20250423Reply Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
April 23, 2025
C. Tom Arkoosh, ISB No. 2253 IDAHO PUBLIC
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES UTILITIES COMMISSION
913 W. River Street, Suite 450
P.O. Box 2900
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: tom.arkoosh&arkoosh.com
Admin copy: erin.cecil(d),arkoosh.com
Attorneys for Ziply Fiber
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF ZIPLY FIBER ) Case No. ZFP-T-24-02
PACIFIC, LLC, DB/A ZIPLY FIBER'S )
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION AS )
AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS )
CARRIER IN THE STATE OF IDAHO TO )
RECEIVE FEDERAL LIFELINE SUPPORT )
IN THE MATTER OF ZIPLY WIRELESS, ) Case No. ZWL-T-24-02
LLC, D/B/A ZIPLY FIBER'S ) ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION AS ) COMMENTS
AN ELIGIBLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS )
CARRIER IN THE STATE OF IDAHO TO )
RECEIVE FEDERAL LIFELINE SUPPORT )
COMES NOW Ziply Fiber Pacific, LLC, and Ziply Wireless LLC, both d/b/a Ziply Fiber,
by and through its counsel of record, C. Tom Arkoosh of Arkoosh Law Offices,and hereby submit
the following reply comments.
BACKGROUND
On April 10, 2025, Ziply Fiber Pacific, LLC ("ZFP"), and Ziply Wireless, LLC ("ZW"),
d/b/a Ziply Fiber(together,the"Ziply Fiber Affiliates" or the"Affiliates")received pleadings filed
by the Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission" or "PUC") Staff ("Staff')
recommending denial of their requested designation as Eligible Telecommunications Carriers
("ETCs") in the State of Idaho. These Petitions for Designation were filed in order for both Ziply
Fiber Affiliates to participate in the Lifeline program of the Universal Service Fund and receive
federal financial support to provide lifeline services to qualified households in Idaho. It should be
ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY COMMENTS—Page 1

obvious that having additional providers of lifeline services—both voice and broadband-available
to lower-income citizens in Idaho is in the public interest. Yet, remarkably, Staff argues the
contrary, counterintuitive position. The Idaho Legislature has commanded this Commission to
encourage competition.' The Ziply Fiber Affiliates take this opportunity to respond to the
Comments of the Commission Staff, filed on March 10, 2025, and urge the Commission to reject
Staff s recommendation, which runs contrary to statute and against the best interests of Idaho
consumers. Instead, the Commission should promptly designate both Ziply Fiber Affiliates as
ETCs.
The Lifeline program helps to make communication services more affordable for
low-income consumers. Lifeline provides subscribers with a discount on qualifying monthly
telephone services, broadband Internet service, or bundled voice-broadband packages purchased
from participating wireline or wireless providers. Lifeline provides a monthly discount of up to
$9.25 for eligible low-income subscribers and up to $34.25 per month for eligible subscribers on
Tribal lands.
ZFP and ZW state that they are seeking ETC designations to receive financial support from
the Federal USF Lifeline program to provide services throughout the entire State of Idaho,
including Tribal lands. The Ziply Fiber Affiliates request that their designation as ETCs include
the authority to participate in and receive reimbursement from the Idaho Telecommunications
Service Assistance Program ("ITSAP").
THE APPLICATION
The Ziply Fiber Affiliates are Delaware Limited Liability Companies headquartered at
135 Lake Street South, Suite 155, Kirkland, Washington, 98033. Additionally, as Staff relates in
their pleading, ZFP and ZW are also affiliated with Ziply Fiber Northwest, LLC, and Ziply Fiber
of Idaho, LLC, two Incumbent Local Exchange Carriers ("ILECs") who are long-time holders of
Idaho ETC status and provide voice and data telecommunications services to residents and
businesses in the State of Idaho.
1 Idaho Code § 62-602(2)states:
It is the intent of this legislature that effective competition throughout a local exchange calling area
will involve a significant number of customers having both service provider and service option
choices and that actual competition means more than the mere presence of a competitor.Instead,for
there to be actual and effective competition there needs to be substantive and meaningful
competition throughout the incumbent telephone corporation's local exchange calling area.
ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY COMMENTS—Page 2

