BROADBAND 

INTERNET

FCC’s Data Overstate 

Access on Tribal 

Lands

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2018

GAO-18-630

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-630, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2018

BROADBAND INTERNET

FCC's Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands

What GAO Found

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) collects data on broadband 

availability from providers, but these data do not accurately or completely 

capture broadband access on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC collects data on 

broadband availability; these data capture where providers may have broadband 

infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be “available” for an entire 

census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. 

This leads to overstatements of service for specific locations like tribal lands (see 

figure). FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach 

leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data 

to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access—the ability 

to obtain service—on tribal lands.

Overstatement of Broadband Availability in FCC’s Data

Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors—such as 

affordability, quality, and denials of service—that FCC and tribal stakeholders 

stated can affect the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can access 

broadband services. FCC provides broadband funding for unserved areas based 

on its broadband data. Overstatements of access limit FCC’s and tribal 

stakeholders’ abilities to target broadband funding to such areas. For example, 

some tribal officials stated that inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan 

their own broadband networks and obtain funding to address broadband gaps on 

their lands. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting 

accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC 

would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal areas that need 

it the most and to more accurately assess FCC’s progress toward its goal of 

increasing all Americans’ access to affordable broadband.

FCC does not have a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of 

provider-submitted broadband data. In the National Broadband Plan, FCC 

highlighted the need for a targeted approach to improve broadband availability 

data for tribal lands. As outlined in the plan, such an approach would include 

working with tribes to ensure that information is accurate and useful. About half 

of the tribal stakeholders GAO interviewed raised concerns that FCC relies solely 

on data from providers, and most stated FCC should work with tribes to improve 

the accuracy of FCC’s data. Establishing a formal process to obtain input from 

tribal governments on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data could 

help improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for tribal lands.

View GAO-18-630. For more information, 

contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 

or goldsteinm@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Broadband furthers economic 

development, educational attainment, 

and public health and safety; however, 

residents of tribal lands have lower 

levels of broadband access relative to 

the U.S. population. Congress has 

prioritized identifying and targeting 

funds to unserved areas. FCC uses 

data from broadband providers to 

develop maps and reports depicting 

broadband availability in the United 

States, with specific information on 

tribal lands. GAO was asked to review 

FCC’s efforts to collect broadband data 

for tribal lands.

This report examines the extent to 

which: (1) FCC’s approach to collecting 

broadband data accurately captures 

broadband access on tribal lands and 

(2) FCC obtains tribal input on the 

data. GAO interviewed stakeholders 

from 25 tribal governments or tribally 

owned providers, and visited nine tribal 

lands. The selected tribes varied 

geographically and in levels of 

broadband availability, among other 

characteristics. GAO also reviewed 

FCC’s rulemakings on broadband data 

and interviewed other tribal 

stakeholders, FCC officials, and 13 

non-tribal broadband providers 

selected to include a diversity of 

technologies. Provider and tribal 

interviews were based on nongeneralizable samples. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making three 

recommendations to FCC, including 

that it collect and report data that 

accurately measure tribal broadband 

access as well as develop a process to 

obtain tribal input on the accuracy of 

the data. FCC agreed with the 

recommendations.
Page i GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Letter 1

Background 6

FCC Collects Data on Broadband Availability but Lacks Accurate 

and Complete Data on Broadband Access on Tribal Lands 14

FCC Does Not Have a Formal Process to Obtain Tribal Input on 

Its Broadband Data, and Tribal Stakeholders Reported a Lack 

of Provider Engagement 28

Conclusions 34

Recommendations 35

Agency Comments 35

Appendix I List of Interviewees 37

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39

Appendix III Comments from the Federal Communications Commission 45

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 49

Figures

Figure 1: Map of Federally Recognized Tribal Lands 7

Figure 2: Examples of Fixed Broadband Technologies 8

Figure 3: A Screenshot of FCC’s Map Interface for Fixed 

Broadband Deployment (Background) and an Example of 

a Specific Map for a Tribal Area (Foreground) 12

Figure 4: Screenshot of FCC’s Map of Nationwide Mobile LongTerm Evolution (LTE) Coverage 13

Figure 5: Overstatement of Broadband Availability in the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Form 477 Data 18

Figure 6: Examples of Scenarios That Affect Broadband Access: 

Affordability 21

Figure 7: Examples of Scenarios That Affect Broadband Access: 

Quality of Service 23

Figure 8: Examples of Scenarios That Affect Broadband Access: 

Service Denials 24

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Abbreviations

DSL digital subscriber line 

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

LTE long-term evolution 

Mbps megabits per second 

NCAI National Congress of American Indians 

NTIA National Telecommunications & Information

Administration 

ONAP Office of Native Affairs and Policy 

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

September 7, 2018

The Honorable John Hoeven

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Udall

Vice Chairman

Committee on Indian Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable John Barrasso

