Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative Association, Petitioner, v. Qwest Communications, Respondent.
The Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative Association (“Coop”), petitions the Colorado Public Utilities Commission (“Commission” or “PUC”) to arbitrate a dispute between the Coop and Qwest Communications (“Qwest”) over the rental of certain Qwest subloops located entirely within the Ruby Ranch neighborhood.(1) This is not technically an interconnection dispute as the Coop does not seek to interconnect its network with the network Qwest uses in the provision of its own telecommunications services. This dispute rather involves the terms under which Qwest must make unbundled subloops available to the Coop, subloops located entirely within the neighborhood.
This petition is filed timely. As discussed below, the Coop asked Qwest on June 1, 2001 to rent the subloops at issue, and this petition is submitted within the 135-to-160 day arbitration petition filing period. The Coop respectfully requests a Commission arbitration decision no later than March 1, 2002, although it would hope that the Commission could either act sooner or direct Qwest to provide the subloops on an interim basis (subject to the PUC’s arbitration decision). The Coop already possesses the equipment it needs to provide its Internet access services, and Qwest has ample subloops to rent to the Coop. However, the Coop cannot commence service and the residents of our neighborhood cannot enjoy the benefits of “always on,” high-speed Internet access because of Qwest’s unreasonable (and unexplained) demands concerning the rental of the subloops.
The parties’ identifying information and the history of the negotiations are appended in Attachments A and B respectively. The subloop rental contract that the Coop asks the Commission to approve is set forth in Attachment C. All relevant documents and diagrams are available at the Coop’s web site: http://www.rric.net/exhibits.htm.
The Ruby Ranch neighborhood (http://www.rubyranch.com) is a residential neighborhood located in an unincorporated portion of Summit County, Colorado. Forty homes have been built in the neighborhood, and construction of the 41st home has commenced. The maximum number of houses that might be built is 60.
Neighborhood residents have a keen interest in obtaining “always on,” high speed Internet connections for their personal and business needs. The best data rate available with dial-up access using lines from the local telephone company, Qwest, is 26 kbps. This rate does not meet the needs of neighborhood residents. For example, one resident who needed to send a large computer file to a business associate found that by modem it took several hours to send the file.
Although neighborhood residents have a need for “always on,” high speed Internet connections, such a service is not available today. Qwest and AT&T Cable have each stated they have no intention to provide in the near future high-speed Internet access to neighborhood residents.(2) Neighborhood residents therefore formed the non-profit Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative Association (http://www.rric.net) to provide high-speed Internet access to ourselves. Two neighborhood residents have a private microwave system connecting their houses to their office in Dillon, three miles away. Their office, in turn, has frame relay service to an Internet provider in Boulder. Residents have purchased a digital subscriber line access multiplexer (“DSLAM”) to provide symmetric digital subscriber line (“SDSL”) service to ourselves.(3) Two neighborhood residents purchased 2,000’ of cable to connect their homes with one of the houses connected to the microwave system. This temporary DSL service is working beautifully, confirming that we are capable of providing quality and reliable DSL services to ourselves.
The missing — and critical — link for the Coop’s Internet access service is access to Qwest subloops to connect the DSLAM to individual neighborhood residences and to the houses with the microwave links.(4) Qwest has a cross-connection junction box that is centrally located in the neighborhood, near a barn. We propose to install the DSLAM in the barn, and connect via buried cable to the junction box, approximately 300 feet away. A diagram of the Coop’s proposed network is available at http://www.rric.net/exhibits.htm under the caption, “maps and diagrams.”
Qwest has ample subloops in our neighborhood to meet our needs. It currently uses 30% of the available subloops (120 of 400) in the provision of its services to the 40 houses. The Coop would need at most 60 subloops (assuming 60 houses are eventually built and further assuming every resident uses the Coop’s service). Thus, even if we used 60 subloops, Qwest would still have 220 available subloops to provide voice or other services to new or existing residents — nearly double the number of subloops it uses to serve 40 homes.(5)
Our leasing proposal would enable Qwest to realize a return on an embedded investment that it will otherwise never use. In addition, our arrangement would enable Qwest to extend the life of its serving end office switch in Dillon (because dial-up Internet traffic from our neighborhood would be moved to the Coop’s SDSL network). We had thought that Qwest would jump at the chance to generate new revenues because our proposal was a “win/win” situation for all involved — Qwest would assist its customers to provide new capabilities to themselves after it decided not to provide the service directly.(6) We were mistaken.
