Report on Broadband Access, Usage,
and Potential on Missouri’s Farms and
in Rural Communities
May 2013
AgBroadbandNow
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 6
Situation Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 6
Survey Results ....................................................................................................................................... 7
Key Agricultural Leaders on Expansion and Acceptance by Missouri Farmers Findings ...................... 9
How Providers See the Situation ........................................................................................................ 11
Surveys ........................................................................................................................................................ 13
Residential Survey (RURAL)..................................................................................................................... 13
Future Farmers of America Member Survey (FFA) ................................................................................. 20
State Fair Survey (FAIR)........................................................................................................................... 23
United States Department of Agriculture Survey (USDA)....................................................................... 26
Stakeholder Input Sessions ......................................................................................................................... 28
Session I: Areas of Investigation ............................................................................................................. 29
Session I: Results and Findings ............................................................................................................ 29
Why is Broadband Needed? ............................................................................................................. 29
What Benefits does Broadband Bring? ............................................................................................ 30
Issues and Roadblocks Identified ..................................................................................................... 31
How Broadband is Being Successfully Used? ................................................................................... 32
Beneficial Impacts of Broadband Access.......................................................................................... 32
Economic Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 32
Environmental Impacts ................................................................................................................ 32
Safety Impacts.............................................................................................................................. 33
Future of Farming with Broadband – Economic and Operational needs......................................... 33
Future of Farming with Broadband – Engaging the Next Generation ............................................. 34
AgriBusiness--What You Can Do! ..................................................................................................... 35
2
Session II: Areas of Investigation ........................................................................................................... 36
Session II: Findings .............................................................................................................................. 36
From the Providers Perspective, What Are The Needs, Gaps, or Barriers for Agriculture,
Agribusiness, and Rural Communities Access to and Use of Broadband?.......................................... 36
Agriculture Statistics......................................................................................................................... 39
How do we communicate service and accessibility to the community? ......................................... 41
What are Barriers to Providing Better Coverage in Rural and Agricultural Areas?.......................... 41
What Could be the Incentives to Overcome these Barriers? ........................................................... 43
Building Solutions ............................................................................................................................. 44
What Topics Should Have a Unified Voice from Providers and How Should This Voice be
Expressed? .......................................................................................................................................... 46
Actionable Items -- Providers ........................................................................................................... 46
Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 47
Recommendations and Next Steps ............................................................................................................. 48
Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 50
Broadband Coverage Mapping ............................................................................................................... 51
Session I: Participant Profiles .................................................................................................................. 55
Session II: Participant Profiles ................................................................................................................. 59
Missouri’s Agricultural Landscape .......................................................................................................... 63
Resources and Additional Perspectives .................................................................................................. 63
3
Introduction
MoBroadbandNow is a public-private initiative established by Governor Jay Nixon in
2009 to expand and enhance broadband throughout Missouri. The initiative is focused on
availability, adoption, affordability, speed, usage, literacy, and sustainability.
MoBroadbandNow established AgBroadbandNow to focus on the specific high-speed
internet needs of the agriculture and agribusiness community. The following report is but one
part of that effort. This report uses the significant body of research already completed by
MoBroadbandNow into rural Missouri’s access to, and use of, computer and Internet
technology as a foundation, but explores more deeply how broadband can make agricultural
operations more efficient, productive, safer, and economically sustainable in the state.
From its inception, MoBroadbandNow has placed significant focus on rural Missouri in
terms of reporting on and encouraging access, adoption, and planning. The initial residential
assessment survey done by MoBroadbandNow was designed to make sure that each of the
state’s 19 Regional Planning Commission (RPC) areas were adequately sampled, thus producing
a significant number of survey returns from residents who self-identified themselves as “rural”.
This created a platform for ongoing broadband planning work done within those RPCs.
To date, MoBroadbandNow has produced three reports using the results of the
residential survey. The first, “Dissecting Missouri’s Digital Divide,” focused on the “digital
divide” between Missourians who have ready access to computers and high-speed Internet
service and those who do not. This report identified the largest factor in that divide as being
whether a person lived in rural or urban Missouri. A second report, “Building Digital Inclusion:
Broadband and Missouri’s Public Libraries,” dealt with how the state’s libraries can be a
significant asset in bridging the digital gap, again emphasizing the how libraries in rural Missouri
currently play a major role in assisting citizens there. A third report, “Understanding Internet
Non-adoption: Fulfilling Missouri’s Digital Promise,” explored why Missouri households were
not adopting computer and Internet technologies, again with some special focus on those who
live in rural areas.
In addition to the statewide residential survey, MoBroadbandNow has also conducted
surveys with members of the Missouri Future Farmers of America and with visitors to the
Missouri State Fair. While these efforts were not random-sample surveys, they did reach
persons representing a wide swath of Missouri. The results are included in this report and used
to build and support both its summary and conclusions.
Also used as source materials for this report were the comprehensive mapping efforts
that have been conducted by MoBroadbandNow that show the types, speed, and number of
providers of Internet service available across the state.
Reports from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding Missouri’s
farm output and USDA surveys of farm computer and Internet usage were also referenced.
Relevant portions of both are included in this document.
4
Additionally, white papers from both the Community Policy Analysis Center of the
University of Missouri and the Hudson Institute on the economic impact on rural areas of
broadband availability and adoption were consulted.
The bulk of this report is based upon two exploration and ideation sessions facilitated by
AgriThority. The first was held in February 2013 and the second in March 2013. Both were held
at the Truman State Office Building in Jefferson City.
Session I* included key leaders from the Missouri agricultural and rural development
sectors. Included were individual farmers, representatives of key commodity trade groups,
representatives of farm equipment suppliers, members of the leadership of the Missouri
Department of Agriculture, University of Missouri Extension, representatives of the Missouri’s
Senate Agricultural Committee, as well as rural electric cooperatives. Also in attendance were
some representatives of providers of rural internet services.
Session II* focused on those internet providers who service rural areas. Those in
attendance represented providers ranging from fiber-to-the-home installations, to small
wireless and wired Internet services providers who serve mostly rural areas, to large national
telecommunications firms. Also in attendance were representatives of middle-mile fiber assets
and persons from the business and rural development offices of Extension.
Both sessions explored the need for broadband in rural Missouri and what potential
benefits it brings. Session I dealt more specifically with how broadband factors into home,
education, and farm life. Session II dealt more specifically with: a) what opportunities exist for
internet providers in rural Missouri, and b) what barriers exist to taking advantage of those
opportunities.
Whenever possible this report uses the words and language of the session participants
as they talked about the possibilities broadband brings and the potential obstacles that
broadband faces in the state of Missouri.
*Complete lists and additional information about the organizations, roles, and responsibilities of session
participants is in the appendix to this report.
5
Executive Summary
“ . . . In short, rural America stands at a precipice. A growing technology gap looms.
Without broader access to broadband capacity, rural America will lack one of the
necessary tools to contain, if not narrow, the gap. Such a gap will mean a loss of
opportunities for those who live where technology is used less and a loss of economic
potential for those who make the products and service that would close that gap.
Because communication technology continues to advance, the gap can only grow
unless investment continues in the places where the capabilities are furthest behind.”
From: “Broadband for Rural America: Economic Impacts and Economic Opportunities,” Hanns Kuttner,
Hudson Institute, October 2012
The above excerpt from the conclusion of the Hudson Institute report captures the
challenge that faces Missouri as it continues to look at access, usage, and, most importantly,
potential for broadband on farms and in rural communities across the state.
What actions can and should citizens as well as public and private institutions and
organizations of the state take to ensure that Missouri’s rural economy is strengthened and
that the quality of life in rural areas is improved by access to the Internet through high-speed
broadband connections.
Situation Analysis
Agriculture, rural communities, and broadband present a paradox in Missouri.

Missouri ranks 11th among states nationally in cash receipts from farming with $8.3
billion in 2010, but agriculture makes up only about 3% of the state’s economy,

Its 108,000 farms are second only to Texas in number and farmland occupies 66% of the
state, but persons living on farms make up only about 4% of the state population.

Four percent of the population lives on farms, but 27% of the state’s population lives in
rural areas that are dependent upon agriculture to sustain the local economy and
provide a tax base for local governments.

Rural jobs pay only about 70% of what urban jobs in the state do, but per job earnings
for rural jobs increased from 2010 to 2011, while per job earnings for urban jobs
declined.

Nearly all Missourians (97.3%) have access to high-speed broadband as defined by the
NTIA (768 kbps download, 200 kbps upload), but the gap is tremendous between the
low end capacity available in many rural areas and the 10+ Mbps download speeds
available through most urban cable connections, not to mention the soon to be
available gigabit speeds (both download and upload) from the Google Fiber project in
Kansas City.

The general consensus is that access is growing, but the access needs to be both
affordable and reliable as only then can connections support the economic and social
6
health of rural Missouri, none of the major commodity associations or agricultural
industry membership groups in the state have undertaken research to assess the
problem or analyze the opportunity.
Survey Results
MoBroadbandNow has conducted three surveys that provide insight to rural Missouri
resident’s computer usage and Internet service. The largest was a Statewide Residential Survey
with nearly 10,000 responses wherein the respondent self-identified as being rural. The results
from those who identified as rural are presented in this document as the RURAL survey. The
other surveys included members of the Future Farmers of America (FFA) at their annual
meeting and with visitors to the MoBroadbandNow booth at the 2012 Missouri State Fair
(FAIR). While only the RURAL survey used a random sample, all three surveys had respondents
from a wide range of zip codes across Missouri.
Additionally, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has reported on farm
computer usage and Internet access as part of its June Agricultural Survey. This survey is
conducted in odd numbered years from 1997 to 2011 and has included questions about both
access to computers and the Internet. This survey contains data at the state level. The results in
this report are from the USDA June 2011 survey.
(The survey source for the numbers in this portion of the Executive Summary is indicated
by the word or words in parentheses following the bullet points.)

In the RURAL and FFA surveys more than 9 of 10 respondents say they have a home
computer and more than half have had it for more than seven years. Results from USDA
indicate significantly lower farm usage with only 55% owning or leasing a computer.

The findings are similar for Internet access for those with computers. About 8 of 10
respondents to the RURAL and FFA surveys say they have Internet access for their home
computer, while only 52% of the USDA respondents say they have Internet access.

