20260616Reply Comments.pdf

RECEIVED
June 16, 2026
C. Tom Arkoosh, ISB No. 2253 IDAHO PUBLIC
Nicholas J. Erekson, ISB No. 9325 UTILITIES COMMISSION
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
913 W. River Street, Suite 450
P.O. Box 2900
Boise, ID 83701
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: tom.arkooshkarkoosh.com
nick.erekson(a),arkoo sh.com
Admin copy: erin.cecil&arkoosh.com
Attorneys for Ziply Fiber
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
IN THE MATTER OF ZIPLY FIBER )
PACIFIC,LLC, DB/A ZIPLY FIBER'S ) CASE NO. ZFP-T-24-02
APPLICATION FOR DESIGNATION AS )
AN ELIGIBLE ) REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY
TELECOMMUNICATIONS CARRIER ) FIBER PACIFIC, LLC
IN THE STATE OF IDAHO TO )
RECEIVE FEDERAL LIFELINE )
SUPPORT )
COMES NOW Ziply Fiber Pacific, LLC, d/b/a Ziply Fiber, by and through its counsel of
record, C. Tom Arkoosh and Nicholas J. Erekson of Arkoosh Law Offices, and hereby submits the
following Reply Comments.
I. BACKGROUND
A. The Company
Ziply Fiber Pacific, LLC d/b/a Ziply Fiber ("ZFP," "Company," or "Applicant") is a
Delaware Limited Liability Company headquartered at 135 Lake Street South,Suite 155,Kirkland,
Washington 98033. The Company is affiliated with Ziply Wireless, LLC ("ZW"), d/b/a Ziply
Fiber, a competitive local exchange carrier in Idaho with a parallel request for statewide
Lifeline-only Eligible Telecommunications Carrier ("ETC") designation. The Company is also
affiliated with Ziply Fiber Northwest, LLC, and Ziply Fiber of Idaho, LLC, two Incumbent Local
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 1

Exchange Carriers ("ILECs") that are long-time holders of Idaho ETC status and provide voice
and data telecommunications services to residents and businesses within their service areas in the
State of Idaho.
The Company is authorized to do business in Idaho and provide communication services
to Idaho customers via fiber-optic network facilities. The Company holds a Certificate of Public
Convenience and Necessity("CPCN")and is authorized to operate as a competitive local exchange
carrier ("CLEC") in Idaho to provide wholesale transport, retail broadband, Voice over Internet
Protocol ("VoIP") service, and local exchange services. The Company is in the process of
expanding its existing fiber-optic network, over which it offers a full suite of communications
services to customers in Idaho. The network is currently operating in Boise, Lewiston, Meridian,
Payette, Nampa, and Twin Falls. The Company anticipates further construction in Idaho beyond
these existing facilities.
B. Universal Service Fund and Lifeline Program
The Universal Service Fund("USF")is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees
managed by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"). It was established in 1997 in
compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The USF aims to promote universal access
to telecommunications services in the United States. The fund supports initiatives such as
connecting schools and libraries to high-speed internet,helping rural hospitals adopt telemedicine,
ensuring low-income households have basic communication services, and investing in broadband
in underserved communities.' The USF Lifeline program helps to make communication services
more affordable for low-income consumers. Lifeline provides qualifying subscribers with a
discount on monthly telephone services, broadband Internet service, or bundled voice-broadband
'See FCC,Universal Service,available at:https://www.fcc.gov/general/universal-service(last visited June 15,2026).
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 2

