| Date Filed | Summary | Pages |
| 08/22/1996 | Entry ordering that the Commission's July 12, 1996 partial suspension of CBT's request for confidential treatment be lifted. (2 pgs.) | 2 |
| 08/06/1996 | Revised tariff, PUCO No. 2, Section 6, 2nd page 6, filed on behalf of applicant by T. McCloud. | 2 |
| 08/06/1996 | Tariff, PUCO No. 2, Section 6, 2nd page 6, filed on behalf of applicant by T. McCloud. (2 pgs.) | 2 |
| 08/01/1996 | Amended Section 6, 2nd revised page 6, filed on behalf of applicant by T. McCloud. (2 pgs.) | 2 |
| 07/18/1996 | Entry denying the application for rehearing filed by CBT. (3 pgs.) | 3 |
| 07/15/1996 | Service notice filed. | 2 |
| 07/15/1996 | Service Notice. | 2 |
| 07/12/1996 | Entry 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 |
| 07/08/1996 | Motion 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 |
| 07/08/1996 | Memorandum contra application for rehearing filed on behalf of applicant by A. Kelsey. (6 pgs.) | 6 |
| 06/28/1996 | Application for rehearing and memorandum in support filed on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. by C. Wilson. | 8 |
| 06/28/1996 | Application for rehearing filed on behalf of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company by C. Wilson. | 8 |
| 06/28/1996 | Application for rehearing and memorandum in support filed on behalf of applicant by C. Wilson. (8 pgs.) | 8 |
| 06/14/1996 | Amended tariff, PUCO No. 2, 2nd page 6, filed on behalf of applicant by E. Frank. (2 pgs.) | 2 |
| 05/30/1996 | Finding & 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 |