DOCSLIB.ORG

Before the Public Service Commission of South Dakota

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Before the Public Service Commission of South Dakota BEFORE THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF SOUTH DAKOTA In the Matter of 1 1 SBC Long Distance, Inc. 1 Case No. 1 Petition for Approval of Internal Corporate 1 Reorganization and Other Related Changes 1 PETITION AND REQUEST FOR EXPEDITED ACTION Pursuant to Section 49-31-3 of the South Dakota Code, and the regulations of the Public Service Commission, SBC Long Distance, Inc., formerly known as Southwestern Bell Co~nmunicationsSesvices Inc. d/b/a SBC Long Distance ("SBC Long ~istance"),' hereby respectfully requests Commission consent to and approval of the reorganization and conversion of SBC Long Distance from a corporation to a limited liability company, to be known as SBC Long Distance, LLC, and of other ancillary regulatory approvals as set forth below. PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 20:10:24:02(15) and 20:10:32:03(22) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RULES, AND FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH BELOW, SBC LONG DISTANCE FURTHER REQUESTS THE COMMISSION TO GRANT ITS APPROVAL ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS, AND TO EXEMPT IT FROM TlXE PUBLICATION AND HEAIRING REO-UIREI\/iENTS OF THE RULES, SO AS TO ALLOW SBC LONG DISTANCE TO CONSUMMATE ITS REORGANIZATION AND CONVERSION ON OR ABOUT MARCH 31,2005. In support thereof, the joint petitioners respectfully show the Commission as follows: 1. SBC Long Distance was granted authority to provide interexchange telecommunications services in the State of South Dakota by Order Granting Certificate of Authority, TC97- 1 SBC Long Distance filed a Notice with the Commission, dated November 17, 2004, regarding the change of corporate name from Southwestern Bell Communications Services Inc. to SBC Long Distance, Inc. 132, dated August 27, 1997, as amended by Order Granting Certificate of Authority, TC04-098, dated June 30,2004. See Exhibit A hereto. 2. SBC Long Distance was granted authority to provide facilities-based and resold local exchange and exchange access telecommunications service within South Dakota by Order Granting Certificate of Authority, TC04-029, dated June 11, 2004. See Exhibit B hereto. 3. SBC Long Distance currently offers intrastate interexchange telecommunications service pursuant to the terms of a filed tariff. 4. By Order TC04-192, dated October 20, 2004, the Commission approved an Adoption Agreement between SBC Long Distance and Qwest Corporation. Currently pending before the Commission in Docket No. TC04-208 is a filing for approval of an Amendment to an Interconnection Agreement between SBC Long Distance and Qwest. 5. SBC Long Distance is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC Communications Inc. ("SBC"), a holding company whose subsidiaries and affiliates operate predominantly in the communications service industry and have provided telecommunications services for over 100 years. SBC is publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange (Symbol: SBC) with a market capitalization of approximately $84 billion. 6. In support of the Consent of the Board of Directors of the joint petitioners, draft copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit C hereto, SBC and its subsidiaries seek to undertake a corporate reorganization pursuant to which (a) SBC Long Distance will contribute its stock to its affiliate SBC Telecom, Inc.; (b) SBC Long Distance will convert to a limited liability company to be known as SBC Long Distance, LLC; (c) SBC Telecom will contribute all of its assets and liabilities to SBC Long Distance, LLC; and (d) SBC will contribute the stock of SBC Telecom (which will own SBC Long Distance, LLC) to SBC Teleholdings, Inc. At present, SBC Telecom and SBC Teleholdings are wholly owned direct subsidiaries of SBC. Following the proposed reorganization, SBC Long Distance, LLC will remain a wholly owned subsidiary of SBC, which will control SBC Long Distance, LLC through two intermediary, wholly owned subsidiaries - i.e., SBC Teleholdings (wholly owned by SBC) and SI3C Telecom (wholly owned by SBC Teleholdings). The direct parent of SBC Long Distance, LLC following the reorganization will be SBC Telecom. 7. The proposed reorganization will result in a consolidation of SBC owned and controlled assets through the rearranging of the ownership interests of SBC in its subsidiaries. At present, SBC offers local exchange service in certain states outside of its service territory through SBC Telecom, and in other states through SBC Long Distance. The proposed reorganization is being done to minimize the possibility of customer confusion, promote continuity of services, and offer a full range of services under the SBC Long Distance brand. 8. The proposed assignment will be financed completely by SBC, the joint petitioners' parent company. The financial condition of the joint petitioners' parent company, SBC Communications, Inc. ("SBC"), is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 9. The telephone customers of SBC Long Distance will see virtually no change as the result of the approval of this assignment. Currently SBC Long Distance has 4,517 residential customers, and 372 commercial customers, in the State of South Dakota. Upon approval of this joint filing by the Commission, telephone services will continue to be provided to residents of the State by SBC Long Distance, and SBC Long Distance will submit such corporate filings with the Secretary of State as are required to convert to a limited liability company. No changes to services or prices will occur as a result of the proposed assignment. The SBC Long Distance tariff currently on file with the Commission will remain unchanged, other than those cosmetic changes required to effectuate the name change to SBC Long Distance, LLC. Customer billing, customer care contacts, and company mailing addresses will remain unchanged from those currently in effect. SBC Long Distance will be eliminated as a separate corporate entity by appropriate filings with the South Dakota Secretary of State. 