“Agriculture will continue to be the state’s economic backbone, but most South Dakotans will earn a living in non-farm jobs that require technical skills, Gov. Bill Janklow says.
Janklow says his program to provide topnotch telecommunications to all schools means that service is in nearly every city. Businesses also can hook their computers and phones into those high-speed lines, he says.
”It’s going to get us into the information age, and that is where the future is going to be for the majority of our people,” the governor says.”
– Governor Bill Janklow, Associated Press (via Yankton Press & Dakotan), January 31, 2000
In an article at South Dakota Searchlight yesterday, while Senator John Thune and others continue Bill Janklow’s legacy for a connected South Dakota for the benefit of all, one South Dakota legislator thinks it’s more appropriate to spit on Janklow’s legacy, and tell people who live and work in remote areas of South Dakota that government support of bringing broadband to remote areas is an “overstep” by government.
Thune is the ranking member of the Senate Subcommittee on Communications, Media and Broadband. Despite rising costs, he remains committed to broadband expansion given the benefits.
“Whether it’s distance learning, telemedicine or precision agriculture,” Thune said. “And it’s becoming easier for people to work and live here. Even if they have a job someplace else, if you have high-speed internet services, the sky is the limit as to what you can do.”
and..
Rep. Chris Karr, R-Sioux Falls, questions if providing high-speed internet access is the role of government.
“The federal government has already been spending billions and billions of dollars on this,” Karr said. “Is it the role of government to cut through a mountain to deliver internet? I question that. Because, if you move somewhere remote, there are going to be trade-offs.”
Citing mounting concerns over inflation and the federal budget deficit, Karr argues government’s involvement in broadband expansion is an overstep that should be curtailed.
I don’t know what a person says to to such short-sightedness in calling broadband connection “an overstep.”
There is a sliver of truth here with Rep. Karr’s statements. However, the Internet is now considered a “highway” of sorts. That said, providing the infrastructure needed to travel on this highway makes sense. All in all, the government will benefit in the long run with enhanced tax revenues and increased employment while ensuring faster emergency services – saving lives. This all seems like unnecessary drivel on a slow news day. Looking back, like him or not, Janklow was a visionary that got things done – his way or the highway!
There are other alternatives to big government spending, Pat… https://www.starlink.com/
Elon Musk himself said that Starlink is only a stop gap and will never be dependable enough to build a business on.
There are places that need fiber. The places that just got fiber up in the Northeast and around Mitchell are seeing incredible growth opportunities that will more than pay pack the state’s share of the investment.
Exactly, Janklow wasn’t advocating for 20 year old technology at that time
Guess we should all eat ‘impossible burgers’ then.
Sounds typical for Sioux Falls folks who are justifying the “city life” or have never been on the west side of the Jim River. Commerce and Government now require everyone – even the country people – to have reliable broadband and fast internet connections. If everyone wants to take everything “off-line” and use the USPS, where mail delivery times are 1 week minimum across SD, and there are analog phone lines – then sure – let’s go back to the good ol’ days of no or poor internet service in the rural areas. That’d be peachy.
If Government (Fed & State) is requiring constituents to utilize the Internet to access services, even a basic phone line – then they have to create the public / private infrastructure and perform or regulate the upkeep on that infrastructure – and most of government knows this. It’s like giving permission for a toll road to be built – and regulating the build & upkeep.
Where does it say Rep Karr is spitting on Janklows legacy. Isnt he rather exercising prudence in spending at a time when families are struggling and taxes keep rising. Wasnt Janklow a nickel watcher as well and a supporter of small government? If government keeps playing provider for more and more wont we become another 50% tax country, more obligated and less free. There are ways to get private internet to remote locations, granted at a heftier price, but the choice is made with the inhabitant.
By the time they were done wiring the last school wireless internet was becoming relevant.
Even wireless internet has a wire to the router… Some schools (I know of at least a couple) still don’t have fiber. I know a couple families that would pay to hook into the line if it was even within 10 miles of their place.
I am not a fan of Karr, but I don’t necessarily disagree with what he’s saying. The Governor has given away tens of millions of dollars to South Dakota companies to bury and extend broadband. I think it’s OK to question whether that’s a wise use of government funds. Yes, I think we all agree that it should go to schools and courthouses and business districts. But what about housing developments 5 miles out of town that service providers don’t want to serve because it doesn’t make financial sense? In Pierre, for example, people chose to live ‘in the country’ for a variety of reasons – less government rules, lower taxes, etc. So why should the government pay for their broadband access because they wanted to live in the country?
By extending your logic, why should government extend roads to these same communities? Because it’s a utility, and if you want small rural towns to grow you need to invest in them. Corporate America won’t, so then the state under Janklow, prudently recognized that they must. Pretty straightforward.
Much like we subsidize power and water running to rural areas – we need to be subsidizing high speed internet.
Why specifically should we be subsidizing High Speed Internet? Telco providers use it as their backbone for phone systems as opposed to the old school phone switching. Your Cell towers need it. Your modern phone switching stations need it. Your power companies need it. The expensive part of the subsidization is running the fiber optic cables from Rapid City to Sturgis, or Sturgis to Newell. Once it’s there it’s still expensive, but less so, to run the lines to the nearby Cell Towers, or the local DSL or Cable company. And if we weren’t subsidizing it, just like we do water and power, you’ll suddenly find rural communities like Lemmon, or Newell, or Bison, losing their phone systems and Cell service. No new Cell towers would be built. No services would be upgraded to current technology which means they would eventually be abandoned.
Why? Verizon will NEVER be able to sell enough service in the rural parts of South Dakota to pay for the cost to run networks to cell towers which REQUIRE a high speed internet link to them. Midco will NEVER have enough customers in Pukwana to pay off the cost of running their own high speed internet connection.
Like it or not, Sioux Falls, Rapid City, and the other population centers subsidize these service for rural parts of the state. Between taxes we pay, rates we pay Verizon/Midco/Xcel Energy/etc. we are flitting the bill for these areas and have been for decades. I’m ok with that because I really like being able to eat…you know…food.
If we don’t subsidize infrastructure services in these areas, it will not be possible for people to live there. And these areas will die. And nobody will be growing the food.
What Anthony said. Karr is clearly not very bright.
Many of us are too young to remember that on May 11, 1935, Roosevelt signed Executive Order No. 7037 establishing the Rural Electrification Administration (REA). The feds have been involved with the rural communities for many decades now.
Yes, I agree. Representative Karr has his head in the sand. An important catalyst to South Dakota’s future is the revitalization of our small towns and rural areas. We should take advantage of the opportunities to do this as they arise. Too much of South Dakota’s mid state has been forgotten and left to dry up and blow away.
It would make more sense to cut the funding for public broadcasting.
It was originally funded for civil defense, to put radio and TV broadcasting into media markets which were not populated enough to be profitable, to alert rural residents of threats to their safety and security, air raids and tornados etc.
It is no longer necessary, They can sell advertising just lime everybody else..
If you read through the comments, it’s obvious most of the “anonymous” comments defending Chris Karr are probably by Chris Karr. The rest of the anonymous comments are probably from other representatives who don’t like Karr.