Minnesota Broadband Availability

8/7/2019 Minnesota Broadband Availability

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/minnesota-broadband-availability 1/143

connectmn.org

Minnesota BroadbandAvailability andAdoption StatisticsAn Initial Working Reporton the Current State of Minnesota’sBroadband Landscape

Connect MinnesotaJanuary 2011



1 Connect Minnesota

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................................2 Overview o the Broadband Market in Minnesota ................................................................................................. 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................8

The Broadband Adoption Gap .................................................................................................................................11 2.1 Broadband Adopters and Non-Adopters .......................................................................................................12 2.2 Barriers to Adoption ....................................................................................................................................... 13 2.3 Broadband Applications and Uses ...............................................................................................................15

Connect Minnesota Broadband Inventory and Analysis ......................................................................................16 3.1 Broadband Availability in Minnesota – A State Bird’s-eye View .................................................................... 16

3.1.1 Fixed Broadband Inventory ..................................................................................................................16 3.1.2 Broadband Availability by Technology Plat orm ...................................................................................19 3.1.3 Household Density across Unserved, Underserved, and Served Areas .............................................20 3.1.4 All Terrestrial Broadband Inventory – Including Mobile Wireless Networks ........................................21

3.2 Broadband in Minnesota Counties ................................................................................................................22 3.2.1 Terrestrial, Fixed Broadband Availability by County .............................................................................22 3.2.2 Fixed Broadband Availability across Rural and Non-Rural Counties ................................................... 30 3.2.3 Minnesota’s Underserved Households across Counties .....................................................................33 3.2.4 Broadband Availability by Plat orm, by County .................................................................................... 35

3.3 Federal and Tribal Lands ................................................................................................................................38 3.3.1 Federal land in Minnesota ....................................................................................................................38 3.3.2 Tribal land in Minnesota ........................................................................................................................ 40

3.4 Universal Service Funding in Minnesota .......................................................................................................42

3.5 Broadband Stimulus Investments in Minnesota through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act ....44

3.6 FCC and Connect Minnesota Availability Estimates – A Comparative Analysis ............................................47 3.7 Connectivity across Community Anchor Institutions in the State o Minnesota............................................53

The National Broadband and the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report:Policy Recommendations to Combat Broadband Availability and Adoption Gaps ...........................................54 4.1 Strategies to Close the Availability Gap .........................................................................................................5 4 4.2 Strategies to Close the Adoption Gap ...........................................................................................................5 8 4.3 The 2009 Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report ..........................................................................6 0

4.3.1 Broadband Availability ..........................................................................................................................6 0 4.3.2 Broadband Adoption ............................................................................................................................6 1 4.3.3 In rastructure Security ..........................................................................................................................6 1

4.3.4 Cyber security ......................................................................................................................................6 1 4.3.5 e-Government ......................................................................................................................................6 2 4.3.6 e-Economic development ....................................................................................................................6 2 4.3.7 e-Health ................................................................................................................................................ 6 2 4.3.8 e-Learning ............................................................................................................................................6 3

Appendix A: Connect Minnesota Residential Technology Assessment, June 2010 ........................................ A-1

Appendix B: List of Participating and Non-ParticipatingProviders in Connect Minnesota’s Broadband Inventory ................................................................................... B-1

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-

http://-/?-



2

Executive SummaryThis assessment o the broadband market in Minnesota is conducted by Connect Minnesota in partnership withthe Minnesota Broadband Task Force and the Minnesota Department o Commerce as part o the State Broad-band Data and Development grant program (SBDD) unded by the National Telecommunications and In ormationAdministration (NTIA). This report aims to provide a detailed review o the current state o broadband in Minnesotathat will spark discussion across multiple broadband stakeholders in the state on key policy and strategies to ex-pand and enhance the broadband experience or all Minnesotans.

The SBDD grant program was created by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), unanimously passed byCongress in 2008, and unded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009. As part o theSBDD grant program, in May and October 2010, Connect Minnesota produced updated maps o broadband avail-ability to identi y served and unserved areas across the state. Additionally, Connect Minnesota undertook surveyresearch in the spring o 2010 to understand broadband demand trends across the state. The purpose o thisresearch is to better understand the drivers and barriers to technology and broadband adoption and estimate the“Broadband Adoption Gap” across the state o Minnesota. Appendix A o this report presents extensive results othis research.

The demand-side survey data complements the mapping inventory in ormation describing the state o broadbandsupply in Minnesota. This report analyzes this complementary demand-side and supply-side research and con-trasts the data with national benchmarks released by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part othe National Broadband Plan (NBP). 1 Following the spirit o the NBP, as well as a 2009 report by the MinnesotaUltra High-Speed Broadband Task Force, and based on the broadband availability and adoption data collected byConnect Minnesota, this report proposes a series o recommendations intended to spur discussion and eedbackamong key stakeholders across Minnesota. To account or eedback to this report, the Minnesota BroadbandTask Force, working with Connect Minnesota, seek eedback through multiple means across the state to ensure allvoices are heard and included. This process will ensure ully in ormed Broadband Action Planning to be developedand released by the Minnesota Broadband Task Force and Connect Minnesota in 2011 and beyond.

Overview of the Broadband Market in MinnesotaMinnesota’s broadband marketplace is interesting when comparing the ew urban areas o the state with their ruralcounterparts. Geographically large, 60% o Minnesota’s population resides in the Twin Cities metropolitan area.Because three- ths o Minnesotans reside in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, broadband inventory data showshigh availability o upper speed tier broadband in the state. The outlook, however, or the state’s remaining house-holds indicates ewer choices and slower speeds. Furthermore, while only available to less than 4% o Minnesotahouseholds, ber to the home broadband is available in more than 50 o Minnesota’s 87 counties.

It is estimated that as o October 2010, terrestrial, xed broadband providers o er service to 96.59% o all Min-

nesota households. 2,3 This implies that an estimated 66,647 Minnesota households (3.41%) lack basic broadbandservice and remain unserved by terrestrial, xed broadband. It is urther estimated that approximately 93.76%o Minnesota households have broadband available at download speeds o 3 Mbps or more. This implies thatan estimated 118,313 Minnesota households have basic broadband available but lack xed broadband serviceo at least 3 Mbps downstream – a service level now o ten considered necessary or e ectively conducting many

1 Broadband is defined according to current NTIA definition of at least 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds.2 Ibid.3 Broadband data collected from 42 Minnesota broadband providers. See Appendix B.



3 Connect Minnesota

Internet applications. The NTIA classi es broadband service at download speeds below 3 Mbps as “underserved.”Furthermore, broadband availability at a speed o at least 6 Mbps downstream (advertised) is available to 90.79%o Minnesota households – an important data point considering that the FCC’s National Broadband Plan considersbroadband at actual speeds o 4 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream to be a threshold level o service or mostbroadband activity.

Table 1 – Estimate O Broadband Service Availability In The State O Minnesota –By Speed Tier Among Fixed Plat orms

SBDD Download Speed Tiers Unserved Households Served HouseholdsPercent HouseholdsBy Speed Tier

At Least 768 Kbps 64,647 1,830,480 96.59%

At Least 1.5 Mbps 77,353 1,817,774 95.92%

At Least 3 Mbps 118,313 1,776,814 93.76%

At Least 6 Mbps 174,467 1,720,660 90.79%

At Least 10 Mbps 301,312 1,593,815 84.10%

At Least 25 Mbps 850,309 1,044,818 55.13%

At Least 50 Mbps 937,613 957,514 50.53%

At Least 100 Mbps 1,006,996 888,131 46.86%

Source: Connect Minnesota, October 2010.

Finally, the State o Minnesota has a statutory goal o ubiquitous broadband service at speeds o at least 10 – 20Mbps downstream/5 – 10 Mbps upstream by the year 2015, and current estimates show that 84.10% o Minnesota

households have access to broadband at speeds o at least 10 Mbps but that only 55.13% o households can ac-cess broadband service at speeds o at least 25 Mbps. 4

The data necessary to compile these broadband inventory estimates were collected on a voluntary basis rombroadband providers serving the state o Minnesota. Appendix B o this report details which providers did, and didnot, allow the use o their data in the creation o Minnesota’s broadband inventory map.

Statewide estimates do not necessarily refect the reality aced by each Minnesota community. Connect Minne-sota county-level availability estimates reveal variances, in some cases large, in measured broadband inventoryacross counties, highlighting the importance o granular data in order to identi y gaps in in rastructure and adop-tion at the community level. County-level as well as more granular, street-level broadband inventory data is avail-

able through Connect Minnesota’s interactive, online broadband inventory map at http://www.connectmn.org.

Signi cant variance in broadband availability across rural and non-rural counties is measured at di erent speedtiers. Further, availability at the county level by di erent broadband plat orms similarly varies greatly ( or example,

xed wireless availability in rural counties varies rom 0% in Carlton and Cook counties (among others), to 99.90%o households served in McLeod County). What is important to understand when considering broadband avail-ability in the state o Minnesota is that approximately 60% o the state’s population resides in the Twin Cities. The

4 https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=277&doctype=chapter&year=2010&type=0



4

disparity o the broadband market across counties suggests that ongoing investment in broadband capacity is a -ected by local actors. Understanding these local dynamics is essential to developing pragmatic policy solutions

tailored to the broadband challenges acing each community.

Connect Minnesota survey research shows that as o March 2010, just less than three-quarters (72%) o Minneso-ta residents have a broadband connection in the home (see Figure 1), which implies an adoption gap or the stateo Minnesota o 28% o households, smaller than the national adoption gap measured by the FCC. 5 This impliesthat approximately one-quarter o Minnesota households have basic broadband available but, or various reasons,are choosing not to subscribe to the service in their home. O the approximately one-quarter o Minnesotans with-out a home broadband connection, 48% report a lack o interest in broadband, 35% report a lack o a computeras the primary barrier to broadband, 31% say broadband is too expensive, and 16% report lack o broadbandavailability to their home.

Figure 1:Minnesota Technology Adoption Summary

Use dial-up from home 7%

Use the Internet someplace other than home 10%

Do not use the Internet 9%

Use broadbandfrom home 72%

Don’t know if home Internet service is dial-up or broadband 2%

Connect Minnesota survey data also show that 15% o Minnesota residents do not own a home computer. Thistranslates to more than 588,000 adults without a home computer, with 73% o those without a computer sayingthey do not believe they need one.

FCC national data indicates that non-adopters are generally senior citizens, members o ethnic minorities, ruraldwellers, people with disabilities, people o low income, and/or people with less education, and these data arelargely in line with estimated adoption rates by these same demographic groups in the state o Minnesota, withbroadband adoption rates or seniors, low-income households, low-income households with children, minorities,those with disabilities, and rural households all alling below the statewide broadband adoption average o 72%. 6

This report also details the current impact o key components o the ederal Universal Service Fund (USF) program.The FCC Universal Service Fund re orms currently underway are likely to have important implications across thestate, and urther examination o the impact o comprehensive USF disbursements across Minnesota communities

5 Broadband Adoption and Use in America: OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, J. Horrigan, Federal Communications Commission, February 2010.6 Ibid.



5 Connect Minnesota

is recommended in order to assess the historical and ongoing impact o this ederal program upon the broadbandmarket in Minnesota and evaluate the implications o proposed re orms.

The extent o broadband stimulus unding rom the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act that has been obli-gated to Minnesota is detailed in Section 3.5. To date, over $250 million has been announced or projects in Min-nesota, with an additional $179 million provided to projects serving multiple U.S. states o which Minnesota is one.

Connect Minnesota’s broadband availability estimates are compared to county-level availability estimates derivedin the FCC study “The Broadband Availability Gap,” part o the NBP. 7 This study in orms the national debate overUniversal Service Fund re orm currently led by the FCC. Connect Minnesota estimates that 93.76% o Minnesotahouseholds have broadband available at download speeds o 3 Mbps or more. By contrast, the FCC estimatesthat nationwide, approximately 95% o households have broadband available at download speeds o 4 Mbps ormore. A county-level comparison o the two studies reveals and explains disparities in broadband availability esti-mates, particularly in counties with lower population density.

Disparities evident at the local level between the Connect Minnesota broadband inventory and the FCC AvailabilityGap simulation or the state o Minnesota likely result rom regional or locally speci c actors not evident in the ag-gregated estimates o the FCC. It is important to continue gathering and validating broadband inventory and adop-tion data in the state o Minnesota – particularly in rural areas – in order to accurately measure the broadband gapsacross the state and in orm the ongoing Universal Service Fund re orm debate currently underway at the FCC.

Policy ConsiderationsThe FCC’s NBP recommends a series o strategies to ensure that broadband is more a ordable and accessible toall Americans. The NBP recommends a holistic approach to address the availability and adoption gaps by tacklingkey barriers to adoption including relevance, a ordability, digital literacy, and availability. The holistic approachincludes programs aimed to encourage adoption in the home, as well as the strengthening o public computingand Internet access capacity at community anchor institutions (schools, libraries, hospitals, etc.). This approachis consistent with the programs that Congress unanimously mandated in the BDIA. The NBP and BDIA call or a

series o principles and programs to be implemented at the ederal, state, and local levels or achieving pragmaticsolutions to the broadband availability and adoption gaps. Key among these are the ollowing recommendationsand activities that Connect Minnesota believes to be particularly relevant to the state o Minnesota and its com-munities. 8

Strategies to Address the Broadband Availability Gap ■ Conduct urther analysis o the impact o Universal Service Fund and Intercarrier Compensation Rules

Re orm upon communities across Minnesota. Further research and analysis o FCC data and proposals isrecommended to better understand the impact o proposed re orms.

■ Encourage coordination at the state and local level aimed to achieve economies o scale and promote e -ciency o public investments, including comprehensive planning or broadband in in rastructure projects;

joint deployment o broadband conduit alongside state nanced or enabled in rastructure projects; estab-lishment o “Gigabit Communities” or “Broadband Corridors” in regions in the state; and assessing thepossibility o developing a set o state master contracts to expedite the placement o wireless towers onstate government property and buildings.

■ Cra t speci c planning activities or rural and tribal areas in the state. Large, sparsely populated areas

7 The Broadband Availability Gap: OBI Technical Paper No. 1, Federal Communications Commission, April 2010.8 These recommendations are made by the Connect Minnesota program and not necessarily the Minnesota Department of Commerce.



6

dominate the Minnesota landscape, and any e orts to provide high-speed broadband services will requirea robust partnership between the public and private sectors.

■ Facilitate urther expansion o mobile 3G and 4G networks by streamlining local and state rules and regula-tions a ecting the cost and build-out speed o towers supporting these networks.

■ Encourage development o statewide “smart grids” that leverage the state’s broadband in rastructure,making Minnesota a more e cient producer and consumer o energy.

■ Promote lower costs o access to key network inputs such as utility-owned poles, ducts, conduits, andrights-o -way.

■ Leverage the opportunities potentially available under the extended SBDD grant program to promotepublic-private partnerships to address existing gaps in the network at the local level.

■ Continue e orts to measure and map broadband inventory data. The May 2010 Connect Minnesota es-timates o broadband inventory and mapping is a rst-o -its-kind tool that enables a clearer picture o thechallenges and opportunities or broadband expansion in Minnesota. This report summarizes the resultso this research at the county level, and concludes that when it comes to broadband, one-size- ts-all doesnot apply. It is not enough to evaluate statewide trends and broadband inventory. Granular data at thecounty level and beyond is necessary to accurately measure the challenges on the ground and develop

sound, pragmatic policy to address them. Hence, continued e orts to collect, validate, and benchmarkbroadband supply and demand data across the state is recommended.

Strategies to Address the Broadband Adoption Gap ■ Promote and acilitate local community engagement aimed to address local barriers to adoption and de-

velop pragmatic solutions tailored to each community.

■ Promote public-private partnerships at the state and local levels to build education and awareness cam-paigns ocused on the bene ts o broadband technology among at-risk populations. Awareness cam-paigns should target at-risk populations and address the concrete and pragmatic bene ts that broadbandtechnology can a ord every community, neighborhood, school, library, community center, and household.Leverage the potential opportunity under the extended SBDD grant program to conduct statewide broad-band awareness campaigns and local, grassroots broadband adoption stimulation strategies.

■ Expand, improve, or create pragmatic digital literacy programs at the state and local level and leveragedigital literacy resources available via the NBP proposed National Digital Literacy Program.

■ Encourage public-private collaboration to educate consumers and amilies about the reality o online risksand promote online sa ety practices among children and citizens. Work with not- or-pro ts promotingonline sa ety practices and encourage online sa ety practices and principles across various state depart-ments and among educators in the state o Minnesota.

■ Leverage the proposed ederal National Broadband Clearinghouse portal aimed to promote best practicesand in ormation sharing, as well as the ederal Online Digital Literacy Portal program.

■

Promote expansion o publicly available computing and online resources leveraging ederal, state, local,and private unds. Optimize access to ederal resources available through programs such as the USFSchools and Libraries Program (E-Rate) and Rural Health Care Program as well as public unding availablethrough the ederal Institute o Museum and Library Services (IMLS).

■ Monitor and assess how the proposed re orm in the NBP o the Low Income Program under the UniversalService Fund will a ect Minnesotans.

■ Coordinate with Minnesota tribal nations on broadband issues. The NBP recognizes the importance oworking with tribal nations to develop programs tailored to address the particular technology adoptionchallenges aced by these communities.



7 Connect Minnesota

The Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task ForceFinally, this technical paper examines certain policy goals or recommendations made by the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force in a report released in 2009, and provides benchmark data on where the state oMinnesota stands with regard to these previously identi ed goals or policy recommendation.



8

1. IntroductionConnect Minnesota is working in partnership with the Minnesota Broadband Advisory Task Force and the Minne-sota Department o Commerce to implement the State Broadband Data and Development grant program (SBDD)in the state. The SBDD grant program was created by the Broadband Data Improvement Act (BDIA), unanimouslypassed by Congress in 2008 and unded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in 2009. 9 Theoriginal SBDD grant program included two key components as de ned in the Notice o Funds Availability (NOFA)released by the National Telecommunications and In ormation Administration, U.S. Department o Commerce, in2009: the Broadband Mapping and Planning Programs. 10

In April 2010, Connect Minnesota produced a map o the inventory o broadband availability across the state. Thepurpose o this program is to collect comprehensive data rom all broadband providers to create an inventory othe broadband in rastructure across the state. A key goal o the mapping exercise is to identi y communities andhouseholds that remain unserved or underserved by broadband service; in ormation that is essential to estimatethe “Broadband Availability Gap” and understand the scope and scale o providing universal broadband serviceto all citizens across the state. The April 2010 Connect Minnesota Broadband Inventory Map is the rst update tothe rst comprehensive inventory o broadband in rastructure in Minnesota completed by Connect Minnesota inFebruary 2009. The inventory will be updated twice yearly with the next upcoming submission scheduled or thespring o 2011.

The map in Figure 2 has been included or illustration purposes only. A high-quality version o this map is availableat:

tp:// tp.connectmn.org/CMNPublic/Connect_Minnesota_Mapping/Statewide_Maps/MN_Statewide_Broadband_O cial.pd

9 Broadband Data Improvement Act, P.L. 110-385, (“BDIA”).10 State Broadband and Development Grant Program Notice of Funding Availability, NTIA, U.S. Department of Commerce, July 9, 2009. (“SBDD

NOFA”). Available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2009/FR_BBNOFA_090709.pdf

ftp://ftp.connectmn.org/CMNPublic/Connect_Minnesota_Mapping/Statewide_Maps/MN_Statewide_Broadband_Official.pdf


http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2009/FR_BBNOFA_090709.pdf

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2009/FR_BBNOFA_090709.pdf





9 Connect Minnesota

Figure 2

Minnesota Broadband Service Inventory



10

The Planning program complements and builds upon this Mapping program. To complement the broadband in-ventory and mapping data, Connect Minnesota has undertaken survey research to understand broadband demandtrends across the state. In the spring o 2010, Connect Minnesota surveyed a sample o 1,200 households acrossthe state to inquire about their current use o broadband and related technologies. The purpose o this researchis to better understand the drivers and barriers to technology and broadband adoption and estimate the “Broad-band Adoption Gap” across the state o Minnesota. Key questions the data address are: Which citizens are usingbroadband technology across the state o Minnesota? How and where are they using it across the state? How isthis technology impacting Minnesota households and citizens? And, importantly, who is not adopting broadbandservice and why? What are the barriers that still prevent citizens rom embracing this empowering technology?

The demand-side survey data and the mapping inventory describing the state o broadband supply in Minnesotaa ord the rst-o -its-kind comprehensive review o the state o broadband in Minnesota. Based on these data, thisreport aims to provide a detailed review o the current state o broadband in Minnesota that will spark discussionacross multiple broadband stakeholders in the state on key policy goals and strategies to expand and enhance thebroadband experience or all Minnesotans. The report should be understood as a beginning - and not an end - ora comprehensive review o matters a ecting the broadband market in the state.

To this goal, the report analyzes this complementary demand-side and supply-side research and contrasts thedata with national benchmarks released by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as part o the NationalBroadband Plan. 11 This report also utilizes the work o the Minnesota Broadband Ultra-High Speed Task Force’sreport rom 2009, which included several broadband availability and adoption goals, and provides a benchmark asto where the state stands in meeting the same.

The state o Minnesota has obtained urther ederal resources under the SBDD grant program expansion o mid-2010 that complement the Mapping and Planning SBDD grants awarded in 2009. In partnership with the Min-nesota Broadband Advisory Task Force, Connect Minnesota submitted in July an extended application or ederal

unds under the SBDD grant program. This application requested unding to nance a series o complementaryprograms including: expanded broadband inventory and demand-side data collection; as well as technical assis-tance to the state o Minnesota.

This report is structured as ollows: Section II provides a summary overview o the estimated broadband adop-tion gaps across the state o Minnesota. Section III provides a detailed analysis o the broadband availability gapacross the state. This section presents an analysis o the SBDD broadband inventory data and compares andcontrasts estimated broadband inventory in Minnesota with national benchmarks. Based on these data, SectionIV summarizes policy recommendations inspired by the principles and vision o the Minnesota Ultra-High SpeedTask Force, as well as the FCC’s NBP as they apply to the state o Minnesota. Appendix A o this report includesthe Connect Minnesota Technology Assessment, June 2010, providing detailed results rom Connect Minnesota’sspring 2010 residential survey research. Finally, Appendix B provides a list o participating broadband providers inMinnesota’s SBDD program, without which the creation o Minnesota’s broadband inventory maps would not havebeen possible.

11 Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Federal Communications Commission, April 2010. (“National Broadband Plan” or “NBP”). Available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/.



11 Connect Minnesota

2. The Broadband Adoption GapAs part o the SBDD grant program, Connect Minnesota has collected consumer survey data aimed at under-standing demand-side trends and barriers in the Minnesota broadband market. This section summarizes the main

ndings o this research, contrasts Minnesota trends with available national benchmarks, and discusses policy rec-ommendations that stem rom the data and the FCC’s NBP policy recommendations. 12 Appendix A o this reportpresents the Connect Minnesota Residential Technology Assessment, released in October 2010, which includesdetailed results o Minnesota’s consumer survey research.

Slightly more than one-quarter (28%) o Minnesota residents do not have broadband service in the home, anadoption gap or the state o Minnesota that is just less than the national adoption gap measured by the FCC. Thepercentage o households across Minnesota that have broadband service in the home is 72%; by comparison, na-tional surveys show that 67% o American households subscribe to home broadband service. Statewide, 85% oall residents own a home computer. This translates into over 588,000 adults without a home computer, with 73%o those without a computer saying they do not believe they need one.