On June 1, 2001, the Coop asked Qwest to lease subloops from it. Qwest responded by sending its standard interconnection contract that is over 280 pages in length — most of which had no relevance to our proposal.(7) The Coop replied by proposing a four-page contract meeting our needs, and we asked Qwest to modify our draft so the contract would meet its needs as well. Our proposed arrangement is very simple — lease subloops 0.25 to 1.2 miles in length that are located entirely in our neighborhood. We do not want collocation nor do we propose to exchange any traffic, thereby avoiding the often contentious issues of reciprocal compensation and collocation availability and pricing. We propose to have no metallic connection whatsoever to any Qwest switchgear. Qwest refused to use our proposal. According to Qwest, we volunteers with full-time jobs had to begin with, and could only use, Qwest’s massive 280-page single-spaced document.
The parties initially held three “negotiating” sessions — on July 26, August 1 and August 15, 2001. We made little or no progress. Among other things, Qwest did not perform certain tasks it agreed to perform, and it has been unable to explain or justify any of its proposed prices, terms and conditions. Most terms were offered on a “take it, or leave it” basis. Although Qwest liberalized a few of its proposed terms at the third conference (e.g., reducing its insurance requirements to “only” $1 million), Qwest was still unable to justify the newer terms or explain why terms once offered on a “take it or leave it” basis were not, as it initially represented, requirements set in stone.
On August 20, 2001, we sent to Qwest a draft of a complaint letter (that we eventually submitted to the FCC and CoPUC on September 4, 2001). A Qwest senior vice president intervened and asked we not file the complaint so we could conduct additional negotiations. We agreed to this request and thereafter conducted two more “negotiating” sessions, on August 27 and August 30, 2001. No progress was made. In fact, as explained below, Qwest actions only confirmed that its positions are unreasonable and completely unjustified. The parties agreed that further discussions would be pointless. Although Qwest negotiators claimed that they would be discussing our issues internally “at the highest level,” they said they were unable to give us a firm date by which they might get back to us.
On September 4, 2001, the Coop submitted a letter seeking the assistance of either this Commission or the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”).(8) Two days later, PUC staff contacted the Coop advising that we had two options before the PUC:
Because neither option would provide the prompt decision that the Coop was hoping for (commence service before the snow arrives and the ground freezes), the Coop focused its efforts at the FCC.
The FCC asked Qwest to respond to our letter, which it did on October 1, 2001. In that response, Qwest asserted that “an informal [FCC] complaint is not the proper forum in which to address [the Coop’s] allegations. Rather, the proper forum for [the Coop] to pursue its allegations is in an arbitration under Section 252 of the Act before the Colorado PUC.” The FCC Enforcement Bureau subsequently recommended to the Coop that it submit an arbitration petition with the Colorado Commission.
On October 12, 2001, Qwest told the Coop that it “remains willing to discuss possible means to achieve [the Coop’s] goals” and asserted that it “will do whatever we can . . . to assist [the Coop] in meeting its needs.” The Coop responded on October 14 asking if “Qwest will begin providing cost support and other justification for [its positions] if we agree to return to the bargaining table?” We also stated that the “best way that Qwest could demonstrate its good faith is by entering with us into an interim agreement that (a) allows us to commence rental of subloops and (b) leaves for later regulatory review resolution” of the areas where the parties have not agreed. Qwest has not responded to the Coop’s October 14, 2001 letter.
We cannot commence service under the terms that Qwest is demanding because Qwest has put us in a classic “Catch 22.” Specifically, it demands that we provide an insurance policy of $1 million but it refuses to identify the risk that our activity would pose to it. However, a local insurance broker has said it cannot issue a policy without knowing the risks the policy is intended to insure against. But even more outrageous, as explained below, Qwest has conceded that its insurance requirement is not needed so long as we are willing pay higher “retail” rates.
