| Date Filed | Summary | Pages |
| 10/03/2023 | Case Action Form Closing the case with an effective date of 9-29-23 electronically filed by Ms. Mary E. Fischer on behalf of Jay S. Agranoff, Attorney Examiner, Public Utilities Commission of Ohio. | 4 |
| 12/22/2011 | Supreme Court Document The following decision, announcement or notice of action by the Supreme Court of Ohio with respect to this case is provided solely for the information and convenience of the reader, and should not be construed as a part of the record of this case before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio, and may be subject to formal revision before it is published in the Ohio Official Reports. The Court’s opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/ROD/ - Dismissal Entry (July 30, 2007) electronically filed by Kimberly L Keeton on behalf of Public Utilities Commission of Ohio | 2 |
| 10/11/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 10/10/2006 | Supreme Court Transmittal Papers (S.C. 06-1697) | 6 |
| 09/11/2006 | Notice of appeal of appellant The Chillicothe Telephone Company (SC#06-1697) filed by D. Conway. | 7 |
| 07/12/2006 | Entry ordering that the application of CTC for rehearing is denied in its entirety; that the nine-month interconnection agreement timeframe set forth in Finding (21) of the Commission Order remains effective. | 12 |
| 07/12/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 05/16/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 05/16/2006 | Entry granting CTC its application for rehearing in accordance with Finding (5); that the nine-month interconnection agreement timeframe set forth in Finding (21) of the Commission's March 20, 2006, Finding and Order is suspended. | 3 |
| 05/01/2006 | Memorandum contra, memorandum in support filed by J. Chuang on behalf of Cinergy Communications. | 9 |
| 04/19/2006 | Application for rehearing for The Chillicothe Telephone Company filed by D. Conway. | 12 |
| 03/20/2006 | Finding and Order, Ordered that Cinergy's motion for admission pro hac vice is granted; that OCC's motion to intervene is denied in accordance with Finding (9); that CTC's motion for leave to file reply comments is granted in part and denied in part, as specified in Finding (9); that the exemption requests, as well as the suspension and modification requests, of applicants are denied in accordance with Findings (16) and (19), that the nine-month interconnection agreement timeframe is clarified as discussed in Finding (21). | 12 |
| 03/20/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 03/03/2006 | Memorandum Contra to the Chillicothe Telephone Company's motion for leave to file reply comments and request for expedited ruling, memorandum in support filed by J. Chuang on behalf of Cinergy Communications Company. | 16 |
| 02/24/2006 | Reply comments in support of its October 21, 2005 application and petition, filed on behalf of the Chillicothe Telephone Company by D. Conway. | 12 |
| 02/24/2006 | Motion for leave to file reply comments in support of its October 21, 2005 application and petition and request for an expedited ruling, memorandum in support, filed on behalf of the Chillicothe Telephone Company by D. Conway. | 4 |
| 02/13/2006 | Motion for admission of John Chuang pro hac vice filed on behalf of Cinergy Communication Company by P. Colbert. | 3 |
| 02/10/2006 | Comments on behalf of OCC filed by T. Etter. | 17 |
| 02/10/2006 | Motion to intervene and memorandum in support on behalf of OCC filed by T. Etter. | 6 |
| 02/09/2006 | Comments of Cinergy Communications Co. regarding the Chillicothe Telephone Co.'s application and petition filed by J. Chuang. | 67 |
| 01/23/2006 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 01/23/2006 | Entry ordered; that Cinergy observe the February 10, 2006, deadline for filing its reply comments. (JML) | 2 |
| 01/20/2006 | Letter agreeing to modifying the procedural schedule filed by J. Chuang on behalf of Cinergy Communications. | 1 |
| 01/19/2006 | Correspondence stating that Cinergy Communications Company agrees to modifying the procedural schedule filed by J. Chuang. | 1 |
| 01/13/2006 | Letter confirming that Chillicothe Telephone Company agrees to an extension of time until March 22, 2006 within which the Commission will rule upon CTC's filings in this docket, and CTC does not object to an extension until February 10, 2006 for Cinergy Communications to file its comments, filed by A. Emerson. | 1 |
| 12/13/2005 | Supplemental filing in support of October 21, 2005, application and petition filed by D. Conway on behalf of The Chillicothe Telephone Company. | 46 |
| 12/09/2005 | Service Notice | 1 |
| 12/08/2005 | Entry ordering that CTC and Cinergy observe the deadlines set forth in finding (6). (JL) | 3 |
| 11/29/2005 | Letter to Legal Dept. of PUCO, stating that Cinergy Communications Company is in agreement with schedule set for proceeding, filed by J. Chuang. | 1 |
| 11/21/2005 | Letter informing that Chillicothe Telephone Company will file additional evidence and comments in support of its application and petition by December 13, 2005; that Cinergy Communications Company will file its response by January 27, 2006 filed by D. Conway. | 1 |
| 11/17/2005 | Letter stating a proceeding schedule has been established with Chillicothe Telephone Company to file additional evidence and comments in support of its application by 12/06/05 and Cinergy Communications Company will file its response by 1/20/06 filed by D. Conway on behalf of the Chillicothe Telephone Company. | 1 |
| 10/21/2005 | In the matter of the application and petition of the Chillicothe Telephone Company for an extension of its rural telephone company exemption and request for suspension of 251(b) requirements. | 6 |