Seven percent o Minnesota residents use dial-up service to connect to the Internet and 2% are not certain wheth-er they use broadband or dial-up in the home. Ten percent o adults surveyed report accessing the Internet romplaces other than the home, or a total o 91% who report accessing the Internet rom either the home or some-place else. This contrasts with national estimates o 74% o adult residents who access the Internet rom home orsomewhere else. 13 Across Minnesota, 81% o surveyed adults report accessing the Internet rom home; 44% romwork; and 16% rom a library. Twenty-six percent o Minnesota residents access the Internet via a cell phone ormobile device. Finally, 9% report that they do not use the Internet (See Figure 3).

Figure 3:Minnesota Technology Adoption Summary

Use dial-up from home 7%

Use the Internet someplace other than home 10%

Do not use the Internet 9%

Use broadbandfrom home 72%

Don’t know if home Internet service is dial-up or broadband 2%

12 All Minnesota data in this section is based on Connect Minnesota’s consumer survey research, available in Appendix A: Connect MinnesotaResidential Technology Assessment, June 2010. All national data, unless otherwise indicated, is based on the FCC study Broadband Adoptionand Use åin America: OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, J. Horrigan, Federal Communications Commission, February 2010, (“FCC BroadbandAdoption and Use”). Available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296442A1.pdf

13 Internet, Broadband, and Cell Phone Statistics, Pew Internet and American Life Project, January 5, 2010.



12

A 72% broadband adoption rate contrasts with the estimates o the broadband availability gap in Minnesotapresented in this report. According to Connect Minnesota broadband inventory estimates, 96.59% o all Minne-sota households have broadband available (or are served) at the basic speeds o 768 Kbps download/200 Kbpsupload. 14 This implies that just less than one-quarter o Minnesota households have broadband available but, orvarious reasons, are choosing not to subscribe to the service in the home.

This adoption gap is slightly less than that measured by the FCC at the national level but still suggests that when itcomes to broadband, the old adage o “build it and they will come” does not always work. The NBP recommendsthat this adoption gap needs to be tackled at the ederal, state, and local level through a series o complementarystrategies. The NBP recommends that programs aimed to increase adoption rates or low-income people needto be modernized to support broadband, improve participation in the digital economy and society, and protectagainst waste, raud, and abuse.

2.1 Broadband Adopters and Non-AdoptersFCC national data indicate that non-adopters are generally senior citizens, members o ethnic minorities, ruraldwellers, people with disabilities, people o low income, and/or people with less education. 15 These data are large-

ly in line with estimated adoption rates by these demographic groups in the state o Minnesota. Figure 4 reportsMinnesota computer and broadband adoption data across these same demographic groups. 16

Figure 4:Minnesota Technology Adoption by Demographic

85%

Statewide Age 65or older

Low-incomehouseholds


with childrenMinority Rural residents

72%

58%53%

46%39%

35%

69%77%

53%

78%

66%

Computer ownership Broadband adoption

14 See Section 3 of this report.15 See FCC Broadband Adoption and Use, Exhibit 1, p. 13.16 See Appendix A, Slide 8.




While the statewide average broadband adoption rate is 72%, broadband adoption rates in Minnesota are 39%among adults age 65 and older (compared to a national average o 35% 17); 35% among households with annualincomes below $25,000 (comparable national statistics put this gure at 40% 18); 53% among low-income house-holds with children; 66% among minority households; and 58% among rural households (compared to 50% orural residents nationally 19).

2.2 Barriers to AdoptionThe FCC Broadband Adoption and Use study indicates that the main reason people do not adopt broadband iscost o the service, with 36% o respondents who do not adopt broadband citing cost as the biggest barrier toadoption. Fi teen percent speci cally point to monthly ees or service as the biggest barrier, 10% say they can-not a ord a computer, and 9% cite activation ees and reluctance to enter into long-term contracts as a barrier toadoption. Twenty percent o non-adopters cite digital literacy as the biggest barrier to adoption. Twelve percento respondents cite lack o com ort with computers and 10% cite hazards o online sa ety. Relevance is the thirdmost commonly cited barrier to adoption. Nineteen percent o non-adopters cite relevance as the biggest bar-rier. Five percent report that they are content with existing dial-up service or don’t need more speed; 5% believethe Internet is a waste o time; 4% report there is nothing they want to see online; and 4% don’t use the Internetmuch. Other reasons measured include use o the Internet at work, with 3% o non-adopters citing this, and lack

o broadband availability reported by 5% o non-adopters. 20

Figure 5 reports data collected in the state o Minnesota, which identi es similar barriers to adoption o broadbandtechnology.

Figure 5:Minnesota Barriers to Broadband AdoptionPercent o Minnesota residents with no home broadband service*

I don’t need broadband/the Internet or don’t know why I don’t subscribe

I don’t have a computer

Too expensive

Broadband is not available where I live

I access broadband someplace else

Concerns about raud or identity the t

Available broadband service is not ast enough

48%

35%

31%

17%

16%

12%

2%

*Percentages do not add up to 100% because individuals could give multiple responses.

17 Broadband Adoption and Use in America: OBI Working Paper Series No. 1, J. Horrigan, Federal Communications Commission, February 2010.18 Ibid.19 Ibid.20 FCC Broadband Adoption and Use. It is important to note that the FCC survey methodology is different than that of the residential technology

assessment conducted by Connect Minnesota, in that the FCC’s questions were designed to have respondents identify the single biggestbarrier to broadband adoption, as opposed to listing any barriers impacting their decision to not adopt. Thus, any comparison between ConnectMinnesota and FCC adoption statistics is not a true “apples to apples” comparison; the FCC statistics are offered to provide context for some ofthe broadband adoption statistics contained in this report.



14

I don’t need a computer, or don’t know why I need one

Too expensive

I use a computer someplace else

Computers are too complicated

Other

73%

32%

19%

3%

1%

Figure 6:Minnesota Barriers to Computer OwnershipPercent o Minnesota residents with no computer at home

The top barriers to adoption among Minnesota adults who do not have broadband in the home and those who donot own a computer in the home are:

■ Relevance: Forty-eight percent o Minnesota residents, compared to 19% nationally who cited relevanceat the biggest barrier to broadband adoption, who do not have home broadband service say at least onebarrier to broadband adoption is because they do not need Internet service or don’t understand the ben-e ts it a ords. Seventy-three percent o adults who do not have a computer in the home say they don’tneed one or don’t know what they need a computer or. Among rural non computer owners, the belie thatthey do not need a computer or don’t know why they need a computer is still the top barrier to adoption(76%). 21

■

Computer Ownership: Thirty- ve percent o broadband non-adopters say that the lack o a home com-puter is a barrier to broadband adoption.

■ Affordability: Thirty-one percent o broadband non-adopters say broadband is too expensive, comparedto 36% nationally, and 32% o those lacking a computer in the home say it is because Internet services aretoo expensive. 22

■ Availability: Sixteen percent o Minnesotans who do not subscribe to home broadband service report alack o available broadband service.

■ Other Locations: Seventeen percent o broadband non-adopters claim they access the Internet romsomewhere else (22% o those without any home Internet access report accessing the Internet romsomewhere else).

■ Digital Literacy and Perceived Online Risks: Three percent o non-computer-owners report theydon’t have one because computers are too complicated. Twelve percent o broadband non-adopters andeighteen percent o Internet non-adopters report concerns about raud and identity the t as a barrier toadoption. 23

21 FCC Broadband Adoption and Use.22 Ibid.23 See Appendix A.




2.3 Broadband Applications and UsesBroadband is a tool that enables citizens, companies, and government to better communicate, connect, andengage. To better understand how broadband is currently a ecting the lives and endeavors o Minnesota house-holds today, and what opportunities exist to expand the bene ts o this technology, survey research conducted byConnect Minnesota explores the online applications used by Minnesotans. 24

The top applications used by Minnesota Internet users include sending or receiving e-mail, researching and pur-chasing products or services online, using a search engine, and communicating with riends and amily online.

■ E-Health: Seven out o ten Minnesota Internet users search or health or medical in ormation or interactwith doctors or healthcare pro essionals online, while 37% communicate with their health insurance com-pany and 31% interact with doctors or healthcare pro essionals online.

■ E-Government Services: E-government services are utilized by many Minnesota Internet users; 52%report that they search online or in ormation about government services or policies. In addition, 48% con-duct online transactions with government o ces (such as e- ling taxes or lling out orms), 37% interactwith Minnesota state government o ces, 28% interact with local government o ces, and 25% interactwith elected o cials or candidates online.

■ E-Education: Many Minnesota Internet users go online or educational purposes. Statewide, 46%conduct research or schoolwork online, 39% interact with teachers online, and 22% take classes online,compared to 24% nationally. 25

■ E-Jobs: Minnesota residents also use the Internet or work purposes. Among Minnesota Internet users,59% interact with businesses, 56% interact with their co-workers online, 46% go online to search or jobsor employment, and 37% report that they go online to work rom home at least occasionally. Further, inMinnesota, 20% o employed adults report that they telework. Teleworking could also provide an addi-tional boost to the state’s work orce, as 17% o retirees, nearly three out o ve unemployed adults, andalmost one-third o homemakers say they would likely join the work orce i empowered to do so by tele-working.

24 See Appendix A.25 FCC Broadband Adoption and Use.



16

3. Connect Minnesota Broadband Inventory and AnalysisIn October 2010, Connect Minnesota, working in partnership with the Minnesota Department o Commerce andthe Minnesota Broadband Advisory Task Force, produced an updated map o the inventory o broadband avail-ability across the state. This mapping exercise was unded by the National Telecommunications and In ormationAdministration, U.S. Department o Commerce, and is in compliance with the rules and requirements o the ederalState Broadband Data and Development grant program. 26 The purpose o this exercise is to measure the levelo broadband service available to Minnesota households and identi y communities and households that remainunserved or underserved by broadband service.

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan sets six goals that rame the FCC’s recommendations or ederal, state, andlocal policy objectives and strategies or the U.S. broadband market. Based on these six goals (which are listed inSection 4 along with goals cra ted by the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Task Force), the NBP o ers a series o nor-mative recommendations or policy measures to help spur innovation, investment, and adoption o the broadbandservice.

One key area related to all o these recommendations is the goal o universal availability o broadband in rastruc-ture. In order to understand which o these policy measures are best suited to address the challenges to broad-band expansion aced in Minnesota, this report rst examines how the broadband market in Minnesota comparesagainst these national goals set in the NBP.

Results o the Minnesota mapping exercise can be ound at Connect Minnesota’s interactive online mapping plat-orm available at http://www.connectmn.org/mapping/interactive_map.php.

It is important to note that the inventory o broadband measured in these maps and used to conduct this analysisremains preliminary in nature. The Connect Minnesota Fall 2010 broadband inventory and Broadband InventoryMap are updates to the rst map o its kind created in the state o Minnesota by Connect Minnesota in Febru-ary 2009. Several elements o Connect Minnesota’s latest mapping exercise di er rom the initial 2009 mappingactivity. Data collected includes the majority o known broadband providers in the state; however, there are a ewbroadband providers that were unable or unwilling to participate in this rst round o data collection. The maps willbe urther completed as networks owned by these providers are included in the Minnesota broadband mapping in-ventory updates. Further, the measured broadband inventory provides an estimate o the true extent o broadbandcoverage across the state. There is a degree o measurement error inherent in this exercise, which needs to betaken into consideration when analyzing the data. This measurement error will decrease as the maps become ac-tive tools or local, state, and ederal stakeholders, who will be able to identi y areas where the displayed coverageis underestimated or overestimated. Connect Minnesota solicits and welcomes such eedback, to be analyzed incollaboration with broadband providers to correct errors identi ed in the maps. 27 The ollowing section summa-rizes results rom these mapping e orts ocusing at the state and county levels.

3.1 Broadband Availability in Minnesota – A State Bird’s-eye View

3.1.1 Fixed Broadband Inventory This section provides a bird’s-eye, statewide assessment o the availability o broadband speeds and plat ormsin Minnesota. However, as discussed in more detail below, statewide gures can o ten present a distorted view.

26 SBDD NOFA: RIN 0660–ZA29 July 8, 2009.27 Questions regarding the maps and data collection can be directed to [email protected].




With the majority o the population residing in the state’s our urban and 17 suburban counties (the 66 remain-ing counties are considered rural) statewide averages do not present a complete picture. There are, in act, manyareas and communities in Minnesota that do not have access to robust broadband in rastructure today, a gap thatcan only widen as demands on bandwidth increase over time.

The total number o households in Minnesota in 2000 was 1,895,127 or a total population o 5,266,214. 28 Table2 (similar to Table 1) reports estimates o the number and percentages o households across Minnesota havingbroadband available at various download speed tiers. 29 Table 2 is based on broadband inventory data rom all ter-restrial, non-mobile plat orms, including cable, DSL, ber, and xed wireless, but excluding households served bymobile or satellite broadband.

In October 2010, xed broadband was available to approximately 1,830,480 households, or 96.59% o all Minne-sota households. 30 This implies that approximately 64,647 Minnesota households, or 3.41%, remain unserved byterrestrial, xed broadband. 31,32 Further, approximately 1,776,814 households, or 93.76%, across Minnesota havebroadband available at 3 Mbps download speeds or aster. The percentage o Minnesota households having xedbroadband access available o at least 6 Mbps download speeds is estimated at 90.79%.

Table 2 – Estimate o Broadband Service Availability in the State o Minnesota –By Speed Tier Among Fixed Plat orms

SBDD Download Speed Tiers Unserved Households Served HouseholdsPercent HouseholdsBy Speed Tier

At Least 768 Kbps 64,647 1,830,480 96.59%

At Least 1.5 Mbps 77,353 1,817,774 95.92%

At Least 3 Mbps 118,313 1,776,814 93.76%

At Least 6 Mbps 174,467 1,720,660 90.79%

At Least 10 Mbps 301,312 1,593,815 84.10%

At Least 25 Mbps 850,309 1,044,818 55.13%

At Least 50 Mbps 937,613 957,514 50.53%

At Least 100 Mbps 1,006,996 888,131 46.86%


28 National Census, 2000, U.S. Census Bureau. Data collected during the 2010 decennial census is not yet publicly available. The total numberof households, and thus the estimated number of households served by broadband, will be updated by the Connect Minnesota program once2010 Census Bureau data becomes available (anticipated Spring 2011).

29 Speed tiers are based on the tiers defined by the NTIA in the SBDD NOFA.30 Broadband is defined according to current NTIA and FCC definition, or 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds.31 “ Unserved area means a proposed funded service area, composed of one or more contiguous Census Blocks, where at least 90 percent of

households in the proposed funded service area lack access to facilities-based, terrestrial broadband service, either fixed or mobile, at theminimum broadband transmission speed (set forth in the definition of broadband above). A household has access to broadband service if thehousehold can readily subscribe to that service upon request.” SBDD NOFA Section III Page 32549

32 While the NTIA definition of “unserved” and “underserved” areas encompasses all broadband platforms, including mobile wireless networks,Table 3 focuses only on fixed, terrestrial broadband infrastructure. Table 8 includes data across all terrestrial platforms.



18

While there is no national benchmark o broadband available at this time (the SBDD program is scheduled togenerate a national broadband map in February o 2011 that will provide such re erence), measures obtained byConnected Nation, (Connect Minnesota’s parent company) across 11 other states plus Puerto Rico suggests thatbroadband investment in Minnesota is on par with that o other states similar to Minnesota which are highly rural.Table 3 reports data collected by Connected Nation in the winter and spring o 2010 in the ollowing states andterritories: Alaska, Florida, Iowa, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Caro-lina, Tennessee, and Texas. 33 Following the NTIA de nition o broadband, this measure o broadband availabilityincludes any connection providing service o at least 768 Kbps downstream and 200 Kbps upstream speeds. Thedata reported includes broadband service by all types o plat orms except or satellite and terrestrial mobile wire-less broadband service.

Table 3 – Estimate o Available Terrestrial Fixed Broadband Serviceo At Least 768 Kbps Downstream - 200 Kbps Upstream

Selected States

Density o Households Across State Households with AvailableBroadband Service

Alaska 0.39 86.0%

Florida 117.53 96.2%

Illinois 82.61 97.9%

Iowa 20.57 95.4%

Kansas 12.69 97.23%

Michigan 66.64 96.8%

Minnesota 23.81 96.59%

Nevada 6.84 97.9%

Ohio 108.57 98.2%

Puerto Rico 368.62 91.27%

South Carolina 50.94 94.7%

Tennessee 54.17 94.1%

Texas 28.24 96.6%

Data includes all terrestrial technology platforms except for mobile broadband services.

Source: Availability data from Connected Nation, 2010. Household density data from US Census, 2000, US Census Bureau.

Data from Illinois, Kansas and Tennessee dates from March, 2010. Data from Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Puer-

to Rico, and South Carolina from April, 2010. Data from Iowa and Texas from May, 2010. Data from Alaska from June 2010.

The average broadband household availability measured across these 13 states and territories is 94.95%, suggest-ing that the broadband inventory measured in Minnesota is higher than estimates across these states.

33 Research funded by the ARRA and compliant with SBDD data requirements and definitions.




3.1.2 Broadband Availability by Technology PlatformThe all 2010 Minnesota Broadband Inventory Map is based on data rom 129 terrestrial xed broadband providers(92 providers, many o which o er broadband service via multiple plat orms). Together these broadband providerso er service to an estimated 96.59% o the Minnesota households.

The broadband sector serves a very large geographic area where the majority (60%) o residents live in the TwinCities metropolitan area. Research shows that the most represented technology across the state is mobile broad-band. 34 Table 4 below reports that there are a total o 5 mobile wireless broadband providers accounted or in thestate o Minnesota’s broadband map serving an estimate o 1,849,107 households, or 97.57%. There are a totalo 15 cable providers refected on the map, serving 78.17% o the state’s households. Fixed wireless availability islimited to 22.44% o households across the state rom 26 xed wireless providers. There are 59 Digital SubscriberLine (DSL) broadband providers in Minnesota who collectively provide service to 90.30% o Minnesota house-holds.

Fiber availability is low, with 29 providers o ering ber to the premise to just 75,447 (or 3.98%) o householdsacross the state. In act, ber coverage is not available at all in 34 Minnesota counties. Because ber-optic broad-band is one o the technologies capable o providing higher-speed broadband services, this lack o ber availabilityhas implications or next-generation broadband capability in Minnesota and the state’s goal o ubiquitous broad-band availability o at least 10-20 Mbps download by 2015, and rein orces the FCC’s NBP policy recommenda-tions to create Gigabit Community Initiatives and Broadband Corridors.

Table 4 – Availability Estimate by BroadbandPlat orm in the State o Minnesota

Plat orm Type ServedHouseholds

Percent o Households Served

Number o Providers -By Plat orm

Cable 1,481,376 78.17% 15

DSL 1,711,313 90.30% 59

Fiber 75,447 3.98% 29

Fixed Wireless 425,296 22.44% 26

Mobile 1,849,107 97.57% 5

Total – All Platform Except Mobile 1,830,480 96.59% 129

Total – All Platforms 1,887,242 99.58% 134


The breakdown o broadband availability by technology in Table 4 above showcases the structural characteris-tics o the Minnesota broadband market. The most important among them is the low availability o xed wirelessbroadband; the near ubiquitous availability o mobile wireless in areas where the Minnesota population resides;and the scarcity o FTTP (by percentage o households) in Minnesota, although FTTP is ound in 52 o Minnesota’scounties.

34 High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of December 31, 2008, Industry Analysis and Technology Division Wireline Competition Bureau,Federal Communications Commission, February 2010. Available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-296239A1.pdf



20

3.1.3 Household Density across Unserved, Underserved, and Served AreasMinnesota is a very large state (geographically, the 12th largest in the U.S.) with the highest percentage o itspopulation living in the Twin Cities area. Given the direct correlation between density o population and the cost oproviding broadband in rastructure, this actor should have a signi cant role in explaining in rastructure investmentacross Minnesota. The average density or number o households, per square mile, across Minnesota is 23.81,varying greatly by county (see county-level analysis in Section 3.2). 35 Table 5 presents average household densityby Census Block in areas that the broadband inventory measures as unserved, underserved, and served, basedon NTIA de nitions. Analysis o served and unserved territories by density o households is an important measurethat provides an objective means to assess the challenge o in rastructure build-out in unserved or underserved ar-eas. It also provides critical in ormation or the debate over Universal Service Fund re orm underway. These datawill urther assist in benchmarking the “supply-side” challenge aced in Minnesota against national data. At thepresent time, national benchmarks do not exist. As urther data is released across states rom the SBDD mappinge orts, it will be possible to assess this comparative analysis between Minnesota and other states. Further, thesedata provide an objective benchmark or assessing progress o in rastructure build-out moving orward, based on

uture SBDD data submissions.

Consistent with expectations, the data show correlations between density o households and in rastructure build-out across Minnesota. The average density o households per Census Blocks measured as unserved is a mere2.38, when accounting or all Census Blocks, and only 3.42 when considering only Census Blocks with population.When considering only areas that have service o ered with download speeds o 3 Mbps or more, average popu-lation density is estimated at the much higher 43.23. In short, as expected broadband network investment has

ocused on areas o higher population density and the areas that remain unserved have very low density o popula-tion. It is important to note, as discussed in Section 3.2 below, that an analysis o data at the county level revealsthat this correlation does not hold across all counties.

Table 5 – Average Number o Households Per Square Mile AcrossCensus Blocks with Fixed, Terrestrial Broadband Available

By Download Speeds All Census Blocks Census Blockswith Households

Below 768 Kbps - “Unserved” 2.38 3.42

Between 768-3000 Kbps - “Underserved” 4.56 5.2

At Least 768 Kbps 34.61 40.56

At Least 3 Mbps 43.23 51.03

Note: Data does not include mobile or satellite broadband.


35 U.S. Census, 2000, U.S. Census Bureau. Household density is defined as number of households per square mile of land area.




Table 6 reports broadband availability in Minnesota across areas de ned as “rural” by the NTIA SBDD de nitionstandards. 36 According to this de nition approximately 836,051 households across Minnesota are classi ed asrural (or 44.11% o total households). O this, approximately 774,391 households are served by at least one ter-restrial, non-mobile broadband provider with at least 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds, or 92.62%o all rural households. The number o rural households remaining unserved is estimated to be 61,660. The totalnumber o households – rural and non-rural – estimated to be unserved by non-mobile broadband across Min-nesota is 64,647. There ore, the overwhelming majority o unserved households (95.38%) le t in Minnesota are inrural areas.

Table 6 – Rural Availability Estimate o Broadband Serviceo at Least 768 Kbps Download/200 Kbps Upload

Plat orm Type Total Rural Households Unserved RuralHouseholds

Percent o RuralHouseholds Served

Fixed Broadband (Excluding Mobile) 836,051 61,660 92.62%

All Terrestrial Platforms (Including Mobile) 836,051 7,606 99.09%


3.1.4 All Terrestrial Broadband Inventory – Including Mobile Wireless NetworksTable 7 represents data o availability o broadband across Minnesota including all types o terrestrial plat orms,including mobile broadband. In October 2010, there were a total o 5 acilities-based mobile broadband providersin Minnesota, collectively serving an estimated 97.57% o all households. 37,38

Taking into account both xed and mobile broadband service available, an estimated 99.58% o Minnesota house-holds had broadband available rom at least one provider at download speeds o 768 Kbps or higher. This impliesthat 0.42% o households remain unserved by a terrestrial broadband connection (including mobile).