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.2
C. Procedural Background
On October 3, 2024, the Company applied to the Commission for designation as a
Lifeline-only ETC in the State of Idaho ("Application"). The Company is seeking an ETC
designation to receive financial support from the Federal USF Lifeline program to provide
discounted services to qualifying subscribers throughout the State of Idaho,including Tribal lands.
The Company requests that its designation as an ETC include the authority to participate in and
receive reimbursement from the Idaho Telecommunications Service Assistance Program
("ITSAP").3
On April 11, 2025, Staff submitted comments ("2025 Staff Comments") opposing the
Application. In those comments, Staff asserted its belief that the Company had failed to
demonstrate it could satisfy the obligations of a Lifeline-only ETC. Staff specifically identified the
Company's purported inability to meet the own facilities,advertising,tribal notice,and emergency
functionality requirements. Staff also asserted that the Company had not met its burden of proof
to show that granting it ETC status would serve the public interest. 2025 Staff Comments at 3-9.
On April 23, 2025, the Company submitted reply comments refuting Staff s flawed
analysis and providing additional information in support of its Application.4 In addition, on
November 10, 2025, the Company submitted the Declaration of Jessica Epley ("Declaration"),
2 See FCC, Lifeline Support for Affordable Communications, available at: https://www.fcc.gov/lifeline-consumers
(last visited June 15,2026).
3 See Idaho Code § 56-901.
4 Additional filings and procedural actions in the case can be found at: https://puc.idaho.gov/Case/Details/7427(last
visited June 15,2026).
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 3

which includes five confidential attachments to supplement the record and respond to Staff s
objections. The Declaration includes attestations from a senior Company officer regarding the
issues raised by Staff, including a statement that the "Company will offer and provide Lifeline
services in the State of Idaho using facilities owned by Company and/or facilities owned by
Affiliates or a combination of those facilities and resale of Affiliates' services." Declaration at 1.
The confidential attachments provide extensive information on the locations and ownership of
tangible assets,including real property and network facilities,owned or controlled by the Company
or its affiliates,which will be used to provide Lifeline services in Idaho. The exhibits also include
a current copy of the Company's Idaho Emergency Preparedness, Backup Power, Disaster
Recovery, and Business Continuity Plan. Declaration at 1-2 and Confidential Exhibits.
On March 19, 2026, the Company filed a Supplemental Notice Regarding Tribal
Notification("Supplemental Notice"). In its Supplemental Notice,the Company requested that the
Commission: (1) accept the Supplemental Notice; (2) accept the attached Tribal notice materials
as part of the record supporting the application; and (3) consider the ETC Application once the
Commission was satisfied that Tribal authorities had a reasonable opportunity to review and
respond to the notice provided. See Supplemental Notice at 2.
On May 20, 2026, the Commission issued a Second Notice of Modified Procedure and
established comment and reply comment deadlines for the proceeding. On June 10, 2026, Staff
again filed comments recommending denial of the Company's requested statewide Lifeline-only
ETC designation ("Staff Comments"). In its Comments, Staff concedes that the Applicant has
provided supplemental information sufficient to meet "some of the requirements, such as tribal
notices." Staff Comments at 2. However, Staff also claims,without identifying a valid basis for its
assertion, that the Company has not demonstrated "the ability to continuously provide universal
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 4

services throughout the proposed service area." Staff Comments at 2. Staff also asserts that it
believes that the Company has not satisfied the public interest standard. Staff Comments at 4.
The Company now submits these Reply Comments in response to Staff s most recent
arguments and urges the Commission to reject Staffs recommendation. Instead, the Company
again respectfully requests that the Commission promptly designate it as a statewide ETC for
Lifeline-only purposes. Alternatively,to assuage Staffs concerns regarding the Company's ILEC
affiliates, the Company requests that the Commission grant the Company's statewide
Lifeline-only ETC designation on the condition that Lifeline service within the service territories
served by the Applicant's ILEC affiliates would be provided by the ILEC affiliates, and not by the
Applicant. As a second alternative, to assuage Staffs concerns regarding the geographic scope of
the ETC designation, the Company requests that the Commission grant it a statewide ETC
designation to operate within the areas of the state covered by its current and future network
deployments, consistent with the approach taken in the Commission's recent decision to grant
Assurance Wireless a Lifeline-only ETC designation. See Order No. 36904 at 1-2.
II. DISCUSSION
The Company and its affiliates are making a generational investment to upgrade their
facilities,build out network infrastructure,and extend the reach of their advanced communications
networks within the state of Idaho. These efforts will bring more competitive service offerings,
including high-speed broadband, to more customers throughout the state. Throughout this
multi-year proceeding, the Company has remained focused on ensuring that the benefits of these
competitive service offerings are made available, on competitive terms, to the most vulnerable
communities in the State. These goals are consistent with the pro-competitive directives issued by
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 5