We are not a competitor of Qwest, since we decided to provide services to ourselves only after Qwest decided not to serve us. We are also good Qwest customers, averaging three lines per household. We can only imagine how Qwest treats firms that compete directly with its own services.
We believe there the following three unresolved issues require the Commission’s resolution: (a) the need for the Coop to obtain an insurance policy; (b) Qwest’s proposed fee of $1,707 to prepare a price quote to do a couple hundred dollar’s worth of work to install a field connection point; and (c) the proper charge that Qwest may assess for activating a subloop in our neighborhood.
1. The Insurance Issue. Must the Coop obtain insurance listing Qwest as a beneficiary, and if so, what should be the size of the policy?
2. History of the Issue. Qwest’s initially demanded that the Coop obtain an insurance policy in the sum of $11 million — the equivalent of a $1 million policy for each Coop member.(9) During the first call, Qwest appeared sensitive to the major hurdle such a requirement would impose on us, and but during the second call, it said that an $11 million insurance requirement was non-negotiable. At no time could Qwest question answer any of our questions:
During our third conference, Qwest lowered its demand to require “only” $1 million — the equivalent of a $100,000 policy for each Coop member. We repeated the questions above, and Qwest still could not answer any of them. Qwest also did not explain why its original demand of an $11 million policy, supposedly “non negotiable,” was no longer necessary.
During our fourth call (the one held after we sent Qwest a draft of our complaint letter), Qwest stated that no insurance would be required if we agreed to pay higher “retail” prices for subloops, but that it would demand a $1 million policy if we expected to pay “wholesale” prices for subloops — even though Qwest readily conceded that the physical interconnection under the “retail” and “wholesale” arrangements would be identical.
We then proposed a three-part counter proposal (although we do not believe these any of these proposals are necessary because Qwest has never been unable to explain why any insurance is necessary):
At our fifth and final call on August 30, 2001, Qwest rejected our counterproposals and reiterated that a $1 million insurance policy was “non-negotiable.” Qwest took this position even though it acknowledged that physical interconnection would be no different than the “retail” (higher price) arrangement where no insurance was required and even though it was still unable to explain the need for an insurance policy at all. We offered to set up a three-way call with an insurance broker, but Qwest said this was unnecessary because they believed we were correct that we cannot obtain an insurance policy without knowing the risks! Qwest told us that the “retail” proposal made during the fourth call (higher prices, but no insurance) was now off the table because Qwest participants were not authorized to make this proposal. (Qwest did state that it would pursue the retail concept internally “at the highest level” but was unwilling to provide a date when it could get back to us.)
If Qwest cannot identify the technical risk it believes the Coop presents, then the Coop cannot insure against that risk — as Qwest has readily admitted. In that case, the Coop cannot provide an insurance policy to Qwest, but Qwest has said that without such a policy, it will not rent subloops to the Coop. Qwest has placed us in a classic “Catch 22.” But what is even more outrageous is that Qwest has conceded that its insurance requirement is completely unnecessary — so long as we pay higher (but unspecified) “retail” rates.
3. The Coop’s Position. No insurance policy is necessary because the Coop’s activity poses no risk to Qwest, the Coop’s network will not interconnect with the network Qwest uses in the provision of its own services, there will be no metallic contact between the Coop’s network and Qwest’s network, and the work of connecting the Coop’s cables to Qwest’s subloops (via a Field Connection Point) will be performed by Qwest network employees. Although Qwest withdrew its “retail” proposal, the fact that it offered the proposal without any insurance requirement coupled with its concession that the technical arrangements between the “wholesale” and “retail” proposals were identical only confirms that Qwest’s demand for insurance is unreasonable.
4. Qwest’s Position. Qwest asserts that insurance is essential and that a $1 million policy is non-negotiable. We do not know why because Qwest has never identified the risks it thinks the Coop would pose to it, nor has it responded to any of the questions we have repeatedly posed to it regarding this matter. We do know that Qwest initially stated that a $11 million policy was “non-negotiable,” although it later reduced this supposed “non-negotiable” sum by 91% without explanation.
1. The Quote Preparation Fee Issue. Must the Coop pay Qwest a quote preparation fee, and if so, what is the appropriate amount?