36 “Rural Area. Any area, as confirmed by the latest decennial census of the Bureau of the Census, which is not located within: (i) a city,town, or incorporated area that has a population of greater than 20,000 inhabitants; or (ii) an urbanized area contiguous and adjacent to acity or town that has a population of greater than 50,000 inhabitants. For purposes of the definition of rural area, an urbanized area meansa densely populated territory as defined in the latest decennial census of the U.S. Census Bureau.” SBDD NOFA Section III Page 32549This analysis includes only used Census Blocks that following this definition are completely rural, and not any Census Blocks that fell within bothrural and non-rural.

37 Connect Minnesota, October 2010.38 Note that this measure of broadband availability is based on households passed, not geography served. Further, consumers may experience

lower availability of mobile broadband service since typically each consumer has access to only one mobile broadband provider. Hence,existence of mobile broadband service by one provider does not necessary imply that all mobile subscribers have access at that location. Onlysubscribers to the mobile services available within that location will experience reception.



22

Table 7 – Estimate o Broadband Service Availability in the State o Minnesota -By Speed Tier - All Terrestrial Plat orms (Including Mobile)

SBDD Download Speed Tiers Unserved Households ServedHousehold

Percent Households byTier

At Least 768 Kbps 7,885 1,887,242 99.58%

At Least 1.5 Mbps 10,979 1,884,148 99.42%

At Least 3 Mbps 21,096 1,874,031 98.89%


3.2 Broadband in Minnesota Counties

3.2.1 Terrestrial, Fixed Broadband Availability by County This section examines the estimated broadband inventory by county across Minnesota. Figures 7 and 8 belowpresent estimated number and percentage o households served by terrestrial, non-mobile broadband at speedso 768 Kbps download/200 Kbps upload and above, as well as 3 Mbps download speeds or more, and includinghousehold density by county. 39 These data are also presented under Table 8. The data reveals signi cant vari-ances in measured broadband inventory across counties, highlighting the importance o granular data in order toidenti y gaps in in rastructure at the community level. Such in ormation is essential to develop pragmatic policysolutions or broadband expansion tailored to the challenges acing each community.

39 Based on NTIA definitions, broadband is defined as 768 Kbps download and 200 Kbps upload speeds or more. Areas with servicebelow these speeds are deemed “unserved.” Areas where broadband is available at speeds between 768 Kbps download and 200Kbps upload and 3Mbps are defined as “underserved.” Areas where broadband is available at 3Mbps or above are defined as “served.” SBDD NOFA. Technical Appendix Page 32557




Figure 7

Broadband Availability in the State o MinnesotaPercentage o Households Served by Terrestrial,

Non-Mobile Broadband ServiceAt Least 768 Kbps Download/200 Kbps Upload Speeds

Statewide Availability: 96.59%

St. LouisItasca

Cass

LakePolk

Beltrami

Aitkin

Pine

Cook

Koochiching

Otter Tail

Clay

Roseau

Marshall

Becker

Todd

Stearns

Kittson

Swift

Lyon

Morrison

Pope

Renville

Wilkin

Carlton

Hubbard

Martin

Norman

Wright

Rice

Fillmore

Crow Wing

Mower Nobles

Murray

Lake of the Woods

Grant

Clearwater

Sibley

Brown

Redwood

Rock

Kandiyohi

Jackson

Douglas

Meeker

Goodhue

Winona

Faribault

Dakota

Isanti

Freeborn

Olmsted

Lincoln

Blue Earth

Stevens

Mille Lacs

Scott

Anoka

Houston

Traverse

Steele

Wadena

Dodge

Hennepin

McLeod

Nicollet

Lac qui Parle

Kanabec

Chippewa

Wabasha

Benton

Pennington

Cottonwood

Carver

Big Stone

Waseca

Chisago

Mahnomen

Le Sueur

Yellow Medicine

Pipestone

Red Lake

Sherburne

Watonwan

Washington

Ramsey

87.6%

96%

90.77%

98.88%

83.13%

89.54%

80.29%96.71%

71.52%

94.73%

94.54%

93.33%

47.62%

91.28%

89.89%

97.92%

94.55%

93.75%

97.81%

94.18%

99.34%

90.95%

91.82%

91.52%

77.08%

98.29%

85.97%

75.97%

97.04%

94.63%

98.52%

93.41%

98.16%

98.54%

97.99%

99.67%94.28% 88.27%95.86%

99.27%

84.95%

87.79%

99.61%

93.71%

99.27%

83.48%

94%

92.54%

96.33%89.12%

83.5%

96.36%

88.27%

98.81%

96.37%

99.88%

91.93%

99.28%

99.68%

88.79%

68.82%

99.92%

99.78%

94.93%

90.4%

97.37%

89.71%

89.72%

87.71%

91.43%

99.99%

98.84%

87.66%

97.95%

99.22%

99.51%

90.11%

99.59%

99.42%

84.67% 89.47%

99.41%

97.56%

99.76%

99.36%

99.97%

99.98%

<85%

85-90%

90.01-93%

93.01-96%

96.01-98%

98.01-100%



24

This same pattern exists when analyzing estimates o homes served at download speeds o 3 Mbps or more. Whilethe estimated statewide percentage o households served at speeds o 3 Mbps or more is 93.76%, county avail-ability estimates range rom Aitkin County, with only 42.3% o households served at these speeds, to McLeodCounty, with 99.99% o households served and Hennepin County with 99.82% households served. 25 counties inthe state have less than 80% o households served at speeds o 3 Mbps or more.




Figure 8


Non-Mobile Broadband ServiceAt Least 3 Mbps Download Speeds

Statewide Availability: 93.76%

St. LouisItasca

Cass

LakePolk

Beltrami

Aitkin

Pine

Cook

Koochiching

Otter Tail

Clay

Roseau

Marshall

Becker

Todd

Stearns

Kittson

Swift

Lyon

Morrison

Pope

Renville

Wilkin

Carlton

Hubbard

Martin

Norman

Wright

Rice

Fillmore

Crow Wing

Mower Nobles

Murray

Lake of the Woods

Grant

Clearwater

Sibley

Brown

Redwood

Rock

Kandiyohi

Jackson

Douglas

Meeker

Goodhue

Winona

Faribault

Dakota

Isanti

Freeborn

Olmsted

Lincoln

Blue Earth

Stevens

Mille Lacs

Scott

Anoka

Houston

Traverse

Steele

Wadena

Dodge

Hennepin

McLeod

Nicollet

Lac qui Parle

Kanabec

Chippewa

Wabasha

Benton

Pennington

Cottonwood

Carver

Big Stone

Waseca

Chisago

Mahnomen

Le Sueur

Yellow Medicine

Pipestone

Red Lake

Sherburne

Watonwan

Washington

Ramsey

85.63%79.5%

82.29%

98.09%

84.42%

42.3%

75.66%

84.21%

89.83%

88.81%

87.61%

81.31%

47.62%

89.98%

64.22%

95.87%

78.2%

92.68%

82.94%

97.12%

93.97%

99.34%

73.16%

84.81%

42.69%

70.26%

72.93%

74.16%

88.36%

93.6%

89.45%

80.28%

93.35%

69.35%

80.91%

78.72%

99.64%79.02% 82.63%

79.41%

71.21%

69.45%

97.41%

92.14%

97.75%

82.47%

84.65%

96.18%82.62%

92.49%

88.03%

85.36%

86.81%

99.82%

83.39%

84.31%

99.54%

72.24%

59.14%

97.84%

95.36%

94.93%

78.86%

48.32%

89.27%

60.43%

75.97%

90.33%

99.99%

54.23%

86.77%83.14%

47.74%

83.71%

99.36%

99.28%

90.44%

92.17% 88.18%83.95% 88.04%

99.97%

99.41%

96.32%

99.64%

99.09%

99.98%

<40%

40-60%

60.01-80%

80.01-90%

90.01-95%

95.01-100%



26

While the estimated statewide percentage o households served by at least 768 Kbps download/200 Kbps uploadspeeds is 96.59%, Table 8 reports signi cant variation o in rastructure build-out across counties.

Among the state’s 87 counties, 4 are urban, 17 are suburban, and the remaining 66 are rural. 26 counties acrossthe state have broadband service available to less than 90% o households.

These data reveal that across Minnesota counties, density o population (a critical actor determining in rastruc-

ture capital investment) is a good indicator o historical investment in broadband in rastructure, although in ruralcounties with lower than average broadband availability, the majority o households are clustered together. Forexample, Cook County, with only an estimated 47.62% households served, has an estimated 2,350 homes and ahousehold density o 1.62 households per square mile. Hence, it is a highly rural county with large portions un-served by broadband in rastructure.

Table 8 – Estimated Availability o Broadband Service by CountyTerrestrial Broadband (Excluding Mobile)

≥ 768 Download/200 Kbps UploadSpeeds ≥ 3 MbpsDownload Speeds

County HouseholdDensity

Number o Households Percentage Households Served

Aitkin 3.65 6,644 71.52% 42.30%

Anoka 251.24 106,428 99.59% 99.28%

Becker 9.04 11,844 91.28% 89.98%

Beltrami 5.72 14,337 98.88% 98.09%

Benton 32.00 13,065 97.56% 96.32%

Big Stone 4.78 2,377 87.71% 75.97%

Blue Earth 27.99 21,062 93.41% 93.35%

Brown 17.35 10,598 98.81% 85.36%

Carlton 14.02 12,064 85.97% 72.93%

Carver 68.22 24,356 99.76% 99.64%

Cass 5.40 10,893 89.54% 84.42%

Chippewa 9.20 5,361 99.28% 84.31%

Chisago 34.61 14,454 99.42% 90.44%

Clay 17.86 18,670 94.18% 93.97%

Clearwater 3.35 3,330 99.34% 99.34%

Cook 1.62 2,350 47.62% 47.62%




≥ 768 Download/200 Kbps Upload

Speeds≥ 3 Mbps

Download Speeds



Cottonwood 7.68 4,917 89.12% 82.62%

Crow Wing 22.33 22,250 94.55% 92.68%

Dakota 230.26 131,151 99.68% 99.54%

Dodge 14.61 6,420 90.11% 88.18%

Douglas 20.93 13,276 99.61% 97.41%

Faribault 9.32 6,652 95.86% 93.60%

Fillmore 9.55 8,228 75.97% 74.16%

Freeborn 18.87 13,356 88.27% 82.63%

Goodhue 22.40 16,983 94.63% 89.45%

Grant 4.64 2,534 99.92% 97.84%

Hennepin 819.46 456,129 99.88% 99.82%

Houston 13.67 7,633 94.93% 94.93%

Hubbard 8.06 7,435 90.95% 73.16%

Isanti 25.59 11,236 99.22% 83.71%

Itasca 6.67 17,789 83.13% 79.50%

Jackson 6.49 4,556 84.95% 71.21%

Kanabec 10.97 5,759 89.72% 60.43%

Kandiyohi 20.02 15,936 97.04% 88.36%

Kittson 1.98 2,167 97.81% 97.12%

Koochiching 1.95 6,040 90.77% 82.29%

Lac qui Parle 4.34 3,316 98.52% 80.28%

Lake 2.21 4,646 80.29% 75.66%

Lake of the Woods 1.47 1,903 94.54% 87.61%

Le Sueur 21.47 9,630 87.66% 86.77%

Lincoln 4.94 2,653 97.37% 48.32%

Lyon 13.60 9,715 99.27% 79.41%



28


Speeds≥ 3 Mbps

Download Speeds



McLeod 27.34 13,449 99.99% 99.99%

Mahnomen 3.54 1,969 68.82% 59.14%

Marshall 2.31 4,101 94.73% 88.81%

Martin 12.78 9,067 99.67% 99.64%

Meeker 14.12 8,590 96.36% 92.49%

Mille Lacs 15.04 8,638 92.54% 84.65%

Morrison 10.51 11,816 93.75% 82.94%

Mower 21.90 15,582 83.48% 82.47%

Murray 5.28 3,722 87.79% 69.45%

Nicollet 23.53 10,642 90.40% 83.14%

Nobles 11.10 7,939 94.28% 79.02%

Norman 3.44 3,010 98.29% 70.26%

Olmsted 73.21 47,807 96.33% 96.18%

Otter Tail 11.45 22,671 96.00% 84.21%

Pennington 8.96 5,525 96.37% 86.81%

Pine 7.04 9,939 89.89% 64.22%

Pipestone 8.73 4,069 97.95% 47.74%

Polk 6.13 12,070 96.71% 89.83%

Pope 6.73 4,513 93.71% 92.14%

Ramsey 1,291.80 201,236 99.98% 99.98%

Red Lake 3.99 1,727 99.97% 99.97%

Redwood 7.59 6,674 77.08% 42.69%

Renville 6.90 6,779 91.82% 78.20%

Rice 37.96 18,888 91.43% 90.33%

Rock 7.96 3,843 98.84% 54.23%

Roseau 3.72 6,190 93.33% 81.31%





Speeds≥ 3 Mbps

Download Speeds



St. Louis 13.27 82,619 87.60% 85.63%

Scott 86.05 30,692 99.36% 99.09%

Sherburne 49.46 21,581 99.51% 99.36%

Sibley 9.81 5,772 91.93% 83.39%

Stearns 35.41 47,604 97.92% 95.87%

Steele 29.91 12,846 89.47% 88.04%

Stevens 6.67 3,751 99.78% 95.36%

Swift 5.85 4,353 98.54% 80.91%

Todd 9.92 9,342 91.52% 84.81%

Traverse 2.99 1,717 88.79% 72.24%

Wabasha 15.77 8,277 83.50% 78.86%

Wadena 10.14 5,426 89.71% 89.27%

Waseca 16.68 7,059 84.67% 83.95%

Washington 182.44 71,462 99.41% 99.41%

Watonwan 10.65 4,627 94.00% 92.17%

Wilkin 3.66 2,752 97.99% 78.72%

Winona 29.93 18,744 88.27% 88.03%

Wright 47.62 31,465 99.27% 97.75%

Yellow Medicine 5.86 4,439 98.16% 69.35%

Source: Household Numbers and Density - Census Bureau, 2000. Broadband Availability Rates - Connect Minnesota, October

2010.

Detailed in ormation on the estimated inventory o broadband in each county can be ound on the Connect Minne-sota website at http://www.connectmn.org/mapping/county_maps/.

For more granular in ormation regarding the estimated broadband inventory see the Minnesota online broadbandinventory map at http://www.connectmn.org/mapping/interactive_map.php.



30

3.2.2 Fixed Broadband Availability across Rural and Non-Rural CountiesFigure 9 below depicts the percentage o households served by county with at least 768 Kbps download and 200Kbps upload speeds and classi es counties as rural or non-rural. 40 Figure 10 is a similar depiction with the countyavailability threshold set at 3 Mbps download speeds. Across rural counties an estimated 92.62% o householdshave broadband available (contrasted with a statewide average o 92.72%). The average estimate across non-rural (urban and suburban) counties is 96.18%. 41 Hence, as expected, broadband availability is on average loweracross rural counties and greatest in highly populated urban areas.

40 Classification of rural and non-rural counties is based on the U.S. Census Bureau urban-rural classification based on Metropolitan StatisticalAreas (MSAs), which are designated by the United States Office of Management and Budget to collect, tabulate, and publish federal statistics.Metropolitan statistical areas contain a core urban area with a population of 50,000 or more. According to Census Bureau county classification,counties are categorized as “urban” if they contain the core city of an MSA, “suburban” counties are MSA counties that do not contain a corecity, and “rural” counties include all remaining counties that are not part of an MSA.

41 This simple average county-level availability estimate of 96.18% is lower than the statewide estimate of percentage of households with broadbandavailable (96.59%). This is due to the fact that the county-level simple average does not weight county estimates by the underlying populationin each county.




Figure 9


Non-Mobile Broadband ServiceAt Least 768 Kbps Download/200 Kbps Upload Speeds

Rural and Non-Rural Counties

St. LouisItasca

Cass

LakePolk

Beltrami

Aitkin

Pine

Cook

Koochiching

Otter Tail

Clay

Roseau

Marshall

Becker

Todd

Stearns

Kittson

Swift

Lyon

Morrison

Pope

Renville

Wilkin

Carlton

Hubbard

Martin

Norman

Wright

Rice

Fillmore

Crow Wing

Mower Nobles

Murray

Lake of the Woods

Grant

Clearwater

Sibley

Brown

Redwood

Rock

Kandiyohi

Jackson

Douglas

Meeker

Goodhue

Winona

Faribault

Dakota

Isanti

Freeborn

Olmsted

Lincoln

Blue Earth

Stevens

Mille Lacs

Scott

Anoka

Houston

Traverse

Steele

Wadena

Dodge

Hennepin

McLeod

Nicollet

Lac qui Parle

Kanabec

Chippewa

Wabasha

Benton

Pennington

Cottonwood

Carver

Big Stone

Waseca

Chisago

Mahnomen

Le Sueur

Yellow Medicine

Pipestone

Red Lake

Sherburne

Watonwan

Washington

Ramsey

87.6%

96%

90.77%

98.88%

83.13%

89.54%

80.29%96.71%

71.52%

94.73%

94.54%

93.33%

47.62%

91.28%

89.89%

97.92%

94.55%

93.75%

97.81%

94.18%

99.34%

90.95%

91.82%

91.52%

77.08%

98.29%

85.97%

75.97%

97.04%

94.63%

98.52%

93.41%

98.16%

98.54%

97.99%

99.67%94.28% 88.27%95.86%

99.27%

84.95%

87.79%

99.61%

93.71%

99.27%

83.48%

94%

92.54%

96.33%89.12%

83.5%

96.36%

88.27%

98.81%

96.37%

99.88%

91.93%

99.28%

99.68%

88.79%

68.82%

99.92%

99.78%

94.93%

90.4%

97.37%

89.71%

89.72%

87.71%

91.43%

99.99%

98.84%

87.66%

97.95%

99.22%

99.51%

90.11%

99.59%

99.42%

84.67% 89.47%

99.41%

97.56%

99.76%

99.36%

99.97%

99.98%

<85%

85-90%

90.01-93%

93.01-96%

96.01-98%

98.01-100%Rural



32

Figure 10


Non-Mobile Broadband ServiceAt Least 3 Mbps Download Speeds

Rural and Non-Rural Counties

St. LouisItasca

Cass

LakePolk

Beltrami

Aitkin

Pine

Cook

Koochiching

Otter Tail

Clay

Roseau

Marshall

Becker

Todd

Stearns

Kittson

Swift

Lyon

Morrison

Pope

Renville

Wilkin

Carlton

Hubbard

Martin

Norman

Wright

Rice

Fillmore

Crow Wing

Mower Nobles

Murray

Lake of the Woods

Grant

Clearwater

Sibley

Brown

Redwood

Rock

Kandiyohi

Jackson

Douglas

Meeker

Goodhue

Winona

Faribault

Dakota

Isanti

Freeborn

Olmsted

Lincoln

Blue Earth

Stevens

Mille Lacs

Scott

Anoka

Houston

Traverse

Steele

Wadena

Dodge

Hennepin

McLeod

Nicollet

Lac qui Parle

Kanabec

Chippewa

Wabasha

Benton

Pennington

Cottonwood

Carver

Big Stone

Waseca

Chisago

Mahnomen

Le Sueur

Yellow Medicine

Pipestone

Red Lake

Sherburne

Watonwan

Washington

Ramsey

85.63%79.5%

82.29%

98.09%

84.42%

42.3%

75.66%

84.21%

89.83%

88.81%

87.61%

81.31%

47.62%

89.98%

64.22%

95.87%

78.2%

92.68%

82.94%

97.12%

93.97%

99.34%

73.16%

84.81%

42.69%

70.26%

72.93%

74.16%

88.36%

93.6%

89.45%

80.28%

93.35%

69.35%

80.91%

78.72%

99.64%79.02% 82.63%

79.41%

71.21%

69.45%

97.41%

92.14%

97.75%

82.47%

84.65%

96.18%82.62%

92.49%

88.03%

85.36%

86.81%

99.82%

83.39%

84.31%

99.54%

72.24%

59.14%

97.84%

95.36%

94.93%

78.86%

48.32%

89.27%

60.43%

75.97%

90.33%

99.99%

54.23%

86.77%83.14%

47.74%

83.71%

99.36%

99.28%

90.44%

92.17% 88.18%83.95% 88.04%

99.97%

99.41%

96.32%

99.64%

99.09%

99.98%

<40%

40-60%

60.01-80%

80.01-90%

90.01-95%

95.01-100%Rural




3.2.3 Minnesota’s Underserved Households Across CountiesWhile Minnesota does not have a high percentage o underserved households 42 (53,666 or 2.83%), the tale issomewhat di erent when examining Minnesota’s counties. At least 18 counties have greater than 15% o theirhouseholds that quali y as underserved. Figure 11 below illustrates by percentage the underserved households ineach county in Minnesota (served households that can receive broadband at speeds o at least 768 Kbps down-load/200 Kbps upload but are not able to subscribe to broadband at speeds o at least 3 Mbps download).

42 “Underserved area means a proposed funded service area, compared of one or more contiguous Census Blocks meeting certain criteria thatmeasure the availability of broadband service and the level of advertised broadband speeds. […] Specifically, a proposed funded service areamay qualify as underserved for last mile projects if at least one of the following factors is met, thought the presumption will be that more than onefactor is present: 1. No more than 50 percent of the households in the proposed funded service area have access to facilities-based, terrestrialbroadband service at greater than the minimum broadband transmission speed (set forth in the definition of broadband above); 2. No fixed ormobile broadband service provider advertises broadband transmission speeds of at least three megabits per second (“mbps”) downstream inthe proposed funded service area; or 3. The rate of broadband subscribership for the proposed funded service area is 40 percent of householdsor less.”



34

Figure 11

Broadband Availability in the State o MinnesotaPercentage o Households Served at Download

Speeds Between 768 Kbps and 3 MbpsPercent o “Underserved” Households: 2.83%

St. Louis

Itasca

Cass

LakePolk

Beltrami

Aitkin

Pine

Cook

Koochiching

Otter Tail

Clay

Roseau

Marshall

Becker

Todd

Stearns

Kittson

Swift

Lyon

Morrison

Pope

Renville

Wilkin

Carlton

Hubbard

Martin

Norman

Wright

Rice

Fillmore

Crow Wing

Mower Nobles

Murray

Lake of the Woods

Grant

Clearwater

Sibley

Brown

Redwood

Rock

Kandiyohi

Jackson

Douglas

Meeker

Goodhue

Winona

Faribault

Dakota

Isanti

Freeborn

Olmsted

Lincoln

Blue Earth

Stevens

Mille Lacs

Scott

Anoka

Houston

Traverse

Steele

Wadena

Dodge

Hennepin

McLeod

Nicollet

Lac qui Parle

Kanabec

Chippewa

Wabasha

Benton

Pennington

Cottonwood

Carver

Big Stone

Waseca

Chisago

Mahnomen

Le Sueur

Yellow Medicine

Pipestone

Red Lake

Sherburne

Watonwan

Washington

Ramsey

1.97%

0.8%

8.47%

3.63%

0%

5.12%

4.63%6.88%

11.79%

0%

5.92%

6.93%

1.3%

29.22%

12.02%

2.05%

25.67%6.7%

1.87%

0.69%

0.21%

0%

10.81%

0%

2.2%

1.81%

8.68%

17.79%

13.62%

6.5%

5.18%

0%

0.05%

34.39%

28.03%

13.04%

0.03% 5.63%2.27%

1.57%

1.52%

1.01%

7.89%

18.24%

0.14%

28.81%

3.87%

0.25%

17.64%

19.27%

1.1%

9.56%

15.26%

19.86%

13.74%

18.34%

0.06%

8.54%

0.14%

9.68%

2.08%

4.42%

4.64%

0.44%

13.45%

14.97%

16.55%

0.89%7.27%

49.04%

11.74%

29.29%

0.16%

0.31%

8.98%

1.82%1.93%0.72% 1.43%

0.01%

1.24%

44.61%

50.21%

15.51%

0.12%

0.27%

0%

0-10%

10.01-25%

>25%




3.2.4 Broadband Availability by Platform, by County Table 9 reports measured percentage o households served by the type o plat orm by each county, includingcable, DSL, ber, xed wireless, and mobile wireless technologies.