the FCC and embodied in the Idaho Code.S However, without a Lifeline ETC designation, the
Company cannot hope to offer these services on an equal footing with its competitors that have
received an ETC designation in the state and can thereby offer discounted services through the
Lifeline and ITSAP programs.
As part of its ongoing commitment to promoting competition in the state and securing its
ETC designation,the Company has made every effort to address the myriad and evolving concerns
raised by Staff. For over two years,the Company has responded to Staff s objections and concerns
by providing detailed information on its operations in the State of Idaho. These include the
Declaration and its associated exhibits, the Supplemental Notice, and extensive responses to
multiple Staff production requests. These submissions, along with the Application and other
supplemental filings in the docket, amply demonstrate that the Company complies with all
applicable federal and state requirements and is qualified to hold a statewide Lifeline-only ETC
designation. Yet, at every turn, Staff has raised new, specious arguments to criticize the
Application and the supporting documentation in an effort to prevent the Company from obtaining
5 See Idaho Code § 62-610A (directing the Commission to establish a "competitively and technologically neutral
funding mechanism" ensuring that "[a]ll consumers in this state, without regard to their location, should have
comparable accessibility to basic telecommunication services at just and reasonable rates"); Idaho Code § 62-602(4)
(the Legislature"encourages the development of open competition in the telecommunications industry. . .consistent
with the federal telecommunications act of 1996"); Idaho Code § 62-602(1) (finding that universally available
telecommunications services are "essential to the health, welfare and economic well-being of the citizens"of Idaho
and directing a"balanced program of regulation and competition");see also In re Lifeline and Link Up Reform and
Modernization,Memorandum Opinion and Order,WC Docket Nos. 09-197, 11-42, 28 FCC Rcd 4859 at paras. 10-
11 (2013) ("Lifeline Forbearance Order") (competitive Lifeline entry"will spur innovation among carriers in their
Lifeline offerings, expanding the choice of Lifeline products for eligible consumers");Lifeline and Link Up Reform
and Modernization, Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration,WC Docket
Nos. 11-42, 09-197, 10-90, 31 FCC Rcd 3962 at paras. 5, 8 (2016) ("2016 Lifeline Order") (adopting reforms to
increase consumer choice and encourage competition among Lifeline providers and "encourag[ing] entry of new
Lifeline providers"); Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Report and Order, CC Docket No. 96-45, 12
FCC Rcd 8776 at para. 47 (1997) ("Universal Service Order") (universal service rules must "neither unfairly
advantage nor disadvantage one provider over another").
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 6

an ETC designation. In its most recent Comments, Staff shifts its focus to, among other things,
unrelated customer service complaints about service offerings provided by the Company's ILEC
affiliates and seeks to elevate a novel analysis of the "unique" service offerings provided by the
Company vis-a-vis its affiliates to the level of a statutory requirement.
As described below, if the Commission accepts Staffs unsupported recommendation to
deny ETC designation, such an order would be unlawful and arbitrary and capricious. Such a
decision would also run counter to federal law and the Commission's own precedent. Moreover,
it would deny an additional competitive Lifeline option to the most vulnerable residents of Idaho,
in direct contravention of federal and state policy.
A. Legal Standard
Section 214(e)(1) of the Communications Act, the FCC's rules, Idaho Code
§ 62- 6101)(3)(a), and the Commission's Order No. 35126 set forth the requirements for ETC
designation in Idaho.6 The Commission has authority to grant ETC designation to a
telecommunications carrier under federal and state law. 47 U.S.C. § 214(e); and Idaho Code
§§ 62-61OD, 62-615(1).
In its Comments, Staff emphasizes that "the ETC applicant must demonstrate that it is
capable of providing and will continuously provide throughout its proposed service area the
universal services set forth in C.F.R. § 54.101 (a),either by using its own facilities or a combination
of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's services."7 Under the Communications Act,
state commissions are also empowered to determine whether granting the requested ETC
designation is "consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity." 47 U.S.C.
§ 214(e)(2). This authority is constrained, however, by Section 254(f) of the Communications
147 U.S.C. §214(e)(1);47 C.F.R. §§ 54.201,54.202;Idaho Code §62-6101)(3)(a);Order No.35126,Appendix.
7 See Order No. 35126,Appendix citing 47 U.S.C. §214(e)(1)(A).
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 7

