Alright. We're going to get started. Let's go on the record. Good afternoon. This is the time set for the public comment and evidentiary hearing in the matter of the application of Vero Broadband LLC for approval of a certificate of convenience and necessity to provide intrastate telecommunication services in Arizona. This is docket number TDash21373ADash25Dash0236. My name is Donna Sansone. I am the administrative law judge assigned to preside over this matter.
I'll start by taking the appearances of the parties beginning with the company, Vero Broadband. Hello? Good afternoon, your honor. Eli Sanchez Charsky with the law firm Osborne Maladon. And with me online representing Vero Broadband LLC is mister Chris Petula, general counsel for Vero Broadband. Thank you. And for staff? Good morning. Good morning, your honor. Mike Daley with the office of general counsel of the Arizona Corporation Commission on behalf of staff. And to my left is, staff analyst number two, Ross Nemeth. Thank you. Now before we move to public comment,
are there any procedural items or issues that we need to address starting with mister Inkarski? Nothing from the company, your honor. And mister Daley? No. Alright. In that case, let's move to public comment. This is the time for any member of the public present to provide comments on this matter. Are there any members of the public who would like to provide comment today regarding VERO's application? I don't see any in the hearing room, and it appears our only call in user is been listed listed as listen only. So my assumption is that there are,
no call in users for public comment, so let the record reflect that no one has indicated a desire to speak. We'll move into opening statements. Mister Ankorski, would the company like to make an opening statement at this time? Thank you, your honor. We'll waive opening right now. Mister Daley? Staff will waive an opening as well. In that case, we'll move into the presentation of witnesses and evidence. Is Feral ready to call its first witness? We are. You can go ahead. Alright. Your honor, Bureau Broadband calls mister Chris Petula as a witness. Oh, mister Petula, I'm going to have our court reporter swear you in.
So if you could raise your right hand. I didn't hear anything. Sorry. No. You're fine. I just couldn't see you yet. Alright. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. You can go ahead. Alright. Good afternoon. Mister Petillo, can you please state your name, employer, and business address for the record, please? Yes. Chris Pedula, Vero Broadband LLC. Our business address is 740 US Highway 24 Woodland Park, California Colorado 80863.
And what is your title with Vero Broadband? I'm general counsel. Are you authorized to testify here today on behalf of Vero Broadband LLC? Yes. Could you please describe your role and involvement with Vero Broadband? Yes. As general counsel, I'm responsible for all of the day to day legal activities and matters at Vero Broadband. Can you please briefly describe the products or services that Vero Broadband will be providing in Arizona? Sure. Vero Broadband primarily provides, Internet and fiber based Internet and voice over IP services to residential customers. We also occasionally provide point to point capacity services for business customers.
Are you familiar with the application for CCNN that Vero Broadband filed in this matter? Yes. Do you have in front of you today what is marked as exhibit a one, which is a copy of the application filed by Vero Broadband? I do. And do you have any corrections or revisions you would like to make to exhibit a one? Yes. Please explain. We oh, sorry. We inadvertently left off the checkbox for authority to provide wholesale services to telecommunications carriers in section a one. We updated our we're as explained in our application,
we're requesting authority to provide wholesale line services in Arizona, and we have updated our application to include this request. And is a copy of the notice filing the amendment to the application marked as exhibit a two? Yes. And are you adopting exhibit a one as as amended by exhibit a two as your primary testimony today? Yes. Alright. Your honor, I'd move for admission of exhibit a one. Any objection from staff? No. With no objection, exhibit a one is hereby admitted. And I will also move for the admission of exhibit a two, which is the notice of filing the amendment to the application.
Any objection from staff? No. With no objection, exhibit a two is hereby admitted. On 03/11/2026, Bureau of Broadband filed a copy of its responses responses to staff's first, second, third, and fourth data requests, which were previously submitted to staff. Is that correct? Yes. And is exhibit a three a copy of that filing? Yes. Do you have any corrections or revisions you would like to make to exhibit a three? No. Alright. Your honor, I'd move for admission of exhibit a three. Any objection from staff? No objection. With no objection, exhibit a three is hereby admitted.