Table 9 – County-Level Estimated Availability by Broadband TechnologyPercentage o Households Served by Broadband, by Technology Plat orm

(≥ 768 Download/200 Upload Kbps Speeds)

County Cable DSL Fiber Fixed Wireless MobileWireless

All Plat ormsExcept Mobile

Aitkin 21.75% 69.35% 0.07% 0.02% 92.50% 71.52%

Anoka 95.82% 95.14% 0.00% 17.88% 100.00% 99.59%

Becker 38.52% 87.52% 17.16% 0.00% 97.20% 91.28%

Beltrami 56.30% 76.35% 30.53% 60.73% 93.83% 98.88%

Benton 72.79% 94.21% 1.00% 85.63% 99.80% 97.56%

Big Stone 58.49% 22.53% 12.27% 61.66% 99.91% 87.71%

Blue Earth 69.62% 92.20% 0.51% 2.81% 99.84% 93.41%

Brown 73.10% 98.71% 0.00% 0.18% 87.48% 98.81%

Carlton 51.09% 83.14% 0.00% 0.00% 97.11% 85.97%

Carver 77.76% 94.32% 0.00% 75.06% 100.00% 99.76%

Cass 26.99% 83.91% 7.61% 9.01% 92.99% 89.54%

Chippewa 64.65% 76.20% 5.55% 98.81% 99.97% 99.28%

Chisago 50.17% 91.12% 0.00% 80.51% 99.60% 99.42%

Clay 76.61% 52.19% 2.49% 73.09% 99.66% 94.18%

Clearwater 0.00% 98.41% 1.45% 0.01% 88.97% 99.34%

Cook 0.00% 47.62% 0.00% 0.00% 73.47% 47.62%

Cottonwood 16.31% 86.89% 38.38% 3.98% 74.47% 89.12%Crow Wing 57.50% 87.97% 19.17% 38.33% 99.95% 94.55%

Dakota 95.29% 98.36% 0.02% 0.00% 100.00% 99.68%

Dodge 53.69% 89.71% 12.01% 0.00% 100.00% 90.11%

Douglas 51.65% 90.17% 5.95% 85.07% 100.00% 99.61%

Faribault 54.66% 93.32% 12.08% 56.24% 92.81% 95.86%



36



Fillmore 30.89% 67.22% 8.52% 0.00% 58.35% 75.97%

Freeborn 57.54% 80.23% 18.13% 16.30% 96.69% 88.27%

Goodhue 58.51% 92.32% 0.00% 8.91% 99.74% 94.63%

Grant 0.00% 50.39% 61.47% 21.54% 100.00% 99.92%

Hennepin 98.07% 96.75% 0.00% 4.70% 100.00% 99.88%

Houston 56.91% 81.57% 25.98% 0.00% 74.56% 94.93%

Hubbard 32.29% 77.45% 20.97% 4.05% 88.02% 90.95%

Isanti 36.57% 83.54% 0.00% 97.70% 99.91% 99.22%

Itasca 45.67% 72.21% 39.54% 0.00% 89.31% 83.13%

Jackson 0.00% 68.89% 0.00% 31.09% 84.48% 84.95%

Kanabec 13.88% 61.78% 0.00% 85.33% 99.33% 89.72%

Kandiyohi 66.86% 88.17% 0.00% 79.33% 99.92% 97.04%

Kittson 0.00% 86.21% 0.00% 76.74% 99.82% 97.81%

Koochiching 65.66% 90.00% 3.35% 0.00% 90.46% 90.77%

Lac qui Parle 42.98% 61.15% 25.84% 79.62% 34.55% 98.52%

Lake 49.90% 76.03% 0.00% 0.00% 89.58% 80.29%Lake of the Woods 47.79% 59.21% 0.00% 49.53% 92.03% 94.54%

Le Sueur 43.13% 83.96% 11.71% 0.04% 100.00% 87.66%

Lincoln 36.21% 86.56% 0.14% 67.25% 9.48% 97.37%

Lyon 62.53% 77.56% 0.09% 95.17% 85.92% 99.27%

McLeod 56.08% 92.85% 0.00% 99.90% 98.93% 99.99%

Mahnomen 6.99% 67.67% 2.66% 0.00% 92.28% 68.82%

Marshall 18.58% 72.15% 6.36% 69.79% 99.92% 94.73%

Martin 56.75% 88.87% 0.00% 98.74% 94.68% 99.67%

Meeker 45.88% 71.30% 0.00% 90.64% 99.44% 96.36%

Mille Lacs 44.73% 87.80% 0.00% 16.39% 98.99% 92.54%

Morrison 38.05% 86.48% 0.00% 46.70% 98.74% 93.75%

Mower 69.65% 82.17% 10.46% 0.00% 99.48% 83.48%






Murray 35.13% 84.77% 1.75% 6.49% 20.22% 87.79%

Nicollet 74.16% 90.36% 0.00% 0.00% 95.86% 90.40%

Nobles 47.44% 87.82% 0.00% 26.90% 91.82% 94.28%

Norman 13.59% 97.79% 0.50% 0.00% 99.98% 98.29%

Olmsted 83.88% 95.59% 7.86% 0.00% 99.98% 96.33%

Otter Tail 39.84% 85.46% 39.89% 43.27% 99.81% 96.00%

Pennington 73.50% 71.00% 6.12% 86.28% 99.27% 96.37%

Pine 35.85% 59.80% 0.00% 66.96% 92.16% 89.89%

Pipestone 42.49% 85.84% 13.82% 83.79% 82.43% 97.95%

Polk 49.72% 55.65% 4.71% 38.03% 99.23% 96.71%

Pope 40.25% 62.59% 10.43% 79.59% 99.45% 93.71%

Ramsey 98.55% 98.71% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 99.98%

Red Lake 0.00% 56.51% 43.46% 0.09% 99.98% 99.97%

Redwood 34.19% 55.69% 0.00% 57.98% 69.64% 77.08%

Renville 48.97% 69.47% 0.00% 79.38% 39.23% 91.82%

Rice 67.40% 89.24% 19.13% 1.28% 100.00% 91.43%Rock 48.28% 23.48% 0.00% 97.75% 14.01% 98.84%

Roseau 43.35% 72.83% 0.00% 70.31% 93.28% 93.33%

St. Louis 71.04% 83.41% 0.00% 37.47% 98.87% 87.60%

Scott 82.44% 96.63% 4.33% 11.44% 100.00% 99.36%

Sherburne 65.17% 96.56% 0.00% 85.76% 100.00% 99.51%

Sibley 48.74% 69.44% 0.00% 65.63% 88.82% 91.93%

Stearns 72.24% 88.14% 2.82% 87.49% 100.00% 97.92%

Steele 72.23% 88.16% 29.18% 3.01% 100.00% 89.47%

Stevens 64.20% 39.79% 79.79% 97.20% 99.99% 99.78%

Swift 56.55% 51.55% 11.53% 95.48% 99.91% 98.54%

Todd 33.09% 71.06% 2.97% 54.57% 99.87% 91.52%

Traverse 41.97% 70.81% 3.81% 16.75% 99.98% 88.79%



38



Wabasha 60.33% 80.30% 17.12% 0.00% 91.23% 83.50%

Wadena 41.14% 89.64% 44.71% 0.00% 97.27% 89.71%

Waseca 61.28% 82.11% 15.69% 0.00% 99.93% 84.67%

Washington 94.11% 95.40% 0.00% 0.22% 100.00% 99.41%

Watonwan 63.55% 87.69% 0.00% 38.12% 98.95% 94.00%

Wilkin 51.96% 69.93% 9.02% 74.00% 99.73% 97.99%

Winona 77.49% 81.49% 5.95% 0.00% 94.07% 88.27%

Wright 61.23% 92.12% 10.05% 84.63% 99.97% 99.27%

Yellow Medicine 20.43% 70.87% 0.00% 70.50% 56.46% 98.16%

State Total 78.17% 90.30% 3.98% 22.44% 97.57% 96.59%

Source: Connect Minnesota, October 2010

3.3 Federal and Tribal LandsConnect Minnesota has ound through experience that an examination o broadband and its in rastructure in astate is enhanced by including a comparison o ederal and tribal land in a state with broadband availability. Ac-cording to research conducted by the Minnesota House o Representatives:

“There are about 51.2 million acres o land and 2.6 million acres o water within Minnesota. About 25 percent othe land is owned by governmental units. The ederal government owns about 7 percent o the land area, or 3.4million acres, while the state government owns about 17 percent o the land area, or 8.4 million acres. Over 95percent o the state-owned land was given to the state by the ederal government.

Almost all ederal land in Minnesota is natural resource land, primarily orest acreage in Chippewa and Superior na-tional orests. Other ederal lands are mainly in national wildli e management areas, national parklands, and Indianreservation lands.” 43

3.3.1 Federal Land in MinnesotaFigure 12 indicates the ootprint o land in Minnesota controlled or owned by the ederal government with broad-band availability in the state.

43 http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/sssoland.htm#How%20much%20land




Figure 12

Broadband Availability in the State o MinnesotaComparison to Federal Lands



40

3.3.2 Tribal Land in MinnesotaIn acquiring both broadband availability and Community Anchor Institution data in Minnesota, Connect Minnesotamade special e ort to engage all ederal tribal entities within the state. According to the U.S. Department o theInterior Bureau o Indian A airs, the state o Minnesota has 11 Native-American lands:

1. Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) – Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

2. Fond du Lac Band – Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

3. Grant Portage Band – Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

4. Leech Lake Band – Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

5. Lower Sioux Indian Community in the State o Minnesota

6. Mille Lacs Band – Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

7. Prairie Island Indian Community in the State o Minnesota

8. Red Lake Band o Chippewa Indians

9. Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community o Minnesota

10. Upper Sioux Community

11. White Earth Band – Minnesota Chippewa Tribe

Connect Minnesota success ully contacted all o the 11 tribes as part o the SBDD program and is accounting orthe resulting data in its work.




Figure 13

Broadband Availability in the State o MinnesotaComparison to Indian Reservations



42

3.4 Universal Service Funding in MinnesotaThis section explains the current impact o the Universal Service Fund (USF), including the High Cost Program,across the state o Minnesota. One major policy recommendation included in the National Broadband Plan, as wellas the 2009 report o the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force, involves major revisions to the cur-rent program to allow it to directly und broadband in rastructure deployment.

The High Cost Program is designed to ensure that consumers in all regions o the nation have access to and payrates or telecommunications services that are reasonably comparable to those services provided and rates paid inurban areas, and is sub-divided into categories:

■ High Cost Loop support is available to rural price-cap and rate-o -return incumbent carriers and competi-tive carriers providing service in the areas o these rural companies, which must be designated as eligibletelecommunications carriers (ETCs) by their state commissions or the FCC. The HCL program providessupport or the “last mile” o connection or rural companies in service areas where the cost to provide thisservice exceeds 115% o the national average cost per line. 44

■ Interstate Common Line Support is available only to rate-o -return incumbent carriers (mostly rural andsome non-rural carriers) and competitive carriers providing service in the areas o these incumbent carri-

ers. These carriers must be designated as ETCs. Interstate Common Line Support helps to o set in-terstate access charges and is designed to permit each rate-o -return carrier to recover its common linerevenue requirement, while ensuring that its subscriber line charges (SLCs) remain a ordable to its cus-tomers. 45

■ Interstate Access Support is available only to price-cap incumbent carriers (mostly non-rural and somerural carriers) and competitive carriers operating in the service area(s) o a price cap carrier. These carriersmust be designated as ETCs. Interstate Access Support helps to o set interstate access charges or pricecap to companies, is targeted to the density zones that have the greatest need or it. 46

■ Local Switching Support is available to rural incumbent carriers serving 50,000 lines or ewer (mostlyrate-o -return and some price-cap carriers) and competitive carriers providing service in the areas o theserural incumbent carriers, who must be designated as ETCs. Local Switching Support is designed to helpcarriers recoup some o the high xed switching costs o providing service to ewer customers. LSS helpskeep customer rates comparable to more densely populated urban areas. 47

The High Cost Program is historically the largest component o the USF program. The FCC projects a total o$8.7 billion or the ederal Universal Service Fund in 2010. O this total, $4.6 billion are projected or the High CostProgram, currently providing unding to an estimated 1,800 eligible telecommunications carriers; $1.2 billion areprojected to subsidize low income households under the Li eline and Linkup programs; $2.7 billion are projected

or the school and libraries E-Rate program; and $214 million are projected or the Rural Health Care Program. 48

In 2009 the total USF program disbursement in the state o Minnesota amounted to $153.88 million, or a totaldisbursement in the state o $1.32 billion rom 1998 to 2009. High Cost Program disbursements or the state o

Minnesota in 2009 totaled $127 million, or a total o $1.047 billion between 1998 and 2009. O these, disburse-ments in Minnesota in 2009 amounted to $44.7 million or HCL, $60.9 million or ICLS, and $18.2 million or LSS. 49 Table 10 summarizes these data.

44 USAC.45 Ibid.46 Ibid.47 Ibid.48 NBP, p. 140 and Annual Report, 2010, Universal Service Administration Company. (“Annual Report 2009, USAC”). Available at: http://www.usac.

org/_res/documents/about/pdf/usac-annual-report-2009.pdf49 Annual Report, 2009, USAC, p. 39-48.




Table 10 – Universal Service Fund Disbursements in theState o Minnesota – 1998-2009 (millions)

2009 From 1998-2009

High Cost Loop $127

Interstate Common Line $60.9

Interstate Access Support $3.12

Local Switching $18.2

Total High Cost Component $127 $1047.5

Total USF Disbursement $153.88 $1327.7

Source: Annual Report, 2009. USAC

While these data provide an overview o the USF ederal program, it is important to note that the data providesonly a partial assessment o the overall USF program. Under current USF rules, small rate-o -return providers aremore likely to receive unding under this program. Illustrative o this act, consider that in Minnesota, where a

ber-to-the-home broadband connection is available to less than 4% o households, there is some degree o beravailable in over 50 o Minnesota’s 87 counties. This indicates that, as USF unding fows to small rate-o -returnproviders in Minnesota’s rural counties and those carriers build or improve their voice telephone networks with

ber, ber broadband also becomes available. According to the FCC, in 2009 nationally approximately $2 billion othe High Cost Program went to 814 rate-o -return carriers, $1 billion to 17 price-cap carriers and $1.3 billion to 212competitive eligible telecommunications carriers (CTECs). 50

Following NBP recommendations or re orm o the USF program, and the related Intercarrier Compensation rules,

the FCC has now reopened several dockets to evaluate and propose re orms to USF programs and rules. The FCCre orms underway are likely to have important policy implications across the state. Further examination o the im-pact o comprehensive USF disbursements across Minnesota communities is recommended in order to assess thehistorical and ongoing impact o this ederal program upon the broadband market in Minnesota and evaluate theimplications o proposed re orms.

Furthermore, as discussed in the ollowing section, disbursement o USF unds is one actor that partially explainsthe di erences between Connect Minnesota’s estimates o broadband availability and the FCC’s NBP simulationestimates (See Section 3.5 below). In order to obtain reliable broadband inventory estimates, it is recommendedthat the state o Minnesota continue gathering and validating data under the SBDD grant program that can beused to ascertain the true extent o unserved and underserved areas in the state.

50 NBP, p. 141.



44

3.5 Broadband Stimulus Investments in Minnesota throughthe American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

In addition to ederal unding or telecommunications that comes through the Universal Service Fund, a secondand signi cant source o support or broadband improvements in the state o Minnesota comes rom the AmericanRecovery and Reinvestment Act.

Funding provided through ve separate programs at the U.S. Department o Commerce or U.S. Department oAgriculture has been awarded to various grantees that exist in Minnesota.

The U.S. Department o Commerce’s National Telecommunications and In ormation Administration (NTIA) adminis-ters the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) within three program categories:

Comprehensive Community Infrastructure (CCI) -- Projects to deploy new or improved broadband Internetacilities (e.g., laying new ber-optic cables or upgrading wireless towers) and to connect “community anchor insti-

tutions” such as schools, libraries, hospitals, and public sa ety acilities. These networks help ensure sustainablecommunity growth and provide the oundation or enhanced household and business broadband Internet servic-es. 51

Public Computer Centers (PCC) -- Projects to establish new public computer acilities or upgrade existing onesthat provide broadband access to the general public or to speci c vulnerable populations, such as low-incomeindividuals, the unemployed, seniors, children, minorities, and people with disabilities. 52

Sustainable Broadband Adoption (SBA) -- Projects that ocus on increasing broadband Internet usage andadoption, including among vulnerable populations where broadband technology traditionally has been underuti-lized. Many projects include digital literacy training and outreach campaigns to increase the relevance o broad-band in people’s everyday lives. 53

BTOP CCI $36,200,630

BTOP PCC $6,586,461

RUS BIP $201,016,002

BTOP SBA $4,858,219

Figure 14

51 http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/about52 Ibid.53 Ibid.




NTIA also administers the State Broadband Data and Development Program , which is unding the Connect Min-nesota initiative, Minnesota’s broadband inventory map and planning activities. 54

The U.S. Department o Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) administers the Broadband Initiatives Program(BIP) . BIP urnishes loans, grants, and loan/grant combinations to assist with addressing the challenge o rapidlyexpanding the access and quality o broadband services across rural America. 55

Below is a list o grants announced or the state o Minnesota under the programs listed above, totaling$248,661,312. 56 Although it is too early to report on the impact these projects have had in Minnesota, ConnectMinnesota will work to track these projects and their results and provide updates on them in uture reports.

BTOP CCI (Total Awarded = $36,200,630):57 ■ Enventis Telecom, Inc. – this $16.8 million project seeks to construct a brand new 428-mile ber network

that would provide middle-mile service at speeds o up to 10 Gbps and enable connections to anchorinstitutions and businesses across a 23-county area o the state. The project intends to expand distancelearning and training opportunities throughout the state, while o ering high-capacity services to commu-nity organizations in the area. Among the anchor institutions already committed to working directly with

the grantee and its partner the State o Minnesota’s O ce o Enterprise Technology are the University oMinnesota at Duluth, Little Falls Police Department, and St. Gabriel’s Hospital.

■ Zayo Bandwidth, LLC – this $13.3 million projects seeks to create the Connect Anoka County CommunityBroadband Network, a partnership between Zayo Bandwidth and Anoka County, Minnesota, to make high-speed broadband services available to governments, businesses, community anchor institutions, and localInternet service providers in Anoka County and parts o nearby Isanti and Ramsey counties. The projectplans to build a new 286-mile ber network that will provide speeds between 100 Mbps and 10 Gbps.

■ Carver County, MN – this $6 million project (the Carver County Open Fiber Initiative, a partnership betweenthe county, a liated city governments, and Jaguar Communications, a or-pro t small business) proposesto build a high-speed ber optic network across Carver County in south-central Minnesota, bringing ad-

vanced services to its key community organizations. The project also proposes to construct 121 miles onew ber that will be open to as many as nine last-mile providers in the region in order to improve com-mercial broadband availability and adoption.

BTOP CCI Multi-state (Total Awarded = $132,179,453):58 ■ University Corporation or Advanced Internet Development – this $62 million project seeks to interconnect

more than 30 existing research and education networks across all 50 U.S. states that will bene t approxi-mately 121,000 community anchor institutions.

■ Merit Network, Inc. – this $69.6 million project seeks to construct a 1,210-mile ber network o eringspeeds between 100 Mbps and 10 Gbps in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and Lower Northern Peninsula,with additional connections to research and educational networks in Green Bay, Wisconsin and Duluth,Minnesota.

54 http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/about55 http://www.broadbandusa.gov/BIPportal/index.htm56 Other projects that are intended to service multiple states are not listed in the graph above. They are listed below in separate categories and

total $179,005,623.57 http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/Minnesota58 http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/Minnesota



46

BTOP PCC (Total Awarded = $6,586,461):59 ■ Mission Economic Development Agency – this multi-state, $3.7 million project seeks, in collaboration with

the National Association or Latino Community Asset Builders and a national network o Latino-servingeconomic development organizations, to create 12 new public computer centers and expand ve existingones in 13 communities throughout the United States, including Minneapolis, MN.

■ Regents o the University o Minnesota – this $2.86 million project plans to establish one new public

computer center and improve 10 existing computer centers, adding 93 new workstations and replacing 49existing workstations. The project intends to provide broadband speeds o at least 16 Mbps to these loca-tions. The Broadband Access Project expects to provide broadband training to vulnerable, low-income,minority, and immigrant populations to promote education, healthcare, work orce preparation, and com-munity revitalization. The project expects to train 17,000 people over the li e o the grant. In addition, theMinnesota Multicultural Media Consortium plans to conduct culturally-speci c outreach and translateproject materials into languages spoken locally.

BTOP SBA (Total Awarded = $4,858,219):60

■ C.K. Blandin Foundation – this $4.85 million project expects to reach each o Minnesota’s 80 rural coun-ties through education, training, technical assistance, and by removing barriers to broadband adoption.

The project anticipates training as many as 2,500 individuals in computer literacy, online education, andwork orce development, and plans to distribute 1,000 a ordable re urbished computers to low-income,rural Minnesota residents. Funding will support the development o institutional broadband applications orschools and healthcare acilities to help increase broadband adoption.

BTOP SBA Multi-state (Total Awarded = $46,826,170 across project areas of 32 states and 56 states/territories, respectively):61

■ Portland State University – this $3.31 million project proposes to lead the Learner Web Partnership projectto increase broadband use among low-income, minorities, and other vulnerable populations by teach-ing digital literacy along with English literacy, educating participants to become in ormed consumers, andproviding access to career paths in the digital economy.

■ One Economy Corporation – the One Economy Corporation was awarded $28.5 million to create a pro-gram in 31 states including Minnesota. The 21st Century In ormation and Support Ecosystem program ocomputer training, wireless Internet access, broadband awareness marketing, and online content and ap-plications will serve 159 a ordable and public housing developments and low-income communities in 50cities and towns across 31 states and the District o Columbia.

■ Communication Service or the Dea , Inc. – this $14.9 million project will provide services in all 56 U.S.states and territories including Minnesota. The grantee intends to employ a combination o discountedbroadband service and specialized computers, technology training rom an online state-o -the art supportcenter customized to the community’s needs, public access to videophones at anchor institutions romcoast to coast, and a nationwide outreach initiative.

RUS BIP (Total Awarded = $201,016,002 – all awards are grant/loan combinations, unless otherwise noted):62

■ Minnesota Valley Television Improvement Corporation – this $1.12 million project proposes to continuebuilding out its two-way broadband Internet network to unserved and underserved areas o west central

59 http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/Minnesota60 Ibid.61 Ibid.62 RUS BIP project summaries adapted from grant announcement notifications issued by U.S. Department of Agriculture.




and south central Minnesota. The proposed project will add 34 additional WIMAX Access Points in 34unserved and underserved communities adjacent and contiguous to its current service area.

■ Arvig Telephone Company – this $5 million project proposes to provide last-mile service to unserved ruralhouseholds in Minnesota.

■ Farmers Mutual Telephone Company – this $9.65 million project proposes to provide last-mile Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) in Lac qui Parle County.

