DOCSLIB.ORG

Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 191/Wednesday

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 191/Wednesday 61882 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2002 / Notices longer applies to libraries, and libraries (Verizon), for authority to enter the 3. The Department of Justice’s may truthfully check Item 11a to certify interLATA telecommunications market Evaluation. The Department of Justice compliance only with section 254(l). in the states of New Hampshire and filed its evaluation on August 1, 2002, Library applicants checking this box are Delaware. The Commission grants concluding that Verizon has generally certifying that they have an Internet Verizon’s application based on its succeeded in opening its local markets safety policy as described above, and conclusion that Verizon has satisfied all in New Hampshire and Delaware to have satisfied the public notice and of the statutory requirements for entry competition. Accordingly, the hearing/meeting requirement, but are and opened its local exchange markets Department of Justice recommends not certifying as to a technology to full competition. approval of Verizon’s application for section 271 authority in New Hampshire protection measure because they are not DATES: Effective October 4, 2002. required to filter Internet access. The and Delaware. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: same is true for the other CIPA Primary Issues in Dispute certifications on FCC Forms 486 and Henry Thaggert, Attorney-Advisor, 479. Additional guidance on the use of Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 4. Compliance with Section the old forms can be obtained on SLD’s 418–7941 or via the Internet at 271(c)(1)(A). The Commission Web site at http:// [email protected]. The complete text of concludes that Verizon demonstrates www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/ this Memorandum Opinion and Order is that it satisfies the requirements of CIPAGuidance.asp. available for inspection and copying section 271 (c)(1)(A) based on the Although SLD will continue to accept during normal business hours in the interconnection agreements it has the previous versions of the FCC Forms FCC Reference Information Center, implemented with competing carriers in 486 and 479, all applicants are strongly Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room New Hampshire and Delaware. The encouraged to make use of the new CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554. record demonstrates that competitive forms. Unlike the prior versions, the Further information may also be LECs serve business and residential new forms can be scanned by SLD. Use obtained by calling the Wireline customers using predominantly their of the new forms will expedite Competition Bureau’s TTY number: own facilities in each of the states. 5. Checklist Item 2—Unbundled processing and receipt of discounts. The (202) 418–0484. Network Elements. Based on the record, new forms and instructions may be SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a the Commission finds that Verizon has obtained at the SLD Web site, http:// summary of the Commission’s provided ‘‘nondiscriminatory access to www.sl.universalservice.org, or by Memorandum Opinion and Order in network elements in accordance with contacting the SLD Client Service WC Docket No. 02–157, FCC 02–262, the requirements of sections 251(c)(3) Bureau at (888) 203–8100. adopted September 25, 2002, and and 252(d)(1)’’ of the Act in compliance Federal Communications Commission. released September 25, 2002. The full with checklist item 2. Mark G. Seifert, text of this order may be purchased from 6. The Commission further finds that, the Commission’s duplicating Deputy Division Chief, Telecommunications while substantial questions were raised Access Policy Division. contractor, Qualex International, Portals regarding whether New Hampshire UNE II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402, [FR Doc. 02–25072 Filed 10–1–02; 8:45 am] rates were adopted through a Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202– BILLING CODE 6712–01–M proceeding that correctly applied 863–2893, facsimile 202–863–2898, or TELRIC principles in all instances, via e-mail [email protected]. It is also Verizon’s current New Hampshire UNE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS available on the Commission’s Web site rates pass a benchmark comparison to at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/ COMMISSION _ New York UNE rates. Therefore, New Wireline Competition/in- Hampshire UNE rates satisfy checklist [WC Docket No. 02–157; FCC 02–262] _ region applications. item 2. The Commission performs its Application by Verizon New England Synopsis of the Order benchmark analysis by aggregating non loop rate elements. Inc., Verizon Delaware Inc., Bell 1. History of the Application. On June Atlantic Communications, Inc. (d/b/a 7. In Delaware, Verizon reduced its 27, 2002, Verizon filed an application switching rates during the pendency of Verizon Long Distance), NYNEX Long pursuant to section 271 of the Distance Company (d/b/a Verizon this proceeding in response to claims Telecommunications Act of 1996, with that the data underlying cost inputs to Enterprise Solutions), Verizon Global the Commission to provide in-region, Networks Inc., and Verizon Select the rates had become outdated. interLATA service in the states of New Verizon’s reduced switching rates Services Inc., for Authorization To Hampshire and Delaware. Provide In-Region, InterLATA Services caused Verizon’s non loop rates to in New Hampshire and Delaware 2. The State Commissions’ satisfy a benchmark comparison to New Evaluations. The New Hampshire York non loop rates. Delaware loop rates AGENCY: Federal Communications Public Utilities Commission (New also satisfied a benchmark comparison Commission. Hampshire Commission) and the to New York rates. Thus, Verizon’s ACTION: Notice. Delaware Public Services Commission Delaware UNE rates also satisfy (Delaware Commission), following an checklist item 2. SUMMARY: In the document, the Federal extensive review process, advised the 8. OSS. The Commission also Communications Commission Commission that Verizon has taken the concludes that Verizon provides (Commission) grants the section 271 statutorily required steps to open its nondiscriminatory access to its OSS— application of Verizon New England, local markets in each state to the systems, databases, and personnel Inc. Verizon Delaware Inc., Bell Atlantic competition. Consequently, the state necessary to support network elements Communications, Inc. (d/b/a Verizon commissions recommended that the or services. Verizon provides access to Long Distance), NYNEX Long Distance Commission approve Verizon’s in- its OSS in a manner that enables Company (d/b/a Verizon Enterprise region, interLATA entry in their competing carriers to perform the Solutions), Verizon Global Networks evaluations and comments in this functions in substantially the same time Inc., and Verizon Select Services Inc. proceeding. and manner as Verizon does or, if no VerDate Sep<04>2002 00:53 Oct 02, 2002 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\02OCN1.SGM 02OCN1 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 191 / Wednesday, October 2, 2002 / Notices 61883 appropriate retail analogue exists within processes and procedures relating to 15. Section 271(d)(6) Enforcement Verizon’s systems, in a manner that unbundled loops in Delaware as it does Authority. Working with each of the permits competitors a meaningful in Pennsylvania. Therefore, because state commissions, the Commission opportunity to compete. In addition, there is insufficient data in Delaware, intends to closely monitor Verizon’s regarding specific areas where the we look to Verizon’s performance in post-approval compliance to ensure that Commission identifies relatively minor Pennsylvania as a basis for our Verizon continues to meet the issues with Verizon’s OSS performance evaluation, and it has met the conditions required for section 271 in New Hampshire—order processing benchmark standard for this approval. It stands ready to exercise its notifiers, flow-through, and billing measurement in Pennsylvania in each various statutory enforcement powers accuracy—these problems are not relevant month. quickly and decisively in appropriate sufficient to warrant a finding of 12. Checklist Items 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, circumstances to ensure that the local checklist noncompliance. 12, 13 and 14. An applicant under market remains open in each of the 9. Checklist Item 4—Unbundled Local section 271 must demonstrate that it states. Loops. Verizon demonstrates that it complies with checklist item 3 (access Federal Communications Commission. provides unbundled local loops in to poles, ducts, and conduits), item 5 accordance with the requirements of (unbundled local transport), item 6 Marlene H. Dortch, section 271 and our rules, in that it (unbundled local switching), item 7 Secretary. provides ‘‘local loop transmission from (911/E911 access and directory [FR Doc. 02–25062 Filed 10–1–02; 8:45 am] the central office to the customer’s assistance/operator services), item 8 BILLING CODE 6712–01–P premises, unbundled from local (white pages directory listings), item 9 switching or other services.’’ More (numbering administration), item 10 specifically, Verizon establishes that it (databases and associated signaling), FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION provides access to loop make-up item 12 (local dialing parity), item 13 information in compliance with the (reciprocal compensation), and item 14 Sunshine Act Notice UNE Remand Order and (resale). Based on the evidence in the nondiscriminatory access to stand alone record, the Commission concludes that DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, October 8, xDSL-capable loops and high-capacity Verizon demonstrates that it is in 2002, at 10
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • \\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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • VERIZON DELAWARE LLC PSC-Del.-No. 35 Preface
    VERIZON DELAWARE LLC P.S.C.-Del.-No. 35 Preface (T) First Revised Sheet 1 Canceling Original Sheet 1 The name Verizon Delaware Inc. has been changed to Verizon Delaware LLC. All (T) references throughout this Tariff to Verizon Delaware Inc., “the Telephone Company” or “the Company” shall read as Verizon Delaware LLC. ISSUED NOVEMBER 15, 2006. EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 15, 2006. VERIZON DELAWARE INC. P.S.C.-Del.-No. 35 Index (T) Sixth Revised Sheet 1 Canceling Fifth Revised Sheet 1 INDEX Page No. - 900 - 900 ACCESS SERVICE: Description ....................................................... 141 NXX Codes ......................................................... 171 Network Controls .................................................. 145 Nonrecurring Charge ............................................... 116 Service Arrangement ............................................... 96 Technical Specifications .......................................... 144 Usage Measurement ................................................. 186 - A - Abbreviations........................................................ 8 Acceptance Testing/Switched Access................................... 117 Access Connections................................................... 99 Access Order......................................................... 82 Access Order Modifications........................................... 86 Access Order Service Date Intervals.................................. 85 Access Order Billing Information..................................... 250 Acts of God, Credit
    [Show full text]
  • Verizon Communications Inc
    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.