Act, which states that "[a] State may adopt regulations not inconsistent with the Commission's
rules to preserve and advance universal service." 47 U.S.C. § 254(f).
B. Staff does not identify any specific "universal services" that the Company is
unable to provide.
Staff correctly notes that an ETC applicant must demonstrate that it can provide, and will
continuously provide, nine "universal services" throughout its service area using either its own
facilities or a combination of its own facilities and resale of another carrier's services.
See 47 U.S.C. § 214 (e)(1)(a), 47 CFR 54.101(a), and Order No. 35126. The Company has
repeatedly demonstrated its ability to provide all nine universal services and has provided
extensive supplemental information in support of its assertions. In its Comments, Staff concedes
that the Company has addressed"some" of its earlier concerns but states that it "does not believe
that the Company will be able to provide all nine services across the entire state of Idaho." Staff
Comments at 2. Staff does not,however, identify any specific universal services that the Company
would be unable to provide. It appears, therefore, that Staff s current objections are focused on
the ability of the Company to provide these services throughout its requested ETC area rather than
its ability to provide the nine services themselves. As set forth below, these concerns are
unfounded.
C. Staffs assertion that the Company's ETC boundary should not exceed its
CPCN boundaries is not consistent with applicable rules or Commission
precedent.
Staff asserts its belief that the Company's ETC service area should not exceed the size of
its CPCN service area. In support of its belief, Staff cites only to the general requirement in
47 U.S.C. § 214(e) that an ETC must "offer the services that are supported by Federal universal
service support mechanisms" throughout its designated service area. However, the service area
definition referenced by Staff is specific to the ETC designation and does not mention the CPCN
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 8

service area.8 The CPCN, by contrast, is a state-law authorization to provide telecommunications
service and was not established for the purpose of determining universal service obligations.
Nothing in federal law, statute, or this Commission's prior orders requires that the ETC service
area be coextensive with a carrier's CPCN. Section 214(e)(2) gives this Commission the authority
to designate the ETC service area as part of the designation process, and the Commission has
exercised that authority in prior cases by granting statewide Lifeline-only ETC designations.
See e.g., Order No.35126 at 5;Order No.36050 at 5-6.Moreover,the FCC has granted categorical
forbearance from the rural service area conformance requirement of Section 214(e)(5) for all
Lifeline-only ETCs, further undermining the premise that any geographic limitation should
constrain a Lifeline-only designation. See Lifeline Forbearance Order at para. 1. As previously
stated, the Commission's authority is limited to actions that are not inconsistent with the
Commission's rules. See 47 U.S.C. § 254(fl.
The Company addressed in its Application and has provided extensive information
regarding its Idaho facilities in response to Staff inquiries. See Declaration and Confidential
Exhibits. The Company is currently operating in Boise,Lewiston,Meridian,Payette,Nampa, and
Twin Falls and has stated that it intends to expand its advanced fiber network beyond the current
CPCN boundaries to bring high-quality, competitive telecommunications services to more of
Idaho's population. Granting the Company a statewide Lifeline-only ETC designation will allow
it to expeditiously and efficiently offer competitive Lifeline services in these expanded service
a 47 U.S.0 § 214(e)(5) defines "service area" as "a geographic area established by a State commission . . . for the
purpose of determining universal service obligations and support mechanisms." The implementing rule mirrors this
definition: "The term service area means a geographic area established by a state commission for the purpose of
determining universal service obligations and support mechanisms.A service area defines the overall area for which
the carrier shall receive support from federal universal service support mechanisms."47 C.F.R. § 54.207(a).
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 9