■ Halstad Telephone Company – this $6.55 million project proposes last-mile FTTP service within HalstadTelephone Company’s exchange.

■ Northeast Service Cooperative – this $43.5 million project plans to provide middle-mile service in North-east Minnesota.

■ Sjoberg’s, Inc. – this $866,060 project seeks to provide FTTP last-mile service in Northwest Minnesota.

■ Federated Telephone Cooperative – this $1.26 million project will provide expanded last-mile service inrural Appleton, MN.

■ Federated Telephone Cooperative – this $2.98 million project will provide expanded last-mile service inrural Morris, MN.

■ City o Windom, MN – this $12.7 million project will provide expanded last-mile service as part o theSouthwest Minnesota Broadband Group.

■ Winnebago Cooperative Telecom Association – this $3.14 million project proposes last-mile coverage aspart o the WCTA 2010 Broadband Initiative.

■ Wikstrom Telephone Company, Inc. – this $7.39 million project will provide expanded last-mile coverage inNorthwest Minnesota.

■ Woodstock Telephone Co., Inc. - $15.18 million project will provide expanded last-mile service as part othe WCTA 2010 Broadband Initiative.

■ Lake County, MN – this $66.37 million project will provide last-mile FTTP coverage in Lake County, MN.

■ Red River Rural Telephone Assn, Inc. – this $9 million project will upgrade the last-mile service o RedRiver Rural Telephone Association in rural Minnesota, North Dakota, and South Dakota to FTTP.

■ Arrowhead Electric Cooperative, Inc – this $16.1 million project will provide FTTP last-mile service withinthe Arrowhead Electric Cooperative’s ootprint.

3.6 FCC and Connect Minnesota Availability Estimates – A Comparative AnalysisAs part o the National Broadband Plan, the FCC published in April 2010 a study titled “The Broadband AvailabilityGap,” which includes research assessing the level o unding necessary to provide broadband to all those U.S.households that don’t currently have service available. 63 This estimate is constructed to ensure universal broad-band service across the nation o at least 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds, the National Broadband

Availability Target.64

The study includes a simulation o the current state o broadband availability that estimates123 million households, or 95% o the U.S. population, have “or will have in the near-term without governmentsupport” service supported at these speeds; while 7 million households, or 5% o the nation, do not. 65 It urtherestimates that the cost to serve these households at the National Broadband Availability Target capacity is $23.5billion.66 This FCC simulation constitutes the only nationwide estimate o broadband inventory and sets the stage

63 FCC Availability Gap.64 Ibid, at footnote 3, 4.65 Ibid, 17.66 Ibid, 1.



48

or the national debate over re orm o the Universal Service Fund program. As such, it is an important benchmarkin the public policy debate.

The FCC Availability Gap study includes simulated estimates o broadband inventory or each county across thenation. For the state o Minnesota, these estimates are the result o a simulation based on commercially availabledata and data rom other states, including earlier data collected or the state o Minnesota by Connect Minnesota.This section presents a comparative analysis between Connect Minnesota’s measured broadband inventory andthe FCC simulation o broadband availability or the state o Minnesota.

Connect Minnesota has collected broadband inventory data by speed tiers as required by NTIA’s SBDD NOFA. 67 This comparative analysis contrasts broadband inventory across Minnesota o at least 3 Mbps download speeds(the closest NTIA de ned speed tier to the FCC’s National Broadband Availability Target) with the FCC simulationestimates o at least 4 Mbps download speeds.

The FCC’s Availability Gap study estimates that 95% o U.S. households are currently served by broadband oat least 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload speeds. 68 Connect Minnesota estimates that in the all o 2010,93.76% o Minnesota households are served by broadband o at least 3 Mbps download speeds. 69 It urther es-timates that 90.79% o Minnesota households have broadband available at speeds o 6 Mbps or greater. Hence,the statewide Minnesota estimates or broadband availability are less than FCC estimate o 95% o householdsserved by broadband o at least 4 Mbps. When evaluating county level estimates or broadband availability, thereappear to be some signi cant di erences across the two studies. The FCC anticipated outcomes such as this anddescribes just this situation in its FCC Availability Gap study, stating, “We rely on these results to represent an ag-gregate, nationwide gure. We are more cautious with results in speci c geographies because the estimates o theavailability o broadband capable networks are in part based on a statistical model (see Chapter 2 or more detail).When examined at a very granular level, the availability model will sometimes overestimate and sometime under-estimate service levels, but should tend to balance out when aggregated to larger geographic areas. …Furtheranalysis and improved source data would be required to re ne estimates or particular geographies.” 70

Table 11 reports FCC and Connect Minnesota estimates o broadband availability by county. 71 The data is sortedaccording to density o population and showcases that the FCC and Connect Minnesota estimates are relativelysimilar in counties with high household density. 72 By contrast, results rom the two studies di er across rural coun-ties, and in some cases the estimates are signi cantly di erent. For example, in Lincoln County the two estimatesdi er by as much as +42.68 percentage points, where Connect Minnesota measured capacity is signi cantlybelow the FCC simulation. In Clearwater County the di erence between the two study estimates is 63.34 percent-age points; Connect Minnesota estimates availability o 99.34% compared to the FCC simulation o only 36% ohouseholds served.

67 SBDD NOFA, Technical Appendix.68 Ibid, 17.69 See Table 1.70 FCC Availability Gap, p. 5.71 FCC county availability gap simulation estimates are available at http://www.broadband.gov/maps/availability.htm72 With the exclusion of Storey County.




Table 11 – Broadband Estimated Availability In the State O Minnesota By County:FCC and Connect Minnesota Estimates

Percent Households Served

County Household DensityFCC Gap Simulation

(≥ 4 Mbps)

Connect MinnesotaEstimates

(≥ 3 Mbps)

Di erence(= FCC-CMN% Estimate)

Aitkin 3.65 33.00% 42.30% -9.30%

Anoka 251.24 100% 99.28% 0.72%

Becker 9.04 75.00% 89.98% -14.98%

Beltrami 5.72 76.00% 98.09% -22.09%

Benton 32.00 94.00% 96.32% -2.32%

Big Stone 4.78 88.00% 75.97% 12.03%

Blue Earth 27.99 92.00% 93.35% -1.35%

Brown 17.35 87.00% 85.36% 1.64%

Carlton 14.02 88.00% 72.93% 15.07%

Carver 68.22 99.00% 99.64% -0.64%

Cass 5.40 84.00% 84.42% -0.42%

Chippewa 9.20 92.00% 84.31% 7.69%

Chisago 34.61 100% 90.44% 9.56%

Clay 17.86 82.00% 93.97% -11.97%

Clearwater 3.35 36.00% 99.34% -63.34%

Cook 1.62 41.00% 47.62% -6.62%

Cottonwood 7.68 72.00% 82.62% -10.62%

Crow Wing 22.33 85.00% 92.68% -7.68%

Dakota 230.26 100% 99.54% 0.46%

Dodge 14.61 89.00% 88.18% 0.82%

Douglas 20.93 97.00% 97.41% -0.41%

Faribault 9.32 77.00% 93.60% -16.60%

Fillmore 9.55 85.00% 74.16% 10.84%

Freeborn 18.87 79.00% 82.63% -3.63%



50


(≥ 4 Mbps)


(≥ 3 Mbps)


Goodhue 22.40 97.00% 89.45% 7.55%

Grant 4.64 58.00% 97.84% -39.84%

Hennepin 819.46 100% 99.82% 0.18%

Houston 13.67 95.00% 94.93% 0.07%

Hubbard 8.06 72.00% 73.16% -1.16%

Isanti 25.59 89.00% 83.71% 5.29%

Itasca 6.67 64.00% 79.50% -15.50%

Jackson 6.49 62.00% 71.21% -9.21%

Kanabec 10.97 66.00% 60.43% 5.57%

Kandiyohi 20.02 92.00% 88.36% 3.64%

Kittson 1.98 54.00% 97.12% -43.12%

Koochiching 1.95 72.00% 82.29% -10.29%

Lac qui Parle 4.34 82.00% 80.28% 1.72%

Lake 2.21 89.00% 75.66% 13.34%

Lake of the Woods 1.47 32.00% 87.61% -55.61%

Le Sueur 21.47 89.00% 86.77% 2.23%

Lincoln 4.94 91.00% 48.32% 42.68%

Lyon 13.60 96.00% 79.41% 16.59%

McLeod 27.34 99.00% 99.99% -0.99%

Mahnomen 3.54 38.00% 59.14% -21.14%

Marshall 2.31 69.00% 88.81% -19.81%

Martin 12.78 81.00% 99.64% -18.64%

Meeker 14.12 86.00% 92.49% -6.49%

Mille Lacs 15.04 96.00% 84.65% 11.35%

Morrison 10.51 73.00% 82.94% -9.94%

Mower 21.90 93.00% 82.47% 10.53%

Murray 5.28 88.00% 69.45% 18.55%

Nicollet 23.53 95.00% 83.14% 11.86%





(≥ 4 Mbps)


(≥ 3 Mbps)


Nobles 11.10 83.00% 79.02% 3.98%

Norman 3.44 57.00% 70.26% -13.26%

Olmsted 73.21 99.00% 96.18% 2.82%

Otter Tail 11.45 84.00% 84.21% -0.21%

Pennington 8.96 83.00% 86.81% -3.81%

Pine 7.04 76.00% 64.22% 11.78%

Pipestone 8.73 85.00% 47.74% 37.26%

Polk 6.13 72.00% 89.83% -17.83%

Pope 6.73 78.00% 92.14% -14.14%

Ramsey 1,291.80 100% 99.98% 0.02%

Red Lake 3.99 55.00% 99.97% -44.97%

Redwood 7.59 70.00% 42.69% 27.31%

Renville 6.90 75.00% 78.20% -3.20%

Rice 37.96 98.00% 90.33% 7.67%

Rock 7.96 90.00% 54.23% 35.77%

Roseau 3.72 71.00% 81.31% -10.31%

St. Louis 13.27 87.00% 85.63% 1.37%

Scott 86.05 100% 99.09% 0.91%

Sherburne 49.46 99.00% 99.36% -0.36%

Sibley 9.81 86.00% 83.39% 2.61%

Stearns 35.41 96.00% 95.87% 0.13%

Steele 29.91 94.00% 88.04% 5.96%

Stevens 6.67 91.00% 95.36% -4.36%

Swift 5.85 77.00% 80.91% -3.91%

Todd 9.92 63.00% 84.81% -21.81%

Traverse 2.99 73.00% 72.24% 0.76%

Wabasha 15.77 79.00% 78.86% 0.14%

Wadena 10.14 83.00% 89.27% -6.27%



52


(≥ 4 Mbps)


(≥ 3 Mbps)


Waseca 16.68 86.00% 83.95% 2.05%

Washington 182.44 100% 99.41% 0.59%

Watonwan 10.65 84.00% 92.17% -8.17%

Wilkin 3.66 64.00% 78.72% -14.72%

Winona 29.93 97.00% 88.03% 8.97%

Wright 47.62 97.00% 97.75% -0.75%

Yellow Medicine 5.86 74.00% 69.35% 4.65%

State Total 23.81 93.76%

Source: Household Numbers and Density: Census Bureau, 2000. FCC Availability Gap.

Broadband Availability Estimates: Connect Minnesota, October 2010.

What appears to be driving these differences?The FCC Availability Gap study is based on limited data available rom commercial sources and a hand ul ostates, including older data collected by Connect Minnesota. This limited data is used to simulate broadband in-ventory across other states. Furthermore, the FCC Availability Gap simulation is based on a series o assumptionso national broadband market trends that are not necessarily applicable to the broadband market in the state oMinnesota. These discrepancies likely explain the measured di erences between the FCC and Connect Minnesotaestimates across rural areas in the state.

The FCC Availability Gap simulation estimates national cable availability based on cable availability data rom com-

mercially available data and publicly available data rom the commonwealth o Massachusetts. 73 Wireless net-work coverage is estimated using a commercial dataset rom American Roamer. However, due to lack o reliablesources or Wireless ISP (WISP) provider data, this type o plat orm is not included in the FCC analysis. 74 Nationalestimates o DSL (or telco) availability are based on data rom the states o Cali ornia, Minnesota, Pennsylvania,Alabama, and Wyoming. 75 For all other states, the FCC Availability Gap analysis estimated broadband availabilityusing statistical simulation modeling.

According to the FCC Availability Gap analysis, “the main risk in this approach is the possibility o systematicdi erences between the states or which we have data and the states or which we do not. Since the statisticalregression relies on a small number o states, to the extent that the tie between demographics and network avail-ability in the rest o the country is not the same as these states, the regression will not be accurate. The states we

used in our analysis have a wide variety o rural and urban areas and have varied geographic challenges which areadvantageous, but there is no way to veri y our outputs without additional data.” 76

Minnesota’s broadband inventory alls slightly lower than FCC estimates at a statewide, or aggregated, level. Atmore granular levels (as predicted by the FCC), these structural di erences are likely driving any discrepancies

73 FCC Broadband Availability Gap, p. 21.74 Ibid, p. 25.75 Ibid, p. 23.76 Ibid, p. 24.




between the Connect Minnesota broadband inventory and the FCC Availability Gap simulation or the state o Min-nesota. It is important to continue gathering and validating broadband inventory and adoption data in the state oMinnesota – particularly in rural areas – in order to accurately measure the broadband gaps and demand acrossthe state and in orm the ongoing Universal Service Fund re orm debate currently underway at the FCC.

3.7 Connectivity across Community Anchor Institutions in the State of MinnesotaConnect Minnesota has identi ed the names and addresses o 7,329 Community Anchor Institutions (CAIs) acrossthe state o Minnesota, including 1,773 libraries, 3,636 K-12 schools, 140 institutions o higher education, 1,541public sa ety acilities (including re departments, state and local police, and sheri ’s o ces), 157 healthcare insti-tutions (hospitals and medical clinics), and 82 other state, local, and ederal government acilities. From this exten-sive list, 7,323 have been geocoded to determine their latitude and longitude or inclusion on the Connect Minne-sota interactive broadband map, BroadbandStat. Connect Minnesota is currently engaged in gathering broadbandconnectivity data (broadband plat orm, download speed, and upload speed) rom these identi ed institutions. Itis important to continue the SBDD data collection e ort to build a more complete dataset because o the policyimplications o these connectivity data.

A CAI layer has been introduced on BroadbandStat, Connect Minnesota’s interactive map, and is available orviewing at the ollowing link in the advanced tab:

http://www.connectmn.org/mapping/_interactive_map_inter ace/?q=map

This layer clearly demonstrates the current data that has been gathered or the 7 di erent categories o CAIs by aunique identi er and displays their location, technology category, and speed (i available). This layer will be up-dated in the uture to provide a clear visual representation o current broadband capacity at CAIs and provide anoverview o what services are available to these institutions in each community throughout the state.

The BroadbandStat CAI layer will be used as a communications tool throughout the coming months to engage

with CAIs throughout the state. An overview o this new technology and a link to the site will be provided to all CAIcontacts that have been engaged through past outreach and will also serve as an introduction to new contacts asthey are identi ed.

Connect Minnesota and the Minnesota Department o Commerce have worked closely together to conductresearch as part o an ongoing process to identi y existing, centralized sources or CAI connectivity data. Thisresearch has resulted in the identi cation o databases within the state containing CAI connectivity data includ-ing the Minnesota O ce o Enterprise Technology (OET). OET has provided Connect Minnesota with access toits statewide network which includes data or approximately a thousand CAI within the state that purchase thisservice or their institutions. Connect Minnesota sta are in the process o augmenting this data and convertingit into a ormat that will be eventually uploaded to the BroadbandStat mapping application. Additionally, Connect

Minnesota will be reporting this data to NTIA in the upcoming spring 2011 submission.

Connect Minnesota has an ongoing mission to educate CAI throughout the state on the importance o reportingtheir connectivity in ormation or inclusion on the map and to be analyzed as a part o this report. Participation bythese institutions will raise awareness about the importance o broadband connectivity and the impact that CAIscan have with access to a high-speed broadband connection.



54

4 The National Broadband Plan and the Minnesota UltraHigh-Speed Broadband Report: Policy Recommendationsto Combat Broadband Availability and Adoption Gaps

Utilizing Connect Minnesota’s extensive broadband inventory data (analyzed in detail in Section 3), and surveyresearch data (summarized in Section 2 and described in detail in Appendix A), this section summarizes a series opolicy recommendations inspired by the principles and vision o the FCC’s NBP as they apply to the state o Min-nesota, and also examines goals and recommendations produced by the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed BroadbandTask Force.

The overview and recommendations o this section are based on data and policy recommendations rom three keysources:

■ The National Broadband Plan: The NBP presents a series o studies analyzing the state o broadbandacross the USA. These data are used as a benchmark against which we compare data collected in thestate o Minnesota. Furthermore, the NBP provides a series o goals and recommendations that are evalu-ated in this section in light o the state o broadband in the state o Minnesota. This section outlines policyrecommendations that are particularly relevant to the state o Minnesota, given the current state o broad-band inventory and usage among consumers, businesses, and various key sectors.

■ The Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report: The Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband TaskForce was created in April 2008 to outline a path to ultra broadband access or all residents o Minne-sota by 2015. This task orce held meetings, brie ngs, public hearings and ultimately set several goals orbroadband deployment and adoption.

■ The Connect Minnesota broadband inventory and survey research unded under the SBDD mapping grant.

The National Broadband Plan is more than 350 pages long and o ers a broad set o recommendations directed atmore than 20 ederal agencies as well as state and local government. In order to synthesize the key elements othese recommendations that are most relevant to the state o Minnesota, this section ocuses on two key “gap”areas: the broadband availability gap and the broadband adoption and digital skills gap.

4.1 Strategies to Close the Availability Gap• Universal Service Fund & Intercarrier Compensation Rules Re orm

The NBP calls or a Universal Service Fund (USF) and Intercarrier Compensation (ICC) re orm. 77 The NBP and theFCC’s Notice o Inquiry (NOI) regarding the re orm o the USF High Cost programs correctly asserts that the cur-rent ederal High Cost USF program, projected to amount to $4.6 billion in 2010, is established to und traditionalPOTS (Plain Old Telephone Services) and not broadband services and states that “[w]hile the High-Cost programhas made a material di erence in enabling households in many high cost areas o America to have access to a -

ordable voice service, it will not do the same or broadband without re orm o the current system.” 78 FCC pro-cedures to address these proposed re orms are underway in the orm o various NOIs and Notices o ProposedRulemaking (NPRM) to urther understand the complexity o the re orm and propose rulemakings. 79 In light o this,Connect Minnesota puts orth the ollowing considerations that it believes should be taken into account as Minne-sota policymakers contemplate strategies to expand broadband:

77 NBP, p.10.78 NBP, p. 140-142 and Federal Communications Commission, Notice of Inquiry, High-Cost Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 05-337,

April 21, 2010, (“USF NOI”).79 USF NOI.




4.1.i Further exploring the impact o current USF program across di erent communities o Minnesota– both capital investment and operational subsidies. Section 3 above examines data available regarding USF

unding to the state o Minnesota. As noted in this report, this data is revealing, yet insu cient to ully assessthe impact upon Minnesotans o the current USF program. It does not, or example, include data regard-ing the levels o historical unding accruing to various regions and communities or High Cost Loop support;support under other components o the High Cost program; low-income support programs-related subsidies;or disbursements under the E-Rate and Rural Health Care Program support. Furthermore, the data do notdemonstrate the impact o ICC access rates upon rural broadband investments in Minnesota. Because allo these programs are interrelated, it is imperative to urther understand how they a ect communities acrossMinnesota in order to evaluate the impact o proposed re orms to the USF currently underway. Hence, collec-tion and analysis o urther data regarding USF disbursements and in rastructure enabled by these interlockingprograms is recommended.

4.1.ii Engaging in the FCC discussion over USF and ICC re orm to understand, and where possiblemeasure, the impact upon Minnesota communities. Understanding that there may be signi cant di erenceso opinion between Minnesota’s various broadband stakeholders regarding the proper course o action over re-

orm o the Universal Service Fund and Intercarrier Compensation, consideration should be given to establish-ing a dialogue with the FCC to explore the particularities o the Minnesota market and contrast them to FCCnational assessment o the Availability Gap, which serves as a key benchmark or the USF re orm debate. TheFCC’s Availability Gap study includes a simulation o the broadband in rastructure inventory across the USA.Section 3 o this report compares and contrasts results o this study with the Connect Minnesota measuredbroadband inventory and concludes that the FCC Availability Gap analysis is an insu cient predictor o thestate o broadband inventory across Minnesota’s rural regions. This report addresses some o the key struc-tural actors o the Minnesota broadband market that may explain the discrepancy across these two estimates.It is recommended to continue gathering and validating broadband inventory data across Minnesota, under thecurrent SBDD program in order to in orm the ongoing Universal Service Fund re orm debate currently under-way at the FCC and assess how it a ects the state o Minnesota.

•

Encourage coordination at the state and local level aimed to achieve economies o scale and encouragee fciency o public investmentsAccording to the NBP, deployment costs or broadband service to unserved areas could drop dramatically throughcoordination and planning with other in rastructure projects. 80 The NBP recommends a series o measures andpolicies aimed at encouraging this coordination among projects receiving ederal unding. 81 Connect Minnesotabelieves that many o these measures are applicable to state and local government, including:

4.1.iii Plan or broadband in in rastructure projects; or example, consider “dig once” measures and leg-islation that would apply to all uture state unded or enabled projects. (This recommendation is very similar torecommendations made by the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force in its 2009 report.) 82

4.1.iv Encourage joint deployment o broadband conduit alongside state nanced or enabled in rastruc-ture projects such as highway, road, and bridge projects. (This recommendation is very similar to recommen-dations made by the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force in its 2009 report.) 83

4.1.v Develop policies aimed to encourage local and state government policies that will deploy broad-

80 According to the NBP, placement costs associated with burying fiber or cable on the ground can account for ¾ of the total costs of deployment,which would be partially saved if conducted at the time of road, bridge or development construction. NBP, p. 114.

81 NPB, Chapter 6, p. 109.82 http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/Custom/UHS%20Broadband%20Report_Full.pdf - page 60.83 Ibid. Page 60.



56

band conduit to new neighborhoods and developments. (This recommendation is very similar to recommenda-tions made by the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force in its 2009 report.) 84

4.1.vi Establish “Gigabit Communities” or “Broadband Corridors” in regions within the state by workingtogether with state, local, and private stakeholders.

4.1.vii Evaluate local and state rules and regulations that currently a ect the cost and speed o towers

supporting mobile networks and assess how such measure can be streamlined to encourage aster deploy-ment o 3G networks across the state, and attract aster investment rom mobile providers or the rollout o4G mobile networks. (This recommendation is very similar to recommendations made by the Minnesota UltraHigh-Speed Broadband Task Force in its 2009 report.)

4.1.viii Explore the possibility o developing a set o state master contracts to expedite the placement owireless towers on state government property and buildings. (This recommendation complements recommen-dations made by the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force in its 2009 report.) 85

• Encourage development o statewide “smart grids”The NBP emphasizes the opportunity to signi cantly improve national electricity distribution e ciency by develop-ing “smart grids” that leverage our national broadband in rastructure. 86 E orts are underway at the ederal level toassess the challenges acing the expansion o “smart grids” across the nation. Minnesota, like all other states, hasmuch to gain rom these “smart grids” that will maximize bene ts to Minnesotans o the broadband in rastructureand result in more energy e cient communities. “Smart grids” will improve Minnesotans’ livelihood, bene t theenvironment, and make Minnesota more competitive both nationally and internationally.