9. No other utility in the State of South Dakota will be affected as a result of the proposed assignment. 10. SBC Long Distance respectfully submits that approval of the proposed assignment will serve the public interest because it will permit a more efficient means of providing telecommunications services to customers in South Dakota. SBC Long Distance understands that it is bound to follow all rules and regulations of the Commission, and, upon its conversion to a limited liability company, will continue to accept as its own all requirements imposed upon it as a result of its originally issued Certificates of Convenience and Necessity. 11. Pursuant to Sections 20: lO:24:02(15) and 20: lO:32:03(22) of the Administrative Rules, SBC Long Distance respectfully urges the Commission to exempt it from the obligation to issue to its subscribers a notification of the planned reorganization. Pursuant to Section 266(f) of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, where SBC Long Distance is currently incorporated, a conversion ~f a domestic cmporation to a limited liability "shall not constitute a dissolution of such corporation and shall constitute a continuation of the existence of the converting corporation in the form of the applicable other entity." Thus, the conversion of SBC Long Distance is not an assignment to another entity which might otherwise trigger applicable subscriber notification requirements. In the instant case, moreover, a subscriber notification may serve unduly to confuse customers, since SBC Communications Services Inc. already does business in the State of South Dakota under the name SBC Long Distance. The corporation's conversion to a limited liability company will not entail a name change evident to customers, and will not alter their service in any way. Nevertheless, to the extent the Commission deems it to be necessary, SBC Long Distance is prepared to provide a Customer Notice in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit E notifying its subscribers of its planned reorganization. The Notice will provide that the reorganization will be completed and service will start to be provided under the SBC Long Distance, LLC name on or about March 3 1,2005. Pursuant to Sections 20:10:24:02(15) and 20:10:32:03(22) of the Administrative Rules, SBC Long Distance hereby requests the Commission to process the instant filing on an expedited basis, and to exempt SBC Long Distance from otherwise applicable publication, notice, hearing and application content requirements, so as to enable SBC Long Distance to consummate the transactions set forth in this filing on or about March 31, 2005. SBC Long Distance respectfully submits that such expedited treatment and exemptions would serve the public interest by enabling SBC Long Distance to achieve the economic benefits which will result from these transactions as soon as possible. Because of SBC's nation-wide operations, the subject transactions can be consummated only when required regulatory approvals are obtained in all states where joint petitioners do business. SBC Long Distance further submits that such relief is reasonable given the fact that the subject transactions are organizational in nature, and will not affect service to end users, give any party undue advantage over another, or adversely affect South Dakota consumers or the public at large. 13. All correspondence concerning this filing should be directed as follows: SBC Long Distance: Norman Descoteaux Associate Director - Regulatory SBC Long Distance, Inc. 5850 W. Las Positas Blvd., Room NE137 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Tel: 925-468-6209 Fax: 707-435-6640 E-mail: ndl639 @ camail.sbc.com In addition, all correspondence concerning this Petition should be directed to the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FCC-06-11A1.Pdf
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-11 Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Annual Assessment of the Status of Competition ) MB Docket No. 05-255 in the Market for the Delivery of Video ) Programming ) TWELFTH ANNUAL REPORT Adopted: February 10, 2006 Released: March 3, 2006 Comment Date: April 3, 2006 Reply Comment Date: April 18, 2006 By the Commission: Chairman Martin, Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, and Tate issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 A. Scope of this Report......................................................................................................................... 2 B. Summary.......................................................................................................................................... 4 1. The Current State of Competition: 2005 ................................................................................... 4 2. General Findings ....................................................................................................................... 6 3. Specific Findings....................................................................................................................... 8 II. COMPETITORS IN THE MARKET FOR THE DELIVERY OF VIDEO PROGRAMMING ......... 27 A. Cable Television Service ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Every Medium Has Got Its Game Face on for 2006