Have you had a chance to review the staff report marked as exhibit s one? Yes. And have you reviewed the recommendations in that staff report? Yes. I have. Does Vero Broadband agree to abide by all recommendations in the staff report? Yes. On 12/19/2025, Bureau of Broadband filed a request for waiver of the contract filing requirement found in Arizona Administrative Code r 14 dash two dash one one one five c three. Is it still Bureau Broadband's request to waive that rule as confirmed by the staff report? Yes. And does the company have any objections to producing contracts at the request of the
commission? No. And is a copy of that waiver request marked as exhibit a four? Yes. And is exhibit a four a true and accurate copy of the waiver request? Yes. Your honor, I move for admission of exhibit a four. Any objection from staff? No. With no objection, exhibit a four is hereby admitted. And finally, pursuant to the procedural order dated 04/26/2026, Vero Broadband was required to publish the notice of hearing in a newspaper of general circulation. Did Vero Broadband provide such notice? Yes. What date was notice published? On 05/14/2026.
And do you have in front of you today what is marked as exhibit a five, which is a copy of the notice of filing the affidavit of publication? Yes. And does this document confirm that Vero Broadband published the notice of hearing in the Arizona Business Gazette on April 14 sorry, 05/14/2026? Yes. And do you have any corrections or revisions you would like to make to that document? Nope. Alright. Your honor, I'd move for a mission of exhibit a five. Any objection from staff? No objection. With no objection, exhibit a five is hereby admitted. Alright. Your honor, no additional questions. Mister Pichila is available for cross examination.
Alright. Thank you. Mister Daley, any cross for this witness? Just one question regarding the staff report, premarked as exhibit s one. Sir, do you have s one in front of you still? I do. I'm gonna get it. Just one second. Yes. And I think you already answered this. Just to be clear, however, could you tell us whether the company, Vero Broadband, has any objections to any of the analysis or recommendations in the staff report marked as exhibit s one? No. K. And the company generally agrees with, the the the conclusions in s one?
Yes. No further questions. Thank you. Alright. Mister Pedulla, I do have a couple of questions for you. I'm gonna start with some questions seeking clarification on different things mentioned in the company's exhibits and in the staff report. I'm gonna start with page five of the application, which has been marked as exhibit a one in which the company indicates that Vero is a foreign limited liability company or LLC. However, on page one of the staff report, staff identifies Vero as a foreign limited partnership or LP.
I believe this may have been a typo, but I just wanna confirm, that Vero is, in fact, a limited liability company. Is that correct? Correct. Yes. Thank you. Now moving on to questions related to the company's technical, managerial, and financial capabilities to provide the proposed services. I'd like to briefly talk about the relationship between Vero the applicant and its affiliate, Vero Fiber Networks LLC. The only thing I can really gather from the available evidence is that Vero Fiber is also a telecommunications company and also provides resold local exchange service,
inter exchange service, and private line services in Arizona. Now I'm gonna ask some questions to gain some additional information about Vero Fiber, the affiliate. First, what jurisdiction was Vero Fiber organized under? Is it also Colorado? Also Colorado. Yes. Thank you. And what is the relationship between Vero? And I'm gonna refer to it as Vero Fiber for short. Do they share a parent company? Yes. So Vero Broadband, the applicant is there's a holding company that owns it, Vero Broadband Holdings Inc, which is a Delaware corporation. The parent for Vero Broadband Holdings Inc is VFN Holdings Inc,
also a Delaware corporation, which itself owns Vero Fiber Networks LLC also. Okay. And, does Verofiber also receive financial assistance from that Verofiber network holdings? So they're independently op independent operating companies, but they show the same corporate parent. Yes. Okay. Alright. And then from the company's responses to SDR 2.5 and exhibit a three, it appears that Vero, the applicant, will also be doing business as Vero Fiber. Can you provide some more information on why these entities who appear to provide similar
telecommunications services and both seem to do business as Vero Fiber, why they're actually separate companies? Yeah. So they have entirely different management structures, the two companies. Vero Fiber Networks LLC, the other one, not the applicant, is a primarily builds fiber networks for schools and libraries that qualify for federal e rate funding. It's so it provides mostly dark services, but some, like, services to those school districts as well. And then Vero Broadband LLC is the fiber to the home residential and small business
Internet service. So they they do different things even though the services are somewhat similar. Alright. That makes sense. Thank you so much. And, will these companies be sharing access to any resources? I know that they're separate entities, but are they gonna be sharing finances, infrastructure, employees, anything of that nature? Yes. So for instance, I I work for both on the general counsel of both companies. So we do have some corporate level employees that work together. All of their books and records and infrastructure is separate.