4.1.ix In order to make Minnesota a leader in “smart grid” development, a comprehensive review o thechallenges o developing these plat orms is recommended. Such review would aim to understand Minneso-ta-speci c assets and challenges o the electricity distribution market, develop pragmatic policies that willencourage private sector investment in these networks, assess what role the state should have in coordinatingand encouraging cooperation across the broadband and energy sectors in the state, and leverage the pro-grams and opportunities to expand “smart grids” developed at the ederal level. Connect Minnesota believesthat this goal o the NBP is complementary to the spirit o recommendations contained in the Ultra High-SpeedBroadband Task Force’s 2009 report.

• Lower costs o access to key network inputs such as utility-owned poles, ducts, conduits, and rights-o -According to the NBP, the cost o deploying a broadband network depends signi cantly on the costs that serviceproviders incur to access conduits, ducts, poles, and rights-o -way (ROW) on public and private lands. The NBPestimates that up to 20% o a rural subscriber’s broadband bill is due to pole rental costs. 87 Further, rearrangingexisting pole attachments or installing new poles, and “make ready” charges can constitute upwards o 10% o thecost o deployment in rural areas. The market or pole rental presents multiple sets o inconsistent rules, policies,

and prices across both public and private lands. O ten pole rental pricing and rules present di erent rates or poleattachments based on the category o service that would be supported by the pole network, not on the cost o theinputs. Such a pricing scheme may result in price disincentives or decisions to expand service or invest in capac-ity upgrades (such as 4G networks).

84 Ibid. Page 64, 68.85 http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/Custom/UHS%20Broadband%20Report_Full.pdf. Page 68.86 NBP, p. 249.87 NBP, p. 109.




According to the NBP, the cost o deployment o and time to market new technologies can be reduced by a serieso measures aimed at cutting rental ees and expediting processes and decreasing the risks and complexities thatcompanies ace as they deploy broadband network in rastructure. 88 With this goal in mind, Connect Minnesotarecommends to the state o Minnesota the ollowing measures recommended by the FCC in the National Broad-band Plan:

4.1.x Create a Task Force (or subgroup) o ederal, state, local, and tribal ROW experts to catalog ROW

policies, identi y ROW policies that are consistent and inconsistent with broadband deployment, and recom-mend guidelines and cost-lowering processes.

4.1.xi Conduct research to better understand current state and local pole rental and ROW rules and poli-cies and de ne strategies to encourage e ciencies in essential input or broadband deployment.

4.1.xii Review and re orm Rights o Way and Pole Rental Rules over state public lands and assess meansto incentivize more e cient local government rules and regulations that may inadvertently encourage exces-sive ROW and pole rental prices or delays in deployment plans.

4.1.xiv Explore and establish state policies aimed to lower the cost o entry in the provision o broadband

service.

4.1.xv Explore the possibility o developing a state master contract to expedite placement o wirelesstowers on state government property and buildings.

4.1.xvi Collaborate with the FCC and other Federal agencies in the implementation o similar ederal poli-cies where they apply to Minnesota.

The Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Task Force also makes recommendations in its 2009 report to Rights-o -Way issues which are similar to the recommendations o the National Broadband Plan. 89 Minnesota’s continuedexploration o this issue in the spirit o both the NBP and the Ultra High-Speed Broadband report is recommended.

• Promote public-private partnerships to address existing gaps in the network at the local levelOnce the gaps in the broadband network are identi ed at the local level, pragmatic solutions to ll these gaps needto be developed. Statewide stakeholders should work to implement strategies to acilitate pragmatic solutions orbroadband build-out to unserved areas.

4.1.xvii Strategies that have a proven record o success include local-level public-private partnerships tobuild new and expanded broadband capacity across unserved areas. Statewide resources should promoteand encourage such strategies and ensure that state and ederal resources (both nancial and technical) are

ully leveraged to achieve these goals. The extended ederal SBDD grant program will provide resourcesacross Minnesota to develop best practice resources, and technical engineering capacity to encourage and

acilitate this kind o local public-private partnerships.

• Continue e orts to measure and map broadband inventory dataThe October 2010 Connect Minnesota estimates o broadband inventory and mapping enable a clearer picture othe challenges and opportunities or broadband expansion in Minnesota. This updated estimate reveals that thestate o Minnesota is roughly on par with national benchmarks o broadband inventory and speeds. It also reveals

88 NBP, p. 110.89 http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/Custom/UHS%20Broadband%20Report_Full.pdf. Page 67.



58

that, like elsewhere in the country, there is an availability gap that needs to be addressed by sound policy. Fur-ther, the data reveals that broadband inventory across the state is not homogenous. Factors including density opopulation and geography have an impact on where broadband is available and is not. Other more idiosyncratic

actors likely also a ect the current state o broadband deployment. It is not enough to evaluate statewide trendsand broadband inventory. Granular data at the county level and beyond is necessary to accurately measure thechallenges on the ground and develop sound, pragmatic policy to help address them.

4.1.xviii Continued e orts to collect, validate, and benchmark broadband inventory data across the stateunder the SBDD program is recommended. The extended ederal SBDD grant program will provide nancialsupport or three additional years – beyond the initial two-year Mapping grant program underway – o collec-tion, integration, and veri cation o broadband inventory data and mapping.

4.2 Strategies to Close the Adoption GapResearch suggests that broadband adoption and usage trends among Minnesotans generally ollow the nationaltrends. The adoption gap in Minnesota is estimated to be similar to the national estimate and non-adoptersoverwhelmingly include the vulnerable demographics: the elderly, people with disabilities, low-income residents,

minorities, and those in rural areas.

Data also suggests that the reasons why Minnesotans are not choosing or able to embrace twenty- rst centurytechnologies are similar to national trends: relevance, technology inventory, a ordability, availability, and digitalliteracy being among the top barriers to adoption o broadband and related technologies.

Finally, Minnesotans are increasingly using broadband technologies to improve their lives and endeavors. Broad-band technology is helping citizens better connect with riends and amily; ederal, state, and local government;health-related resources; and educational and pro essional opportunities. Yet, there is urther room or growth inapplication and usage o broadband that can and should be promoted by sound state and local policy.

Having measured similar adoption trends at the national level, the NBP recommends a series o strategies toensure that broadband is more a ordable and accessible to all Americans. The NBP recommends a holistic ap-proach to address the adoption gap among vulnerable populations and tackle key barriers to adoption includingrelevance, a ordability, and digital literacy. The holistic approach includes programs aimed to encourage adoptionin the home, as well as the strengthening o public computing and Internet access capacity at community anchorinstitutions.

This holistic approach is consistent with the programs that Congress unanimously mandated in the BDIA. TheNBP and BDIA call or a series o principles and programs to be implemented at the ederal, state, and local levelsaimed to implement pragmatic solutions to the broadband adoption gap. Connect Minnesota believes that keyamong these are the ollowing programs particularly relevant to state and local stakeholders:

4.2.i Promote public-private partnerships at the state and local levels to build awareness campaignsabout the bene ts o broadband technology among at-risk populations. Awareness campaigns should targetat-risk populations and address the concrete and pragmatic bene ts that broadband technology can a ordevery community, neighborhood, school, library, community center, and household. Leverage the potentialopportunity under the extended SBDD grant program to conduct statewide broadband awareness campaignsand local, grassroots broadband adoption stimulation strategies. This recommendation is present in the Min-nesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report’s sections on broadband adoption.

4.2.ii Promote and acilitate local community engagement aimed to address local barriers to adoption




and develop pragmatic solutions tailored to each community. Statewide resources, rom the private sectorand rom the public sector i such resources can be identi ed, should be ully leveraged to ensure the successo these grassroots strategies.

4.2.iii Expand, improve, or create pragmatic digital literacy programs at the state and local level andleverage digital literacy resources available via the NBP proposed National Digital Literacy Program.

4.2.iv Encourage public-private collaboration to educate consumers and amilies about the reality oonline risks and promote online sa ety practices among children and citizens. Work with not- or-pro ts pro-moting online sa ety practices and encourage online sa ety practices and principles across various statedepartments and among educators in the state o Minnesota. 90 Leverage the extended SBDD grant program’sstatewide broadband awareness campaign strategies. This recommendation is complementary to the Minne-sota Ultra High-Speed Task Force’s recommendations on security.

4.2.v Leverage the proposed ederal National Broadband Clearinghouse portal aimed to promote bestpractices and in ormation sharing, as well as the ederal Online Digital Literacy Portal program. Explore waysto leverage these ederal online resources to complement and promote new or existing local or state resourcesto more e ciently and e ectively coordinate and implement best practices models and digital literacy o eringsacross the state in a manner that is streamlined and non-duplicative o current or proposed assets or o erings.This recommendation and a recommendation made by the Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report arecomplementary.

4.2.vi Promote expansion o publicly available computing and online resources leveraging ederal, state,local, and private unds. Federal resources available through programs such as the USF Schools and Librar-ies (E-Rate) and Rural Health Care support programs as well as public unding available through the ederalInstitute o Museum and Library Services (IMLS). Disbursements in Minnesota under the E-Rate amountedto just $4.29 million in 2009 and a cumulative amount o $41 million between 1998 and 2009. Disbursementsin Minnesota under the Rural Health Care Program amounted to $73,000 in 2009 and a cumulative amount o$453,000 between 1998 and 2009. 91 This recommendation is complementary to a recommendation made inthe Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report.

4.2.vii Monitor and assess how the proposed re orm o the Low Income Support programs under the Uni-versal Service Fund will a ect Minnesotans. The NBP calls or a comprehensive re orm o the USF programs,including programs aimed to support low-income households, including Li eline and Linkup, and the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service is seeking comment on these programs. 92 In 2009, disbursement olow-income support unds across the state o Minnesota amounted to $7.04 million, overwhelmingly rom theLi eline program. Between 1998 and 2009, low-income support disbursements in Minnesota amount to $64.4million.93 Hence, the re orm underway is likely to have a signi cant impact upon the opportunity o low-incomehouseholds in the state to bridge the digital divide. The Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report in-cludes a recommendation on assisting low-income households with the price o broadband subscriptions, andConnect Minnesota recommends that the Broadband Advisory Task Force remain engaged at the ederal levelon this proposal.

90 For best practices regarding online safety strategies see The Children’s Partnership, iKeepSafe and the Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI).91 Annual Report, 2009, Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) http://www.usac.org/default.aspx.92 See FCC CC Docket No. 96-45, WC Docket No. 03-109.93 Annual Report, 2009, USAC.



60

4.2.viii Coordinate with Minnesota tribal nations on broadband issues. The NBP recognizes the impor-tance o working with tribal nations to develop programs tailored to address the particular technology adoptionchallenges aced by these communities. Furthermore, the authors would recommend strong collaborationwhere possible with ederal government agencies as well.

4.3 The 2009 Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband ReportThe Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report is 146 pages long and includes close to 70 inter-related goalsor recommendations. 94 These recommendations largely serve to satis y the primary goal o the Ultra High-SpeedTask orce:

4.3.1 Broadband Availability Ubiquitous broadband in Minnesota by 2015.

That Minnesota has available the ollowing minimum speeds by 2020 Mbps (download):

■ 10-20 Mbps (download)

■ 5-10 Mbps (upload)

Also, that Minnesota, by 2015:

■ Will be in the top 5 states o the United States or overall broadband speed (download/upload).

■ Will be in the top 5 states o the United States or broadband penetration.

■ Will be in the top 15 when compared to countries or global broadband penetration.

The Ultra High-Speed Task Force also makes note o the desirability o symmetrical speeds where possible, espe-cially or advanced applications such as telemedicine, telework, and distance education. These broadband avail-ability goals were codi ed in the state o Minnesota by HF2097 in 2010 (see Minnesota Statute Ch. 237.012).

At the present point in time, Minnesota’s availability o speeds matching its goals are that roughly 84% o house-holds have broadband available at a speed o 10 Mbps download (advertised) and that roughly 55% o householdshave access to broadband at a speed o 25 Mbps (advertised) or aster.

Table 12 – Estimate o Broadband Service Availability in the State o Minnesota –At 10 Mbps or Faster

SBDD Download Speed TiersUnserved

HouseholdsServed

HouseholdsPercent Households By

Speed Tier

At Least 10 Mbps 301,312 1,593,815 84.10%

At Least 25 Mbps 850,309 1,044,818 55.13%

Source: Connect Minnesota, October 2010

94 http://www.ultra-high-speed-mn.org/CM/Custom/UHS%20Broadband%20Report_Full.pdf





62

the State in its pursuit o these goals, Connect Minnesota has compiled an initial technology assessment regardingonline activities pertaining to cyber security (also contained in Appendix A):

■ 12% o Minnesotans with no home broadband connection and 18% with no Internet connection at homesay it is because they are concerned about raud or identity the t.

4.3.5 e-Government The Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report makes several recommendations regarding access to high-speed broadband service or the purpose o improving and expanding e-Government services. To assist the Statein its pursuit o these goals, Connect Minnesota has compiled an initial technology assessment regarding onlineactivities pertaining to e-Government (also contained in Appendix A):

■ 52% o Minnesotans search or in ormation about government services or policies online;

■ 37% o Minnesotans interact with state government online, 28% interact with their local government, and25% interact with elected o cials or candidates;

■ 48% o Minnesotans conduct online transactions with government o ces.

4.3.6 e-Economic development The Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report makes several recommendations regarding access to high-speed broadband service or the purpose o economic development, including data trans er, telecommuting, andincreased business opportunities. To assist the State in its pursuit o these goals, Connect Minnesota has com-piled an initial technology assessment regarding online activities pertaining to economic activities (also containedin Appendix A):

■ 80% o Minnesotans search or product or service in ormation online;

■ 46% o Minnesotans search or jobs or employment online;

■ 59% o Minnesotans interact with businesses online, and 56% interact with their co-workers online;

■ 78% o Minnesotans purchase products or services online, 69% conduct online banking, 66% book travelarrangements online, 65% pay bills online, 32% sell products or services online, and 21% buy, sell ortrade investments online;

■ 37% o Minnesotans work rom home (20% regularly telework now and 27% would telework i allowed);

■ Three out o ten Minnesota adults (30%) who are not currently in the work orce say they would work i em-powered to do so through teleworking. This includes 17% o retirees, nearly three out o ve unemployedadults, and almost one-third o homemakers.

Also, at the time o the compilation o this report, Connect Minnesota is in the process o completing an initialtechnology assessment o businesses in Minnesota. The results o this study should be made available in the rst

or second quarter o 2011, and should assist the Minnesota Broadband Advisory Task Force as it continues workon e-Economic Development goals.

4.3.7 e-HealthThe Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report makes several recommendations regarding access to high-speed broadband service or the purpose o enhancing access to healthcare services. To assist the State in itspursuit o these goals, Connect Minnesota has compiled an initial technology assessment regarding online activi-ties regarding e-Health or telemedicine (also contained in Appendix A):




■ 70% o Minnesotans search or health or medical in ormation online, including 66% o seniors;

■ 37% o Minnesotans interact with their health insurance company, and 31% interact with their doctor orhealthcare pro essionals online.

4.3.8 e-LearningThe Minnesota Ultra High-Speed Broadband Report makes several recommendations regarding access to high-

speed broadband service or the purpose o education and e-Learning. To assist the State in its pursuit o thesegoals, Connect Minnesota has compiled an initial technology assessment regarding online activities e-Learning(also contained in Appendix A):

■ 46% o Minnesotans conduct research or schoolwork online, including 60% o those aged 35 to 44;

■ 39% o Minnesotans interact with their teachers online;

■ 22% o Minnesotans take online classes.

Future iterations o this report will seek to address and adapt key proposals rom the National Broadband Plan thataddress key national purposes, as well as provide updates on Connect Minnesota broadband inventory and surveyresearch activities and ndings.



Appendix A: Connect Minnesota Residential Technology Assessment

June 2010

A-1



2010 © Connect Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Copy W ithout Written Permission.

Connect MinnesotaConnect MinnesotaResidential TechnologyResidential Technology

Assessment ResultsAssessment ResultsIn compliance with state and NTIA requirementsIn compliance with state and NTIA requirements

Summary of Key Findings 5

Broadband Adoption and Usage 11

Computer and Internet Adoption 23

Prices Paid by Minnesota Residents for Internet Service 33

Online Activities Among Minnesota Internet Users 39

Mobile Technology Adoption 47

Teleworking and Working From Home Throughan Internet Connection 53

Technology Adoption Barriers 57

March 2010 Technology Assessment ofMinnesota Residential Consumers

Presentation Outline




Residential Technology AssessmentsAssessment by Age 63

Assessment by Annual Household Income 75

Assessment by Race/Ethnicity 87

Assessment by Urban-Rural Classification 99

Assessment by Education 111

Assessment of Households With Children 123

Assessment by Employment Status 135Research Methodology 147

3

March 2010 Technology Assessment ofMinnesota Residential Consumers

Presentation Outline (Continued)

This page intentionally left blank.





2010 © Connect Minnesota. All Rights Reserved. Do Not Copy W ithout Written Permission. 7

Key Findings: March 2010 (Continued)

•Broadband adoption among rural residents is significantly lower than the state average.

•Residents ages 65 or older are less likely to subscribe to home broadband service, and they are also

less likely to access the Internet altogether (from home or any other location).•Statewide, 45% of broadband subscribers report that they have cable modem service at home, while40% subscribe via DSL service. Satellite broadband accounts for 5%, wireless card/WiFi accounts for1%, and fiber to the home service accounts for 7% of home broadband subscribers in Minnesota. Fixedwireless broadband accounts for 9% of all Minnesota broadband subscribers.

•Eighty percent of Minnesota Internet subscribers also subscribe to other “bundled” services from theirInternet service provider. The most popular service to be bundled with home Internet service is homephone service, followed by television service.

•On average, Minnesota broadband subscribers pay $46.35 per month for their home broadband.Among those who do not subscribe to home broadband service, 31% cite cost as a barrier to adoption.

•Nearly one-half (48%) of Minnesota residents who do not have home broadband service say it is

because they do not need Internet service or don’t understand the benefits. More than one-third (35%)say it is because they do not own a computer.

•Among rural non-subscribers, the belief that they do not need broadband or the Internet is the topbarrier, cited by nearly six out of ten (57%) rural residents without home broadband service.

Key Findings: March 2010 (Continued)

•The top applications used by Minnesota Internet users include communicating with friends and family,sending or receiving e-mail, using a search engine, and searching for products or services online.

•Seven out of ten Minnesota Internet users search for health or medical information online, while 31%interact with doctors or healthcare professionals online.

•E-government services are utilized by many Minnesota Internet users; 52% report that they searchonline for information about government services or policies. In addition, 48% conduct onlinetransactions with government offices (such as e-filing taxes or filling out forms), 37% interact withMinnesota state government offices, 28% interact with local government offices, and 25% interact withelected officials or candidates online.

•Many Minnesota Internet users go online for educational purposes. Statewide, 46% conduct researchfor schoolwork online, 39% interact with teachers online, and 22% take classes online.

•Minnesota residents also use the Internet for work purposes. Among Minnesota Internet users, 56%interact with their co-workers online, 46% go online to search for jobs or employment, and 37% reportthat they go online to work from home at least occasionally.

•In Minnesota, 20% of employed adults report that they telework. Teleworking could also provide anadditional boost to the state’s workforce, as 17% of retirees, nearly three out of five unemployedadults, and almost one-third of homemakers say they would likely join the workforce if empowered todo so by teleworking




Minnesota TechnologyAdoption Summary

Don't know ifhome Internet

service is dial-up orbroadband

2%

Don't use theInternet

9%

Use broadbandfrom home

72%

Use dial-up fromhome

7%

Use the Internetsomeplace

other than home10%

Q: Do you have an Internet connection at home? andQ: Which of the following describe the type of Internet service you have at home?(n=1,207 MN residents)

Source: 2010 Connect MinnesotaResidential Technology Assessment

www.connectmn.org

Percent of all Minnesota residents

85%

53%46%

69%78% 77%

72%

39% 35%

53%

66%58%

Statewide Age 65or older

Low-incomehouseholds*


with children*

Minority Rural residents


*Low-income=annual household income less than $25,000

Technology Adoption by Demographic




BroadbandBroadband Adoption and UsageAdoption and Usage

11

Statewide, 72% of all Minnesota residents subscribe to home broadband service.This translates into over 2.8 million adults with broadband service at home.

Percent of all Minnesota residents who subscribe to home broadband service

Minnesota Residents Who Subscribeto Home Broadband Service

72%72%




Minnesota Residents Who Subscribeto Home Broadband Service

Q: Which of the following describe the type ofInternet service you have at home?(n=1,207 MN residents)

67% 72%

National Average* Minnesota

Percent of all Minnesota residents withbroadband service at home

Statewide, 72% of Minnesotans(approximately 2.8 million

Minnesota adults) subscribe tohome broadband service.

*Source: Federal Communications Commission,Broadband Adoption and Use in America, 2010.


www.connectmn.org

National surveys indicate that67% of American householdssubscribe to home broadband

service.*

6%

1%

5%

7%

9%

40%

45%

Don't know/refused

Wireless Card/WiFi

Satellite broadband

Fiber to the home

Fixed wireless broadband

DSL

Cable modem

Percent of all Minnesota broadband subscribers*

Statewide, 72% ofall Minnesotaadults have

broadband serviceat home.

Types of Broadband ServiceThat Minnesota Residents Use




Perceptions of BroadbandAvailability in Minnesota

Statewide, 4% ofMinnesota residents

report that broadband isnot available where theylive, and 7% do not know

whether broadbandservice is available.

Q: To the best of your knowledge, is broadband or high-speed Internetservice available in the area where you live?(n=1,207 MN residents)


www.connectmn.org

Don't know ifbroadband is

availablewhere they live

7%

Saybroadband isnot available

where they live4%

Havebroadband

service, or saybroadband is

availablewhere they live

89%

Awareness of broadband availabilityamong Minnesota residents

According to ConnectMinnesota’s provider-validated Broadband

Service Inventory, 3.4%of households do nothave terrestrial fixedbroadband access.

Perceptions of BroadbandAvailability in Minnesota

Among Rural Residents

Awareness of broadband availabilityamong rural Minnesota residents

In rural Minnesota, 6% ofadults report that

broadband service is not

available where they live,and 11% do not knowwhether broadband is

available to them.

According to ConnectMinnesota’s provider-validated Broadband

Service Inventory, 7.4%of rural households do

not have terrestrial fixedbroadband access.

Don't know ifbroadband is

availablewhere they

live11%

Saybroadband isnot availablewhere they

live6%

Havebroadband

service, orsay

broadband isavailable

where theylive

83%




14%17% 17%

23%

13%15%

Within thelast year

1 - 2years ago

2 - 3years ago

3 - 5years ago

5 - 7years ago

More than 7years ago

17

Q: When did you first begin subscribing to broadband service?(n=856 MN residents with home broadband service)

When Minnesota broadband users began subscribing

When Minnesota Residents FirstSubscribed to Broadband


www.connectmn.org

4%

18%

30%

39%

43%

44%48%

54%

Other

Friends or family convinced me

I heard about the benefits of broadband

I needed to conduct business online

I learned that broadband was available in my area

The cost of broadband became more affordable

I bought (or received) a computer for my home

I realized broadband was worth the extra money

Percent of Minnesota residents with a broadband connection at home*

Why Minnesota ResidentsSubscribe to Broadband




Broadband Download Speeds

52%4%

4%

12%

8%

8%

4%

7%

Don't know

Less than 768 Kbps

About 768 Kbps

About 1.5 Mbps

About 3.0 Mbps

About 6.0 Mbps

About 10.0 Mbps

Over 10.0 Mbps

19

Q: To the best of your knowledge, what is the approximate download speedor bandwidth provided by your Internet service provider?(n=856 MN residents with home broadband service)

Download speeds among Minnesota broadband subscribers

Minnesota broadbandsubscribers who knowtheir download speeds

report an averagespeed of 5.9 Mbps.


www.connectmn.org

Don't know9%

Downloadspeeds arefaster thanadvertised

4%

Downloadspeeds are

slower thanadvertised

27%

Downloadspeeds areabout thesame as

advertised60%

Among Minnesota residents with home broadband service

Nearly two-thirds ofbroadband subscribers

(64%) say their

download speed is thesame or faster thanwhat was advertised by

their provider.

