U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

21–661 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–374 

THE GAO REPORT ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS: 

ADDITIONAL COORDINATION AND 

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT NEEDED FOR 

HIGH–SPEED INTERNET ACCESS PROGRAMS ON 

TRIBAL LANDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 27, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JON TESTER, Montana, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANTHONY WALTERS, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 27, 2016 .............................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Barrasso ............................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 37 

Statement of Senator Franken ............................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Statement of Senator Heitkamp ............................................................................. 41 

Statement of Senator Hoeven ................................................................................. 31 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 35 

Statement of Senator Tester ................................................................................... 2 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 3 

WITNESSES

Enjady, Godfrey, President, National Tribal Telecommunications Association . 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Goldstein, Mark, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Kitka, Julie, President, Alaska Federation of Natives ......................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

McBride, Brandon, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department 

of Agriculture ........................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Sohn, Gigi B., Counselor to the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission ........................................................................................................................ 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

APPENDIX

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI), prepared statement .................. 66 

Cherokee Nation, prepared statement ................................................................... 70 

Leech Lake Telecommunications Company, LLC, prepared statement .............. 72 

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), prepared statement ................ 49 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to: 

Godfrey Enjady ................................................................................................. 73 

Brandon McBride ............................................................................................. 74 

Response to written questions submitted to Gigi B. Sohn by: 

Hon. Steve Daines ............................................................................................ 78 

Hon. Heidi Heitkamp ....................................................................................... 77 

Hon. Brian Schatz ............................................................................................ 75 

Hon. Jon Tester ................................................................................................ 74 

(1) 

THE GAO REPORT ON 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS: ADDITIONAL 

COORDINATION AND PERFORMANCE 

MEASUREMENT NEEDED FOR HIGH–SPEED 

INTERNET ACCESS PROGRAMS ON TRIBAL 

LANDS 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon. I call this hearing to order. I ask 

the witnesses to please take their seats. 

Today we are going to examine the January 2016 Government 

Accountability Office Report on Access to Broadband Service on 

Tribal Lands. 

Quick and effective internet access is vital for many purposes, 

such as commerce, public safety, education, and health. This Committee has received concerns from people living in rural Indian 

lands, including my home State of Wyoming, regarding unreliable 

internet service and significant barriers to improving access to even 

basic internet services in their communities. The Government Accountability Office report describes how unreliable internet can be 

and how it can affect business development, education and health. 

In 2010, at the direction of Congress, the Federal Communications Commission issued the National Broadband Plan to achieve 

access to high-speed internet for everyone. Between fiscal years 

2010 and 2014, the Federal Government spent approximately $33 

billion on the national goal of universal high-speed internet access. 

It is somewhat troubling that quite a bit of money has been spent 

on this national goal and Indian tribal governments and communities still struggle to access internet services. 

In many instances, networks cannot accommodate multiple users 

on Indian lands. The GAO has highlighted one tribal example 

where connection problems cause significant problems with heavily 

congested networks. According to the Federal Communications 

2 

Commission, in 2016, 41 percent of the people on tribal lands still 

do not have access to high-speed broadband. This figure should be 

much lower. 

The GAO report sheds light on why this figure may be significantly higher than other parts of the Nation. The GAO found that 

two agencies with responsibility for broadband-related programs, 

the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Communications 

Commission, do not coordinate well in programs, in outreach, or in 

training. 

In addition, the GAO found that as of December 2015, the Federal Communications Commission has not established performance 

measures or goals for broadband availability on tribal lands. The 

GAO made several recommendations for improvement, including 

developing goals and measures to track progress. 

We will hear today how both agencies are moving forward to increasing broadband services for Indian communities. 

With that, I would like to welcome the witnesses. We look forward to your testimony. 

Senator Tester, do you have an opening statement? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all the witnesses who are here today. I look forward to your testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding a hearing on a topic that 

is vitally important to tribal communities which, quite frankly, 

doesn’t get enough attention, so this hearing is important. 

Telecommunications in Indian Country and, in particular, 

broadband, often appears to be an afterthought, as we are dedicating our time to other major issues in tribal communities, things 

like health care, education, economic development, public safety, 

among all others; all important, but broadband is important too. 

We overlook that fact and the fact that broadband plays a key component in economic development in Indian Country. 

The longer Indian Country lacks robust broadband, the harder it 

is going to be for Tribes to effectively provide crucial services needed in their communities. As these services become more dependent 

on interconnectivity, Tribes will continue to lag further and further 

behind. 

Opportunities such as providing telemedicine services to remote 

Native communities that lack doctors and reliable modes of transportation, online resources and distant learning for classrooms, 

more effective and streamlined communications for public safety, 

and new markets for Native businesses who have often been effectively shut out are all examples of the potential broadband has to 

address the critical needs in tribal communities. 

We have a couple tribal witnesses here today who can speak to 

this potential, and I look forward to hearing from them about the 

impact it has in their communities. 

I look forward to hearing from our Federal witnesses, as well, 

and learning more about their efforts to increase access and adoption of high-speed internet access across Indian Country. Our Administration’s goal of connecting everyone, including rural and NaVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
3 

tive America, is imperative for the welfare and security of not only 

tribal communities, but for our entire Nation. 

The FCC and the USDA need to listen to Tribes, they need to 

sharpen their tools and find ways to get more Tribes connected. Access to high-speed internet should not be a luxury. There is no way 

that we could do our jobs here without the ability to connect, and 

we can’t expect Tribes to do their job either. 

Thank you to all the witnesses for testifying here today and for 

the work that you do in Indian Country. I look forward to a fruitful 

discussion that will help us find solutions on an issue that is becoming more and more important as we move further into a world 

that relies on connectivity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Tester. 

Would any other members like to make an opening statement? 

Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. Thank you for 

calling this hearing today on what I believe is a very important 

topic. 

I also want to thank all the witnesses for being here. I am especially pleased to welcome Mr. Godfrey Enjady from the Mescalero 

Apache Tribe. He has made impressive progress in tacking the digital divide facing his community in New Mexico. Universal service 

investments and rural utility service loan support has been vital to 

his success, so I look forward to his testimony today on behalf of 

the National Tribal Telecommunications Association. 

In my home State, 80 percent of those living on tribal lands do 

not have access to broadband, four out of five people without 

broadband access. This is truly appalling. But the statistics do not 

convey the real hardships and lost opportunities that are a consequence of the digital divide facing Indian Country. 

Not having wireless reception can mean the difference between 

life and death in an emergency. A man outside Gallup, New Mexico 

missed two opportunities for a life-saving kidney transplant because he lacked telephone service at home and could not be contacted in time. 

When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler visited the Acomo Pueblo 

with me, we stopped by the Tribe’s community library. It has free 

wi-fi that the librarian keeps on 24–7. That way folks without 

internet at home can come to the parking lot after hours and still 

get online from outside the building. That really bothers me in the 

situation where we don’t have that connectivity, as Vice Chairman 

Tester talked about. 

Our Nation’s rural areas and tribal lands should not be bypassed 

when broadband and wireless networks are built out across the Nation. Although they are among the least connected, these areas are 

precisely where broadband technology can help the most, and I 

hope we will hear some of that from our witnesses today. 

By overcoming physical distances and geographic isolation, 

broadband can help improve economic development, education, and 

access to health care, so we need to do much more. This hearing 

4 

is an opportunity to identify where the FCC, the RUS, and Congress should focus our efforts to tackle the digital divide facing Indian Country. 

Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Would any other Senators like to make a statement? 

Senator Franken. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my opening 

statement for the record. I just want to say thank you to the witnesses and how important this is. The digital divide in Indian 

Country is enormous. This is a rural electrification issue of the 21st 

century. 

Everyone should be wired; every kid should be able to access 

high-speed broadband for educational purposes. Broadband is a necessity in the 21st century and we have to do this. And if we are 

going to attract good teachers and good doctors and business to Indian Country, they have to have broadband. 

So I will submit my official statement for the record. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Franken follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, for holding this oversight hearing on broadband 

issues in Indian Country, and thank you to our witnesses for your work in this area. 

I look forward to hearing your perspectives on some of the challenges involving increasing access to broadband in Indian Country as well as some of the successes. 

Access to reliable high speed Internet is critical to growing our economy. People 

living in Indian Country are just as entitled to access to broadband as those living 

in our cities and towns. 

Unfortunately, as I travel around Minnesota, I have seen first-hand how access 

to high speed Internet varies significantly depending on where you live. This digital 

divide is a real problem for schools, families, and entire communities. 

Without reliable Internet, how can we expect our children to do their homework? 

And how can we expect our students to be ready for the 21st century economy? 

That’s why I’ve made the deployment of rural Broadband a bipartisan priority of 

mine during my time in the Senate. I’ll continue to press for the build out of highspeed Internet to every corner of our state, including our tribal communities, because it’s critical for both education and for local economies. 

Thank you again to Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and to all of 

our witnesses today. I look forward to hearing your testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

I want to remind the witnesses that we will include your complete statements for the record, so please try to keep your statements to five minutes or less so that we will have some time for 

questioning. Thank you for being here today. 

We will first hear from Mr. Brandon McBride, who is the Administrator for the Rural Utilities Service for the Department of Agriculture; then from Ms. Gigi Sohn, who is the counselor to the 

Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission; Mr. Mark 

Goldstein, who is the Director of the Physical Infrastructure Issues 

of the Government Accountability Office; Ms. Julie Kitka, who is 

president of the Alaska Federation of Natives, from Anchorage; and 

5 

Mr. Godfrey Enjady, who is the President of the National Tribal 

Telecommunications Association, from New Mexico. 

Welcome. Thank you very much. And if we could begin with you, 

Mr. McBride. 

STATEMENT OF BRANDON MCBRIDE, ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL 

UTILITIES SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and 

members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss 

the recent Government Accountability report focusing on improving 

internet access on tribal lands. 

The Rural Utilities Service is one of three rural development 

agencies at USDA. The Rural Housing Service offers housing and 

community facilities programs; the Rural Business and Cooperative 

Service offers both business development and finance programs; 

and RUS makes loans and grants available to finance rural electric, telecommunications, and rural water infrastructure. Together, 

these agencies work together to help communities build stronger 

economies, create jobs, and improve the quality of life in rural 

America. 

Our efforts at RUS to encourage broadband deployment to rural 

and Native communities have helped deliver broadband service 

that has improved access to health care and educational programs, 

and opened the door to job opportunities. These services help 

strengthen economies in American Indian, Alaskan Native, and 

Native Hawaiian communities. This funding assistance is vital and 

we are fully committed to improving investment in tribal lands and 

underserved areas. 

Thanks to the leadership of this Committee and your colleagues 

in the Senate, RUS has placed special emphasis on financing critical infrastructure services to unserved and underserved Native 

communities. 

Since 2009, RUS has funded broadband deployment through five 

distinct programs. We are focused on the need to improve access 

for Native and rural communities. These grant and loan programs 

have invested over $425 million in projects serving tribal lands, 

tribal organizations, American Indians, and Alaskan Natives. RUS 

programs have provided internet access to communities for the first 

time, supported the acquisition of equipment needed to expand access to education and health care services, and financed the construction of infrastructure that has improved broadband access. 

Given our history, RUS has a solid understanding of the costs 

and the challenges of building out rural telecommunications systems. We understand how critical broadband access is and we also 

understand the magnitude of work that remains to be done in rural 

and tribal areas. 

Since the start of this Administration, RUS has expanded outreach and service across tribal communities. To make our programs 

more accessible to those serving and living in tribal areas, RUS has 

implemented the Substantially Underserved Trust Area provisions 

of the 2008 Farm Bill. 

The SUTA rulemaking was crafted following a two-year tribal 

consultation effort that involved more than 30 government-to-government consultations. As a result, SUTA provisions provide three 

6 

tools for most RUS loan programs. These tools include loans with 

interest rates as low as 2 percent, a waiver of non-duplication restrictions, and giving highest priority to projects in substantially 

underserved trust areas. 

RUS is committed to using the tools at its disposal to provide 

broadband access for tribal communities and we are consisting 

looking for ways to improve. This GAO report makes several recommendations to help enhance and measure the availability and 

adoption of high-speed internet. One of GAO’s recommendations 

was that USDA and the FCC work towards better coordination in 

this regard. 

To address GAO’s recommendation, RUS and the FCC are currently working to closely coordinate outreach efforts to better assist 

tribal areas. Included in these discussions is the development of 

joint outreach materials that explain how programs can be interrelated and how available funding options may be leverages. Our 

work with the FCC has also resulted in productive conversations 

about the financial and policy implications of a changing universal 

service fund landscape. 

RUS’s work with other Federal agencies has resulted in stronger 

coordination and outreach efforts that improve broadband access 

and adoption in tribal areas. As a part of the President’s 

Broadband Opportunity Council, RUS is working with the Department of Commerce on the Community Connectivity Initiative. This 

partnership can assist communities with their broadband self-assessment, recommendations, planning, and implementation support. 

RUS is also partnering with the Department of Interior in planning a Tribal Broadband Summit, as well as on the FCC’s five upcoming tribal broadband workshops. All of these are scheduled for 

later this year. 

RUS is proud of its investments in tribal communities and we 

will continue to work with the FCC to use the tools that Congress 

has given us to help bring broadband to every corner of America, 

including rural and tribal areas. 

Thank you for your interest in USDA’s Rural Utilities Service 

and thank you for your support of our agency and its mission. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McBride follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRANDON MCBRIDE, ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL UTILITIES

SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and Members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Government Accountability (GAO) report entitled ‘‘Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Needed for 

High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands.’’ 

Efforts of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities 

Service (RUS) to encourage broadband deployment to rural and native communities 

have been critical in bringing broadband to tribal areas. Our work with tribal stakeholders and other state and federal agencies, including the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC), plays a major role in financing broadband projects to deliver 

quality, affordable high-speed Internet service to strengthen economies, improve access to health care and educational programs, and open the door to job opportunities 

in American Indian, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian communities. 

RUS is a policy, planning and lending agency of the USDA. The agency makes 

loans, loan guarantees and grants available to finance rural electric, telecommunications and water and wastewater infrastructure. These investments are necessary 

7 

to build sustainable local and regional economies and to attract and leverage private 

capital in rural and tribal areas. 

RUS is one of three USDA Rural Development (RD) agencies. The Rural Housing 

Service offers housing and community facilities programs. The Rural Business and 

Cooperative Service offers both business development programs and finance programs. Together, RD agencies work to help communities build stronger economies, 

create jobs and improve the quality of life in rural areas. 

Nowhere is this RD assistance more vital than in America’s native communities. 

RD is fully committed to improving investment into tribal lands and underserved 

areas. Our President, Secretary and Undersecretary place a high priority on improving program delivery to native communities, and our programs are designed for 

communities with the greatest need. Thanks to the leadership of members of this 

Committee and your colleagues in the Senate, RUS has placed special emphasis on 

financing critical infrastructure services to underserved native communities. 

RD agencies have a long history of investing in tribal economies. Since 2009, total RD investments benefitting tribal areas have exceeded $2.9 billion. One reason for 

this success is because our USDA RD state offices maintain Native American Tribal 

Coordinators to assist tribes by providing technical assistance and programmatic 

knowledge throughout the application process for these programs. 

RD agencies and staff also work in cooperation with tribal governments and partner with other federal agencies, including the FCC. It is important to note that 

USDA’s Office of Tribal Relations and RD have participated with the FCC’s Office 

of Native Affairs and Policy on outreach efforts in Indian Country. 

RUS often works directly with tribal communities. Since 2009, RUS has provided nearly $1.5 billion for tribal areas to fund electric utilities, water and waste water 

systems and telecommunications projects, including broadband. Also since 2009, 

RUS Telecommunications programs have invested over $157 million in projects serving Tribal Lands, Tribal Organizations, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. 

RUS has several standing programs which support broadband deployment. Since 2009, USDA has awarded $6.7 billion for almost 550 projects to improve telecommunications infrastructure in rural communities. This includes $2.9 billion 

through the Recovery Act to build out more than 250 successful broadband projects 

already having a positive impact in rural areas, and $77.4 million in Community 

Connect grants for 74 broadband projects in rural areas that previously did not have 

broadband service. 

Our traditional telecommunications infrastructure loan program, authorized in 

1949, was created to ensure rural areas had access to reliable and affordable telecommunications systems. Since 1995, RUS has required that these networks facilitate broadband service. Through this program, RUS has provided loans and grants 

to 8 of the nation’s 10 tribally-owned regulated telecommunications carriers. RUS 

also provides financing to non-native telecommunications service providers that offer 

services to tribal communities. Since 2009, telecommunications infrastructure funding totaling over $91 million has assisted tribal areas. 

RUS has long focused on the need to connect native and rural communities to a 

broadband future. The Community Connect grant program, which awards grants to 

communities with no access to broadband service, since 2009 has provided nearly 

$14 million to assist tribal communities lacking access to high-speed Internet. 

RUS’ Broadband Loan Program, authorized under the Farm Bill, provides 

broadband network financing to build high capacity systems in rural underserved 

areas. Since 2009, Farm Bill broadband loans of nearly $10 million increased tribal 

connectivity to global markets, and opened the doors to educational, health care and 

social services during this same period. 

Another RUS telecommunications program helping tribal areas meet essential 

needs is the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant program. Since 2009 

this program has financed nearly $43 million in equipment to expand access to education and health care services in tribal areas. 

With a combined portfolio of over $6.7 billion in telecommunications investments, 

which includes our grant programs as well as $4.3 billion in telecom loans, RUS has 

a solid understanding of the costs and the challenges of distance, density and geography to build out rural telecommunications systems. We understand how 

broadband connectivity transforms lives, enlivens communities and creates sustainable economies that offer jobs and increase the quality of life when these services 

finally arrive. 

Our history shows that RUS understands the importance of relationship with tribal elected officials, and is committed to consulting, coordinating with, and helping 

American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian communities obtain affordable and robust broadband services needed to attract investment capital and new 

business ventures unique to native cultures. 

8 

Since the start of this Administration, RUS has worked to expand outreach and 

service across tribal communities. To make its utility loan and grant programs more 

accessible to those serving and residing in tribal areas, RUS implemented the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provisions of the Food, Conservation, and 

Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Bill). 

The SUTA rulemaking was crafted following a 2-year tribal consultation effort 

that included over 33 government to government consultations with native nations 

and tribal communities as well as all relevant federal agencies and departments. 

These provisions include three discretionary tools for most RUS loan programs: RUS 

may make loans and guarantee loans with interest rates as low as 2 percent and 

with extended repayment terms; RUS may waive non-duplication restrictions, 

matching fund requirements, or credit support requirements to facilitate construction, acquisition or improvements of infrastructure; and RUS may give highest priority to designated projects in substantially underserved trust areas. 

Among telecommunications projects RUS has funded that benefit tribal areas include: 

• $279,106 Distance Learning and Telemedicine grant to Eastern Aleutians 

Tribes, Inc. in Alaska to purchase video conferencing equipment and CPR mannequins capable of recording and quantifying performance to improve training 

in local communities. 

• $10.5 Million Broadband Initiatives Program loan/grant combination to the San 

Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona to provide Fiber-to-the-Premises to five new 

communities, a hospital, and several clinics. 

• $5.4 Million Infrastructure loan to Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. to upgrade 

its telecommunications system and provide fiber optic Internet to half of its 

service territory in New Mexico. This loan was the first RUS Telecommunications Program loan provided with SUTA consideration. 

As noted previously, RUS has partnered with other federal agencies, including the 

FCC. Most recently our extensive efforts have involved the Connect America Fund, 

the FCC’s reform order, which implements Universal Service Fund (USF) reforms. 

RUS has a significant interest in the reform effort, and has been engaged in a continuing and productive dialog with the FCC about the financial and policy implications of the changing USF landscape. 

The GAO report ‘‘Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance 

Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands,’’ makes several 

recommendations to help improve and measure the availability and adoption of 

high-speed Internet on tribal lands. One of those GAO recommendations was that 

USDA and the FCC work towards better coordination on improving Internet availability and adoption in tribal communities. 

To address the GAO’s recommendation, USDA’s RUS and the FCC are currently 

working to closely coordinate outreach efforts to better assist tribal areas in providing high-speed Internet access. Included in these discussions will be development 

of joint outreach materials that explain how programs can be interrelated, and how 

available funding options may be leveraged. 

Both the USDA and the FCC offer programs to improve Internet availability and 

adoption on tribal lands. Examples of recent USDA telecommunications projects specifically benefitting tribal areas include not just broadband funding, but funding for 

equipment to improve access to quality health care and educational services. 

As part of the Broadband Opportunity Council (BOC) efforts RUS is working with 

the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) on the Community Connectivity Initiative. This is a partnership intended to provide communities a broadband self-assessment, a report and 

recommendations, planning and implementation support directed to developing a 

national community of practice. RUS is also partnering with the Department of Interior’s (DOI) BOC recommendation in a Tribal Broadband Summit scheduled for 

later this year. Earlier RUS participation with the FCC in the DOI’s Listening Session was very productive. 

RUS and the FCC have participated in a number of outreach events that each 

organization has held. In the future, RUS will work closely with the FCC to develop 

joint outreach events focused on providing high-speed Internet access to tribal lands. 

For example, the FCC has five workshops scheduled this fiscal year. RUS is planning to participate in these: 

1. Montana: end of May 

2. Seattle, Washington: late June 

3. Wisconsin or Minnesota: early August 

4. Arizona or New Mexico: early September 

9 

5. Oklahoma: Mid November 

Providing sustainable broadband service in tribal areas can be challenging, which 

is why many of these programs exist. RUS is proud of its investments in tribal communities and will work with the FCC to use the tools the Congress gave us to help 

bring broadband to every corner of America—including rural and tribal communities. 

Thank you for your interest in USDA’s Rural Utilities Service and thank you for 

your support of our agency and its mission. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. McBride. 

Ms. SOHN. 

STATEMENT OF GIGI B. SOHN, COUNSELOR TO THE 

CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Ms. SOHN. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, members 

of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

about the recently released GAO report on the status of broadband 

on tribal lands. 

While there has been incremental improvement in recent years, 

residents of tribal lands continue to disproportionately lack access 

to broadband. According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 41 percent of residents on tribal lands lack access to fixed 

broadband services at our benchmark speed. While this represents 

a 22 percent increase since 2015, this digital divide is unacceptable. 

In recognition of the persistent disparity in access to communication services on tribal lands, the Commission’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy was created in 2010. The Commission charged 

ONAP with facilitating delivery of the benefits of modern communications infrastructure to all Native communities. Our work with 

Tribal Nations is a strategic partnership, one in which we effectuate the trust relationship that the Commission shares with Tribal Nations. 

Last year, GAO was asked to review the status of broadband on 

tribal lands. GAO made four recommendations which I will address 

in turn. The FCC agrees with all the recommendations. 

Recommendation 1: Develop joint training and outreach with 

USDA. 

The Commission agrees that coordination with USDA is vitally 

important. From 2012 to 2015, the two agencies developed and implemented consultation, training, and outreach for Tribal Nations 

on multiple occasions, including 15 regional tribal consultation and 

training workshops. The Commission has invited USDA to participate in all of the five regional consultation and training workshops 

being planned for 2016, the first of which will be held in Montana 

in late May or early June. 

At the same time, we recognize that our coordination with USDA 

must be more strategic and routine. For example, staff should meet 

on a regular basis to share data and funding plans to ensure that 

taxpayer dollars are having the greatest impact on tribal lands. 

Recommendation 2: Develop performance goals and measures for 

tribal areas for improving broadband availability to households. 

The Commission agrees on the importance of such performance 

goals and measures. The Commission has established a specific 

performance goal for our Connect America Fund to bring 

broadband to rural insulated high-cost areas, including tribal 

10 

lands. The Commission has also adopted an outcome measure for 

this goal: the number of homes, businesses, and community anchor 

institutions that newly gain access to broadband service as a result 

of the Connect America Fund support. 

Twice a year, through its Form 477, the Commission collects 

broadband availability data for each census block, including on 

tribal lands. The Commission uses that data to publish statistics 

on the availability of broadband service on tribal lands and to monitor progress towards its goal of ensuring universal availability of 

broadband to all Americans. 

Recommendation 3: Improve the reliability of FCC data related 

to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining ‘‘tribal’’ on 

the program application. 

The FCC agrees with the GAO about the importance of collecting 

more reliable data both on schools and libraries on tribal lands, 

and on schools and libraries that serve Native students, whether 

on or off tribal lands. Beginning in funding year 2017, the FCC intends to amend directions to the E-rate application to offer guidance in applicant self-reporting of tribal affiliation. 

Recommendation 4: Develop performance goals and measures for 

improving broadband availability to tribal schools and libraries. 

The Commission agrees, which is why the agency adopted goals 

and measures in its 2014 First E-rate Modernization Order. In that 

Order, the FCC adopted a goal of ensuring affordable access to 

high-speed broadband sufficient to support digital learning in all 

schools and robust connectivity in all libraries. 

The Commission adopted specific measures and targets to determine whether we are successful in achieving that goal. In addition, 

the FCC directed USAC to create a comprehensive and efficient 

data reporting structure to develop information technology tools 

that facilitate analysis of E-rate data and to increase public availability of such data. 

The recommendations advanced by GAO will help to improve and 

measure the availability and adoption of high-speed internet on 

tribal lands, which will in turn give the Commission a deeper understanding of where and how to direct resources. Through increased coordination with our tribal and Federal partners, as well 

as this Committee, the FCC will continue to address the persistent 

lack of access to broadband services on tribal lands. Together we 

are committed to ensuring that all Native communities have access 

to the economic, educational, health care, and civic opportunities 

that broadband enables. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sohn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GIGI B. SOHN, COUNSELOR TO THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the recently released GAO report on the status of broadband on Tribal lands. 

The Status of Broadband on Tribal Lands 

While there has been incremental improvement in recent years, residents of Tribal lands continue to disproportionately lack access to broadband. Beginning in 2015, 

the Commission defined a benchmark speed of 25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream as necessary to support the ‘‘advanced telecommunications capability’’ that 

11 

Congress identified in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Yet, according to the Commission’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, Tribal lands continue 

to be left behind from receiving these advanced services envisioned by Congress. For 

example, 41 percent of residents on Tribal lands lack access to fixed broadband service at the benchmark speed, as compared to 10 percent nationwide. While this figure 

represents a 22 percent increase in services available on Tribal lands since the 2015 

Broadband Progress Report, the fact remains that broadband access on Tribal lands 

remains far below the national average. This digital divide in Indian Country remains unacceptable. 

An example of the challenges associated with bringing broadband to Tribal lands 

is the experience of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The Tribe’s present day homeland is the Standing Rock Reservation, which encompasses approximately 2.3 million acres on the borders of North Dakota and South Dakota. In an effort to address 

the state of communications services on the Reservation, the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe created Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. (Standing Rock Telecom) to 

provide mobile voice and data services within the entire Reservation. As a successful 

bidder in the FCC’s Mobility Fund Phase I auction—resulting in $3.3 million in 

total assigned support and coverage for up to 1,290 road miles on the Standing Rock 

Reservation—Standing Rock Telecom has the opportunity to use universal service 

Mobility Fund support to expand the critical services it is providing on the Reservation. 

Recognizing the persistent disparity in access to communications services on Tribal lands, the Commission’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) was created 

in 2010. Acting on a recommendation in the National Broadband Plan, the Commission charged ONAP with facilitating delivery of the benefits of modern communications infrastructure to all Native communities by, among other things, ensuring robust government-to-government consultation with federally-recognized Tribal governments and other Native organizations; working with Commissioners, Bureaus, 

and Offices, as well as with other government agencies and private organizations, 

to develop and implement policies for assisting Native communities; and ensuring 

that Native concerns and voices are considered in all relevant Commission proceedings and initiatives. There is a new way of doing Tribal business at the Commission. Our work with Tribal Nations is a strategic partnership, one in which we 

effectuate and exercise the trust relationship that the Commission shares with Tribal Nations. 

FCC Initiatives to Bridge the Digital Divide in Indian Country 

In the last eighteen months, the Commission has modernized two universal service programs that hold the potential to help bridge the digital divide in Indian 

Country. The first of these programs is the E-rate program, which is the country’s 

largest educational technology program. In June 2014, at the invitation of Senator 

Udall, Chairman Wheeler traveled to the Pueblo of Acoma in New Mexico, meeting 

with then-Governor Vallo and other senior Tribal officials to discuss the state of 

connectivity on the Pueblo. During this trip, Chairman Wheeler and Senator Udall 

visited the Acoma Learning Center, the Pueblo of Acoma’s Tribal library, where 

they discussed the library’s connectivity challenges and its experiences with the Erate program. Later that year, the Commission adopted two Orders that comprehensively modernized the E-rate program by setting specific, ambitious goals for the 

broadband capacity delivered to schools and libraries, refocusing funding rules for 

Wi-Fi and fiber deployment, and increasing the E-rate cap to meet the program’s 

connectivity goals. To ensure that Tribal schools and libraries such as the Acoma 

Learning Center are able to participate effectively in the program, the FCC directed 

the Universal Service Administrative Company to create an USAC Tribal liaison to 

assist with Tribal-specific outreach and training. 