There are some intercompany agreements that provide services back and forth, but they don't pool or share resources. That that answers the question. But That that does answer it. Okay. So, just to clarify, the companies, they may share some, like, corporate level, management personnel such as yourself. But in terms of its actual infrastructure, and customer base, those those don't, overlap except for the interconnection. An employee base too. Yeah. So they each have their own staff, their own employees, their own management structure. Okay.
That makes sense. Alright. Moving on to page five of exhibit a one, there's some discussion about the company's customer service center, which will be located in Woodland Park, Colorado and will operate twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. When asked about how many employees it will have in its customer service center, Vero generally states that it will be internally staffed Mondays through Saturdays from 7AM to 7PM mountain time. And then we'll partner with a third party company for additional support in twenty four seven coverage.
Does the company know specifically or approximately how many Vero or Vero employees will be assigned to work for that customer service center during those identified business hours? So there's four that operate during the the Monday to Friday business period. If you're asking how many are through the vendor that we contract with, I can find that out for you, but I don't know off the top of my head. I I don't need that. I just needed it for the company itself. Thank you. Sure. Moving on to questions related to the company's proposed rates and charges.
Vero indicates that it intends to utilize individual case basis or ICB contracts with its customers. If the company's application is granted, does the company intend to keep the maximum rate charged in those ICB contracts at or below the maximum rate of its commission approved tariff? Yes. And to confirm, Vero does not plan to offer any regulated telecommunication services within the state of Arizona outside of those requested in its application. Is that correct? Can you respond, verbally? I said correct.
I'm sorry. I must have been doing it while you were talking. It's okay. No problem. Thank you. And then I have a quick question related to the company's complaint information. On page nine of exhibit a one, the company indicated that it has already been approved to provide telecommunication services in Iowa, Montana, and Oregon. However, the company does not clearly state whether it has ever ever had an instance where it had an application for telecommunication services or a revocation of authority to provide telecommunication services in another jurisdiction. So to confirm,
has Veo ever had an application to provide telecommunication services denied in any jurisdiction outside of Arizona? No. And has Vero ever had their authority to provide telecommunication services revoked in any jurisdiction outside of Arizona? No. Okay. And then, I believe that your attorney already asked you about the recommendations made by staff in the staff report. But I I wanted to just ensure, in addition to those recommendations, I believe there's nine numbered recommendations. On page 12 of the staff report, staff provides four numbered compliance items that it recommends that the company be ordered to
follow. I just wanna confirm, does the company agree to abide by the compliance items set forth in the staff report if the application is approved? Yes. Thank you. I believe those are all of my questions. Mister Ancharski, do you have, any redirect? No additional questions, your honor. Mister Daley, any final cross? No. Thank you. Alright. I believe that is all that we have. Thank you, mister Pedula, for your testimony. Mister Ankarski, does the company have any additional witness testimony you'd like to provide at this time? No additional witnesses, your honor. Alright. In that case, we will move on to staff's presentation of witnesses and evidence.
Thank you, your honor. Staff calls Ross Nemeth. You're welcome to come up to the witness stand, and I will have our court reporters swear you in. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Your honor, permission to approach the witness? Of course. I'm okay. Thank you, though. Thank you, sir. Did you provide a copy to the hearing division before the hearing today? I yeah. At least I Do you mind? I I might just give that to our staff.
I appreciate it. Mister Daley, whenever you're ready, you can go ahead with your questions. Good afternoon, Ross. Could you state your name for the record, please? Ross Nemeth. Who's your employer, and what's your business address? The Arizona Corporation Commission at 1200 West Washington Street. What's the name of your position at the ACC? I'm a public utility analyst, level two. How long have you been employed with the commission? It's been eleven months now. K. Apart from the instant CCNN application, have you were ever worked or consulted with respect to other CCNN applications prior to
today? Yes. Approximately how many? Two. Okay. Do you happen to have what's been premarked as exhibit s one in front of you? I do. Okay. Please take a look at that. And, when you get a chance, tell us what s one is. S one is the staff report that I filed for this, case. Okay. And approximately at page four of exhibit s one is a list of table and contents. So let me know when you get to that. I'm there. Okay. Does that table of contents summarize some of the your responsibilities,
in the analysis that you did with respect to Beryl Broadband's CCNN application? Yes. Okay. Was s one prepared by you or at your direction? Yes. Okay. Looking at s one, including the table of contents again, just give us a summary of the analysis and the work that you did per you did perform in this case. I looked at things that the company provided. I analyzed their technical, financial capabilities, looked at their things that they were requesting to provide service for, and gave recommendations. K. Do you have any changes, modifications, or corrections you would like to make to s one today?