The Ziply Fiber Affiliates are authorized to do business in Idaho and provide
communication services to Idaho customers via a fiber-optic network and fixed wireless facilities.
Both Affiliates hold Certificates of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") and are
authorized to operate as competitive local exchange carriers ("CLECs") in Idaho to provide
wholesale transport, retail broadband, Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") service, and local
exchange services. The Affiliates state that they are facilities-based CLECs and are in the process
of expanding existing fiber-optic and/or fixed wireless networks over which they offer a full suite
of communications services to customers in Idaho. The fiber optic network is currently operating
in Boise, and construction is ongoing in Lewiston, Meridian, Ontario, Payette, Nampa, and Twin
Falls, with service launch dates anticipated in 2025. The Ziply Fiber Affiliates anticipate further
construction of networks in Idaho beyond these existing facilities. The Ziply Fiber Affiliates desire
to make federal and state discount programs available to citizens in their respective service
territories at launch, but require the necessary ETC designations to do so.
The Ziply Fiber Affiliates meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements for
designation as ETCs in the State of Idaho. Thus, the Ziply Fiber Affiliates request that the
Commission expeditiously designate their ETC status for the provision of voice and broadband
services in the Designated Service Area and grant their petitions.
STAFF'S FLAWED ANALYSIS
Staff purports to find a number of deficiencies in the Ziply Fiber Affiliates' submissions,
particularly with regard to ZFP and ZW's responses to Staff data requests. After cursory and
suspect analysis, Staff has concluded that the Ziply Fiber Affiliates have failed to adequately
demonstrate that they can fulfill the obligations of an ETC provider. As a result, Staff
recommended that the Commission deny both Ziply Fiber Affiliate petitions. Staff s reasoning in
this regard is suspect, and overlooks the Ziply Fiber Affiliates' certifications as CLECs, prior
certifications they made to the Commission and the FCC, and the Ziply Fiber Affiliates' pleadings
filed in this proceeding.
The Ziply Fiber Affiliates Own Their Facilities
Staffs recommendation refutes its own argument and is internally contradictory. Staff
maintains that the Affiliates did not meet the Own Facilities requirement, which states that:
A common carrier designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier under
ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY COMMENTS—Page 3

paragraph (2), (3), or (6) shall be eligible to receive universal service support in
accordance with section 254 of this title and shall, throughout the service area for
which the designation is received: (A) offer the services that are supported by
Federal Universal Service support mechanisms under section 254(c), either using
its own facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's
services (including the services offered by another eligible telecommunications
carrier) and (B) advertise the availability of such services and the corresponding
charges using media of general distribution.
47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(1). The availability and charges associated with the Ziply Fiber Affiliates'
service offerings are publicly advertised at Ziply Fiber's website: https:Hziplyfiber.com/.
As Staff admits, "In paragraph 16 of Application 2,the Company stated that it certifies that
it provides service through facilities owned and operated by itself or its affiliates. However, it is
unclear to Staff what facilities the Company will be using to provide Lifeline services." Staff is
well aware that ZFP and ZW are affiliates of Ziply Fiber Northwest, LLC, and Ziply Fiber of
Idaho, LLC, both ILECs operating in Idaho with service territories defined by and certificates of
public convenience and necessity issued by this Commission. Staff is also well aware that both
these ILECs are ETCs designated by this Commission. Staff cannot logically argue that these two
ILEC ETCs designated by this Commission are not facilities-based. Both Ziply Fiber ILECs in
Idaho share facilities and interconnect with ZFP and ZW. All four of these Ziply Fiber entities
share personnel (field and management), share common funding sources, and share transport and
switching hardware. Moreover, public records equally available to Staff identify where ZFP and
ZW facilities exist in Idaho. The FCC National Broadband Map contains locations for both ZFP
and ZW facilities, as well as locations for the Ziply Fiber Northwest, LLC and Ziply Fiber of
Idaho, LLC. Presumably, Staff is aware of the FCCs broadband mapping resources. Despite this
readily available information,however, Staff continues to deny that the Ziply Fiber Affiliates own
and operate their facilities. Staff persists in this blind denial despite the Ziply Fiber Affiliates'
signed pleadings in this matter, including the petitions for ETC status filed with the Commission,
attesting to ZFP and ZW ownership of their own facilities. These pleadings were certified by an
officer of the companies, who is an attorney, and are presumed to carry the force and effect of a
sworn statement, including the penalty of perjury, or at least sanctions by this Commission for
violation of its rules requiring ethical pleading (Rule 047). In fact, Staff s recommendation here
includes the following two sentences: "All four affiliates are managed by the same management
ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY COMMENTS—Page 4

