This document summarizes responses from counties, cities, and townships in southeast Minnesota about broadband access and issues in their areas. Availability of service is lacking in many rural areas. Even where service exists, functionality is often insufficient for tasks like remote work and schooling due to slow speeds and unreliable connections. Respondents cited high costs, challenging terrain, and low population density as barriers to improving or expanding service. Most rely on internet providers to make upgrades but have limited ability to influence them. Funding sources for improvements include grants, ARPA funds, and partnerships between jurisdictions and providers. Addressing equity of access and affordability were also raised as ongoing issues.

1. Broadband in SE MN
An informal survey of cities, counties, and townships
from late August to early September of 2021.

2. The questions asked:
1. Does your area have service? Are there areas that don’t have service?
2. Do you have sufficient service to make it fully functional for current uses? Is it fast enough?
Does the signal drop off during use? Do images load as they should?
3. Are you working with a local provider to improve service? Are you working with others
jurisdictions, such as cities or counties, on improving service? How is that going? Is it clear
what changes are needed? Are you confident the improvements will be made? What would
help your project succeed?
4. How will the changes be funded? Will ARPA funds be used for this? What other funding
sources will be used? Are you looking for additional funding?
5. What other questions should we be asking? What broadband issues do you have that are not
addressed above? What are the broadband issues you think Blandin should address for SE
MN?

3. The Respondents
Not all counties, cities, or townships responded. Most responses came from
locations with no service or insufficient service, with some pointing out
upgrades that are currently underway or are soon to happen. Some
responses are from locations that report no issues at this time with their
broadband service.
Thank you to all who participated by sharing information and concerns.

4. The Counties’ Responses
Availability
DEED’s 2021 Broadband Service Inventory was referenced by some
counties to point out the wide gaps between those who have relatively
good service, and those who have little or no service.
Fillmore County, one of the poorest counties in the state, has large areas
with little or no service, while Olmsted County also has areas with little or
no service. The townships and very small cities are the least served areas,
which is not surprising, but no longer acceptable by residents or the
officials representing them.
Every responding county cited availability as an issue.

5. Functionality: Reliability, Speed
Counties don’t always have the data to know the areas
that lack functionality, but they hear more frequently
now that even areas that are supposed to have good
service still don’t have enough functionality to serve
residents’ needs for work, school, and other uses.
“Cell companies such as
xxxx and yyyy say they
have coverage, but it is
minimal and not good
enough for most
videoconferencing or
remote teleworking. “
“… in the more rural settings, access to reliable broadband is nearly non-existent.”
“Even those that utilize satellite internet
coverage can be at the mercy of the
weather, and it has been reported to
me that the service is not reliable
enough for school or business needs.”

6. Barriers and
Problems Identified
• Price to the consumer
• Weather causing service interruptions (satellite service)
• Terrain making it difficult to have service at all
• Point to Point service also unreliable
• Data varies, hard to know where service is needed and what is
needed

7. Working with others –
a variety of approaches,
varies by county
• Provide data to service providers, and encourage providers to apply for the
border-to-border program.
• Work with cities, townships, and school districts to provide fiber service to them
as local units of government.
• Work with cities, townships, and broadband providers to increase service areas.
• Dedicate funding to increase service coverage within the county.
• Use state grants, local provider contributions, and CARES funds to expand
service in hard-to-reach areas.
• At least one county is offering Challenge Grants to expand service.

8. Funding
• Some will use ARPA funds, either significantly or to some degree.
* At least one county uses ARPA funds for 30% matches to service
providers’ 70% contributions. ARPA funds also used for Challenge Grants.
• Some will consider using ARPA funds, while exploring other funding options.
• Some will not use ARPA funds, and have dedicated those funds to other
immediate needs.
• Counties also hope to see providers utilize other available grants and private
funding sources.

9. Other broadband issues
“The formula for state broadband grants
favors service expansion in areas where
the cost can be shared 50/50 between
the state and the local provider. The
formula favors locations where it is
easier to expand service. State grants
are not a relevant tool in situations
where it is not economically feasible for
the provider to share the cost 50/50,
such as in areas with bluffs, rocky soils,
long line lengths or other natural
barriers.”
“Template the process for expanding fiber.”
“Get a concise, mostly agreed upon, set of data for coverage,
with access to the data for all counties, cities, etc.”
“Equity within areas that have service. You can have broadband but no devices to connect.”
“ … fiber is the short and mid-term future for reliable
broadband, advancement in wireless transmission is
on the horizon, and appears to be a cost-effective
solution for covering widespread underserviced or
unserved areas. I think a relaxation on ARP and other
funding standards should be sought to help expedite
being able to deliver reliable, and less costly, internet
to our rural residents.”
(This would likely assist small cities as well.)