2. History of the Issue. Qwest would install a Field Connection Point (“FCP”), basically a screw terminal, in its cross-connection box in our neighborhood as part of the Coop’s rental of Qwest subloops. The FCP would act as the line of demarcation separating Qwest’s equipment from the Coop’s equipment. Although Qwest has refused to disclose the approximate cost of such an FCP, the Coop believes that the cost would be several hundred dollars (including installation).
Qwest demanded during the first call that we pay a fee of $1,707 just to have Qwest prepare an estimate of the cost to install a FCP at its cross-connect box in our neighborhood. A fee of $1,707 simply to prepare an estimate is entirely unreasonable:
Qwest initially said that this Commission approved the $1,707 estimate fee, but it later admitted that this statement was false. Qwest has been unable (or unwilling) to cost-justify this fee, but it has said repeatedly that we must accept the fee on a “take it or leave it” basis. Qwest has taken this position even though the FCC has ruled that it is “reasonable . . . for a requesting carrier to seek and obtain cost data relevant to the negotiation”:
We conclude that an incumbent LEC may not deny a requesting carrier’s reasonable request for cost data during the negotiation process, because we conclude that such information is necessary for the requesting carrier to determine whether the rates offered by the incumbent LEC are reasonable.(11)
The actual work to be done (installing a terminal block) should have part costs of perhaps several hundred dollars and should take at most 30-40 minutes to install.(12) It is unconscionable to charge $1,707 simply to quote a price for work that will cost a small fraction of this fee, and a proposed fee of $1,707 for work that should take at most 30 minutes is not cost based. (Qwest’s statement to us — “Qwest cannot provide any estimate of the cost of a field connection point because there is insufficient data at this time” — is simply not credible.) This is a clear case of gouging.
3. The Coop’s Position. We question whether any “quote preparation fee” can be cost justified (e.g., the cost of preparing a bill and recording payment would likely exceed the amount of work involved). However, if such a fee is appropriate, the fee should be based on the actual time Qwest incurs in preparing its price quote, using tariffed labor prices. The time needed to prepare a price quote should take less than one hour (and more likely 15-30 minutes). The Commission should require Qwest to cost justify any price quote fee exceeding $100.00.
4. Qwest’s Position. Qwest’s position is that the Coop must pay $1,707 before to prepare a price quote for a job that will at most involve several hundred dollars. We do not know how Qwest arrived at this sum because it has refused to share that information with the Coop.
1. The Activation Fee Issue. What fee must the Coop pay for Qwest to activate the subloops that Qwest uses?
2. History of the Issue. Qwest stated that we must pay $126.49 to activate each subloop, including when the field personnel activate several subloops at one time (even though the total time needed to activate a dozen lines at the junction box might take 30 minutes). Qwest has been unable (or unwilling) to justify this cost. Nor would it identify the amount it imputes to itself when it activates one of its own DSL customers. (Qwest often has promotions where it offers potential DSL customers free activation.) Qwest nonetheless took the position that the fee was being offered on a “take it or leave it” basis. Qwest also indicated it would discount the $126.49 fee were we to accept the “retail” arrangement tentatively proposed, suggesting that the $126.49 wholesale charge was intended as a barrier to a wholesale relationship.
3. The Coop’s position. We believe that an activation fee of $27 per subloop would be reasonable. Qwest charges $54 to activate an ordinary business line.(13) To activate such a line to our neighborhood, Qwest technicians would need to carry out work at four locations: (1) the central office in Dillon, (2) the subscriber line carrier (“SLC”) box in Willowbrook, a neighborhood near our neighborhood, (3) the cross-connect box in our neighborhod, and (4) the individual residence. Only the last two locations need work carried out to activate the subloops we seek to rent., thus activating subloops for the Coop will take only half the work and half the time of activating an ordinary business line It would therefore appear to us that an activation fee of $27 per subloop — half of the rate to activate a business line — would be fair and reasonable.