areas. Taken together, it is clear that the Commission should disregard Staffs unsupported
recommendation to limit the Company's ETC designation to its CPCN areas.
D. Staffs reliance on complaints against the Company's affiliates as a rationale
for denying the Company's ETC designation is unsupported by law or
precedent.
In its Comments, Staff states that it is "concerned" about the Company's ability to
demonstrate that it can continuously provide universal services within its service area. Staff
Comments at 3. Staff bases its concern on the fact that the Company is sharing facilities with two
affiliates that are the subject of open investigation proceedings(PUC Case Nos. CTC-T-24-01 and
GNR-T-25-05) involving quality of service and customer responsiveness complaints. Staff
Comments at 3-4. Both investigations are open dockets that do not directly involve the Applicant,
and the Commission has not made any final determinations in either proceeding. Staff makes no
effort to connect these open proceedings to the services the Applicant plans to offer, nor does it
cite Commission precedent for denying an ETC designation based on the mere existence of service
quality complaints involving an affiliate.
Moreover, these service quality allegations against the Applicant's ILEC affiliates apply
to last-mile copper facilities, none of which are directly implicated by the Application. The
Company itself is a CLEC, certified to operate throughout the State,that is building a state-of-the-
art fiber network to bring competitive telecommunications services to Idaho. The shared elements
of the affiliate facilities relate to transport,switching,electronics,and core network functions,none
of which utilize copper facilities and none of which are the subject of any pending complaints or
Commission service quality investigations. The last-mile facilities the Applicant will use to
provide Lifeline services to its customers are state-of-the-art fiber facilities. The Applicant's
affiliated ILECs will provide transport over fiber facilities back to the core network, where ILEC
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 10

affiliate switching equipment will route traffic to the intended destination. No last-mile ILEC
copper facilities will be involved in any way in the provision of Applicant's Lifeline services.
E. Staffs affiliate facilities and "unique or distinguishable services" analysis is
not consistent with federal law or the Commission's recent actions.
Staff discounts the public interest benefits of the Company's application on the basis that
the Company shares facilities with ILEC affiliates that already hold ETC designations and with
ZW,and that it"does not appear to Staff that there are any unique or distinguishable services being
offered to customers that would support an increase in consumer choice." Staff Comments at 4.
Staff further asserts that the Company has not identified any"unique benefits"that set it apart from
its competitors or its affiliates. Staff Comments at 4.
First, Staffs uniqueness argument rests on a fundamental misinterpretation of the
Company's proposal. The Company is a CLEC and will not be competing directly with its
affiliated ILECs within the ILEC service territory. Rather, to a Lifeline-qualified resident in the
CLEC territory, the Company's service offerings will be compared with the offerings of other
ETC-designated carriers in the area, not with the offerings of the ILEC affiliates. The provided
benefit will be high-quality services from the Company's network and additional competition in
the Lifeline marketplace.
Second, in evaluating Lifeline-only ETC applications, Staff has typically focused on two
threshold considerations: (1) whether the Company will contribute to Idaho telecommunications
funds; and (2) whether the Company's Application raises "cream-skimming" concerns.' The
Commission then typically undertakes a more fulsome assessment of the public interest benefits
of the Application. See Order No. 35126 at 4 and Order No. 36050 at 3. Here, rather than applying
9"Cream skimming"is not a factor here,and Staff did not raise it as an issue,since the Company is seeking statewide
ETC designation. See e.g., Order No.35126 at 5 and Order No. 36050 at 5.
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 11