Last month, the Commission adopted an Order to modernize a second universal 

service program, the Lifeline program. For more than 30 years, the Lifeline program 

has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone service. Recognizing the unique and dire economic circumstances many Tribal Nations face, the 

Commission provides enhanced levels of Lifeline support of up to $34.25 per month 

to low-income residents of Tribal lands. Not surprisingly, Lifeline is an extremely 

important program to low-income residents on Tribal lands. Yet, before last month’s 

vote, Lifeline support was limited to basic telephone service. Under the new modernized rules, low-income residents of Tribal lands will soon be able to apply up to 

$34.25 per month toward the cost of broadband service. This change will significantly reduce the cost of broadband for low-income Tribal residents while also 

incentivizing businesses to deploy broadband infrastructure on Tribal lands. 

Yet, we recognize that our work is far from finished. For example, the Commission recently adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment 

12 

on measures to increase broadband deployment on Tribal lands served by rate-ofreturn carriers. Chairman Wheeler publicly committed to bringing forward a proposal addressing this challenge before the end of the year. 

Broadband technology is critical for Tribal communities to participate in the 21st 

century economy and to advance community development, health delivery, and education. We can, and will, do better. 

GAO Report and FCC Response 

In its engagement letter, GAO outlined three primary issues or objectives: (1) 

what data exist related to access to telecommunications services on Tribal lands and 

how might that data be improved; (2) what public and private sector programs exist 

to promote access to telecommunications on Tribal lands, and what actions could be 

taken to reduce barriers to access; and (3) what challenges exist to increasing telecommunications services on Tribal lands, and what actions could be taken to reduce 

barriers to access. 

The GAO report, entitled ‘‘Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Programs on Tribal Lands,’’ was released on 

February 3, 2016. The report examines: (1) perspectives of selected Tribes and providers on the importance of high-speed Internet access for Tribes and any barriers 

to increasing this access on Tribal lands; (2) the level of interrelation and coordination between federal programs at the Commission and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that promote high-speed Internet access on Tribal lands; and (3) existing data and Commission performance goals and measures related to access to 

high-speed Internet service on Tribal lands and for Tribal institutions. 

The report contains four recommendations for the Commission, and the agency 

was given an opportunity to review the draft report and respond in writing to the 

recommendations prior to its release. A letter from the Chiefs of the Wireline Competition Bureau and the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, agreeing with 

each of the recommendations, is contained in the report as Appendix III. In addition, Chairman Wheeler reported in writing to Congress on further efforts by the 

Commission in response to GAO’s recommendations within 60 days of release of the 

report (March 31, 2016). 

As discussed below, the Commission has executed, or is prioritizing, a broad range 

of initiatives to help improve and measure the availability and adoption of highspeed Internet on Tribal lands. But we recognize at the same time that there is 

much more to be done. The Commission is committed to facilitating the expansion 

of 21st century communications to Tribal Nations across the United States. 

Recommendation 1: GAO recommends that the Commission develop joint training 

and outreach with USDA whenever feasible to help improve Internet availability 

and adoption on Tribal lands. 

The Commission agrees with GAO that coordination with USDA is important and 

desirable in these areas. In fact, the Commission has partnered with USDA on multiple occasions since 2012 to cooperatively develop and implement consultation, 

training, and outreach for Tribal Nations. For example, from 2012 through 2015, 

staff from USDA headquarters in Washington, DC and USDA regional offices across 

the country have presented and participated at many of the Commission’s fifteen 

(15) interactive 21⁄2 day regional Tribal consultation and training workshops across 

Indian Country. USDA has provided information to workshop attendees on programs including Community Connect Grants, Distance Learning and Telemedicine 

Grants, and the Computers for Learning Program. Most recently, in September 

2015, a representative from USDA presented on the Computers for Learning Program at the FCC Tribal Broadband, Telecom, and Broadcast Consultation and 

Training Workshop in Rapid City, South Dakota. All of this information and training provided by our colleagues at USDA has complemented information that the 

Commission has provided on, for example, the four universal service programs and 

the Tribal Priority in broadcast radio. 

Moreover, the Commission has invited USDA to participate in each of the five regional Tribal consultation and training workshops being planned for 2016. The first 

of those workshops will be held in late May or early June in Montana. This workshop comes on the heels of a meeting last fall between Chairman Wheeler and the 

leaders of the Tribal Nations in Montana in which Chairman Wheeler committed 

to greater consultation and coordination. The remaining four consultation and training workshops are in the process of being scheduled and will take place in Oklahoma and in the Great Lakes, Southwest, and Pacific Northwest regions of Indian 

Country. The Commission is committed to working with our Tribal partners and 

with USDA to ensure that the 2016 Tribal consultation and training workshops, as 

well as those in future years, provide as comprehensive and coordinated an approach as possible. 

13 

While joint participation with USDA in consultations and training workshops is 

a good start, we recognize that our coordination with USDA must be more strategic 

and routine. For example, staff should meet on a regular basis to share data and 

funding plans. This will help ensure that RUS loans and Connect America Fund dollars are having the greatest impact on tribal lands. Commission staff has begun 

working collaboratively with USDA staff to this end. 

Recommendation 2: GAO recommends that the Commission develop performance 

goals and measures using, for example, data supporting the National Broadband 

Map, to track progress on achieving its strategic objective of making broadband 

Internet available to households on Tribal lands. 

The Commission agrees with GAO on the importance of such performance goals 

and measures. In fact, the Commission has performance goals and tools in place 

that can be used to track progress in meeting this strategic objective, and the available data shows that the Commission is already making progress. 

With respect to performance goals, the Commission’s strategic goal of maximizing 

broadband availability on Tribal lands is fulfilled in part through its universal service programs established pursuant to its obligations under Section 254 of the Communications Act and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In its 2011 

order initiating reform of the universal service high-cost program, for example, the 

Commission stated that its Section 254 obligations ensured universal availability of 

broadband networks to all Americans, including those living on Tribal lands. To that 

end, the Commission has established a performance goal for the high-cost subsidy 

program of bringing broadband at speeds of at least 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps 

upstream to high-cost areas, including Tribal lands. The Commission has also adopted an outcome measure for this goal: the number of homes, businesses, and community anchor institutions that newly gain access to broadband service as a result of 

high-cost/Connect America Fund support. 

With respect to performance measures, the Commission collects and publishes 

data regarding progress towards its strategic objective of maximizing broadband 

availability on Tribal lands and overall. Twice a year, through its Form 477, the 

Commission collects broadband availability data for each census block across the 

country, including those on Tribal lands. The Commission uses that data both to 

publish statistics on the availability of broadband service on Tribal lands in its annual broadband progress report, and to monitor progress towards its universal service goals of ensuring universal availability of broadband networks to all Americans 

and promoting broadband adoption. In fact, in its 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 

the Commission quantified the increasing numbers of subscribers on Tribal lands 

that have access to broadband capable networks and that are adopting broadband, 

indicating progress towards its strategic objective. The 2016 Broadband Progress Report was adopted and released just prior to release of GAO’s report and, therefore, 

the most recent broadband data is not reflected in the GAO report. 

Later this year, the Commission will begin collecting geocoded location information regarding new broadband deployment from the larger incumbent carriers that 

receive Connect America Fund Phase II support, and it recently adopted a similar 

reporting requirement for the smaller rate-of-return carriers, which will be implemented in 2017. This information will be updated annually, which will enable us 

to track progress in making broadband available to Tribal lands over time. 

Recommendation 3: GAO recommends that the Commission improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining 

‘‘Tribal’’ on the program application. 

The Commission agrees with GAO on the need for clarity and will work with the 

Universal Service Administrative Company to provide guidance to applicants about 

the term ‘‘Tribal’’ on E-rate applications. Today, applicants check a box and selfidentify as Tribal without any guidance as to what that term encompasses. Commission rules do not define ‘‘Tribal’’ for purposes of the E-rate program, nor is there 

any additional discount under the rules for Tribal schools and libraries. The Commission does agree, however, on the importance of collecting data both on schools 

and libraries on Tribal lands and on schools and libraries serving Native students, 

whether on or off Tribal lands. Beginning in funding year 2017, therefore, the Commission intends to amend directions to the E-rate application to offer guidance in 

applicants’ self-reporting of Tribal affiliation. 

Recommendation 4: GAO recommends that the Commission develop performance 

goals and measures to track progress on achieving its strategic objective of ensuring 

that all Tribal schools and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband 

technologies. 

14 

The Commission agrees with GAO on the importance of goals and measures to 

track progress on achieving strategic goals, which is why the agency adopted goals 

and measures in its 2014 First E-rate Modernization Order. In that Order, the Commission adopted three goals for the E-rate program: (1) ensuring affordable access 

to high-speed broadband sufficient to support digital learning in schools and robust 

connectivity for all libraries; (2) maximizing the cost-effectiveness of spending for Erate supported purchases; and (3) making the E-rate application process and other 

processes fast, simple, and efficient. For each of these goals, the Commission adopted associated performance measures and targets to determine whether we are successfully achieving these goals. These performance measures and targets encompass 

all schools and libraries, including Tribal schools and libraries. 

Further, as part of the development of a robust performance management system, 

the Commission directed USAC to take a number of important steps: to create a 

comprehensive and efficient data reporting structure; to develop information technology tools that facilitate analysis of all program data; and to increase public availability of such data. The Commission intended these actions to increase transparency and enable beneficiaries and other stakeholders to assess progress by 

schools and libraries in obtaining access to high-speed broadband connectivity. 

Conclusion 

The lack of access to broadband services over Tribal lands continues to prevent 

residents of Tribal lands from accessing information and services critical to our 21st 

century economy. Community-oriented and truly effective deployment of communications technologies within Indian Country, therefore, are critical. New commercial, educational, and health care opportunities, as well as social stability and quality of life issues, can be significantly improved through broadband. When implemented in concert, the recommendations advanced by GAO will help to improve and 

measure the availability and adoption of high-speed Internet on Tribal lands, giving 

the Commission a deeper understanding of where and how to direct resources. 

Through increased coordination among our Tribal and federal partners, the Commission will continue to address the persistent lack of access to broadband services 

on Tribal lands. Together, we are committed to bringing advanced communications 

services to Tribal lands, and we look forward to working with this committee to 

make broadband a reality for all Native communities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I look forward to 

answering your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much, Ms. Sohn. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. 

STATEMENT OF MARK GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

GAO’s recent work examining telecommunications issues on tribal 

lands. High-speed internet service is viewed as a critical component 

of the Nation’s infrastructure and an economic driver, particularly 

to remote tribal communities. 

My testimony examines perspectives of Tribes and providers of 

high-speed internet access and barriers to increasing this access, 

the level in coordination between Federal programs that promote 

high-speed access, and existing data performance measures related 

to high-speed internet on tribal lands. My statement is based on 

our January 2016 report on this issue. 

Based on a recent report, GAO found that although all 21 Tribes 

that GAO interviewed have some access to high-speed internet, 

barriers to access remain. Tribal officials and internet providers 

said that high poverty rates among Tribes and the high cost of connecting remote tribal villages to core internet networks limit highspeed internet availability and access. About half of the Tribes we 

interviewed also said that the lack of sufficient administrative and 

15 

technical expertise among tribal members limits their efforts to increase high-speed internet access. 

We also found that the Federal Communications Commission’s 

Universal Service Fund subsidy programs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service grant programs are 

interrelated. The programs seek to increase high-speed internet access in unserved areas, including tribal lands. Our previous work 

on overlap, duplication, and fragmentation has shown that interagency coordination on programs can help ensure efficient use of 

resources and effective programs. 

However, FCC and USDA do not coordinate to develop joint outreach and training, which could result in efficient use of Federal 

resources and missed opportunities for resource leveraging. For example, USDA and FCC held separate training events in the Pacific 

Northwest Region in 2015 when a joint event could have saved limited training funds, reduced costs, and allowed for better coordination among all parties. 

Finally, we found that FCC has placed special emphasis on improving internet access on tribal lands following the issuance of the 

National Broadband Plan in 2010, which called for greater efforts 

to make broadband available on tribal lands. However, FCC has 

not developed performance goals and measures for improving highspeed internet availability to households on tribal lands. 

FCC could establish baseline measures to track their progress by 

using the National Broadband Map, which includes some data on 

internet availability on tribal lands. FCC also lacks reliable data 

on high-speed internet access and performance goals and measures 

for high-speed internet access by tribal institutions such as schools 

and libraries. 

Specifically, FCC’s E-rate program provides funds to ensure that 

schools and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband 

technologies, but FCC has neither defined ‘‘tribal’’ on its E-rate application nor set any performance goals for the program’s impact on 

tribal institutions. Without these goals and measures, FCC cannot 

assess the impact of its efforts. 

In January 2016, GAO recommended that FCC take the following actions on tribal areas: one, to develop joint training and 

outreach with USDA; two, to develop performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to households; three, develop broadband measures for improved broadband availability to 

schools and libraries; and, four, to improve the reliability of FCC 

data related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining 

‘‘tribal’’ in the program application. FCC has agreed with all these 

recommendations. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement. I 

would be happy to respond to questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:] 

16 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

TRIBAL INTERNET ACCESS: INCREASED FEDERAL COORDINATION AND PERFORMANCE

MEASUREMENT NEEDED

Why GAO Did This Study 

High-speed Internet service is viewed as a critical component of the nation’s infrastructure and an economic driver, particularly to remote tribal communities. This 

testimony examines: (1) perspectives of tribes and providers on high-speed Internet 

access and barriers to increasing this access; (2) the level of interrelation and coordination between federal programs that promote high-speed Internet access on tribal 

lands; and (3) existing data and performance measures related to high-speed Internet on tribal lands. This statement is based on GAO’s January 2016 report (GAO– 

16–222). For this report, GAO visited or interviewed officials from a non-generalizable sample of 21 tribal entities and 6 service providers. GAO also reviewed FCC 

and USDA fiscal year 2010 through 2014 program data, funding, and materials and 

interviewed federal officials. 

What GAO Recommended 

In January 2016, GAO recommended that FCC take the following actions in tribal 

areas: (1) develop joint training and outreach with USDA; (2) develop performance 

goals and measures for improving broadband availability to households; (3) develop 

performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to schools and 

libraries; and (4) improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining ‘‘tribal’’ on the program application. FCC agreed 

with the recommendations. 

What GAO Found 

In January 2016, GAO found that, although all 21 tribes GAO interviewed have 

some access to high-speed Internet, barriers to increasing access remain. Tribal officials and Internet providers said that high poverty rates among tribes and the high 

costs of connecting remote tribal villages to core Internet networks limit high-speed 

Internet availability and access. About half of the tribes GAO interviewed also said 

that the lack of sufficient administrative and technical expertise among tribal members limits their efforts to increase high-speed Internet access. 

The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Universal Service Fund subsidy programs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities 

Service grant programs are interrelated. The programs seek to increase high-speed 

Internet access in underserved areas, including tribal lands. GAO’s previous work 

on overlap, duplication, and fragmentation has shown that interagency coordination 

on interrelated programs can help ensure efficient use of resources and effective programs. However, FCC and USDA do not coordinate to develop joint outreach and 

training, which could result in inefficient use of federal resources and missed opportunities for resource leveraging. For example, USDA and FCC held separate training events in the Pacific Northwest Region in 2015 when a joint event could have 

saved limited training funds and reduced costs. 

FCC has placed special emphasis on improving Internet access on tribal lands following the issuance of the National Broadband Plan in 2010, which called for greater efforts to make broadband available on tribal lands. However, FCC has not developed performance goals and measures for improving high-speed Internet availability 

to households on tribal lands. FCC could establish baseline measures to track its 

progress by using, for example, the National Broadband Map which includes data 

on Internet availability on tribal lands. FCC also lacks both reliable data on highspeed Internet access and performance goals and measures for high-speed Internet 

access by tribal institutions—such as schools and libraries. Specifically, FCC’s Erate program provides funds to ensure that schools and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies, but FCC has neither defined ‘‘tribal’’ on its 

E-rate application nor set any performance goals for the program’s impact on tribal 

institutions. Without these goals and measures FCC cannot assess the impact of its 

efforts. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the state of broadband access and adoption on tribal lands as well as the government programs that promote access and 

adoption on tribal lands. High-speed Internet service is viewed as a critical component of the nation’s physical infrastructure and a driver of economic growth. The 

Internet is particularly useful to tribal communities—which are generally located in 

remote, rural locations—as access to it offers new opportunities for growth, producVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
17 

1For this testimony, GAO has defined tribal lands as lands that include any federally recognized Indian tribe’s reservation, off-reservation trust lands, pueblo, or colony, and Alaska Native 

regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Pub. L. No. 92–203, 

85 Stat. 688 (1971) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. § § 1601 et seq.). Tribal lands do not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSA), and the population figure of 640,000 does not 

include the 401,000 Native Americans living on OTSAs. 2GAO, Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed 

for High-speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, GAO–16–222, (Washington D.C.: January 29, 2016). 

3For reporting purposes, we developed the following series of indefinite quantifiers to describe 

the tribal responses from the 21 tribal entities we interviewed: 5 of the 21 is described as ‘‘a 

few’’; 5 to 9 is described as ‘‘some’’; 10 to 12 is described as ‘‘about half’’; 13 to 16 is described 

as ‘‘many’’; and 17 or more is described as ‘‘most’’. 4GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, 

GAO–15–49SP, (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015); GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers to 

Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD–00–106, (Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000); and GAO, 

Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO–12–1022, (Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2012). 

tivity, and innovation. According to 2013 Census estimates, more than 640,000 

American Indians and Alaska Natives reside on tribal lands. 1 There are more than 

300 Indian tribes in the continental United States and more than 200 federally recognized Alaska Native Villages. Native Americans are among the most economically 

distressed groups in the United States and, according to the Census’ 2014 American 

Community Survey (ACS), about 28.3 percent live in households with incomes below 

the federal poverty level—compared to 15.5 percent for the U.S. population as a 

whole. In addition, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data indicates that, 

as of December 2013, high-speed Internet was available to 37 percent of households 

on tribal lands—compared to 47 percent of U.S. households in rural areas and 92 

percent of U.S. households in urban areas. 

The communications infrastructure that supports Internet access is, by and large, 

built and operated by private industry. Advances in technology, attained through 

the use of fiber optics and new wireless technologies have allowed providers to offer 

high-speed Internet that supports new services and applications such as streaming 

video. In 2010, FCC stated that every household and business in America should 

have access to affordable advanced telecommunication service with a speed of at 

least 4 megabits per second (Mbps) download and at least 1 Mbps upload and that 

this target should be re-set every four years. In January 2015, FCC adopted a speed 

benchmark at download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 

3 Mbps. From fiscal years 2010 to 2014, the federal government provided over $33 billion 

in assistance to telecommunications service providers and municipalities to build or 

improve networks in order to further the national goal of universal high-speed Internet access. The federal government has provided this funding through the FCC’s 

Universal Service Fund (USF) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 

Rural Utilities Service (RUS). RUS’s programs focus on rural telecommunications 

development, while USF’s programs focus on providing support for areas where the 

cost of providing services is high, as well as for low-income consumers, schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities. 

My statement today is based on our January 2016 report (GAO–16–222) on tribal 

high-speed Internet access. 2 My statement, like the report, examines (1) perspectives of selected tribes and providers on the importance of high-speed Internet access for tribes and any barriers to increasing this access on tribal lands; (2) the level 

of interrelation and coordination between federal programs at FCC and USDA that 

promote high-speed Internet access on tribal lands; and (3) existing data and FCC 

performance goals and measures related to access to high-speed Internet service on 

tribal lands and for tribal institutions. 

To conduct this work for our January 2016 report, we interviewed officials from 

18 tribal governments covering 10 of the continental states, Alaska Native regions, 

and 6 service providers operating on tribal lands. 3 We also identified and interviewed industry stakeholders such as research groups and telecommunications associations on their views regarding the barriers to increasing high-speed Internet access to broadband on tribal lands. In addition, we evaluated USF and RUS program 

coordination based on criteria for implementing interrelated programs developed in 

previous GAO work on fragmentation, overlap, duplication, and interagency coordination within the federal government. 4 Finally, to determine what data and FCC 

performance goals and measures exist related to access to high-speed Internet service on tribal lands and to tribal institutions, we analyzed fiscal year 2010 through 

2014 data from USF programs providing assistance, reviewed applications and the 

18 

5Pub. L. No. 103–62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993) as amended by GPRA Modernization Act 

of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111–352 (2010). 6GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD–00–21.3.1, 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

guidance materials for those programs, and the agencies’ performance reports. Finally, we reviewed performance goals and measures for USF programs according to 

criteria established in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as 

amended 5 and in federal standards for internal control. 6 More detailed information 

on our scope and methodology for that work can be found in the issued report. We 

conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

Selected Tribes and Providers Identified Opportunities and Barriers 

Related to Increasing High-Speed Internet Access 

Tribal officials we interviewed for our January 2016 report said they place a high 

priority on institutional and personal Internet access because of the numerous benefits, including the following: 

• Economic Development: Officials from most tribes said high-speed Internet is 

essential for economic development such as finding employment or establishing 

online businesses. FCC also found that community access to Internet services 

is critical in facilitating job placement, career advancement, and other uses that 

help to stimulate economic activity. 

• Education: Officials from many tribes stated that high-speed Internet access at 

schools supports educational success. For example, access can allow students to 

conduct online testing or to watch online lectures. 

• Health: About half of the tribes said that high-speed Internet access to support 

telemedicine was important to the tribe, particularly in rural or remote areas. 

Officials from all 21 tribes we interviewed said that Internet service existed on 

at least some of their lands at varying connection speeds, ranging from less than 

1 Mbps to over 25 Mbps. Some of the tribes we interviewed had at least some fiber 

optic high-speed Internet connections while others had slower copper lines, only mobile service, or only satellite service. Many of the tribal lands where we held interviews had some level of mobile Internet service but only a few had 4G mobile highspeed Internet services. Others had no mobile service. Further, officials from about 

half of the tribes we interviewed described important limitations to their Internet 

services, including higher than usual costs, small data allocations, slow download 

speeds, and unreliable connections. 

Rugged Terrain, High Poverty, and a Lack of Capacity Were the Most Cited 

Barriers to Increasing Access to High Speed Internet in Tribal Areas 

In January 2016, we found that the barriers to improvements in high-speed Internet service on tribal lands are interrelated. The rugged terrain and rural location 

as well as tribal members’ limited ability to pay for high-speed Internet service were 

tribes’ and private providers’ most commonly cited impediments. Many tribal officials and all six providers we interviewed said these barriers can deter private investment in infrastructure needed to connect remote towns and villages to a service 

provider’s core network—known as the middle-mile. Middle-mile infrastructure may 

include burying fiber optic or copper cables, stringing cable on existing poles, or 

erecting towers for wireless microwave links, which relay wireless Internet connections from tower to tower through radio spectrum. Tribal lands, located far from 

urban areas, may not have the middle-mile infrastructure necessary for providers 

to deploy high-speed Internet. 

Tribal officials and providers we interviewed also cited limited financial resources 

as a barrier to high-speed Internet access. Of the 21 tribes we interviewed, many 

reported poverty and affordability as drivers of low subscribership to existing Internet services or as a barrier to broadening the availability of services. Poverty rates 

among the tribes we interviewed varied, but many were well above the 2014 national average of 15.5 percent. Two of the providers we interviewed discussed nonpayment among tribal households as a disincentive to Internet service provision. 

One provider said that the customers it serves on tribal lands had non-payment 

rates double that of other customer groups, and that these rates often follow seasonal employment patterns. 

About half of the tribes we interviewed told us that a lack of tribal members with 

sufficient bureaucratic and technical expertise was a common barrier to increasing 

high-speed Internet access on tribal lands. Tribal officials said that tribal members 

19 

do not always have the bureaucratic expertise required to apply for federal funds, 

which can lead to mistakes or the need to hire consultants. A lack of technical expertise also affects tribes’ ability to interact with private-sector Internet providers. 

For the seven tribes we interviewed that either had a tribally-owned provider or 

were in the process of establishing one, three of them said that the lack of expertise 

in the tribe was a challenge to establishing a tribally-owned telecommunications 

provider for high-speed Internet deployment. To address this, in the early 2000s, 

FCC held a number of Indian telecommunications initiatives, regional workshops, 

and roundtables. In fiscal year 2012, the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy 

consulted with about 200 tribal nations, many during six separate one- to three-day 

telecommunications training and consultation sessions on tribal lands. These included the Native Learning Labs, where attendees could, for example, learn about 

data the FCC has available on spectrum licensing and USF programs, among other 

things. The Office held seven training workshops in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and 

plans to offer more in fiscal year 2016. The goal of this new series of sessions is 

to provide tribal officials with information about funding opportunities and policy 

changes with respect to high-speed Internet, USF programs, and spectrum issues. 

Interrelated Federal Programs Promoting High-Speed Internet Access on 

Tribal Lands Are Not Always Well Coordinated 

FCC and USDA High-Speed Internet Programs are Interrelated 

In January 2016, we found that FCC and USDA implement mutually supportive, 

interrelated high-speed Internet access programs that offer funding to either tribal 

entities or service providers to achieve the goal of increased access. Tribal officials 

we interviewed said that both FCC’s and USDA’s programs were important for the 

expansion of high-speed Internet service on their lands. Tribes sometimes qualify 

for benefits from more than one of these programs, either directly or through private-sector Internet providers. Eligibility requirements are based on the need of an 

area as well as deployment requirements. Table 1 identifies three universal service 

programs that subsidize telecommunications carriers and services to areas that include tribal lands and two RUS grant programs. 

Table 1: FCC and RUS Programs That Provide High-Speed Internet Services to Areas 

that Include Tribal Lands 

FCC Programs Description Recent funding 

The Connect America Fund 

(CAF)—Formerly the High 

Cost Program 

CAF provides subsidies to 

Internet providers to supplement their operating 

costs for providing highspeed Internet in unserved 

or high-cost areas. 

The High Cost and CAF distributed about $20 billion in 

subsidies to providers between 2010 and 2014, portions of which went to providers that serve tribal 

lands. 

The USF Schools and Library 

Support Program (E-rate) 

E-rate provides discounts to 

eligible schools and libraries 

on telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections. 

E-rate provided about $13 billion in discounts to schools 

and libraries between 2010 

and 2014, portions of which 

went to schools and libraries on tribal lands. 

Healthcare Connect Fund 

(HCCF) 

HCCF provides assistance to 

ensure eligible rural health 

care providers have access 

to high-speed Internet services. Assistance may be provided to a service provider 

that serves tribal lands. 

HCCF provided about $52 

million to healthcare facilities in fiscal year 2014, a 

portion of which went to 

tribal lands. 

RUS Programs 

20 

7GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD–00–106, 

(Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000). 8GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms, GAO–12–1022, (Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2012). 9GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, 

GAO–15–49SP, (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015). 

Table 1: FCC and RUS Programs That Provide High-Speed Internet Services to Areas 

that Include Tribal Lands—Continued 

FCC Programs Description Recent funding 

Distance Learning and Telemedicine program The Distance Learning and 

Telemedicine program provides grants to rural communities to acquire technologies that use the Internet to link educational and 

medical professionals with 

people living in rural areas. 

The Distance Learning and 

Telemedicine program provided about $128 million in 

grants and loans between 

2010 and 2014, almost $3 

million of which went to 

tribal lands. 

Community Connect Program The Community Connect Program provides grants to 

rural communities to provide high-speed Internet 

service to unserved areas. 

The Community Connect Program provided about $53 

million in grants between 

2010 and 2014, almost $3 

million of which went to 

tribal lands. 

Source: GAO analysis of FCC and USDA data. GAO–16–504T 

Outreach and Training Efforts for Interrelated FCC and USDA Programs 

Are Not Always Well Coordinated 

While FCC and USDA programs that promote high-speed Internet access on tribal 

lands are interrelated, we found that they are not always well coordinated. Our 

body of work has shown that interagency coordination can help agencies with interrelated programs ensure efficient use of resources and effective programs. 7 Agencies 

can enhance and sustain their coordinated efforts by engaging in key practices, such 

as establishing compatible policies and procedures through official agreements. 8

Agencies can also develop means to operate across agency boundaries, including 

leveraging resources across agencies for joint activities such as training and outreach. 9

One area lacking coordination between FCC and USDA is their outreach and 

technical assistance efforts. FCC and USDA independently conduct outreach and 

training efforts for related programs promoting Internet access. For example, while 

FCC officials said they invite USDA officials to FCC training workshops and are 

sometimes invited to USDA training workshops, they said that they do not coordinate to develop joint outreach or training events. Synchronizing these activities 

could be a resource-saving mechanism, which could result in a more efficient use 

of limited federal resources, an opportunity for resource leveraging between the two 

agencies and a cost-savings to the tribes attending training events. For example, 

USDA held a training event in Washington State in fiscal year 2015 and FCC 

hosted a training event in Oregon the same year. The two agencies could have 

planned a joint training event in the Pacific Northwest Region—each contributing 

to the cost of the event—that would have reduced the cost burdens for tribes. Tribal 

members with limited budgets would not have had to travel twice or choose between 

the two training events. Better coordination on conferences, as feasible, could help 

FCC and USDA reach a broader audience and increase the value of their outreach 

to tribes. 

To this end, we recommended in January 2016 that FCC develop joint outreach 

and training efforts with USDA whenever feasible to help improve Internet availability and adoption on tribal lands. FCC concurred with our recommendation and 

summarized the areas in which it coordinates with USDA and said that it will continue to work with USDA to ensure more strategic and routine coordination. For example, FCC invited USDA officials to participate in all tribal consultation and training events planned for 2016. 