The Honorable Maria Cantwell

The Honorable Steve Daines

The Honorable Martin Heinrich

The Honorable Heidi Heitkamp

The Honorable Brian Schatz

The Honorable Jon Tester

United States Senate

Broadband infrastructure is critical for economic development, 

educational and job opportunities, and public health and safety. In 2016, 

we reported that tribal lands are generally in remote and rugged areas 

and that broadband access can help residents develop online 

businesses, access telemedicine services, and use online educational 

tools.1 However, residents of tribal lands have lower levels of broadband 

access than residents of non-tribal lands; a reflection of what is often 

called the “digital divide,” or disparate levels of broadband access among 

different socioeconomic, racial, or rural groups. According to the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC), as of December 2016, 35.4 percent 

of Americans residing on tribal lands lacked access to fixed broadband 

 1 GAO, Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement 

Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, GAO-16-222 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2016).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

services, compared to 7.7 percent of all Americans.2 FCC has reported 

that the lack of service in tribal lands presents impediments to the efforts 

of tribal nations related to self-governance, economic opportunity, 

education, public safety, and cultural preservation.3

One barrier to increasing access to broadband on tribal lands is the cost 

of deploying infrastructure to tribal lands located in rugged, sparsely 

populated areas. In an attempt to address this and other issues, the 

federal and some state governments have administered a number of 

programs to incentivize companies to build broadband infrastructure in 

unserved and underserved areas. In addition, policy makers have noted 

the need for accurate information in order to target these programs to the 

areas lacking access, and FCC has identified the need to work with tribes 

to ensure such data are accurate for tribal lands. However, in 2016 we 

reported that tribal and federal officials had concerns that the federal map 

of broadband availability at the time (the National Broadband Map) did not 

accurately depict broadband availability on tribal lands.4

The federal government has not updated the National Broadband Map 

since April 2015, with the last update containing data as of June 30, 

2014.5 Currently, the primary source of information regarding where 

 2 For the purposes of this report, to determine which high-speed internet services qualify 

as “broadband,” we are using the threshold for “advanced telecommunications capability” 

as used by FCC in its 2018 In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of 

Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely 

Fashion, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd 1660 (2018) (Broadband 

Deployment Report). Therefore, the estimate of broadband access above refers to 

services capable of providing speeds of 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 

Mbps upload. Megabits per second is a measure of the network’s data transfer rate 

(speed) and refers to the number of bits per second that travel to a user’s device (the 

download speed) and from a user’s device (the upload speed). The estimate also does not 

include satellite services, as FCC currently reports on these services separately and until 

recently, satellite providers were not capable of providing broadband speeds, according to 

FCC officials. For the purposes of this analysis, mobile broadband refers to long-term 

evolution (LTE) services. LTE is an industry standard that is part of the fourth generation 

of wireless telecommunications technology, which is currently in common use.

3 Improving Communications Services for Native Nations, Notice of Inquiry, 26 FCC Rcd 

2672, 2673 (2011).

4 GAO-16-222.

5 However, Congress recently provided $7.5 million to the National Telecommunications 

and Information Administration (NTIA) to update the National Broadband Map in 

conjunction with FCC and the states. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 

115-141, 132 Stat. 348 (2018). In addition, as discussed later, FCC began collecting and 

creating maps of its own broadband data. 
Page 3 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

broadband is and is not available is the FCC, which collects this 

information from broadband providers. You asked us to review FCC’s 

efforts to collect broadband data for tribal lands. This report examines:

• the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband 

availability data accurately captures the ability of Americans living on 

tribal lands to access broadband Internet services, and

• the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy of 

provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands.

To address both objectives, we analyzed FCC’s December 2016—the 

most recent data at the time of our review—fixed and mobile broadbandavailability data for federally recognized tribal lands.6 Providers currently 

report this information to FCC by filing a Form 477, twice a year. We also 

used 2010 U.S. Census data to identify census blocks on tribal lands. To 

assess the reliability of FCC and Census data, we reviewed a previous 

GAO reliability assessment and performed additional work, such as 

electronic testing of the data and interviews with agency officials.7 Based 

on the results of our analysis, we determined the data to be reliable for 

our purposes, which were to (1) inform our selection of tribal governments 

and providers for interviews and visits and (2) develop maps of fixed and 

mobile broadband availability for the 9 tribal lands we selected for visits, 

in order to obtain tribal representatives’ feedback on the accuracy of the 

data. For both objectives, we also reviewed FCC documents regarding 

the Form 477 process and interviewed FCC officials as well as 

stakeholders representing tribal governments and broadband providers. 

These interviews included representatives from 25 tribal governments or 

tribally owned providers, including visits to 9 tribal lands. When we 

selected these tribes, we considered variation in location, level of 

 6 We defined federally recognized tribal lands consistent with FCC’s definition in its 2018 

Broadband Deployment Report. Specifically, we considered tribal lands to be: (1) Joint 

Use Areas; (2) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation 

and associated off-reservation trust land; (3) legal federally recognized American Indian 

area consisting of reservation only; (4) legal federally recognized American Indian area 

consisting of off-reservation trust land only; (5) Statistical American Indian area defined for 

a federally recognized tribe that does not have reservation or off-reservation trust land, 

specifically a Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical 

Area (OTSA); (6) Alaskan Native village statistical area; and (7) Hawaiian Home Lands 

established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. See 33 FCC Rcd 1660 

(2018).

7 We reviewed the data reliability assessment from GAO, Broadband: Additional 

Stakeholder Input Could Inform FCC Actions to Promote Competition, GAO-17-742 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept.19, 2017). 
Page 4 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

broadband deployment according to FCC, land mass, and population size 

and density. The results of our interviews are not generalizable to all tribal 

governments or tribally owned broadband providers. In addition to tribal 

governments and tribally owned providers, we interviewed six 

organizations that include tribal entities and four stakeholders who work 

with tribes on broadband issues. For reporting purposes, we developed 

the following series of indefinite quantifiers to describe the tribal 

responses from the 35 entities representing tribal stakeholders we 

interviewed.

• 3 to 7 is defined as “a few.”

• 8 to 15 is described as “some,”

• 16 to 20 is described as “about half,”

• 21 to 27 is described as “most”; and

• 28 to 34 is described as “almost all.”