Q: To what extent would you say the actual speeds you receive

However, over one-fourth of broadbandsubscribers (27%, or

approximately 763,000adults) say that theirdownload speeds are

slower than advertised.

Actual Broadband Speedsvs. Advertised Speeds




Not satisfied2%

Somewhatsatisfied

24%

Very satisfied74%

21

Satisfaction WithBroadband Service

Satisfaction among Minnesota residentswith their home broadband service

Q: Overall, how satisfied are you with your broadband service?(n=856 MN residents with home broadband service)

Only 2% ofMinnesotabroadband

subscribersreport being

dissatisfied withtheir currentbroadband

service.


www.connectmn.org

1.8%

0.7%

0.7%

1.1%

1.5%

Poor customer service

Latency

Frequent service outages

Too expensive

Too slow

Among Minnesota residents with home broadband service*

Reasons for DissatisfactionWith Broadband Service

Overall, 2% ofMinnesota broadband

subscribers report thatthey are dissatisfied

with their currentservice.




Computer and Internet AdoptionComputer and Internet Adoption

23

Minnesota Residents With aComputer in Their Household

Statewide, 85% of all Minnesota residents own a home computer.This translates into over 588,000 adults without a home computer.

Percent of all Minnesota residents who own a computer

85%85%




Minnesota ResidentsWho Use a Computer(At Home or Someplace Else)

Q: Does your household have a computer? andQ: Do you have access to the Internet from any location outside of your own home?(n=1,207 MN residents)

92%92%


www.connectmn.org

Percent of all Minnesota adults who use a computer

Statewide, 92% of all Minnesota adult residents use a computer.This translates into fewer than 315,000 adults who do not use a computer at all.

27% 27%

20%23%

3%

Within thepast year

1 - 2years ago

3 - 4years ago

More than4 years ago

Don't know

Minnesota Residents With aComputer in Their Household

When Minnesota computer owners purchased their home computer





27

Q: Does your household have a computer? andQ: What type of computer do you have at home?(n=1,207 MN residents)

Types of Computers ThatMinnesota Residents Own

Desktop only37% Laptop only

18%

Both desktopand laptop

30%

No computer

at home15%


www.connectmn.org

Percent of all Minnesota residents who subscribe to home Internet service

Minnesota Residents Who Subscribeto Home Internet Service

(Either Dial-Up or Broadband)

81%81%

Statewide, 81% of all Minnesota adult residents subscribe to either dial-up or broadband Internetservice at home. This translates into over 3.1 million adults with Internet service at home.




79% 91%

NationalAverage*

Minnesota

Percent of all Minnesota residentswho use the Internet

Ninety-one percent of Minnesotaresidents access the Internet either

from their home or from someother place (such as school, work,

or Wi-Fi “hot spots”). Bycomparison, a national study

recently found that 79% ofAmerican adults use the Internet.*

*Source: Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Home Broadband2010,” released Aug. 11, 2010.

Minnesota Source: 2010 Connect MinnesotaResidential Technology Assessment

www.connectmn.org

Minnesota ResidentsWho Use the Internet

(Any Internet Connection, from Any Location)

Q: Do you have access to the Internet at home? andQ: Do you have access to the Internet from any location outside of your own home?(n=1,207 MN residents)

9%

3%

3%

8%

9%

13%

16%

44%

81%

4%

No access, any locations

Community Center

Airports

Hotels

School

Restaurants

Someone else's home

Library

Work

Home

Internet Access LocationsAmong Minnesota Residents

Locations where Minnesota residents access the Internet

Ninety-one percent ofMinnesota residentsaccess the Internetfrom home or fromsome other place.






Prices Paid by MinnesotaPrices Paid by MinnesotaResidents for Internet ServiceResidents for Internet Service

33

$31.81

$44.76 $46.35

Home dial-upsubscribers All Internetsubscribers Home broadbandsubscribers

Average Monthly Price MinnesotaResidents Pay for Internet Service


Average monthly price paid for home Internet service




Average Monthly Price MinnesotaResidents Pay for Internet Service


18%

2%

6%

16%

20%

14%

25%

Don't know/refused

Less than $10.00

$10.00 - $19.99

$20.00 - $29.99

$30.00 - $39.99

$40.00 - $49.99

$50.00 or more

Q: What do you pay each month for your Internet service?(n=966 MN residents with Internet service at home)

On average,Minnesota

residents pay$44.76 per

month for theirInternet service.

Percent of Minnesota residents with either dial-up or broadband Internet service at home


www.connectmn.org

18%

1%

5%

15%

20%

15%

26%

Don't know/refused

Less than $10.00

$10.00 - $19.99

$20.00 - $29.99

$30.00 - $39.99

$40.00 - $49.99

$50.00 or more

Average Monthly Price MinnesotaResidents Pay for Broadband Service

On average,Minnesota

residents pay$46.35 per

month for theirbroadband

service.

Percent of Minnesota residents with broadband service at home




Q: What do you pay each month for your Internet service?(n=856 MN residents with home broadband service)

$41.18 $46.35

National Average* Minnesota

Average monthly price paid for home broadband service

On average, Minnesota residents pay$46.35 per month for their broadband

service. By comparison, a nationalstudy recently found that Americanspay an average of $41.18 a month for

broadband Internet service.*

*Source: Pew Internet and American Life Project, “Home BroadbandReport 2010,” released Aug. 10, 2010.

Minnesota Source: 2010 Connect MinnesotaResidential Technology Assessment

www.connectmn.org

Average Monthly Price Residents Payfor Broadband Service





Online Activities AmongOnline Activities AmongMinnesota Internet UsersMinnesota Internet Users

Searching forInformation Online

46%

46%

52%

63%

70%

80%

Research for schoolwork

Jobs or employment

Information about government services or policies

Information about events in your community

Health or medical information

Product or service information

Percent of Minnesota Internet users who search for the following types of information online




Communicating Online

8%

9%

12%

28%

34%

58%

90%

Posting content to a microblog

Chatting in chat rooms

Posting content to a blog

Posting content to a website

Instant messages

Through a social networking site

E-mail

Percent of Minnesota Internet users who communicate in the following ways

Q: Which of the following ways of communicating with others do you use?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)


www.connectmn.org

Interacting Online

25%

28%

31%

37%

37%

39%

56%

59%

87%

Elected officials or candidates

Local government

Doctors or healthcare professionals

Health insurance companies

Minnesota state government

Teachers

Co-workers

Businesses

Friends or family

Percent of Minnesota Internet users who interactwith the following individuals or organizations online




Online Transactions

69%

66%

65%

48%

32%

21%

78%Purchasing a product or service online

Online banking

Booking travel arrangements

Paying bills

Online transactions with government offices

Selling a product or service online

Buying, selling, or trading investments

Percent of Minnesota Internet users who conduct the following transactions online

Q: Which of the following types of transactions have youcompleted online?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)


www.connectmn.org

Online Activities

84%

75%

69%

48%

46%

46%

37%

27%

22%

Using a search engine

Sending or receiving photos

Reading online newspapers or other news sources

Watching videos, movies, or TV shows online

Playing games online

Downloading music

Working from home

Reading blogs

Taking online classes

Percent of Minnesota Internet users who conduct the following activities online




Do not makeor receive

home phonecalls throughthe Internet

83%

Make orreceive home

telephonecalls throughthe Internet

16%

Don't know1%

45

Use of the Internet to Make orReceive Phone Calls

Among Minnesota residents who have broadband service at home

Statewide, 16% of Minnesota residents with broadband make or receivehome telephone calls using their Internet connection.

Q: Do you make or receive home telephone calls through your Internet connection?(n=856 MN residents with home broadband service)


www.connectmn.org





Mobile Technology UseMobile Technology Use

47

Percent of all Minnesota residents who own or use a cell phone

Minnesota Residents WhoOwn or Use a Cell Phone

81%81%

Statewide, 81% of all Minnesota adult residents own or use a cell phone. This translates intoover 3.1 million adults who use a cell phone.




Subscribe to mobilewireless via laptop

3%

Subscribe to mobilewireless via cellphone or mobile

device18%

Subscribe to mobile

wireless via laptopAND cell

phone/mobile device5%

Do not subscribe tomobile wireless

broadband74%

49

Mobile Broadband Adoption

Q: On your laptop, do you subscribe to mobile wireless service that allows you toaccess the Internet through a cellular network? andQ: Do you access the Internet through a cellular phone or other mobile device?(n=1,207 MN residents)



www.connectmn.org

More than one quarter of Minnesota residents (26%) subscribe to mobile wirelessbroadband either through their laptop, cell phone, or both.

Own alaptop48%

Don't owna laptop

52%

Among all Minnesota residents Among Minnesota laptop owners

Q: What type of computer do you have at home?(n=1,207 MN residents) and

Mobile Wireless Broadband for LaptopsVia a Cellular Network

Statewide, 17% of laptop owners (or 8% of all Minnesota residents) subscribe to a mobile wirelessservice that allows them to access the Internet on their laptop computer via a cellular network.

Do notsubscribeto mobilewirelessservice

80%Don'tknow

3%

Subscribeto mobilewirelessservice

17%




11%

18%

34%

46%

50%

66%

70%

Community centers

Outdoor public places

Libraries

Work

Airports

Hotels

RestaurantsDo notaccess

wirelesshot spots

49%

Accesswireless

hot spots48%

Don't

know3%

51

Hot Spot Usage AmongLaptop Computer Owners

Q: Do you regularly use Wi-Fi zones, sometimes called “hot spots,” toaccess the Internet with your laptop? (n=565 MN laptop owners) andQ: Do you regularly use hot spots at any of the following locations?(n=271 MN wireless hot spot users)

Among Minnesotalaptop computer owners

Most popular places to access hotspots (among wireless hot spot users)


www.connectmn.org

Internet Access Through CellularPhones or Mobile Devices

Own a cellularphone andaccess the

Internet througha cellular phoneor mobile device

23%

Do not own acellular phone or

mobile device19%

Own a cellularphone, but do not

access theInternet througha cellular phoneor mobile device

58%


In Minnesota, 81% of adults own a cellular phone.




Teleworking and Working FromTeleworking and Working FromHome Through an InternetHome Through an Internet

ConnectionConnection

53

20%

27%

Regular ly telework now Would telework if allowed

Minnesota Residents and Telework

Among Minnesota residents employed full-time or part-time




59%

32%

17%

30%

Not employed(full- or part-

time)

Retirees Unemployed Homemakers

55

The Potential Impact ofTelework on the Labor Force

Minnesota residents who do not currently work and are “very likely” or“somewhat likely” to work outside the home if allowed to telework

Q: If you were able to work from home through a broadband connection - commonly knownas teleworking - how likely is it that you would work outside the home?(n=393 MN residents not employed full-time or part-time)

Three out of tenMinnesota adults(30%) who are not

currently in theworkforce say they

would work ifempowered to do sothrough teleworking.This includes 17% ofretirees, nearly three

out of fiveunemployed adults,

and almost one-thirdof homemakers.


www.connectmn.org





Technology Adoption BarriersTechnology Adoption Barriers

57

Barriers to Computer Ownership

1%

3%

19%

32%

73%

Other

Computers are too complicated

I use a computer someplace else

Too expensive

I don't need a computer, or don't know why Ineed one

Percent of Minnesota residents with no computer at home*




1%12%

18%

22%

33%

48%

51%

Other

Broadband isn't available in your area

Concerns about fraud or identity theft

I access the Internet somewhere else

Internet service is too expensive

I don't need the Internet, or don't know why Idon't subscribe

I don't own a computer

59

Barriers to Internet Adoption

*Percentages do not add up to 100% because individuals could give multiple responses.Q: Why don't you subscribe to the Internet at home?(n=241 MN residents with no Internet service in their household)

Among Minnesota residents with no Internet connection at home*


www.connectmn.org

Barriers to Broadband Adoption

35%

31%

17%

16%

12%

2%

48%I don't need broadband/the Internet,or don't know why I don't subscribe

I don't have a computer

Too expensive


Broadband is not available where I live

Concerns about fraud or identity theft

Available broadband service is not fast enough

Percent of Minnesota residents with no home broadband service*

Nearly one-half of Minnesotaresidents who do not have

home broadband service sayit is because they do notneed Internet service or

don’t understand thebenefits. More than one-

third say it is because theydo not own a computer.




Barriers to Broadband AdoptionAmong Dial-Up Users

*Percentages do not add up to 100% because individuals could give multiple responses.Q: Why don't you subscribe to broadband at home?(n=110 MN Internet subscribers who do not subscribe to broadband)

Among Minnesota Internet subscribers who do notsubscribe to home broadband service*

The top barriers tobroadband adoptionamong dial-up usersis the belief that they

do not needbroadband service

and the monthly costof subscribing to

broadband service.

Statewide, 7% of

Minnesota residentsrely on dial-upservice.

48%

27%

26%

8%

6%

I don't need broadband or don't knowwhy I don't subscribe

Broadband is too expensive

Broadband service is not available


The broadband service offered where Ilive is not fast enough


www.connectmn.org

Wouldsubscribe

52% Would notsubscribe

27%

Don't know

21%

Lack of Availability as aBarrier to Broadband Adoption

Among Minnesota dial-up subscribers who saybroadband service is not available where they live

More than one-half ofMinnesota dial-up users

who say broadbandservice is unavailable saythey would subscribe if it

were available.

More than one-fourth ofMinnesota dial-up users

who say broadbandservice is unavailable

would not subscribe tobroadband even if it were

available where they live.




Residential TechnologyResidential TechnologyAssessmentAssessment

by Ageby Age

63

Broadband Availabilityand Population Age 65 or Older

Percent of theResident PopulationAge 65 or Older

Broadband Availability*

98.01% - 100%


85.00% - 90%Less than 85%

90.01% - 93%93.01% - 96%96.01% - 98%

Less than 13.1%

13.1% - 17.9%18.0% - 22.6%

Greater than 22.6%




85%94% 92% 90% 85%

53%

72%82% 81% 77%

71%

39%

Statewide 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65or older


Respondent’s ageQ: Does your household have a computer? andQ: Which of the following describe the type of Internet service you have at home?(n=1,207 MN residents)

Technology Adoptionby Age


www.connectmn.org

91%98% 97% 98%

92%

61%

Statewide 18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 or older

Minnesota Residents WhoAccess the Internet

(At Home or Someplace Else)

Respondent’s age

Percent of all Minnesota residents who access the Internet from home or some other place






Q: Which of the following types of individuals or organizations do you interact with online, byvisiting a website or communicating online to obtain information?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)

Percent of Minnesota Internet users who interact online with the following

18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 6465 orolder

Friends or family 89% 90% 88% 87% 73%

Businesses 54% 68% 68% 58% 40%

Co-workers 64% 62% 58% 51% 22%

Minnesota state government 34% 38% 42% 44% 28%

Health insurance companies 35% 41% 38% 41% 27%

Doctors or healthcare professionals 30% 36% 30% 33% 25%

Teachers 42% 57% 40% 25% 11%

Local government 25% 31% 31% 32% 22%

Elected officials or candidates 20% 27% 28% 31% 24%

*Significance measured at a 95% confidence level

Interacting Online


www.connectmn.org

Percentage is significantly* higher than the state average:

Percentage is significantly* lower than the state average :


18 to 34 35 to 44 45 to 54 55 to 64 65 orolder

Purchasing a product or service online 84% 84% 80% 75% 48%

Online banking 82% 77% 68% 59% 36%

Paying bills 77% 74% 62% 54% 33%

Booking travel arrangements 65% 73% 71% 64% 47%

Online transactions with government 56% 55% 49% 40% 27%

Selling a product or service online 42% 35% 30% 22% 12%

Buying, selling, or trading investments 24% 24% 21% 22% 10%

f f

Online Transactions








73%

49%

68%

84%

3% 0% 2% 5%

32%41% 37%

24%19%

44%

26%

5%

Statewide 18 to 44 45 to 64 65 or older

I don't need a computer or don't know why I need oneToo expensiveI use a computer at a different locationToo complicated

73

Among Minnesota residents who do not own a home computer

Q: Why don't you have a computer at home?(n=191 MN residents with no home computer)

Respondent’s age

Top Barriers toComputer Ownership


www.connectmn.org

48%37%

43%

62%

35%27%

32%

46%

31% 36% 35%

22%16%

22% 23%

5%

Statewide 18 to 44 45 to 64 65 or older

I don't need broadband or don't know why I don't subscribeNo computerBroadband is too expensive

Broadband is not available in my area

Percent of Minnesota residents without home broadband service

Top Barriers toBroadband Adoption

Respondent’s age





by Annual Household Incomeby Annual Household Income

75

Broadband Availabilityand Median Household Incomes

Median Household Income


98.01% - 100%


85.00% - 90%Less than 85%

90.01% - 93%93.01% - 96%96.01% - 98%

$34,493 - $43,729

$43,730 - $50,632$50,633 - $62,275

$62,276 - $84,085




85%

48% 45%

81% 83%94% 98%

72%

36% 35%

64% 66%78%

90%

Statewide Less than$15,000

$15,000 to$24,999

$25,000 to$34,999

$35,000 to$49,999

$50,000 to$74,999

$75,000or more


77

Annual household incomeQ: Does your household have a computer? andQ: Which of the following describe the type of Internet service you have at home?(n=1,207 MN residents)


www.connectmn.org

Technology Adoptionby Income

91%

61%73%

96%91%

96% 99%

Statewide Less than

$15,000

$15,000 to

$24,999

$25,000 to

$34,999

$35,000 to

$49,999

$50,000 to

$74,999

$75,000

or more




Annual household income





Q: Which of the following types of information do you use the Internet to look for online?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)


Lessthan

$15,000

$15,000to

$24,999

$25,000to

$34,999

$35,000to

$49,999

$50,000to

$74,999

$75,000or

more

Product or service information 63% 60% 69% 75% 85% 89%

Community events 52% 40% 50% 55% 68% 73%

Health or medical information 63% 51% 60% 63% 74% 76%

Government services 43% 42% 49% 50% 54% 57%

Research for schoolwork 57% 52% 41% 41% 46% 49%

Jobs or employment 52% 49% 50% 37% 50% 46%



www.connectmn.org

Percentage is significantly* higher than the state average:Percentage is significantly* lower than the state average :

Percent of Minnesota Internet users who communicate with others in the following ways

Lessthan

$15,000

$15,000to

$24,999

$25,000to

$34,999

$35,000to

$49,999

$50,000to

$74,999

$75,000or

more

E-mail 79% 65% 86% 88% 93% 98%

Social or professional networking sites 56% 49% 54% 51% 61% 66%

Instant messages 48% 31% 31% 32% 29% 37%

Posting content to a website 27% 26% 26% 23% 32% 33%

Posting content to a microblog such asTwitter 10% 8% 12% 4% 6% 10%

Posting content to a blog 20% 11% 8% 9% 11% 15%

Chatting in chat rooms 23% 10% 14% 10% 8% 7%






Q: Which of the following types of individuals or organizations do you interact with online, by visitinga website or communicating online to obtain information?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)


Less

than$15,000

$15,000

to$24,999

$25,000

to$34,999

$35,000

to$49,999

$50,000

to$74,999

$75,000

ormore

Friends or family 81% 58% 85% 85% 90% 94%

Businesses 30% 38% 45% 51% 65% 73%

Co-workers 34% 27% 45% 43% 58% 72%

Minnesota state government 31% 21% 38% 32% 37% 43%

Health insurance companies 20% 15% 22% 29% 44% 46%

Doctors or healthcare professionals 34% 15% 23% 21% 34% 41%

Teachers 48% 30% 25% 35% 36% 49%

Local government 24% 13% 23% 20% 28% 35%

Elected officials or candidates 18% 10% 16% 17% 28% 33%


Interacting Online


www.connectmn.org



Lessthan

$15,000

$15,000to

$24,999

$25,000to

$34,999

$35,000to

$49,999

$50,000to

$74,999

$75,000or

more

Purchasing a product or service online 62% 49% 65% 75% 85% 89%

Online banking 60% 40% 53% 60% 75% 85%

Paying bills 55% 39% 49% 53% 68% 81%

Booking travel arrangements 26% 32% 50% 49% 71% 86%

Online transactions with government 34% 26% 36% 43% 51% 63%

Selling a product or service online 18% 14% 26% 23% 33% 43%

Buying, selling, or trading investments 5% 12% 10% 14% 20% 34%

Online Transactions






Q: Which of the following activities do you conduct online?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)

Lessthan

$15,000

$15,000to

$24,999

$25,000to

$34,999

$35,000to

$49,999

$50,000to

$74,999

$75,000or

more

Using a search engine 78% 58% 78% 77% 87% 95%

Reading online newspapers 49% 52% 66% 67% 71% 76%

Sending or receiving photos 61% 45% 65% 67% 76% 88%

Playing games online 34% 45% 45% 56% 55% 43%

Downloading music 47% 40% 37% 32% 48% 58%

Watching videos, movies, or TV shows 57% 34% 43% 45% 52% 54%

Working from home 17% 10% 18% 18% 35% 58%Reading blogs 25% 14% 17% 25% 29% 32%

Taking online classes 31% 17% 21% 20% 21% 25%


Online Activities


www.connectmn.org



Percent of Minnesota residents who subscribe to broadband for the following reasons

Less than$25,000

$25,000 to$49,999

$50,000or more

I realized broadband was worth the extra money 47% 54% 56%

I needed to conduct business online 33% 32% 41%

Broadband became available in my area 28% 43% 44%

The cost of broadband became more affordable 54% 46% 42%

I received a computer for my home 53% 53% 45%

I heard about the benefits of broadband 30% 30% 30%

A friend or family member convinced me 26% 17% 17%







53%

4% 0%

73% 74% 73%

32% 32% 36%21%19% 14%

24%

47%

3% 2%

Statewide Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 or more

I don't need a computer or don't know why I need one

Too expensiveI use a computer at a different locationToo complicated

85





www.connectmn.org


48% 51% 48%39%

58%

30%35% 29%18%

31% 31% 32%

16% 12% 16%23%

Statewide Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 or more

I don't need broadband or don't know why I don't subscribeNo computerBroadband is too expensiveBroadband is not available in my area









86%

66%

87%

72% 73%

58%

72%85%

Statewide Caucasian Hispanic Other


89

Respondent’s race/ethnicity

Q: Does your household have a computer? andQ: Which of the following describe the type of Internet service you have at home?(n=1,207 MN residents)

Technology Adoptionby Race


www.connectmn.org

91% 92%81%

93%

Statewide Caucasian Hispanic Other










Q: Which of the following types of individuals or organizations do you interact withonline, by visiting a website or communicating online to obtain information?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)