Missouri compares poorly to other states when it comes to farm access to computers,
access to the Internet, and use of the Internet to conduct farm business; ranking near
the bottom in all those measures. (USDA)

The source of Internet service was very consistent across the various surveys. DSL was
the number one reported source of Internet service in both the RURAL (32%) and USDA
(37%) surveys. Wireless was 22% in the USDA survey and 25%—fixed or cellular—in the
rural survey. Satellite was 22% in the RURAL survey and 17% in USDA. Dial-up was 15%
in RURAL and 16% in USDA. Cable was 4% in RURAL and 5% in USDA. FAIR respondents,
which likely included a much higher percentage of urban residents, reported cable as a
higher percentage of their Internet service, but DSL was still first.

Lack of competition hampers the Internet choice of many rural Missourians, as more
than half said they chose their Internet provider because it was the only one available.
(RURAL)
7

For those with a choice, speed was the number one factor in their selection of a service.
(RURAL, FAIR)

For those without Internet, dissatisfaction with speed was also the number reason for
that choice. (RURAL)

For those without Internet at home, work and friends/relatives were the major sources
of their access to the Internet.

There was a major difference between the RURAL and FFA groups when asked if they
had Internet capable farm equipment. Only 14% of the RURAL said they had such
equipment, with only about one-third of those using that capability. Forty-two percent
of the FFA group reported their farm having such equipment, with tractors and mowers
being the two items cited most often as having that capability. The FFA group was not
asked about usage of that capability.

Fifty-seven percent of the FFA respondents felt that high-speed Internet was
“important” or “very important” to their family’s farming operation and an even higher
percentage (75%) felt it was “important” or “very important” to ALL Missouri farms.

Those surveyed at the FAIR reported a wide variety of Internet providers with
CenturyTel/Century Link (20%) and AT&T (17%) ranked first and second.

A high percentage of respondents were satisfied with the speed and reliability of their
Internet service (71%), a smaller percentage were satisfied with its cost (55%), and a
smaller percentage still with their choice of providers (44%) (FAIR).

RURAL survey respondents who did not have home Internet cited speed (67%) and cost
(56%) most often as the reason. Availability (37%) was less important factor. FAIR
respondents, on the other hand, cited availability as the number one reason (49%), with
cost being less important (20%). (Speed was not a choice in the FAIR survey.)
8
Key Agricultural Leaders: Expansion and Acceptance by Missouri Farmers Findings
Broadband is considered vital for the businesses, education, home life, and farming operations
in rural Missouri.

Broadband is needed to both attract new businesses as relocations and to keep current
businesses where they are.

It is important that our schools have broadband so that our students can remain
competitive with students that graduate from other schools, particularly those in the
urban and suburban areas that have easier access to high-speed Internet.

With web usage becoming increasingly videocentric, broadband is essential for rural
households to be able to engage in both work-related and entertainment-related
content. In addition, services and software are becoming increasingly cloud-based, with
access being dependent upon effective broadband connections.

With more Internet capability being available and even necessary for operating farm
implements and equipment, sufficient broadband capacity will be vital to support
various stages of farming.

Many of the improvements in farming operational efficiency coming in the near future
will depend upon smart machines that can make adjustments, run self-diagnostics, etc.
Without adequate broadband availability, these improvements will not optimize
agricultural production.
Broadband brings significant benefits to rural Missouri

Broadband allows businesses to become international in scope. It allows them to be
part of multinational operations and/or allows them to attract and serve international
markets and customers.

With broadband connections, students in rural school districts can take fuller advantage
of distance learning opportunities and therefore have available to them many of the
same course options as the biggest and best schools in the state.

A high-speed Internet connection greatly expands certain employment opportunities
and therefore the ability to generate a second income for the household, an income
that is vital for those without extensive land holdings or who are just beginning their
farming operations.

The best farming operations are evolving from being based on mechanics to being based
on data and information. Broadband is necessary for that evolution to occur.
There are significant issues and roadblocks that may prevent rural Missourians from taking
advantage of these benefits.

There is a significant percentage of the rural and farm populations—particularly the
older generation—whose lack of computer literacy and savvy will limit their ability to
take full advantage of high-speed connectivity
9




Affordability will continue to be an issue, again for particularly for those who live on a
fixed income or those who are just starting off in the work world.
As uses for the Internet continue to require greater and greater bandwidth, rural
Missouri cannot be satisfied with 3Mbps, it will need greater capacity to keep up with
the technology.
Lack of technical education is still a barrier for many in rural communities.
There need to be better solutions to right-of-way issues and other easement situations
if broadband is to be more fully and economically deployed in the rural areas.
There are many examples already in place of broadband availability and use making large
contributions to both rural life and agricultural operations

New markets are being opened up both in the domestically and internationally. These
are both markets for agricultural products and markets for the skills and talents of
persons living on farms and in rural communities.

People are able to enhance their lifestyles and more effectively deal with some of the
inherent problems of being more distant from certain products and service, i.e.
healthcare facilities and cultural and entertainment venues.

Faster, higher capacity Internet connections are allowing many farms to become more
efficient in terms of both production inputs and energy and water consumption.

The ability to access information about effective techniques for growing more
diversified products (both plant and animal) and the ability to more effectively find
markets and customers for those products allows smaller and more diversified farms to
exist and thrive in rural Missouri.

The ability to engage youth and keep them in the communities provides a powerful
economic development engine for rural communities.
Broadband can play a major role in the future of farming and rural life in the state of Missouri

As precision agriculture becomes the norm rather than the exception, broadband will be
vital in both allowing easier adoption and taking full advantage of the benefits of this
technology.

Applications of Internet technology to both assess need for and monitor applications of
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers can help reduce unnecessary or excessive uses of
these chemicals saving both money and the environment.

Using broadband technology to give famers the ability to track animals through the
production process will enable farmers will promote food safety and help to meet
requirements of the Food Safety Verification Act with lessened expense and
distribution.
10
How Providers See the Situation
Providers are able to identify needs, gaps, and barriers that must be attended to if broadband is
to reach its full potential in rural Missouri.

Installing the latest technology is important, because the rural areas will be the last to
get the upgrade.

Farmers have more need for upload capacity. They often upload as much data as they
receive. There is a need for more upload capacity and speed. The need is higher per
person than in urban areas.

There is a huge funding need. To address this need, it will be necessary to tap into a lot
of sources that may or may not be at the table right now—funding for providers,
funding for infrastructure, funding for the business. The same challenges that were
faced in rural electrification are the ones that exist when expanding broadband to rural
areas. It is a nationwide issue. Identification and discovery of funding opportunities is
needed.

After availability, education is the most important -- people have to know what they
have. There is a difference between technologically savvy and technologically
dependent. It is important for people in rural areas to know how to use the technology.

The towns are dying in southeast Missouri because the young people don’t want to live
in those small communities. They go away to college and when they come home, they
can’t stay connected and therefore they don’t want to live there. Small towns and
communities are dying because they do not have access to technologies. We have to
have the same technology access and speed available in the rural areas as is available in
the metro areas or they will not be able to keep up.
Providers also have ideas on how solutions can be put into motion

Home-rule and then differences with neighboring communities (each community
requiring different permitting) can create issues. We need to document and log the
different situations that providers encounter to help with easements.

We are setting our targets low for access and speed. We need a paradigm shift for built
infrastructure: the economy of telecommunications needs to be pursued in the same
way as our national interstate system was in the 60’s and 70’s.

How do we find and or develop the users that will be willing to pay for a large node
which in turn will allow infrastructure investment to be made that will make better
bandwidth availability to all customers.

Business people must clamor for it – put a unified voice behind the need to convince the
investment to occur.

University Extension needs to figure out how to plug into this effort. Part of that is
helping to get the word out across the five areas: 1) 4-H, 2) Agriculture—counseling and
11
education, 3) Community development—how to grow, stop erosion, revive, 4) Human
environmental development, and 5) Business development.

Establish “Community Enrichment Centers.” Have a center in every community that
provides telecommunications education and awareness.