Further, to obtain industry perspectives, we reviewed public comments 

submitted by providers and industry associations in relevant FCC 

rulemaking proceedings and interviewed 10 non-tribally owned fixed and 

mobile broadband providers and three industry associations. We selected 

providers to reflect a range of carrier size, as well as the technologies 

used to provide broadband service. In addition, we interviewed 

representatives from other government entities, as well as private 

companies that collect and report broadband data. The results of these 

interviews are not generalizable. A full list of the stakeholders we 

interviewed can be found in appendix I.

In addition, to identify the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting 

broadband data accurately captures Americans’ ability to access 

broadband Internet services on tribal lands, we identified factors that 

affect broadband access by interviewing tribal stakeholders, as described 

above, and reviewing FCC documents and previous GAO work.8 We also 

reviewed relevant statutes and FCC’s proceedings, plans, and broadband 

 8 GAO-16-222.
Page 5 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

deployment and progress reports.

9 We compared the Form 477 process 

to FCC’s strategic goals and to factors affecting broadband access to 

determine the extent to which the Form 477 collects information on those 

factors and aligns with FCC’s goals. We further evaluated this information 

against the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as 

enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) and 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

10

To determine the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy 

of provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands, we reviewed FCC’s 

policies for working with tribal governments and interviewed tribal 

stakeholders, among other entities.11 We compared this information to 

recommendations from FCC’s National Broadband Plan, and Standards 

for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

12 For additional details on 

our scope and methodology, see appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2017 to September 2018 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

 9 Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

32 FCC Rcd 6329 (2017); Connect America Fund Universal Service Reform – Mobility 

Fund, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6282 (2017); 

Instructions for Filing 4G LTE Coverage Data to Determine Areas Presumptively Eligible 

for Mobility Fund II Support, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 7023 (2017). FCC, Strategic Plan 

2018-2022 (Washington, D.C.); FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan; 

33 FCC Rcd 1660 (2018); In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of 

Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely 

Fashion, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 31 FCC Rcd 699 (2016) “Broadband 

Progress Report.” 

10 Government Performance and Results Act, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993), 

as enhanced by GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 

(2011); GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014).

11 Statement of Policy on Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with 

Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000); 47 C.F.R. § 54.313 (a)(5); 

Further Guidance on Tribal Government Engagement Obligation Provisions of the 

Connect America Fund, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 8176 (2012).

12 Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Notice of Inquiry and Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 6657 (2010) and GAO, Standards for Internal Control 

in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Page 6 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government has recognized 573 Indian tribes as distinct, 

independent political communities with tribal sovereignty. There are 

different categories of tribal lands, with differing implications with respect 

to ownership and administration. Reservations are defined geographic 

areas with established boundaries recognized by the United States.13

Tribal lands vary in size, demographics, and location. For example, those 

lands smallest in size are less than one square mile, and the largest, the 

Navajo Nation, is more than 24,000 square miles (the size of West 

Virginia). Tribal land locations can range from extremely remote, rural 

locations to urban areas. Figure 1 shows tribal lands in the United States 

according to the 2010 Census.

 13The land within the reservation’s boundaries may include a mixture (or checkerboard) of 

tribal, individual Indian, and non-Indian land. Tribal and individual Indian land may be held 

in trust, restricted, or fee status. The allotment and assimilation period, which began with 

The General Allotment Act in 1887 (also known as the Dawes Act) included a number of 

federal efforts to divide tribal lands into individual parcels, give each tribal member a 

parcel, and sell the “surplus’ parcels to non-Indians. In some cases, the United States 

government still holds individual allotments in trust, while others have transferred to 

private (Indian and non-Indian) ownership. In addition, restricted status, or restricted fee 

lands, are lands for which the title to the land is held by an individual Indian person or a 

tribe and “which can only be alienated or encumbered by the owner with the approval of 

the Secretary of the Interior because of limitations contained in the conveyance instrument 

pursuant to federal law.” In addition, some tribes have purchased land within and outside 

of their reservation’s boundaries.

Background
Page 7 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Figure 1: Map of Federally Recognized Tribal Lands

The term “broadband” commonly refers to Internet access that is high 

speed and provides an “always-on” connection, so users do not have to 

reestablish a connection each time they access the Internet. Broadband 

service may be “fixed”—that is, providing service to a single location, 

such as a customer’s home—or “mobile,” that is, providing service 

wherever a customer has access to a mobile wireless network, including 

while on the move, through a mobile device, such as a smartphone. Fixed 

and mobile broadband providers deploy and maintain infrastructure to 

connect consumers to the Internet.

Providers offer fixed Internet service through a number of technologies, 

such as copper phone lines, fiber-optic lines, coaxial cables, wireless 
Page 8 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

antennas, satellites,14 or a mix of technologies (see fig. 2). To install fixed 

or wireless infrastructure, providers must obtain permits from government 

entities with jurisdiction over the land or permission from public utilities to 

deploy infrastructure on existing utility poles.

Figure 2: Examples of Fixed Broadband Technologies

The federal government has emphasized the importance of ensuring 

Americans have access to broadband, and a number of agencies, 

including FCC, currently provide funding to subsidize broadband 

deployment in areas in which the return on investment has not attracted 

private investment. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifies that consumers in “rural, 

insular, and high-cost areas” should have access to telecommunication 

services and rates that are “reasonably comparable” to consumers in 

 14 We did not include satellite broadband in our assessment of broadband availability on 

tribal lands because FCC concluded in its 2016 Broadband Progress Report that this type 

of service had not yet reached FCC’s speed benchmark of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. In the 2018 

Broadband Deployment Report, FCC noted that some satellite services were reporting 

providing speeds of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, but did not include these services in its data tables 

depicting broadband deployment on tribal lands.
Page 9 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

urban areas.15 To achieve this goal, FCC administers the High-Cost 

program, which provides subsidies to providers of phone service in rural, 

insular, and other remote areas.