In fact, a per subloop activation fee of $27 would be more than generous to Qwest. Half of the work Qwest must engage to activate a subloop for the Coop involves connecting its subloops to the screw terminal in its cross-connection box and connecting the Coop’s cable to the same screw terminal. As noted, we expect to have 12-20 customers at service launch. The time needed to make the necessary screw terminal connections for 12-20 customers should at most consume 30-45 minutes.
4. Qwest’s Position. Qwest’s position is that the Coop must pay $126.49 to activate each subloop that the Coop rents. We do not know how Qwest arrived at this sum because it has refused to share that information with the Coop.
The Coop believes that the two parties have reached agreement on several important issues. Nevertheless, Qwest has been less than forthright in its dealings with the Coop, and the Coop lists these other issues to ensure that there is truly consensus over them. If Qwest objects to any of the terms below, then the Coop asks that the Commission arbitrate these issues as well.
Qwest proposed two years, and we countered with four years. (We don’t want to repeat this hassle in only two years.) We compromised on three years.
Qwest initially stated that we would have to pay $21.32 monthly for each subloop in the neighborhood — or more than what Qwest charges for the rental of an entire loop to its serving central office. Later, Qwest demanded that we pay $15.12 monthly for each subloop. We believe the Qwest’s current position is that it will offer subloops at $8.33 monthly per subloops. The Coop will agree to this sum rather than require Qwest to prove its actual costs.
Qwest initially demanded that our tiny Coop staffed with volunteers learn a sophisticated Interconnect Mediated Access system to order subloops, but Qwest was unable to answer any of our questions regarding its IMA system. Qwest has since agreed that the Coop, which will have a maximum number of 60 customers, can place orders by phone or by facsimile.
Since it would be the Coop that would place orders, offer service, and deal with Qwest, the Coop questions why Qwest would require the Coop to provide letters of authorization from Coop member-customers. Nevertheless, in an attempt to minimize the number of issues that the Commission must arbitrate, the Coop will agree to this Qwest demand.
The Coop’s network would connect to Qwest subloops at its cross-connect box in our neighborhood. The Qwest facilities between this box and its SLC box in nearby Willowbrook are near exhaust (see note 5 supra), and our neighborhood has already given Qwest an easement to install additional facilities to the neighborhood. Qwest has agreed that if its changes the demarcation point with the Coop, it will assume the responsibility of moving the Coop’s cable to the new demarcation point at no charge to the Coop.
The Coop does not seek to provide voice telephony services, nor does it seek to interconnect with the network that Qwest uses in the provision of its own telecommunications services. The Coop seeks only to rent certain sub-loops so it can provide Internet access services to its member-subscribers, all residents of our neighborhood. Earlier this year, Commission staff informally advised the Coop that it was appropriately classified as a data local exchange carrier (“DLEC”) and that as such, the Coop did not require any PUC certification as a condition to offering its Internet access services to its member-subscribers (all residents of the neighborhood) by means of subloops rented from Qwest.
The Coop asks the Commission to (a) reaffirm that it does not require any Commission approval before it may commence its services, or (b) identify the steps it must take to secure all appropriate approvals so that the Coop can secure such approval as rapidly as possible. FCC staff recently advised the Coop that Qwest has a tendency to sign interconnection agreements, but then refuse to provide interconnection on the ground that the requesting carrier has not obtained the “right” regulatory approval to provide its services.(14) Such gamesmanship is not in the public interest and so as to ensure that the Coop can commence its services as soon as the Commission enters its arbitration decision, the Commission should confirm that the Coop does not require any regulatory approvals in order to provide its Internet access services.
Our non-profit Coop is tiny. We expect to have 12-20 customers at service launch. The Coop board consists entirely of volunteers, people with full-time and demanding jobs. (We try to do Coop work during the evenings or weekends.) The Coop has no revenues, because Qwest has precluded the Coop from commencing service.
The Coop is aware that the Commission has extensive procedures and rules governing arbitration proceedings. For example, we are aware of Rule 723-46-4.2 that requires a petitioner to serve a copy of its petition on “any telecommunications carrier certified by the Commission to provide telecommunications service in the State of Colorado.”