10. The Cities’ Responses
Availability
• Several cities responded to say they are currently served well enough to not have people
complaining. 
• Some cities have sufficient service in some areas, but not others, often due to terrain or wind.
• Small cities have a very difficult time getting service due to their small number of potential users.
• Many city libraries work to provide internet service to residents, including Wi-Fi hotspots.
• Even the larger cities in our region still have unserved areas.
10.96% of Rochester’s 50,479 households or 5,532 households have no broadband of any
type, including cellular data plans.
19.59% of Rochester’s 50,479 households or 9,888 households have no cable, fiber
optic, or DSL. (Source: City of Rochester)

11. Functionality Problems
• Cities with coverage that looks sufficient can still
have slow service, slower than the provider says.
• Some cities have very poor service, frequent
outages, and say their provider does not seem to
care.
• Service and tech support are issues.
“With more people working
from home, and in general
the number of devices homes
have connected to the
network, there have been
strains on the speed and
quality. ”
“No, not fast enough, signals drop off during use and
images can take a long time to load or don't load at all.”
“What the FCC specifies as sufficient may be
lower than the reality of needs for a multiple-
person household utilizing simultaneous video
chat/meetings or streaming services.”

12. Improving Service
• Smaller cities often depend on the provider to take the initiative to
make needed improvements, citing the city’s limited resources.
• Cities have had some success in requesting and working with their
local provider to make service area expansions and improvements
such as speed upgrades.
• Cities cite providers using grants to add to or improve service areas.

13. Barriers
• Cities often do not have the financial resources to invest in improved
broadband or cell service.
• The rising cost of service makes it hard for fixed and lower income
residents to afford broadband and cellular. They opt to have only
cellular, and use their phone as a hotspot.
• Beautiful bluffs in parts of SE MN make cellphone and internet service
expensive and difficult to install, not an area where providers are
willing to invest.

14. Working with Others
• Cities sometimes work directly with the local provider, giving them data,
maps, or other needed information to help.
• Cities partner with adjacent communities to make the case for needed
improvement from local providers.
• In a very difficult case, a small city has tried working with potential
providers, local power companies, and local phone providers, with the city
working to provide maps of potential placement locations for towers.
• Cities appreciate working with their county or other cities to access service
or get service improvements. Going it alone seems daunting to many.

15. Funding for more service
• Smaller cities don’t have enough ARPA funds to finance broadband investment.
They also have many other immediate and pressing needs for ARPA funds, such
as infrastructure and local economic assistance to businesses and families.
• Current projects set up their funding streams before COVID, using grants, user
fees, or other programs, so no ARPA funds are included in those projects.
• Cities with partial service often look to their providers to set up the funding, or to
apply for grants. Cities help providers with data or information to support their
grant applications.

16. Other broadband (or cell) issues
Public Safety: SE MN is a tourist destination that
draws thousands of people each year to our
amazing bluffs, parks, and trails. Cities are currently
struggling to provide some sort of cell service in
these areas to assist with emergency situations.
It’s not about ordering from Amazon,
it’s about calling the ambulance.
The rising cost of broadband creates an affordability
issue that will need to be addressed for a variety of
reasons, such as education, telemedicine, and
employment.
Exploring the option of
providing internet
service as a public
utility. Rochester Public
Utilities did a study and
some proof of concept
work on providing
internet over power
from 2007 to 2017.

17. The Townships’ Responses
Availability
• Townships are often the least served areas for a variety of
reasons: bluffs that block signals, low lying areas where
satellites won’t work, low population density, no proximity to
adjacent service areas, DNR restrictions on pole height along the
Mississippi.
• Some townships have areas of good service, including fiber optic
installed near county roads.
• Even if fiber is available along the county road, a residence may
be 3/8 of a mile from that road, requiring more wire to
complete the connection. Residents may opt to use a local wi-fi
service in those cases.

18. Functionality
• Even in areas with service, many township households do not have
strong enough connections to have multiple users on the internet at
once. This became a bigger problem as more people worked from
home and students did coursework online from home.
• Signal drops and slow loading are issues, and with a single provider,
there are not much for options.
• In areas with challenging terrain, if service is available, it may not be
stable .

19. Improving Service
• Some townships are currently working with local providers to expand
or improve services, such as fiber optic, in parts of their area. Even
so, many residents will still have no service or limited service.
• Townships primarily rely on the providers to initiate the upgrades,
with the township granting right-of-way permits for wire
installations.
• Townships are often limited to one provider, who may not wish to
make all the expansions or upgrades desired by residents.

20. Barriers
•Townships are often areas of challenging terrain
and low population density, which make costs very
high and unpalatable to providers.
•Even if funding is available, supplies and crews are
difficult to come by.

21. Working with Others
• Townships most often mentioned help from their
counties in the form of grants, fiber optic cable
installed along county roads, or use of county ARPA
funds as a partial match to provider investment.
• In a unique case, a township had direct help from
their county to arrange with a service provider to
extend service to a few businesses in the township.

22. Funding more service
• Outside grants are most often used by townships,
such as from their county.
• Townships cited use of CARES funds to make
improvements at the Townhall to hold distance
meetings.

23. Other broadband issues
noted by Townships
“… Telehealth services were unavailable.”
“People are talking about the need to move.”
“Children last year
had to go to Hot
Spots to get to
zoom classes.”
“The town hall had
no internet for
remote meetings ...”
“… people who could
work from home
could not because of
lack of internet.”

24. Broadband in SE MN
Thank you to all the counties, cities, and townships.
Thank you to Blandin and our event sponsors.
The SEMLM will continue to work with
all of you on this key regional topic.
SEMLM Contact: Brenda Johnson brenda@semlm.org