    EVERY MEDIUM HAS GOT ITS GAME FACE ON FOR 2006. Even the traditional media that find themselves facing competi- tion on multiple fronts are upbeat about the new year. Whether it’s net- w o r k television—still the big daddy of delivering marke t e r s’ messages to the masses—bullishly forecasting a solid year of growth or the bat- tered radio industry pulling itself up by the bootstraps as it prepares to t a ke on a hot competitor, all major media foresee a year of gains. It’s clear that not everyone will grow, though, thanks to the return of the Internet as a viable media option and the explosion in customized, personalized, portable new-media alternatives (some of which are even being embraced by old media). Individually, these new interactive devices and concepts won’t siphon away a ton of ad dollars (OK, Google and Yahoo! might), but together they could drain significant enough ad dollars from traditional media that some of the old-school- ers (read: print) will find themselves thirsty for more revenue at the end of the year. We’ve entered the era of “me” media, where consumers exert far more control over their content diet than ever before. And all media are trying to embrace that reality in their own ways. Some, particularly the interactive segment, enjoy a clear advantage. But even magazines, by creating digital versions of themselves, and radio, with HD radio, are opening new avenues of media consumption that beckon to the growing millions of control freaks out there.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015Infotc40.Pdf
    Anisa A. Latif AT&T Services. Inc. Associate Director 1120 20th Street, N.W., Federal Regulatory Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20036 202.457.3068 Phone 202.457.3071 Fax [email protected] E-mail January 30, 2015 Via Electronic Submission Ms. Marlene H. Dortch Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street, SW 12th Street Lobby – TW-A325 Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: AT&T Annual Lifeline Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Certification Form – FCC Form 555 WC Docket No. 14-171 Dear Ms. Dortch: Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 54.416, AT&T, on behalf of its affiliate AT&T Mobility1, hereby submits its 2015 Annual Lifeline Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Certification Form via the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing System. As required, AT&T also submitted its filing to the Universal Service Administrative Company. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, /s/ Anisa A. Latif Anisa A. Latif Attachment 1 SAC Nos. 619004, 259908, 409004, 479006, 269905, 279010, 319026, 289912, 389015, 539010, 639005, 399015, 449022, 529910, and 209012. FCC Form 555 Approved by OMB November 2014 3060-0819 Annual Lifeline Eligible Telecommunications Carrier Certification Form All carriers must complete all or portions of all sections Form must be submitted to USAC and filed with the Federal Communications Commission IMPORTANT: PLEASE READ INSTRUCTIONS FIRST Deadline: January 31st (Annually) 399015 Study Area Code (SAC) (An Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (ETC) must provide a certification form for each SAC through which it provides Lifeline service). SD Cingular Wireless State ETC Name AT&T Mobility SBC Telecom, SBC Long Distance, BellSouth Mobile Data, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • December 21, 1996
    Wireless Operators US 2000 Consulting Report Executive Summary: This report provides a survey of North American Wireless Network Operators, with a focus on operators in the United States. The U.S. wireless voice and wireless data markets are highly fragmented due to adopted of multiple competing wireless air interface standards and data transmission technnologies. In addition, no one operator has succeeded yet in delivering true coast-to-coast services across all states and territories. Operators have been content to cover major metropolitan centers with their associated high density market population. This has resulted in difficulty roaming nationwide. This report y laysy the foundation for selecting service providers through which to deploy g wig reless medical, educational, entertainment and business applications by providing the critical information required for making the selection. e e t Put rpose: This report provides a survey of North American Wireless Network Operators to determine which are suitable for wireless delivery of medical, a t a t educational and business information and associated application functionality. It r is r one of a family of reports on wireless technology that include: t t r r S Wireless Devices S Wireless Application Protocols o o Wireless Application Service Providers Wireless Application Development Tools Recommendations for Developers of Wireless Applications p p Taken together these reports provide an overview of the set of technologies required to deliver wireless data and application services and products. The final recommendations report provides guidance on the selection of the appropriate e e technologies and makes a limited number of recommendations for specific solutions. Problem: Companies that wish to develop and deploy wireless data services or R R wireless applications face the challenges of delivering useful application functionality and business information through a device appropriate for mobile use over a wireless network that supports the device and associated application protocols.