In 2011, FCC launched a series of reforms to its High-Cost program, 

including adding support for broadband services, and created the 

Connect America Fund, which provides subsidies to fixed and mobile 

providers of telecommunications and broadband services in rural, insular, 

and other remote areas where the costs of providing service is high. To 

be eligible for Universal Service Fund support from FCC, a provider must 

be designated an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier by the appropriate 

state or by FCC and must meet certain service obligations.16 The Connect 

America Fund has distributed approximately $4.5 billion per year, and has 

separate funding mechanisms targeted to specific goals. For example, 

there are funds for fixed-phone and broadband service and funds for 

mobile service, including a Tribal Mobility Fund (Phase 1) that awarded 

nearly $50 million in 2014 for the provision of 3G and 4G service to 

unserved tribal areas.

In addition to FCC, a number of other agencies provide funding for 

broadband deployment in unserved or underserved areas. For example, 

the United States Department of Agriculture’s Community Connect 

Program, which provides grants to rural communities to provide highspeed Internet service to unserved areas.17

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) 

mandated the development of a nationwide map of broadband 

availability.18 To implement the act, the National Telecommunications & 

Information Administration (NTIA)—an agency within the Department of 

Commerce—established a grant program to enable U.S. states and 

 15 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(3).

16 47 C.F.R. § 54.201(a)(1). The Universal Service Fund is paid for by contributions from 

providers of telecommunications based of an assessment on their interstate and 

international end-user revenues. 

17 There are a variety of federal programs that can be used to fund broadband 

deployment, including additional USDA programs. NTIA maintains a list of funding 

resources at: NTIA, Funding, accessed May 29, 2018,

https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-list. 

18 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 

(2009).
Page 10 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

territories to collect state-level broadband mapping data. NTIA used these 

data to launch the National Broadband Map (www.broadbandmap.gov) in 

February 2011. As the funding for the NTIA’s program came to an end in 

2014, NTIA stopped collecting data to update the map and, according to 

FCC officials, created a memorandum of understanding with FCC through 

which FCC agreed to maintain public access to the last version of the 

map. FCC issued rules in 2013 to begin collecting broadband deployment 

data, in addition to the broadband subscription data it had collected from 

providers since 2000. FCC sought, but did not receive, $3 million to 

update the National Broadband Map in its fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 

2016 budgets. In 2018, Congress directed FCC to develop a report by 

March 23, 2019, evaluating broadband coverage in certain tribal lands (to 

include an assessment of areas that have adequate broadband coverage, 

as well as an assessment of unserved areas), and to complete a 

proceeding to address unserved areas by September 23, 2020.

19

Currently, FCC requires broadband providers to report on their broadband 

deployment by filing a form twice a year (Form 477).20

• Fixed broadband providers submit a list of the census blocks in which 

their broadband service is available, and

• mobile providers submit “shapefiles”—a geospatial depiction of the 

coverage area, which FCC refers to as “polygons”—of their coverage 

areas.

FCC uses providers’ 477 data to develop a statutorily mandated annual 

report on advanced telecommunications capability.

21 In addition, in 2016, 

FCC began publishing its own maps of broadband deployment, using the 

information from providers’ Form 477 filings. In February 2018, FCC 

 19 The act specifically referred to Indian country (as defined in section 1151 of title 18, 

United States Code) and land held by a Native Corporation pursuant to the Alaska Native 

Claims Settlement Act. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, div. P, §§ 508(a)(1), 

(a)(2)(B), (b).

20 The Form 477 also collects information on subscribership: fixed providers report their 

number of subscribers in each census tract and mobile providers report their number of 

subscribers by state.

21 Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Broadband Data 

Improvement Act, requires FCC to determine whether advanced telecommunications 

capability is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion, and 

regularly thereafter. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b). Furthermore, advanced telecommunications 

capability is defined as high speed broadband telecommunications capability that enables 

users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video 

telecommunications using any technology. 47 U.S.C. § 1302(d)(1).
Page 11 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

launched an updated map of fixed broadband deployment 

(https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/). This map allows users to search for 

broadband deployment by address and provides summary-level statistics 

regarding broadband deployment in specific tribal lands (see fig. 3). 

According to FCC officials, this new map format will support more 

frequent data updates.
Page 12 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Figure 3: A Screenshot of FCC’s Map Interface for Fixed Broadband Deployment (Background) and an Example of a Specific 

Map for a Tribal Area (Foreground)
Page 13 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

FCC also provides national maps of mobile LTE coverage; these maps do 

not allow users to access data at the same level of granularity as the 

maps of fixed broadband (see fig. 4).22

Figure 4: Screenshot of FCC’s Map of Nationwide Mobile Long-Term Evolution 

(LTE) Coverage

 22 See, for example: FCC, Nationwide LTE Coverage – YE 2016, (accessed May 30, 

2018), https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/nationwide-lte-coverage-ye-2016/; and 

FCC, LTE Coverage by Number of Providers – YE 2016, (accessed May 30, 2018), 

https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/lte-coverage-number-providers-ye-2016/ . 
Page 14 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

FCC collects and uses data that capture broadband availability to 

measure broadband access on tribal lands, leading to overstatements of 

broadband access on tribal lands.23 Specifically, FCC’s method of 

collecting mobile and fixed broadband data from providers (the Form 477) 

does not accurately or completely capture broadband access on tribal 

lands because it (1) captures nationwide broadband availability data—

areas where providers may have broadband infrastructure—but does so 

in a way that leads to overstatements of availability, and (2) does not 

capture information on factors that FCC and tribal stakeholders have 

stated can affect broadband access on tribal lands, such as affordability, 

service quality, and denials of service.24 Nonetheless, FCC uses its Form 

477 broadband availability data in annual broadband deployment reports 

to measure the percentage of Americans living on tribal lands with or 

without access to broadband, and to measure progress toward FCC’s 

strategic goal of increasing all Americans’ access to affordable 

broadband.25 By using broadband availability data to measure broadband 

access on tribal lands, FCC overstates broadband access on tribal lands.