21 

10GAO, Telecommunications: Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for 

Native Americans on Tribal Lands, GAO–06–189 (Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2006). 11 Census blocks are the basis for all geographic boundaries for which the Census Bureau tabulates data. Census blocks are statistical areas bounded by visible features such as roads, 

streams, and railroad tracks, and by nonvisible boundaries such as property lines, city, township, school district, county limits, and short line-of-sight extensions of roads. 12Pub. L. No. 110–385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008). 

Federal Government is Gathering Data, but FCC Lacks Performance Goals 

and Measures for the Internet on Tribal Lands 

The Federal Government is Gathering Data on Internet Availability and Adoption in 

Households on Tribal Lands 

FCC defines Internet availability as the presence of Internet service in an area, 

and Internet adoption as the number of people in the area subscribing to Internet 

service. In 2006, we found that data on the rate of availability and adoption of Internet on tribal lands was unknown because no federal survey had been designed to 

capture this information. We recommended that additional data be identified to help 

assess progress towards providing access to telecommunications, including highspeed Internet, for Native Americans living on tribal lands. 10 Since then, as discussed in our January 2016 report, the federal government has started collecting 

data on Internet availability and adoption. However, as of December 2015, FCC has 

not identified the performance goals and measures it intends to achieve for 

broadband availability or adoption on tribal lands. 

Data on Internet Availability in Households on Tribal Lands 

In 2011, The National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA), in cooperation with FCC and the states, began publishing the National 

Broadband Map, an interactive website that allows users to view information on 

high-speed Internet availability across the United States, including on tribal lands. 

The data to support the National Broadband Map is collected from service providers, 

including those offering service to federally recognized Indian tribes, including Alaska Native villages. The National Broadband Map website provides data on Internet 

availability on approximately 318 federal Indian reservations and associated trust 

lands, including upload and download speeds for both wireline and wireless service, 

technology for Internet delivery, and the number of Internet service providers. 

While the National Broadband Map provides information about high-speed Internet availability, according to NTIA officials, the map is based on Census blocks. 11

If a service provider reported any availability of high-speed Internet in a Census 

block, the entire block was counted as served. This could create misrepresentations 

of service in rural areas, which generally constitute large Census blocks. Because 

much of tribal land is rural, the reported broadband service is shown to be greater 

than the actual service available on tribal lands, according to NTIA officials. Some 

tribal officials agreed that certain areas on the Broadband Map were inaccurate. For 

example, the map showed the Lac du Flambeau reservation in Wisconsin as covered 

because two providers reported that they provide Internet service on the reservation. However, according to tribal officials, the National Broadband Map exaggerated the level of service on their reservation making them unable to compete for 

some USF and RUS programs despite their efforts to document coverage problems 

to correct the map. One provider indicated that in rural areas, it is more difficult 

to get accurate data because in some cases addresses are not used, making it difficult to link service to a census block. However, in the future, this provider indicated that it planned to utilize GPS information to provide more accurate data. Five 

of the six providers we interviewed said that the reliability of the National 

Broadband Map has improved over time. 

Data on Internet Adoption by Households on Tribal Lands 

In 2008, Congress passed the Broadband Data Improvement Act, 12 which required the Bureau of the Census to collect information from residential households, 

including those on tribal lands. Census captured three aspects of Internet adoption: 

(1) whether a computer is owned or used at the residence, (2) if the household subscribes to Internet service, and if so, (3) whether that service is dial-up or a highspeed connection. 

Census began collecting the required data on Internet adoption beginning with 

the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS). According to Census officials, five 

years of ACS data must be collected to provide data for areas with smaller populations. Census officials said that this data will be available in late 2018 and will 

provide an estimate for Internet adoption nationwide, including the first estimates 

for hard to reach populations such as Native Americans. 

22 

13GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices that Can Improve Usefulness to Decision-makers, GAO/GGD/AIMD–99–69, (Washington, D.C.: February 1999). While the Government Performance and Results Act is applicable to the department or agency level, performance 

goals and measures are important management tools applicable to all levels of an agency, including the program, project, or activity level, consistent with leading practices and internal controls related to performance monitoring. 14Pub. L. No. 104–104, § 706, 110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996). 15The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 (ISDEA), Pub. L. No. 

93–638 (1975), as amended, directs the U.S. Department of the Interior, at the request of a 

FCC Has Not Established Performance Goals and Measures for Internet 

Availability or Adoption on Tribal Lands 

Agency performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program accomplishments, particularly towards pre-established goals. Performance 

measurement allows organizations to track progress in achieving their goals and 

provides information to identify gaps in program performance and plan any needed 

improvements. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires annual performance 

plans to include performance measures to show the progress the agency is making 

in achieving its goals. Further, we have identified best practices in articulating 

goals that include: 

• showing baseline and trend data for past performance, and • identifying projected target levels for performance for multi-year goals. 13

Making high-speed Internet, including broadband Internet, available to all Americans is FCC’s stated long-term objective, but we found in January 2016 that FCC 

has not set goals to demonstrate or measure progress toward achieving it. The National Broadband Map is currently the best tool for setting goals and measuring 

progress toward increasing the availability of high-speed Internet on tribal lands. 

Map data are widely used by FCC to describe the availability of broadband nationwide. For example, FCC uses data gathered for the National Broadband Map in its 

annual Broadband Progress report provided to Congress as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. 14

To improve performance management, we recommended in our January 2016 report that FCC develop performance goals and measures using, for example, data 

from the National Broadband Map, to track progress on achieving its strategic goal 

of making broadband Internet available to households on tribal lands, and FCC 

agreed with our recommendation. 

Data Collected Does Not Allow FCC to Measure Outcomes of its E-rate 

Program for Tribal Institutions 

Although Census is gathering baseline information on household Internet adoption, and the National Broadband Map provides data on high-speed Internet availability across the country, we found that FCC lacks the specific information it needs 

to measure the outcomes of its E-rate program at tribal schools and libraries. The 

E-rate program provides assistance to schools, school districts, and libraries to obtain telecommunications technology, including high-speed Internet. E-rate does not 

specifically target tribal schools and libraries, although some are eligible and receive 

benefits. Since 2010, E-rate has committed more than $13 billion in service provider 

customer fees to schools and libraries, and according to data provided by FCC, at 

least $1 billion of that amount supports tribal institutions. 

FCC’s E-rate program has a stated goal of ensuring that all schools and libraries 

have affordable access to modern broadband technologies. Communicating what an 

agency intends to achieve and its programs for doing so are fundamental aims of 

performance management and required under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. 

Specifically the act requires an agency to have measurable, quantifiable, outcomeoriented goals for major functions and operations, an annual performance plan consistent with FCC’s strategic plan and a means to communicate the outcomes of its 

efforts. However, FCC has not set any quantifiable goals and performance measures 

for its E-rate efforts to extend high-speed Internet in schools and libraries nationwide or on tribal lands. 

According to federal internal control standards, government managers should ensure there are adequate means of obtaining information from external stakeholders 

that may have a significant impact on the agency meeting its goals. To that end, 

FCC collects information on E-rate recipients nationwide through questions on its 

application for E-rate assistance. Several different types of institutions on tribal 

lands can qualify for E-rate funding, including schools operated by the tribe or Bureau of Indian Education, private schools operating on a reservation, and public 

school districts that serve the reservation. 15 On FCC’s E-rate application, applicants 

23 

tribe, to contract with Indian tribes or tribal organizations to carry out the services and programs the federal government provides to Indians. 

receiving service may self-identify as tribal, but in this instance, the application provides no definition of ‘‘tribal.’’ We found that not all schools and libraries on tribal 

lands identify themselves as such during the application process. FCC provided us 

with information on E-rate recipients between 2010 and 2014 that self-identified as 

tribal, and the amounts committed to those recipients. These data may understate 

the amount of funds supporting schools on tribal lands. Specifically, we identified 

more than 60 additional school districts, private schools, and public libraries on the 

lands of the 21 tribes we studied that received E-rate assistance but were not included in FCC’s information on tribal recipients. Consequently, FCC does not have 

accurate information on the number of federally recognized tribes, including Alaska 

Native villages, receiving E-rate support, or the amount being provided to them. 

Without more precise information and direction from FCC, the extent to which Erate assistance is provided to tribal institutions cannot be reliably determined, nor 

can FCC rely on the information to develop quantifiable goals and performance 

measures for improving high-speed Internet access in tribal schools or libraries. It 

is important to understand how these programs affect tribal institutions because 

FCC has made improving high-speed Internet access in tribal institutions a priority 

following the National Broadband Plan, with the establishment of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy in 2010, and its current Strategic Plan. 

To address these concerns, in January 2016, we recommended that FCC: 

• improve the reliability of data related to institutions receiving E-rate funding 

by defining ‘‘tribal’’ on the program application. FCC agreed with our recommendation and intends to provide guidance to applicants in fiscal year 2017. 

• develop performance goals and measures to track progress on achieving its strategic objective of ensuring that all tribal schools and libraries have affordable 

access to modern broadband technologies. FCC also agreed with this recommendation, indicating that goals and performance measures, among other 

things, will substantially improve the accessibility of modern broadband technologies for tribal schools and libraries. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of the Committee, 

this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so very much for your testimony. 

Ms. KITKA. 

STATEMENT OF JULIE KITKA, PRESIDENT, ALASKA 

FEDERATION OF NATIVES 

Ms. KITKA. Good afternoon. My name is Julie Kitka and I have 

the honor of serving as President of the Alaska Federation of Natives, which is the largest statewide Native organization serving 

the Native people in the State. I have submitted written testimony 

and ask that it, in its entirety, be included into the record. 

For brevity, I want to basically highlight a couple things. One, 

Alaska Natives are very interested in helping ourselves. We are 

very interested in public-private partnerships to accomplish goals. 

We know that it is extremely difficult to get the resources that we 

need to do everything that we need to, but we really urge that 

there is consideration by this Committee to try to help us locate 

those resources that we need to pull in private capital in this whole 

area of telecommunications. 

In my testimony I used one example of the New Markets Tax 

Credits. As an example, in Alaska, when we look at how that was 

used, that helped expand broadband in the State by incentivizing 

private companies in order to produce that. If you look at the New 

Market Tax Credits, which the inception was 2000 and there were 

836 different competitive awards over $40.5 billion in credit auVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
24 

thority that was allowed, in the last two funding cycles of that, not 

one Native Community Development Financial Institute received 

any resources. 

The current round that is going on in resources, in which they 

were projecting to award $3.5 billion in new New Market Tax Credits, most of the people in Alaska didn’t even apply for it because 

they didn’t view that as an area that would be productive. We received word yesterday that they are looking at combining the 

award cycle in the New Market Credits. Instead of awarding $3.5 

billion, they are going to combine and do $7 billion. 

Again, it is a missed opportunity for Native people that create 

these community financial institutions that are trying to leverage 

in private capital into this, and use the example in the history of 

that $40 billion that has been awarded, the Congress so smartly 

set up, we are probably, since its inception, received $109 million 

in tax credits that we could leverage with private sector funding. 

Wyoming, for example, Mr. Chairman, I think has only received $3 

million in its whole inception. Montana, same thing. Just miniscule 

amounts. 

I really urge this Committee to take on this issue to allow Native 

people to help ourselves using these tax credit systems on that that 

we can go and we can match up with private sector partners, that 

we can help fund these things that we need. We cannot be left behind in the digital divide. Everything from our businesses that do 

government contracting, many of our villages are really doing a lot 

of work trying to build up the capacity to compete in the Federal 

marketplace. 

There isn’t a chance in heck that they can compete if they don’t 

have high-speed internet in order to do work on behalf of the government, let alone our schools, our education. From the Alaska Native perspective, which I am sure is similar with many of the other 

Native populations, over half of our population are very young, and 

if we don’t create the opportunity for the young people growing up 

on that, again, their life opportunities are going to be shrunk. 

So I really urge you to focus on the financing sector of this. We 

support the recommendations in the GAO report, but we think that 

the big elephant in the room is the lack of resources to do it. And 

we do think that these tax credits is one of those funding mechanisms with some targeted attention, and we hope that that could 

occur in this year or, at the very least, set it up for next year. 

Again, it is helping us help ourselves. 

We also think, taking a look at the Universal Service Fund for 

schools and libraries, a minor tweak for expansion for Head Start, 

GED programs, and online computer college classes on that would 

reach out to greater areas on that. And then also the need to create 

a special program in the BIA to lower the cost of broadband for 

Tribal and Native serving institutions we think is helpful. 

I would be glad to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kitka follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JULIE KITKA, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES

Good afternoon. My name is Julie Kitka, and I serve as the President of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). AFN is the largest statewide Alaska Native organization in Alaska. Our membership includes over 130,000 Alaska Natives and their 

25 

institutions set up to serve our people. AFN’s membership includes federally recognized tribes, regional tribal consortiums, regional non-profit organizations, and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) village and regional corporations. 

Bottom Line recommendations: 

• Restore funding for RUS grant programs for broadband deployment and target 

that money for deployment on tribal lands as defined by the FCC. 

• Expand the USF Schools and Libraries program to include Head Start, GED 

programs, and online college courses. 

• Create a new program within BIA to lower the cost of broadband for tribal and 

Native serving institutions, funded in part through the USF program. 

• Set aside ten percent of the New Market Tax Credit program for projects benefitting Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians for ten years, with half 

that amount being dedicated to broadband deployment. 

Background 

AFN’s broad mission includes supporting sustainable economies in our Native villages and towns; and increasing economic opportunity for our people. In so many 

ways we are still marginalized and the investment climate in our rural communities 

is terrible for solid economic development and growth. Federal policies can change 

this. High-level Congressional interest and focused efforts can help us overcome the 

barriers and create an investment climate of real economic growth and innovation. 

A changed investment climate, which supports more public-private partnerships and 

creates real incentives for private investment of capital, can change the economic 

forecast for rural Alaska and the futures of Alaska Native peoples. With a young, 

growing Native population, we must continually remove the barriers to creating life 

opportunities, which are taken for granted in urban areas all across the country. 

We need efforts to lift our Native people out of poverty and stagnation. This is especially critical in a time of economic and fiscal crisis in the State of Alaska due to 

low oil prices and reduced oil output, when the rural areas of Alaska will see dramatically reduced state support. 

Only 35 years ago, the majority of Alaska’s 200 plus Native villages did not have 

the most basic telephone service available. We’ve come a long way since then. 

Through the combination of private investment and federal support programs, including the Universal Service program enacted by Congress in 1996, telecommunications service to many Alaska Native communities has drastically improved. But, 

challenges remain before all Alaska Natives have the communications services necessary to access the economic opportunities found elsewhere in the country, while 

maintaining their culture and way of life on their own land. Ongoing federal support 

will be necessary to achieve that goal. Thus, while AFN supports the recommendations in the GAO Report, we believe there is an elephant in the room that must 

be addressed if we are to make meaningful progress in bringing American Indian 

and Alaska Native communities the same kinds of innovative services that other 

Americans enjoy. It all comes down to money. 

Because many of us live in remote locations, unconnected by roads, deploying 

broadband infrastructure to Alaska Native lands is often cost prohibitive. The prospect of recovering costs is further diminished by the fact that, commonly, Alaska 

Natives are sparsely disbursed throughout a wide geographic area, significantly increasing costs of deployment per household; additionally, there are very few large 

commercial customers, so-called anchor institutions, able to provide economic stability. In many Alaska Native communities, wages are low and unemployment rates 

and costs of living are so high, resulting in local economies that alone are unable 

to support the private investment necessary to effect meaningful change. Without 

federal incentives, companies simply can’t invest in Indian country. 

Federal programs are available, but they are not always targeted in a way that 

is helpful to tribal areas. Congress enacted the Universal Service Fund to ensure 

telecommunications services are affordable for rural schools and libraries, for health 

care facilities, and for Alaskans living in high cost areas. The theory behind the program was that rural and poor communities should not be debilitated by the disparity in prices that exist for basic telephone service between rural communities 

and their urban counterparts. And those programs have helped make the business 

case necessary for private investment in infrastructure on Tribal Lands. The Lifeline Program, another component of Universal Service, provides funding so that low 

income individuals have access to a basic level of service, important for securing employment and safety. 

26 

1 Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 

Telephone Penetration by Income by State at 10, Table 2 (March 2000) available at https:// 

transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/CommonlCarrier/Reports/FCC-StatelLink/IADpntris99.pdf. 2Federal and State Staff for the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, Federal 

Communications Commission, Universal Service Monitoring Report at 50, Table 6.8 (2014) available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocslpublic/attachmatch/DOC–330829A1.pdf. 

Lifeline is a demonstrable success in Alaska, with telephone subscribership among 

low-income households increasing from 62 percent 1 in 1984 to 91 percent 2 in 2014. 

And we commend the FCC for recently expanding the Lifeline program to include 

support for broadband, in the hopes that it will have similar effects on broadband 

subscribership. Lifeline has been especially useful on Tribal Lands, where residents 

receive an enhanced subsidy in part because of the typically lower incomes and the 

typically higher costs of providing service to tribal lands. But there are those at the 

FCC and on the Hill seriously discussing the abolishment of this important subsidy. 

We ask this Committee to express its continued support for this enhanced tribal 

supplement and ask that no changes be made in the appropriations process without 

first consulting the Indian Affairs Committee. 

In addition to the Universal Service Fund, the Stimulus Bill adopted in the midst 

of the financial crisis in 2009 grant and loan money for broadband to both the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service (RUS) and to a new program housed 

at the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration. The RUS program provided private sector companies with loan and 

grant packages that enabled the deployment of broadband to dozens of Native villages, giving them for the first time, not only access to broadband, but also cell 

phone service. Thousands of Alaska Natives now have state of the art service because of these programs. 

Unfortunately, the RUS grant money ran out long ago. The Alaska Federation of 

Natives recommends that grant funding be restored to the RUS broadband program 

and targeted to address the unique needs of un-served and under-served Native 

communities. The President should request funding in the Department of Agriculture budget that will be delivered to Congress in February, hopefully with the 

strong encouragement of this Committee. The Congressional budget and the Agriculture Appropriations bill should also include funding to restore these grant funds, 

in this appropriation cycle if possible, or commit to this in next years process. 

While IHS clinics and hospitals, as well as schools and libraries, are eligible for 

broadband support, a number of other Indian programs are not eligible for USF operating subsidies. For example, Kawarek, the non-profit regional tribal consortium 

providing services in the Bering Straits coastal region, including Nome and the surrounding 19 villages, reports that even when Head Start operates within a school 

that receives USF Schools and Libraries funding, it is not allowed to use the Internet in the building without the school risking its USF eligibility. Likewise, students 

who need to take an online GED test or want to take college classes online, cannot 

use the school’s Internet connections. The Schools and Libraries program should be 

expanded to include Head Start programs operated by tribes as well as online GED 

and college courses taken by students who have dropped out or graduated from high 

school. 

In addition, the Committee should consider establishing a telecommunications 

grant program within the BIA to support tribal organizations or other Native serving institutions such as Native corporations and Native non-profits which provide 

services ranging from housing to domestic violence counseling to village public safety activities. 

Another federal program that has been extremely successful in promoting deployment of broadband in Alaska is the New Market Tax Credit Program. It provides 

tax credits to private companies who invest in minority and disadvantaged communities. In Alaska, this program has been used to leverage private investment in 

order to build healthcare facilities and to deploy broadband to the most remote Native communities. 

AFN recommends the Committee introduced legislation to set aside ten percent 

of the New Market Tax Credit program for projects benefitting Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiians communities with half of that amount dedicated to deploy broadband. Over ten years, this would provide $3.5 billion in tax credits, which 

in turn would leverage an additional $7 billion in private investment for a total of 

$10 billion. If half of that was allocated to build out broadband to Indian communities, it would bring Native people not only into the 21st century but would open 

up a range of economic opportunities, would improve education and health care, and 

would give us the same kinds of opportunities that other Americans enjoy. 

In summary AFN has four recommendations: 

27 

• Restore funding for RUS grant programs for broadband deployment and target 

that money for deployment on tribal lands as defined by the FCC. 

• Expand the USF Schools and Libraries program to include Head Start, GED 

programs, and online college courses. 

• Create a new program within BIA to lower the cost of broadband for tribal and 

Native serving institutions, funded in part through the USF program. 

• Set aside ten percent of the New Market Tax Credit program for projects benefitting Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians for ten years, with half 

that amount being dedicated to broadband deployment. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Kitka. We appreciate 

your traveling all the way from Alaska to be with us. 

Mr. ENJADY. 

STATEMENT OF GODFREY ENJADY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

TRIBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ENJADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and members of 

the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify as President of the National Tribal Telephone Association. I am Godfrey 

Enjady, General Manager of Mescalero Apache Telecom, Incorporated, located in Mescalero, New Mexico. I also serve as Chairman of NTTA’s Tribal Affairs Committee and serve on the FCC’s 

Native Nations Broadband Task Force. 

NTTA is comprised of nine tribally-owned and operated telecommunications companies that provide voice, broadband, and 

other communications services to their communities. I would like 

to thank the members of Congress that requested the study and 

the GAO for its examination of these issues. Thank you. 

The report concludes that access to internet on tribal land varies, 

but challenges to access and adoption remain. The high costs of infrastructure buildout on tribal lands, which tend to be remote and 

rugged terrain, work in tandem with tribal member poverty to create a barrier to high-speed internet expansion on tribal lands. Even 

though the GAO’s purpose was not to provide recommendations as 

how to increase broadband availability and adoption in tribal 

areas, it does highlight some of the challenges being faced today. 

The GAO report demonstrates that providers serving tribal areas 

face many unique challenges in bringing broadband services to Native Americans. The GAO correctly notes that broadband is vital in 

tribal areas for education, economic development, and health care. 

Most tribal areas consist of some of the highest cost to serve areas 

in the United States, which in turn increases the infrastructure 

costs. Therefore, in addition to challenges to availability, 

broadband providers in tribal areas also face significant affordability and adoption challenges. 

The issues raised in the study comes as no surprise to those of 

us that work in this arena. The problems in serving remote, sparsely populated communities has been thoroughly discussed in congressional testimony and on the record at the FCC and with RUS. 

Access to capital is also a major roadblock to network growth and 

viability. Since tribally-owned carriers cannot collateralize trust 

lands, RUS is our only lender, and I appreciate the work that they 

have done for us over there. 

28 

The study points out that there needs to be better coordination 

between the FCC and RUS. We all agree that RUS has done a 

great job, especially on the SUTA portion. We are one of the first 

recipients of SUTA, and that was part of the 2008 Farm Bill. 

Thank you. RUS loans and USF support go hand-in-hand. Reliable 

and predictable cash flow is required to get any sort of loan, including RUS loans. 

The study notes that the National Broadband Plan, in numerous 

instances, outlines the need for greater efforts to make broadband 

available on tribal lands. The study points to the lack of FCC development on broadband performance goals and measurements on 

tribal lands. Once again, NTTA agrees. 

While highlighting challenges faced in bringing viable and affordable broadband services to tribal communities, the GAO study also 

made some recommendations which include training, mapping, 

data collection, and performance goals and measures. NTTA concurs with these recommendations; however, they do not go far 

enough. 

Middle mile costs for NTTA members is extremely high and this 

is very problematic in bringing affordable, robust broadband services to Indian Country. This high cost to reach the outside internet 

world inhibits the broadband take-rate, thus putting a real damper 

on consumer adoption. 

The arbitrary budget cap that has been stablished for the Universal Service Fund high-cost program does not allow for adequate 

funds to build and maintain the broadband networks that are demanded by regulators, policymakers, and consumers alike. Networks require a viable and predictable funding source. An examination and reform of the USF contribution regime is long overdue 

and may eliminate any need for the arbitrary budget cap. 

On June 19th of last year, NTTA went on record at the FCC with 

a proposal to adopt a Tribal Broadband Factor. This Factor is part 

of a reform of the USF for rate-of-return carriers. The TBF targets 

support on tribal lands and has specific obligations for any carrier, 

tribally owned or not, that uses the program. We call on the FCC 

to adopt the TBF in a timely manner. Further, NTTA requests that 

members of the Committee weigh in with the FCC to act on the 

TBF and work to bring stability and predictability to USF support 

for tribal communities. 

As noted in the report, adoption of available broadband services 

by Native Americans is also challenging due to the poverty rates 

on tribal lands. The Federal Lifeline program is critical in allowing 

many Native Americans to subscribe to voice services with the addition of broadband service to the Federal Lifeline program. NTTA 

has advocated for an increase to the Tribal Lifeline credit in order 

to recognize the higher costs of retail broadband services. 

NTTA also believes that the letter of credit required by lenders, 

including RUS, has become burdensome and has, in many instances, become a roadblock to getting needed financing. In addition, NTTA believes the irrevocable letter of credit required to participate in the FCC’s reverse auctions prevents NTTA members 

from using that program. This issue must be addressed. 

29 

Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my appreciation to the members 

of this Committee and to your staff, and thank you to Senator 

Udall, too, on my behalf. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Enjady follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GODFREY ENJADY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRIBAL

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester and members of the committee, 

thank you for this opportunity to testify as President of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association (NTTA). I am Godfrey Enjady, General Manager of 

Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. (MATI) located in Mescalero, New Mexico. I also 

serve as Chairman of NTCA’s Tribal Affairs Committee and am on the Federal 

Communications Commission’s (FCC) Native Nation’s Broadband Task Force. 

NTTA is comprised of the nine Tribally owned and operated telecommunications 

companies that provide voice, broadband and other communications services to their 

communities. Those companies are Cheyenne River Sioux Telephone Authority (SD), 

Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ), Gila River Telecommunications, Inc. 

(AZ), Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ), Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. (NM), 

Saddleback Communications (AZ), San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, 

Inc. (AZ), Tohono O’odham Utility Authority (AZ), and Warm Springs Telecom (OR). 

Mescalero Apache Telecom serves the entirety of the Mescalero Apache Reservation located in the remote South Central Mountains of New Mexico. Prior to MATI 

purchasing its service area and building its network in 2001, 52 percent of the Mescalero Apache Tribe received no service, and 48 percent received only basic voice 

service. Nearly 100 percent of the Tribe now has access to some level of broadband 

service. MATI provides services in what is considered a rural, high-cost area and 

serves an average population density of two customers per square mile. This situation causes the average cost per line to substantially exceed the national average. 

In addition, 90 percent of the Tribe is eligible for Lifeline Support, compared to the 

national average of 21.8 percent. 

First of all, I would like to thank the Members of Congress that requested this 

study and the Government Accountability Office for its examination of these issues. 

The report concludes that ‘‘access to Internet on tribal lands varies but challenges 

to access and adoption remain. The high costs of infrastructure buildout on tribal 

lands, which tend to be remote and rugged terrain, work in tandem with tribal 

member poverty to create a barrier to high-speed Internet expansion on tribal 

lands.’’ The GAO goes on to recommend some joint outreach and training efforts between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and that the FCC develop some performance goals and 

measures related to broadband availability and adoption. Even though the GAO’s 

purpose was not to provide recommendations as how to increase broadband availability and adoption in Tribal areas, it does highlight some of the challenges being 

faced today. 

The GAO Report demonstrates that providers serving Tribal areas face many 

unique challenges in bringing broadband services to Native Americans. The GAO 

correctly notes that broadband is vital in Tribal areas for education, economic development, and health care, not unlike the rest of the country. Most Tribal areas consist of some of the highest cost to serve areas in the United States, which in turn 

increases the infrastructure costs. In addition, according to the GAO Report, ‘‘Native 

Americans are among the most economically distressed groups in the United States. 

According to the Census’ 2014 American Community Survey (ACS), about 28.3 percent of Native Americans live in households with incomes below the federal poverty 

level—compared to 15.5 percent for the U.S. population as a whole.’’ Therefore, in 

addition to availability challenges, broadband providers in Tribal areas also face significant affordability and adoption challenges. 

That being said, the issues raised in the study come as no surprise to those of 

us that work in this arena. The problems in serving remote, dispersed communities 

situated in hard to serve, rough terrain has been thoroughly illuminated in Congressional testimony and on the record at the FCC, and with USDA’s Rural Utilities 

Service (RUS). For example, the FCC’s National Broadband Plan (NBP) states 

‘‘Tribes need substantially greater financial support than is presently available to 

them, and accelerating Tribal broadband deployment will require increased funding.’’ In addition, the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy said in 2012 that 

‘‘the lack of communications services in Indian country—be it high speed Internet 

or broadband, traditional wireline phone service, mobile service, radio broadcast, or 

TV broadcast service—is well known.’’ Finally, the FCC itself, in the landmark USF 

30 

Transformation Order, stated ‘‘Tribally-owned and operated carriers serve cyclically 

impoverished communities with a historical lack of critical infrastructure.’’ The 

GAO’s most recent report serves to reinforce these statements, as does the fact that 

NTTA members exist solely due to the lack of communications service historically 

available on their respective reservations. 

