: 1 Appendix A • VES is owned by Bell Atlantic Worldwide Services Group, Inc., which in turn is owned by NYNEX Corporation, which is owned by Verizon Communications Inc. • GNI is owned by Verizon Communications Inc. • VSSI is owned by GTE Corporation, which in turn is owned by Verizon Communications Inc. • GSI is owned by Bell Atlantic International, Inc., which is owned by Verizon Investments Inc., which is owned by Verizon Communications Inc. For VLD-VA, VES-VA, GNI-VA, and VSSI-VA, management indicated the following: • “Verizon Long Distance, Virginia Inc. is a direct subsidiary of Bell Atlantic Communications Inc. • Verizon Enterprise Solutions, Virginia Inc. is a direct subsidiary of NYNEX Long Distance Company. • Verizon Global Networks, Virginia Inc. is a direct subsidiary of Verizon Global Networks Inc. • Verizon Select Services of Virginia Inc. is a direct subsidiary of Verizon Select Services Inc.” 3. We inquired of management which entities perform operations, installation and maintenance (“OI&M”) functions over facilities either owned or leased by each Section 272 affiliate. Management indicated the following: • VLD and VES do not own or lease any facilities. • GNI employees and third party contractors perform OI&M on facilities either owned or leased by GNI. • GNI employees, VSSI employees and third party contractors perform OI&M on facilities either owned or leased by VSSI. • GSI employees and third party contractors perform OI&M on facilities either owned or leased by GSI. We requested management’s definition and interpretation of OI&M functions and management indicated the following: “Verizon's management has included the following guidance in its Affiliate Transaction Policy. This guidance, which is based on paragraph 158 of FCC Docket 96-149, is Verizon’s definition of OI&M. Like the FCC’s order, Verizon's instructions for compliance with this requirement rely on the common meaning of the words in the FCC’s rules. Specific cases are reviewed by counsel. Under the 272 regulations, the FCC prohibits Verizon’s ILECs and any Verizon affiliate, other than another Section 272 affiliate, from performing operation, installation or maintenance (O, I or M) functions associated with switching or transmission facilities owned or leased by a Section 272 affiliate. An ILEC and Section 272 affiliate may not have joint ownership of transmission and switching facilities or the land and buildings where those facilities are located. A Section 272 affiliate may not perform operations, installation, or maintenance functions associated with switching or transmission facilities owned or leased by the ILECs.” We inquired of management and management indicated that Section 272 affiliates do not perform OI&M on facilities either owned or leased by the Verizon BOC/ILECs. Also, PUBLIC VERSION – REDACTED Appendix A: 2 Appendix A management indicated that Verizon BOC/ILECs and other affiliates do not perform OI&M functions on facilities either owned or leased by the Section 272 affiliates. 4. We inquired of management as to the existence of any research and development activities of the Verizon BOC/ILECs from January 3, 2001 through September 30, 2002 related to the Section 272 affiliates. Management indicated that the Verizon BOC/ILECs did not perform any research and development activities on behalf of the Section 272 affiliates. 5. We obtained the balance sheet and detailed fixed asset listing, including capitalized software, as of September 30, 2002 for VLD, VES, GNI, VSSI, and GSI. We compared the fixed asset balances in the balance sheets to the totals listed on VLD’s, VES’s, GNI’s, VSSI’s, and GSI’s detailed fixed asset listings and noted the following: • For VLD, we noted that the fixed asset amount in the balance sheet is $1,826,108 more than the total amount on the detailed fixed asset listing. We inquired of management and management indicated the difference is due to amounts for capitalized labor and construction in progress (“CIP”) included in the balance sheet. Management indicated that CIP assets reflect assets not yet placed in service. • For VES, we noted no differences. • For GNI, we noted that the fixed asset amount in the balance sheet is $86,887,299 more than the total amount on the detailed
Recommended publications
  • Subject : Verizon Partner Solutions Industry Letter: Notice of Price