One of the first things we should do is build out to the schools. Put connections there
first as a way to create demand. Go to the schools, the library, and other areas where
there would be public access as a demonstration.
12
Surveys
Four different surveys have been done that provide information about the level and
type of access rural Missourians have to broadband service and what use they make of that
access. Those include a survey of the general population in which respondents could selfidentify as being rural residents, one conducted with FFA members and a third done with
persons visiting the MoBroadbandNow booth at the Missouri State Fair in 2012. Additionally,
every other year the USDA includes questions about computer and Internet usage in its June
Agricultural Survey. The data from this survey is reported at the state level. Results from all of
those surveys are reported below.
(Inquiries were also made about any research that had been done in this area with farmers or rural
communities by the largest farm organizations in the state. The Missouri Farm Bureau, the Missouri
Cattlemen’s Association, the Missouri Pork Association, the Missouri Corn Growers Association, and the
Missouri Soybean Growers Association. None of those organizations had surveyed members about
broadband access or Internet needs and usage.)
Residential Survey (RURAL)
Slightly more than three-quarters of the respondents to the general farm population
survey said they lived on farms with livestock operations. About half were on farms with grain
operations. Those involved with pet breeding and dairy operations made up less than five
percent of the respondents. See Chart 1.
Chart 1 - Type of Farming
Operation
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
78%
52%
Livestock
Grain
3%
1%
Pet Breeder
Dairy
A very large percentage of the respondents said they had a computer in their home
(97%) and a similar percentage said they had a cell or mobile phone (98%).
These were not new acquisitions, either. More than 8 out of ten said they had had a
computer more than seven years and nearly as many had owned a cell phone more than 7
years. See Charts 2 and 3.
13
Chart 2 - Years with
computer in home
Less
than 1
0%
Chart 3 - Years with
mobile phone
1 to 3
4%
1 to 3
4%
Less
than 1
0%
3 to 7
17%
4 to 7
12%
More
than 7
84%
More
than 7
79%
Almost as large a percentage has Internet service at home as have computers and cell
phones, with 88% saying they have that service.
In terms of type of Internet connection, about one-third has DSL, 22% access the
Internet by a satellite connection and about 15% use either dial-up or cellular. Only a very small
percentage has access via cable modem (4%). See Chart 4. Slightly more than 60% have had
Internet service more than 7 years and another quarter have had it between four and seven
years. Only a very small percentage (2%) have gotten that service in the last year. See chart 5.
Chart 4 - Type of Internet
service
Cable
Modem
4%
Fixed
Wireless
10%
Cellular
(Air Card)
15%
Don’t
Know
2%
Chart 5 - Years with
home Internet service
Less
than 1
3%
1 to 3
13%
DSL
32%
Dial Up
Satellite
15%
22%
More
than 7
61%
4 to 7
24%
More than half of survey respondents (55%) said they had only one choice when it came
to picking an Internet service provider. See Chart 6. Of those that did have a choice, connection
speed was a major factor for 4 out of 5. About half said they weighed cost and reliability
(respondents could pick more than one reason). See Chart 7.
14
Chart 6 - Reason for
selecting ISP
60%
Chart 7 - Reason for
selecting, if multiple ISPs
55%
100%
50%
80%
36%
40%
30%
21%
20%
19%
79%
60%
47%
43%
Cost
Most reliable
40%
10%
0%
Only
provider
available
in my area
Speed
Cost
Most
reliable
provider
in my area
20%
0%
Speed
Of those that said they did not have Internet service in the home, speed was once again
the major reason why not, with two-thirds citing speed as a reason. Slightly more than one-half
said cost was a factor and a little more than one-third said there was no provider in their area.
Only about 4% said it was due to lack of interest on their part. See Chart 8. If those who had no
provider available were removed, more than 100% said that speed was a factor and about 9 out
of 10 said cost was a factor. See Chart 9. Clearly, “no provider available in my area,” also meant
“no acceptable provider available in my area” to some respondents.
15
Chart 9 - If provider,
reasons for non-adoption
Chart 8 - Reasons for
non-adoption
120%
100%
106%
100%
80%
88%
67%
60%
40%
80%
56%
60%
37%
40%
20%
4%
20%
6%
0%
0%
Speed
Cost
Not interested
For those without home Internet access, work is where they most commonly get online,
with more than 9 out of 10 citing that. Somewhat less than half use a connection at a friend or
relative’s house and about one out of six use the public library. The low score for school as a
place to access the Internet is likely accounted for by the survey being administered only to
those who were over the age of 18. See Chart 10.
16
Chart 10 - If no home service,
places where Internet is accessed
100%
92%
80%
60%
40%
40%
16%
20%
5%
0%
0%
Work
Friend/relative’s
home
Public Library
Other
School
A small percentage of respondents (14%) said they owned or used farming equipment,
tools, or implements that have Internet capabilities and only about one-third of that group
actually used that Internet capability. Tractors were mentioned most often as the equipment
with such capability. See Charts 11, 12, and 13.
Chart 11 - Does your
farming equipment
have Internet
cabability?
Chart 12 - If your
farming equipment
has Internet capability,
do you use it?
Yes,
14%
No,
86%
Yes,
36%
No,
64%
17
Chart 13 - Type of equipment
with Internet capabilities
100%
91%
80%
60%
40%
23%
14%
20%
5%
0%
Tractor
Grain Dryer
Grain Elevator
Water/Soil
Monitor
Respondents reported a varied amount of uses for the Internet in connection with their
farming operation. A large majority say they use it to get general news and weather
information, get commodity and market information, connect to agricultural or farming
association or cooperative websites, do online banking and buy products online. Smaller
percentages use it sell products, store data, or create business websites. See Chart 14.
Chart 14 - Internet use
in farming operations
Get general news and weather information
94%
Get market and commodity information
76%
Do online banking
75%
Connect to ag/farm assoc/coop website
75%
Buy product online
70%
Sell product online
42%
Store data or inventory information
Create business website
33%
26%
Keeping up with friends and family was the number one use of the Internet cited when
respondents were asked how it is important to them and their home, with more than 9 out of
10 saying this was important. Four out of five say they use it for online banking, two-thirds get
health or medical information, and almost 60% use it for social media. Slightly less than half use
it to take classes or do homework, about one out of five watch television or movies, and about
one out of eight play online video games. A very small percentage, around 1%, uses the Internet
to look for a place to live. See Chart 15.
18
Chart 15 - Internet use at home
Keep in touch with family and/or friends
93%
Do online banking
80%
Get health or medical information
67%
Social media (Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin)
60%
Take an online class or do homework
44%
Watch television or movie online
21%
Play online video games
14%
Look for a place to live
1%
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
19
Future Farmers of America Member Survey (FFA)
A similar survey was conducted with Future Farmers of America members in the Spring
of 2012, using many of the same questions as were asked in the general farm population
survey. The survey was voluntary and taken by members as they walked through the exhibit
area at their annual meeting. While there were some differences in the results, most were
generally consistent. The survey was answered by 579 persons. They represented 89 Missouri
counties and 261 different zip codes. Fifty-nine percent were female and 41% male.
In terms of farming operation, about half said their families were involved with raising
cattle. One-quarter were involved with operations that raised “Other animals.” Other than
those two categories, the operations involved were quite diverse, from poultry operations, to
nurseries, specialty crops. See Chart 16.
Chart 16 - Type of farming operation
50%
46%
40%
30%
20%
10%
26%
16%
13%
12%
12%
10%
9%
6%
6%
6%
3%
0%
As with the general farm population survey, more than 9 out of 10 said their home had a
computer. A somewhat smaller percentage reported having it more than 7 years—56% vs. 84%
in the RURAL Survey. See Chart 17.
Internet access was even higher among this group, with 94% saying they had Internet
service at home. As with the computer, they reported having Internet access for a shorter
duration than the RURAL Survey—45% more than 7 years vs. 61% in the RURAL Survey. See
Chart 18.
20
Chart 17 - Years with
computer in home
Chart 18 - Years with
Internet service in
home
Less
Less
than 1
4%
More
than
10
23%
1 to 3
More
15%
than
10
4 to 7
39%
25%
8 to 10
17%
than 1
6%
1 to 3
20%
8 to 10
22%
4 to 7
29%
The FFA members were asked about the importance of high-speed Internet to their
family’s farming operation and to ALL Missouri farming operations. (This question was not
asked in the Residential Survey.) Interestingly, respondents said it had higher importance to ALL
Missouri farms than to their particular farm. The “Very important” or “Important” scores were
57% for their farm vs. 75% for ALL farms. See Charts 19 and 20.
Chart 19 - Importance of
high-speed Internet to
THEIR farm
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
31%
26%
22%
11%
10%
Chart 20 - Importance of
high-speed Internet to ALL
Missouri farms
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
41%
34%
16%
3%
6%
The FFA respondents reported using a significantly higher percentage of farm
equipment with Internet capability, 42% vs. 14% in the Residential Survey. Again, tractors were
21
the piece of equipment most likely to have this capability, but the FFA members reported a
broad-range of implements for such capabilities. See Charts 21 and 22.
Chart 22 - Type of equipment
with Internet capability
Chart 21 - Use
farm equipment
with Internet
capability
100%
80%
60%
78%
56%
40% 37%
33% 33%
40%
Yes
42%
28% 28%
14% 14%
20%
9%
7%
0%
No
58%
Besides home Internet service, the FFA group was asked about ability to access the
Internet through a smart phone or other mobile device. Sixty-nine percent said they had the
capability to use such a device to get online.
The FFA members were also asked about other options they have for accessing the
Internet. As might be expected with these school-aged young people, 4 out of 5 said they got
online at school. Half used a friend or relative’s connection and about one-third the public
library. See Chart 23.
Chart 23 - Where else do
you access Internet
(besides home or smart phone/device)
100%
82%
80%
55%
60%
40%
29%
21%
20%
4%
0%
School
Friend/relative's
home
Library
Work
Other
22
State Fair Survey (FAIR)
During the 2012 Missouri State Fair MoBroadbandNow gave Fair visitors an opportunity
to complete a short survey about high-speed Internet access. More than 1900 persons took the
survey. They represented 498 different zip codes and 443 different cities.
Three-quarters reported having access to high-speed Internet service at their home.
Again, DSL was the most prominent type of service with 43% of all respondents. Cable had a
bigger share among this group than with the RURAL Survey with 23% vs. only 4% in that group.
See Chart 24.
Chart 24 - Type of Internet service
Cellular Other
1%
8%
Fixed Wireless
13%
DSL
43%
Satellite
14%
Cable
21%
In addition to the type of Internet service, Fair goers were also asked specifically who
their Internet service provider was. CenturyTel/Century Link was number one with slightly over
20%. AT&T was next at 17% and Charter was third with 8%. The top eleven accounted for 72%
of the market share with a variety of other providers accounting for the remaining 28%. See
Chart 25.
Chart 25 - Internet Service Provider
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
28.4%
20.3%
17.4%
8.3%
4.0%
3.9%
3.8%
3.5%
3.3%
2.7%
2.3%
2.1%
23
The survey also asked respondents about their satisfaction with various aspects of
Internet service, including speed, cost, reliability, and choice of providers. Respondents were
most satisfied with the Speed and Reliability of their Internet service. In both areas, 71% of
respondents said they were “Very satisfied” or “Satisfied.” Overall satisfaction with Cost was
55%. For choice of providers, slightly more than half (56%) said they were “Dissatisfied” or
“Very dissatisfied.” See Chart 26.
Chart 26 - How satisfied are you
with Internet service
100%
90%
17%
15%
10%
10%
80%
34%
70%
45%
60%
54%
56%
Very Satisfied
50%
Satisfied
29%
40%
30%
20%
Dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
31%
19%
19%
27%
10%
10%
10%
Speed
Reliability
14%
0%
Cost
Choice of
providers
24
The one-quarter of respondent without high-speed Internet were asked the main
reason they did not have that service. Nearly half (49%) said it was due to lack of availability.
One-fourth cited cost as the reason. See Chart 27.
Chart 27 - Reasons for
high-speed Internet non-adoption
60%
50%
49%
40%
30%
20%
20%
13%
10%
7%
6%
2%
3%
0%
25
United States Department of Agriculture Survey (USDA)
As part of its annual June Agricultural Survey, in odd-numbered years the USDA includes
questions about computer and Internet access and usage. The data is reported both for size
and type of operation and by states for the continental United States. The USDA received more
than 31,000 responses to the 2011 survey. The table below shows how Missouri scored and
where it ranked on various measures in that survey.
UDSA Farm Computer Ownership and Usage – 2011
Measure
%
US
Reporting average
MO
Rank
Computer use and Internet access
Computer access
57%
65%
43
Own or lease computer
55%
63%
42
Have Internet access
52%
62%
46
Use computers for farm business
33%
37%
36
Purchase agricultural inputs over Internet
11%
14%
37
Conduct agricultural marketing activities over
Internet
10%
12%
29
Conduct business with any non-agricultural web site
25%
35%
42
Conduct business with any USAD web site
3%
5%
39
Conduct business with any other federal government
web site
2%
4%
41
Access USDA/NASS reports over Internet
8%
7%
19
Access other USDA reports/services over Internet
11%
13%
34
Access other federal government web sites over
Internet
10%
14%
40
Dial-up
16%
12%
6
DSL
37%
38%
20
Cable
5%
11%
45
Satellite
17%
15%
14
Wireless
22%
20%
14
Conduct business using Internet
Access USDA or government web sites
Type of Internet access
26
In terms of farm computer use and Internet access, Missouri ranks near the bottom on
nearly every measure. It is above average only in accessing USDA/NASS reports over the
Internet. As shown in the table below, Missouri particularly lags when compared to its
neighboring states.
Missouri Farm Computer Ownership and Usage Compared to Neighboring States
Measure
Missouri
Illinois
Iowa
Nebraska
Kansas
Computer access
57%
67%
69%
72%
66%
Internet access
52%
63%
66%
69%
62%
Use computer for
farm business
33%
43%
52%
52%
39%
27
Stakeholder Input Sessions
As part of MoBroadbandNow’s inquiry into importance, availability, and opportunities
to enhance high-speed Internet connectivity in rural Missouri, it contracted with AgriThority to
hold two facilitated daylong sessions with various stakeholders.
Session I, held in February 2013, involved key leaders in Missouri agriculture. This group
included active farmers, representatives of agricultural equipment suppliers, advisors from
University of Missouri Extension, persons from the policy and regulatory areas, and internet
providers.
Session II, held in March 2013, focused on Internet service providers, with additional
input from various economic development agencies that focus on rural Missouri. Providers
represented ranged from representatives from the largest telecommunications provider in the
world to small entrepreneurs providing solutions to unserved and underserved areas of the
state.
Both sessions were held in the Truman State Office Building in Jefferson City.
28
Session I: Areas of Investigation
Session I had several areas of investigation. These included:







Why broadband is needed in rural Missouri.
The benefits broadband brings to businesses, education, families, and farming
operations.
The issues and roadblocks to greater access to and use of broadband.
How broadband is being used successfully in those venues.
How the use of broadband can provide positive mitigation for rural economies,
environments, and public health and safety.
The future of farming with broadband as it relates to both economic and operational
issues and how it might serve to engage the next generation of farmers and rural
residents.
What participants could do to make broadband propagation, adoption, and usage more
successful in rural Missouri.
Session I: Results and Findings
Why is Broadband Needed?
Businesses
• Broadband is needed to both attract new businesses as relocations and to keep current
businesses where they are.
Education
• It is important that our schools have broadband so that our students can remain
competitive with students that graduate from other schools, particularly those in the
urban and suburban areas that have easier access to high-speed Internet.
• Because so much of today’s curriculum relies upon Internet resources, students need
broadband connections at home to allow for effective at-home study
Homes
• Broadband makes telecommuting a viable work alternative for those who wish to live in
rural communities or on farms. This allows those with smaller operations to have an
additional source of income and/or the households of larger operators to have a second
income.
• It is important that rural Internet connections have enough speed and capacity to allow
multiple users to be online at the same time without suffering significant slowdowns in
either download or upload speeds.
• Wireless broadband can allow homes to discontinue landlines saving money and
allowing continuity of connection.
• Broadband is important for having reliable connections for emergency situations—such
as calling for medical attention or fire—and it also allows persons outside of the range
of sirens to be informed about severe and dangerous weather conditions.
• With web usage becoming increasingly videocentric, broadband is essential for rural
households to be able to engage in both work-related and entertainment-related
29
content. In addition, services and software are becoming increasingly cloud-based, with
access being dependent upon effective broadband connections.
Farms
• With more Internet capability being available and even necessary for operating farm
implements and equipment, sufficient broadband capacity will be vital to support
various stages of farming.
• Many of the improvements in farming operational efficiency coming in the near future
will depend upon smart machines that can make adjustments, run self-diagnostics, etc.
Without adequate broadband availability, these improvements will not optimize
agricultural production.
What Benefits does Broadband Bring?
Businesses
• Broadband allows businesses to become international in scope. It allows them to be
part of multinational operations and/or allows them to attract and serve international
markets and customers.
• The availability of broadband opens up significant financial options for many businesses.
This can range from banking arrangements to partnerships and operating agreements to
the ability to offer financing to their customers.
Education
• The ability to offer advanced and specialized courses has always been a constraint for
rural school districts because of either small enrollments or the inability to attract
qualified instructors in those areas. With broadband connections, students in rural
school districts can take fuller advantage of distance learning opportunities and
therefore have available to them many of the same course options as the biggest and
best schools in the state.
• Likewise, adequate Telepresence will allow students to have counseling options that
may not have previously been available, again because of either small enrollment or lack
of expertise.
Homes
• Relative isolation is a fact of life in rural America. While that can be one of the
attractions of a rural life style, it is also be one of its limitations. Broadband connections
allow residents to decide when they want enjoy that isolation and when they want to
more fully participate in the social, cultural, and entertainment options of the broader
world that the Internet makes available.
• That ability to be more a part of the broader world gives rural communities and farms a
greater ability to keep the younger generation in those communities and on those
farms.
• One of the most significant benefits of broadband is a personal economic one. A highspeed Internet connection greatly expands certain employment opportunities and
therefore the ability to generate a second income for the household, an income that is
vital for those without extensive land holdings or who are just beginning their farming
operations.
30
Farms
• Efficiency in working with both suppliers and customers is going to be increasingly
important to farm operation efficiency. Good broadband connections make that much
easier.
• The best farming operations are evolving from being based on mechanics to being based
on data and information. Broadband is necessary for that evolution to occur.
• Broadband access to the Internet helps level the playing field and allows smaller
operations to gain efficiencies to help them stay competitive and profitable.
• With input costs continuing to climb and with a greater emphasis on sustainability from
both a regulatory and societal standpoint, broadband access helps farming operations
be more energy efficient.
Issues and Roadblocks Identified
Overall Issues
• Consistency of connection and speed and reliability is very important. Dropped
connections or the inability to get connected and stay connected at vital times can be
significant problems.
• There is a significant percentage of rural and farm populations—particularly the older
generation—whose lack of computer literacy and savvy will limit their ability to take full
advantage of high-speed connectivity.
• Affordability will continue to be an issue, again for particularly for those who live on a
fixed income or those who are just starting off in the work world.
• It is important that the technological divide between urban and rural not be allowed to
widen further. Doing so will damage the rural and farm economies and create a greater
schism between these two parts of society.
Roadblocks
• Lack of access of high-speed Internet connections is a roadblock for many rural and farm
residents.
• As uses for the Internet continue to require greater and greater bandwidth, rural
Missouri cannot be satisfied with 3Mbps, it will need greater capacity to keep up with
the technology.
• Rural electric coops can and should play a bigger role in bringing high-speed Internet
access to farms and rural communities.
• There are national grid and national security issues.
• Cost will continue to be a roadblock for many in accessing the Internet. This includes the
cost to providers of installing the connections and maintaining the network and the
monthly fee for the consumer.
• Lack of technical education is still a barrier for many in rural communities.
31
How Broadband Is Being Successfully Used?
Businesses
• Alternative business models are being put into place
• New markets are being opened up both in the domestically and internationally. These
are both markets for agricultural products and markets for the skills and talents of
persons living on farms and in rural communities.
Education
• Enrollment is higher
Homes
• With broadband making newer technology easier to access, people are able to enhance
their lifestyles and more effectively deal with some of the inherent problems of being
more distant from certain products and service, i.e. healthcare facilities and cultural and
entertainment venues.
Farms
• Faster, higher capacity Internet connections are allowing many farms to become more
efficient in terms of both production inputs and energy and water consumption.
• The ability to access information about effective techniques for growing more
diversified products (both plant and animal) and the ability to more effectively find
markets and customers for those products allows smaller and more diversified farms to
exist and thrive in rural Missouri.
Beneficial Impacts of Broadband Access
Economic Impacts
• Broadband allows application science to meet plant science to make farming operations
both more efficient and more effective.
• Promotes consumer knowledge of what Missouri farms and rural communities have to
offer.
• The ability to remotely treat animals helps deal with the current shortage of largeanimal veterinarians that exits in rural Missouri.
• The ability to both remotely monitor equipment performance and diagnose problems
before they become catastrophic failures allows farm equipment to perform better and
aids in its longevity.
• Faster and more reliable communication channels helps farms, farmers, and rural
communities both potentially avoid and recover from natural disasters more
effectively—from severe weather to floods to droughts and extreme temperatures.
• The ability to engage youth and keep them in the communities provides a powerful
economic development engine for rural communities.
Environmental Impacts
• Having real-time accessible information on equipment and labor needs via broadband
connections potentially allows farmers to share equipment and other resources—
including labor—more easily from farm-to-farm. This includes farms that are located
near one another, but also can apply to farms that may be across the county, across the
state, or even across the country.
32
•
As precision agriculture becomes the norm rather than the exception, broadband will be
vital in both allowing easier adoption and taking full advantage of the benefits of this
technology.
• Use of Internet applications supports land management of weather effects on farms and
farming.
• The ability to accurately, consistently, and intensely remotely monitor water, power and
other energy needs of various farm systems via broadband connections can and should
lead to significant savings in resource cost and usage.
• Applications of Internet technology to both assess need for and monitor applications of
pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers can help reduce unnecessary or excessive uses of
these chemicals saving both money and the environment.
Safety Impacts
• Using broadband technology to give famers the ability to track animals through the
production process will enable farmers will promote food safety and help to meet
requirements of the Food Safety Verification Act with lessened expense and
distribution.
• Being able to access 911 systems using the Internet will enhance the health and safety
of those who live on the farm, particularly allowing older famers and their spouses to
remain living on the farmstead.
• Emergency notification through the Internet will bring a greater level of safety—and
peace of mind—to persons living on farms when severe weather threatens.
• Remote locations, like most farms, have inherent security issues. Being able to monitor
both residences and equipment, crop, and livestock inventories through the Internet
will add greatly to farmer’s ability to be secure in terms of both person and property.
• With farms growing larger and livestock operations often no longer collocated with
farmsteads, the ability to remotely monitor both the health and condition of livestock
will increase farmers’ effectiveness and efficiency.
• The availability of large animal veterinarian care for farms has become severely
constrained in some parts of the state. If farmers and veterinarians can use Internet
applications to monitor, diagnose and treat animals at least some of that shortage will
be alleviated. Additionally, the Internet can potentially provide access to veterinarian
specialists in remote locations when needed.
• Safety is a major concern on farms, which are intensely mechanical operations that also
deal with a large variety of potentially toxic substances. The ability to readily access
information about how to safely use equipment and products—and deal with accidents
should they occur—is an important feature of broadband availability.
Future of Farming with Broadband – Economic and Operational Needs
•
•
Providers and regulatory and policy bodies need to think in terms of providing gigabits
of capacity to farms rather than the megabits that are being discussed now.
While “Smart Farms” are certainly going to be more prevalent and important in the near
future, “Smart Farm Houses” will be just as important.
33
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Efficient and effective farmers will want to be able to access anything they have on their
desktop computer with their mobile devices in the field or barn and vice versa.
Cloud storage and data sharing are going to be more and more important to farmers
and their suppliers and customers.
The availability and quality of training and education needs to be stepped up in rural
communities
Just as in urban areas, privacy and cyber security need to be addressed in farm and rural
settings. The give them a “party line” mentality of the past is not sufficient.
Rural means more than farming. Policies and opportunities need to encompass all of
rural life, not just the agricultural elements.
There need to be better solutions to right-of-way issues and other easement situations
if broadband is to be more fully and economically deployed in the rural areas.
Missouri Network Alliance is cost prohibitive and alternatives need to be addressed.
Both the public sector and the private sector will have significant and important roles in
bringing the digital economy fully to rural areas.
Future of Farming with Broadband – Engaging the Next Generation
Virtual training/education
• Technologies and applications such as Webinars, You Tube, and social networks
should be developed and used to provide education and training to help the next
generation be able to stay engaged with the rural community and on the farm.
Opportunities
• Broadband gives businesses, anchor institutions and communities greater capacity
to engage youth as innovators.
• With telework and telecommuting options made possible by broadband, the job and
economic prospects for the next generation are greatly expanded. Career options
previously not possible in a rural setting are now accessible.
• Virtual marketplaces/virtual businesses can be established to broaden the
entrepreneurial paths available to young people in rural Missouri.
Resources
• Anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and government offices need to make
their broadband resources more readily available to the community, particularly the
younger members of the community.
• Agricultural councils and associations can play a role in making sure that
technological, financial, and personal resources are available to members of the next
generation.
• Animal health firms, seed, fertilizer, and crop protection companies, and equipment
manufactures all have a stake in keeping rural Missouri viable. They need to be
called upon to commit both financial resources and political capital to making
broadband access a priority for both public and private decision makers.
Positioning
• Regaining the lost talent
• “Going back” to rural can be beneficial and needed
34
Agribusiness – What You Can Do!
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide more and more complete communication to both rural and urban areas about
the need for broadband access, reliability, and affordability.
Educate community members on how they can use digital and Internet technology in
their lives and work.
Generate need and understanding for broadband and its applications.
Engage youth in both helping determine what is needed by way of Internet access and
usage and in resolving issues, and overcoming roadblocks.
Institute programs that help get the next generation back on the farm.
Development loan and funding opportunities for small businesses that wish to take
advantage of rural locations.
Make necessary capital improvements in rural areas a priority.
Find a way for more rural residents to have access to fiber optic connections to the
Internet.
35
Session II: Areas of Investigation
The areas of investigation in Session II included the following:

What are the needs, gaps, or barriers for agriculture, agribusiness, and rural
communities from the provider perspective?

Agriculture statistics – What is relevant, what is surprising?

How do we communicate service and accessibility to the community?

What are barriers to providing better coverage in rural and agricultural areas?

What could be the incentives to overcome these barriers?

Building solutions

Actionable Items -- Takeaways from this meeting
Session II: Findings
From the Providers Perspective, What Are The Needs, Gaps, or Barriers for Agriculture,
Agribusiness, and Rural Communities Access to and Use of Broadband?
Availability and Capacity






Farmers have more need for upload capacity. They often upload as much data as they
receive. There is a need for more upload capacity and speed. The need is higher per
person than in urban areas.
The installations needs to be able to grow and therefore it is necessary to plan to grow.
May start with low bandwidth, but it will need to increase over time
Broadband has to be available right now. Future functionality is great, but you need to
be able to use it now. Access still an issue for many.
Getting the availability of broadband— the use of multiple technologies. Using all these
technologies to get broadband out. We need to have multiple choices for service
providers.
Three to 5 miles is kind of a sweet spot. Trying to plan the areas so there is room for
growth and redundancy.
Installing the latest technology is important, because the rural areas will be the last to
get the upgrade.
Technology




Mobility is the need. Everyone wants it in their pocket
Expandability and technology. Need to be able to provide the latest technology that is
available.
Going forward, cellular offloading to fiber and wireless carriers.
Example of a farmer that has a high-tech operation - uses cell phone to detect grain
temps and moistures without having to have to come on site.
36

Security is also a large issue that has both economic and technology components. One
farmer was able to pay for his entire security system when it saved one calf. Need
security and surveillance systems with reliability. Upload speed is very important to
people with security systems.
Cost and Funding





Broadband needs to be affordable and reliable.
Backhaul bandwidth cost and availability is a big part of the limitation.
There is a huge funding need and we are going to need to tap into a lot of sources that
may or may not be at the table right now. Funding for providers: funding for
infrastructure: funding for the business. Same challenge we faced in rural electrification.
It is a nationwide issue. Identification and discovery of funding opportunities is needed.
Backhaul bandwidth costs are too great. Variability and lack of competition for backhaul
carrier.s
Another issue is cost – you have so much less density in rural areas. How can you keep
broadband affordable in rural areas so that people will want to use it. Using wireless
over fiber can reduce cost per subscribers—from as much as $50,000 to $300.
Education and Understanding






General education as to what is available and what can be put out there for the
population. Education of the rural community and how they can put it to use.
With farmers, there is a change in demographics and a technology training issue for
older farmers and a generational divide in technology use.
Next generation is highly technical. More of an integration issue than an education
issue.
After availability, education is the most important -- people have to know what they
have. There is a difference between technologically savvy and technologically
dependent. It is important for people in rural areas to know how to use the technology.
Businesses need to understand the power of technology. The competitor is not only in
the next town, it can be across the country or across the world.
One provider had two technology directors at southeast school districts state that
tablets are a fad, that laptops are the future. There is a need education for “the gray
hairs and no hairs.”
Permitting, Right-of-Way, and Cooperation


In many counties, it is easy to erect agricultural structures than other structures and
many farmers feel that they are helping their communities. Permitting of agricultural
uses is easier than other uses based on local land use and zoning regulations.
Silos and grain elevators are good opportunities to provide wireless platform. The
provider approaches the owner when they see a large, high structure in an area that
they want to be in, with idea of helping the community.
37


o Anyone with large silos and grain elevators -- great for expanding a fiber wireless
-- have 9 of them to expand availability in network. (Note: this comment pertains
to a specific type of network provider).
o Called “tower hosts” and have John Deere GPS and narrow band radio antennae
Some middle mile fiber providers struggle to partner with Internet Service Providers. In
some communities have a lot of last mile providers, in other communities have very
few. Everything hinges on cost. Take rate is an issue.
Middle mile and last mile providers need to work together to find the customers that
are interested in the service.
Miscellaneous and Other




Providers have had vandalism (people looking for copper) and fiber cuts
Continued light regulation of the wireless industry (cellular) is important.
The maxim of quality, speed, and cost—you can pick any two applies here. In the case of
broadband the three elements are coverage, speed, and cost.
The towns in many rural areas of Missouri are dying, particularly in the southeast
portion of the state and in counties along the Missouri-Iowa border, because the young
people do not want to live in those small communities. They go away to college and
when they come home, they can’t stay connected. Small towns and communities are
dying because they do not have access to technologies. We have to have the same
technology access and speed available in the rural areas as is available in the metro
areas or they will not be able to keep up.
38
Agriculture Statistics
Relevant and/or Surprising
 There is a high level of acceptance of the Internet and demand for it.
 The value of the agriculture sector to the state’s economy and the decline of acreage
under cultivation, and the demographics of our farm operators.
 Where and what are the incentives to feed the world?
 Demographics of operators – white and older. The average age is 57.
 Demographics of users – older users are shying away from using the Internet.
 Relative low total revenue numbers for many farms. A large percentage has less than
$10,000 in sales. How many of these farms are highly specialized? The small off-farm
employed farmer wants the same benefits as large farmers.
 How small the margins are – what tools are available to help farmers increase those
margins? Are they aware of the tools available that could help them improve their
productivity? One provider has heard farmers refer to it as “my wife’s computer.”
 Net income is an issue – how to make the farms more efficient, how to make farmbased businesses more prevalent and efficient.
 How often farming is not a primary occupation, and the number of people taking online
classes. The second job is an Internet based or knowledge worker job; it is not the
manufacturing job that used to exist.
 There is a problem with lack of knowledge in many institutions. The IT directors are not
well educated, not on front-edge of technology. That same factor is true on the farm.
They don’t know how to manage their IT. This problem is exacerbated when those who
obtain higher levels of education or training move on to higher paying positions in nonrural areas.
Conclusions






The size of farms is growing, increasing the need and potential for monitoring (wireless
can shine here)
Farms are stressed right now – particularly the family farmer. Family farms are getting
smaller while commercial farmers are getting larger. Broadband can add value.
Farmers are trying to computerize everything in the field--information gathering
process, measure to manage!
Small farmers have older equipment, can’t use newer gadgets available on newer
equipment. Need to examine the relationship between size of farm and capability of
farm equipment--need to examine this gap.
What tools are available to level net operating expenses and revenue? How to generate
net income? Specializations? Remove middleman – food  market direct; travel
decrease; Efficiencies? Some farmers don’t seem interested in using computers.
Net-income levels are low. If you can get broadband to rural areas, it has to be
affordable.
39



USDA and state going more and more to electronic reporting. This feeds national
statistics, which then has implications on the Internet and view from Washington DC on
these issues and their status.
How are providers connecting with rural users/rural communities? Are they going locally
to the users? Are they attending association meetings and or customer appreciation
dinners? Vendors (seed companies, etc.) are doing yearly customer appreciation dinners
(400 farmers in a room) - perfect opportunity to generate a captive audience for
information and education about broadband and computer technology.
o Can't expect the agricultural community to go to a meeting providers hold. There
is a need to take information to them.
o Ralls County is working with Extension to develop classes--didn't have enough in
class to really make it worth it. Need to do more advertising and promotion.
o Educating farm communities is seasonal.
Need to remember that in rural areas when you talk to people there is a duality of roles.
E.g., the county commissioner is also a big grain farmer, the sheriff’s deputy operates a
small cattle operation, and the shopkeeper has a truck farm.
40
How do we communicate service and accessibility to the community?