    [Show full text]
  • G:\6X9 Folder\192154Folder\1921
    Nos. 04-277 & 04-281 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States NATIONAL CABLE & TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION, et al., Petitioners, - and - FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Petitioners, v. BRAND X INTERNET SERVICES, et al., Respondents. _______________________________ ON WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS THE VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANIES, GTE.NET LLC d/b/a VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTIONS, and VERIZON INTERNET SERVICES INC. IN SUPPORT OF REVERSAL WILLIAM P. BARR ANDREW G. MCBRIDE MICHAEL E. GLOVER Counsel of Record EDWARD SHAKIN EVE KLINDERA REED JOHN P. FRANTZ KATHRYN COMERFORD TODD VERIZON WILEY REIN & FIELDING LLP 1515 N. Courthouse Road 1776 K Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006 Arlington, VA 22201 (202) 719-7000 (703) 351-3860 Attorneys for Respondents the Verizon telephone companies, GTE.Net LLC d/b/a Verizon Internet Solutions, and Verizon Internet Services Inc. i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the statutory definitions contained in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 151, et seq., prohibit the Federal Communications Commission from classifying broadband Internet access service as only an “information service,” subject to minimal regulatory constraints, without a separately regulated “telecommunications service” component. ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDING Pursuant to Rule 24.2 of the Rules of this Court, Respondents adopt the list of parties to the proceeding in the court of appeals that is contained in the Brief of the Federal Communications Commission and the United States, with the exception of the “Verizon” respondents, which are identified below pursuant to Rule 29.6.
    [Show full text]
  • Negotiations Eastern Region AT&T Communications of PA, Inc. 3033 Chain
    Jeffrey A. Masoner Vice President Interconnection Services Policy and Planning Wholesale Marketing 2107 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, VA 22201 Phone 703 974-4610 Fax 703 974-0314 [email protected] April 22, 2002 Stephen L. Sisk Local Services – Negotiations Eastern Region AT&T Communications of PA, Inc. 3033 Chain Bridge Road Oakton, VA 22185 Re: Requested Adoption Under Section 252(i) of the TA96 Dear Steve: Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., f/k/a Bell Atlantic – Pennsylvania, Inc. (“Verizon”), has received your letter stating that, under Section 252(i) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the “Act”), AT&T Communications of Pennsylvania, Inc. (“AT&T”) wishes to adopt the terms of the arbitrated Interconnection Agreement between TCG Pittsburgh (“TCG”) and Verizon (the “Agreement”) that was approved by the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (the “Commission”) as an effective agreement in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in Docket No. A-310213F0002, as such agreement exists on the date hereof after giving effect to operation of law (the “Terms”). I understand AT&T has a copy of the Terms. Please note the following with respect to AT&T’s adoption of the Terms. 1. By AT&T’s countersignature on this letter, AT&T hereby represents and agrees to the following three points: (A) AT&T adopts (and agrees to be bound by) the Terms of the TCG/Verizon arbitrated agreement for interconnection as it is in effect on the date hereof after giving effect to operation of law, and in applying the Terms, agrees that AT&T shall be substituted in place of TCG Pittsburgh and TCG in the Terms wherever appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • 369 NLRB No. 108 Verizon Wireless and Communications Workers Of
    NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Donna N. Dawson. On May 25, 2017, Judge Dawson is- bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex- ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C. sued the attached decision (Appendix A), addressing the 20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can lawfulness of 11 work rules maintained by Verizon Wire- be included in the bound volumes. less and the various Verizon Wireless Entities (the Re- Verizon Wireless and Communications Workers of spondents) in their 2015 Code of Conduct. The judge America, AFL–CIO found 10 of the rules to be unlawful and the 11th to be Verizon New York Inc., Empire City Subway Com- lawful. The Respondents filed exceptions and a support- pany (Limited), Verizon Avenue Corp., Verizon ing brief, and the Charging Parties filed cross-exceptions Advanced Data Inc., Verizon Corporate Services and a supporting brief. The General Counsel and the Corp., Verizon New England Inc., Verizon Ser- Charging Parties filed answering briefs to the Respond- vices Corp. and Verizon New Jersey, Inc. and ents’ exceptions, and the Respondents filed an answering Communications Workers of America (CWA) brief to the Charging Parties’ cross-exceptions. The Re- spondents filed reply briefs to the General Counsel’s and Verizon Pennsylvania Inc., Verizon Services Corp., Charging Parties’ answering briefs.1 and Verizon Corporate Services Corp. and Com- After the judge issued her decision, the Board decided munications Workers of America, District 2-13, Boeing Co., 365 NLRB No. 154 (2017), which changed AFL–CIO, CLC the standard for analyzing the lawfulness of facially neu- Verizon Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Amendment Number Three To
    FURTHER AMENDMENT To INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS THIS FURTHER AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of May 18, 2005 (the “Effective Date”), amends each of the Interconnection Agreements listed in Exhibit A hereto (the “Interconnection Agreements”), and is made by and between each of the Verizon incumbent local exchange carriers (individually and collectively “Verizon” or the “Verizon Parties”) and each of the MCI competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) that is a party to an Interconnection Agreement with Verizon (individually and collectively “MCI” or the “MCI Parties”), all as shown in Exhibit A. Verizon and MCI are referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Parties have agreed to amend the Interconnection Agreements to increase the charges applicable to MCI’s DS0 UNE-P lines in service with Verizon as of March 10, 2005 (“Embedded Base”); and WHEREAS, Parties have previously amended the Interconnection Agreements to effectuate the foregoing as of March 10, 2005, such amendment effective as of March 11, 2005 (the “March Amendment”); WHEREAS, the Parties wish to further amend all of the Interconnection Agreements to change certain rates applicable to the Embedded Base, and for the ease of administration, have elected to do so through this single Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Rates Applicable To Embedded Base. Notwithstanding anything in the March Amendment to the contrary, the monthly recurring charge that MCI shall pay Verizon for the DS0 (or POTs) switch port for each Embedded Base line shall be increased by: (a) $2.75 between March 11, 2005 and July 15, 2005 and (b) $1.00 between July 16, 2005 and March 10, 2006.
