South Carolina Broadband Legislation

This is an update to SC Bill H3508 pending in the SC Senate and House of Representatives.  This bill, if enacted, could stop the Oconee FOCUS project.  Oconee County is against this bill and has been since it was introduced last year.  Please join us in opposing H3508 by calling your State Representative or State Senator. Attached to this post is a letter from the BALLER HERBST LAW GROUP, a Washington, D.C. Telecommunications attorney assisting both Oconee and Orangeburg Counties in opposing this legislation.  Baller Oconee Letter (5-7-12).

As a whole, we oppose this legislation in its current form as it represents an overt effort by the incumbent providers to prevent the implementation of both the Oconee and Orangeburg County’s federally funded Broadband Projects.  These projects were approved and funded as early as August 2010 upon which each County entered into a binding contract with the NTIA and USDA to complete the projects within the time and conditions allotted.  The introduction of this legislation, in its current form cannot be allowed to pass as it will jeopardize those contractual obligations and projects.  Oconee County has already begun funding of this project and has signed multiple contracts committing nearly two thirds of the $15 million total available.

While we do not disagree with the spirit of the law to prevent governmental agencies from competing in the free market system, there are times and conditions in which the free market system fails and the citizens do and should look to the government to help them.  In the Oconee and Orangeburg cases it is evident that free enterprise has failed to produce services the citizens need to provide for educational and economic viability.  This is the fundamental reason the Broadband Project Funding was established, to provide affordable and viable high speed internet services in areas that do not possess the ROI for free market enterprises to operate.

It is our belief that the proposed amendments within H. 3508 are poorly crafted and will do more harm than good to the broadband goals of our State.  There are obvious problems with the inconsistencies in the definitions that are used in H. 3508 with those set forth by the FCC and the National Broadband Plan.  In addition, the wording of the restrictions that are intended for government-owned broadband providers will inevitably lead to disputes and litigation that will be detrimental to the deployment of high-speed broadband services to the rural areas of our State and will breach the existing contractual obligations of Oconee and Orangeburg Counties.  For these reasons, Oconee County is asking for your support in opposing the amendments set forth in H. 3508.

Senator Thomas C. Alexander

Send message to Senator Alexander

Representative William R. “Bill” Whitmire

Send message to Representative Whitmire

Representative William E. “Bill” Sandifer, III

Send message to Representative Sandifer

Oconee County Releases RFP for Phase 2 Construction

The Procurement offices of Oconee County released the RFP for Phase 2 construction today, March 2nd, 2012.  RFP 11-16  “Phase Two – Installation Contractor for Broadband Project FOCUS” is included on the Active RFP page of this web site or on the Oconee County web site.  All responses are due April 3, 2012.

Call to Action: AT&T’s Profit Protection Act Resurfaces in Columbia: Get On the Phones!

(This Post is taken from an article posted on the Stop The Cap Website; Call to Action: AT&T’s Profit Protection Act Resurfaces)

Draft legislation to make community Broadband more expensive and harder to get resurfaced this week in the state Senate Judiciary Committee. The legislation, H. 3508, would hamstring communities from setting up fiber networks like the Oconee Focus Project that are attracting hundreds of millions of dollars of new investments from digital economy businesses like Amazon, Google and Facebook.

Lobbyists from AT&T are aggressively pushing the measure to preserve the virtual monopoly they have in South Carolina. The protectionist legislation, which delivers all of the benefits to status quo providers like AT&T inside the Palmetto State, guarantees local officials cannot pitch advanced, community-owned fiber networks to tech companies like Amazon, Google, and other billion-dollar businesses that are expanding across the southern United States.

The implications are so horrific that the South Carolina Association of Counties and the Municipal Association of South Carolina fought the legislation last year. On the ground in rural Orangeburg County, administrator Bill Clark understands first hand the implications of broadband scarcity. He was shocked to discover the bill considers any connection that achieves the the woefully slow speed of 190kbps would qualify as “broadband,”. If AT&T can demonstrate it delivers at least 190kbps service in South Carolina, to just 10% of the population in a given area, the company can claim South Carolina does not have a broadband problem.

The rural citizens of the county stand to loose the most. If just one of your neighbors, a mile or more away can get DSL, then you are stuck. Long Creek, Mountain Rest and Oakway will have to wait for AT&T if this bill goes through unaltered.   Let you voice be heard. Below is a list of the Senators that are involved with this legislation. Call now. The bill comes up for review Wednesday of this week. Call or email each of them. Tell them that you do not want the State Legislature protecting the AT&T monopoly a the cost of the citizens of Oconee County.

Points to Share:

• While South Carolina is tying the hands behind the backs of our community leaders, Tennessee’s community fiber network in Chattanooga just helped that state score thousands of new jobs for an Amazon.com distribution center. Amazon is investing hundreds of millions in the state and local economy, creating new high quality jobs. They chose Chattanooga because it had the digital infrastructure available at competitive prices.  Meanwhile, AT&T and other companies do not offer the needed services without lengthy buildouts and prices that are many times more than metro areas like Atlanta or Charlotte.
• South Carolina has the 9th worst broadband service in the US. What high tech company will consider coming to our state with this sorry state of technology? Private providers have had more than ample opportunity to deliver service themselves, and failed to do so, why can’t local communities decide what is best for themselves, free from special interest interference from big companies like AT&T.
• Why is AT&T setting the broadband bar so low at 190Kbps?  AT&T does not even offer a speed that low.  Why are we accepting an antiquated standard as the benchmark for South Carolina? The bar is set so low at 190kbps, it leaves South Carolina in the dust. Our schools, public safety networks, health care facilities, and economy deserve better!
• Public broadband does not have to risk taxpayer dollars. Successful fiber networks are being built in communities across the country at no risk to taxpayers.
• South Carolina must compete in the high tech economy. We cannot do that with low speed wireless networks and DSL. H. 3508 is corporate protectionism at its worst and will leave South Carolina without the flexibility to compete with states like Tennessee for future private sector investment. What is more important — protecting AT&T’s incumbent copper wire facilities or attracting hundreds of millions of dollars in investment from private companies like Google and Amazon?

• Glenn F. McConnell, Chairman
• Robert Ford
• Thomas Alexander
• Larry A. Martin
• Luke A. Rankin
• C. Bradley Hutto
• Vincent A. Sheheen
• John M. “Jake” Knotts, Jr.
• Gerald Malloy
• George E. “Chip” Campsen, III
• Raymond E. Cleary, III
• Joel Lourie
• Kent M. Williams
• Paul G. Campbell, Jr.
• A. Shane Massey
• Lee Bright
• Creighton B. Coleman
• Tom Davis
• Shane R. Martin
• Floyd Nicholson
• Michael T. Rose
• John L. Scott, Jr.
• Phillip W. Shoopman
• Chauncey K. Gregory