    [Show full text]
  • Service List Dennis Kelley Director of Operations (Provisioning)
    Service List Dennis Kelley Director of Operations (Provisioning) 1-800-Reconex Inc. 2500 Industrial Avenue Hubbard, OR 97032 William E. Braun Vice President and General Counsel 1-800-Reconex Inc. 2500 Industrial Avenue Hubbard, OR 97032 Andrew M. Klein A.R.C. Networks Inc. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 1200 19th Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Genevieve Morelli A.R.C. Networks Inc. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 1200 19th Street, NW Suite 500 Washington, DC 20036 Paola M. Bulloch Director of Regulatory Affairs A.R.C. Networks Inc. 1333 Broadway, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10018 Jill Sandford Senior Attorney AboveNet Communications Inc. 360 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Robert Sokota, Esquire General Counsel AboveNet Communications Inc. 360 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Service List Brian M. Kelleher, Esquire ACC National Telecom Corp. AT&T Corp. 14 Mark Lane New City, NY 10956 Manager - ICA Negotiations Local Service & Access Management ACC National Telecom Corp. AT&T Corp. 32 Avenue of the Americas 5th Floor New York, NY 10013 Regional V.P. - Law & Government Affairs ACC National Telecom Corp. AT&T Corp. 32 Avenue of the Americas 6th Floor New York, NY 10013 Kaye Davis Access Point Inc. 16 Hyland Road Suite D Greenville, SC 29615 Daniel J. Kelley President, COO AccessBridge Communications, Inc. 1 Federal Street, Bldg 102-3 Springfield, MA 01105 Douglas R. Norton President AccessPlus Communications Inc. 7 Knobb Hill Byfield, MA 01922 David Stevanovski ACN Communications Services Inc. 32991 Hamilton Court Farmington Hills, MI 48334 Service List Teny J. Romine Director of Legal and Regulatory Affairs Adelphia Business Solutions Operations Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Prodigy Communications Corp
    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION FORM SC 13E3 Schedule filed to report going private transactions(Issuer Self-Tender Offer) Filing Date: 2001-10-22 SEC Accession No. 0000950123-01-507461 (HTML Version on secdatabase.com) SUBJECT COMPANY PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS CORP Mailing Address Business Address 6500 RIVER PLACE BUILDING 6500 RIVER PLACE CIK:824740| IRS No.: 043323363 | State of Incorp.:DE | Fiscal Year End: 1231 III BOULEVARD Type: SC 13E3 | Act: 34 | File No.: 005-55923 | Film No.: 1763684 AUSTIN TX 78730 BUILDING III SIC: 7370 Computer programming, data processing, etc. AUSTIN TX 78730 5125271150 FILED BY SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC Mailing Address Business Address 175 E HOUSTON 175 E HOUSTON CIK:732717| IRS No.: 431301883 | State of Incorp.:DE | Fiscal Year End: 1231 ROOM 9-4 ROOM 9-4 Type: SC 13E3 SAN ANTONIO TX 78205 SAN ANTONIO TX 78205 SIC: 4813 Telephone communications (no radiotelephone) 2108214105 Copyright © 2012 www.secdatabase.com. All Rights Reserved. Please Consider the Environment Before Printing This Document SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 ----------------------- SCHEDULE TO (Rule 14d-100) TENDER OFFER STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 14(d)(1) OR 13(e)(1) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 ----------------------- PRODIGY COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION (Name of Subject Company) SBC INTERNET COMMUNICATIONS, INC. (Offeror) SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC. (Offeror) CLASS A COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.01 PER SHARE (Title of Class of Securities) CUSIP 74283 P107 (CUSIP Number of Class of Securities) WAYNE A. WIRTZ SBC COMMUNICATIONS INC. 175 E. HOUSTON STREET SAN ANTONIO, TX 78205 (210) 351-3736 (Name, Address and Telephone Number of Person Authorized to Receive Notices and Communications on Behalf of Filing Persons) with a copy to: JOSEPH B.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to IPTV Contributed By: Nate Anderson
    An Introduction To IPTV Contributed By: Nate Anderson Television is changing Over the last decade, the growth of satellite service, the rise of digital cable, and the birth of HDTV have all left their mark on the television landscape. Now, a new delivery method threatens to shake things up even more powerfully. Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) has arrived, and backed by the deep pockets of the telecommunications industry, it's poised to offer more interactivity and bring a hefty dose of competition to the business of selling TV. IPTV describes a system capable of receiving and displaying a video stream encoded as a series of Internet Protocol packets. If you've ever watched a video clip on your computer, you've used an IPTV system in its broadest sense. When most people discuss IPTV, though, they're talking about watching traditional channels on your television, where people demand a smooth, high-resolution, lag-free picture, and it's the telcos (telecommunication companies) that are jumping headfirst into this market. Once known only as phone companies, the telcos now want to turn a "triple play" of voice, data, and video that will retire the side and put them securely in the batter's box. In this primer, we'll explain how IPTV works and what the future holds for the technology. Though IP can (and will) be used to deliver video over all sorts of networks, including cable systems, we'll focus in this article on the telcos, which are the most aggressive players in the game. They're pumping billions into new fiber rollouts and backend infrastructure (AT&T alone inked a US$400 million deal for Microsoft's IPTV Edition software last year, for instance, and a US$1.7 billion deal with hardware maker Alcatel).
