Coop Exhibit T

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 16, 2001

Via Email — ndonahu@qwest.com
Nancy J. Donahue, Lead Negotiator
Qwest Corporation
1801 California Street, Room 2410
Denver, CO 80202

Re: Lease of Subloops

Dear Ms. Donahue:

The Coop has received your letter of October 12, 2001 proposing a new “solution” for our consideration. As we understand the “solution,” the Coop would rent Qwest subloops not from Qwest, but from “other CLECs [that] already have the ability to order subloops from Qwest under their existing interconnection agreements.”

We question whether your proposal is viable as a practical matter. In the first place, to our knowledge, there is no CLEC providing service in Summit County, and we question whether a CLEC would be willing to enter our area to resell 12-20 subloops. Second, it would appear that the price we have to pay for resold subloops would necessarily be higher than if we obtained them directly from Qwest, since any CLEC would want to recover not only the prices it pays to Qwest for the subloops, but also its own costs for playing an intermediary role. Nevertheless, we are willing to pursue any and all alternatives and we will be happy to contact any CLEC that you think might be interested in coming to Summit County. We would not know what CLEC to contact in Denver or elsewhere, but we welcome any suggestions that you may have.

Your statement that our Coop “reject[ed] further negotiations with Qwest,” while technically accurate, is grossly misleading. As you know, Qwest is required by statute to negotiate in good faith.(1) The FCC has held that an incumbent LECs is “required to provide information necessary to reach agreement” and may “not deny a requesting carriers’ 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.”(2) Yet, Qwest has refused to justify any of the following because it says, the proposed terms are non-negotiable:

• Its proposed subloop installation charge of $126 even though such installation involves only half the work for Qwest as installing a business telephone line, for which Qwest charges $54;
• Its proposed fee of $1,707 for writing up a price quote to do a couple of hundred dollars’ worth of work to install a Field Connection Point — a fee that is more than double the actual cost of the FCP; and
• Its non-negotiable requirement that the Coop obtain a $1 million insurance policy naming Qwest as the beneficiary, together with Qwest’s stated refusal to specify the risk that the insurance supposedly needs to cover, when the Coop’s proposed activities pose less risk to Qwest’s network than those of ordinary POTS customers, none of whom are required by Qwest to provide a million-dollar insurance policy.

Although you state that Qwest “remains willing to discuss possible means to achieve Ruby Ranch’s goals,” can you further state that, consistent with FCC requirements, Qwest will begin providing cost support and other justification for the three points above if we agree to return to the bargaining table?

You letter closes by stating that Qwest “will do whatever we can . . . to assist Ruby Ranch in meeting its needs.” As you know, our Coop wants to commence services immediately, and we already possess the equipment needed to provide our Internet access services. Accordingly, 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 the three points mentioned above.

I look forward to hearing back from you that Qwest will allow us to launch service under such an interim arrangement.

Sincerely,

Carl Oppedahl, Board Member
Ruby Ranch Internet Cooperative Ass’n

cc: Tracy Bridgham, FCC Enforcement Bureau, tbridgha@fcc.gov
Barbara J. Fernandez, Colorado Commission Chief of Staff, barbara.fernandez@dora.state.co.us

Footnotes:

(1) See 47 U.S.C. § 251(c)(1).

(2) First Local Competition Order, 11 FCC Rcd 15499, 15577-78 ¶ 157 (1996).