team and are headquartered at 135 Lake Street South, Suite 155, Kirkland, Washington 98033.
They provide the same or similar products to customers in Idaho."
Staff is also aware that both ZFP and ZW are certificated CLECs in Idaho. The Ziply Fiber
Affiliates point out that fact because the Commission's granting of said certificates required,
among other things, that the applicants for those certificates attest to their compliance with
Commission Rule 114-02 a., b. and c.2 That the Commission was satisfied with the application is
evidenced by the grant of the certificates to ZFP and ZW. Nevertheless, the Staff demanded
additional avowals and unspecified documents not required by the Idaho Telecommunications Act
of 1988 to grant the Ziply Fiber Affiliates' ETC petitions. Instead, Staff apparently ignored the
fact that the Commission had already found that the Ziply Fiber Affiliates had satisfied the
requirement that they "describe the intended manner of service, e.g., resold services or facilities-
based services; and a general description of the property owned or controlled by applicant"3 when
they were granted the CLEC certificates.
Advertising
Staff failed to acknowledge in their recommendation that the Ziply Fiber Affiliates
included the requested advertising materials in their response to Data Request 33. Those
documents are attached to these Reply Comments as Exhibits A and B. It is unclear why Staff did
not inform the Commission in their pleading that these two responsive documents were included
in Ziply Fiber's response to the data request. Staff s position that Ziply Fiber failed to provide
these documents is simply untrue.
Public Interest
Contrary to the position Staff takes in their recommendation, the Ziply Fiber Affiliates
fully satisfy the public interest standard. Under the Federal Act, state commissions shall determine
2 IDAPA 31.01.01.114.02 states:
02.Services and Territory.
a.A description of customer classes and customer services that the applicant proposes to offer to the public.
The application shall indicate the date on which the applicant proposes to begin construction or anticipates it
will begin to provide service in Idaho.
b.A description sufficient to determine whether service is to be offered in a particular location and the names
of incumbent local exchange corporations(ILECs)with whom the proposed utility is likely to compete. The
application shall also describe the intended manner of service,e.g.,resold services or facilities-based services;
and a general description of the property owned or controlled by applicant.
c. A reasonably sized and detailed map showing where the applicant proposes to provide service including
exchanges (if different from existing exchanges), rural zones, and local calling areas. If the service area is
identical to an incumbent LEC's service area,then applicant may refer to the incumbent's service area.
3 Id.
ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY COMMENTS—Page 5