    Subject : Verizon Partner Solutions Industry Letter: Notice of Price

    April 16 , 2021 Audience: CLEC,ISP,IXC,Resellers,Wireless,ILEC Subject : Verizon Partner Solutions Industry Letter: Notice of Price Changes for certain Interstate Special Access Services in Verizon Business Data Services (BDS) Product Guide This is to provide notice of rate increases for certain interstate special access services offered under Verizons Business Data Services (BDS) Product Guide. Effective May 1, 2021, Verizon[1] will: (i) increase by approximately 30 percent certain rates in Regions 1 and 11 for interstate Voice Grade Service, Digital Data Services (DDS) and DIGIPATH® digital service II (DDS II) channel terminations, and fixed and per mile channel mileage and (ii) increase by approximately 20 percent certain rates in Regions 14 and 16 for interstate DS3 channel termination, fixed and per mile channel mileage and multiplexer, and DS1 multiplexer. Rates for Clear Channel Capability in Region 14 will also increase. In addition, certain nonrecurring charges for interstate DS1 channel terminations in Region 1 and interstate DS3 channel terminations in Regions 1 and 11 will increase. The BDS Product Guide changes will be available at verizon.com/productguides[2] on May 1, 2021. For additional information, please see verizon.com/productguides or contact your account manager. [1] The Verizon Telephone Companies include Verizon Delaware LLC, Verizon Maryland LLC, Verizon New England Inc., Verizon New Jersey Inc., Verizon New York Inc., Verizon North LLC, Verizon Pennsylvania LLC, Verizon South Inc., Verizon Virginia LLC, and Verizon Washington, D.C. Inc. [2] To access the BDS Product Guide, go to the web page at the above link, click the United States flag and select the X for Verizon Telephone Operating Companies Product Guides.
  • A Call for an Investigation of Verizon New Jersey's Financials

    A Call for an Investigation of Verizon New Jersey's Financials

    New Networks STATE OF NEW JERSEY Board of Public Utilities 44 South Clinton Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0350 TELECOMMUNICATIONS IN THE MATTER OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE INC.’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH ) OPPORTUNITY NEW JERSEY COMMITMENTS ) DOCKET NO. TO12020155 DISSOLVE THE STIPULATION AGREEMENT IMMEDIATELY. 1) OPRA (OPEN PUBLIC RECORDS ACT) REQUESTS 2) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY FOR FAILURE TO PROPERLY UPGRADE THE STATE–BASED UTILITY PLANT 3) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF VERIZON NEW JERSEY’S MASS CROSS-SUBSIDIZATION WITH VERIZON’S AFFILIATES, INCLUDING VERIZON INTERNET, VERIZON BUSINESS, VERIZON LONG DISTANCE, AMONG OTHERS 4) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION OF THE FINANCIAL AND OTHER TIES BETWEEN VERIZON NEW JERSEY AND VERIZON WIRELESS 5) REQUEST FOR A FULL INVESTIGATION: CHARGING CUSTOMERS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALL VERIZON’S AFFILIATE COMPANIES’ PRODUCTS AND SERVICES, INCLUDING FIOS CABLE TV, INTERNET, BROADBAND, WIRELESS, AND OTHER LINES OF BUSINESS Submitted by: Bruce Kushnick, New Networks Institute Tom Allibone Director of Audits, Teletruth President, LTC Consulting, a New Jersey firm Alexander Goldman, Law Student, Brooklyn Law School Contacts: [email protected], [email protected], 1 New Networks Statement: New Networks & Teletruth requests that the proposed Stipulation Agreement between Verizon New Jersey and the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (NJBPU) be dissolved immediately, our OPRA requests be upheld, and an investigation start immediately. The State should then require Verizon New Jersey to either wire 100% of their state territory, as required by law, with a fiber optic service capable 45 Mbps in both directions; or start a proceeding to give back the billions collected, including damages to every Verizon customer.
  • World's Biggest Challenges

    World's Biggest Challenges

    FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT THE WORL D’S BIGGEST CH A L L E N GES DESERVE EVEN BIGGER SOLUTIONS. { POWERFUL ANSWERS } FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS $115.8 $33.4 $0.90 $2.20 $2.24 $1.975 $2.030 $110.9 $31.5 $0.85 $2.15 $1.925 $106.6 $29.8 $0.31 CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS REPORTED ADJUSTED DIVIDENDS REVENUES FROM OPERATING DILUTED EARNINGS DILUTED EARNINGS DECLARED PER (BILLIONS) ACTIVITIES PER SHARE PER SHARE SHARE (BILLIONS) (NON-GAAP) CORPORATE HIGHLIGHTS • $15.3 billion in free cash flow (non-GAAP) • 8.4% growth in wireless retail service revenue • 4.5% growth in operating revenues • 607,000 FiOS Internet subscriber net additions • 13.2% total shareholder return • 553,000 FiOS Video subscriber net additions • 3.0% annual dividend increase • 17.2% growth in FiOS revenue • 5.9 million wireless retail connection net additions • 6.3% growth in Enterprise Strategic Services revenue • 0.91% wireless retail postpaid churn Note: Prior-period amounts have been reclassified to reflect comparable results. See www.verizon.com/investor for reconciliations to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the non-GAAP financial measures included in this annual report. In keeping with Verizon’s commitment to protect the environment, this report was printed on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). By selecting FSC-certified paper, Verizon is making a difference by supporting responsible forest management practices. Chairman’s LETTER Dear Shareowner, 2012 was a year of accelerating momentum, for Verizon and the communications industry. The revolution in mobile, broadband and cloud networks picked up steam—continuing to disrupt and transform huge sectors of our society, from finance to entertainment to healthcare.
  • Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly : Situated, : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : : V

    Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly : Situated, : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : : V

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHRISTOPHER KELLY, : Individually and on behalf of all others similarly : Situated, : : CIVIL ACTION Plaintiffs, : : v. : : NO. 16-5672 VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA, LLC, et al., : : Defendants. : Mitchell S. Goldberg, J. February 11, 2019 MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Christopher Kelly, the sole named plaintiff in a putative class of individuals, has sued Defendants Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC (“Verizon Pennsylvania, LLC”), Verizon Online Pennsylvania Partnership (“Verizon Online”), and Verizon Pennsylvania (“Verizon Pennsylvania”) (collectively, “Verizon” or “Defendants”). Plaintiff claims that Defendants misrepresented to Verizon FiOS Quantum television customers that they must lease multiple set- top boxes in order to access FiOS on multiple televisions in a household. Plaintiff originally commenced this lawsuit on September 28, 2016, in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County. Defendants timely removed the action on October 31, 2016, under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiff now seeks to remand the action back to state court. For the reasons set forth herein, I will deny the Motion. I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint According to the Complaint, Verizon is a leading provider of television programming, known as “FiOS,” supplied to customers across the country, including Pennsylvania. As of February 2016, FiOS was the largest provider of fiber optic broadband in the United States. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Verizon requires its FiOS customers to lease a “set-top” box for each television to be connected to Verizon’s broadband network, and customers are assessed recurring fees for the use of these devices.
  • Testimony of Susan M

    Testimony of Susan M

    STATE OF NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES In the Matter of the Board’s Investigation Regarding the Reclassification of Incumbent Docket No. TX1 1090570 Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) Services as Competitive — Phase II TESTIMONY OF SUSAN M. BALDWIN AND SARAH M. BOSLEY ON BEHALF OF THE NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF RATE COUNSEL STEFANIE A. BRAND DIRECTOR AND RATE COUNSEL Division of Rate Counsel 31 Clinton Street, 11th Floor P.O. Box 46005 Newark, NJ 07101 (973) 648-2690 - Phone (973) 624-1047 — Fax www.rDa.state.nI.us [email protected] Filed: February 24, 2012 REDACTED VERSION ALLEGED CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN REDACTED Testimony of Susan M. Baldwin and Sarah M. Bosley NJ BPU Docket No. TX1 1090570 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Qualifications 1 Assignment 4 Summary 6 II. PROCEDURAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND 11 Regulatory and statutory context for proceeding 11 III. INCUMBENT CARRIERS 16 Background 16 Verizon NJ 17 CenturyLink 23 IV. LOCAL EXCHANGE MARKETS 35 Market structure 35 Companies offer telecommunications services to residential and business consumers using various technologies, and consumer demand varies by platform and customer class 38 Public FCC data demonstrates that ILECs still own or control the vast majority of wireline telephone lines in their operating territory in New Jersey 40 Cable companies compete only in the bundles market, leaving low-income and moderate- income consumers as well as those who do not want to buy bundles with few alternatives 43 Wireless use is prevalent but, for the vast majority of households, does not yet represent an economic substitute for basic local exchange service 46 Assessment data provides information about the scale of ILECs’ rivals 51 Rate Counsel’s survey demonstrates a lack of economic substitutes for ILECs’ basic local Testimony of Susan M.
  • \\10.0.10.115\Eti\States\CA\2018-ORA\LLS Testimony\LLS Testimony Sprint T-Mo 01-05-19 NO FOOTER .Wpd

    \\10.0.10.115\Eti\States\CA\2018-ORA\LLS Testimony\LLS Testimony Sprint T-Mo 01-05-19 NO FOOTER .Wpd

