20241015Decision Memo.pdf

DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: COMMISSIONER ANDERSON
COMMISSIONER HAMMOND
COMMISSIONER LODGE
COMMISSION SECRETARY
COMMISSION STAFF
LEGAL
FROM: MICHAEL DUVAL
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
DATE: OCTOBER 15, 2024
SUBJECT: IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL AYERS' FORMAL COMPLAINT
AGAINST ZIPLY FIBER OF IDAHO,LLC; CASE NO. CTC-T-24-01.
On September 9, 2024, Michael Ayers ("Petitioner") filed a formal complaint with the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission"). The Petitioner alleges that Ziply Fiber of
Idaho, LLC dba Ziply Fiber ("Company") a Commission-regulated telecommunication service
provider, has not maintained a sufficient quality of service ("Complaint"). Specifically, Petitioner
alleged that his telephone service fails to the point that Petitioner cannot make calls and that the
Company provides only temporary and low-quality remedies. The Petitioner stated that he has yet
to receive the promised bill-credit for the period when his phone lines were down. Petitioner also
alleged that the Company sent him a bill for approximately $2,164,945.59 to cover the costs of
maintaining his line. The Petitioner stated that he has reached out to the Company on several
occasions while receiving no response or insufficient responses. The Petitioner stated that he has
previously requested help from U.S. Senator Crapo's office.
The Petitioner has asked that all the documents relevant to his informal complaint be added
to the record in this case. Petitioner requested that the Commission order the Company to make
upgrades to the service line in the area that will sufficiently maintain adequate service without
unreasonable expense.
On September 23, 2024, the Petitioner submitted an addition to his Complaint where he
cited the legal authority that, according to the Petitioner, the Company had failed to comply with.
This included a claim that the Company only came to the area once a week(on Wednesdays)when
the Telephone Customer Relations Rules require the Company to restore his service within 48
hours. See IDAPA 31.41.01.502.01.
DECISION MEMORANDUM 1

RECOMMENDATION
Commission Staff ("Staff') recommends the Commission issue a Summons to the
Company directing it to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint within 21 days. Staff also
recommends that the Commission hold a public hearing in this matter. In deciding whether a
potential public hearing should be telephonic, Staff would note that the Petitioner is alleging poor
or unusable telephone service. Staff has received several informal complaints from current
customers, and former customers, whose concerns with the Company are similar to the
Petitioner's. Many of these customers believe that relying on the Petitioner's Complaint will
resolve their own related concerns. If these individuals are not allowed to participate in this
process, it is likely that the Commission will need to take some measures to address their concerns
in the near future. In the informal complaint process, Staff became aware of former customers who
may have cancelled their service with the Company, in part,because they were paying a phone bill
without receiving adequate or reliable service.Due to the widespread nature of the conduct alleged,
Staff recommends that the Commission allow Mr. Ayers, current customers, former customers,
and all other parties who have concerns or testimony relevant to this matter to testify about their
experiences with the Company in the Grangeville and Elk City areas. It is also worth noting that
the Petitioner has expressed a desire to call witnesses. If the Commission allows for the calling of
witnesses, Staff recommends that the Commission hold a technical hearing immediately after the
proposed public hearing.
COMMISSION DECISION
1. Does the Commission wish to issue a Summons to the Company directing it to answer
or otherwise respond to the Complaint and additional information filed by the Petitioner
within twenty-one (21) days of receiving the Summons?
2. Does the Commission wish to hold a public hearing in this matter as described by Staff?
3. Does the Commission wish to allow the Petitioner to call witnesses at a technical
hearing immediately after the proposed public hearing?
4. Anything else?
Michael Duval
Deputy Attorney General
I:\Legal\TELECOM\CTCT2401_Ayers\CTCT2401_dec_md.docx
DECISION MEMORANDUM 2