Hearing Was Held Monday On Funding For High Speed Internet
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
JACKSON – A judge is set to rule on a petition filed by MaxxSouth Broadband seeking the court to reverse a decision by the Office of Broadband Expansion and Accessibility of Mississippi (BEAM) that allocated $3.8 million to Tallahatchie Valley Electric Power Association (TVEPA) to help fund a broadband build-out in Water Valley.
A hearing was held Monday in Hinds County Chancery Court as TVEPA and other appellees named in MaxxSouth’s petition asked the court to reject the challenge to the grant.
The petition was filed Sept. 3 by BCI Mississippi Broadband, doing business as MaxxSouth Broadband, seeking to reverse BEAM funding for TVEPA’s proposed broadband buildout in Water Valley and four other projects across the state. Other appellees named in the petition are BEAM, AT&T, and First Light Fiber, LLC, doing business as ACE Fiber.
MaxxSouth’s petition stated that BEAM’s interactive map indicated that awards of grants were being made to provide or expand service in some of the same counties where MaxxSouth’s broadband services are already deployed.
“MaxxSouth built out its broadband network at considerable expense using its own capital,” the lawsuit states. “That investment represents a valuable property right that would be taken, in whole or in part, should competitors be allowed to build new networks over MaxxSouth’s existing networks using grants.”
According to court documents, BEAM had announced preliminary awards for funding for TVEPA and other recipients in 2023. MaxxSouth had until Jan. 22, 2024 to object to the award by submitting documentation that they already serve specific addresses in the area with high speed internet.
MaxxSouth submitted challenges on Jan. 17, providing a list of addresses where BEAM funding was allocated that had existing service from the cable company.
The petition also stated that MaxxSouth received notice from BEAM on August 2 that its challenges had been rejected, with BEAM reporting MaxxSouth had provided insufficient support to prove that service is provided to the locations in question.
Attorneys for each appellee prepared briefs in preparation for Monday’s hearing, with much of the contested material centering on the previous process for BEAM overturning MaxxSouth’s challenges.
The 24-page brief submitted by TVEPA, or Tallahatchie Valley Internet Services, LCC (TVIS) outlined documentation to support that MaxxSouth does not have broadband service deployed in Water Valley.
“This evidence included letters and data from citizens of Water Valley that their speeds and service did not meet the thresholds of broadband service from the BEAM Act,” TVIS’ brief states. “These letters provided testimonials from citizens that MaxxSouth ‘does not extend their services to reach our location’ and that MaxxSouth ‘would not service us unless we personally paid for them to run the lines to our subdivision.’ One such testimonial even stated ‘[p]lease please please do not believe MaxxSouth when they say they can and do service everyone who wants internet. They are lying.’ TVIS also submitted 38 photographs and two video files showing MaxxSouth had no cable, fiber or broadband infrastructure of any kind to serve broadband internet to addresses MaxxSouth claimed to serve.”
TVIS also noted that documentation provided by MaxxSouth for internet speeds at the challenged locations was the same at each address.
“The ‘average’ download speed of 1,000 mbps and upload speed of 20 mbps from the MaxxSouth Export was the exact same for every single location MaxxSouth objected to in Water Valley. In some instances, the average upload and download speed exceeded the speeds the location actually subscribed too. The MaxxSouth Export also contained no time stamps to evidence when the data was provided.
This identical data provided by MaxxSouth meant that the data provided by MaxxSouth to support its challenge was not accurate, live or verifiable,” the brief states.
The TVIS brief continues, explaining that BEAM convened a neutral panel of qualified engineers to assist in reviewing the evidence and make recommendations to BEAM regarding MaxxSouth’s challenge.
“The panel of three qualified engineers unanimously recommended that MaxxSouth’s objection to TVIS’s CPF Grant be rejected,” the brief states.
The judge’s ruling is expected later this month.
