The Pioneer Press ran an article over the weekend on Rural Lawmakers Struggling to be Heard highlighting the fact that few legislators are farmers. I read the article thinking about the impact a diminished rural voice has on broadband access. If you haven’t lived, worked or even visited a place without broadband for a while you forget (or maybe don’t know!) that those areas still exist. I know because I just had that discussion with someone last night. There are parts of Minnesota, where people live – so outside the BWCA – that don’t have access to broadband. Check out the East Central Minnesota Regional Broadband conference in April and you will meet them.

Last night the person I spoke with assumed it was an affordability issue – and it is but in a broader sense than affordability in metro areas. For the providers, it’s too expensive to bring broadband to these areas. Subsequently, people (and businesses) requesting broadband in remote areas are quoted prices that are not market standard rates for broadband access. (Read about rural affordability from folks on the frontlines: Aaron Brown and Marc Erickson.)

Last week at the Minnesota Broadband Task Force I listened to a conversation about universal affordability. This is what Aaron and Marc are getting to in their articles. Aaron pays $1000 a year for “broadband” that is inadequate and doesn’t work much of the time. Marc outlines a few options including, “Costs include equipment (about $300), setup (about $150), router (about $75) and a monthly charge of up to $100 for 5mbps speed.” The cost for broadband shouldn’t be so much more expensive based on your location.

The argument I hear on this: 1) if it costs more, customers should pay more and 2) rent is higher in the Cities, broadband in higher in remote areas; you make your choices. The problem for legislators is that those answers are shortsighted. As education, healthcare and more government services go online, it will cost the State more to serve the customers without broadband. As more jobs and entrepreneurial options emerge online, more opportunities open up for economic stability (maybe vitality) to people in remote areas. That means a greater tax base and fewer folks availing of State services. Broadband isn’t a lost cost in rural areas – it’s an investment. (I’ve talked before about the MN Rural Partners’ study that demonstrates that investment in rural areas reaps returns in rural and urban areas.)

From a legislative perspective, and I’d say from a Minnesota perspective, the issue of access is broader than rural – it’s a state issue. More rural voices in the legislature might help raise the issue but it also makes sense for folks in remote areas to build coalitions to strengthen their voices. The Pioneer Press article touches on coalition building…

Forming partnerships has been key for the only full-time farmer in the Maryland Senate, Thomas McLain “Mac” Middleton.

Maryland has some of the country’s richest counties, but its poor, rural areas share many of the same problems as urban areas such as Baltimore — poverty, unemployment, teen pregnancies and lack of opportunities, Middleton said.

So he’s made common cause with his urban counterparts to ensure that rural communities have access to education funding as well as high-speed Internet service. …

Broadband has been important to the growth of his and many other businesses in rural Maryland.

Broadband in rural areas is good for rural areas – but it’s good for Minnesota as a whole too.