Skip to main content

Case Record For:

96-0004-TP-ATA

File a Public Comment
Case Title: CINCINNATI BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY
Status: AR-Archived
Industry Code: TP-TELEPHONE
Purpose Code: ATA-Application for tariff approval
Date Opened: 1/3/1996
Date Closed: 8/22/1996
Printable Docket Card Service List
View All
1 - 15 of 25 documents 1 /  2 
Date FiledSummaryPages
08/22/1996Entry ordering that the Commission's July 12, 1996 partial suspension of CBT's request for confidential treatment be lifted. (2 pgs.)2
08/06/1996Revised tariff, PUCO No. 2, Section 6, 2nd page 6, filed on behalf of applicant by T. McCloud.2
08/06/1996Tariff, PUCO No. 2, Section 6, 2nd page 6, filed on behalf of applicant by T. McCloud. (2 pgs.)2
08/01/1996Amended Section 6, 2nd revised page 6, filed on behalf of applicant by T. McCloud. (2 pgs.)2
07/18/1996Entry denying the application for rehearing filed by CBT. (3 pgs.)3
07/15/1996Service notice filed.2
07/15/1996Service Notice.2
07/12/1996Entry ordering that approval of the request for confidential treatment is partially suspended until the Commission speci- fically orders otherwise; the proposed tariff is permitted to take effect on July 14, 1996, subject to continued review by the Commission. (AE) (2 pgs.)2
07/08/1996Motion of The Ohio Office of Consumers' Counsel for leave to file an amicus curiae memorandum contra The Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company's application for rehearing filed by A. Kelsey. (5 pgs.)5
07/08/1996Memorandum contra application for rehearing filed on behalf of applicant by A. Kelsey. (6 pgs.)6
06/28/1996Application for rehearing and memorandum in support filed on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. by C. Wilson.8
06/28/1996Application for rehearing filed on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company by C. Wilson.8
06/28/1996Application for rehearing and memorandum in support filed on behalf of applicant by C. Wilson. (8 pgs.)8
06/14/1996Amended tariff, PUCO No. 2, 2nd page 6, filed on behalf of applicant by E. Frank. (2 pgs.)2
05/30/1996Finding & Order granting the application and ordering that the PRIME Advantage service rate elements currently classi- fied in Cell 1 are appropriately classified in Cell 1 and shall remain as Cell 1 services until CBT demonstrates that these rate elements are no longer a monopoly access service; that CBT is permitted to file its proposed new price range for the PRIME Advantage rate elements in question within 15 days from the date of issuance of this order; that AT&T's objection to the proposed cell classification are moot. Concurring Opinion of Chairman Craig A. Glazer. (6 pgs.)6
 
1 /  2 
      
      
Attorney General:
Attorney Examiner:
Farkas, Scott