the usual two-factor screen, Staff introduces novel criteria, including the provision of"unique or
distinguishable services" provided vis-a-vis competitors or affiliates with overlapping service
areas. Staff Comments at 4. Staff does not provide an explanation for this departure or citations to
analogous Lifeline ETC cases where these factors have been applied.
While not cited in its most recent Comments, Staff s"unique services" standard appears to
derive from a set of public interest factors described in Virginia Cellular, which Staff references
via the Commission's Clear Talk Order, Order No. 29841. 2025 Staff Comments at 5-6 (citing
Order No. 29841 at 6, Virginia Cellular, LLC Petition for Designation as an ETC, 19 FCC Rcd
1563, 1574 (2004)).10 However, Virginia Cellular was a high-cost ETC designation proceeding,
not a Lifeline-only ETC proceeding. In that proceeding, the FCC granted Virginia Cellular's
petition for the purposes of receiving federal universal service high-cost support. The public
interest factors it articulated, including the assessment of the applicant's unique service offerings
and their advantages relative to existing providers,were developed to address concerns specific to
high-cost support, not Lifeline-only service.
The FCC has emphasized the inherent benefits of competition for Lifeline providers and
rejected application of the factors used in high-cost support analyses to Lifeline-only ETC
designations. As the FCC explained, the Joint Board identified those factors "in the context of a
carrier seeking ETC designation to receive both low-income and high-cost support, in particular,
under the identical support rule."Lifeline Forbearance Order at para. 5. The FCC found that those
factors"do not apply in the context of conditionally designating ETCs in areas eligible for Lifeline
io The Virginia Cellular factors originated in the 1996 Joint Board Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd 87, 179-80,
paras 172-74,and were subsequently applied by the FCC in Highland Cellular, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 6422, 6426,para.
9 (2004) and Virginia Cellular. In the Lifeline Forbearance Order, the Commission had Virginia Cellular directly
before it(citing the case at para. 4,n.14) when it found that these factors were developed "in the context of carrier
seeking ETC designation to receive both low-income and high-cost support" and "do not apply in the context of
conditionally designating ETCs in areas eligible for Lifeline support."Lifeline Forbearance Order at paras 5 and 10.
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 12

support." Lifeline Forbearance Order at para. 10. Rather than requiring Lifeline-only applicants
to demonstrate unique or distinguishable services, the FCC found that competitive Lifeline entry
inherently serves the public interest. Lifeline Forbearance Order at para. 10. The Commission
further found that Lifeline-only ETCs "offer Lifeline-eligible consumers an additional choice of
providers for discounted telecommunications services."Lifeline Forbearance Order at para. 11.
This Commission's own recent decisions are consistent with this reading. In evaluating
the statewide ETC applications of Torch Wireless and Terracom, Staff applied its typical
two-factor screen and recommended approval. The Commission then made broader public interest
findings grounded in competition, consumer choice, and service to underserved populations.
Neither Staff nor the Commission applied the Virginia Cellular factors in their analysis. Order
No. 35126 at 4-5; Order No. 36050 at 3-5. Thus, Staff s application of factors rooted in the
Virginia Cellular case to the Company's Lifeline-only ETC application is inconsistent with the
scope of the original decision, Staffs typical practice, the Commission's own recent precedent,
and subsequent FCC forbearance from geographic limitations on Lifeline-only ETC designations.
See Lifeline Forbearance Order at para. 1. If the Commission accepts Staffs analysis and
recommendation, it would be setting a new standard of review for future Lifeline-only ETC
applicants that could chill competition in the Lifeline marketplace and result in disparate treatment
of new competitive entrants, contrary to well-established FCC policy and precedent.)i
F. If Staff s recommendation is adopted, the decision would violate the FCC's
competitive neutrality principles.
The FCC has adopted competitive neutrality as a binding principle of universal service
"As stated previously,the state may only adopt regulations that are"not inconsistent with the Commission's rules to
preserve and advance universal service." 47 U.S.C. §254(f).
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 13

