20251110Final_Order_No_36838.pdf

Office of the Secretary
Service Date
November 10,2025
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF QWEST ) CASE NO. QWE-T-25-01
CORPORATION DBA CENTURYLINK QC'S )
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE )
INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT WITH ) ORDER NO. 36838
GOLD STAR COMMUNICATIONS,LLC DBA )
SILVER STAR COMMUNICATIONS )
On July 10, 2025, Qwest Corporation dba CenturyLink QC ("Company") applied to the
Idaho Public Utilities Commission ("Commission") requesting approval of a Type 2 Wireless
Interconnection Agreement with Gold Star Communications, LLC dba Silver Star
Communications ("Silver Star") for the State of Idaho ("Application"). The Company submitted
an amended Type 2 Wireless Interconnection Agreement ("Agreement") on August 28, 2025,
which corrected typographical errors such as referencing Wyoming instead of Idaho.
Based on our review of the record, the Commission now issues this Final Order granting
the Application and approving the Agreement between the Company and Silver Star.
BACKGROUND
The federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 ("Act") permits incumbent local exchange
carriers to voluntarily negotiate with a requesting telecommunications carrier for interconnection,
services, or network support. 47 U.S.C. § 252(a)(1). Under the Act, interconnection agreements
must be submitted to the Commission for approval. 47 U.S.C. § 252(e)(1). The Commission may
reject a voluntarily negotiated agreement only if it finds that: (1) the agreement discriminates
against a telecommunications carrier not a party to the agreement; or (2) implementing the
agreement is inconsistent with the public interest, convenience and necessity. 47 U.S.C. §
252(e)(2)(A). Companies voluntarily entering into interconnection agreements "may negotiate
terms, prices and conditions that do not comply with either the [Federal Communications
Commission] rules or with the provisions of Section 251(b) or (c)." Order No. 28427 at 11. This
comports with the Federal Communications Commission's rule that"a state commission shall have
authority to approve an interconnection agreement adopted by negotiation even if the terms of the
agreement do not comply with the requirements of[Part 51]."47 C.F.R. § 51.3.
ORDER NO. 36838 1

THE APPLICATION
The Company stated that it sought the Commission's approval of the Agreement pursuant
to Section 252(e) of the Act. Application at 1. The Company represented that the terms of the
Agreement with Gold Star were reached through voluntary negotiations between the parties
without mediation or arbitration. Id. According to the Company, the Agreement would serve the
public interest by allowing Silver Star to interconnect with its facilities, thereby providing
customers with more choices among telecommunications services. Id. at 2.
STAFF REVIEW
Commission Staff("Staff")reviewed the Company's Application and the Agreement. Staff
Memo at 2. Staff did not believe that the Agreement would discriminate against any
telecommunications carrier not a party to the Agreement or that the Agreement would otherwise
be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity. Id. Therefore, Staff
recommended that the Commission approve the Agreement between the Company and Silver Star.
Id.
COMMISSION FINDINGS AND DECISION
Based upon our review of the Application, the Agreement, and Staff s recommendation,
the Commission finds that the Agreement does not discriminate against nonparty
telecommunications carriers and that implementing it is consistent with the public interest,
convenience,and necessity.Therefore,the Commission finds it reasonable to grant the Application
and approve the Agreement. Our approval of the Application and Agreement does not negate the
parties' responsibility to obtain a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity if they plan to
offer local exchange services, or to comply with Idaho Code §§ 62-604 and 62-606 if they plan to
provide other non-basic local telecommunications services as defined by Idaho Code § 62-603.
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Application is granted, and the Agreement is
approved.
THIS IS A FINAL ORDER. Any person interested in this Order may petition for
reconsideration within twenty-one(21) days of the service date of this Order regarding any matter
decided in this Order. Within seven (7) days after any person has petitioned for reconsideration,
any other person may cross-petition for reconsideration. See Idaho Code §§ 61-626 and 62-619.
ORDER NO. 36838 2

DONE by Order of the Idaho Public Utilities Commission at Boise, Idaho this 10ffi day of
November 2025.
Gtiv
DWARD LODGE, RE I ENT
HN R. HAMMOND JR., COMMISSIONER
DAYN HARDI , COMMISSIONER
ATTEST:
?44-1 -4
a Calderon Robles
Interim Commission Secretary
I ALegal\TELE COM\Q W ET2501_final j 1.docx
ORDER NO. 36838 3