| Date Filed | Summary | Pages |
| 02/20/1996 | Letter advising the Commission that it is no longer pro- hibited from providing interLATA services, filed on behalf of GTE North by B. Kazee. (1 pg.) | 1 |
| 05/18/1994 | Entry ordering that GTE's and Ohio Bell's motion for relief are granted; GTE and Ohio Bell are relieved of the Commis- sion directives contained in its Supplemental Opinion & Order of December 19, 1991, and its Entry of December 17, 1992, and the complaint is dismissed; that, if the restric- tion against GTE's and/or Ohio Bell's provision of inter- LATA services is lifted, GTE and/or Ohio Bell must notify the Commission within 10 days of the lifting of such re- strictions; that this case be closed of record. | 0 |
| 03/14/1994 | Memorandum of Ameritech Ohio in response to motion for relief from a Commission order and motion to dismiss, filed by C. Rawlings. | 0 |
| 03/02/1994 | Motion for relief from Commission Order and motion to dismiss and memorandum in support filed on behalf of respondent, GTE North, by B. Kazee. | 0 |
| 12/21/1993 | Letter stating that the United States District Court Judge Harold Greene, on December 8, 1993, denied the motions of GTE Corporation which sought authority for GTE North to provide interLATA, non-optional measured rate extended area service in this case (copy of which is attached), filed on behalf of respondent, GTE North, by B. Kazee. | 0 |
| 12/15/1993 | Letter stating that the status of this case remains un- changed, filed on behalf of respondent, GTE North, by B. Kazee. | 0 |
| 11/23/1993 | Letter stating that Mr. Kazee's letters of recent date accurately reflect the status of the GTE-Ameritech interLATA waiver requests, filed on behalf of respondent, Ohio Bell, by C. Rawlings. | 0 |
| 11/17/1993 | Letter stating that the status of this case remains un- changed and they cannot yet advise the Commission of an in-service date for the ordered extended area service, filed on behalf of GTE North by B. Kazee. | 0 |
| 10/25/1993 | Letter stating that the court has not ruled on either party's request for waiver filed by C. Rawlings. | 0 |
| 10/18/1993 | Letter stating that the status of this case is unchanged, and GTE North cannot yet advise the Commission of an in-service date for the ordered extended area service, filed by B. Kazee. | 0 |
| 09/28/1993 | Letter stating that there has been no change in the status of this case, filed on behalf of respondent, Ohio Bell, by C. Rawlings. | 0 |
| 09/07/1993 | Letter stating that there has been no change in the status of this case since the letter addressed to Chairman Glazer by GTE North counsel Bruce Kazee, and is, therefore, equally applicable to Ohio Bell, filed by C. Rawlings. | 0 |
| 09/03/1993 | Letter stating that the waiver requested from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is still pending, and that respondent, GTE North, cannot yet advise the Commission of an in-service date for the ordered extended area service, filed by B. Kazee. | 0 |
| 07/30/1993 | Letter referencing Mr. Kazee's letter to Chairman Glazer and stating that Mr. Kazee's letter is as applicable to Ohio Bell-Ameritech as it is to GTE North and the status of the waiver request represented therein is the same for Ohio Bell-Ameritech as it is for GTE, filed by C. Rawlings. | 0 |
| 07/22/1993 | Letter advising the Commission that GTE North cannot yet advise them of teh in-service date for the ordered extended area servcie, filed by B. Kazee. | 0 |