If the end result is anything close to $650 million, Minnesota’s goals for high-speed internet connection will be much closer to reality.
If the end result is anything close to $650 million, Minnesota’s goals for high-speed internet connection will be much closer to reality. Credit: MinnPost photo by Corey Anderson

Minnesota could be in line for an unprecedented windfall of money to help build high-speed internet in rural areas.

Every state was promised a minimum of $100 million for broadband development from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed by Congress late last year. But some states could get more, based on need.

Now, Minnesota officials have an estimate of that extra cash: $550 million. That would bring Minnesota up to $650 million for broadband from the infrastructure bill, a sum that would far eclipse any government spending in the state for developing high-speed internet in recent memory.

“This is a remarkable amount of money,” said Nathan Zacharias, a technology policy analyst for the Association of Minnesota Counties. “The good it will do — especially for rural communities — is almost indescribable.”

Minnesota’s Department of Employment and Economic Development cautioned that the projection is just a rough estimate and could change. It also wouldn’t be enough for universal broadband access at blazing fast speeds.

But if the end result is anything close to $650 million, Minnesota’s goals for high-speed internet connection will be much closer to reality.

What was in the federal infrastructure bill

The $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill — passed with some bipartisan support under President Joe Biden — contained $65 billion for broadband across the country. Of that, $42.5 billion was earmarked for states to distribute. But so far each state has known only that they would get a minimum of $100 million.

Diane Wells, deputy director of DEED’s Office of Broadband Development, said the federal government recently gave Minnesota an estimate of how much money it could receive so the state could start planning. The cash is distributed based on need, so Kevin McKinnon, a deputy commissioner for DEED, said the relatively rural Minnesota was expecting to get more cash compared to states that are more urban and well connected to the internet.

The final amount Minnesota will get won’t be known until later, and it’s dependent on maps of areas without access to broadband that the feds need to update. Minnesota also must submit a plan for how it would use the money over a five-year period.

McKinnon said it could take roughly a year before Minnesota gets any money to spend under the infrastructure bill program, known as Broadband Equity, Access and Employment, or BEAD.

The feds have previously outlined several potential purposes for the money, including allowing states to install Wi-Fi in multi-unit residential buildings. But Wells said Minnesota’s money is expected to be spent entirely on “deployment” of internet, primarily subsidizing the development of infrastructure — traditionally, fiber-optic cable — in places where it would be too expensive for internet providers to otherwise justify.

Universal broadband access has been a goal of both political parties, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted inequities in internet access. But exactly how to use American Rescue Plan money on internet projects was a point of contention.

Legislators this year directed the state to use $110 million from the American Rescue Plan stimulus program passed under Biden for broadband infrastructure. In 2021, the Legislature approved $70 million from the plan for broadband development. That was already a large sum compared to historic spending on broadband.

Minnesota also was in line for another $408 million from a grant program run by the Federal Communications Commission. But $311 million of that cash was awarded to one company, LTD Broadband, which was recently rejected by the FCC. Starlink, which was initially awarded $8.4 million in Minnesota, was also rejected. The money is expected to be redistributed for broadband by the FCC, though it’s not clear how much will be dedicated for Minnesota.

How far would the infrastructure money go?

Minnesota currently has two goals in law for broadband access across the state. One is for every home to have access to internet with download speeds of at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps) and upload speeds of 3 Mbps “no later than 2022.”

But the state also has a faster speed goal of 100/20 Mbps by 2026, which has been the primary focus of Minnesota broadband officials. (Netflix recommends at least 5 Mbps download speeds for high-definition streaming, though faster speeds are likely needed for more complicated tasks involved in, say, running a business.)

In October, the state estimated about 88.5 percent of Minnesotans have access to wireline internet like DSL, cable and fiber at speeds of 100/20 Mbps. And in March, before the Legislature approved $110 million for broadband, DEED officials said they would conservatively estimate the cost of meeting the 2026 goal for adequate broadband at $1.3 billion.

Daniel Lightfoot, a lobbyist for the League of Minnesota Cities, said the federal estimate was “exciting to hear” and higher than expected. But he said it doesn’t completely solve the problem of lack of broadband access. 

“If it was $650 million total, that’s about half of what we would need to meet that goal,” Lightfoot said. “So it’s a big number but also the need is huge too.”

Join the Conversation

10 Comments

  1. Wait a sec. Those red counties in rural Minnesota don’t like to be told what to do. They don’t want this big guv’ment overreach. They want to have things their way. They don’t want this meddling from the feds.

    Right?

    1. Get your head out of the sand. Can’t you see what is good for rural Minnesota is also good for the whole state (even the metro area).

    2. You’re absolutely right. Rural folks rely on each other, not handouts. They don’t want this “shoved down their throats”. Amiright???

  2. “The good it will do — especially for rural communities — is almost indescribable.”

    Could it be…inconceivable?

    Joking aside, broadband is a huge boon to Minnesota as a whole and our rural communities specifically. It allows local businesses to reach bigger and distant markets, schools to tap into advanced learning programs, and high tech workers to live anywhere, spending their salaries locally to support their area’s economy.

    That, in turn, increases the local tax base and reduces the need for LGA. Like the rural electrification program of the 1920s and ’30s, I’m not seeing a downside to this initiative.

  3. Now people can flee the cities near tall buildings and work in sprawl country.

  4. There is no good reason for this to be federally funded. Let each state/local government and industry figure out how to get the service to the rural areas. If MN (and respective local areas) deems it important enough, then get to it. If SD or TX (and yes, I’m a “red” stater) chooses not to use their own state funding and it drives away business or keeps new businesses away then it’s on them. If someone is not moving to a rural because the cost ($10k ??) to pay for it themselves is “insurmountable” then perhaps they are losing sight of the forest for the trees. Surely the “savings” from the lower costs of housing, commuting, etc. will most likely cover the cost. And what about those (businesses or individuals) who have already paid for the infrastructure? I suppose they get to help pay for the neighbor’s….a little bit like the family who took on some extra jobs to pay for their children’s college and now get to help cover the loans of others.

    As for the comparison to rural electrification, this does not remotely come close to the same level of importance and return on investment for the nation.

    It does allow Amy and Tina to say “look what I did for you rural Minnesota.”

    1. More likely we’ll see GOP politicians across Red states and counties say, “Look what I did for you!”

      Compliant lame stream corporate media will helpfully neglect to point out that those GOP politicians voted against it.

Leave a comment