 23 We use the term broadband availability to refer to broadband deployment. FCC officials 

noted that the data collected by the Form 477 reflects broadband deployment. We use the 

term broadband availability because FCC’s Form 477 instructs fixed broadband providers 

to report fixed broadband deployment by submitting a list of census blocks in which the 

filer makes broadband connections available.

24 FCC officials we interviewed stated that FCC has not defined the term “broadband 

access,” and noted that the use of the term may vary across FCC documents. However, 

FCC and tribal stakeholders have noted that broadband access can be affected by factors 

such as the affordability and quality of the broadband services being offered and the 

extent to which providers deny service to those who request it. For example, see 2016 

Broadband Progress Report 31 FCC Rcd 699 ¶ 62 (2016); FCC, National Broadband 

Plan; FCC, Strategic Plan 2018-2022. This is discussed in further detail below. FCC 

officials also identified the cost of deployment and regulatory barriers as important factors 

when determining whether an area has access to broadband.

25 See 33 FCC Rcd 1660 ¶ 2 (2018). See also, for example, Appendix G – Americans 

(Thousands) Living on Tribal Lands with Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps 

Services and/or Mobile LTE with a Minimum Advertised Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps by 

State. Prior to 2018, FCC referred to these reports as “Broadband Progress Reports.”

Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Notice of Inquiry and Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 6657 (2010).

FCC Collects Data on 

Broadband Availability

but Lacks Accurate 

and Complete Data 

on Broadband Access 

on Tribal Lands
Page 15 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

FCC’s Form 477, its primary method of collecting nationwide broadband 

data, collects information on broadband availability, which identifies 

where providers have broadband infrastructure and could potentially 

provide broadband services but not where consumers can actually 

access those services. Moreover, the Form 477’s mobile broadband datacollection methods are not standardized, and its fixed broadband datacollection methods are not sufficiently granular to provide information 

about broadband availability on tribal lands.

FCC’s Form 477 requires mobile broadband providers to report their 

coverage areas by submitting geospatial data depicting the areas in 

which consumers could expect to receive the minimum advertised 

speed.26 FCC has previously noted the importance of collecting nationally 

standardized, uniform broadband data from providers to assess 

broadband availability and allow for easy comparison across providers. 

However, the Form 477 does not require that providers use a 

standardized method with defined technical parameters (such as signal 

strength, or amount of interference) when determining their coverage 

area, resulting in data that cannot be meaningfully compared across 

providers, according to FCC. To map their coverage areas, providers may 

use predictive models based on different measurement methods and a 

variety of factors known to affect mobile broadband service such as 

topography, tree cover, and buildings, among other factors.

Providers and tribal stakeholders have expressed concern with the 

accuracy of FCC’s mobile broadband data, and FCC has acknowledged 

concerns that the lack of a standardized method resulted in data that 

were unreliable for the purposes of determining mobile broadband 

coverage for specific geographic areas, such as tribal lands. About half of 

the tribal government representatives we interviewed told us that they 

believe FCC’s data overstate mobile LTE broadband availability on their 

lands. For example, a few representatives expressed concerns with the 

accuracy of the mobile data in areas with varied terrain, such as 

mountains and valleys. In comments to FCC, broadband providers have 

also raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the mobile coverage data 

 26 Mobile providers also submit a list of all census tracts in which the providers’ service is 

advertised and available to actual and potential subscribers. FCC’s requirement only 

applies to facilities-based mobile broadband providers, which are providers that provide 

services using their own network facilities and spectrum for which they hold a license, 

manage, or have obtained the right to use via a spectrum leasing arrangement. This 

would not include mobile voice service resellers. 

FCC Collects Broadband 

Availability Data, but Its 

Collection Method Leads 

to Overstatement of 

Availability on Tribal Lands

Mobile Broadband Data

Collection
Page 16 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

generated by the Form 477 for the purposes of identifying areas eligible 

for funding through FCC’s Mobility Fund Phase II program, which 

provides federal funding to increase mobile broadband services in 

unserved areas.27 In 2017, in response to such concerns, FCC reversed 

its prior decision to use the Form 477 data to identify specific areas 

eligible for federal funding through the Mobility Fund Phase II program.28

Instead, FCC undertook a one-time special data collection, for which it 

required providers to measure their coverage based on a common set of 

standards, in order to better identify unserved areas that would be 

presumptively eligible for funding.29 FCC plans to allow parties, including 

tribal governments, to challenge the data where they believe the data 

overstate mobile broadband coverage through August, 2018.30

Additionally, in an August 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 

requested comment on potential changes to modernize its Form 477 data 

collection, including whether it should require all providers to use a 

standardized method when submitting mobile coverage data on the form. 

FCC officials told us that they do not have a timeline for the development 

of a final rule, and as of August 2018, FCC had not yet issued a final rule 

on modernizing the Form 477.