whether granting the requested ETC designation is "consistent with the public interest,
convenience, and necessity." 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(2). The Ziply Fiber Affiliates have already
included in footnote 1 above the Legislature's stated preference for competition.
The Staff appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the defined service territory
of ILECs and the statewide nature of a CLEC certificate. The Commission has already granted the
Ziply Fiber Affiliates the ability to compete anywhere within the state's boundaries. That grant of
authority clearly indicates that the Commission considered and rejected the Staffs position that
there would be an adverse impact derived by the service offerings ZFP and ZW bring to the state.
What the Ziply Fiber Affiliates will offer to low-income Idahoans is high speed gigabit interset
service not available from many other competitors. The Staff s position against too much
competition also makes little sense when measured against the Legislature's guidance.
Ziply Fiber Northwest,LLC and Ziply Fiber of Idaho,LLC, as ILECs,have rigidly defined
service territories assigned by the Commission. Those territories cannot be expanded except by
order of the Commission. The Ziply Fiber ILEC service territories leave wide swaths of the state
open,principally because other ILECs (Lumen, for one, and the Rural ILECs as well) serve there.
That is the territory ZFP and ZW intend to compete in.It would make little economic or operational
sense for ZFP and ZW to compete against the Ziply Fiber ILECs inside their assigned service
territories. The overlapping service area issue Staff raises is fictional. Staff s presumption that the
Ziply Fiber Affiliates do not present a compelling advantage to low-income customers is not one
Staff should be making. Instead, the consumer market should determine which offering is
compelling. Staffs paternalistic approach is both demeaning to low-income citizens and
bureaucratic scale-tipping at its worst. Staff does not have authority to decide which
telecommunications providers can compete in Idaho.
The Ziply Fiber Affiliates agree with Staff s assertion that "[t]he Company's fiber-based
voice service offers a high-quality product for rural customers, and its broadband services provide
speeds of up to approximately 1 Gbps or higher to customers." That in itself is a clear statement
of why granting ETC status to the Ziply Fiber Affiliates is in the public's interest. If, as they say,
Staff"is sympathetic to the needs of the Idaho low-income customers and customers in rural areas"
then Staff should not substitute their judgment for that of the marketplace.
ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY COMMENTS—Page 6

The Ability to Remain Functional in Emergencies
Staff decries the lack of evidence that the Ziply Fiber Affiliates can remain functional in
emergencies. Despite the extensive narrative provided in the response to Staff s data requests, and
in the face of the Commission's grant of CLEC status to the Ziply Fiber Affiliates, which carries
with it the implication that the Commission was fully satisfied that both ZFP and ZW can remain
functional in emergencies, Staff still argues the point. Staff also ignores the annual certification to
the FCC that both Ziply Fiber Affiliates make. If the FCC had concerns about ZFP and ZW's
abilities to operate in an emergency, they would have raised them. And yet, no such concern has
been expressed. Here again, Staff ignores available and substantial evidence that the Ziply Fiber
Affiliates have back-up battery and emergency generator capabilities, as well as E911
redundancies, annually reported to and accepted by the FCC.
ZIPLY FIBER AFFILIATES' PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Ziply Fiber Affiliates have demonstrated multiple times that they are well-qualified to
fulfill ETC requirements and responsibilities. For reasons that remain opaque, and in the face of
publicly available documents, Staff continues to resist what ought to be a simple decision to grant
ETC status to these two certificated CLECs. Staff s adjudication of who should be in the
marketplace is a troubling stance in a competitive industry. The Ziply Fiber Affiliates urge the
Commission to expeditiously grant the requested ETC status and resist Staffs discriminatory
recommendation to deny. In the event the Commission does not grant the Application of the Ziply
Fiber Affiliates for ETC status based upon these comments, the Ziply Fiber Affiliates request a
hearing in this matter in order to correct inaccuracies of law and fact in the Comments of the
Commission Staff as set forth herein and to develop an adequate record for decision making by the
Commission.
DATED this 23rd day of April 2025.
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
C. Tom Arkoosh
Attorneys for Ziply Fiber
ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY COMMENTS—Page 7