The Coop does not have the resources (time and money) to comply with these kinds of requirements, requirements designed for large, commercial for-profit corporations. We therefore ask, pursuant to Rule 723-46-11, that the Commission waive any filing fees and other procedural requirements such as the obligation to serve other Colorado carriers. American citizens ought not to be deprived of a hearing before a governmental agency that they support with their tax dollars because of filing fee and other procedural requirements designed for large corporations.
We alternatively ask that the Commission authorize the Coop to effectuate any required service by posting documents on our web page, thus making them readily available for review by other Colorado carriers.
Qwest told the Coop in an October 12, 2001 letter that it “will do whatever we can . . . to assist [our Coop] in meeting its needs.” Just perhaps Qwest will agree to serve a copy of this arbitration petition on all Colorado carriers.
The Coop asks the Commission to arbitrate the issues listed in Section II above and any other issues that are necessary for the Coop to obtain access to the Qwest subloops so it can finally offer service. The Coop also respectfully requests that the Commission enter, as expeditiously as possible, an order directing Qwest to enter into an interim agreement that permits us to launch service immediately, leaving to later proceedings the particular issues raised in the arbitration.
Qwest’s unreasonable tactics and positions and the attendants delays are irreparably harming neighborhood residents. The Coop is ready to commence service, as some of its members have already purchased the DSLAM and modems. Qwest has ample subloops that it is not using and will never use. There is no reason that residents of our neighborhood should be denied the benefits of “always on” high-speed Internet connects simply because Qwest, a multibillion dollar corporation, wants to litigate the issue of whether it can charge monopoly rents for use of its “bottleneck” subloops. Qwest would not be harmed if the Coop would begin using its subloops before a final decision is rendered on all the issues in this arbitration. To the contrary, Qwest could benefit by the Coop’s immediate rental of its subloops, because Qwest would finally begin to generate a return on an investment it made more than 20 years ago.
As the Commission is undoubtedly aware, winter comes early in Summit County. We had hoped to commence service no later than October 31, 2001 so we could bury our cable (between the barn and Qwest’s junction box) before the ground freezes. This target start date obviously is no longer feasible. But we would hope that an interim order could be entered by mid-November 2001, so if the weather cooperates, we could still bury our cable this year.
We also ask that the Commission consider scheduling immediately a pre-hearing conference in Dillon, where Commission representatives can visit our barn, DSLAM, and Qwest’s facilities. (We have repeatedly invited Qwest to visit the area for its own inspection, but it has declined these offers.) Given that we are volunteers with finite resources, we would further ask that all hearings be held in Dillon. It is easier for Qwest to send people to Summit County than for us to travel to Denver — especially since we have regular full-time jobs.
We understand that under the Commission’s rules, Qwest can take up to 25 days before it submits its response to this arbitration petition even though the issues are few and well known to Qwest. Only two weeks ago, on October 12, 2001, Qwest “assured” the Coop that “we will do whatever we can, consistent with applicable law and regulation, to assist [the Coop] in meeting its needs.” If Qwest truly means what it says — namely, it “will do whatever we can to assist us” — it will (a) finally agree voluntarily to execute an interim agreement and (b) submit its response to this arbitration petition in ten days or less. Based on our recent experience with Qwest, we have no confidence that Qwest actually means what it says.
For all the foregoing reasons, the Coop respectfully requests that the Commission arbitrate the dispute between the Coop and Qwest, that the Commission approve the contract appended hereto as Attachment C, and that the Commission take whatever steps it can so our Coop can commence service at the earliest possible moment. The Coop thanks the Commission for its assistance in this matter. It is truly unfortunate that a huge corporation decides that a community like our neighborhood does not warrant receipt of its DSL services, but then imposes unreasonable obstacles in our provision of DSL services to ourselves. We would expect better, especially since we are such good customers of the services that Qwest chooses to provide to our community. We wish we had a choice of service providers.
Respectfully submitted,
Carl Oppedahl, Board Member Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative Association c/o Oppedahl & Larson LLP P.O. Box 5088 Dillon, CO 80435-5088 970-468-6600 carl@rric.net
October 25, 2001
(1) The Coop submits this petition pursuant to the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §§ 251-52, and PUC Rules, 4 C.C.R. 723-46.