The Form 477 collects fixed broadband data that are not sufficiently 

granular to accurately depict broadband availability on tribal lands. 

Specifically, FCC directs fixed broadband providers to submit a list of 

census blocks where service is available on the Form 477. FCC defines 

 27 See 32 FCC Rcd 6282 (2017). 

28 As part of its universal service reforms, FCC established the Mobility Fund to target 

support for mobile service. For the Mobility Fund Phase 1, FCC identified unserved areas 

and held a reverse auction in 2012. In the reverse auction, eligible telecommunications 

carriers submitted “bids,” outlining how much support they needed to serve specific 

unserved areas, and FCC awarded support based on the lowest bid as well as the number 

of road miles covered by the bids. In March 2017, FCC announced that it would be 

conducting another reverse auction to distribute up to $4.53 billion to providers that will 

deploy service to areas lacking LTE service (Mobility Fund Phase 2). FCC has not 

announced a date for the auction. 

29 Only providers that previously reported 4G LTE services on the Form 477 were required 

to submit data for FCC’s Mobility Fund data collection. According to FCC, limiting the 

scope of the special data collection reduced the burden on providers, especially smaller 

providers. 32 FCC Rcd 6282 ¶ 11 (2017).

30 In February 2018, FCC completed its initial analysis of the special data collection and 

released a map of areas it initially deemed eligible for the Mobility Fund Phase II auction 

based on the data. According to FCC, 64 entities have access to the challenge process as 

of May 2018, including 11 tribal governments. 

Fixed Broadband Data 

Collection
Page 17 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

“available” as whether the provider does—or could, within a typical 

service interval or without an extraordinary commitment of resources—

provide service to at least one end-user premises in a census block.31

Thus, in its annual reports and maps of fixed broadband service, FCC 

considers an entire block to be served if a provider reports that it does, or 

could offer, service to at least one household in the census block. FCC 

does not define a typical service interval or an extraordinary commitment 

of resources in its Form 477 instructions. However, FCC officials stated 

that providers should not report service in areas in which major 

construction would be required to provide service. A few providers told us 

that the lack of clear guidance from FCC regarding how to determine 

where broadband is available has led different providers to interpret the 

Form 477 directions in different ways, which can affect the accuracy and 

consistency of reporting from provider to provider. For example, in a filing 

with FCC, one provider stated that it had misapplied the definition of 

“available” and, as a result, overstated the availability of its services by 

almost 3,000 census blocks.32 As shown in figure 5, FCC’s definition of 

availability leads to overstatements of fixed broadband availability on 

tribal lands by: (1) counting an entire census block as served if only one 

location has broadband, and (2) allowing providers to report availability in 

blocks where they do not have any infrastructure connecting homes to 

their networks if the providers determine they could offer service to at 

least one household. Almost all the providers and private companies, and 

most of the representatives of tribal governments and organizations we 

spoke with told us that due to these issues, FCC’s definition of availability 

results in data that overstate broadband availability. 

 31 A “typical service interval” refers to the amount of time between when a customer 

requests service, and when a provider is able to begin providing service. 

32 31 FCC Rcd 7790 (2016). FCC officials noted that there are more than 11 million total 

census blocks nationwide.
Page 18 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Figure 5: Overstatement of Broadband Availability in the Federal Communications Commission’s Form 477 Data

According to FCC officials, FCC requires providers to report fixed 

broadband availability where they could provide service within a “typical 

service interval” and without “an extraordinary commitment of resources” 

in order to: (1) ensure that it captures instances in which a provider has a 

network nearby but has not installed the last connection to the homes, 

and (2) identify where service is connected to homes, but homes have not 

subscribed. FCC officials also told us that FCC measures availability at 

the census block level because sub-census block data may be costly to 

collect. In 2013, FCC considered collecting more granular nationwide 

data on broadband deployment but decided against collecting these data 

because it determined that the burden would outweigh the benefit.33

However, FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that FCC’s 

approach leads to overstatements of availability. For example, in its 2017 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477 data 

collection, FCC acknowledged that by requiring a provider to report where 

it could provide service, it is impossible to tell whether the provider would 

be unable or unwilling to take on additional subscribers in a census block 

it lists as served. According to FCC, this limits the value of the data to 

inform FCC policies. In addition, several providers and tribal stakeholders 

we interviewed said that some “digital subscriber line” (DSL) and fixed 

wireless providers may overstate their service areas on the Form 477 

 33 In the Matter of Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Report and Order, 28 

FCC Rcd 9887 ¶ 35 (2013).
Page 19 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

because they may not take into account technological or terrain 

limitations that would affect their ability to actually provide service.34 FCC 

has also recognized that by measuring availability at the census block 

level, not every person will have access to broadband in a block that the 

data show as served, and FCC has noted that in rural areas, such as 

tribal lands, census blocks can be large and providers may only deploy 

service to a portion of the census block.35 A few representatives for tribal 

governments and organizations noted that the use of census blocks may 

uniquely overstate broadband availability on tribal lands when census 

blocks contain both tribal and non-tribal areas, because availability in the 

non-tribal portion of the block can result in the tribal area of the census 

block also being counted as served.

FCC is considering requiring providers to report whether they are willing 

and able to serve additional customers in a census block and collecting 

sub-census block data in its 2017 proposed rulemaking on modernizing 

the Form 477.36 About one-third of the parties that commented on FCC’s 

proposals were not in favor of FCC collecting these more granular data 

on the Form 477, stating that the data would be less accurate and more 

burdensome for providers to collect and report, among other reasons, and 

questioned whether more detailed information on nationwide broadband 

availability is necessary.37 We heard similar concerns from a few of the 

providers and trade associations we interviewed. However, about onethird of the parties that commented on FCC’s proposals were in favor of 

collecting more granular data, stating that such data would be more 

useful for policymakers and more accurate. Additionally, a few tribally 

 34 “Digital subscriber line” (DSL) service typically refers to internet services delivered over 

traditional copper phone lines.