policy under Section 254(b)(7). See Universal Service Order at para. 46.12 The FCC defined
competitive neutrality to mean that "universal service support mechanisms and rules neither
unfairly advantage nor disadvantage one provider over another." Universal Service Order at
para. 47. The FCC further held that competitive neutrality is "embodied in... section 214(e)'s
requirement that any carrier can become an eligible telecommunications carrier if it meets certain
statutory criteria," Universal Service Order at para. 48. As previously noted,this Commission has
granted statewide ETC designations to operators using a two-part test and subsequent public
interest analysis. See Order No. 35126 at 4-5; Order No. 36050 at 3-5. The same approach should
therefore be applied to the review of the Company's Application. A decision denying
Lifeline-only ETC designation to a qualified applicant, particularly by applying novel and more
rigorous standards to new entrants, would unfairly advantage existing providers and disadvantage
the Company, in direct contravention of the FCC's competitive neutrality principle and would
exceed the scope of the Commission's authority under Section 254(f) of the Communications
Act.13
III. ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES
For the reasons set forth above,the Company believes it has satisfied all of the requirements
for granting the Application and issuing a statewide ETC designation. Nevertheless, to facilitate
the rapid deployment of competitive Lifeline services to Idaho's low-income consumers, the
Company offers two alternative approaches for the Commission's consideration. Both alternatives
are presented without conceding any of the underlying facts or legal arguments, and the Company
expressly reserves all of its legal rights, including its right to seek reconsideration of, or otherwise
12 The Section 254 framework under which the FCC adopted the competitive neutrality principle was recently upheld
by the Supreme Court. See FCC v. Consumers'Research, 606 U.S. 656 at 659, 684-91 (2025) (holding that Section
254 provides"determinate standards"for the FCC's administration of universal service).
13 47 U.S.C. §254(f).
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 14

challenge, any denial of the full statewide Lifeline-only ETC designation requested in the
Application.
First,the Commission could grant the Company's statewide Lifeline-only ETC designation
on the condition that Lifeline service within the service territories served by the Applicant's ILEC
affiliates would be provided by the ILEC affiliates, and not by the Applicant. This is consistent
with the Applicant's intended approach to the provision of Lifeline services. Such a conditional
designation would extend Lifeline service to Idaho consumers in areas where no affiliated ILEC
entity currently holds ETC status while ameliorating Staff s concerns regarding the "unique"
competitive services offered by each affiliate.14
Second, the Commission could grant the Company's statewide Lifeline-only ETC for the
areas of the state covered by its current and future network deployments. The Commission has
recent precedent for this approach. In Order No. 36904, the Commission granted Assurance
Wireless USA, L.P., a statewide Lifeline-only ETC designation, authorizing the Company to
"expand its current ETC service area to a statewide designation for the purpose of providing
Lifeline service" while recognizing that service would be available "anywhere the Company has
wireless coverage in Idaho." Order No. 36904 at 1-2. The Commission found that this approach
would be consistent with the public interest. This alternate approach would be consistent with the
Commission's treatment of Assurance Wireless, would help bring additional competitive Lifeline
services to Idaho consumers, and would preserve the Company's right to offer Lifeline services to
additional customers as its network coverage expands.
14 It should be noted that the Applicant's service area and the service territories of its affiliated ILECs do not overlap.
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 15

IV. ZIPLY FIBER'S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Company has demonstrated throughout this multi-year proceeding that it is qualified
for a Lifeline-only ETC designation in the State of Idaho and that granting this designation would
further the public interest. Granting the Company's request would help bring additional
competitive services to Idaho's most vulnerable communities and would be consistent with the
stated policies of the FCC and the Idaho State Legislature. The Company therefore urges the
Commission to expeditiously grant the requested statewide ETC designation. In the alternative,
the Company requests that the Commission grant it a statewide Lifeline-only ETC designation
with certain conditions under one or both of the two alternative approaches described above.
If the Commission does not grant the Company's request for ETC status, the Company
requests a hearing in this matter to correct inaccuracies of law and fact in the Staff Comments as
set forth herein and to develop an adequate record for decision-making by the Commission.
DATED this 16th day of June 2026.
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
Nicholas J. rekson
Attorneys for Ziply Fiber
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 16

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on the 16th day of June 2026, 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 [e-mail]
Erika K. Melanson U.S. Mail, Postage Prepaid
Jeffrey R. Loll Overnight Courier
Deputy Attorneys General Hand Delivered
Idaho Public Utilities Commission Via Facsimile
P.O. Box 83720 X_ Email:
Boise, ID 83720-0074 [e-mail]
[e-mail]
r�
Nicholas J. Erekson
REPLY COMMENTS OF ZIPLY FIBER PACIFIC,LLC—Page 17