I do not. K. And are you adopting, staff, the staff report marked as exhibit s one as part of your testimony today? Yes. K. Your honor, staff moves, exhibit s one into the evidence. Any objection from the company? No objection, your honor. With no objection, exhibit s one is hereby admitted. Ross, looking at looking at actual page two of the staff report, does the company have the technical capability to provide the services for which it requests authority in Arizona? I believe they do. K. And then looking at page three,
similar question. Does the company have the financial capability to perform the services for which it requests authority in Arizona? I believe they do. K. And then with respect to, your analysis of the complaint history with respect to the company, look at page four and tell us, does the company currently have a clean complaint history? Is it in good standing with the Arizona Corporation Yes, they are. Okay. Please go, towards the end of exhibit s one and take a moment or two to review staff's recommendations starting at page 12.
Have you had a chance to review the staff's recommendations? So looking at pages, I think it's actually page eleven and twelve. Do those pages accurately reflect staff's recommendations should the CC and M CC and M be granted? They do. Okay. And then on the page 12, I also think at the bottom, technically, the same thing that there's a list of compliance items. Are those the compliance items that the staff recommends the commission adopt? Yes. Okay. Is staff recommending, the approval of the company's request for CCNN subject to staff's recommendation and recommended compliance
items? Yes. K. Is staff recommending that the company services be classified as competitive? Yes. And then the staff believe that Vero's request seeking a waiver of the file requirement is, in the public interest as well? Yes. Okay. Do you believe that granting the CCNN to their broadband to be in the public interest? Yes. No further questions at this time. The staff is available. Cross. Thank you. Mister Anchorski, do you have any questions for this witness? No questions. Just thank you for your time and work on this. Alright. Mister Nemeth,
I do have a few questions for you. I'm gonna start with questions related to Vero's technical, managerial, and financial capabilities to provide the proposed services. Now on pages one and two of the staff report, staff generally describes what Vero's business plan is, what services they will provide, and how the company plans to provide those services. Staff ultimately concludes and you just confirmed that Vero has staff believes Vero has the technical capability to provide the proposed services. However, staff doesn't exactly provide specifics on how or why the company's plan to provide these
services demonstrates their technical capability. Can you please provide some clarity on how staff came to the conclusion about the company's technical capability? For example, did staff find that the company is following a business model that staff has seen other companies successfully deploy in its resold local exchange, resold long distance, private line, and wholesale infrastructure and services, or how exactly does Vero's plans demonstrate their technical capability to provide the proposed services? The services that Vero are providing, are also provided by other,
telecommunications companies. And we, believe that their business plan or that their proposal shows adequate, cape that they have adequate technical capability to provide the services. Alright. Thank you. And then, I apologize if you've already, confirmed this, but in its staff report, staff does not directly confirm that it believes Vero possesses the managerial capabilities to provide the proposed services in Arizona. Can you tell me what staff's conclusion was with respect to whether Vero has the managerial capabilities to provide the proposed services?
We found that they do have the to do so. Thank you. And aside from the years of experience of the company's key management team, are there any other factors that staff considered in coming to this conclusion? WeWork staff was provided with biographies of a lot of its, leadership from the company and found that through their work experience and some Internet searches found them all to be, capable of providing managerial experience. Thank you. Now turning to staff's review of the proposed rates and charges. On page three of the staff report, staff confirms that Vero provided a copy of its proposed tariffs.
Staff also generally notes that Vero, quote, provided competitive rate comparison information on 02/13/2026 for other providers offering interstate telecommunication services in Arizona. However, staff did not directly confirm that it had the opportunity to review those proposed tariffs. So for confirmation sake, did staff review the proposed tariff pages submitted by Vero? Yes. And did staff, after reviewing those proposed tariff pages and competitive rate comparison provided by Vero, find that Vero's proposed rates and charges are comparable with the rates and charges of
other similar providers of those services in Arizona? Yes. And after reviewing the proposed rates and charges, does staff believe that the proposed rates and charges are just and reasonable? We do. Moving on to staff's review of complaint information. I previously asked the company about whether they ever had an instance where it had an application for telecommunication services denied or revocation of authority to provide telecommunication services in another jurisdiction. Staff did note that they confirmed, or that they verified with the Iowa,
Montana, and Oregon state commissions that Vero was authorized to provide telecommunication services in those jurisdictions. But did staff take any steps to independently verify whether Vero ever had an instance where an application for telecommunication services was denied or there was a revocation of authority to provide telecommunication services in another jurisdiction? Staff did not find any evidence of that. Alright. But staff did, in its review of the application, they did, conduct some kind of search to confirm that. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you.