35 Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

32 FCC Rcd 6329 (2017).

36 FCC requested comment on the cost and burden of requesting more detailed data from 

providers, namely, whether to require fixed broadband providers to submit information 

identifying areas where: (1) there are existing customers and a provider could add new 

customers within a standard time interval upon request; (2) existing customers are served 

but providers cannot add new customers; and (3) there are no existing customers but new 

customers could be added within a standard time interval upon request. FCC also 

requested comment on whether to collect more granular data, such as data by street 

address. 32 FCC Rcd 6329 (2017).

37 For example, commenters raised concerns that the lack of addresses in rural areas, 

such as tribal lands, would impose a burden on providers that are required to file a Form 

477 and that the use of inconsistent geolocation methodologies would result in inaccurate 

data.
Page 20 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

owned and non-tribal providers we interviewed told us that providers 

already maintain data for business purposes that would allow them to 

report more granular information on broadband availability. One 

stakeholder we spoke with pointed out that, as the federal government 

and states work to ensure the last remaining unserved areas—rural, lowpopulation density areas including tribal lands—have service, subcensus-block-level data are needed to ensure that governments are 

making wise and accurate investments.

FCC does not collect information on several factors that FCC and tribal 

stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access. FCC and tribal 

stakeholders have noted that broadband access can be affected by

factors such as the affordability and quality of the broadband services 

being offered, and the extent to which providers deny service to those 

who request it. By collecting and using data on factors that can affect

broadband access, FCC would have more complete information on the 

extent to which Americans living on tribal lands have access to 

broadband Internet services.

• Affordability: FCC has noted that affordability of broadband services 

can affect broadband access but does not collect information on the 

cost of broadband service on tribal lands on the Form 477. For 

example, in the National Broadband Plan, FCC cited affordable 

access to robust broadband service as a long-term goal, and in its 

Strategic Plan 2018–2022, FCC acknowledged that affordability is an 

important factor affecting broadband access and a key driver of the 

digital divide.38 Moreover, most of the representatives of tribal 

governments and organizations we spoke to told us that the 

affordability of broadband services is an important factor for 

understanding whether or not people on tribal lands could realistically 

access broadband services.39 Tribal government officials from one 

tribe we spoke with told us that residents on their lands cannot access 

broadband because it is too costly. For example, a provider that 

advertises services on the tribe’s land charges $130 per month for 

 38 FCC officials also noted that affordability is a key factor that affects whether people 

choose to subscribe to broadband services—known as “broadband adoption.” As a result, 

according to officials, availability alone may be an incomplete indicator of broadband 

adoption. 

39 We have previously reported that tribal officials and providers identified affordability as a 

barrier to broadening the availability of services on tribal lands. GAO-16-222.

FCC Does Not Collect 

Data on Several Factors 

That Affect Broadband 

Access on Tribal Lands
Page 21 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

broadband services, approximately one-and-a-half times the average 

rate providers charge for comparable services in urban areas, 

according to FCC (see fig. 6).40

Figure 6: Examples of Scenarios That Affect Broadband Access: Affordability

In the 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC acknowledged that 

affordability can influence a consumer’s decision on whether to purchase 

broadband, but FCC did not consider cost in its assessment of broadband 

access on tribal lands, stating that pricing does not go to the 

congressional requirement to assess deployment and availability in 

conducting its inquiry as required by Congress under section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act and also citing a lack of reliable comprehensive 

data on this issue. In addition, FCC officials we interviewed 

acknowledged that while broadband service may be technically available, 

it may be prohibitively expensive for some, which may make availability 

alone an incomplete indicator of broadband access.

 40 Tribal government officials told us that this was the cost for services with maximum 

speeds of 10 megabits per second (Mbps)/4 Mbps. FCC’s Urban Rate Survey collects 

information on the prices providers charge for fixed services in urban areas, in order to 

determine the benchmark rate Universal Service Fund recipients can charge customers. 

In its 2018 Urban Rate Survey, FCC surveyed providers to identify fixed broadband rates 

in urban areas and determined that the average rate plus two standard deviations for 10 

Mbps/1 Mbps services ranged from $87.68 to $88.13. FCC uses the Urban Rate Survey to 

set rate benchmarks, and requires recipients of high-cost and/or Connect America Fund 

support to offer broadband services at rates that are at or below the relevant reasonable 

comparability benchmark. 
Page 22 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

• Quality of Service: In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Congress 

recognized the importance of service quality by defining advanced 

telecommunications capability as any technology that enables users 

to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video 

telecommunications. In keeping with this legislation, FCC has 

consistently set thresholds for speeds that qualify as broadband 

services and has stated that “latency” and consistency of service 

figure prominently into whether a broadband service is able to provide 

advanced capabilities and thus whether users can access high-quality 

telecommunications.41 Likewise, almost all of the representatives for 

tribal governments or organizations we interviewed told us that quality 

of service is a key component of access to broadband and that routine 

outages, slow speeds, and high latency keep people on tribal lands 

from consistently accessing the Internet. Most tribal stakeholders and 

a few providers we interviewed told us that factors such as terrain, 

weather, and type of technology can all affect the quality of service an 

end user receives and, ultimately, the subscribers’ ability to access 

the Internet (see fig. 7). For example, some representatives of tribal 

governments and organizations told us issues like oversubscription—

when a provider signs up more customers than its equipment can 

handle—and outdated or limited infrastructure result in low-quality 

services that cannot support advanced and, in some cases, basic 

functions.42

 41 “Latency” refers to the amount of time it takes for data to travel from a computer to a 

server and back again. A high-latency network connection experiences long delay times, 

which can affect the performance of videoconferencing, phone, and streaming media 

services. In the 2016 Broadband Progress Report, FCC noted that latency may make a 

variety of applications unusable, regardless of the download/upload speeds being offered. 