    Before the CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION In the Matter of the Joint Application of Sprint Communications Company L.P. (U-5112) and T-Mobile USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, For Approval of Transfer of Application 18-07-011 Control of Sprint Communications Company L.P. Pursuant to California Public Utilities Code Section 854(a). And Related Matter. Application 18-07-012 Direct Testimony of LEE L. SELWYN on behalf of the Public Advocates Office at the California Public Utilities Commission January 7, 2019 REDACTED FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION DIRECT TESTIMONY OF LEE L. SELWYN TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 Qualifications, background and experience 1 Assignment 6 The public interest and other issues identified in the Scoping Memo 7 ISSUE 1. How would the merger impact competition for services currently provided by Sprint or T-Mobile in any metropolitan area or other geographically distinct market? 8 The mobile wireless telecommunications market in California and throughout the US is already highly concentrated, and further market consolidation is neither warranted nor in the public interest. 8 An analytical framework for assessing the level of market concentration 15 As a general matter, wireless service price levels in the US are decidedly higher than in other western countries where multiple facilities-based carriers are present and where competition appears more intense. 22 ISSUE 3. What are the relevant markets to consider? 27 To properly utilize the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) to assess the level of market concentration, one must firmly establish a proper definition for the relevant product and geographic market.
  • Annual Report

    Annual Report

    FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY PERFORMANCE 2012 ANNUAL REPORT THE WORL D’S BIGGEST CHALLEN GES DESERVE EVEN BIGGER SOLUTIONS. { POWERFUL ANSWERS } FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS $115.8 $33.4 $0.90 $2.20 $2.24 $1.975 $2.030 $110.9 $31.5 $0.85 $2.15 $1.925 $106.6 $29.8 $0.31 CONSOLIDATED CASH FLOWS REPORTED ADJUSTED DIVIDENDS REVENUES FROM OPERATING DILUTED EARNINGS DILUTED EARNINGS DECLARED PER (BILLIONS) ACTIVITIES PER SHARE PER SHARE SHARE (BILLIONS) (NON-GAAP) CORPORATE HIGHLIGHTS • $15.3 billion in free cash flow (non-GAAP) • 8.4% growth in wireless retail service revenue • 4.5% growth in operating revenues • 607,000 FiOS Internet subscriber net additions • 13.2% total shareholder return • 553,000 FiOS Video subscriber net additions • 3.0% annual dividend increase • 17.2% growth in FiOS revenue • 5.9 million wireless retail connection net additions • 6.3% growth in Enterprise Strategic Services revenue • 0.91% wireless retail postpaid churn Note: Prior-period amounts have been reclassified to reflect comparable results. See www.verizon.com/investor for reconciliations to U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the non-GAAP financial measures included in this annual report. In keeping with Verizon’s commitment to protect the environment, this report was printed on paper certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). By selecting FSC-certified paper, Verizon is making a difference by supporting responsible forest management practices. CHAIRMAN’S LETTER Dear Shareowner, 2012 was a year of accelerating momentum, for Verizon and the communications industry. The revolution in mobile, broadband and cloud networks picked up steam—continuing to disrupt and transform huge sectors of our society, from finance to entertainment to healthcare.
  • SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell Vice

    SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell Vice

    THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 9th Revised Title Page 2 Cancels 8th Revised Title Page 2 SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Thomas Caldwell T Vice President, Marketing & Sales T Verizon Communications Inc. One Verizon Way, 2nd Floor T Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 T For Verizon Delaware Inc. Verizon Maryland Inc. Verizon New England Inc. Verizon New Jersey Inc. Verizon New York Inc. Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. Verizon Virginia Inc. Verizon Washington DC Inc. Verizon West Virginia Inc. Kelly Boggs Manager – Pricing BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. 675 West Peachtree St. N.E., Room 34S91, Atlanta, Georgia 30375 For the States of: Alabama Florida Georgia Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina Tennessee This page filed under Transmittal No. 29 T The names, titles and address of the tariff's Issuing Officers are located on Title Pages 2 through 4 Issued: May 31, 2006 Effective: June 15, 2006 THE BELL OPERATING COMPANIES TARIFF F.C.C. NO. 1 10th Revised Title Page 4 Cancels 9th Revised Title Page 4 SMS/800 FUNCTIONS ISSUING CARRIERS Patrick Doherty T Director – Access Regulatory T AT&T Inc. T Four SBC Plaza, Room 1921, Dallas, Texas 75202 T For Ameritech Operating Companies Nevada Bell Telephone Company Pacific Bell Telephone Company Southwestern Bell Telephone Company The Southern New England Telephone Company Susan S. Henson T Staff Advocate - Public Policy T on behalf of N Wendy M. Moser N Vice President - Public Policy N Qwest Corporation 1801 California Street, Room 4700, Denver, Colorado 80202 For the States of: Arizona Colorado Idaho Iowa Minnesota Montana Nebraska New Mexico North Dakota Oregon South Dakota Utah Washington Wyoming This page filed under Transmittal No.
  • Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of ) ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) Inter

