DIS - Case Record for 02-0379-TP-PEX Skip to main content

Case Record For:

02-0379-TP-PEX

Case Title: PATTY LYKINS VS VERIZON TELEPHONE COMPANY
Status: AR-Archived
Industry Code: TP-TELEPHONE
Purpose Code: PEX-Petition for extended area service
Date Opened: 2/11/2002
Date Closed: 9/18/2002
Printable Docket Card Service List
View per page
Date FiledSummaryPages
02/11/2003Tariff page filed on behalf of applicant the Exchange Rate Tariff PUCO No. 3 section 3, 8th revised page 7, cancels 7th revised page 7, (Cincinnati) by E. King.2
01/31/2003Revised tariff sheets, reflecting the establishment of two-way extended area services between Verizon North, Inc.exhcange of Oxford and The Cincinnati Bell Telephone Exchange of Cincinnati by T. Colquitt.3
11/12/2002Letter stating that Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co. and Verizon North Inc. have established March 4, 2003 as the implementation date for two-way non-optional flat rate for EAS between CBT's Cincinnati exchange and the Oxford exchange served by Verizon North Inc., filed on behalf of CBT by E. King.2
10/22/2002Letter stating that the in-service date for the institution of two-way flat-rate EAS between Verizon's Oxford exchange and Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co.'s Cincinnati exchange will be March 4, 2003 at 12:01 am, filed on behalf of respondent, Verizon North, by T. Colquitt.0
09/18/2002Finding & Order approving the stipulation filed on July 30, 2002, in its entirety; that Verizon and Cincinnati Bell are authorized to provide two-way, nonoptional, flat-rate EAS between the Oxford Exchange and the Cincinnati Exchange.11
09/03/2002Letter stating that Verizon would not incur exceptionally heavy investments in facilities to provide EAS in the specific case, as proposed by the stipulation filed July 30, 2002, filed on behalf of respondent, Verizon North, by P. Cook.1
08/26/2002Response regarding cost statistics filed on behalf of respondent, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., by E. King.4
07/30/2002Stipulation agreement and recommendation on behalf of Oxford Exchange, P. Lykins, Verizon North Inc. W. Keating, United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint J. Stewart, Ameritech Ohio M. Fenlon, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company A. Kinney.8
06/21/2002Supplemental information response of Ameritech Ohio filed by J. Kelly2
05/24/2002Information response filed on behalf of respondent, Verizon North, by P. Cook. (Fax copy)6
05/24/2002Information response filed on behalf of respondent, Cincinnati Bell Telephone Co., by E. King.15
05/24/2002Information response filed on behalf of respondent, Ameritech Ohio, by J. Kelly.62
05/23/2002Information response filed on behalf of respondent, United Telephone Company of Ohio dba Sprint, by J. Stewart.7
05/08/2002Affidavit of Melissa O'Leary filed on behalf of LCI International Telecom Corp. by M. O'Leary.2
05/06/2002Joint affidavit of Verizon Long Distance and Verizon Enterprise Solutions filed by K. Roberts-Murphy.4
04/18/2002Affidavit of Dorinda Lanier on behalf of Sprint Communications Company L.P. 2
04/05/2002Answer of Ameritech Ohio, filed by J. Kelly.3
04/05/2002Answer of Cincinnati Bell Telephone Company, filed by C. Wilson.4
04/04/2002Affidavit of Elizabeth Finnerty on behalf of AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc.3
04/04/2002Answer filed on behalf of United Telephone Company of Ohio d/b/a Sprint filed by B. Donahue4
04/02/2002Answer of Verizon North Inc. by W. Keating.2
03/15/2002Service Notice.3
03/14/2002Entry scheduling a teleconference at 9:00 a.m. on June 5, 2002; that Verizon, Cincinnati Bell, Ameritech and Sprint file their answers by April 5, 2002; that AT&T, WorldCom, Qwest, Verizon Long Distance, Verizon Select and Sprint Communications provide the information as required by Finding 5; that Verizon , Cincinnati Bell, Ameritech, and Sprint coordinate all calling information in accordance with Finding 7 and ensure that all the IXCs are supplying calling data from the same time frame. (AE)8
03/01/2002Amendment to petition, filed on behalf of complainant by P. Lykins.1
02/11/2002In the matter of a EAS request form of spokesperson Patty Lykins vs. Verizon.20
02/11/2002In the matter of a complaint of Patty Lykins vs. Verizon.20