(2) Internet access is currently available from Netbeam (http://www.inetbeam.com), which provides fixed wireless services using the unlicensed 2.4 GHz band. However, few neighborhood residents have line-of-sight to Netbeam’s antenna in the area, Netbeam’s service has not been reliable, and Netbeam recently filed for bankruptcy.
(3) Our DSLAM is a Copper Mountain CopperEdge 150 DSL Concentrator using a Copper Mountain 24-port SDSL line card. See http://www.coppermountain.com/library/data_sheets.cfm. This is standard DSL equipment used by many major DSL service providers including incumbent LECs. Although our DSLAM is capable of supporting both ADSL and SDSL, we specifically chose SDSL so as not to risk interference with Qwest voice services.
(4) Qwest holds a “bottleneck” in antitrust jargon. Replicating Qwest’s embedded facilities is not feasible. The two residents with temporary DSL service spent $700 in cable to connect their houses. We estimate that we would have to spend over $20,000 in cable alone to connect all houses with new cable. However, the really sizable cost would be the cost to bury this cable in the several miles of road in our neighborhood.
(5) In contrast, Qwest has only 120 loops connecting our neighborhood to the rest of its network (and the public switched telephone network). See Maps and Diagrams at http://www.rric.net/exhibits.htm. All but one of these loops is already in use, and the one remaining loop will soon be assigned to the house under construction. Although the owners of this new house want two residential lines, they can obtain service for only one line because we understand that is all the capacity that Qwest currently has available. Once this line is put in service, Qwest will not have the capacity to provide basic telephone service to new homes in our neighborhood, nor can it provide additional lines to existing neighborhood residents.
Qwest is well aware of this exhaust situation, and the neighborhood has given Qwest an easement to install additional facilities. Nevertheless, Qwest stated in an August 14, 2001 letter that it has “no firm plans” to increase its capacity so it can provide basic telephone service on request.
The Commission should promptly investigate this matter (but not as part of this arbitration proceeding, lest Qwest use this additional issue as another reason to delay the provision of needed subloops).
(6) Although Qwest has repeatedly stated it has no intention of providing DSL services to our neighborhood, our residents inexplicably continue to receive Qwest inserts/advertisements asking residents to subscribe to its DSL service.
(7) Rather than burden your filing systems with the hundreds of pages of documents that the Coop and Qwest have exchanged, relevant documents are available at our Coop web site: http://www. rric.net/exhibits.htm.
(8) The Coop has little interest in which regulator will assist it in obtaining the relief it needs in order to commence service. As we stated in our September 4 letter, “Our Coop has one, and only one objective: to provide reliable and affordable DSL service as soon as possible and before the snow arrives at the end of October and before the ground freezes. We do not care which regulator — the FCC or the CoPUC — assists us in achieving our objective.”
(9) We expect about a dozen member/subscribers at service launch.
(10) A 25-line block would serve our needs for the near future. However, we suspect that the incremental additional cost for a 50-line block is relatively small, in which case we may be willing to pay the higher cost. The problem is that Qwest will not share pricing information without our first paying the estimate fee of $1,707.
(11) First Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15578 ¶ 155 (1996).
(12) According to its tariff, Qwest would charge $49.50 for 30 minutes of labor and $58 for 45 minutes of labor. See Qwest Colorado Exchange Tariff No. 20, § 3.1.2(C), effective October 20, 2000.
(13) See Qwest, Colorado Exchange Tariff No. 20, §§ 5.2.1(C)(3)(c) and 5.2.4(F), effective July 1, 2001.
(14) The Coop obviously does not know whether Qwest has actually followed this practice (since Qwest has not agreed to any contract with the Coop). However, the Coop can attest that during the August 2, 2001 “negotiating” session, Qwest stated that it “questioned” whether it had an obligation to deal with the Coop because the Coop had not secured unspecified approvals or certifications from the PUC. Qwest took this position even though FCC rules clearly state that an ILEC “violate[s] the duty to negotiate in good faith . . . [by] conditioning negotiation on a requesting telecommunications carrier first obtaining state certifications.” 47 C.F.R. § 51.301(c)(4). Qwest stated on August 2 that it would announce its “official position” the next week. It never did share this position with the Coop.