The MoBroadbandNow interactive map lets you enter a physical address and generates
a list of providers. A limitation is that not all providers provide data and therefore access
info is not perfect. Link:
http://www.mobbdnowmap.org/MO_BDD_Viewer/Default.aspx
Doing a roofline project that will construct a database with commercial and residential
structures.
What is the importance of the mapping project – federal money tied to it to a certain
extent. If you want some grants they are using the maps to set criteria for. You may
have funds going to a competitor if you don’t participate because there is a “gap”
identified.
Regional Planning Councils are also using the maps in planning activities.
What are Barriers to Providing Better Coverage in Rural and Agricultural Areas?
Lack of Infrastructure/Lack of Competition







Lack of tower sites.
Wireless providers – frequencies that are available to fixed wireless providers have
some interference issues as you move into towns. There need to be some adjacent
frequencies opened up by the FCC for use.
We are not setting our targets high enough. For example, Germany standard is
30mbps/10mbps, while ours is 3mbps/1.5mbps. We need a paradigm shift of our
infrastructure being considered as more than highway infrastructure.
Port costs are low; it is the transport costs that eat it up—the middle mile.
It would be good to have a map that would all the middle mile providers point of
presence sites. Many will not give out the information. What are the issues to with
giving out middle mile info—1) security. If someone knows where your POPs are, they
can potentially disable anetwork. 2) and it would give competitors a sense of what
future plans might be and expansion options are.
Lack of competition at the middle mile level and feed level. Different costs related to
regulated and non-regulated pieces of the business.
2-tier fees for Internet -- only in KC or St Louis--Internet transport costs(back-haul) from
primary Internet feeds -- it would be more affordable if other locales have tier provider
feeds in those area
Permitting, Right-of-Way, Regulatory Issues

Municipal permitting fees and zoning (with 114 counties and over 1000 municipalities) –
it can very much slow project timeframe. Missouri’s home rule nature makes some of
the development more difficult. Different cities and counties have different rules and
regulations. Makes it difficult for providers to do work across jurisdictions and to be
efficient and consistent.
41







Working with the railroad is a challenge. The US Army Corps of Engineers is also a
hurdle. The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has been good to work
with.
Second the problem with railroad crossings. It takes forever to get it done. The obstacles
that are thrown up are horrendous. The railroads sold most of the rights to land
management companies, so the issue is with those companies, not with the railroads
themselves.
The regulations of building are a real barrier. Particularly if you are using RUS money,
due to compliance requirements.
Potential for adding ‘communication’ language to the existing language regarding
easements and ROWs.
As an electric utility when staying within their own easements for pole attachment it
was not a problem, but when they needed to negotiate an attachment agreement it was
difficult and has some overhead issues that are part of it—could have to upgrade their
equipment.
There is an odd mix of regulated issues (from and in telecomm industry) with nonregulated issues from wireless / broadband – these different costs on the traffic you
send back and forth
Some of the Generation and Transmission entities have been challenged as to the
nature of their easements, which were developed in the 30’s and 40’s. There was no
communication aspect to that easement when they were granted. There has been some
movement to have communications easements grandfathered in to these older
easements.
Miscellaneous and Other



The length of the process. The NTIA grant took three years and people wanted it to be
done overnight. The end user does not see or understand the reason for delays.
Timeframe and meeting requirements posed a challenge. For example, the provider
held public outreach meetings, then got negative press because of 3-year timeline and
because service was not immediately available. Environmental Impact Statements are
time consuming, if you have to make changes – EIS requires changes and approval.
Permitting. These lead to a lot of delays in the process.
How to better use wireless – they are a fiber only provider and would like to know more
about it. Education as to what is available.
A big issue he hears is that it costs too much. How to subsidize and or incentify this
process?
42
What Could be the Incentives to Overcome these Barriers?
Permitting, Right-of-Way, Regulatory Issues

What about permitting? If permit applications for middle mile installations are filed,
isn’t the information public? Regulated vs. unregulated piece – if it is considered
competitively sensitive, it may be submitted but not released; then homeland security
issues.
 Politics as an issue/hurdle.
 Home-rule issues and then differences with neighboring communities (each community
requiring different permitting) We need to document and log the different situations
that providers encounter to help with easements
 It would be great to have a "white paper" on MoBroadbandNow - something like 7 or 10
easy ways to help providers in your community to build out their broadband technology
(then send it out to the RPC's and commissioners and Missouri Municipal League)
 DNR changes their rules every 6 months, which creates a challenge for build-out.
 Helping with locally educating the community can help easements when one individual
is blocking movement
Technology and Infrastructure

Wireless barrier -- 2.4 5.8, 3.65 GHz -- cheap quick ways for fixed wireless to work ---but
doesn’t work as well in areas near towns, Licensed frequencies: 2.4; 3.65, and 5.8 GHz
are fixed. Can we petition someone (FCC?) to open new channels adjacent to these
bands/channels within unregulated frequencies?
 Germany has a target by 2014 of 30mbps down and 10mbps up; therefore, we are
setting our targets low –globally. We need a paradigm shift for built infrastructure; the
economy is telecommunications, which needs to be pursued in the same way as our
national interstate system. How much telecom infrastructure could we build for the cost
of one mile of Interstate highway?
 Definitely, our targets are too low. How are they doing it if the cost is also lower?
Government subsidy and funded. South Korea should be compared too.
 Issues of overbuilt middle mile.
 Stimulus money -- overbuilds in populated areas. Just because it is there doesn't mean
you can connect to it. Privately owned networks and infrastructure.
Miscellaneous and Other

What is the incentive to the rollout --- Free market is actually pushing it, providers are
breaking into the new markets because of ROI needs, Missouri is a great place to invest
because of the ways the telecommunications laws are in Missouri (flexibility).
43
Building Solutions
Marketing









We need to use the access to meetings of agricultural groups – provide education and
training at those meeting if possible. ISP's at local level need to go to meetings where
these citizen groups typically gather. BUT need to know what meetings to go to –
attending Farm Bureau type meetings to provide technology educational information.
o Need to know when and where these conferences are. Talking to farm
customers about when they are getting together
o Reach out to other organizations such as Farm Bureau, Soybean Growers, etc.
Importance of peer-to-peer communications.
Farmers can be convinced through "grandkid bait" – idea that grandkids will be more
willing to come visit if they have broadband.
Find your champions in your community that have gotten onboard and get them to tell
your story elsewhere.
Find the younger generation members that you can leverage. Example of the 30 yearold son working with the 60 year-old father on the farm, with the son pushing for more
use of technology.
Example of Fayette Underground Facebook page – Facebook can be an efficient and
inexpensive marketing tool and a way to build an online community.
Use guerilla marketing tactics, not just traditional advertising. Marketing is also the
product and what people are willing to pay and even multi-platform delivery of the
product.
o Definition of product and pricing structure
o Sales force and outreach
o Find the spokesperson in the community to help plug it in
o Who has a conference room? Can it be used by others?
Providers need to understand they are becoming entertainment providers as much as
data providers.
Demand will move to new places as people age and move to new places, e.g. nursing
homes and communities where people from urban areas move upon retirement.
Comprehensive

How did Google do it? They were able to get the cities to provide them greater access
and easier access. How did they change the paradigm and what paradigm did they
change:
o Created a competitive environment.
o “Build it and they will come”’ changed to “where do you want it?” Created a
competitive market that raised excitement.
o Did presales of service.
o Cut out some of the politics and barriers.
o Convinced the cities to want them, rather than want them to want the city.
Similar to what Saturn did when they had states compete for their plant.
44
o Offered a superior product at a superior price.
o Google created demand—proactive model. Got the city/community to do their
work, in terms of signing marketing, outreach, signing people up, neighbor to
neighbor to generate demand.
o Used the path of least resistance.
Education and Technical Support and Expertise

Ralls County Electric Cooperative started their build out as an economic development
project. They did not want to provide computer and network maintenance, but there
was not enough expertise in rural Missouri to do that so they have had to provide that
expertise.
 There is a need to establish small businesses and talent that can provide IT support or
figure out how to get students that are in either high school or college to serve as
interns and/or providers.
 Business people have to provide a clear demand to the high schools, colleges and
universities that there is a need for this technical assistance in rural areas.
 Start-ups – can there be a small business start-up to help support this IT function in
other small businesses/local government/and education? This ould be a major
opportunity!
o Interns from colleges
o Communities looking for solutions
o Community based internships
o Community colleges and career/technical schools. Business people have to push
for the "needs" in the 2 year and 4 year schools. There is a disconnect –
conceptually everyone agrees, but how do we get it done?
Community Development






How do we find and or develop the users that will be willing to pay for a large node
which in turn will allow infrastructure investment to be made that will improve
bandwidth availability to all customers.
Business people must clamor for it – put a unified voice behind the need to convince the
investment to occur.
Use 4H as a conduit into the communities.
Extension needs to figure out how to plug into this effort. Part of that is helping to get
the word out. There is a need to plug in across the five areas: 1) 4H, 2) Ag counseling
and education, 3) Community development—how to grow, stop erosion, revive, 4)
Human environmental development, 5) Business development.
Establish “Community Enrichment Centers.” Have a center in every community that
provides telecom education and awareness.
Ralls County – one of the first things they did was build out to the schools as a way to
create demand. Building to the schools, the library, and other areas where there would
be public access as a demonstration.
45
What Topics Should Have a Unified Voice from Providers and How Should This Voice
be Expressed?