Interacting Online

Caucasian Hispanic Other

Friends or family 88% 83% 88%

Businesses 61% 42% 51%

Co-workers 56% 51% 56%

Minnesota state government 38% 26% 26%

Health insurance company 37% 32% 32%

Doctors or healthcare professionals 30% 34% 44%

Teachers 38% 38% 59%

Local government 29% 19% 17%

Elected officials or candidates 26% 21% 15%


www.connectmn.org

Percentage is significantly* higher

than the state average:Percentage is significantly* lower than the state average :


f d f d l l

Online Transactions

Caucasian Hispanic Other

Purchasing a product or service online 80% 69% 64%

Online banking 70% 76% 66%

Paying bills 65% 70% 61%

Booking travel arrangements 66% 68% 68%

Online transactions with government 49% 48% 55%

Selling a product or service online 33% 28% 21%

Buying, selling, or trading investments 21% 20% 34%


Percentage is significantly* lower than the state average

:






0%

73% 76%

49%

32% 33% 31%

19% 19% 20%

3%4%

Statewide Caucasian Minority*



97


*Sample size less than 30Q: Why don't you have a computer at home?(n=191 MN residents with no home computer)


www.connectmn.org



11%

48% 47% 52%

35% 35% 30%31% 31%36%

16% 16%

Statewide Caucasian Minority

I don't need broadband or don't know w hy I don't subscribeNo computerBroadband is too expensiveBroadband is not available in my area







Residential TechnologyResidential TechnologyAssessment by UrbanAssessment by Urban --RuralRural

ClassificationClassification

99

Broadband Availabilityand Household Density

Households perSquare Mile of Land


98.01% - 100%


85.00% - 90%Less than 85%

90.01% - 93%93.01% - 96%96.01% - 98%

0 - 8

9 - 2021 - 40

41 - 85

86+





Technology Adoptionby Urban-Rural Classification

Respondent’s county of residence


www.connectmn.org

85% 88% 87%77%72% 77% 77%

58%

Statewide Urban Suburban Rural


91% 94% 92%85%









Urban Suburban Rural

Product or service information 82% 80% 77%

Community events 68% 65% 53%

Health or medical information 73% 71% 64%

Government services 59% 49% 47%

Research for schoolwork46% 48% 42%

Jobs or employment 53% 47% 34%

103


Q: Which of the following types of information do you use theInternet to look for online?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)






www.connectmn.org



E-mail 94% 90% 86%

Social or professional networking sites 62% 59% 51%

Instant messages 38% 30% 34%

Posting content to a website 28% 29% 29%

Posting content to a microblog such as Twitter 11% 8% 6%

Posting content to a blog 15% 10% 11%

Chatting in chat rooms 11% 8% 8%







Q: Which of the following types of individuals or organizations do you interact withonline, by visiting a website or communicating online to obtain information?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)



Friends or family 89% 87% 84%

Businesses 63% 59% 55%

Co-workers 60% 57% 49%

Minnesota state government 41% 37% 33%

Health insurance company 40% 39% 29%

Doctors or healthcare professionals 36% 35% 20%

Teachers 42% 40% 33%

Local government 35% 29% 20%

Elected officials or candidates 28% 25% 21%


Interacting Online


www.connectmn.org





Purchasing a product or service online 81% 79% 73%

Online banking 75% 71% 60%

Paying bills 71% 67% 53%

Booking travel arrangements 72% 68% 55%

Online transactions with government 55% 49% 40%

Selling a product or service online 32% 34% 28%

Buying, selling, or trading investments 25% 20% 18%

Online Transactions









Using a search engine 89% 85% 77%

Reading online newspapers 74% 68% 66%

Sending or receiving photos 79% 76% 68%

Playing games online 48% 48% 42%

Downloading music 48% 50% 37%

Watching videos, movies, or TV shows 51% 50% 39%

Working from home 40% 38% 31%Reading blogs 34% 25% 23%

Taking online classes 24% 24% 17%


Online Activities


www.connectmn.org


















73%61%

77% 76%

0%

6%

32% 36%

23%36%

19% 22% 17% 20%

3% 2%




109



Top Barriers toComputer Adoption


www.connectmn.org




48%37%

45%57%

35% 32% 34% 39%31% 35%

25%33%

16% 18%12%

18%








Residential TechnologyResidential TechnologyAssessment by EducationAssessment by Education

111

Broadband Availabilityand Educational Attainment

Percent of the Population Age 25+With a Bachelor’s, Graduate, orProfessional Degree


98.01% - 100%


85.00% - 90%Less than 85%

90.01% - 93%93.01% - 96%96.01% - 98%

Less than 14.4%

14.4% - 18.4%

18.41% - 26.6%

Greater than 26.6%





Technology Adoptionby Education


www.connectmn.org

85%

68%

87%94% 95%

72%

51%

74%83% 86%

Statewide No college Some college College degree Advanced orprofessional degree


Highest education level attained

91%

77%

93% 98% 97%

Statewide No college Some college College degree Advanced or

professional degree








No college Somecollege

Collegedegree(4 yr)

Advanced orprofessional

degree

Product or service information 73% 77% 84% 87%

Health or medical information 58% 70% 75% 77%

Information about events in your community 48% 59% 70% 77%

Information about government services 40% 52% 56% 62%

Jobs or employment 41% 43% 53% 40%

Research for schoolwork 40% 47% 46% 51%


Q: Which of the following types of information do you use the Internet to look for online?(n=1,093 MN residents who use the Internet)





www.connectmn.org




Collegedegree

(4 yr)


degree

E-mail 83% 90% 94% 95%

Social or professional networking sites 52% 56% 62% 62%

Instant messages 37% 29% 36% 36%

Posting content to a website 27% 25% 29% 36%

Posting content to a microblog such as Twitter 7% 6% 10% 8%

Posting content to a blog 10% 9% 14% 17%

Chatting in chat rooms 10% 8% 11% 7%







Q: Which of the following types of individuals or organizations do you interact with online, byvisiting a website or communicating online to obtain information?(n=1,093 MN residents who use the Internet)



Collegedegree(4 yr)

Advanced orprofessionaldegree

Friends or family 82% 84% 90% 93%

Businesses 43% 52% 69% 75%

Co-workers 39% 46% 65% 77%

Minnesota state government 29% 33% 43% 46%

Health insurance company 26% 34% 44% 43%

Doctors or healthcare professionals 28% 25% 35% 37%

Teachers 27% 38% 42% 48%

Local government 21% 23% 33% 39%

Elected officials or candidates 13% 19% 30% 44%

Interacting Online


www.connectmn.org






Collegedegree (4yr)


degree

Purchasing a product or service online 64% 77% 85% 86%

Online banking 53% 69% 78% 79%

Paying bills 46% 61% 75% 75%

Booking travel arrangements 47% 60% 77% 81%

Online transactions with government 32% 46% 58% 59%

Selling a product or service online 21% 31% 36% 40%

Buying, selling, or trading investments 13% 19% 25% 29%

Online Transactions


Percentage is significantly* lower

than the state average :





Q: Which of the following activities do you conduct online?(n=1,093 MN residents who use the Internet)


Collegedegree(4 yr)


degree

Using a search engine 71% 83% 90% 93%

Reading online newspapers 60% 64% 78% 78%

Sending or receiving photos 64% 71% 82% 84%

Playing games online 52% 46% 44% 45%

Downloading music 40% 42% 51% 53%

Watching videos, movies, or TV shows online 42% 41% 55% 55%

Working from home 16% 27% 48% 63%Reading blogs 23% 19% 34% 34%

Taking online classes 12% 19% 28% 28%

Online Activities


www.connectmn.org





No collegeeducation

Any collegeeducation

I realized broadband was worth the extra money 53% 55%

I needed to conduct business online 25% 41%

Broadband became available in my area 44% 43%

The cost of broadband became more affordable 49% 42%

I received a computer for my home 52% 47%

I heard about the benefits of broadband 37% 28%

A friend or family member convinced me 23% 16%









Top Barriers toComputer Adoption


www.connectmn.org


73% 76%

3% 4% 2%

68%

32% 28%38%

19% 14%27%

Statewide No college education Any college education



48% 53%

16% 14% 18%

44%35%

43%

28%31% 27%35%

Statewide No college education Any college education









Residential TechnologyResidential TechnologyAssessment ofAssessment of

Households With ChildrenHouseholds With Children

123

Broadband Availabilityand Children Living in Poverty

Percent of ChildrenLiving in Poverty


98.01% - 100%


85.00% - 90%Less than 85%

90.01% - 93%93.01% - 96%96.01% - 98%

Less than 8.4%

8.4% - 13.4%13.41% - 19.3%

Greater than 19.3%




85%94%

79%69%

80%72%

83%

65%53%

65%

Statewide Households withchildren

Householdswithout children

Low-income*households with

children

Single-parenthouseholds


125

*Low-income=annual household income less than $25,000Q: Does your household have a computer? andQ: Which of the following describe the type of Internet service you have at home?(n=1,207 MN residents)

Technology Adoptionof Households with Children


www.connectmn.org


91%98%

87%98% 98%

Statewide Households withchildren

Householdswithout children

Low-income*households with

children








**Significance measured at a 95% confidence level

Householdswith children

Householdswithoutchildren

Low-income*households

with children

Single-parent

households

Product or service information 82% 79% 59% 63%

Community events 69% 59% 45% 52%

Health or medical information 72% 69% 67% 64%

Government services 51% 53% 29% 40%

Research for schoolwork 61% 34% 72% 57%

Jobs or employment 52% 40% 63% 61%




Percentage is significantly** higher

than the state average:Percentage is significantly** lower than the state average :



www.connectmn.org



Householdswithoutchildren


with children


E-mail 94% 88% 82% 91%

Social or professional networking sites 69% 49% 61% 68%

Instant messages 41% 29% 52% 57%

Posting content to a website 33% 25% 31% 37%

Posting content to a microblogsuch as Twitter 10% 7% 11% 9%

Posting content to a blog 15% 10% 25% 19%

Chatting in chat rooms 8% 10% 11% 12%

f d f d l l*Low-income=annual household income less than $25,000


Percentage is significantly** higher than the state average:

Percentage is significantly** lower






Q: Which of the following types of individuals or organizations do you interact with online, byvisiting a website or communicating online to obtain information?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)

**Significance measured at a 95% confidence level


Householdswithout

children


with children

Single-parent

households

Friends or family 90% 85% 74% 86%

Businesses 63% 56% 39% 54%

Co-workers 63% 50% 30% 50%

Minnesota state government 35% 39% 27% 35%

Health insurance company 40% 34% 22% 28%

Doctors or healthcare professionals 37% 27% 41% 37%

Teachers 58% 24% 48% 56%

Local government 28% 29% 23% 28%Elected officials or candidates 26% 25% 11% 15%

Interacting Online


www.connectmn.org

Percentage is significantly** higher

than the state average:Percentage is significantly** lower than the state average :



**Si ifi d 95% fid l l

Householdswith

children

Householdswithout

children


with children

Single-parent

householdsPurchasing a product or service online 84% 74% 59% 73%

Online banking 80% 62% 65% 70%

Paying bills 76% 56% 52% 60%

Booking travel arrangements 69% 64% 26% 50%

Online transactions with government 57% 43% 35% 43%

Selling a product or service online 40% 26% 16% 30%

Buying, selling, or trading investments 26% 18% 14% 14%

Online Transactions

Percentage is significantly** higher than the state average:

Percentage is significantly** lower








73%

38%

78%

3%0%

32%48%

30%19%

56%

14%4%

Statewide Householdswith children*

Households w ithoutchildren

I don't need a computer or don't know why I need oneToo expensiveI use a computer at a different locationToo complicated

133


*Sample size less than 30Q: Why don't you have a computer at home?(n=191 MN residents with no home computer)


www.connectmn.org


48%34%

52%

16% 12%

35%25%

38%31%

38%29%30%

Statewide Householdswith children

Households withoutchildren









by Employment Statusby Employment Status

135

Broadband Availabilityand Unemployment Rate

Unemployment Rate


98.01% - 100%


85.00% - 90%Less than 85%

90.01% - 93%93.01% - 96%96.01% - 98%

Less than 5.8%

5.8% - 7.4%7.4% - 9.5%

Greater than 9.5%




85%92%

81%

58%

84% 80%72%

79%

67%

45%

66%

78%

Statewide Employed (full-time or part-time)

Unemployed Retired Homemakers Other


137



www.connectmn.org

Technology Adoptionby Employment Status

91%98%

86%

66%

89% 90%

Statewide Employed (full-time or part-time)

Unemployed Retired Homemakers Other









Employed(full-time orpart-time)

Unemployed Retired Home-makers Other

Product or service information 83% 89% 64% 77% 75%

Community events 65% 64% 49% 65% 67%

Health or medical information 69% 76% 71% 81% 68%

Government services 52% 63% 46% 46% 64%

Research for schoolwork 48% 47% 21% 55% 65%

Jobs or employment 48% 83% 17% 40% 48%






www.connectmn.org



Unemployed Retired Home-

makersOther

E-mail 94% 88% 78% 78% 87%

Social or professionalnetworking sites 62% 67% 23% 60% 76%

Instant messages 36% 34% 16% 29% 53%

Posting content to a website 30% 33% 14% 32% 38%

Posting content to a microblogsuch as Twitter 8% 10% 3% 8% 17%

Posting content to a blog 12% 8% 3% 22% 29%

Chatting in chat rooms 8% 19% 7% 6% 21%



Si ifi d 9 % fid l l




Q: Which of the following types of individuals or organizations do you interact with online,by visiting a website or communicating online to obtain information?(n=1,093 MN Internet users)




Friends or family 89% 90% 78% 77% 90%

Businesses 64% 62% 41% 46% 44%

Co-workers 65% 48% 20% 30% 41%

Minnesota state government 36% 49% 30% 40% 48%

Health insurance companies 39% 25% 29% 46% 19%

Doctors or healthcareprofessionals 33% 18% 29% 28% 30%

Teachers 42% 38% 11% 49% 57%Local government 28% 30% 25% 27% 33%

Elected officials or candidates 26% 24% 21% 29% 31%


Interacting Online


www.connectmn.org





Purchasing a productor service online 82% 72% 54% 83% 85%

Online banking 74% 63% 42% 78% 73%

Paying bills 70% 59% 39% 59% 69%

Booking travel arrangements 71% 50% 49% 60% 62%

Online transactionswith government 52% 46% 29% 58% 44%

Selling a product or service online 35% 30% 13% 35% 29%

Buying, selling,or trading investments 23% 25% 13% 22% 13%

Online Transactions


Percentage is significantly* lower than the state average

:

f f








Using a search engine 88% 85% 61% 84% 81%

Reading online newspapers 73% 77% 54% 62% 66%Sending or receiving photos 78% 73% 60% 76% 78%Playing games online 45% 66% 38% 48% 66%

Downloading music 50% 58% 14% 47% 52%Watching videos, movies, orTV shows 50% 54% 24% 53% 70%

Working from home 43% 26% 11% 24% 25%Reading blogs 29% 26% 13% 26% 32%Taking online classes 23% 19% 13% 25% 29%

Online Activities


www.connectmn.org





Employed(full-time

or part-time)Retired All other

















www.connectmn.org


73%85%

6% 0%

60%67%

32%39%

26%34%

19%

41%

4%

18%

3% 1%

Statewide Employed(full- or part-time)

Retired All other



48%

63%

6%17%

39%45%

35%27%

43% 44%

31%35%

23%

37%

16% 22%

Statewide Employed(full- or part-time)

Retired All other








Research MethodologyResearch Methodology

• Data were collected by telephone through live computer-assisted interviewsfrom a statewide random digit dial (RDD) sample of 1,207 householdscontacted between February 22 and March 3, 2010. On average, each surveytook approximately 10 minutes to complete. Data were collected byThoroughbred Research Group in Louisville, KY.

– This research was designed to measure technology adoption and the awarenessof available broadband service, and establish benchmarks for these metrics.

• The questionnaire screened to include only adults age 18 or older with quotasset by gender, age, and county of residence (urban, suburban, or rural) toensure adequate representation of all adults in the state.

• Weights were applied to correct for minor variations and ensure that thesample matches the most recent U.S. Census estimates of the state’spopulation by age, gender, and urban/rural classification of the respondent’scounty of residence. Weighting and research consultation were provided byLucidity Research LLC.

• Sampling margin of error:

– Statewide, full sample (n=1,207): +2.9% at the 95% level of confidence. Thissample error accounts for sample weighting, using the effective sample size.

Methodology




• The U.S. Census Bureau uses an urban-rural classification based onMetropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), which are designated by the UnitedStates Office of Management and Budget to collect, tabulate and publishfederal statistics.

• Metropolitan statistical areas contain a core urban area with a population of50,000 or more. Each MSA also includes one or more counties that have a highdegree of social and economic interaction with the urban core (furtherinformation on definitions for MSAs can be found at:www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/00-32997.pdf ).

• When classifying urban, suburban and rural counties, we follow the CensusBureau definition whereby counties are categorized as “urban” if they containthe core city of an MSA. “Suburban” counties are MSA counties that do notcontain a core city, and “rural” counties include all remaining counties that arenot part of an MSA.

• Using these definitions, there are currently 4 urban, 16 suburban, and 67 ruralcounties in Minnesota.

Urban-RuralClassifications Defined

Gender: Employment Status:Male 49% Employed full-time or part-time 67%Female 51% Retired 17%Age: Homemaker not employed outside home 4%34 or younger 30% Student not working for wages 2%35 to 44 18% Unemployed 5%45 to 54 21% Disabled, not employed outside the home 2%55 to 64 15% Other / no answer 3%65 or older 16% Educational Attainment:Mean age (years) 47 Less than high school 4%Median age (years) 46 High school graduate 22%Any children under age 18 in household 40% Some college 29%Race: College graduate or higher 43%White (non-Hispanic) 87% Refused 2%Black (non-Hispanic) 2% Household Income:Any other (non-Hispanic) 3% Under $25,000 12%Refused (non-Hispanic) 4% $25,000 to $49,999 24%Of Hispanic origin or descent 4% $50,000 to $74,999 18%Marital Status: $75,000 or higher 33%Single, never married 13% No answer/refused 13%Married or living in partnership 69% Mean household income ($000) $63Separated or divorced 9% Median household income ($000) $60Widowed 7% Average household size (# of persons) 3 0

State Survey Sample(n=1,207 Adults)



B-1 Connect Minnesota

AT&T, Inc.Blue Earth Valley Telephone CompanyBroadband CorpCenturyLinkComcast Cable Communications, LLCFederated Telephone CooperativeFrontier Communications CorporationGarden Valley Telephone CompanyGardonville Cooperative TelephoneHiawatha Broadband Communications, Inc.Johnson Telephone Company

Midcontinent CommunicationsQwest CorporationSavage CommunicationsSprint Nextel CorporationT-Mobile USA, Inc.TDS Telecommunications CorporationUS Cable Corp.Verizon Communications, Inc.Midcontinent CommunicationsTDS Telecommunications CorporationZayo Group, LLC

Appendix BList o Participating and Non-Participating Providers

in Connect Minnesota’s Broadband InventoryConnect Minnesota’s most recent data submission to the National Telecommunications and In ormation Adminis-tration as part o the State Broadband Data and Development (SBDD) Grant Program included the participation oapproximately 78.9% o the Minnesota provider community, or 97 o 123 total providers. Data collected under theSBDD ormed the basis o the broadband availability in ormation supplied in the above report. For the latest andupdated data submission, o the 97 participating providers, 20 supplied an update to their network or coveragearea(s), while 69 have reported no change. The remaining eight represented providers who supplied initial submis-sion data but were non-responsive in the nal 2010 update e ort or could not veri y coverage areas at the timeo the submission; there ore their initial dataset was put orward as part o the compilation. A complete roster byprovider depicting participation status is below. O the 18 providers that are listed as not participating, six haveeither re used to participate in the voluntary program or have remained unresponsive to the numerous attempts at

contact by Connect Minnesota, and the remaining providers are currently in some orm o progress toward datasubmission but were not able to either submit or veri y coverage areas at the time o this submission, and are listedin this Appendix as participating in the program.

It is the collective opinion o the Connect Minnesota principals that all commercially-reasonable e orts were madeto account or 100% o the known Minnesota broadband provider community.

At the program’s inception, Connect Minnesota launched a website to create awareness about the initiative. Duringthe provider outreach process, the website prominently eatured an in ormational page speci cally or Minnesotabroadband providers. Connectmn.org continues to serve a prominent role in the outreach and data collection e -

ort. While one-to-one contact was made with each and every identi ed provider, the portal page was created to

ensure that no provider was overlooked. The website o ered clear instructions about the data trans er process anda means to contact a Connect Minnesota representative.

This program asset provides a way or the general public to participate in the process by o ering interactive toolsor users to test their connection speed, submit broadband inquiries, or contact a program representative. These

program stakeholders are an essential component in the larger Connect Minnesota data validation methodology.

Providers Participating in the Connect Minnesota Broadband Inventory:



B-2

McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc.360networksAce Telephone AssociationAlliance Communications Cooperative, Inc.Arrowhead CommunicationsArvig Communications SystemsBarnesville Municipal TelephoneBenton Cooperative Telephone Co.Cable ONE Inc.Charter CommunicationsCity o WindomClara City Telephone CompanyClearwire CorporationDIECA Communications, Inc.diversiCOMEagle Valley Telephone CompanyEmily Cooperative Telephone CompanyEN-TEL Communications, LLCFarmers Mutual Telephone CompanyFelton Telephone CompanyGenesis WirelessGranada Telephone CompanyHalstad Telephone CompanyHarmony Telephone CompanyHickory Tech CorporationHomeTown Solutions, LLCHutchinson Telecommunications, Inc.In o Link Wireless, Inc.Interstate TelecommunicationsInvisiMax, Inc.Jaguar CommunicationsKM TelecomLakedale LINKLakedale TelephoneLonsdale Telephone CompanyLoretel Systems, Inc.Mabel Cooperative Telephone CompanyManchester-Hartland Telephone CompanyMediacom Minnesota, LLCMinnesota Valley Telephone CompanyMinnesota Valley TV ImprovementNew Ulm Telecom Inc.Otter Tail TelecomPaul Bunyan Rural Telephone CooperativePine Island Telephone CompanyPolar Telecom, Inc.Red River Rural Telephone AssociationRiver Valley Telecommunications CoopRothsay Telephone Company

Runestone Telecom AssociationSacred Heart Telephone CompanyScott Rice TelephoneSheehan GasSioux Valley WirelessSjoberg’s, Inc.Sleepy Eye Telephone CompanySouthern Cablevision, Inc.Spring Grove Cooperative Telephone Co.Sprint Nextel CorporationStarbuck Telephone Companytw telecom o Minnesota, LLCUpsala Cooperative Telephone AssociationVAL-ED Joint VentureWest Central Telephone AssociationWestern Telephone CompanyWikstrom Telephone CompanyWinnebago Cooperative Telephone AssociationWolverton Telephone CompanyWoodstock Telephone CompanyXO Communications, LLCZumbrota Telephone CompanyAlbany Mutual Telephone AssociationBradoo-WISP, IncChristensen Communications Co.CitEscape Wireless Internet, LLCCogent Communications, Inc.Consolidated TelecommunicationsCrosslake Telephone CompanyEnterpoint WirelessEvertek Enterprises LLCLevel 3 Communications, LLC



Providers Not Participating in the Connect Minnesota Broadband Inventory:Kentucky Data Link, Inc.Knology o the Plains, Inc.Nextera CommunicationsA Better Wireless, NISP, LLCMinnesota Network ServicesChaska NetCity o Detroit LakesClements Telephone Company Inc.Cloudnet Inc.

Digital Telecommunications, Inc.Dunnell Telephone CompanyFibernet MonticelloFTTH CommunicationsIdeaone Telecom Group, LLCMaple Lea NetworksRedwood County Telephone CompanyRidge Runner Internet Services Inc.USI Wireless

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dave1132
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Minnesota Broadband Availability

Documents