Recent FCC Broadband Progress Reports demonstrate the substantial digital divide that exists between Tribal areas and the rest of the United States. For example, the latest (2016) report, while noting some progress in the availability of 25 

mbps (down)/3 mbps (up) fixed broadband services, makes the Tribal gap painfully 

clear: 

Population Percentage of Population 

Without access to 25/3 

United States 33.982 10% 

Rural Areas 23.430 39% 

Urban Areas 10.552 4% 

Tribal Lands 1.574 41% 

Rural Areas 1.291 68% 

Urban Areas 0.283 14% 

U.S. Territories 2.628 66% 

Rural Areas 1.078 98% 

Urban Areas 1.550 54% 

Access to capital is also a major roadblock to network growth and viability. Because most Tribally owned carriers cannot collateralize their assets, RUS is our only 

lender and I appreciate the work that they do. Last year, my company received the 

first RUS loan under the 2008 Farm Bill’s Sustainably Underserved Trust Area 

(SUTA) provision. The GAO study points out that there needs to be better coordination and communication between the FCC and RUS. NTTA agrees. RUS loans and 

FCC Universal Service Fund (USF) support go hand-in-hand. Reliable and predictable cash flow is required to get any sort of loan, including RUS loans. 

The study notes that the National Broadband Plan, in numerous instances, outlines the need for greater efforts to be made to make broadband available on Tribal 

lands. The study points to the lack of FCC development of broadband performance 

goals and measurements on Tribal lands. Once again, NTTA agrees. 

The study details the short falls of the E-rate program in Tribal communities. 

Better coordination and performance goals are needed. However, in some instances, 

there are other complications. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) operates the 

schools on my reservation and they have a nation-wide contract with a large communications carrier that prohibits me from serving area schools. This is inefficient 

and blocks MATI from E-rate funding. I understand that there are Senators examining ways for the E-rate program to better support not just schools and libraries, 

but also Boys and Girls Clubs, and other institutions serving youth. NTTA applauds 

these efforts. 

While highlighting some challenges faced in bringing viable and affordable 

broadband services to Tribal communities, the GAO study also made some recommendations which include training, mapping, data collection, and performance 

goals and measurements. NTTA has no objections to these recommendations. However, they do not go far enough. 

Middle mile costs for NTTA members is extremely high and this is very problematic in bringing affordable, robust broadband services to Indian country. This high 

cost to reach the outside Internet world inhibits the broadband take-rate, thus putting a real damper on consumer growth. 

The arbitrary budget cap that has been established for the Universal Service 

Fund high-cost program does not allow for adequate funds to build and maintain 

the broadband networks that are demanded by regulators, policy makers and consumers. There continues to be a debate about broadband capacities and speeds, no 

matter what the platform of delivery. Fiber optic networks as the anchor, with the 

compliment of wireless and satellite technologies, delivers the most rewarding Internet experience to consumers. And that network requires a viable and predictable 

funding source, especially in areas that are remote, sparsely populated and hard to 

serve. An examination and reform of the USF contribution regime is long over-due, 

and may eliminate any need for the arbitrary budget cap. 

On June 19 of last year, NTTA went on record at the FCC with a proposal to 

adopt a Tribal Broadband Factor (TBF) as part of the reform of the long term USF 

for rate-of-return carriers currently being considered by the Commission. The TBF 

includes a multiplier for targeted support on Tribal lands, and has specific obligaVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
31 

tions for any carrier, tribally owned or not, that uses the program. The proposal is 

straightforward and easily understood, and is narrowly-tailored to address the specific need to promote broadband while causing very little impact on the overall USF 

mechanism. We call on the FCC to adopt the TBF in a timely manner. Further, 

NTTA requests that members of this committee weigh-in with the FCC to act on 

the TBF and work to bring stability and predictability to USF support for Tribal 

communities. 

As noted in the GAO report, adoption of available broadband services by Native 

Americans is also challenging due, in large part, to the poverty rates in Tribal 

lands. The federal Lifeline program, which provides direct credits to low-income consumers, has helped in allowing many Native Americans to subscribe to voice services. The FCC recognized the importance of Lifeline services in Tribal areas when 

it adopted an ‘‘enhanced’’ Lifeline credit for low-income consumers that calls for as 

much as $25 in monthly service credits. However, with the addition of broadband 

services to the federal Lifeline program, NTTA has advocated for an increase to the 

Tribal Lifeline credit in order to recognize the higher costs of retail broadband service. While the FCC has adopted an order addressing this and other Lifeline issues, 

the text of the order has yet to be released, and thus NTTA does not know whether 

the Commission accepted NTTA’s proposed increase to the Tribal Lifeline credit or 

not. 

Other issues that the NTTA would like to examine in the future are the access 

and economic rights of spectrum over Tribal lands, and the establishment of a USF 

Tribal Broadband Fund. 

NTTA also believes that the letter of credit required by lenders, including RUS, 

has become burdensome and has, in many instances, become a roadblock to getting 

needed financing. In addition, NTTA believes the irrevocable letter of credit required to participate in the FCC’s reverse auctions prevents NTTA members from 

using that program. This issue must be addressed. 

Finally, NTTA would like to acknowledge the efforts by the staff at the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy to bring a voice to native peoples at the Commission. However, this effort may not be enough. Congress should examine the establishment of a Native American Bureau at the FCC that has specific authority to provide support for broadband networks in Tribal communities. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my appreciation to members of this committee 

and your staff. Much more work needs to be done on infrastructure growth in Tribal 

areas, most importantly in the area of broadband deployment. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony to you, 

as well as to everyone on the panel. 

We will now start with a round of five-minute questions, starting 

with Senator Hoeven. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all the 

witnesses being here today and I would like to start with Mr. 

Enjady. 

In 2012, an FCC report notes that in North Dakota, my State, 

79 percent of tribal areas do not have access to broadband services 

that meet the FCC speed benchmark. You talked about the high 

cost. So my first question goes to are there legal or regulatory roadblocks that make it difficult to provide affordable broadband in Indian Country? 

Mr. ENJADY. Senator, that is a very broad question that could 

take a long time to really answer, but I do really appreciate that 

question. It is tough, especially for myself, starting a telephone 

company in New Mexico. It is one thing that I started at the very 

beginning. I worked for a company named CONTEL GTE, which is 

Verizon. 

I had to go back to the Tribe. I went back to the Tribe and 

worked for them. And in building this company it was one thing 

32 

to get through the regulators of the State. Once you have that ETC 

status, then you go on to the FCC and get your ETCs there. 

Once you establish that and be able to buy the area from a local 

provider like Windstream or any of the bigger CenturyLinks now, 

most of the areas in North Dakota might be provided by that. 

NTCA is a good example of one that represents a lot of the smaller 

companies that do provide services to Indian Country in those 

areas. It is a barrier right now that is a tough one to break. 

There are not any new tribal telephone companies lately. There 

are only nine of us, the oldest one being Cheyenne River Sioux in 

South Dakota. There are no tribally-owned telephone companies in 

North Dakota. And I do believe that there are providers that are 

co-ops that do provide those services. 

Senator HOEVEN. So now Microsoft and Verizon have both announced some programs that partner with private entities to provide internet services for more Native American students, so that 

is one area where some of the larger companies are looking for 

partnerships. Sounds to me like you feel there is a need for those 

kind of partnerships. Can you talk about how we accomplish that 

to bring more of this internet connection into Indian Country? 

Mr. ENJADY. Those are great programs. The problem there is the 

sustainability of it, something that needs to be paid for as it keeps 

moving on. A lot of these computers that I know the Gates Foundation left computers on Navajo Nation, a lot of them are out of date 

and broken down. I don’t know, it is just a one-time influx of 

money that needs to be sustained some way, somehow. 

The FCC has established a great program for companies like 

ours to sustain and receive funding for our capital expenditures 

and operating capital to be able to provide these services over the 

years, and that is one of the greater return reforms that is happening right now that is going to be for the next 10 years. So that 

is key, sustainability. 

Senator HOEVEN. Right. And it seems to me that we need more 

of these partnerships with entrepreneurs like yourself and with 

companies that are willing to go on the reservation. And whether 

it is setting up the broadband internet, computers in schools, all of 

the above, we have to find ways to create some partnerships to do 

that. 

Mr. ENJADY. I welcome any of them that come to New Mexico to 

help our other tribal members there in New Mexico. 

Senator HOEVEN. I want to shift to Mr. Goldstein. In your study, 

does the GAO have some recommendations on how we foster that, 

those partnerships? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Senator, we didn’t really focus on that in this report; however, we did in a previous report, and we found that, unfortunately, the kinds of barriers that we are talking about today 

existed years ago as well. We simply did not find very many examples where private companies were willing to partner on the reservation for many of the reasons we have talked about today, not 

just the amount of funding that that it would take, but as well the 

sustainability that the gentleman was just talking about. 

Senator HOEVEN. That is what I mean. What is your recommendation on how to create these partnerships to get the larger 

33 

companies to come in to get the public-private partnerships? How 

do we get that going, how do you do it? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It is not something we have looked at, unfortunately. It is something that we could, hopefully, try to do in the future, but to this date this report, sir, was really on some of the barriers to the existing conditions, not so much on how public-private 

partnerships could be developed. 

Senator HOEVEN. Did you find barriers at the State level that 

Mr. Enjady referred to? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I am sorry, sir? 

Senator HOEVEN. Did you find some of the same barriers at the 

State level that Mr. Enjady referred to? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes. The kinds of barriers we saw were everything from long distances, rural terrain, poverty, a lack of expertise, administrative and technical, to form some of the ETCs. And 

then even when the ETCs were formed, there were additional kinds 

of challenges and barriers related to them being able to get spectrum for their use. Sometimes it was already encumbered by other 

providers who weren’t interested in relinquishing it. There are a 

number of regulatory and legal barriers that you referred to that 

exist throughout Indian Country. 

Senator HOEVEN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you to Mr. Enjady for that answer there. 

I would like to ask my first question to Ms. Sohn. Section 254 

of the Communications Act charges the Commission with ensuring 

that consumers in all regions of the Nation have access to telecommunications and information services that are ‘‘reasonably comparable to those in urban areas.’’ The latest FCC data show that 

96 percent of Americans in urban areas have broadband access. 

This compares to just 59 percent of those on tribal lands. 

Given this gap, has the FCC failed to live up to its duties under 

Section 254 of the Communications Act? 

Ms. SOHN. Thank you, Senator Udall. Without a doubt, we could 

do a lot better. And we want to work with you and we want to 

work with our partners in the Federal Government to try to close 

that gap. I think I was quite clear in my opening statement that 

the digital divide that we have today is unacceptable, and we can 

be doing a lot more. 

I would like to actually address one of the things that Mr. 

Enjady talked about, and that was the Tribal Broadband Factor. In 

fact, we are looking right now, we have a further notice of proposed 

rulemaking that is seeking comment not only on the Tribal 

Broadband Factor proposal that NTTA put out, but on any other 

reforms that might promote broadband deployment for rate-of-return carrier lands. 

So we really, really want to move forward with getting more 

broadband out there and we are looking at many ways of doing it. 

We are actually moving forward with this further notice of proposed rulemaking and Chairman Wheeler has said that he will act 

on a proposal before the end of the year. 

34 

Senator UDALL. In 2010, the FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, 

stood up an agency, the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, or 

ONAP. This tribal liaison office is vital, I think, for ensuring that 

robust tribal consultation occurs and you have better input from 

the Tribes on important FCC actions that impact them. 

So I am very disappointed by that the FCC did not provide 

ONAP even the modest $300,000 in funding that Congress directed 

for tribal consultation in fiscal year 2015. Will you assure me that 

the FCC will not repeat this mistake for the current fiscal year? 

Ms. SOHN. Sir, we will not repeat that mistake, yes. I will give 

you that assurance. 

Senator UDALL. That is good. That is good. And how much funding for ONAP and tribal consultation is the FCC’s fiscal year 2017 

budget request? 

Ms. SOHN. Well, we do have overages. As you mentioned, we did 

not spend all the money. We spent most of the money in fiscal year 

2014. We did not spend most of the money, probably about half, in 

fiscal year 2015. 

But I want to take a step back and look at the reason that you 

appropriated that money to ONAP. That was to ensure that ONAP 

went out and did government-to-government consultations with the 

tribal communities, did trainings, did workshops on broadband and 

spectrum and broadcast, and they did that. They did 33 in 2014; 

they did 39 in 2015. 

So in the year where we only spent half the money, they actually 

did more consultations than in the year where they almost spent 

all the money. So the goal of appropriating that money is being accomplished. 

In the first four months of 2016, there have already been 20 consultations, and there is going to be a lot more. We will probably 

exceed the 39 by the end of this year. So we will spend the money. 

We are planning on it. But, more importantly, the goal that you set 

out when you gave ONAP that money has been accomplished, and 

I hope the Tribes, and I do believe the Tribes do appreciate the effort that ONAP has made. It is a critical part of our agency. 

Senator UDALL. But the real answer to the question is that in 

2017 your budget request is zero, and I don’t think that is the way 

we should be headed. 

Just a quick question to Mr. Enjady. My understanding is that 

the Tribal Broadband Factor proposal before the FCC would direct 

$25 million per year to accelerate broadband deployment on tribal 

lands. This amount is offset by savings elsewhere in the Connect 

America Fund. Could you elaborate on how the Tribal Broadband 

Factor would help telcos deploy service to underserved and 

unserved areas? 

Mr. ENJADY. Thank you, Senator Udall, I appreciate that question. The way things go, funding is going down either way. That 

is one thing that is happening to Indian Tribes, especially when it 

comes to running our telephone companies. I am one of nine tribally-owned telephone companies in the Nation right now. We are 

facing a lot of decreased funding in order to build our networks, operation caps that are put on top of us, capex caps that might becoming here soon. These are some of the things that are tough. 

35 

So TBF was formed in order to offset that. A lot of that notion 

obviously can tell that it is hard to provide services on Indian reservations. We do not have sidewalks like anywhere else, like in 

America, like where we have a fund where we build roads and 

whatever else. I live on a dirt road myself; it is going up a hill. 

How do we get services up there? I have to string it up where the 

REA guys put up their telephone lines. 

These are some of the real life things that are happening on reservations. We don’t have improved services like this, so we don’t 

have mapping, GIS mapping that is very accurate at times. I would 

like to have a lot of those things, and it takes funding to do that. 

So those are some of the things that we are looking at and hopefully TBF can bridge that gap for us here in the future. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for your good work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Udall. 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Ms. Kitka, for being here, making the long trip. 

You are not a stranger to this Committee and we appreciate the 

contributions that you provide on behalf of Alaska Natives throughout our State. 

I want to focus a little bit about your suggestion that we need 

to expand the universal service schools and libraries program to include Head Start, GED programs, and online college courses. It 

strikes me, as I go around the State, you go out to some of these 

very small villages and the school is the only place that has access 

to internet. 

Well, the school is not open on the weekend; the school is not 

open at night; and the school is not open during the summer. And 

in most of our small villages we don’t have libraries. 

So what happens on the weekend, at night, and during the summer? Where is the access for not only the children, but if you don’t 

have a public library, there is no access in these communities. 

Am I over-exaggerating or overstating the case? 

Ms. KITKA. No. I think you are exactly right. I think that there 

is a lack of access to many of our residents in our villages, especially our small villages, and that is part of the reason why we 

want the schools and library program expanded, because even if 

they provide that for the GED or other things, they are actually in 

violation; and common sense is that doesn’t make sense. 

But also there really is a need for the BIA to set up a special 

program to lower the cost on that. In some of the villages we have 

the school with the program, you have a tribal entity providing social services, things for children on that that don’t qualify for the 

lower rate, so they are paying double the amount. So we need to 

lower those costs in the other areas. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. One of the things that I hear as I am going 

around, also, is in many of our schools we have a Head Start program within the school itself, and yet you have this firewall here 

where the Head Start program cannot avail itself of the capabilities 

36 

that the school has, which makes no sense to me. You would think 

that we ought to be able to resolve that. 

Ms. Sohn? 

Ms. SOHN. Senator Murkowski, my understanding is that Head 

Start, if they do hold classes in an E-rate school, they are permitted to use that connectivity unless the State says otherwise. 

And USAC actually has a list on its Web site of States that permit 

Head Start and GED classes to use when they use the facilities of 

a school. So it actually goes State by State, it is not an overarching 

rule against it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That would be something to look into, then, 

if you have a situation where, if you have job training, GED, or 

Head Start and the States can make that determination. 

Let me ask about your recommendation with regard to the New 

Market Tax Credit program and effectively setting aside 10 percent 

of New Market Tax Credits for projects that would benefit Alaska 

Natives and American Indians with a focus specifically to the 

Broadband, because I think you have identified what our biggest 

impediment is. 

Everybody recognizes that we need to have this broadband access. The real question is, okay, how do you make it happen? 

Where does the financing come from? So the idea of greater publicprivate partnerships I think is something worth considering. 

As you know, we have not fared well in the State, but, again, if 

there were a greater opportunity to be competitive with a carve-out 

that would focus on an area where we have extraordinary need 

when it comes to our ability to access broadband amongst our Native American and Alaska Native communities, the question to you 

in terms of how far we have gotten with this proposal of kind this 

10 percent carve-out or set-aside, is this something that you have 

been working with NCAI on? Where are we in just moving the idea 

forward? 

Ms. KITKA. Well, we have had discussions with the White House. 

As many people know, President Obama traveled to Alaska at the 

end of August of last year and early September and saw some of 

the great needs in our State and made some commitments of some 

critical things that needed to be taken care of by the Federal Government. The whole issue of focused New Market Tax Credits as 

one way to tackle some of those commitments of the national imperative in the Arctic on that was something that they were very 

interested in talking about. We have had conversations with the 

New Markets program manager within Treasury. We do think that 

there is an interest and a willingness to use that program to expand and meet the needs. 

That is why we put it forward as far as a set-aside that includes 

half of that set-aside for telecommunications and half of it for other 

things such as other infrastructure needs. We have tremendous infrastructure needs and we believe that the Congress really needs 

to make that a national priority next year, when new administration and a new session of Congress on that, and include Native 

Americans’ infrastructure needs and telecommunications needed in 

that. 

In the interim, I think what is an immediate question mark to 

us is what they are doing in combining the $3.5 billion to do the 

37 

$7 billion. And if that goes on, it is a huge lost opportunity for Native Americans in that whole cycle. We understand we don’t want 

to slow down what they are doing, but if there is a way that they 

could carve out in that $7 billion some portion of it for Alaska Natives and Native Americans on that for us to have an opening to 

put together proposals in there for broadband and other infrastructures, that is something that could be done this year. 

I really urge the Committee to develop legislation that is totally 

focused on Native American needs on infrastructure with a focus 

on broadband and consider either in the appropriations process or 

in the omnibus bill this year, but really tackle that. It is a lost opportunity for Native Americans not being able to access that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate you leading on this and look 

forward to working with you and the Committee on this. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Cantwell? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, on the 

docket we had a bill that Senator Tester and I sponsored, trying 

to take a lot of the mystery out of Indian school funding and where 

things are, and I guess my question to you, Ms. Sohn, is similar 

when it comes to broadband and exactly what the FCC does. 

Do we need better metrics to measure the deployment of 

broadband in Indian Country? I know that you maintain a 

broadband map of the U.S. and what speeds in wireless are available, but are those maps coordinating with Indian Country? Is 

there a better way to review these? 

Are there implementing issues about data sharing across agencies? What do we need to do? What kind of metrics do you currently use and what else do we need to do so that we get a crisp 

and clear picture of this challenge? 

Ms. SOHN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. So we do have performance goals and we have outcome goals. Whether we have specific 

metrics, not so much; and we could do a lot better in that regard. 

But we have speed goals both for schools and libraries and also for 

high-cost areas; we have outcome measures in high-cost areas, the 

number of new schools and libraries and homes and businesses 

that get connected. 

Senator CANTWELL. On tribal land? Are you talking in general? 

Ms. SOHN. In general. 

Senator CANTWELL. Okay. I am asking what kind of metrics you 

have on tribal land. 

Ms. SOHN. We don’t have specific metrics for tribal lands. And 

one of the reasons for that is that tribal lands, as you know, are 

very, very different. There are tribal lands in the suburbs and 

there are tribal lands in the bottom of the Grand Canyon. So we 

are concerned that if you have one-size-fits-all metrics for tribal 

lands, it may actually do some of the lands a disservice. 

Be that as it may, I think we still would like to work with the 

GAO and work with you to figure out whether some metrics make 

sense. 

38 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I don’t know any problem that I have 

ever solved without measuring it first and getting a good understanding of what we think the problem is. And I know every member up here I am sure has Indian Country within their States and 

wants it to be a vibrant economic development area, and everybody, as the panelist just did an articulate job of saying, it is a key 

tool to economic development. 

So I guess what I think is always challenging for us is to get a 

clear and crisp picture of exactly where these programs are reaching and where they are not reaching, because we just keeping talking and talking about how there are these available programs, and 

then we don’t even know what they are actually accomplishing. 

So I guess, I don’t know, Mr. McBride, do you have a kind of 

metrics that you are using? Is there any challenge with coordinating data between agencies that we need to clear up? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Actually, thank you for the question. Congress actually helped us with this with some direction in the 2014 Farm 

Bill. One provision of the Farm Bill required us to share reporting 

on our loans with the FCC, and we are working with them to share 

data that we have so they can update broadband maps. 

We also are required to include unserved populations in our 

Farm Bill loan program, and that information is posted online 

when an applicant submits an application so the public can see 

which areas would be served. And we do have that unserved requirement within the Farm Bill, so we are trying to target our resources to unserved areas. 

Senator CANTWELL. Ms. Sohn? 

Ms. SOHN. I think I would like to clarify what I said before. So 

we do measure deployment all over the Country and on tribal 

lands. We ask the carriers to submit twice a year on their Form 

477 where they deploy broadband. And we do need to share that 

data more with USDA so we can have greater impact for our funding. We need to share funding plans, we need to share data without a doubt. But we do measure deployment. 

Let me talk about the broadband map for a moment. 

Senator CANTWELL. So, on that point, do you know what percentage of Indian Country has access to broadband services? 

Ms. SOHN. Yes. Fifty-nine percent. So 41 percent does not, by our 

benchmark. 

Senator CANTWELL. Fifty-nine percent of Indian Country has 

broadband service? 

Ms. SOHN. According to our latest broadband progress report. 

Senator CANTWELL. You mean some coverage or you mean 59 

percent of tribal land has broadband access? 

Ms. SOHN. Fifty-nine percent. So 41 percent of tribal lands do not 

have access to our benchmark speed. But if I could just address the 

broadband map for a moment, because we have never actually updated the broadband map because we have never gotten the resources to do so. So what we do is we have created our own interactive map and we update that pursuant to our broadband progress 

report. 

Senator CANTWELL. Mr. Goldstein, did you want to add something here? 

39 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. Just briefly. To the extent 

that the broadband map is accurate, I think those numbers are 

fine. The problem with the broadband map is that in many places, 

the way it is being measured is not terribly accurate, it is being 

done with a very large cudgel, if you will, because it is being done 

by census block; and out in a lot of Indian Country, as you know, 

census blocks are very large. 

Senator CANTWELL. So the Colville Reservation in Washington 

might be one census block. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It could be one citizen, even, one small portion 

of a census block and the rest of that census block does not have 

access. And the problem particularly out in Indian Country is we 

talk to a number of Tribes in which they tried to protest the accuracy because they were being denied funding because they, according to the map, had broadband, when in fact they did not. 

So that is still a problem that is not fully rectified. It is getting 

better slowly, but in the meantime we are not that certain how accurate it is. 

Senator CANTWELL. Well, I definitely think we need to talk about 

what data we can collect to get the accurate picture. We are not 

going to solve this problem unless we have an accurate assessment 

of what the problem exists today. That somehow there is 59 percent of Indian Country, I don’t know if anybody up here on the dais 

thinks that 59 percent of anything in their State has broadband access. I don’t think there is 59 percent in my State, and we are a 

pretty wired State. But hopefully I am wrong, but let’s get data 

and measurements and work together on it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. I just want to tack on to what she said, and that 

is that there is a cellular map that shows Montana fully covered 

for cellular service. It is total BS, and I can tell you what BS 

means, but it is total wrong. So I just want to confirm what Maria 

just said. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Franken. 

Senator FRANKEN. In Montana, that is buffalo, the BS thing is 

buffalo something. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, we have gotten into a good thing here, 

which is how we measure, because the 41 percent, I don’t know 

what that means. Ms. Sohn, you said we don’t have metrics and 

then toward the end you said we do have metrics; and that seems 

imprecise testimony to me. That is just me. So we heard a figure, 

96 in urban settings. 

But I don’t know what 41 percent means in a tribal area. Does 

that mean that let’s say you have a huge reservation and there is 

connectivity at the school. What percentage of the people are counted as having connectivity, then? How is that figured out? How is 

that calculated? 

Ms. SOHN. So we calculate connectivity by census block. We do 

not use a broadband map because we agree that there are inaccuracies, but we do measure by the census block. And if there is 

service at our benchmark speed at the census block, then we do 

count that as served. 

40 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, I don’t know what that means, then, 

again. So let’s say a census block has the only connectivity is at the 

school, okay? What does that mean in terms of the percentage of 

people who have access to internet broadband. 

Ms. SOHN. Well, it means it is not the most accurate way to 

measure and, unfortunately, we have been advised by our counsel 

that going much more granular than that could have some privacy 

implications. I mean, without a doubt, our data is not perfect, although our staff does spend a lot of time trying to verify the data. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, I just want to know what 41 percent 

means, because it is a number that is thrown around all the time, 

right? And I know why you said there is 59 percent connectivity, 

because 59 and 41 equal 100. 

Ms. SOHN. Right. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. SOHN. So 41 percent of the census blocks in tribal lands do 

not have connectivity, do not have connectivity at our benchmark 

speed of 10:1. 

Senator FRANKEN. Yes. And I am trying to figure out what that 

means. Do you understand that? 

Ms. SOHN. Yes, I do. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. So let’s say there is a big reservation, 

and let’s say they have two schools they are so big, and both 

schools have broadband that is fast enough to qualify. What if you 

live 40 miles from the school? Do you have connectivity? 

Ms. SOHN. Not necessarily, no. I mean, 477—let me just clarify. 

Senator FRANKEN. Are you counted as having connectivity? 

Ms. SOHN. No. 

Senator FRANKEN. No. 

Ms. SOHN. The 477 data does not go to schools and libraries, 

okay? It goes to individual households. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Ms. SOHN. The schools and libraries, that is separate. 

Senator FRANKEN. So it is individual households. So that helps 

me now. Okay, so I understand that a little bit better. Some of us 

have become more reliant on mobile devices to access the internet, 

and we are going to have a spectrum auction, right? What is the 

FCC doing to ensure that tribal communities have access to that 

very finite, of course, resource? 

Ms. SOHN. Well, there is a tribal lands bidding credit that is 

available to both the tribal carriers and carriers that want to serve 

tribal lands. So, in other words, it is a 25 percent bidding credit. 

Senator FRANKEN. Bidding? 

Ms. SOHN. Bidding credit, yes. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay, a bidding credit. 

Ms. SOHN. It is a bidding credit that essentially gives them a leg 

up in obtaining spectrum in the incentive auction. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. Well, that is good to know. 

Ms. Kitka, thank you for your testimony. You say that money is 

the elephant in the room. I think it is. Are there any other elephants in this room that anybody would like to identify? 

Ms. KITKA. I was going to respond to the Chairman’s question 

about what can be done to further partnerships, public-private 

partnerships on this. I think that we can ask the Administration, 

41 

either the current President or the next president, to convene a 

high level kind of a matching party, if you will, with Native American leaders and business leaders on that and the private sector on 

that. 

Part of the partnership is the lack of opportunity for introduction 

and meeting people on that. If there was an opportunity where you 

had a chance to meet your counterparts in the telecom world on 

that, I think that there could be a lot of creative partnerships 

furthered that don’t necessarily cost money; it is just a matter of 

pulling people together. So that is a suggestion I had. 

Senator FRANKEN. Okay. 

Mr. Enjady? 

Mr. ENJADY. I would like to answer that question. The parts that 

you are asking about, the schools there actually under the E-rate 

program, which is not quite part of some of the regular providers 

that provide services there, so for like my reservation, on the Mescalero Apache Reservation, we have an E-rate program which we 

are qualified to provide services to that school. 

But because of the BIE, Bureau of Indian Education, they have 

a national contract with Verizon to provide those services, so I cannot compete against them because they are under a national contract because they provide those services. So I, as a local provider, 

cannot provide that service. 

Now, if we look at the rest of the reservation like in Mescalero, 

at one point we were at like 54 percent no service. But because the 

Tribe took the initiative to build out its telecom company, we are 

up to about 98 percent. So we are doing very well at the copper 

line level. 

Now, we have different forms or ways to get to the house from 

our offices. We can do it over copper or we can do it over fiber optic 

cable, which is glass. We can send lasers down that line and get 

all the broadband that we need. 

So I am in that transition point right now, which I was fortunate 

enough to receive a SUTA loan from RUS and be able to provide 

those services. So we are going to start attempting doing that pretty quickly. Hopefully in the next six months we will start laying 

the first fiber lines to the home. So with that we should get up to 

2 gigabytes of connectivity to every home on our reservation. Those 

are some of the things, the accomplishments that we are going to 

do. 

Now, if we can do that in all reservations across the Nation, that 

would give us 100 percent coverage or close to it, depending if they 

are wired or not. 

Senator FRANKEN. That is what we need. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Franken. 

Senator Heitkamp. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

Senator HEITKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Just kind of to clarify, I think that when we hear 59 percent, 

what we assume that means is that every person who is within 

that territory that you have identified as having access could in 

42 

fact connect at the speeds that you measure. Is that what 59 percent means? 