The Community Connect program is geared to covering the gaps in towns. The language
of the grant is not geared to those gaps that exist outside of small towns, it doesn’t
move toward rural areas. There is a need to change that language if this funding is going
to be accessible to areas where there are still connectivity gaps in rural Missouri.
Telecom grants of all kinds are not geared for smaller businesses. You need to be big
enough to have resources devoted to both applying for the grants and fulfilling the
reporting requirements. For example, Sho-Me has two people devoted to just that.
One of the things the Cooperative family has been trying to do is consolidate the
purchase of bandwidth and then allocate it among the members.
Brand high-speed Internet as the “fourth utility.”
Work better with and through trade organizations. Some of these organizations are
effective and others are not. There has to be a more consolidated effort to get both
regulatory issues resolved and identify additional funding resources.
Actionable Items -- Providers
As a last exercise, participants were asked what specific ideas or items from the day’s discussion they
were planning to implement when they returned to their home locations:









Provider: Going to put a community enrichment model in place in one or more of their
counties.
Provider: Will go home and talk to their seed salesmen and let them know what they
can do to let their customers know about broadband technology and access.
Provider: Going by the extension office for resources.
Provider: Identification of lack of education of the extension office. Getting the
extension office involved in understanding the availability of the service and how they
can
Provider: Look more about how wireless can play a role in their installation. Have been
only fiber and needs to look at how that could be parlayed with wireless.
Provider: Need to look at wireless. Want to talk with Isotech and Airlink about extension
from the end of fiber.
Rural Electric Middle Mile Provider: Have 80 POP sites and want to find some ISPs in
their part of the state who can connect to them.
Extension: Give everyone contact information. Set up meetings in local communities to
work with providers. Reaching out to 70 some odd business counselors in their business
development department about the telecom providers group and how they might be
able to serve them.
Missouri Department of Agriculture: How many commodities association have been
involved in this conversation? Wants to get those groups more involved. (Do a survey of
a broader agribusiness group). Leverage relationship with those people.
46
Conclusions
The potential value and benefits of broadband, particularly high-speed broadband, to
Missouri’s farms and rural communities is echoed by all parties in this report. What is stated
from a scholarly perspective by the Community Policy Analysis Center and the Hudson Institute
is affirmed by young members of the Future Farmers of America and seconded by leaders in the
agricultural sector and those responsible for rural economic development, as well as
telecommunications providers—large and small.
There is also consensus that agricultural equipment and operations and many other
aspects of rural life—from education to healthcare to leisure and entertainment—will
considerably ramp up the demand for Internet availability and capacity. There is also a belief
that because of the cost and timeframes involved, that rural Missouri may have one chance to
get broadband “right” or it will be left behind for years to come.
It is also clear from both survey results and the sessions held with agricultural leaders
and providers that there is a significant gap between those potential benefits and what the
current infrastructure can provide. The digital divide for rural Missourians is real and growing
when compared to urban residents. Many rural consumers are less than fully satisfied with the
choices and performance of their broadband providers. There is a considerable percentage of
rural and farm residents who are non-adopters of computer and Internet technology—and
there is a belief on the part of providers that that the percentage who have less than adequate
Internet connectivity may be understated by current measures. According to the USDA,
Missouri farms lag behind nearly every other state of the union in their use of computers and
adoption of Internet technology. MoBroadbandNow work shows that adoption and use of
Internet capable agricultural equipment, while not minimal, is certainly suboptimal. Concerns
about how well rural school can function without much better connectivity and technological
expertise are prevalent.
Many of these issues were also raised and addressed, at least directionally, by the
broadband strategic plans developed by the state’s Regional Planning Commissions. There are
solid ideas and plans at a strategic level about what regions need to do to begin to capture
these benefits for farms and rural areas. There is, however, no mechanism in place to ensure
that these plans are advanced to the task level or metrics to measure progress.
Thirty of Missouri’s 115 counties lost population between 2000 and 2010. Another 16
grew by less than two percent, far below the national growth rate of ten percent. Except for St.
Louis City and St. Louis County, nearly all of these were in rural Missouri. No one thing will turn
this decline or slow growth around. Nonetheless, the ability to participate more fully in the
commercial and cultural life of the state, the nation, and the world that is made available by
affordable, fast and reliable Internet connectivity is the most compelling opportunity to revive
both the rural economy and the rural lifestyle that has been present for more than half a
century, if not longer.
47
Recommendations and Next Steps
While there are a multitude of action items that different groups and even individuals
can and will pursue, there were a number of consistent themes from this study that we believe
should be supported and potentially coordinated at a higher level, whether inside state
government or by other stakeholder groups. These include:
1. Make enhanced regional planning and follow-up a priority. While the 18 Regional
Broadband Availability and Adoption Strategic Reports are a significant foundation for
broader application and adoption of broadband in the state, there is currently no
mechanism for either monitoring follow through on those strategic plans or consistently
developing them to the task level—with specific public and private organizational
responsibility for those tasks. In addition, results of sessions with agricultural leaders
and providers suggest the enhanced plans can or should include:

Create economic development pilots that use high-speed and ultra high-speed
Internet as a key component.
 Establish greater specificity to the task roles and responsibilities for Community
Anchor institutions.
 Identify current and potential Big Data users to allow other development to
piggyback.
 More fully explore and work toward leapfrog approaches—Gigabit not megabit
thinking.
 Find sponsors in each region to providing funding and resources.
 Get more involvement and support from rural electric cooperatives. If
broadband is truly the “fourth utility,” no organizations are better positioned to
make broadband development more widespread and effective in rural Missouri.
2. Establish a state-level public-private task force on policy and regulation.

Both agricultural leaders and telecommunications providers say that
development of broadband is being held back by inconsistent rules and
regulations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. This includes permitting process,
right-of-way and easement requirements, etc. While local or regional solutions
are possible, a statewide approach will be much more efficient and effective.
3. Make the entire state a beta site for agricultural uses of ultra-high speed broadband

Missouri is well-positioned play to this role due to the wide number of livestock
and crops it raises, the number and variety of its farms, and the range of its
topography and microclimates. It offers an extraordinary field development
laboratory to agricultural and technology providers who wish to develop
products and services to serve agribusiness. Session members talked about
Missouri becoming the rural Silicon Prairie.
4. Engaging the next generation has to be a systemic effort on the part of rural
communities and their stakeholders. Session participants from all areas recognize that
48
greater technology availability and adoption is a “table stakes” element if vast areas of
rural Missouri are not to continue significant population and economic decline.
5. Use full multimedia to tell the stories of success and opportunity for rural communities
and farming operations that take advantage of high-speed Internet connections and
gain true business benefits from high speed/ capacity upload and download access.
Stories like Ralls County are both inspiring and instructive, but just as the web is
becoming much more videocentric and social, telling those stories must rely upon more
use of video, pictures, and social networks.
6. Work with secondary schools, and 2 and 4-year colleges and universities to establish
pathways to get technological expertise into the rural and farm communities. Telecom
providers see this technology gap as a major issue as they attempt to bring greater
Internet speeds to rural areas. Adoption will be severely capped at both the residential
and institutional level unless there is the technological expertise to design, install,
maintain, and enhance the computer and network capabilities in rural areas.
7. Finally, and likely most important, efforts must be made to better understand and
develop the funding needs and sources that will be necessary to bring enhanced
broadband throughout the state. Building the information superhighway to reach all
citizens of Missouri will require a level of capital investment that will likely not be met
by private markets and sources alone.
49
Appendix
50
Broadband Coverage Mapping
51
52
53
54
Session I Participant Profiles
Organization
(alphabetically)
Organization Profile
Attendee/Position
with organization
Airlink Rural
Broadband
Air Link Rural Broadband provides Internet
access to un-served or under-served areas of
Central Missouri (primarily Howard, Chariton
and Saline counties). Its Internet backbone is
an ultra-high-speed fiber connection to the
Internet. Air Link uses newly developed
technologies, placing equipment on grain
legs, cell towers, or water towers.
Casey Imgarten/
Owner
Association of
Missouri Electric
Cooperatives (AMEC)
A statewide service organization for
Missouri’s 47 electric cooperatives. AMEC
represents the interest of the state’s electric
co-ops and their members at the state capital
and provides other needed services to
Missouri’s member-owned, not-for-profit
electric providers. In addition to legislative
activities, AMEC provides job training to
electric co-op employees, organizes
Missouri's annual participation in NRECA's
youth tour of Washington DC, assists in
marketing efforts, and produces the awardwinning monthly statewide publication, Rural
Missouri, among other activities.
Brent
Stewart/Legislative
and Regulatory
Counsel
AT&T
The largest communications holding
company in the world by revenue. Carries
Craig Felzien/Regional
Director External
Affairs
33 petabytes of data traffic on an average
business day to nearly every continent and
country, with up to 99.9+ percent reliability.
Operates largest US 4G network serving
millions of customers. Offers voice coverage
in more than 225 countries, data roaming in
more than 205 countries and mobile
broadband in more than 145 countries.
Chariton Farms, Inc.
Keytesville, Missouri, (Chariton County) area
grain farm that raises corn, wheat, and
soybeans.
Keith Eisberg/Owner
55
Organization
(alphabetically)
Organization Profile
Attendee/Position
with organization
Imgarten Farms
Salisbury, Missouri (Chariton County)
David Imgarten/
Owner
Missouri 4-H
4-H is sponsored by the University of
Missouri Extension in partnership with
Lincoln University Extension and state,
federal, and county government in each
Missouri county. Nationally, 4-H is part of the
Extension Service of the U.S. Dept. of
Agriculture. 4-H is for boys and girls between
8 and 18.
Bradd
Anderson/Youth
Development
Specialist
Missouri
Cattlewomen's
Association
Missouri CattleWomen is an auxiliary group
of the Missouri Cattlemen's Association
focused on beef promotion and education
around the state.
Brenda
Black/President
Missouri Department
of Agriculture
Missouri Department of Agriculture sets
agriculture policy and assists farmers
throughout the state. While maintaining its
regulatory functions, expanded duties
include consumer protection, public health
roles, environmental advocacy, agricultural
marketing, public information and
awareness, and promoting new technology
and new uses for Missouri’s agricultural
goods.
Dr. Jon Hagler/
Director
Missouri Department
of Agriculture,
Business
Development
Division
The Division’s staff helps facilitate growth in
Missouri’s agriculture-based businesses by
providing business counseling, information
and training on a sector-by-sector basis.
Areas of specialization include capitalization,
business planning, marketing, industry
development, product and brand
development and organizational structures.
Charlie
Hopper/Marketing
Specialist, Focus
areas: Gardening,
AgriMissouri, Farmers'
Markets
Missouri Department
of Agriculture,
Business
Development
Division
See above
Scott Marsh/Business
Development
Coordinator
Youth Leadership and
Communications
56
Organization
(alphabetically)
Organization Profile
Attendee/Position
with organization
Missouri State
Senate, Office of
Senator Brian
Munzlinger
Represents the 18th State Senate District
covering all or part of 13 counties in the
northeast corner of the state. Chair of the
Senate Committee on Agriculture, Food
Production and Outdoor Resources.
Heidi Geisbuhler/Staff
State of Missouri,
Information
Technology Services
Division (ITSD)
ITSD is the central point for coordinating the Steve Siegler/Deputy
information technology policies for the
for Operations
executive branch. Services provided by the
division include the operation of a
centralized computer facility used by state
agencies and elected officials; an information
technology education center for state
employees; systems development services;
operation of the state telephone switchboard
and associated state telecommunications
network; desktop support and web
development.
Sydenstrickers
Full-line John Deere implement dealer with
locations in ten cities throughout central and
northeast Missouri
Sean Phillips
University of Missouri MU Extension makes university education
Ray Massey/Extension
Extension
and information accessible for: economic
Professor
viability, empowered individuals, strong
families and communities, healthy
environments. University of Missouri
Extension is a partnership of the University of
Missouri campuses, Lincoln University, the
people of Missouri through county extension
councils, and the National Institute for Food
and Agriculture of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
57
Organization
(alphabetically)
Organization Profile
Attendee/Position
with organization
University of Missouri
Extension, Small
Business and
Technology
Development Centers
(MO SBTDC)
MO SBTDC help businesses in every stage,
from concept to start-up, growth to renewal,
mature to succession. MO SBTDC experts are
located statewide providing help on a variety
of business topics through:
Kevin Stover/Assistant
Director for
Specialized Services