Now moving to questions related to staff's competitive services analysis. In the staff reports, staff provided a general definition for what private line services and wholesale services to telecommunication carriers means. However, staff does not pride provide a similar definition for local exchange services or inter exchange services. For the record, would you mind please providing a brief description of what local exchange telecommunication services constitutes? Local exchange is they are getting service from an existing, telecommunications company and providing it to customers.
Thank you. And a brief description of what inter exchange services constitutes. They are also getting, providing service from existing telecommunication providers and giving that to customers. Thank you. My next question is about the company's relationship with its affiliate, Vero Fiber. Through my previous questions, I've already asked the company to expand a bit on that relationship. Were you able to listen to the company's responses just now? Yes. Now in looking at CCNN for competitive telecommunication companies, one of the things the commission is required to look at is ensuring that there
can be an availability for competition in the telecommunications market and that there aren't any concerns related to market share. Now I believe staff indirectly addressed this in their staff report through its competitive services analysis, that can be found on pages seven through 10. However, to confirm, from the information provided in the application, any conversation staff has had with the applicant, as well as the testimony presented today. Does staff have any concerns with respect to the operation of both Vero and Vero
Fiber as it relates to the competitiveness of the resold local exchange, resold long distance, and private line markets in Arizona? We do not have concerns. Thank you. I believe those are all of my questions. Mister Daley, do you have any redirect? Yes. I do just have one question relating to the company's, exhibit, a 30, which would be the applicant's responses to staff's DRs. So, Mr. Nemeth, are you familiar with the, company's responses to staph's DRs? I think they filed them cumulatively as an admitted into evidence as A3.
Are you familiar with those? Yes. Doc documents? Okay. And in fact, the that exhibit comprises not one, but two, three, and four sets of staff requests for information to the company. Correct? Correct. Okay. Were you satisfied with the company's responses to those detailed discovery requests? I was. Okay. And, in your professional opinion, did the responses to those discovery requests and including their application materials, do you believe that the company, the applicant, is a sophisticated entity capable of providing the requested services in Arizona?
I do. Okay. Nothing further? Thank you. Mister Ann Chorske, any, final questions for this witness? No additional questions, your honor. Alright. Thank you so much, mister Nemeth. You can go ahead and step down. Thank you. Mister Daley, does staff have any additional witness testimony they'd like to present at this time? No, your honor. Alright. In that case, we can move into, closing statements. Mister Antjorski, would Vero like to make a closing statement at this time? Just briefly, your honor. Vero Broadband would like to thank ALJ Sansone and staff for their work on this application. Please let us know if there's anything we can do to assist in processing this
matter. Thank you. Thank you. And, mister Daley, would staff like to make a closing statement at this time? Yes, your honor. For the record, staff appreciates the professionalism of both the applicant and applicant's counsel. Staff, after a thorough analysis, believes that the application should be granted, and it's in the public interest. So thank you. Thank you. Now I believe we have already admitted all of the exhibits that were offered for today, and I don't believe there's any additional needed. So before we finish up, I'm gonna briefly go off the record.
And, Jennifer, I just wanna make sure, is there anything that you need at this time? So Vero Broadband LLC is a subsidiary of Vero Broadband Holdings, which is in turn a 100% owned by VFN Holdings. Got it. Alright. Anything else? In that case, we're gonna go back on the record. While we were off the record, I asked the court reporter if she needed anything clarified, and she did need, the, letters for one of the companies clarified, and we were able to do so. Now before we adjourn, is there anything else we need to address, mister Andjarski?
Nothing at this time, your honor. Mister Daley? No. Thank you. Alright. In that case, I wanna thank you all for your participation today. This matter will be taken under advisement, and a recommended opinion and order will be issued for the commission's consideration at a future open meeting. This hearing is adjoined. Have a great rest of your day, everyone. Thank you.