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 23rd day of April 2025, I served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing document(s) upon the following person(s), in the manner indicated:
Commission Secretary U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Overnight Courier
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Building 8, Hand Delivered
Suite 201-A(83714) Via Facsimile
P.O. Box 83720 X_ Email:
Boise, ID 83720-0074 secretary_kpuc.idaho.gov
Adam Triplett U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Deputy Attorney General Overnight Courier
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Hand Delivered
11331 W. Chinden Blvd., Building 8, Via Facsimile
Suite 201-A(83714) X_ Email:
P.O. Box 83720 adam.triplettkpuc.idaho.gov
Boise, ID 83720-0074
C. Tom Arkoosh
ZIPLY FIBER'S REPLY COMMENTS—Page 8

•
Z11PI
y
fiber
December 12, 2024
Ms. Jennifer Porter, Chair
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
100 Circle Drive
Bonners Ferry, ID 83805
Honorable Chair Porter,
Ziply Fiber is the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier(aka the telephone company)within the Kootenai
Reservation. We are reaching out to better understand the connectivity needs of Tribal communities
within our service areas across Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington.
We are interested in collaborating to bring fiber optic infrastructure to Tribal facilities and residences. We
want to learn about each tribes rights-of-way processes, land use permitting, facilities siting,
environmental and cultural preservation review process, and business and licensing requirements.
Working together will help support the Tribes planning for growth and/or modernization.
Ziply Fiber is an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier(ETC), which enables us to provide access for
qualifying households to the Lifeline program administered by the Federal Communication Commission.
The Lifeline program provides qualifying households on Tribal lands with discounts of up to$34.25 per
month for local voice and broadband service. In addition, the Tribal Link Up program provides qualified
households up to $100 off the customary installation charges at the customer's household location. How
might we increase awareness amongst your membership about these programs?
On Reservation lands both tribal and non-tribal households can apply. Only households determined
eligible may enroll in the program. To determine eligibility and sign up, interested households can go to
https://www.lifelinesupport.org/additional-support-for-tribal-lands/or call 1.800.234.9473. Lifeline is non-
transferable and is limited to one discount per household.
To schedule a meeting, please contact our Local Partnership Manager/Tribal Liaison, Chris St Germaine
at 208-400-0602 or chris.stgermaine(a_zi ply.corn or myself at [phone] or wessica.epley(@_ziply.com .
We look forward to developing a positive relationship that results in meaningful efforts to meet the
telecommunications needs of the Tribe and its communities.
Sincerely,
qq4___
Jessica Epley
VP- Regulatory and External Affairs
ziplyfiber.com A

3/4/25, 12:58 PM lifeline.html
ziplyfiber
You may qualify for discounts
Ziply Fiber is committed to helping you receive internet service at an
affordable price. We're excited to announce that in your area, we now
participate in the Lifeline Program which can lower the cost of your monthly
internet bill.
What is Lifeline?
Lifeline is a government assistance program offering a monthly discount of
$9.25 on internet service or $5.25 on phone service for eligible customers.
Those living on Tribal lands can receive an additional $25 discount each
month. Please note that Lifeline is limited to one discount per household
and is non-transferable from one person to another.
Do I qualify? -�
You may qualify for the Lifeline
discount based on our income,
Y �
current enrollment in SNAP,
Medicaid, or other government
programs, or if you're a survivor.
Apply to find out if you qualify.
Apply now
file:///C:/Users/emb9953/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/lNetCache/Content.Outlook/373SNYZQ/Iifeline.html 112

3/4/25, 12:58 PM lifeline.html
Once you're approved, call us and we'll apply your Lifeline benefit to your
internet service. For questions or if you're already approved, call [insert
TFN]. We're here to help!
Thanks for choosing Ziply Fiber.
ziplyfiber
Need more help? Learn more at the help center.
Let's stay connected
Privacy Policy I Terms&Conditions
©2025 Ziply Fiber. Ziply®is trademark of Northwest Fiber, LLC.All rights reserved.
FETN7WQR
If you'd like to unsubscribe, click here unsubscribe.
file:///C:/Users/emb9953/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/lNetCache/Content.Outlook/373SNYZQ/Iifeline.html 2/2