Professional business analysis
Business consultations and access to
technology resources
Educational training seminars on a
variety of business topics: financial
analysis, strategic planning,
technology commercialization,
management, HR, social media,
marketing, taxes, customer service,
business plan, start-up and more.
US Department of
Agriculture, Rural
Development
USDA Rural Development (nationally) has a
$181.1 billion portfolio of loans and will
administer $38 billion in loans, loan
guarantees, and grants through programs in
the current fiscal year. USDA Rural
Development helps rural individuals,
communities and businesses obtain the
financial and technical assistance needed to
address their diverse and unique needs.
Janie Dunning/State
Director
US Dept. of
Agriculture, Rural
Development
See above
Chris Collins/General
Field Representative
58
Session II Participant Profiles
Organization
(alphabetically)
Organization Profile
Attendee/Position
with organization
Air Link Rural
Broadband
Air Link Rural Broadband provides Internet
access to un-served or under-served areas of
Central Missouri (primarily Howard, Chariton
and Saline counties). Its Internet backbone is
an ultra-high-speed fiber connection to the
Internet. Air Link uses newly developed
technologies, placing equipment on grain
legs, cell towers, or water towers.
Casey Imgarten/
Owner
Air Link Rural
Broadband
See above
Corey ________
Alma
Communications
Company
Independent telephone company started in
the early 1900s still serving around 400
subscribers in and around Alma, Missouri
(Lafayette County).with Fiber to the Home
(FTTH) voice and data service
Adolf Heins/Board of
Directors
Alma
Communications
Company
See above
Kevin Fowler/Manager
AT&T
The largest communications holding
company in the world by revenue. Carries
Craig Felzien
33 petabytes of data traffic on an average
business day to nearly every continent and
country, with up to 99.9+ percent reliability.
Operates largest US 4G network serving
millions of customers. Offers voice coverage
in more than 225 countries, data roaming in
more than 205 countries and mobile
broadband in more than 145 countries.
59
Organization
(alphabetically)
Organization Profile
Attendee/Position
with organization
Big River Telephone
Company
Big River Telephone is a full-service
telecommunications provider serving
Southeast Missouri region for over 25 years,
as well as delivering Voice over IP (VoIP) to
service providers throughout the United
States. Big River Telephone has grown to be
one of the largest locally-owned carriers in
the Midwest.
Kevin
Cantwell/President
Isotech Inc.
Isotech, Inc. is a technology solutions
provider for businesses with Information
Technology and voice/data communication
needs. Isotech, Inc., Isotech Networks
provides local rural dial-up since June 2001.
KCCoyote, Inc., provides wireless broadband
Internet to the rural areas north of Kansas
City, MO, since 2005.
Tony Holland/Owner
Isotech Inc.
See above
Eileen Holland/Owner
Kingdom Telephone
Company (KTIS)
Kingdom Telephone Company is a
Mike Fugate/Chief
cooperative serving seven exchanges in
Operating Officer
Callaway and Montgomery counties with
subsidiaries that offer long distance, Internet,
retail electronics and computer-related
services. It has been in operation since 1954.
MCM Systems
MCM Systems provides dial-up, DSL, and
wireless Internet service in Moberly, MO
(Randolph county), and parts of several
surrounding counties
Mike Mattox/Owner
Ralls Technologies
Part of Ralls County Electric Cooperative,
which serves the counties of Ralls, Pike,
Monroe, Audrain, and Marion in Northeast
Missouri. Formed in2003, Ralls Technologies
provides Triple Play services to rural
Northeast Missouri over a fiber optic
network. The Triple Play services include
high-speed Internet, high definition
television service, and digital phone.
Lynn Hodges/Chief
Operating Officer
60
Organization
(alphabetically)
Organization Profile
Attendee/Position
with organization
Sho-Me Technologies
Sho-Me Technologies is a subsidiary of ShoCindy Evans
Me Power Electric Cooperative in Marshfield,
MO (Webster County). Sho-Me Technologies
operates an advanced optical network
spanning electric transmission lines in
Missouri. What began as an upgrade to the
extensive internal communications network
has now grown to encompass over 2,000
miles of fiber optic connectivity. With over
120 Points of Presence, Sho-Me Technologies
has the highest coverage of optical
bandwidth in the area.
Central Electric
Power
Central Electric Power Cooperative,
Nancy Gibler/Director
headquartered in Jefferson City, MO, is an
of Business
electric generation and transmission
Development
cooperative. Central is owned by and delivers
power to eight distribution cooperatives
covering a 22,000 square mile area in central
Missouri. With a demand of over 723
megawatts and annual sales exceeding 3.2
billion kilowatt-hours, Central Electric is a
major electric supplier to more than 165,800
residential, commercial and industrial
members.
Missouri Department
of Agriculture,
Business
Development
Division
The Division’s staff helps facilitate growth in
Missouri’s agriculture-based businesses by
providing business counseling, information
and training on a sector-by-sector basis.
Areas of specialization include capitalization,
business planning, marketing, industry
development, product and brand
development and organizational structures.
Scott Marsh
61
Organization
(alphabetically)
Organization Profile
Attendee/Position
with organization
University of Missouri
Extension, Small
Business and
Technology
Development Centers
(MO SBTDC)
MO SBTDC help businesses in every stage,
from concept to start-up, growth to renewal,
mature to succession. MO SBTDC experts are
located statewide providing help on a variety
of business topics through:
Kevin Stover/Assistant
Director for
Specialized Services



Professional business analysis
Business consultations and access to
technology resources
Educational training seminars on a
variety of business topics: financial
analysis, strategic planning,
technology commercialization,
management, HR, social media,
marketing, taxes, customer service,
business plan, start-up and more.
62
Missouri Agricultural Landscape
63
64
Resources and Additional Perspectives
Reports and White Papers
Dissecting Missouri’s Digital Divide: A study of residential broadband adoption and
availability in the State of Missouri, MoBroadbandNow, June 2012
http://mobroadbandnow.com/files/2012/06/Digital-Divide-Report6_22_missouribroadband_2up-2012-06-25.pdf
Building Digital Inclusion: Broadband and Missouri’s Public Libraries, MoBroadBandNow,
October 2012.
http://sos.mo.gov/Library/council/minutes/AttachmentABroadbandReport.pdf
Understanding Internet Non-adoption: Fulfilling Missouri’s Digital Promise,
MoBroadbandNow, January 2013
http://mobroadbandnow.com/files/2013/01/non_adopters_report_22.pdf
The Benefits of Expanded Broadband for Missouri Farms and Agribusinesses, by Thomas
G. Johnson, Shriniwas Gautam, Bhawani Mishra, and Timothy L.Haithcoat, Community
Policy Analysis Center, University of Missouri, October 2011
http://www.cpac.missouri.edu/library/publications/broadband%20white%20paper.pdf
Broadband for Rural America: Economic Impacts and Economic Opportunities, by Hanns
Kuttner, Hudson Institute, October 2012
http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/RuralTelecom-Kuttner--1012.pdf
Farm Computer Usage and Ownership, United States Department of Agriculture, August
2011
http://usda01.library.cornell.edu/usda/current/FarmComp/FarmComp-08-12-2011.pdf
Missouri Regional Planning Commissions Regional Broadband Availability and Adoption
Strategic Reports and Attachments
http://mobroadbandnow.com/regional-planning/rtpt-reports/
65
Expanding Broadband and Protecting Voice Service in Rural America, Federal
Communications Commission, February 2012
http://www.fcc.gov/blog/expanding-broadband-and-protecting-voice-service-ruralamerica
What Fiber Broadband Can Do For Your Community, BroadbandCommunities, 8th
Edition, Fall 2012
http://bbpmag.com/2012mags/aug_sept/BBC_Aug12_Primer.pdf
National Rural Assembly – Broadband Working Group
http://www.ruralassembly.org/working-groups/broadband
66