Ms. SOHN. Unfortunately, I can’t say that it does. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think that is a problem, because that number is unreliable. So we are kind of down to that doesn’t mean anything to me. So I need to know what the current condition is. 

I held a meeting on this in North Dakota and I can tell you that 

the issue that Senator Franken just raised, which is the cellular 

issue, I had people talking about typing a paper, putting it on their 

cell phone, then driving out to the highest point in the reservation 

and holding their cell phone up and hoping that that paper transmitted to the professor at UND. Standing out there on the high 

hill, because so many people in this demographic area or this census block, they connect wirelessly. 

They are fairly mobile. We have a huge problem with Indian 

housing, so they don’t have a home that is consistent for a lot of 

them; they move around. Their only connection to the internet is 

on a cell phone or on a mobile device. So we have to figure out how 

we fashion a solution for the population that exists and make sure 

that we are not building fiber to places where no one is going to 

use it. They need cell towers. So we have to figure out with RUS 

what is the direct need that folks have. 

And we have done a pretty good job, actually, in providing 

broadband access in North Dakota, even in Indian Country. North 

Dakota is one of the most connected rural States in the Union because of the great help of RUS. But we still have gaps in coverage. 

I can’t stress upon everyone enough the need to collaborate all the 

Federal information, whether it is BIE, whether it is Indian health, 

whether it is RUS, whether it is FCC, to find out what the needs 

actually are. 

Because having this kind of communication support into the future is absolutely essential. It is essential for education and it is 

essential for life and death, and I will tell you why. Because we 

can’t recruit a health care workforce in Indian health facilities in 

North Dakota; we have to rely on telemedicine. And if we don’t 

have reliable backbone in telemedicine, we don’t have health care, 

especially in the area of behavior and mental health. 

So my question, Mr. McBride, is really, what more can be done 

and, compared to the applications that you get, how much unfilled 

need is there in Indian Country as it relates to support from RUS? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Well, thank you for the question. With regard to 

unmet needs in Indian Country, we are reliant on folks coming in 

and making application. And certainly with the SUTA provisions 

we try to look at those applications and give those priority as we 

are working through the stack of applications that we have. Our 

goal is to make sure that we are meeting the most underserved 

areas, and certainly tribal areas are included in that. 

But one of the things that we have also tried to do, to the point 

that you were just making with regard to coordination, under the 

Broadband Opportunity Council, we are trying to work across agencies to make sure that we are leveraging resources that we do 

have; not requesting new money, but finding ways to use the programs and resources that we have already been given to expand access. 

43 

Senator HEITKAMP. Well, in many cases isn’t it true that RUS 

does do public-private partnerships? I mean, you are partnering 

with the rural telecoms in providing a lot of this service or with 

some of the Indian-owned telecommunications companies. 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Yes, ma’am. And as you are probably aware, Secretary Vilsack has the Rural Opportunity Initiative where we have 

been trying to work with the private sector to leverage our resources with theirs to meet the infrastructure needs in rural areas. 

Senator HEITKAMP. I think one of the most critical things that 

can come out of this hearing is an understanding that we are frustrated by the lack of data. We are frustrated that we don’t know 

where the gaps are and we don’t know how to fill those gaps. And 

we are frustrated that everybody doesn’t seem to be kind of in the 

same space, trying to solve the problem working together. 

So I hope that going into the future, when you go back to collaborate and you do it in consultation with the people who are actually 

being served, so you are not building fiber where nobody is going 

to use fiber, when you could build cell phone towers where people 

could actually get access, that we actually begin to close the gap, 

because this will create economic hardship and a lack of economic 

development for generations to come if we don’t fix this problem, 

and that is a place where, in all of our States, we desperately need 

an economic opportunity. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp. 

Senator Tester. 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your courtesy of going last. I appreciate that. 

Thank you for your testimony, folks. 

This is for you, Mr. McBride. One of the barriers that GAO identified was a lack of tribal members who have necessary technical 

and bureaucratic expertise to navigate the application process and 

to interact with prospective providers. What is the agency doing to 

support Tribes’ administrative and technical capacity? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Thank you for the question. I actually grew up in 

a rural community in Arkansas with a small town mayor who had 

an executive assistant and needed a lot of help trying to identify 

the different opportunities, so I am sensitive to the issue that you 

have raised. 

We try to do outreach with all rural communities, in particular 

tribal, and we are also fortunate to have State offices with State 

directors and program folks on the ground who can go and meet 

with people in their communities and talk to them about their 

needs and the opportunities under rural development to meet 

those. 

Senator TESTER. Good. We have talked about money, and this is 

for you again, Mr. McBride. Other than money, what is the biggest 

obstacle to the deployment of high-speed internet? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. A lot of it is simply the difficulty of building out. 

The terrain can be tough. Those who are looking to provide service 

in the hardest to reach areas have to deal with different permitting, different issues at the local and State level. So there is a lot 

of work that goes into putting together a successful project aside 

from just finding the funding. 

44 

Senator TESTER. Okay. Thank you. 

Ms. Sohn, Chairman Wheeler was out in Montana last fall and 

hosted a roundtable with Native American Tribes from Montana 

and talked about the barriers to improving internet access, and it 

was a very successful visit. 

I certainly appreciate the Chairman’s time because it really was 

beneficial to me and to the Tribes. The Chairman promised to the 

Tribes that he was going to send a team of folks to Montana. I 

think that is going to happen very, very soon, and I hope to be 

there when they show up to spend a few days consulting with the 

Montana Tribes. Could you talk about the value of face-to-face consultations and what the success has been for the FCC in this? 

Ms. SOHN. ONAP has worked tirelessly to build relationships, 

government-to-government relationships with the Tribes and honor 

our fiduciary duty, our trust relationship with the Tribes to ensure 

self-sufficiency and economic development. As I mentioned before to 

Senator Udall, in 2014 we had 33 such consultations, 39 in 2015. 

We have already had 20 in the first four months here. 

So the value is enormous. It is not only consultation, it is not 

only input from the Tribes as to what our policies should be and 

how we can be helpful, but it is also training; it is digital literacy 

training, it is technical training. So it is a wide variety and it is 

very much an interactive partnership between our agency and the 

Tribes. 

Senator TESTER. Okay. 

Mr. MCBRIDE. this is back to you. It was brought to our attention 

that BIE-operated schools cannot access USDA broadband funding 

because of statutory provisions about interagency funding. Is that 

true? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. I am not aware of the issue that you have raised. 

I would be happy to look at the specific concern. I know that there 

might be an issue if you were using Federal funds to match other 

Federal funds or something of that nature, but if it is a partnership 

through distance learning, for example, I wouldn’t be aware of the 

concern. 

Senator TESTER. Could you do me a favor? And we might be able 

to save you some footsteps. Get hold of my staff and check into 

this. 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Absolutely. 

Senator TESTER. Because as it is written here it doesn’t make a 

lot of sense to me. Okay? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Absolutely. 

Senator TESTER. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense to you either. 

Mr. Enjady, one of the obstacles we have seen in getting agencies 

and telecom groups to recognize the unique rights of the way in Indian Country, it has been a challenge, trust, responsibilities, plus 

sovereignty and all that. It is a sensitive topic, but we have seen 

some big projects fall through the cracks because of issues about 

right-of-ways that just stretch out too long and it got too late. 

I was talking to a rural telephone cooperative that does much of 

the broadband in Eastern Montana and they were saying they were 

having a hard time getting right-of-ways across Indian Country to 

be able to provide Native Americans with broadband. 

45 

I just want to get your perspective on this. Is this an issue we 

should be paying some attention to as a Committee or, if it is a 

problem, how do we solve it? 

Mr. ENJADY. It is a huge problem. Right now I just went through 

that same problem with a tower lease with Verizon. We submitted 

it to the BIA. It took two years for them to approve it. In the meantime, Verizon was sitting there. They were paying their lease 

agreement, but it was a two-year agreement and it took two years 

to get it, and the first day of their lease commenced when BIA finally signed off on it, so they actually got four years for actually 

two years. 

Like I said, that was difficult to try to do it. I am not sure if 

there are enough people to really take care of the situation. Putting 

it back in the Tribe’s hand might be one way of doing this, where 

we are able to do the realty part of this. That could be one way. 

I am not sure. That is an area that is very sensitive. 

I know how I would do it myself. I would just do it and take care 

of it, then, here, write it down and take care of it for us, because, 

like I said, Indian Tribes, when my president asked me to provide 

services, I do it; and we have to try to do it the best way, and we 

will ask BIA to forgive us afterwards. 

Senator TESTER. Yes. Well, I am on a co-op. I get my telephone 

and my electricity from a co-op. I get my internet service from the 

co-op, and I can just tell you it is a sensitive issue, okay, but part 

of my getting access to the internet and telephone and power lines 

is that I give them a right-of-way. I give them a right-of-way. I 

don’t get one damn nickel for it other than the fact that if I didn’t 

give them the right-of-way I wouldn’t get the service, and I need 

that service to run my business and be successful. 

I would love to be able to work with you and other folks moving 

forward to try to get this issue tapped down because there has to 

be a solution for this. I think in Indian Country, where the economy and especially a lot of the large land-based Tribes, where it 

is expensive to lay cable, lay fiber, it is critical if we are going to 

get them out of poverty. I think it is just critical. If we don’t do 

it, we are going to be fighting an uphill battle. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Mr. Enjady, just following up. We talked a lot about if you 

couldn’t get it done, you would do it yourself and ask forgiveness 

later. It is interesting. The FCC has dedicated itself, it says, to 

having robust consultation with Indian Tribes. I would just like 

you to comment a little bit about their current policies for communicating along this robust consultation. Is it working? Are there 

things that could be done better? 

Mr. ENJADY. Tribal engagement is one thing that the FCC has 

tried to do very well. When Geoffrey Blackwell was there, consultation was very good. I cannot cite the fact that the FCC is trying 

to do the best they can in that arena. They have done a very good 

job in that they have had numerous listening sessions across the 

Country. The last one I was in was last year, when we were in 

Phoenix. They invited quite a few tribal folks and they did do a 

very good job. 

46 

The part is that Tribes have a lack of knowledge in what 

telecoms really are. It is a very, very complicated arena. It is something that obviously you can see that we have had the toughest 

time just trying to figure out what the percentages are of what is 

served and not served only because it is so complicated. 

It is not easy anymore. The 1996 Telecommunications Act said 

that we will provide services all across the land, and that is something that sure needs to be done, and I hold the FCC’s feet to that 

for some of the things that we, as providers, want to do throughout 

our whole reservation. 

As a part for all of Indian Country, some of the big carriers take 

care of that, like Windstream, CenturyLink. I am not sure exactly 

where they are. I mean, they are a for-profit business; they are 

publically owned and they do have shares, so their shareholders 

come first, and I am not sure where Indian Country fits into that 

picture yet. That is something that I am sure the FCC is addressing, but, as a whole, there are a lot of problems out there. 

When Senator Heitkamp said that wireless might be the way, 

that is true, it could be the way, but obviously we have to build 

fiber optic networks to get to those towers in order to provide the 

high bandwidths that they need just so you can use your smart 

cellphone to be able to get on the internet and do what you need 

to do. You still need fiber optic cables to deliver the huge amounts 

of data, and wireless cannot do that right now at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Following up on that, Ms. Sohn, we were talking 

about the issues of 41 percent, 59 percent, what does it all mean, 

and could you just flip the numbers, in terms of actual service. According to the GAO, between 2010 and 2014, about $33 billion has 

been spent on universal high-speed internet access. The FCC has 

implemented several programs to aid in ensuring that all people 

have access. When do you expect that all tribal communities that 

want access to broadband might have access to broadband? 

Ms. SOHN. Well, I am reticent to make a prediction. All I can say 

is that that is our goal and we are working hard to make that happen. Can our data be better? Absolutely. I do want to mention, 

though, just to say that the FCC didn’t start collecting this data 

until 2014. 

So before that it was the NTIA and the States doing it together. 

So we are kind of like a toddler in that regard and we need to do 

a better job, without a doubt. We may well need Congress’s help 

in order to collect more granular data. 

The CHAIRMAN. I want to just follow up a little bit on that because we hear about the worry that when you look at the national 

broadband map it can exaggerate service in local areas, and that 

was the comment you heard from many members of this Committee today. So if a service provider provides availability to a portion of a census block unit, that whole census block may be counted. We understand that, we have that agreement. 

This leads to a misconception sometimes that providers are providing to a larger area than may actually be delivered. So that is, 

like you said, like a toddler just trying to learn. I wonder is there 

some enticement for carriers to purposefully overstate their coverage of an area in terms of either additional payments, additional 

incentives that they can say, yeah, we have covered this? Are there 

47 

incentives out there, inducements that would help explain to us 

why they may want to overstate what is actually covered? 

Ms. SOHN. Well, I don’t want to speak for the carriers, but I will 

say this. If they do overstate their coverage, the Tribes have two 

options: number one, the carriers that serve tribal lands must engage with the Tribes, and that is a place where the Tribes can deal 

with the carriers’ overstatement there; or they can come to us, they 

can come to ONAP. So we will enforce those kinds of overstatements. But I really don’t want to get into what the carriers were 

thinking. 

The CHAIRMAN. So, Mr. Goldstein, one of the recommendations 

has to develop performance goals and measurements to track 

progress to achieve, including tribal lands. The FCC stated in the 

response to the GAO report the agency already had performance 

measures for in-home access. Are there further actions that the 

FCC should be taking? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, the kinds of performance measures that the FCC has are not, as Ms. Sohn said, related to tribal 

lands, they are very broad in nature; they cover rural areas generally, the Nation in general. They are for in-home access, as well 

as for the E-rate program. 

With E-rate program itself, I would add that this is a program 

that has been around for many, many years, and unlike, like Ms. 

Sohn said, where they are just getting involved in terms of trying 

to understand data for in-home access, in the E-rate program we 

have been writing reports for more than a decade which have criticized the FCC’s inability to develop performance measures in that 

program. So the fact that they still don’t have them for Tribes, 

even though they have in the last couple years developed them 

more broadly, is of some concern. 

The CHAIRMAN. You had also focused in the report on the Department of Agriculture, the FCC. Other agencies like the Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior are mentioned 

in the report, but they are not really included in the report’s recommendations. Anything you would like to add about the Department of Commerce or the Department of the Interior? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. We have written a number of reports in the last 

couple of years taking a look at the Recovery Act programs of BIP 

and BTOP and the like, and we have made recommendations, 

sadly, that are very similar to the ones we made here today regarding a lack of performance measures. Too many of these kinds of 

programs where we are spending billions of dollars, the money is 

being sent out the door without any adequate oversight of exactly 

what it is being used for and, even before that, what the goals are 

that the agencies are trying to achieve and how they are going to 

measure when they are achieved. 

So, therefore, it is difficult to determine what is being achieved, 

what kind of overlap might exist, how money might be targeted 

better, things like that. So without these kinds of measures in all 

of these programs, we don’t get as much progress as we probably 

could. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, Mr. McBride, the Community Connect grants were part of the $33 billion spent improving access to universal high-speed internet access. The Community Connect grants 

48 

were awarded to rural communities, including tribal communities, 

to provide high-speed internet service. The GAO report states that 

between 2010 and 2014 $53 billion, as we have talked about, had 

been spent. Of that, approximately $3 million was awarded to tribal lands, by my math in this. Is there a dedicated stream of funding for tribal broadband and is it something that needs to come 

from Congress? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Tribal areas are prioritized under Community 

Connect and DLT. I am not sure which statistics you are referencing. Since 2009 we have funded $77 million in Community 

Connect grants, and $14 million of that has been targeted to tribal 

areas. Last year we were able to fund five projects and four of them 

were to tribal areas. So we are trying to target them. 

The CHAIRMAN. There are a number of examples of interagency 

issues between tribal carriers that they face. I don’t know if rural 

utility services have a way to help tribal communication carriers 

when interagency issues arise between, say, the rural utility service, the FCC, other Federal agencies. Do mechanisms exist? 

Mr. MCBRIDE. Certainly for our borrowers, if there are issues, we 

are happy to work with them and coordinate with other agencies 

and help in any way we can to facilitate conversations that help 

them achieve their goals. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I want to thank all of you for your testimony today. We appreciate your taking the time to answer the 

questions, to be patient as the questions continued. 

The hearing record is going to remain open for the next two 

weeks. There is a possibility you may receive written questions 

from some of the members who thought of additional questions 

after your testimony or who weren’t able to be here. But I want to 

thank all of you for being here. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(49) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS (NCAI) 

Introduction 

The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest and largest representative organization of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments. 

NCAI represents the broad interests of tribes and their citizens to promote the advancement of tribal sovereignty and self-determination. On April 27, 2016, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on, ‘‘The GAO Report on, ‘Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed 

for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands’’’. The hearing focused a 

report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on February 3, 

2016, which highlighted programmatic and interagency issues to deploy telecommunications services on tribal lands. The report determined that the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) did not coordinate well in telecommunications programs, outreach, and 

training to tribes. In addition to the need for joint outreach and training efforts between the FCC and USDA, the GAO recommended that the FCC develop performance goals and measures to track progress on Internet availability in households on 

tribal lands; improve reliability of data regarding institutions receiving funds under 

the Schools and Libraries (E-rate) Program by defining ‘‘tribal’’ on the program application; and develop performance goals and measures to ensure tribal schools and 

libraries receive affordable Internet services. 

While the focus of the Hearing was on the findings and recommendations highlighted in the GAO report, a number of issues were also raised including requests 

for legislative action to increase access to private capital and regulatory action to 

preserve the Universal Service Fund (USF) for carriers serving tribal lands. A number of Committee Members also raised concerns over how the FCC collects information for broadband availability on tribal lands, and how reliable that information is 

since carriers self-report U.S. Census blocks they receive USF support for. GAO also 

acknowledged that certain inaccuracies with different maps illustrating broadband 

availability on tribal lands have prevented some tribes from accessing federal funding for broadband projects. The FCC responded that it could not collect granular 

level data on tribal lands because it could have privacy implications and recommended that Congress look at what actions to take regarding the issue. 

NCAI respectfully submits this testimony for the record of the Senate Committee 

on Indian Affairs hearing on, ‘‘The GAO Report on, ‘Telecommunications: Additional 

Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access 

Programs on Tribal Lands’’’. 

Telecommunications In Indian Country 

The primary law governing our telecommunications sector is the 1934 Communications Act, which was last amended in 1996 due to early and rapid advances in 

wireless and cable technologies. Section 254(b) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act 

established six universal service principles to meet the goals of providing affordable 

and quality telecommunications services across the country. In order to reach these 

universal service objectives the 1996 Telecommunications Act created the Universal 

Service Fund (USF), and required carriers providing interstate telecommunications 

services to contribute a fee to the fund to support telecommunications deployment 

across the country. 

In the 2000 U.S. Census, it was estimated that less than ten percent of tribal 

lands had access to the Internet, and that less than 69 percent of tribal households 

had access to basic landline telephone service. During the following decade tribal 

leaders and organizations like NCAI held numerous meetings with the FCC. These 

meetings sought to educate the FCC on ways it could change its regulatory priorities to be more inclusive and receptive to telecommunications deployment on tribal 

lands. However, change came slowly as tribes quickly found challenges with navigating the complex regulatory framework of the FCC. Additionally, the constant reVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
50 

lease of technical and lengthy policy changes stretched tribal budgets for advocacy 

efforts. It is during this period that tribes advocated for the creation of a tribal office 

at the FCC that could directly consult with tribal nations and act as a channel to 

receive tribal input. After a decade of these discussions the FCC created the Office 

of Native Affairs and Policy in 2010, and since then consultation and engagement 

with tribal nations has reached heightened levels. 

While the FCC has released numerous regulations over the past 15 years to 

bridge the ‘‘Digital Divide’’ in Indian Country many tribal lands across the country 

are still lacking access to modern communications technologies and services. Many 

tribes have received first-time connections to the Internet through the Indian 

Healthcare Service, or other federal programs that have connected tribal schools, 

public safety facilities, and government buildings. However, residential service remains an area of challenge as the drive of ‘‘market forces’’ have not connected the 

majority of tribal lands. Additionally, services such as those provided through IHS 

and other federal programs often operate within closed networks to ensure appropriate bandwidth is available for the services they need to provide. While a majority 

of tribes have established IT networks to connect facilities on tribal lands, just ten 

of the 567 federally-recognized tribes have established telecom companies to provide 

residential phone and Internet services. 

Tribal Lands Continue to Remain the Most Disconnected Areas of the 

Country 

As aforementioned, for well over a decade tribes and the federal government have 

referenced a 2000 Census finding that less than ten percent of tribal lands have access to the Internet. That same data also proclaimed that less than 69 percent have 

access to analog wireline telephone networks. Today there are conflicting reports regarding broadband availability and adoption in Indian Country between the FCC, 

Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Census, thereby making it difficult to determine where targeted funding for tribal lands is needed. 

According to the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 41 percent of residents 

on tribal lands lack access to advanced telecommunications services, compared to 10 

percent of the overall U.S. population as highlighted below: 

Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability (Millions)1

Population Without 

Access 

Percentage of Population 

Without Access 

United States 33.982 10% 

Rural Areas 23.43 39% 

Urban Areas 10.552 4% 

Tribal Lands (Overall) 1.574 41% 

Rural Areas 1.291 68% 

Urban Areas 0.283 14% 

See Federal Communications Commission. 2016 Broadband Progress Report. Jan. 

29, 2016. FCC 16–6. Table 1. Pg. 34. Available at http://transition.fcc.gov/ 

DailylReleases/DailylBusiness/2016/db0129/FCC–16–6A1.pdf. 

These statistics are based on the FCC’s current speed benchmark of terrestrial 

services provided at speeds of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps), 

which the FCC determined was required to use high-quality video, data, voice, and 

other broadband applications in a household with multiple users. This data is further disaggregated below: 

Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability2

Population Percentage of 

Population 

Tribal Lands 1,573,925 41% 

Rural Areas 1,291,330 68% 

Urban Areas 282,595 14% 

Alaskan Villages 128,638 49% 

Rural Areas 113,706 70% 

Urban Areas 14,932 15% 

Hawaiian Home Lands 367 1% 

Rural Areas 307 7% 

Urban Areas 60 0% 

51 

Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability2— 

Continued 

Population Percentage of 

Population 

Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States 588,324 58% 

Rural Areas 469,818 72% 

Urban Areas 118,506 33% 

Tribal Statistical Areas 856,596 34% 

Rural Areas 707,499 66% 

Urban Areas 149,097 10% 

Id. Table 2. Pg. 35. 

The FCC explained that this information is collected biannually when carriers receiving USF support report Census block service data on FCC Form 477. Numerous 

Members of the Committee asked questions regarding the collection of this information, and specifically how this information can be used to identify which areas of 

tribal lands lack access to broadband service. In response the FCC raised concerns 

with the collection of more granular level data as it could have privacy implications 

and that it may take an act of Congress to mandate such collection of data. Nonetheless, GAO noted issues with data collection and specifically referenced that inaccuracies with the National Broadband Map have precluded some tribes from accessing federal funding for telecommunications projects on tribal lands. 

Additionally, the National Telecommunications & Information Administration 

(NTIA) collects data on broadband Internet adoption. A study conducted by NTIA 

was released in 2013 and found that broadband adoption rates among urban American Indians and Alaska Natives hovers around 60 percent, while a 33 percent 

broadband adoption rate for rural tribal households ranked the lowest among all 

ethnic groups. The survey also found rural American Indian and Alaska Native 

groups had the lowest computer ownership rates compared to their urban counterparts. It is also important to note that NTIA and the FCC’s definition of 

‘‘broadband’’ high-speed Internet in 2013 was 3 Mbps/768 Kbps. 


427a1.eps
52 

4See BroadbandUSA: Connecting America’s Communities. State Broadband Initiative. Available at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/SBDD. 5See U.S. Department of Commerce, Performance Progress Report. Arizona—Government Information Technology Agency. February 24, 2012. Available at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/ 

grantees/04–50-m09045Oarizonaldepartmentlofladministrationl-ladoalppr2012lq1.pdf. 

Finally, 2013 Census American Community Survey (ACS) data similarly found 

that American Indians and Alaska Natives overall, have higher rates of computer 

ownership and broadband Internet subscription rates compared to those residing on 

reservation and trust lands. However, according to the overall 2013 Census ACS 

data, American Indians and Alaska Natives overall continue to have the lowest 

broadband Internet subscription rates and the highest group without an Internet 

subscription when compared to other ethnicities. It was difficult to ascertain what 

the Census defined as ‘broadband’ high-speed Internet, but it is assumed that it 

would have coincided with the FCC’s definition of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps during this time 

period. 

3 Reporting overall American Indian/Alaska Native Alone (AIAN): 2,439,080. Reporting on Reservation and Trust Lands: 559,491. 

While all these data collection efforts over the years have demonstrated increases 

in broadband availability, computer ownership, and broadband adoption rates, there 

are still significant deficiencies in other areas. For instance, there are no reliable 

sources of data for wireless services and pricing on tribal lands. The Native Nations 

Broadband Map was meant to provide an ideal snapshot of a broad range of wireline 

and wireless services on tribal lands but it has failed to fulfill these goals. Much 

of the data that is used to populate the map is collected either through telecom carriers self-reporting areas they serve and the types of service(s) they offer, or through 

data collection efforts through state agencies or third-party contractors. 

Originally the National Broadband Map initiative was created through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111–5) and offered grants through 

the State Broadband Initiative Program for the purposes of collecting telecommunications data. However, there was a major oversight in the legislation as the grants 

awarded were directed to the 50 states, five territories, the District of Columbia, or 

their designees-thereby effectively excluding direct tribal eligibility for data collection on tribal lands. 4 While state agencies, or their contracted designees, were expected to collect data on tribal lands some tribes refused to share data or allow outside entities onto tribal lands to collect this information. 

According to a 2012 U.S. Department of Commerce Performance Progress Report, 

the Gila River Indian Community of Arizona, and their tribally-owned and operated 

telecommunications carrier refused to share information with the State of Arizona 

and the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. 5 Although the 

Report didn’t specify the reasons for the Gila River Indian Community’s refusal to 

participate in the data collection efforts, similar instances of tribes refusing to share 

their data or information with outside entities can be found in other areas. Data 

collection and retention has more recently been held as an exercise of tribal sovVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK

427a2.eps
53 

ereignty since many tribes have historic and deep-seated issues with sensitive information being exploited by non-tribal individuals or entities. A key example of this 

infringement dates back to the early anthropological and archaeological publishing 

of religious and cultural practices, or seizing of sacred cultural items by non-tribal 

researchers. Nevertheless, Congress must empower tribes to collect this information 

for their own uses and purposes. Enabling tribes to determine how they collect this 

information, either through partnerships or through their own efforts, will advance 

tribal sovereignty and self-determination. 

Congress Should Fund and Elevate the FCC Office of Native Affairs and 

Policy 

In recognition of the disparate levels of telecommunications service on tribal lands 

the FCC established its Office of Native Affairs and Policy (FCC–ONAP) to provide 

technical assistance and engage in government-to-government consultation with 

tribal nations. The office was created without dedicated funding and it was not until 

passage of the FY 2014 Omnibus that FCC–ONAP received $300,000 to support its 

tribal consultation and training directives. FCC–ONAP did not receive a Congressional appropriation in the FY 2016 budget and the FCC has not requested funding 

in its Annual FY Budget Requests to Congress since FY 2014. NCAI has previously 

advocated that Congress and the FCC authorize and appropriate a dedicated annual 

budget of $500,000 for FCC–ONAP to facilitate meaningful and productive consultations with tribal governments and to support the office in hiring additional staff. 

It came as a surprise to learn that the FCC has previously failed to fully use the 

$300,000 appropriated by Congress in recent years. 

While the FCC testified that they have been holding increased consultations with 

tribes without fully expending their consultation budget, it was not specified how 

and where those consultations were taking place. If these consultations were being 

conducted when a tribe visits the FCC offices to discuss an issue or rulemaking, 

then that is very different than the FCC actually visiting Indian Country or holding 

its regional consultations, trainings, and workshops. Additionally, funds should be 

used to hire additional staff and other telecommunications experts to provide technical assistance to tribes. 

The FCC and Congress should also elevate the FCC–ONAP as a stand-alone office. The FCC has already established a procedural framework for stand-alone offices, such as the Office of General Counsel and Office of Engineering and Technology to name a couple. These offices were created to directly advise the FCC Chair 

and Commissioners as specific subject matter experts. When FCCONAP was established it was place under the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau with the 

intent to report to, and work directly with the FCC Chair, Commissioners, and 

across the Bureaus and Offices at the Commission. Elevating FCC–ONAP to operate 

as a stand-alone office will ensure that it has the unfettered access needed to address tribal concerns and advise the FCC Chair, Commissioners, and the Commission’s Bureaus and Offices on all tribal matters. 

Preserve High Cost Subsidies for Broadband Deployment: Adoption of a 

Tribal Broadband Factor in the High Cost Fund 

Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ensures that all Americans, 

regardless of where they live, will have access to communications services at reasonable and affordable rates. The Universal Service Fund (USF) has provided financial 

support to telecommunications companies providing service to rural and insular 

areas, where the cost of providing service to consumers could not otherwise be 

achieved at affordable rates. The FCC has established rules to provide this support 

through various mechanisms including High Cost Loop Support (HCLS) and the National Average Cost Per Loop Support (NACPLS), which both provide critical ongoing capital and operating support to price cap and rate of return telecommunications 

companies. However, regulatory changes at the FCC have not always taken into 

consideration the depth of telecommunications services needed in rural and tribal 

lands. For instance, as part of its ongoing USF/ICC Transformation Order, in June 

2014 the FCC initiated a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to seek 

comment on reforms to the HCLS mechanism. The FNPRM proposed reforms to the 

HCLS mechanism, which included a proposal to freeze the NACPLS—a reform that 

was estimated to drastically reduce support for approximately half of all tribal and 

nontribal providers serving tribal lands. 