    [Show full text]
  • Telecommunications Industry in Florida Annual Report to the Florida
    Annual Report to the Florida Legislature ON THE STATUS OF COMPETITION IN THE Telecommunications Industry in Florida A S O F M A Y 3 1 , 2 0 0 4 FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION This report was prepared by the Florida Public Service Commission’s Office of Market Monitoring and Strategic Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES............................................................................................ v LIST OF ACRONYMS ............................................................................................................... vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND........................................................ 4 A. PROVISIONS AND GOALS OF CHAPTER 364, FLORIDA STATUTES, AND THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT OF 1996 .............................................................................. 6 1. Chapter 364, Florida Statutes .............................................................................. 6 2. Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the 1996 Act).................................. 6 B. METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................. 8 CHAPTER II: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CHANGING COMPETITIVE LANDSCAPE .................................................................................................................... 9 A. INNOVATION IN A RAPIDLY CONVERGING MARKET........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Miss. Dep't of Revenue V. SBC Telecom, Inc., No. 2019-CA-00917-SCT, 2020 BL 310027, 2020 Ms Lexis 288 (Miss
    Miss. Dep't of Revenue v. SBC Telecom, Inc., No. 2019-CA-00917-SCT, 2020 BL 310027, 2020 Ms Lexis 288 (Miss. Aug. 13, Pagination * BL Majority Opinion > SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE v. SBC TELECOM, INC., BELLSOUTH MOBILE DATA, INC., BELLSOUTH CORPORATION, NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICES, INC., NEW BELLSOUTH CINGULAR HOLDINGS, INC., BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, LLC, CENTENNIAL COMMUNICATIONS CORP. AND SBC ALLOY HOLDINGS, INC. NO. 2019-CA-00917-SCT August 13, 2020, Decided COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: HINDS COUNTY CHANCERY COURT. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/07/2019. TRIAL JUDGE: HON. TIFFANY PIAZZA GROVE. TRIAL COURT ATTORNEYS: JOHN F. FLETCHER, BRIDGETTE T. THOMAS, JOHN S. STRINGER. AFFIRMED. FOR APPELLANT: BRIDGETTE T. THOMAS, JOHN S. STRINGER. FOR APPELLEES: JOHN F. FLETCHER. BEFORE KITCHENS, P.J., COLEMAN AND CHAMBERLIN, JJ. CHAMBERLIN NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES CHAMBERLIN, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT: P1. This appeal arises out of differing interpretations of Mississippi Code Section 57-87-5 (Rev. 2014) by the Mississippi Department of Revenue (MDR) and several taxpaying entities of an affiliated group (the Taxpayers). At issue is the computation of the broadband credit limits that a taxpayer may use against its franchise-tax and income- tax liabilities. P2. The taxpayers here each filed a separate franchise-tax return and were included as affiliated group members in the combined corporate income-tax return filed on behalf of the affiliated group. For the purpose of the broadband credits, the MDR argues that the income-tax liability of a taxpayer that is included in a combined corporate income-tax return filed on behalf of the affiliated group is only the amount that the MDR would theoretically be entitled to recover from that taxpayer according to the taxpayer's reported taxable income as reported in the combined return.