    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 in the Matter of ) ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) Inter

    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Offer of Comparably Efficient ) Interconnection to Providers of ) Enhanced Directory Assistance Service ) COMPARABLY EFFICIENT INTERCONNECTION PLAN I. Introduction and Summary The Verizon telephone companies (“Verizon”) hereby propose to offer comparably efficient interconnection (“CEI”) to competing providers of wholesale Enhanced Directory Assistance (“EDA”) Service.1 Verizon will comply fully with the nonstructural safeguards that apply to the offering of enhanced services on an integrated basis by the former Bell Operating Companies .2 One of these 1 This plan is being filed by the Verizon telephone companies that were formerly affiliates of Bell Atlantic Corporation and are identified in Attachment A. Other Verizon telephone companies that were formerly affiliates of GTE Corporation are not required to post a CEI plan before offering an enhanced service. 2 See Amendment of Section 64.702 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, (Computer III), CC Docket No. 85-229, Phase I, 104 FCC 2d 958 (1986) (Phase I Order), recon., 2 FCC Rcd 3035 (1987), further recon., 3 FCC Rcd 1135 (1988) Reconsideration Order, second further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1989) (Phase I Second Further Reconsideration), Phase I Order and Phase I Reconsideration Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217 (9th Cir. 1990); Phase II, 2 FCC Rcd 3072 (1987) (Phase II Order), recon., 3 FCC Rcd 5927 (1988) (Phase II Further Reconsideration Order), further recon., 4 FCC Rcd 5927 (1988) (Phase II Further Reconsideration Order), Phase II Order vacated, California v. FCC, 905 F.2d 1217; Computer III Remand Proceedings, 5 FCC Rcd 7719 (1990) (ONA Remand Order), recon., 7 FCC Rcd 909 (1992), pets.
  • Nextgen Communications, Inc. (Nextgen) Pa

    Nextgen Communications, Inc. (Nextgen) Pa

    NextGen Communications, Inc. (NextGen) Pa. PUC Telephone Tariff No. 1 Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Original Title Page 0 NEXTGEN COMMUNICATIONS, INC. COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIER Regulations and Schedule of Charges _________________________________________________________________ NextGen Communications, Inc. (Company) will mirror the exchange area boundaries as stated in the tariffs of Verizon Pennsylvania Inc. Telephone Pa. P.U.C. Nos. 180A, 182, 182A, 185B and 185C; Verizon North Inc. Telephone Pa P.U.C. Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6; The United Telephone Company of Pennsylvania LLC d/b/a CenturyLink P.U.C. No. 27; and the remaining tariffs listed on Page 2 of this tariff. The Company’s tariff is in concurrence with all applicable State and Federal Laws (including, but not limited to, 52 Pa. Code, 66 Pa. C.S. and the Telecommunications Act of 1934, as amended, and with the Commission’s applicable Rules and Regulations and Orders. Any provisions contained in this Tariff that are inconsistent with the foregoing mentioned will be deemed inoperative and superseded. Issued: December 9, 2010 Effective: December 10, 2010 Issued by: Bruce A. White, Secretary NextGen Communications, Inc. 275 West Street – Suite 400 Annapolis, MD 21401 NextGen Communications, Inc. (NextGen) Pa. PUC Telephone Tariff No. 1 Competitive Local Exchange Carrier Original – Page 1 TARIFF REFERENCES Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. Philadelphia Exchange Areas PA P.U.C. No. 182 Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. Philadelphia Suburban Exchange Area PA P.U.C. No. 182A Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. Pittsburgh Exchange Area PA P.U.C. No. 185B Verizon Pennsylvania, Inc. Pittsburgh Suburban Exchange Area PA P.U.C. No.
  • AT&T Panel Exhibit C Testimony of E. Christopher Nurse