In response to the FNPRM proposals, in September 2014 Alexicon Consulting submitted a white paper that analyzed what effects the proposed NACPLS freeze would 

54 

6See Federal Communications Commission. Alexicon Consulting, ‘‘White Paper: Adjusting Recovery Percentages to Cap Total High Cost Loop Support’’. Sept. 19, 2014. Available at http:// 

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7522902861 7 Id., App. B–E. 8See Federal Communications Commission. Letter for the Record from Mark Walker, Legal Advisor to the Chief of the Wireline Competition Bureau, to FCC Secretary Marlene H. Dortch, WC 

Docket Nos. 10–90 and 14–58. Nov. 24, 2014. Available at https://prodnet.www.neca.org/ 

publicationsdocs/wwpdf/112514fcc.pdf. 9 Id. 

10See Federal Communications Commission. HCLS Reform Report and Order, WC Docket Nos. 

10–90, 14–58, 14–192. Dec. 18, 2014. FCC 14–190. paragraph 100, pg. 36. Available at https:// 

apps.fcc.gov/edocslpublic/attachmatch/FCC–14–190A1.pdf. 11See Federal Communications Commission. Report and Order, Order and Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket Nos. 10–90 and 14–58, and CC 

Docket No. 01–92. FCC 16–33. Released March 30, 2016. Available at http://transition.fcc.gov/ 

DailylReleases/DailylBusiness/2016/db0504/FCC–16–33A1.pdf. 

have on carriers receiving HCLS. 6 Using available data from the National Exchange 

Carrier Association (NECA) for the reporting years 2010 through 2012, the White 

Paper recalculated the HCLS for over 600 study areas based on the NACPLS freeze 

and adjusted HCLS recovery percentage proposals put forward by the FCC. The 

data illustrated potential decreases in HCLS support for a number of the triballyowned and operated telecommunications providers and non-tribal carriers serving 

tribal lands. 7 On November 14, 2014, the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) submitted a Staff Report on the impact of the FCC’s proposed reforms to the HCLS 

mechanism. 8 The Staff Report showed an increase in the number of study areas receiving support and a projected ‘‘zero’’ for study areas losing all HCLS compared to 

a proposal submitted by NTCA. However, the overall data set compiled by the WCB 

staff also illustrated that nine of the ten tribally-owned and operated telecommunications providers would receive decreases in their HCLS support of an estimated 

$865,000 under the FCC proposals. 9 Despite these findings by the WCB Staff Report, and analysis submitted for the record, on December 18, 2014 the FCC released 

a Report & Order in which it adopted its proposed reforms to HCLS on an interim 

basis, while indicating that it intended to act on long-term reform in 2015. 10 The 

FCC also adopted its proposals to freeze the NACPLS absent any consultation with 

affected tribes to determine how it would affect HCLS and other USF High Cost 

support mechanisms. 

Tribal consultation followed the FCC’s decision, and after a year the FCC initiated 

a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit input on the development of a 

Tribal Broadband Factor (TBF) within the USF High Cost Fund. 11 This rulemaking 

is still ongoing, but NCAI does support the establishment of a TBF within the High 

Cost Fund to maintain or provide increased USF subsidies to support the deployment and maintenance of telecommunications infrastructure in Indian Country. 

This proceeding, however, has highlighted the need for prior and informed consultation with tribal nations since it took a year for the FCC to develop these proposals 

after deciding to freeze NACPLS support. As aforementioned the FCC has stated 

it did not expend its tribal consultation budget in recent years, which is troubling 

given the issues that were raised as a result of the HCLS/NACPLS proceeding. Moving forward the FCC must develop rules that will provide parity for carriers that 

require ongoing capital and operating support to connect tribal lands to broadband 

services. Ongoing reforms to the universal service High Cost program must take 

into consideration how regulatory and financial changes could adversely affect tribal 

carriers and those serving tribal lands. 

Congress and the FCC Should Recognize Tribal Authority to Designate 

Libraries on Tribal Lands 

In June 2013, President Obama announced the ConnectED initiative to connect 

99 percent of America’s students to high-speed broadband and services by 2018. 

Shortly after this announcement, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

initiated rulemakings to modernize its $2 billion Schools and Libraries program (Erate)—the federal government’s largest educational technology program. In the 

Final Order adopted by the FCC in August 2014, many tribal concerns were addressed, such as the need for training on various programmatic aspects of the Erate program and the need for a Tribal Liaison at the Universal Service Administrative Company. However, the Final Order missed taking action on several key recommendations to increase tribal participation in the program. Additionally, the 

Final Order focused on prioritizing funding to support Wi-Fi deployment, which does 

not address the critical need for new hardline, and in many cases first-time, connections to the nation’s schools and libraries. 

55 

12See Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of Improving Communications 

Services for Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands. 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. WT Docket No. 11–40. Available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/ 

comment/view?id=6016822908. 3See Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of Improving Communications Services for native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands. Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking. WT Docket No. 11–40. Paragraph 12, page 6. Available at http:// 

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016822908. 

Congress should enact statutory changes to enable tribal authority to designate 

what constitutes a ‘‘library’’ on tribal lands. Tribal ‘libraries’ are usually located in 

multi-service buildings that provide programs and services to tribal members, which 

may not constitute a formal ‘stand-alone’ library or necessarily be attached to a primary or secondary education institution. When the 1996 Telecommunications Act 

passed it recognized the Library Services and Construction Act, which provided 

tribes the ability to designate their own libraries. However, just months after passage of the ’96 Telecom Act, the LSCA was rescinded and replaced by the Library 

Services and Technology Act (LSTA). Under the LSTA tribes must receive approval 

from a State Library Administrative Agency to designate a ‘‘library’’ as eligible for 

receiving funds for various library functions-including eligibility for participation in 

the E-rate program. The FCC should include this recommendation in their reports 

to Congress to support the need to amend the LSTA, or remove the requirement 

that tribal libraries be eligible for LSTA under state programs and instead restore 

them to being treated as agencies of sovereign tribal nations. NCAI’s membership 

also adopted Resolution #ANC–14–049, ‘‘Support for the Creation of a ‘Tribal Priority’ in E-rate Funding for Tribal Libraries and Schools’’ (enclosed), which called 

for the FCC to exercise forbearance on any laws or regulations that would prevent 

tribal libraries from accessing E-rate funds. 

Increase Tribal Nation Access to Spectrum Licenses 

As the demand for commercial mobile services increases the federal government 

is working to free up more spectrum to support and expand wireless networks nationwide. However, due to previous auctions of spectrum licenses by the FCC many 

non-tribal telecommunications providers hold spectrum licenses over tribal lands but 

don’t necessarily serve all tribal lands within a license area. In past and present 

circumstances tribes are unable to participate in spectrum auctions due to the vast 

amount of capital the telecommunications industry leverages to bid on these licenses. This has resulted in a comprehensive spectrum grab by industry without 

any new deployment or improvements to existing networks supporting wireless services over tribal lands. As the government continues to free up government held spectrum for commercial mobile use, tribes must receive a priority to licenses over tribal 

lands. 

On March 3, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), WT Docket No. 11–40, in the Matter of Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands. 12 This was a major step in further recognizing 

disparate spectrum access issues experienced by tribal nations. However, since the 

FCC adopted this NPRM, there has been no action to initiate a next phase of rulemaking in WT Docket No. 11–40. In the WT 11–40 NPRM, the FCC recognized proposals in the National Broadband Plan (NBP) to extend a tribal licensing priority 

to commercial wireless spectrum. Recommendations from the NBP called for the development of rules for re-licensing unused spectrum to tribes and encouraging the 

use of secondary markets to facilitate broadband deployment to unserved or underserved tribal areas. 13 However, the inactivity and dormancy that has been the subject of WT 11–40 has stifled the promise of increasing tribal access to commercial 

wireless spectrum licenses. 

Congress should urge that the FCC initiate a next phase of rulemaking on WT 

11–40 to increase tribal nation access to spectrum licenses. Due to regulatory 

changes and implementations since the release of WT 11–40, the FCC should revisit 

the proposals included in the rulemaking and request further comments to reflect 

the current state of telecommunications both regulatory and technologywise. The 

FCC should also implement a ‘‘Tribal Priority’’ in the rules inclusive of commercial 

mobile radio services, and wireless spectrum that can be utilized to deploy critical 

important and robust broadband services. Regulatory rules should also strengthen 

the structure of negotiations with existing licensed companies and strengthen the 

ability of tribal nations to initiate and participate in these negotiations. Access to 

currently licensed spectrum is absolutely necessary as many communities and tribal 

nations have never received the full benefit of services that could and should be proVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
56 

14See the National Broadband Plan. Chapter 8.4: Other Government Actions to Promote Availability. Mar. 17, 2010. Page 152. Available at http://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadbandplan/national-broadband-plan.pdf. 15 Id. 16 Id. 17See the National Broadband Plan. Chapter 9.7: Coordinating with Tribes on Broadband 

Issues. Page 184. Released March 17, 2010. Available at http://transition.fcc.gov/nationalbroadband-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf. 18See H.R. 6530, To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to establish a position for a representative of Indian Tribes on the Joint Board overseeing the implementation of universal service, and for other purposes. 111th Congress, 2nd Session. Introduced December 16, 2010. Available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr6530. 

vided on these licenses. Adoption and utilization of broadband services cannot occur 

until these services are available on tribal lands. 

Finally, the FCC should adopt rules that ensure there is good faith, responsiveness, and continuity in negotiations between tribal nations and service providers. 

As part of the fiduciary trust responsibility that exists between the federal government and tribal nations, it is critical that the FCC act in accordance with the best 

interest of tribes. While NCAI supports FCC initiatives to ensure that industry entities must ‘‘meaningfully engage’’ with tribal governments, the FCC should remain 

involved in these negotiations to ensure tribes are receiving fair treatment and deployment of broadband infrastructure is occurring in accordance with tribal sovereignty and community needs. NCAI’s membership has also adopted a number of 

Resolutions calling upon the FCC to adopt regulations that would increase access 

to spectrum licenses including Resolution #MKE–11- 007, ‘‘In Support of a Tribal 

Priority for the Utilization of Spectrum on Tribal Lands (enclosed); Resolution 

#SAC–12–034, ‘‘Promoting Tribal Nation Access and Use of Spectrum for Communications Service’’ (enclosed); and Resolution #SD–15–037, ‘‘Urging the Federal 

Communications Commission to Improve Access to Spectrum Licenses for Tribal 

Lands’’ (enclosed). 

Congress and the FCC Should Establish a Stand-Alone Tribal Broadband 

Fund 

One of the recommendations from the National Broadband Plan (NBP) that Congress or the FCC has yet to consider is the establishment of a Tribal Broadband 

Fund. Chapter 8.4 of the NBP provides recommendations to Congress that would 

provide additional financing solutions beyond USDA RUS programs and USF support: 

Recommendation 8.18 Congress should consider establishing a Tribal 

Broadband Fund to support sustainable broadband deployment and adoption in 

Tribal lands, and all federal agencies that upgrade connectivity on Tribal lands 

should coordinate such upgrades with Tribal governments and the Tribal 

Broadband Fund grant-making process. 14

The NBP specified that the creation of a Tribal Broadband Fund would provide 

grant funding to bring high-capacity broadband services to tribal anchor institutions; conduct feasibility studies, planning and infrastructure deployment; and provide business plan development, implementation, and digital literacy training. 15 In 

recognition of the low access and adoption rates prevalent on tribal lands, the NBP 

also recommended that a portion of the Tribal Broadband Fund would provide targeted grant funding for Internet access and adoption programs. 16 While many discussion draft bills have been circulated regarding the creation of a Tribal Broadband 

Fund, no bill has been formally introduced. 

Congress Should Establish a Tribal Seat on the Federal-State Joint Board 

on Universal Service 

The Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service provides recommendations on 

how to implement and provide critical USF investments. On June 11, 2010, NCAI 

sent a letter to Congressman Jay Inslee in support of legislative changes to Section 

410 of the Communications Act (enclosed). In that letter, NCAI referenced recommendations from the National Broadband Plan citing, ‘‘. . .Congress should consider amending the Communications Act to establish a Tribal seat on the USF Joint 

Board.’’ 17 During the 111th Congress legislation was introduced on December 16, 

2010 to provide amendments to Sections 254(a) and 410(c) of the Communications 

Act to create a tribal seat on the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. 18

Following the bill’s introduction, NCAI’s membership adopted Resolution #MKE–11– 

005, ‘‘In support of Tribal Positions on Universal Service Reform’’ (enclosed). To the 

57 

extent that Congress determines the continued use of other Federal-State Joint 

Boards, tribal interests and representation must be included. 

Attachments 

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANSlRESOLUTION #ANC–14–049 

TITLE: SUPPORT FOR THE CREATION OF A ‘‘TRIBAL PRIORITY’’ IN E-RATE FUNDING FOR

TRIBAL LIBRARIES AND SCHOOLS

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of 

the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public 

toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do 

hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established 

in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, the tribal communities in the U.S. have the lowest broadband deployment and adoption rates of any group of Americans, and often rely on tribal libraries and school computer labs to obtain access to the Internet; and 

WHEREAS, the Universal Service Fund (USF) E-Rate program has provided more than $2.25 billion in support each year for schools and public libraries, and 

today 61 percent of the nation’s public libraries benefit from E-Rate discounts, and 

more than 95 percent offer free public Internet access, up from only 28 percent in 

1996; and 

WHEREAS, recent studies by the Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries & Museums (ATALM) found that 10 percent of tribal libraries do not offer Internet access, 

38 percent are the only source of free public Internet access in their communities, 

and only 17 percent of tribal libraries have ever applied for E-Rate discounts, with 

15 percent actually receiving E-rate funds; and 

WHEREAS, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) 

reported 130 to 140 BIE schools applying for and receiving E-rate funds over the 

last nine years—out of a total 183 BIE entities. However, of the E-rate funds committed for these BIE schools over the past nine years, only 60 percent was actually 

spent. Furthermore, many eligible BIE schools did not apply because they did not 

meet the 80 percent threshold to receive a discount. These statistics illustrate persistent gaps in E-rate adoption among BIE schools that are similarly prevalent in 

other Native-serving institutions due to their geographical isolation and inability to 

meet Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) guidelines; and 

WHEREAS, E-rate funding is critically important to the development and maintenance of Internet-based services to tribal schools and libraries, and without a 90 

percent discount rate tribal schools and libraries are detrimentally impacted 

through reduction in teachers and student programs creating further distress in the 

most economically challenged tribal communities; and 

WHEREAS, NCAI Resolution REN–13–064 called on the FCC to place the highest priority on tribal schools and libraries in efforts to modernize the E-Rate Program as part of the President’s ConnectED initiative; and 

WHEREAS, the definition of Tribal Schools From the National Indian Education 

Association is as follows: 

TRIBAL PRIORITY ELIGIBILTY FOR E–RATE FUNDS 

LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES 

(1) Where Indian children eligible under Section 7117 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107–110) [20 U.S.C. 7427] are served by local education 

agencies located on, or adjacent or contiguous to, an Indian reservation, any 

other lands held in trust by the United States for Indians, or former Indian reservations in Oklahoma, such local education agencies and Indian tribes shall be 

eligible and have priority for funds distributed under the Universal Service 

Fund (USF) E-Rate program for any fiscal year. 

(2) If one or more Indian tribes represent Indian children eligible under section 

7117, the Indian tribe that represents a majority of the eligible Indian children 

shall have priority to receive such funds under the Universal Service Fund 

(USF) E-Rate program for any fiscal year. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION 

58 

(1) A school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education, including a school operated under a contract or grant with the Bureau of Indian Education, or a consortium of such schools shall have priority to receive such funds under the Universal Service Fund (USF) E-Rate program for any fiscal year.; or 

(2) a school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education in consortium with an 

Indian tribe, institution of higher education, tribal organization or community 

organization, shall have the same eligibility for and be given the same consideration as a local educational agency with regard to such program. 

TRIBAL PRIORITY SPECIAL RULE 

(1) If an eligible local educational agency or school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education that is otherwise eligible for funds but does not apply for such 

funds, an Indian tribe that represents not less than 1⁄2 of the eligible Indian 

children who are served by such eligible entity may apply for such funds; and 

(2) The Universal Service Fund (USF) E-Rate program shall treat each Indian 

tribe or consortium of Indian tribes applying for funds as if such Indian tribe 

or such consortium were a local educational agency, except that any such tribe 

or consortium is not subject to section 7114(c)(4), section 7118(c), or section 

7119 of the No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107–110) [20 U.S.C. 7427]; 

and 

WHEREAS, 85 percent of tribal libraries do not receive E-Rate funding due to 

eligibility restrictions, lack of awareness, and application complexities, and current 

statutory eligibility requirements make the majority of tribal libraries ineligible for 

E-rate participation; and 

WHEREAS, according to ATALM, tribal libraries receive less than $3 per capita 

per year in contrast to public libraries which receive an average of $45 per capita 

per year, and the majority of Tribal libraries often do not receive services or state 

certification from state library agencies and are thus not eligible for Library Services and Technology Act funding, which FCC rules currently require; and 

WHEREAS, the FCC has a trust obligation to Indian Country and to meet that 

obligation a ‘Tribal Priority’ to E-Rate should be developed for tribal libraries and 

schools to provide these institutions with targeted funding for digital broadband 

services, so they do not fall further behind mainstream America in terms of digital 

access, adoption, and applications. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NCAI calls on the FCC and its 

Office of Native Affairs and Policy (FCC–ONAP) to increase awareness and remove 

tribal-specific barriers by: (1) Conduct outreach to tribal libraries and schools, especially those having not participated in the E-rate program previously; (2) Provide 

tribal specific training modules for the E-Rate program; (3) Attend national and regional tribal meetings where tribal school and library administrators are present; 

(4) Develop educational materials that will be part of the FCC–ONAP’s Native 

Learning Lab and provide these materials directly to tribes via web portal or physical hard copy; (5) Provide assistance to tribal school and library awardees to comply 

with E-rate regulations; (6) Ensure accessibility to tribes during critical times of the 

annual funding cycle to answer questions and provide additional assistance as needed; and (7) grant forbearance from all applicable laws precluding tribal library participation in E-rate; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FCC consult with tribal nations to accelerate deployment of high-capacity broadband to tribal libraries and schools by 

creating a ‘Tribal Priority’ so they can better serve tribal citizens by qualifying these 

institutions for both Priority 1 and Priority 2 E-Rate funding; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FCC create new eligibility criteria that 

more effectively targets tribal communities for E-rate funds, such as those proposed 

by the ‘Tribal Commenters’ filing (WC 13–184) to the FCC on April 7, 2014; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FCC preserve the 90 percent funding 

E-rate for tribal schools and libraries and re-instate Priority 2 funding for tribal 

communities; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI 

until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2014 MidYear Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at the Dena’ina 

Civic & Convention Center, June 8–11, 2014 in Anchorage, Alaska, with a quorum 

present. 

59 

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANSlRESOLUTION # MKE–11–007 

TITLE: IN SUPPORT OF A TRIBAL PRIORITY FOR THE UTILIZATION OF SPECTRUM ON

TRIBAL LANDS

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of 

the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public 

toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do 

hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established 

in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, the 1996 Telecommunications Act provides for telecommunications 

infrastructure and information technology to be developed and utilized in a manner 

that meets the social, civic, economic, educational, and cultural needs of American 

Indians and Alaska Natives; and 

WHEREAS, while competitive market forces have spurred robust wireless communications services in many areas, connectivity on tribal lands remains at significantly lower levels necessitating robust ‘tribal centric’ build out comparable to the 

national average; and 

WHEREAS, NCAI supports the establishment of a tribal priority, similar to the 

current 307(b) tribal priority for broadcast licenses, for the licensing of fixed and 

mobile wireless telecommunications services, and ensuring its availability to qualifying tribal entities that provide service to unserved or underserved tribal lands, 

when such lands are within the geographic area covered by an unallocated Wireless 

Radio Services license; and 

WHEREAS, NCAI supports increased ‘‘tribal-centric’’ build out requirements for 

carriers, including tribally operated providers of first resort or tribal joint ventures 

based on consultation with tribes; and 

WHEREAS, NCAI supports a tribal licensing priority for tribal governments, 

tribal consortia, and entities that are more than 50 percent owned and controlled 

by a tribe(s). This is consistent with FCC rules governing the tribal priority in the 

broadcast radio licensing context, and the legal foundation for providing opportunities to tribes for access to spectrum is based on the federal government’s trust relationship with tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, tribal governments, residents, and first responders have critical communications needs that remain unmet; carriers maintain a stronghold on wireless 

telecommunications licenses and have failed to meet these tribal needs. 

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NCAI strongly supports FCC rule modifications requiring carriers to immediately engage with tribal governments and either divest themselves of their FCC licenses over tribal areas or provide services 

to tribal lands within on an mutually agreed deployment schedule; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the NCAI urges the FCC to support tribal efforts to use spectrum services and allocations on tribal lands should be managed 

in deliberated consultation with tribal governments on deployment of services, 

rights of way, business and tribal regulatory permissions, and tribal governments 

should be a part of the licensing approval and renewal process for non-tribal licenses; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FCC must provide as much and sufficient spectrum to meet the public needs of Native communities. As a matter of sovereignty and trust responsibility, such vital spectrum should be provided free to Native communities. Tribal service areas should be a single service area for the entire 

community. If there needs to be payment for spectrum licensing, then Native governments should be given the priority to serve themselves with reserve costs calibrated (and thus, the first right of refusal for license ownership); and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges all spectrum policy impacting 

Native communities be deliberated in consultation with tribal governments; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI urges termination of the existing 

tribal bidding credit program and any reformed tribal bidding credit or tribal priority program must have the two key components: (1) such program or priority must 

result in tribes actually attaining licensing in their communities; and, (2) that every 

Native community and tribal government be able to use spectrum over their lands 

or communities for public interest needs; and 

60 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI supports the establishment of a 

Tribal Priority for licensing Wireless Radio Services, thereby expanding the current 

tribal radio broadcast licensing priority and creating opportunities for access to unlicensed or unallocated Wireless Radio Services licenses to increase access to communications services; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI supports ensuring that this new 

tribal priority be available to qualifying tribal entities for spectrum access, and a 

qualifying tribal entity for these purposes would be an entity designated by the tribal government(s) having jurisdiction over particular tribal land for which the spectrum access is sought, or the tribal government(s) for a tribe residing in a single 

identifiable geographic unserved area; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NCAI supports the FCC requiring new 

licensees to consult with tribal governments for deployment of services over tribal 

lands and to build or divest a geographic area covering unserved or underserved 

Tribal lands within its license area within three years of receipt of a construction 

permit from the FCC, thereby promoting the availability of services to residents in 

the affected tribal areas within a reasonable length of time and to compel current 

licensees to immediately consult with tribal governments and either divest themselves of their FCC licenses over tribal areas or provide services to tribal lands within a mutually agreed deployment schedule; and, 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI 

until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2011 MidYear Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at the Frontier 

Airlines Center in Milwaukee, WI on June 13–16, 2011, with a quorum present. 

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS—RESOLUTION #SAC–12–034 

TITLE: PROMOTING TRIBAL NATION ACCESS AND USE OF SPECTRUM FOR

COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of 

the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public 

toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do 

hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established 

in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, approximately 90 percent of Native Americans living in Indian Country do not have access to Internet connectivity and the economic, cultural and 

human significance of that fact cannot be underestimated; and 

WHEREAS, connecting Indian Country to broadband with the rest of the world 

can reverse centuries of neglect and isolation and enable Tribal Nations to shape 

the future health and welfare of their communities with critical communications infrastructure; and 

WHEREAS, broadband has the potential to assist Native American people in securing their rightful place in a world economy of ideas and opportunities; and 

WHEREAS, access to currently licensed spectrum is absolutely necessary as 

many communities and entire Tribal Nations have not seen the full benefit of the 

services that could and should be provided on these licenses; and 

WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of Native Affairs and Policy (FCC–ONAP) is well positioned and respected throughout Indian 

Country to consult and coordinate with Tribal Nations as the FCC acts on important 

proceedings that impact Tribal Nations; and 

WHEREAS, with the creation of the Tribal Mobility Fund together with the Connect America Fund provisions requiring engagement with Tribal Nations on many 

important broadband deployment issues, Tribal Nations are still waiting for the promulgation of important rules to increase tribal access to spectrum; and 

WHEREAS, the attached letter dated July 19, 2012, NCAI President Jefferson 

Keel filed a letter to the FCC under WT Docket No. 11–40, highlighting critical 

issues for the FCC to act to increase tribal access to commercial wireless spectrum. 

61 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to fully understand the 

true availability of communications service on tribal lands, the FCC must, as a 

threshold matter, consult with Tribal governments to ensure Tribes are receiving 

good faith, responsive, fair treatment and deployment of broadband infrastructure 

in accordance with tribal sovereignty; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI reaffirms Resolutions MKE–11–007 

and LNK–12–007, and calls for the FCC to implement a Tribal Priority in the rules 

inclusive of commercial mobile radio services and wireless spectrum that can be 

used to deploy critical important and robust broadband services; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI, by our membership, adopts the comments made in the attached letter from NCAI President Jefferson Keel to the FCC; 

and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI 

until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2012 Annual Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at the Sacramento 

Convention Center from October 21–26, 2012 in Sacramento, California, with a 

quorum present. 

July 19, 2012 

The Honorable Julius Genachowski, 

Chairman, 

Federal Communications Commission, 

Washington, DC. 

RE: EMPHASIZING THE IMPORTANCE OF A TRIBAL PRIORITY TO SPECTRUM

LICENSES (IMPROVING COMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR NATIVE NATIONS BY

PROMOTING GREATER UTILIZATION OF SPECTRUM OVER TRIBAL LANDS, WT 

DOCKET NO. 11–40) DEAR CHAIRMAN GENACHOWSKI, 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), I would like to 

extend to you my gratitude for speaking with NCAI’s Board during our 2012 Executive Council Winter Session in early March. At that time I expressed how important 

and critical the need throughout Indian Country is for fully licensed wireless spectrum. As your Commission has acknowledged, wireless services are sorely lacking 

in many parts of Indian Country. In many places, wireless services are not a matter 

of convenience, but a matter of necessity, and often life or death. 

NCAI appreciated the Commission launching the Spectrum for Tribal Lands Rulemaking. Tribal Nations need access to spectrum that was licensed long ago to companies that have failed to build out to communities on Tribal Lands. Much needed 

rule changes will serve tribal needs in these least connected regions of the country. 

It is not only a matter of need but also a matter of efficiency in the use of this 

important resource, and especially in those many instances where the spectrum is 

not being used for the benefit of our communities. Having a wireless license is not 

the same as ownership of property, and such licenses should be utilized by those 

who are willing and able to deploy wireless services for the public good. 

FCC Docket No. 11–40—In the Matter of Improving Communications and 

Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands 

NCAI and Native Public Media (NPM) submitted joint reply comments under WT 

Docket No. 11–40, ‘‘Improving Communication Services for Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands’’ on June 20, 2011.(i) In 

the joint reply comments, NCAI and NPM highlighted a variety of measures the 

FCC could take to promote the deployment of wireless services over Tribal Lands, 

which included: 

1) Expanding the Tribal Priority to advanced wireless services; 

2) Establishing a build or divest process for spectrum use over Tribal Lands; 

3) Establishing a formal and mandatory negotiation process between both current and future licensees and Tribal governments; 

4) The inclusion of a demonstration of service requirement as part of any Tribal-lands safe harbor; 

5) Significant modification of the Tribal Lands Bidding Credit; and 

6) The adoption of well defined eligibility criteria for Tribes to obtain spectrum, 

as set forth in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.(ii) 

I respectfully submit this letter to reemphasize certain requirements for success 

that were previously addressed in NCAI’s and NPM’s joint reply comments to Docket No. 11–40. It has been well over a year since the FCC released its Notice of ProVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
62 

posed Rulemaking on this issue, and many tribes across the country are still waiting for the promulgation of these important rules to increase tribal access to spectrum. 

Reemphasizing the Need to Increase Tribal Access to Spectrum 

With the creation of the Tribal Mobility Fund together with the Connect America 

Fund provisions requiring engagement with Tribal Nations on many important 

broadband deployment issues, many pieces are in place to address the Digital Divide 

in Indian Country. Now is the time to put the most important piece in place—Spectrum priority. 

With this in mind, I urgently encourage you to take the next steps and promulgate rules that the FCC has proposed to create new opportunities for Tribal Nations 

to access spectrum. Specifically, I urge you to take immediate action to: 

1. Implement a Tribal Priority in the rules inclusive of commercial mobile radio 

services, and wireless spectrum that can be utilized to deploy critical important 

and robust broadband services. We look forward to future licensing actions or 

auction opportunities to license areas that support tribal lands and governmental priorities. 