    [Show full text]
  • Infocomm Review Volume 11, No
    InfoComm Review Volume 11, No. 1 Trailblazing Lifestyle media Combatting fraud M&A value creation Editor Mitch Cohen Managing editor Shelly Ramsay Contributing writers Deborah Bothun Randy Browning Steve Hipkin Mark Maitland Hein Marais Andrew Parker Paul Rees Editorial department Teresa Perlstein PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Information & Communications Group provides a complete range of professional services to companies and individuals in communications industries across the globe. The group serves as tax advisors, financial advisors, and auditors to wireless and wireline service providers (both established providers and new entrants), competitive access providers, Internet service providers, global satellite consortia, telecom equipment suppliers, and media and entertainment companies. Drawing on our accumulated experience, we anticipated and met the challenges of global regulatory change, and have helped our clients deal with the impact of industry convergence. We continue to add measurable value to our client relationships through our leadership and innovation, which are evident in our evolving services and products. InfoComm Review Volume 11, No. 1 InfoComm Review 300 Madison Avenue New York, New York 10017 U.S.A. © 2006 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. PricewaterhouseCoopers refers to the network of member firms of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited, each of which is a separate and independent legal entity. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise—without the prior permission of the copyright owner. This publication is designed to provide a summary of information with regard to the subject matter covered. It does not purport to render professional advice to the reader.
    [Show full text]
  • Bell Atlantic and Sprint Interconnection Agreement
    Bell Atlantic And Sprint Interconnection Agreement Is Thaxter unascended when Bertrand poked volubly? Arow Skipton always rationalizes his sordidly,symbolization is Danie if Fons impolite is minim and orimmedicable expertizing enough? unwatchfully. Gerrard never throned any waggon interlock Llc and conditions in global resolution proceedings challenging the atlantic and bell sprint can be United states court of appeals Fourth Circuit more of Appeals. Arbitration of interconnection agreements between Bell Atlantic-. Laub mci and interconnects. Connections Covad installed 100000 DSL connections and Bell Atlantic installed. 20-02616 Petition Interconnection Agreement 12102020 Petition of State. Ba for consumers alike to resolve the structural separation within this opinion and structural separation between intellitec consulting group. Listing of Verizon Rhode Island Interconnection Agreement. Bell atlantic interconnection agreements but bell atlantic has submitted what is an interconnection and sprint so i hereby denied the preemptive dictate that none as used. Paragraph 31a of little Bell AtlanticGTE merger conditions of supply agreement approved on. Of Interconnection Agreement between Bell Atlantic-Pennsylvania Inc Docket No. The attached is submitted for filing on behalf of Verizon Florida. Filings for 167 Interchange Filings Texasgov. Iconectiv stock. Western electric suppliers derive guidance on sprint and bell atlantic interconnection agreement than the leading backbone. Sprint and bell. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS. FOR ESTABLISHING AN INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH SPRINT. Denial of interconnection and efforts to fasten an antique with Sprint. Interconnection Agreement over Commission Files. FCC Record of Comprehensive Compilation of Decisions. Power feat AT&T. Communications Corporation MCI Sprint Communications Company LP. The legacy service area continues to be dominated by the regional Bell operating.
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 Agreement of General Application  I
    TO EMPLOYEES: Here is your copy of the Labor Agreements between the Communications Workers of America (“CWA” or the “Union”) and Southwestern Bell Telephone Com- pany, SBC Advanced Solutions, Inc., AT&T DataComm, Inc., AT&T Operations, Inc., AT&T Services, Inc., and SBC Telecom, Inc. (collectively referred to as the “Company” or “Management”). The Communications Workers of America is the official bargaining representative for all employees in your collective bargaining unit. This official relationship carries with it serious obligations and responsibilities which the Company and the Union are determined to fulfill. As a sign of good faith be- tween the Company and the Union, a “Responsible Union-Company Relationship” clause is included in the Agreements which also govern your wages, hours, and working conditions. This clause reads: “ARTICLE VIII RESPONSIBLE UNION-COMPANY RELATIONSHIP The Company and the Union recognize that it is in the best interests of both parties, the employees, and the public that all dealings between them continue to be characterized by mutual responsibility and respect. To en- sure that this relationship continues and improves, the Company and the Union and their respective representatives at all levels will apply the terms of this Agreement fairly in accord with its intent and meaning and consis- tent with the Union’s status as exclusive bargaining representative of all employees in the Bargaining Unit. Each party shall bring to the attention of all employees in the Bargaining Unit, including new hires, their purpose to conduct themselves in a spirit of responsibility and respect and the mea- sures they have agreed upon to ensure adherence to this purpose.
    [Show full text]