    AT&T Panel Exhibit C Testimony of E. Christopher Nurse

    AT&T Panel Exhibit C Testimony of E. Christopher Nurse AT&T Panel Exhibit C Testimony of E. Christopher Nurse ST Docket No. Docket Name Testimony Date PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Rejoinder Testimony 04/08/10 Communications of Pennsylvania, with Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Surrebuttal Testimony 04/01/10 Communications of Pennsylvania, with Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Rebuttal Testimony with 03/10/10 Communications of Pennsylvania, Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Supplemental Direct 11/30//2009 Communications of Pennsylvania, Testimony with Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2098380 Access Complaint - AT&T Direct Testimony with 7/2/2009 Communications of Pennsylvania, Oyefusi LLC v Armstrong Telephone Company - Pennsylvania et.al. PA C-2009-2108186 Core Communications, Inc. v AT&T Reply Testimony with 12/14/2009 Communications of Pennsylvania D’Amico PA I-00040105 Investigation Regarding Intrastate Direct Testimony with 12/10/2008 Access Charges and IntraLATA Toll Oyefusi Rates of Rural Carriers and the PA Universal Service Fund PA I-00040105 Investigation Regarding Intrastate Rebuttal Testimony with 01/15/2009 Access Charges and IntraLATA Toll Oyefusi Rates of Rural Carriers and the PA Universal Service Fund PA I-00040105 Investigation Regarding Intrastate Surrebuttal Testimony 02/10/2009 Access Charges and IntraLATA Toll with Oyefusi Rates of Rural Carriers and the PA Universal Service Fund PA C-20027195 Access Complaint - AT&T Rebuttal Testimony with 07/18/2003 Communications of Pennsylvania, Kirchberger LLC v Verizon North Inc.
  • Supplemental Showing Pursuant To: 101.103 (D) Frequency Coordination Procedures

    Supplemental Showing Pursuant To: 101.103 (D) Frequency Coordination Procedures

    Supplemental Showing Pursuant To: 101.103 (d) Frequency Coordination Procedures Reference: Fixed Wireless Holdings, LLC Clearwire Spectrum Holdings LLC Clearwire Spectrum Holdings II, LLC Clearwire Spectrum Holdings III, LLC Clearwire Hawaii Partners Spectrum LLC Job Number: 111214COMSTI01 NC−CLT288A − NC−CLT048A, NC ; NC−CLT076A − NC−CLT263D, NC ;NC−CLT245F − NC−CLT242A, NC ; NC−GSB090B − NC−GSB072C, NC ;NC−GSB034B − NC−GSB031A, NC ; TX−DAL5954B − TX−DAL0189B, TX; NC−GSB075B − NC−GSB097A, NC ; NC−CLT032B − NC−CLT002A, NC; NC−CLT254F − NC−CLT289A, NC ; NC−RAL018A − NC−RAL006A, NC; NC−RAL241A − NC−RAL198A, NC ; NC−RAL041A − NC−RAL025A, NC; NC−RAL096A − NC−RAL107A, NC ; NC−RAL146A − NC−RAL0256A, NC ; NC−GSB0150A − NC−GSB104B, NC ; NC−GSB998A − NC−GSB040A, NC ; TX−DAL0010A − TX−DAL6175B, TX ; MA−BOS5372A − MA−BOS5808A, MA; MA−BOS5514A − MA−BOS6183A, MA ; NC−GSB060A − NC−GSB062A, NC ; NC−GSB068B − NC−GSB997A, NC ; NC−GSB088A − NC−GSB085A, NC ; NC−GSB097A − NC−GSB099C, NC ; NC−GSB108B − NC−GSB119A, NC ; NC−GSB999A − NC−GSB030A, NC ; NC−RAL015C − NC−RAL008A, NC ; NC−RAL025A − NC−RAL018A, NC ; NC−RAL050A − NC−RAL042A, NC ; NC−RAL096A − NC−RAL095A, NC ; NC−RAL998A − NC−RAL022D, NC ; HI−HON056A − HI−HON0130A, HI ; GA−ATL991A − GA−ATL584A,GA ; TX−AUS0100A − TX−AUS0125A, TX ; TX−AUS0179A − TX−AUS0130A, TX ; TX−AUS0232A − TX−AUS0058B, TX ; TX−AUS0025A − TX−AUS0081A, TX ; IL−CHI0505 − IL−CHI0957A, IL ; NC−GSB105A − NC−GSB0150A, NC ; NC−RAL055A − NC−RAL051A, NC ; FL−JCK079A − FL−JCK125A, FL ; RED998 − RED007, CA ; FL−JCK057A − FL−JCK225A, FL ; PA−PHL062A