2. Create rules that strengthen the structure of negotiations with existing licensed 

companies, and strengthen the ability of Tribal Nations to initiate and participate in these negotiations. Access to currently licensed spectrum is absolutely 

necessary as many communities, and indeed entire Tribal Nations, have never 

seen the full benefit of the services that could and should be provided on these 

licenses. Adoption and utilization of broadband services cannot occur until these 

services are available on tribal lands. 

3. Ensure that there is good faith, responsiveness, and continuity in negotiations. 

As part of the fiduciary trust responsibility that exists between the federal government and Tribal Nations, it is critical that the FCC act in accordance with 

the best interest of tribes. While NCAI supports FCC initiatives to ensure that 

industry entities must ‘meaningfully engage’ with tribal governments, the FCC 

should remain involved in these negotiations to ensure tribes are receiving fair 

treatment and deployment of broadband infrastructure is occurring in accordance with tribal sovereignty, FCC expectations, and community needs. 

4. Minimize the ability of parties to present ultimatums in negotiations, and onesided demands. In accordance with Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation and 

Coordination with Tribal Governments’’,(iii) and President Obama’s recent Executive Order, ‘‘Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Deployment’’,iv the FCC 

should develop and implement mechanisms for tribal recourse when and if negotiations with industry entities deteriorate. 

5. Create opportunities for these negotiations to recognize the unique geography, 

economies, and multiple-use needs of many Tribal Nations. Coordinated efforts 

between tribes, their respective governments, and industry entities are essential 

to bridging the Digital Divide in Indian Country. Planning and feasibility studies for infrastructure deployment should take into consideration the needs of the 

community. The recent Connect America Fund ‘‘Tribal Engagement Provisions’’ 

provide a foundation for this to occur by requiring eligible telecommunications 

carriers (ETCs) to meaningfully engage with tribal governments in their service 

areas. NCAI supports these provisions and encourages the FCC to enforce these 

provisions on ETCs serving tribal lands. 

6. Further investigate Best Practices based on stronger rules and experiences surrounding negotiations and tribal engagement under the Connect America Fund. 

The new build out measures for Tribal Lands should be evaluated in coordination with Tribal Nations, and involve the carriers who are only now beginning 

to address tribes within their service areas. These measures should be tailored 

specifically to the needs of different regions and address the unique aspects of 

tribal governments and lands, while taking into consideration the needs of each 

individual Tribal Nation. 

7. Implement a ‘‘Build or Divest’’ program in the context of close coordination 

and consultation between Tribal Nations and the FCC. We recognize this is a 

controversial point, but until the Commission takes action to enforce actual 

build out onto tribal lands, we will not solve the specific issues in each corner 

of Indian Country. Recipients of CAF funds should be legally obligated to address these specific issues and needs. Additionally, the concept of ‘‘Build or Divest’’ is similar to the incentive auctions authorized by Congress in the Middle 

Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 as a way to encourage the voluntary relinquishment of currently licensed spectrum. 

63 

Implementation of Tribal Priority to Spectrum Would Benefit Tribal 

Nations Today 

In closing, I reiterate our offer to assist in any further outreach efforts to tribes 

for the purposes of consultation and coordination with Tribal Nations as the Commission acts in this important proceeding. With the FCC Office of Native Affairs 

and Policy well-positioned and well-respected throughout Indian Country, the Commission’s presence across Indian Country is deeply appreciated and much needed. 

With the many new opportunities for Tribal Nations that the Commission has created, it is time to implement a tribal spectrum priority and bring meaningful robust 

wireless services to tribal lands. 

Therefore, the Commission should act now to increase access to spectrum over 

tribal lands. A Tribal Priority to spectrum would enable American Indian tribes and 

Alaska Native villages to develop their own robust wireless services if they so choose 

or to empower tribes to develop their own regulatory authorities to engage with industry officials in the planning and deployment of robust wireless services. 

Sincerely, 

JEFFERSON KEEL

President, National Congress of American Indians 

(i) See Joint Reply Comments of Native Public Media and the National Congress 

of American Indians. WT Docket No. 11–40. ‘‘In the Matter of Improving Communication Services for Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of 

Spectrum Over Tribal Lands.’’ Submitted to the FCC Electronic Comment Filing 

System on June 20, 2011. Posted on June 21, 2011. Available at http:// 

apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021688922. 

(ii) Id. 

(iii) See Executive Order No. 13175, ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Tribal 

Governments. 65 Federal Register 218. November 9, 2000. Available at http:// 

www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR–2000–11–09/pdf/00–29003.pdf. 

(iv) See President Obama Executive Order, ‘‘Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure Development’’. June 14, 2012. Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

the-press-office/2012/06/14/executive-order-accelerating-broadband-infrastructure-deployment. 

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS—RESOLUTION #SD–15–037 

TITLE: URGING THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TO IMPROVE ACCESS TO

SPECTRUM LICENSES FOR TRIBAL NATIONS

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of 

the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public 

toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do 

hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established 

in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, tribal lands remain the most disconnected areas across the country, 

and as the nation continues its shift to wireless based services tribal access to spectrum licenses is absolutely critical; and 

WHEREAS, tribal areas contain complex geographies where coverage may be up 

to or exceed 85 percent within the more urban markets, while residents of rural and 

remote regions are not covered and it is often in these more rural/remote places 

where coverage is critical for economic development, education, healthcare, and public safety; and 

WHEREAS, while NCAI supports Commission efforts to encourage competition in 

the marketplace tribes experience regulatory and financial barriers preventing them 

from participating in commercial wireless markets; and 

WHEREAS, current licensing mechanisms aren’t responsive to tribal needs and 

would incentivize the deployment of telecommunications services by smaller, more 

market sensitive carriers on tribal lands; and 

WHEREAS, a spectrum license assigned to a tribal nation would incentivize the 

deployment of telecommunications services through further structured financial arrangements; and 

64 

WHEREAS, in recognition of these issues, on March 3, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under 

WT Docket No. 11–40 in the matter of ‘‘Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands’’ (WT 

Docket No. 11–40); and 

WHEREAS, WT Docket No. 11–40 included proposals to implement a ‘‘Tribal Priority’’ to commercial mobile radio services and wireless spectrum to deploy robust 

broadband services; strengthening negotiation structures between tribes and companies holding spectrum licenses and ensuring good faith in the negotiation process; 

reforms to the Tribal Land Bidding Credit program; and whether a ‘‘build or divest’’ 

rule should be exercised over licensees failing to deploy to tribal lands within their 

service area; and 

WHEREAS, since 2011, the FCC has not initiated any further rulemaking on WT 

Docket No. 11–40, yet the Commission has continued its implementation of the Connect America Fund to support wireless deployment through the Mobility Fund and 

Tribal Mobility Fund auctions; and WHEREAS, one of the primary and common 

barriers referenced by tribes excluding their participation in the Mobility Fund and 

Tribal Mobility Fund auctions is the lack of access to spectrum licenses; and 

WHEREAS, since 2011, numerous tribes, tribal telecommunications providers, 

and tribal organizations have submitted comments to WT Docket No. 11–40 proclaiming support for the creation of a ‘‘Tribal Priority’’ to spectrum licenses; and 

WHEREAS, NCAI’s membership adopted Resolution #SAC–12–034, ‘‘Promoting 

Tribal Nation Access and Use of Spectrum for Communications Services’’ during its 

2012 Annual Convention in Sacramento, CA that urged the FCC take action on WT 

Docket No. 11–40; and 

WHEREAS, the FCC has a legal foundation for providing tribal access to spectrum licenses, which is in accordance with its federal trust responsibility and the 

Communications Act of 1934. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) reaffirms Resolution #SAC–12–034, which supports the establishment of a ‘‘Tribal Priority’’ to spectrum licenses, and urges the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to revisit and act upon tribal proposals in WT Docket 

No. 11–40, in the matter of ‘‘Improving Communications Services for Native Nations 

by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands’’ (WT Docket No. 

11–40); and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI supports the establishment of a 

structured secondary market negotiation process triggered by the tribal nations requiring good faith and fair market value negotiations, as well as considered reasons, 

as per the proposal in WT Docket No. 11- 40; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission’s tribal government engagement obligation provisions in the Connect American Fund and Mobility Fund 

rules be applied to carriers involved in the secondary markets agreements with tribal nations; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a tribal lands safe harbor buildout provision in which a licensee would be deemed to have met its construction obligations 

for its entire service area if it provides a specified level of service to tribal lands 

within the geographic area of its license with service levels in parity with the three 

most proximate of the top 20 Metropolitan Statistical Areas; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution urges NCAI to facilitate a 

coalition of tribes, tribal telecommunications providers, tribal task forces, tribal organizations, and non-tribal entities and associations to gather input and submit 

joint comments to the FCC urging action on WT Docket No. 11–40; and 

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI 

until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2015 Annual Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at the Town and 

Country Resort, San Diego, CA, October 18–23, 2015, with a quorum present. 

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS—RESOLUTION # MKE–11–005 

TITLE: IN SUPPORT OF TRIBAL POSITIONS ON UNIVERSAL SERVICE REFORM

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of 

the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and 

purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are enVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
65 

titled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public 

toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do 

hereby establish and submit the following resolution; and 

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established 

in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization of American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribal governments; and 

WHEREAS, a 2006 Government Accountability Office report found that only 

about 69 percent of households on tribal lands had telephone service in 2000 compared to the national rate of 98 percent. The report identifies four specific barriers 

to deployment: (1) the rural, rugged terrain of tribal lands; (2) limited tribal resources; (3) lack of technically trained tribal people; and, (4) rights of way issues; 

and 

WHEREAS, the Universal Service Fund (USF) currently administers the LinkUp, Lifeline, and High Cost programs which provide much needed telephone discounts to qualified subscribers on tribal lands, and ensures that all consumers have 

access to affordable pay rates for telecommunications services; and 

WHEREAS, in light of a limited regulatory definition of ‘‘library’’ as defined by 

the FCC, tribal libraries are often ineligible for ‘E-rate’ support as many do not 

qualify for state library funds, a fact that was specifically noted by the U.S. Government Accounting Report (GAO–06–189), in January 2006. Tribal libraries, serving 

as community anchor institutions, are frequently the only access point for Internet 

services in some tribal communities, and the lack of broadband services at these institutions impedes education, individual self-determination, social discourse and 

participation for tribal membership; and 

WHEREAS, there needs to be a tribal seat on the USF Federal-State Joint Board 

to include an American Indian/Alaskan Native representative to make recommendations on implementing USF programs to provide critical investments and expand 

telecommunications services on tribal lands. 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the federal government should 

support tribal sovereignty by removing all regulatory and market barriers, and by 

supporting all tribal nations’ efforts to attain parity of telecommunications service 

and technology with non-Native communities; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges the FCC, the President, and 

Congress to not take any action on any policy that would harm tribal efforts to serve 

its own communities, and that the aforementioned should do everything within federal capacity to fund tribal efforts to provide its own regulatory telecommunications 

solutions; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges the FCC, the President,‘ and 

Congress to support the requirement for direct consultation with tribal governments 

on federal policies directly impacting tribal lands and communities; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges the FCC, the President, and 

Congress to support the requirement for regulated commercial telecommunications 

entities to directly consult with tribal governments and Native community organizations on providing full service to tribal communities; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI recognizes the path and the model 

that tribes have embarked upon to become their on regulatory telecommunications 

providers to meet the needs of their communities and these efforts should continue 

to be fully supported by the Connect America Fund and by the revised Universal 

Service Fund; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI strongly urges the joint support 

of the President, the FCC, and Congress create a tribal seat on the USF FederalState Joint Board to be filled by an American Indian or Alaska Native so that tribes 

will have representation and effective input regarding the overhaul and future management of the Universal Service Fund; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the NCAI that Indian Country can overcome 

the digital divide through meaningful collaboration and consultation on USF reform 

through strong, engaged, and consistent dialogue with the federal government including the FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy, and the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline Competition Bureaus; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, during the modification of the USF, and transition to the Connect America Fund, that the USF continue to provide the much needed support of legacy technology through the Lifeline, Link-Up, and High Cost programs, which provide telephone discounts to qualified subscribers on tribal lands, 

ensuring all consumers have access to affordable rates for telecommunications services; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI strongly urges Congress to direct 

the FCC to permit tribal governments to determine what constitutes a ‘‘library’’ in 

66 

Indian Country so that the tribally designated location is eligible for ‘E-rate’ support; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of 

NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution. 

CERTIFICATION 

The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the 2011 MidYear Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at the Frontier 

Airlines Center in Milwaukee, WI on June 13–16, 2011, with a quorum present. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF NORTHWEST INDIANS (ATNI) 

Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to offer our observations and recommendations on 

improving availability and adoption of voice and broadband communications services 

on Tribal lands. The plight of Indian country’s communications has been well documented for many decades now. This most recent GAO Report simply continues to 

confirm our story of unserved or underserved Tribal lands. 

The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) was formed in 1953 by a farsighted group of tribal leaders in the Northwest dedicated to promoting tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Today, ATNI is a nonprofit organization comprised 

of American Indians/Alaska Natives representing 57 northwest tribal governments 

from Oregon, Idaho, Washington, southeast Alaska, northern California, and western Montana. 

ATNI is an organization whose foundation is composed of the people it is meant 

to serve—the Indian peoples. ATNI is focused on preserving for its people and their 

descendants the rights secured under Indian Treaties, Executive Orders, and the 

benefits to which they are entitled under the laws and the constitution of the United 

States. 

Our comments are primarily directed at FCC policy, rules, and regulations. Certainly ATNI believes there is much more to be done by the FCC in assisting tribes 

with the deployment of broadband infrastructure on Tribal lands and sustaining 

fiber-based and wireless services. 

With that said and with that goal in mind, Sections 254 and 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act were enacted by the Congress to ensure that all Americans, regardless of where they live, have access to voice and advanced communications services at reasonable and affordable rates. These universal service principles have been 

reflected in FCC policies and support mechanisms and have proven valuable in 

bringing voice and broadband communications services to some Tribal lands. However, although much remains to be done, we are concerned that the Commission has 

lost sight of this Congressional mandate. 

The GAO recommends that data collections, performance goals, and measurements be undertaken to better understand our plight. However, that will simply 

continue to prolong lack of broadband deployment on Tribal lands and development 

of solutions that can be undertaken now to begin a positive process in compliance 

with the goals and objectives apparent to Congress and codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 twenty years ago. 

Why Poor Service In Indian Country 

Willing providers of communications services are not available to serve Indian 

country. The economics of serving Indian country do not justify the private sector 

involvement, even with FCC funding, which currently is declining as a result of Universal Service Reform. It appears that tribes have been left to their own means to 

provide adequate service, especially in more remote reservation areas. For tribes to 

provide their own communications will require better hands on assistance from government agencies to plan, engineer, design, train, educate, partner, and bring in private partners to construct and operate broadband communications systems. 

The existing tribally-owned communications providers (essentially the 9 members 

of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association) should be encouraged to 

provide regional communications platforms. Technical resources and skills are limited to these carriers at this time. Favorable FCC policy can facilitate sharing of 

broadband technology, technical resources and skills, as well as back office and 

other administrative services. Essentially by creating the possibility of ‘‘scope and 

scale’’ for this nucleus of carriers, the Commission can fulfill on its model for rural 

America, including Indian country. Favorable regulatory policy must be adopted to 

incentivize willing service providers. 

Generally speaking, there are some very fundamental issues that stand in the 

way of many ATNI tribes entering the process of applying for funds to deploy 

broadband infrastructure on Tribal lands. 

67 

1The FCC is currently seeking comment and considering adoption of a ‘‘Tribal Broadband Factor’’ in its proceeding to Reform USF for Rate-of-Return Carriers. The ‘‘TBF’’ should be adopted 

to facilitate a long-term deployment of broadband beyond Tribal lands served by existing tribally-owned carriers. 

• The lack of funds available to rural communities from federal or state sources 

leave native communities with little means for broadband development. The limited resources that are available fund only a portion of the infrastructure necessary to serve the entire community. For example, funds are generally available only to provide one aspect of the broadband network or service, e.g. middle 

mile, last mile, equipment, adoption, training or ongoing monthly service fees. 

This creates a very confusing and disjointed process for rural/native community 

development. 

• The USDA Community Connect program funds are insufficient to meet the need. 

For example, the total budget for the current round of funding is only $10 million. Applications for over $100,000 million of funds were submitted during the 

previous round. Only eight organizations qualified for funds and none of the 

grants went to ATNI member tribes. 

• In addition to the lack of available funding options, existing grants are difficult 

to secure. Application processes are complex, especially for tribes and small communities that do not have the local technical staff needed to prepare an application. Many funding programs require sophisticated, expensive engineering studies or research, as well as local matching funds to successfully develop a competitive application. The inaccuracy of data used to determine eligibility (i.e., 

National Broadband Map, Census Tract/Bloc data) often limits applications 

from tribes which have the greatest need. The federal agencies need to do a better job of coordinating and communicating with each other so policy and procedures do not conflict between various agencies. Everyone has a stake in this 

final success. 

• Technical assistance from federal agencies to identify and complete funding applications is extremely limited and does not provide the level of help needed for 

many tribal and rural communities. Obstacles arise from the inconsistency in 

definitions (broadband, rural, etc.) across agencies. This makes it even more difficult to be successful in securing necessary funds to deploy infrastructure and 

provision broadband services. Specific funds are needed to support local and regional capacity building and training around technology. Deals are done locally 

with local private/public partnerships and a few successes are building a sustainable self-help network. 

• ATNI respectfully submits that there exists a need for both (1) capital funding 

via Tribal Resources and Economic Growth Act (TREGA) legislation to construct 

broadband infrastructure and (2) additional operations support via FCC USF1

to make the cost of broadband services more affordable for tribal members. If the 

FCC will adopt a ‘‘Tribal Broadband Factor,’’ the effect will be to increase tribal 

USF payments by 25 percent. This will keep the existing tribally-owned carriers 

in a better position to grow and add needed infrastructure and services. The 

‘‘TBF’’ also works to the advantage of ATNI tribal members by keeping a nucleus of tribally-owned carriers financially viable and in place. It is our hope 

that one day these carriers may assist ATNI tribes by sharing network facilities 

and operating resources with ATNI members, making it easier for us to take 

responsibility for our own broadband services. 

In addition to the concerns identified above, the following additional points will 

be discussed within these comments in more detail. Our comments are intended to 

shed light on how access to quality broadband services can be improved on ATNI 

member Tribal lands: 

• Large price cap carriers designated as incumbent Local Exchange Carriers are 

responsible for underserving much of Indian country, including ATNI Tribal 

lands; 

• Fiber/significant bandwidth capacity in the network is required to adequately 

meet the broadband needs of ATNI native communities; 

• Lifeline voice and broadband rates are important for ATNI peoples, and 

• Quality broadband could be expanded more rapidly throughout ATNI Tribal 

lands if broadband service providers had favorable regulation that promoted 

sharing of infrastructure. 

68 

2 As a contrast, NoaNet is a non-profit wholesale broadband provider in Washington State 

that works through public utility districts to connect underserved areas of the state with fiber 

optic networks. The E-rate program is utilized to bring high capacity broadband to libraries, 

higher education, and medical providers. 

ATNI Tribes are Underserved by Large Price Cap Carriers 

The ATNI tribal members generally reside on reservations that are remote, 

sparsely populated, and high-cost to serve. The support funds provided to large price 

cap carriers that serve much of Indian country have not been used to bring fiber 

networks and robust broadband to Tribal lands. 2 Tribal lands are underserved. 

And, as yet, the penalties levied by the FCC for underservice are not stiff enough 

to cause these carriers to walk away from Tribal service areas, which leave the 

Tribes without access to federal universal service funds (USF). 

The FCC National Broadband Plan released in 2010 acknowledged that Tribal 

lands were underserved and more support funds would be needed to deploy needed 

broadband infrastructure. Fast forward 5 years and another report, the FCC 2015 

Broadband Report, confirms that nothing has changed to improve access to 

broadband services on Tribal lands. More support funds have not been directed to 

these areas. In fact, rather than address this recognized need more specifically within FCC rules and regulation, Tribal lands continue to be subject to the same regulatory policies and programs that apply to all of rural America. The result is that 

we now have a ‘‘rural-rural’’ divide that is getting wider in rural America between 

non-tribal and Tribal lands. 

Providing additional funds to large price cap carriers would not solve this problem. These large carriers are focused on maintaining or increasing market share in 

urban markets and new markets, because they represent a long-term financial incentive. Managerial resources are committed to these lucrative markets that have 

the potential to generate significant earnings for shareholders. Realistically, the national policy to enhance competition in a communications marketplace of converged 

technology has ensured that Tribal lands will remain forever underserved by large 

price cap carriers. 

Proposed Corrective Action: To improve the quality of broadband, service providers 

must be truly interested in engaging the ATNI tribes to identify and meet the specific communications needs of ATNI native communities and peoples. The FCC 

should adopt new programs to incentivize small rural local exchange carriers, new 

entrants, or the tribes themselves to take up the challenge of providing reasonably 

comparable broadband service on Tribal lands. Reformed USF programs should provide a specific fund, a ‘‘Tribal Broadband Fund,’’ to be used exclusively for the buildout of Tribal lands. 

The FCC should also adopt new rules through a proposed rulemaking that establishes an expedited process for the removal of an incumbent eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) that has not demonstrated its willingness to adequately serve 

an ATNI member. Rules should be established by the FCC that allow the tribe, or 

another ETC designated by the tribe, to replace the incumbent ETC and embark 

on a mission to improve broadband service for the tribe. Putting in a new service 

provider would allow the tribe to gain access to universal service funds that will finally be used for the intended purpose of bringing the benefits of broadband to the 

members of ATNI. 

Fiber Is Necessary in the Network to Serve Native ‘‘Anchor Institutions’’ 

The primary goals of ATNI are promotion of health, education, welfare, public and 

personal safety, and economic and employment opportunities for its people. From a 

communications network perspective, all of these basic needs are associated with 

high bandwidth requirements, i.e. Gigabit speeds. The large price cap carriers have 

linked their expansion of service in rural areas to deployment of 4G wireless networks. This is an important step in moving out broadband to rural America, but 

wireless has its limitations, and the FCC speeds that have evolved in recent years, 

i.e. 4/1, 10/1, and 25/3 Mbps are keyed only to robust residential application. To 

serve the bandwidth need of ‘‘anchor institutions’’ a fiber connection offering Gigabit 

speed is required. 

The ‘‘anchors’’ are the source of quality-of-life in any community. ATNI has 

formed committees within the organization to maintain a continual focus on these 

the basic needs of the tribes. It has become very apparent to ATNI that broadband 

brings with it the promise of improving the tribe’s ability to make significant advancement in all of these areas. In this 21st century a robust broadband network 

has become the platform for sharing information and applying new technology. To 

participate in the gains resulting from the rapid development of broadband applications, investment in fiber backbone is essential. The large carriers have crisscrossed 

69 

the nation with such networks reaching into urban Northwest locations, including 

the Seattle/Puget Sound corridor, the Spokane Inland Empire, and the Portland 

Metropolitan vicinity. But none found their way to Warm Springs, Oregon, until the 

Confederated Warm Springs Tribes tackled its communications needs. We need 

more success stories like this one. 

Proposed Corrective Action: Constructing fiber networks on Tribal lands will require access to capital. Corporate charters of federally recognized tribes typically 

contain a provision restricting the tribe from mortgaging property. This is an obvious hurdle that prevents borrowing of funds from banks. Thus, the USDA Rural 

Utilities Service (RUS) has essentially become the only lender available to tribes. 

To enable the tribes to move forward in establishing their own telecommunications 

companies, RUS regulations should include specific provisions to ensure access to 

and extension of low interest federal government loans to tribes. RUS has at its discretion the ability to use the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provisions incorporated within the Farm Bill to grant 2 percent loans. 

Another opportunity to obtain capital funding occurred with the recent FCC Rural 

Broadband Experiments. Unfortunately, the FCC bidding rules were designed to 

shut out tribal bidders. Unreasonably expensive Letters of Credit (LOC) were required from a Top 100 bank that were to remain in place for over 10 years and offset the total amount of funds awarded by the FCC. Tribes were unable to obtain 

a LOC. In addition, start-up companies were disqualified from participating because 

they could not produce 3 years of audited financial statements, a requirement literally impossible to meet. 

The FCC did not grant waivers of these requirements. One provisionally selected 

company that intended to serve Tribal land was disqualified for not meeting the 

above requirements, even though the 4 principles of the company had over 120 

years of combined telephony and business management experience, including building out Atlanta, Georgia for the 1996 Olympic Games. 

With the CAF II Auctions on the horizon, the FCC should utilize bidding rules 

that do not shut out tribal bidders, including the 3 years audited financials and the 

LOC. The Tribal Bidding Credit should remain available, since this additional incentive should help to attract broadband providers interested in serving Tribal 

lands. 

Deep Discount Tribal Lifeline Rates Should Apply to Both Voice and 

Broadband Services 

Most tribal lands are home to a high percentage of poverty level income households. This is true for the ATNI tribes, as well. Consequently, the affordability of 

voice and broadband service, if available, is a key factor in determining the service 

penetration level on Tribal lands. For example, several tribally owned telecommunications companies report that 75–80 percent of their tribal residents qualify for and 

receive Lifeline service. 

Proposed Action: The FCC should not disrupt the application of its Lifeline program for the tribes. The current poor level of voice and broadband penetration 

speaks to the importance of retaining Lifeline rates. If these discounted rates were 

taken away, the already documented low subscription rates on Tribal land would 

undoubtedly suffer severely. 

As the FCC contemplates whether to establish, or at what level to establish 

broadband Lifeline rates, it should consider the lack of penetration and adoption 

levels on Tribal lands. Granted, this poor performance is actually a function of lack 

of broadband infrastructure deployment and uneducated tribal members that do not 

understand the power of broadband or know how to use it. Nonetheless, the issue 

of poverty level income should not be lost in an FCC rulemaking. Bringing 

broadband to Indian country and pricing it at extremely discounted rates will be 

necessary if penetration and adoption levels on Tribal lands are to see reasonable 

movement toward nationwide averages. 

Infrastructure Sharing Among Tribes Could Improve Broadband 

Penetration 

The communications business is becoming more complex and sophisticated as 

technology convergence drives change in the industry. The business remains highly 

capital intensive, as well. The result is shorter useful lives for each generation of 

technology, and an increasingly higher demand for capital to keep up with technological innovation. A competitive communications industry, even in rural America, 

amplifies the effects of technological advance. All of these factors create a tremendous need for funding in the most high-cost to serve areas of the nation, especially 

on Tribal lands. 

70 

Interestingly, as these pressures for capital mount, the FCC has determined that 

budgeted USF funds should be capped annually at about $8 billion. This puts a 

strain on the distribution mechanisms in place to adequately fund service providers 

in rural America. There the challenge remains to keep up the pace with the rest 

of America, while support funds are frozen or declining. 

Keeping up the pace is necessary for rural American communities to survive and 

thrive. The socio-economic health of rural America is tied to the level of communications advancement and adoption in urban America. It is there that the national 

quality-of-life and economic opportunity ‘‘standards’’ for communications/broadband 

networks are set. 

The dilemma for ATNI tribes is even more critical. The urban-rural divide is 

emerging because access to communications services on Tribal lands has not kept 

pace. And now when FCC policies require cost containment and consolidation of operations, the future of broadband on already underserved ATNI Tribal lands becomes cloudier. 

Technology advance can be viewed as a blessing in this instance. For example, 

soft-switch technology has opened the way for remote management of gateways to 

the network. Established service providers, including NTTA members, can use this 

switch technology to provide operational support for start-up companies located in 

neighboring states. Start-up companies can actually avoid the cost of a soft switch 

(over $250,000) by electing to have a ‘‘neighbor’’ company perform the service. Such 

a decision introduces ‘‘scope and scale’’ immediately into the operation of a remote, 

start-up communications provider. 

Proposed Corrective Action: An outdated FCC rule in the NECA Interstate Access 

Tariff FCC No. 5 requires that outsourced switching services be acquired from a 

service provider located in the same LATA. The reason for this rule was to avoid 

the Interexchange Carrier (IXC) from incurring costs to rehome its switch locations. 

However, in a ‘‘greenfield’’ situation, the opposite is true. The IXC is able to avoid 

cost by utilizing existing connection points in the network, rather than building out 

to a new switch location. This is a win-win solution for all parties. An ATNI member 

stepping up to provide needed communications services for its tribe could establish 

its own tribally-owned carrier, and by agreement utilize the infrastructure and technical expertise of one of the existing tribally-owned companies to provide switch 

functionality. 

The cost benefit of this arrangement extends beyond the initial start-up of service. 

A start-up service provider not only avoids the initial capital cost of a switch, but 

it also avoids future upgrade costs and change out of technology. Operating costs 

are avoided too, since specially trained technicians are not required in-house to 

maintain a switch. 

The FCC should revisit the existing tariff rules and allow rural service providers 

to share infrastructure without regard to LATA location. 