    [Show full text]
  • Record of Prior Testimony
    RECORD OF EXPERT TESTIMONY ECONOMICS AND TECHNOLOGY, INC. 2010 California Public Utilities Commission, O1 Communications, Inc. (U 6065 C) v. Verizon California., a California Corporation (U 1002 C), C.08-02-013 and Verizon California., a California Corporation (U 1002 C) v. O1 Communications, Inc. (U 6065 C) C. 09-06-025, on behalf of O1 Communications, Inc., Reply Testimony filed February 3, 2010. Witness: Lee L. Selwyn 2009 Illinois Commerce Commission, Frontier Communications Corporation, Verizon Communications, Inc., et al, Joint Application for Approval of a Reorganization, Docket No. 09-0268, on behalf of the People of the State of Illinois, Citizens Utility Board, Direct Testimony filed October 20, 2009, Rebuttal Testimony filed December 14, 2009. Witness: Lee L. Selwyn Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, James Thomas, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Global Vision Products, Inc., Antony Imbriolo, Derrike Cope, David L. Gordon, Powertel Technologies, Inc., Craig Dix, Henry Edelson and Robert Debenedictis, Defendants, Case No. RG03-091195, on behalf of the Law Offices of Scott A. Bursor, Oral testimony and cross examination on November 9, 2009. Witness: Colin B. Weir United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Judy Larson, Barry Hall, Joe Milliron, Tessie Robb, and Willie Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AT&T Mobility LLC f/k/a Cingular Wireless LLC and Sprint Nextel Corporation and Sprint Spectrum L.P. d/b/a Sprint Nextel and Nextel Finance Company, Civ. Act. No. 07-5325 (JLL), on behalf of PinilisHalpern, LLP and Law Offices of Scott A.
    [Show full text]
  • MCI ICA Amendment
    AMENDMENT To INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENTS THIS AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”), effective as of March 11, 2005 (the “Effective Date”), amends each of the Interconnection Agreements listed in Exhibit A hereto (the “Interconnection Agreements”), and is made by and between each of the Verizon incumbent local exchange carriers (individually and collectively “Verizon” or the “Verizon Parties”) and each of the MCI competitive local exchange carriers (“CLECs”) that is a party to an Interconnection Agreement with Verizon (individually and collectively “MCI” or the “MCI Parties”), all as shown in Exhibit A. Verizon and MCI are referred to herein individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties”. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Parties have agreed to amend the Interconnection Agreements to increase the charges applicable to MCI’s DS0 UNE-P lines in service with Verizon as of March 10, 2005 (“Embedded Base”); and WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend all of the Interconnection Agreements to effectuate the foregoing, and for the ease of administration, have elected to do so through this single Amendment. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises hereinafter set forth, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: 1. Rates Applicable To Embedded Base. The monthly recurring charge that MCI shall pay Verizon for the DS0 (or POTs) switch port for each Embedded Base line shall be increased by: (a) $2.75 between March 11, 2005 and May 31, 2005 and (b) $1.00 between June 1, 2005 and March 10, 2006. 2. Successor Terms. Each Party agrees that, if they establish new or replacement interconnection agreements superceding those set forth in Exhibit A to this Amendment that are effective between March 11, 2005 and March 10, 2006 (including, for avoidance of doubt, interconnection agreements established through adoptions of other agreements under Section 252(i) of the Act), they shall implement the terms of this Amendment into such new or replacement interconnection agreements.
    [Show full text]