Conclusion 

When one considers the daunting task of deploying broadband in rural America, 

the challenges only become greater for the ATNI member tribes. If the existing universal service programs were not in place, it is unlikely that any native communities on Tribal lands would have the quality of communications service they have 

today. And what has been accomplished is small, when compared with the need that 

continues to exist today. Lack of infrastructure is the primary reason the FCC and 

RUS must coordinate needed corrective action to facilitate ATNI tribes and all of 

Indian country attaining a reasonable parity with the rest of America. In addition 

to other steps outlined in these comments, the Commission should create a new universal service program, a ‘‘Tribal Broadband Fund,’’ specifically and exclusively for 

the dual purposes of (1) funding broadband infrastructure deployment on Tribal 

lands, and (2) sustaining affordable broadband services for the residents of native 

communities on Tribal lands. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHEROKEE NATION

On behalf of the Cherokee Nation, we write regarding the oversight hearing held 

on April 27, 2016. The Committee considered a GAO Report entitled ‘‘Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for HighSpeed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands.’’ We greatly appreciate the Committee’s attention to matters of accessing the Internet in Indian country. 

Cherokee Nation is headquartered in Tahlequah, located in northeast Oklahoma. 

Our tribe is the largest federally recognized American Indian tribe with more than 

330,000 citizens. Nearly 75,000 of those citizens reside in rural communities within 

71 

our jurisdictional boundaries across northeast Oklahoma. Similar to the many tribal 

governments across the Unites States, Cherokee Nation provides the basic needs of 

life like housing, food, and employment for many citizens who are impoverished in 

our communities. 

Increasing Internet access through federal programs designated specifically for 

Internet is critical in Oklahoma. The map used to describe tribal lands in the report 

does not show Cherokee Nation and many other tribes that exist in Oklahoma that 

do not have exterior boundaries, but are included as a footnote under the Census 

term Oklahoma Statistical Areas. Services provided through USDA’s Rural Utility 

Service (RUS) and FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) to the 39 Oklahoma tribes 

remain very helpful to our citizens and facilities. 

The recommendations raised in the GAO report are valuable to improving the success of Internet deployment in Indian country. As stated by Sen. Franken (D–MN), 

growing Internet availability in the 21st Century’s rural infrastructure is akin to 

expanding the telephone network in the 20th Century. Internet is imperative to 

being competitive in research, education, commerce, and healthcare. Internet access 

for all is achievable. 

Below are Cherokee Nation’s comments regarding the recommendations provided 

in the GAO Report 16–222 and in response to discussion during the hearing. 

1. The GAO proscribes greater coordination in outreach and programming efforts between the FCC’s Office of Native American Policy/Universal Administrative Service Company tribal liaisons and USDA’s Rural Utility Service offices as each programing effort often overlaps and where one program may 

not provide the right solution for a tribe, as products slightly differ. We agree 

such coordination will disseminate information in a more efficient manner 

during visits to Indian country and benefit tribes. 

2. The GAO Report 16–222 recommends improving the National Broadband 

Map and data points used to show Internet deployment. Much discussion 

was provided during the hearing in building out the metrics of assessing access and deployment beyond large census blocks and instead using more 

meaningful metrics. The Cherokee Nation recommends further developing 

such metric tools for assessment and that the metadata disclose the amount 

of federal funding spent on areas in Indian country for Internet adoption and 

deployment. 

3. The GAO Report 16–222 recommends creating measurable goals to increase 

adoption as key to all programing success. During the oversight hearing, discussion about this recommendation reverted to gaining a better understanding of our current status. Visionary goals will leverage improved metric 

tools in order to create a better assessment and an accurate benchmark. 

In creating these goals, Cherokee Nation hopes continued consultations or 

potential advisory committees are supportive of dialogue and representative 

of tribal nations that result in communication between tribes and the federal 

agencies overseeing programs that deploy and provide Internet. Realistic 

goals that meet the needs of tribes are critical to develop together, rather 

than one-sided strategies filled with assumptions and errors. Items to keep 

in mind while developing goals include, but are not limited to, finding sustainable funding mechanisms, providing room for tribal telecommunications 

company development, continuing the availability of spectrum in Indian 

country, and providing cost benefit analysis of technologies prior to deployment and construction. 

4. Lastly, the GAO report recommends defining ‘‘Tribal Programs’’ in the 

Schools and Libraries Program, commonly known as the E-Rate application. 

Cherokee Nation agrees this would be beneficial. We recently submitted an 

E-Rate application this past month. 

Thank you for accepting our comments on behalf of Cherokee Nation to be included in the record for the oversight hearing held on April 27, 2016, entitled ‘‘The 

GAO Report on, Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance 

Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands.’’ We 

greatly appreciate your attention to matters of accessing the Internet in Indian 

country. 

Wado (Thank you). 

72 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LEECH LAKE TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, LLC 

Under tribal corporate code, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe established its own 

telecommunications company in 2013. The Leech Lake Telecommunications Company launched its fixed wireless broadband services to citizens in the tribal lands 

of the LLBO in February of 2015. The broadband needs in the tribal lands of the 

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (LLBO) were not met by local ILEC/CLEC telecommunication carriers. The Leech Lake Telecommunication Company provides wireless 

fixed broadband services because it is the most cost efficient means to rapidly deploy 

broadband services to all areas of the tribal lands. 

Lack of broadband in LLBO tribal lands still exist and are extraordinary: 

1) Distance learning is nearly non-existent. 

2) Where fiber exists, the costs are out of reach for low-income households. Poverty in LLBO lands is displayed by 53.8 percent of households below poverty 

level (American Community Survey 2007–2011) and reside in extremely rural 

locations. 

3) A trespass dispute between the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe and a local telecommunication company has resulted in the withholding of broadband services to Band members in tribal lands since 2008. 

4) Broadband services do not exist in 9 of 15 of the Bands’ communities today 

(See table 1) 

5) Health factors for elderly and ill are high with distance to get to medical care 

are great. 

6) Unaffordable broadband has stifled economic growth with small businesses 

in LLBO tribal lands. 

Table 1—LLBO tribal lands Pop. Housing Unit 

Population Housing Unit 

1. Cass Lake 3885 1904 

2. S. Lake 308 278 

3. Inger 466 430 

4. CutFoot 238 168 

5. Ball Club 746 276 

6. Bena 339 230 

7. Kego Lake 954 1326 

8. Onigum 2685 2071 

9. Tower Hill/OakPt. 1278 987 

10. Noopiming 140 97 

11. Mission/BuckLake 837 399 

12. Prescott 316 113 

13. Federal Dam 133 150 

14. Boy River 191 156 

15. Sugar Point 172 185 

12688 8770 

Most communities are small (less than 500 residents) and isolated. The tribal 

council headquarters are located in Cass Lake, which is also home to the Leech 

Lake Tribal College, Cass Lake Service Unit-Indian Health Service hospital/outpatient clinic, and headquarters of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, and the Chippewa National Forest. 

Conclusion 

The Federal Communications Commission Office of Native Affairs and Policy 2012 

Annual Report stated ‘‘The lack of communications services in Indian Country—be 

it high speed Internet or ‘‘broadband’’ , traditional wireline phone service, mobile 

service, radio broadcast, or TV broadcast services—is well known. As the Commission has observed previously, ‘‘[b]y virtually any measure, communities on tribal 

lands have historically had less access to telecommunications services than any 

other segment of the population.’’ (Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services 

to Tribal Lands, WT Docket No. 99–266, Report and Order Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 11794, 11798 (2000). The lack of robust communications services presents serious impediments to Tribal Nations’ efforts to preserve their cultures and build their internal structures for self-governance, economic 

73 

opportunity, health, education, public safety, and welfare.’’ (Improving Communications Services for Native Nations, CG Docket No. 11–451, Notice of Inquiry, 26 FC 

Rcd 2672, 2673 at para. 1 (2011) (Native Nations NOI). 

The economic value that broadband will bring to the tribal lands is great. Job creation is expected with home-based businesses, local service establishments, telemarketing centers, increased heath care options, and an arts cooperative. 

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe seeks grants each year to expand its fixed wireless telecommunications and with this testimony seeks an Indian set-aside with the 

legislature’s broadband plan. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES TO

GODFREY ENJADY

Question. Have tribes contacted you about the inaccuracies of the National 

Broadband Map? What have their concerns been? 

Answer. 

Background 

The National Broadband Map was originally instituted via the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and the National Telecommunications and 

Information Administration’s (NTIA) State Broadband Initiative (SBI). The SBI program ended with the June 2014 data collection, at which time the FCC assumed 

responsibility through its Form 477 data collection program. I will refer to the 

FCC’s administration through the Form 477 data collection program for the remainder of this response. 

The FCC’s revised Form 477 program (done so in order to assume responsibility 

for the National Broadband Map) is an imperfect mechanism. For Indian Country, 

the flaws are even more pronounced due to the general lack of reliable data, such 

as roads, street addresses, and housing information. In turn, while carriers providing broadband services and reporting on Form 477 may be reporting data as best 

they can, the inherent limitations of the data available. As a result, the broadband 

mapping results reflected for Indian Country are sometimes substantially inaccurate. 

Compounding the problems with the Form 477 data is the FCC’s increased reliance on the produced data. Recently, the FCC has adopted rules and procedures in 

the areas of universal service reform, Lifeline program reform, and other areas that 

rely upon Form 477 data and that assume, by virtue of reporting carrier’s attestation, that the data is accurate. Thus, it is in all stakeholders’ interests to ensure 

the Form 477 data is as accurate as possible. 

Inaccuracies in Tribal Areas 

In general, Tribes, especially those with their own telecommunications providers, 

are aware of the Form 477 limitations. For example, in a proceeding to determine 

if small carriers were completely overlapped with unsubsidized (by federal USF support) competition, Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc. (FMTI), a carrier owned 

and operated by the Fort Mojave Tribe in Arizona, found numerous flaws related 

to the Form 477 data relied upon by the Commission. 

Tribal entities also agree with statements regarding the limitations and inaccuracies of the Form 477 data, such as stated by NTCA—The Rural Broadband Organization in comments related to the FCC’’s 100 percent overlap determination process: 

‘‘. . .reliance on Form 477 deployment data, which formed the foundation of determinations of 100 percent competitive overlap identified in the Public Notice, 

is all but certain to lead to ‘‘false positives’’ in identifying unsubsidized competition. Indeed, comments filed by purported unsubsidized competitors in response 

to the Public Notice shine a spotlight on the limits of Form 477 deployment 

data. For example, at least one commenter attempts to dodge the very question 

of whether they serve specific locations, effectively reaffirming nothing more 

than that they serve ‘‘in the area’’ as stated on their Forms 477.’’ 

In conclusion, I believe that in order to put Form 477 data to uses adopted by 

the FCC in Tribal areas, much work needs to be done, and opportunities for adjustment must be provided. If this is not done, then we risk making the broadband 

connectivity problem in Tribal areas much worse due to reliance on inaccurate data. 

74 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES TO

BRANDON MCBRIDE

Question. To date the primary extent of coordination between the Rural Utilities 

Service (RUS) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been 

through joint workshops. Do you believe that simply having the RUS present at the 

FCC’s workshops is enough to be considered meaningful interagency cooperation? 

How will the RUS better coordinate with the FCC in the future to minimize duplication of funds and efforts and maximize results for broadband deployment in Indian 

County? 

Answer. RUS agrees that participating in workshops with the FCC, in a vacuum, 

is not meaningful interagency cooperation. However, it is a step in the right direction. RUS staff participated in the FCC Tribal Broadband, Telecom and Broadcast 

Training and Consultation workshop in Great Falls, MT on May 31st through June 

2nd, 2016. Not only did the workshop provide the opportunity to share RUS program information regarding our telecom and broadband programs, but just importantly the workshop closed with a consultation and listening session to hear the concerns and recommendations of Tribal leaders and Tribal telecom professionals. This 

type of direct input from the Tribes will inform future collaboration between the 

FCC and RUS. The U.S. Department of Agriculture Office of Tribal Relations Programs (OTR) and RUS will continue to build on the traditional partnering activities 

with the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and will open new lines of communications with Tribal leaders, stakeholders, providers and residents in Tribal areas who 

benefit every day from RUS and FCC programs. RUS staff are planning on participating in additional FCC Tribal workshops later this year in Washington, Wisconsin 

and Arizona. 

In addition, great progress has resulted from the ongoing work as part of the 

Broadband Opportunities Council, which includes the Department of Commerce’s 

National Telecommunications Information Administration and RUS, as the two lead 

agencies, along with the Department of the Interior, the FCC, and FirstNet, is currently working with tribal leaders to develop a Tribal Broadband Summit designed 

to build on the work that has been completed to date. This summit will culminate 

in a collaborative effort with tribal representatives to develop a blueprint for 

broadband deployment and use. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JON TESTER TO

GIGI SOHN

Question 1. As laid out in your 2011 Transformation Order creating the Connect 

America Fund, do you believe that all high-cost support for the deployment of middle mile and last mile facilities should be tied to specific obligations? If so, should 

the obligations for publicly-financed middle mile facilities address the adequacy of 

capacity, affordability, or competitive access to the facilities? 

Answer. The Commission has taken significant steps to continue the implementation of the landmark reforms to the federal universal service high-cost program 

unanimously adopted by the Commission in 2011. A core component of the 2011 reforms was the creation of the Connect America Fund to preserve and advance voice 

and robust broadband services in high-cost areas of the nation that the marketplace 

would not otherwise serve. With each step, the Commission has adopted defined obligations of carriers to deploy broadband-capable facilities. Service providers may 

use support to construct the facilities required for them to meet their deployment 

obligations, including using support for improved backhaul and middle mile. However, while recipients of high-cost support may invest in middle mile to bolster their 

last-mile offerings, this support is not directly linked to specific obligations regarding middle-mile offerings. The Commission’s overarching goal is to preserve and enhance the provision of broadband service to consumers in rural and high-cost areas. 

Question 2. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, low-income and 

rural consumers, and those in high-cost areas, should have access to telecommunications services which are comparable to the services and rates in urban areas. 

What steps are you taking to ensure that tribal lands are receiving the necessary 

support to receive comparable services and rates, particularly where there is little 

competition and public money is being used to build out? 

Answer. The Commission is committed to facilitating the expansion of 21st century communications to Tribal Nations across the United States. 

In the last two years, the Commission has modernized two universal service programs that hold the potential to help bridge the digital divide in Indian Country. 

The first of these programs is the E-rate program, which is the country’s largest 

75 

educational technology program. The E-rate program provides discounts for the cost 

of broadband services to eligible elementary and secondary schools and libraries. In 

order to ensure all schools and libraries can afford broadband services, the highest 

discount rates are provided to schools and libraries in high poverty areas, including 

schools and libraries in high poverty Tribal areas. In 2014, the Commission took decisive steps to modernize our E-rate system and refocus it on the broadband 

connectivity needs of 21st Century schools and libraries. As a part of those reforms, 

the Commission directed Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to designate an E-rate Tribal liaison and to conduct E-rate trainings tailored to the 

unique needs of Tribal applicants. Commission staff work closely with the Tribal liaison to enhance awareness of the program and to provide assistance in navigating 

the application process for representatives of Tribal Nations and Tribal communities. The 2014 reforms also include an opportunity for an additional discount for 

special construction charges for last-mile facilities supporting high-speed broadband 

to Tribal schools and libraries when funding is matched by states, Tribal governments, or other federal agencies. 

In March of this year, the Commission adopted an Order to modernize a second 

universal service program, the Lifeline program. For more than 30 years, the Lifeline program has helped tens of millions of low-income Americans afford basic phone 

service. Recognizing the unique and dire economic circumstances many Tribal Nations face, the Commission provides enhanced levels of Lifeline support of up to 

$34.25 per month to low-income residents of Tribal lands. Not surprisingly, Lifeline 

is an extremely important program to low-income residents on Tribal lands. Yet, before last month’s vote, Lifeline support was limited to basic telephone service. Under 

the new modernized rules, low-income residents of Tribal lands will soon be able to 

apply up to $34.25 per month toward the cost of broadband service. This change will 

significantly reduce the cost of broadband for low-income Tribal residents while also 

incentivizing businesses to deploy broadband infrastructure on Tribal lands. 

In addition to the recent modernizations of the Lifeline and E-rate programs, the 

Commission adopted an Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking earlier 

this year to modernize high-cost support for rate-of-return carriers. In the Further 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission specifically sought comment on additional reforms to further promote broadband investment and deployment on 

unserved and underserved Tribal lands. Staff is currently reviewing the record of 

that Further Notice and the Chairman has committed to taking action on this important issue by the end of the year. 

The Commission also has adopted initiatives to drive investment in mobile 

broadband on Tribal lands. For example, in 2014 the FCC’s Tribal Mobility Fund 

Phase I reverse auction made up to $50 million in one-time funding available to 

Tribal lands to accelerate mobile broadband availability. In addition, both the Tribal 

Mobility Fund Phase I and the general Mobility Fund Phase I made a 25 percent 

bidding credit available for Tribally-owned or controlled providers seeking support. 

In addition, since 2000 the Commission has administered a Tribal Land Bidding 

Credit program in wireless spectrum auctions. The credit serves as a discount for 

a qualified winning bidder proposing to deploy wireless facilities on a Tribal land. 

The Tribal Land Bidding Credit was used by a bidder in our recent AWS–3 Auction 

and is available to bidders participating in the Incentive Auction. 

An important part of the Commission’s work toward ensuring that Tribal lands 

have access to comparable telecommunications services is robust Consultation with 

Indian Country. In 2016, the Commission will ultimately hold five regional Tribal 

consultation and training workshops. Three have already been conducted, including 

events in Great Falls, MT; Keshena, WI (Menominee Tribe); and Bothell, WA (Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians). The United States Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) participates in each of these workshops. The Commission is committed to 

working with our Tribal partners and with USDA to ensure that the Commission’s 

Tribal consultation and training workshops, now and in the future, provide a comprehensive and coordinated approach to drive investment into Indian Country. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BRIAN SCHATZ TO

GIGI SOHN

Question 1. Lack of data about broadband on tribal lands. According to the 

GAO, there is a lack of data about how much money from the universal service fund 

goes toward broadband access on tribal lands specifically. How can we improve the 

FCC’s collection of universal service data so that we can have a better idea about 

how native communities are being served by each of the four programs within the 

76 

1See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All 

Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as Amended, GN docket 

No. 15–191, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 31 FCC Rcd 699, Table 10 and n. 290 (2016). 

universal service fund (Connect America Fund, Schools and Libraries (E-Rate), Lifeline, and Rural Health Care)? 

Answer. The GAO report recommended that the FCC improve the reliability of 

its data related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining ‘‘Tribal’’ on 

the E-rate program application. The FCC agrees with this recommendation, and beginning with funding year 2017, the E-rate forms will include guidance about when 

a school or library should identify itself as on Tribal lands. 

While not a GAO recommendation, the Commission plans to similarly improve the 

reliability of its data related to institutions that receive Rural Healthcare (RHC) 

Program support. Specifically, subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, Tribal affiliation will be tracked across all sub-programs of the RHC program— 

Healthcare Connect Fund, Telecommunications Program, and Pilot Program—starting on January 1, 2017. 

In addition, the Commission will soon begin collecting in the high-cost program 

specific information about the locations that are newly served with broadband by 

price cap carriers and rate-of-return carriers. Beginning this year, we will start to 

collect from the price cap carriers that accepted Connect America Fund Phase II 

support geocoded location information for locations that are newly served by the carrier. This data will enable us to determine for each recipient, how much of that support is associated with census blocks that are categorized as Tribal lands according 

to the U.S. Census. Once Paperwork Reduction Act approval from OMB is obtained, 

we expect to start collecting similar information from rate-of-return carriers. 

Finally, as you know, the Commission’s rules provide enhanced levels of Lifeline 

support of up to $34.25 per month to low-income residents of Tribal lands. As a result, the Commission already collects data on the disbursement of Lifeline support 

to residents of Tribal lands. 

Question 1a. According the FCC’s 2016 Broadband Report, 41 percent of households on tribal lands do not have broadband available to them. Do you have data 

on the percentage of community institutions like schools, libraries and health care 

facilities that have broadband service available on tribal lands? 

Answer. Though E-rate does not specifically earmark funds for Tribal schools and 

libraries, they are eligible for the highest levels of support available via the E-rate 

program based on their rural locations and the financial needs of their students. 

Many schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities serving residents of Tribal 

lands are not necessarily located on Tribal lands, but nearby to Tribal lands. As a 

result, developing one universal definition for ‘‘Tribal’’ is a complex and challenging 

task when trying to gather data on the E-rate and Rural Healthcare support that 

squarely benefits those living on Tribal lands. With that said, the FCC believes that 

collecting such Tribal-specific data would help contribute to the Commission’s goal 

of making broadband Internet available on Tribal lands; thus, beginning with funding year 2017, the E-rate forms will include guidance about when a school or library 

should identify itself as on Tribal lands. We look forward to improving the reliability 

of the data we have regarding the E-rate program and its impact on broadband 

Internet availability on Tribal lands. 

With regard to the Rural Healthcare Program, as discussed above, the program 

does not currently track whether healthcare providers participating in all of its subprograms (i.e., Healthcare Connect Fund, Telecommunications Program, and Pilot 

Program) have Tribal affiliations. Subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, Tribal affiliation will be tracked across all sub-programs starting on January 1, 2017. 

Question 1b. Do you collect data on the percentage of households that subscribe 

to broadband on tribal lands? If not, why not? 

Answer. The Commission collects residential broadband subscription data that allows it to estimate the broadband adoption rate on Tribal lands. Specifically, the 

Commission collects data on residential broadband subscription at the census-tract 

level. Broadband services with a speed of at least 25 Mbps/3Mbps are included in 

this data collection. The Commission then segments areas into Tribal lands and 

non-Tribal lands groupings for purposes of estimating broadband adoption on Tribal 

lands. The Commission’s most recent estimate of the broadband adoption rate on 

Tribal lands can be found in the 2016 Broadband Progress Report. 1

In addition, as noted in the GAO Report, the Census Bureau is in the process of 

collecting information about household Internet adoption on Tribal lands. SpecifiVerDate Mar 15 2010 10:27 Sep 30, 2016 Jkt 021661 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\21661.TXT JACK
77 

cally, the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2008 requires the Bureau of the Census to collect information from residential households, including those on Tribal 

lands, on Internet adoption, if the household subscribes to Internet service, and if 

so, whether that service is dial-up or a high-speed connection. This data will provide 

the Commission with information about residential Internet subscriptions (of all 

speeds) on Tribal lands over a long period of time. 

Question 1c. Do you collect data on the percentage of schools, libraries and health 

care facilities that subscribe to broadband service on tribal lands? If not, why not? 

Answer. The Commission does not currently collect data on the percentage of 

schools, libraries and health care facilities that subscribe to broadband service on 

Tribal lands. However, as noted in my earlier response in 1(B), the Commission has 

committed to improving the reliability of its data related to health care facilities 

that receive Rural Healthcare Program support and the reliability of its data related 

to schools and libraries that receive E-rate support. 

Question 2. FCC commitment to performance metrics In the study, the GAO 

recommends setting goals and performance measures for broadband deployment on 

tribal lands. The FCC’s current goal for broadband is ‘‘universal access for all Americans.’’ What type of performance measures could the FCC develop and use that may 

help improve deployment of broadband to more households on tribal lands? 

Answer. The Commission agrees with GAO about the importance of performance 

goals and measures for broadband deployment on Tribal lands. The FCC’s strategic 

objective of maximizing broadband availability on Tribal lands is fulfilled in part 

through its universal service programs established pursuant to its obligations under 

Section 254 of the Communications Act, and Section 706 of the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996. In order to meet its Section 254 obligations, in its 2011 USF/ICC 

Transformation Order, the Commission specifically expressed that its section 254 

obligations ensured universal availability of broadband networks to all Americans 

living on Tribal lands. To that end, the Commission has established a performance 

goal of bringing broadband at speeds of at least 10/1 Mbps to high-cost areas, including Tribal lands. The Commission is in the process of considering whether and 

how additional Tribal-specific performance goals and measures could complement 

the existing programmatic-wide goals. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP TO

GIGI SOHN

Question 1. The FCC measures access of advanced telecommunications to Internet 

and mobile services around the country by Census block. Is the use of Census blocks 

to gather data on tribal lands the most effective way to measure tribal accessibility? 

At the recent Indian Affairs Committee hearing, the use of Census block data was 

portrayed as being overly expansive and uncharacteristic of actual connectivity for 

individuals. What alternatives exist, if any, for ensuring quality data collection that 

might be more applicable to and representative of tribal connectivity at the local 

level? What barriers exist inhibiting the FCC from using other data collection methods? 

Answer. In 2013, the FCC unanimously adopted the Form 477 Modernization 

Order, which requires facilities-based broadband providers to submit mobile and 

fixed broadband deployment data directly to the Commission. 

While the Commission previously measured mobile broadband deployment by census block, we plan to measure deployment on a much more granular basis in the 

near future. As a result of the 2013 Order, mobile broadband and voice providers 

must submit shapefiles showing their network coverage areas and certify the accuracy of their submissions. Using this new and improved data, we are working to 

identify where mobile broadband service is available within each census block. In 

other words, we are utilizing our new data to produce ‘‘actual coverage area,’’ at the 

sub-block local level. This allows the Commission, amongst other things, to identify 

local areas where, for instance, 4G–LTE service may not be available. 

With respect to fixed broadband deployment data, the Form 477 Modernization 

Order concluded that requiring providers to report fixed broadband deployment data 

by census block appropriately balanced the burdens of reporting this information to 

the Commission with the level of granularity required by the Commission to carry 

out its statutory duties. However, Commission staff continues to discuss possibilities 

and proposals with providers, including those serving Tribal lands, to develop the 

most accurate and granular data set possible. 

78 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES TO

GIGI SOHN

Question 1. Would you support streamlining applications for rights-of-way on tribal land? 

Answer. While the Commission supports reasonable measures to expand 

broadband deployment, it is important to recognize the limits on our jurisdiction. 

Access to rights-of-way on Tribal land is subject to federal law through the Bureau 

of Indian Affairs (BIA) and to Tribal law (to the extent not inconsistent with federal 

law). Rights-of-way requests submitted to BIA involve an application process, and 

we would support any BIA effort to streamline its processes for granting access to 

rights-of-way for broadband infrastructure. 

Question 2. Have you heard concerns throughout the Federal Communications 

Commission’s (FCC) tribal outreach that the application process has been an impediment to completing broadband deployment projects on tribal land? 

Answer. While the 2006 GAO Report entitled ‘‘Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands’’ identified the 

process of obtaining rights-of-way as a barrier to broadband deployment on Tribal 

lands, this is not an issue that is regularly raised during FCC Tribal outreach. 

Nonetheless, as addressed above, the Commission supports reasonable measures to 

expand broadband deployment. 

An example of this support can be seen in recent actions the FCC has taken to 

facilitate wireless infrastructure deployment. In October 2014, the FCC unanimously adopted rules bringing new efficiencies to wireless infrastructure deployment. Since then, FCC staff has continued to work closely with our preservation 

partners—including Tribal Nations, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP), and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 

(NCSHPO)—to revise the siting review process in situations where a project has 

limited potential to cause significant adverse effects. As recently as August of 2016, 

the Commission, ACHP, and NCSHPO amended an agreement between the three 

parties that governs the review process for collocating small wireless facilities 

throughout the country, including on Tribal lands. This amendment further simplifies the process for deploying small cells, distributed antenna systems, and other 

small-scale wireless broadband infrastructure. 

Our priority is to develop policies and rules that encourage responsible deployment. Thus, while we are committed to facilitating infrastructure deployment to 

meet booming demand, we also respect the critical role of subject matter experts, 

including Tribal Nations. State, local and Tribal governments play essential roles 

in this process, and we value their input. 

Question 3. Has the Office of Native Affairs and Policy successfully completed any 

broadband deployment projects on tribal lands? If so, how is the FCC using those 

as a model to bring service to unserved tribal lands? 

Answer. The Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) does not manage individual broadband deployment projects. In its work in Indian Country, ONAP, as the 

FCC’s liaison with Tribal Nations, has promoted broadband deployment in Indian 

Country. To this end, FCC staff has supported the development of cutting edge 

broadband deployment efforts from Tribes and Tribal entities such as the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe’s Red Spectrum Communications (Red Spectrum). Red Spectrum uses 

a hybrid microwave and fiber system to provision customers both on and outside of 

the Reservation. ONAP is currently working to seed ideas and lessons learned from 

entities like Red Spectrum across Indian Country to help unserved and underserved 

Tribes more easily find a path forward to broadband deployment. 

Question 4. The National Broadband Map is currently the FCC’s best tool for 

measuring broadband coverage, including on tribal lands, and yet it is widely known 

to contain misleading data. When it was being created, were you aware of the inaccuracies of the National Broadband Map? Regardless, when did you become aware 

of its inaccuracies? What steps have you taken and will you take to rectify the map’s 

inaccuracies? 

Answer. The data underlying the National Broadband Map are no longer the best 

tool for measuring broadband coverage. Those data were collected by National Telecommunications and Information Administration through a state block grant program. Funding for this data collection ended in June 2014. Consequently, the data 

reflected on the Broadband Map is now two years out of date. 

Recognizing the need to improve our mobile broadband coverage data, the Commission adopted an Order in 2013 that required mobile wireless data collection from 

one of the most reliable sources available-the mobile wireless carriers themselves. 

As a result, the Commission is now collecting coverage data directly from wireless 

79 

carriers through the Commission’s Form 477. Each carrier that submits data must 

certify to its accuracy. We expect the data wireless carriers provide through these 

submissions to be more accurate than our previous data because it comes directly 

from the entity that is deploying the wireless facilities. We are in the relatively 

early stages of collecting this new coverage data from wireless carriers through the 

revised FCC Form 477, and Commission staff are currently analyzing these filings. 

Æ