31 FCC Rcd 699 ¶ 62 (2016); FCC has made similar statements in other contexts as well. 

See also In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced 

Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, 

2015 Broadband Progress Report, 30 FCC Rcd 1375 ¶ 24 (2015); FCC, National 

Broadband Plan; FCC, 2016 Measuring Broadband America Fixed Broadband Report: A 

Report on Consumer Fixed Broadband Performance in the United States (Washington, 

D.C.: 2016).

42 Advanced functions include, for example, Voice over Internet Protocol (VOIP), 

videoconferencing, and video streaming. Basic functions would include, for example, email. 
Page 23 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Figure 7: Examples of Scenarios That Affect Broadband Access: Quality of Service

Though FCC uses the Form 477 to collect some data on advertised 

speeds from providers, FCC does not collect data on actual speeds, 

service outages, and latency on the form.43 In its 2018 Broadband 

Deployment Report, FCC stated that it did not consider FCC data on 

actual speed, latency, or consistency of service when evaluating 

broadband access due to the lack of appropriate data. FCC noted that the 

lack of Form 477 data on actual speeds in particular constrained 

evaluation of mobile broadband access.44

• Service Denials: FCC has recognized that information on denials of 

service is pertinent to understanding actual broadband access but 

does not collect data on service denials in the Form 477. Specifically, 

in the National Broadband Plan, FCC recommended that FCC collect 

 43 On the Form 477, FCC collects data from providers on maximum advertised speeds for 

fixed broadband, and minimum advertised speeds for mobile broadband. In a 2011 Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477 data program, FCC requested 

comment on whether to include measures of service quality, including service outages 

and latency, on the Form 477. In its subsequent 2013 Rule on the Form 477 program, 

FCC did not address the collection of service quality data, noting that this issue remained 

open for consideration. FCC did not address this issue in the 2017 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on the 477 program. Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 1508 ¶¶ 91, 97-98 (2011); and In the Matter of 

Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 9887 FN 

29 (2013). 

44 33 FCC Rcd 1660 ¶¶ 31-32 (2018). FCC also considered third-party data on actual 

speeds in its 2018 Report, but noted that these data have some limitations because they 

were not collected pursuant to statistical sampling techniques. 
Page 24 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

data to determine whether broadband service is being denied to 

potential residential customers based on the income of the residents 

in a particular geographic area. Some representatives of the tribal 

governments or organizations told us that that they were aware of a 

provider denying service to residents of tribal lands, despite the 

provider reporting broadband availability on at least a portion of those 

lands, according to our analysis of the Form 477 data. These 

representatives told us that they believed service was denied because 

of disputes with the tribal government, low demand for service, or the 

high costs of extending services to the home on tribal lands. Some 

representatives of tribal governments or organizations we spoke with 

also told us that providers may have denied service because their 

equipment was at capacity and could not accommodate new users 

(see fig. 8).

Figure 8: Examples of Scenarios That Affect Broadband Access: Service Denials

For example, on three of the tribal lands we visited, we observed fiber 

optic cable located close to government and residential structures that did 

not have broadband access via fiber. According to tribal government 

officials, despite the physical proximity of the fiber optic cable, the tribal 

government and residents could not access it because the provider was 

not offering service or was unwilling or unable to build to the structures. A 

few providers we interviewed stated that they may not provide services to 

individuals who request them because of high-costs, administrative 
Page 25 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

barriers, or technical limitations. However, FCC does not collect data on 

service denials on the Form 477.45

In its Strategic Plan 2018–2022 and the National Broadband Plan, FCC 

identified increasing all Americans’ access to affordable broadband as a 

long-term, strategic goal.46 Congress has similarly directed FCC to 

develop policies and programs aimed at increasing access to affordable 

broadband in all regions of the United States, including tribal lands, and 

required FCC to report annually on its progress.47 According to the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as enhanced by the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), agencies should use 

accurate and reliable data to measure progress toward achieving their 

goals. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government state that agencies should use quality information—

information that is complete, appropriate, and reliable—to inform 

decision-making processes and evaluate the agency’s performance in 

achieving goals. According to these standards, agencies should also 

communicate quality information externally to achieve the agency’s goals.

However, FCC has used its Form 477 data, which do not accurately or 

completely measure broadband access on tribal lands, as its primary 

source to evaluate progress toward FCC’s strategic goal of increasing 

broadband access and to develop maps and reports intended to depict 

broadband access on tribal lands. For example, in its 2018 Broadband 

Deployment Report, FCC found that 64.6 percent of Americans residing 

on tribal lands have access to fixed broadband services. By using these 

data, FCC has overstated the extent to which Americans living on tribal 

lands can actually access broadband Internet services and FCC’s 

progress toward increasing broadband access. As a result, the digital 

 45 Separate from the Form 477 process, FCC used to collect information on “unfulfilled 

service requests,” as part of an effort to determine whether certain broadband providers 

receiving funding were meeting obligations to offer broadband service upon a customers’ 

reasonable request. However, FCC stopped requiring that providers submit data on 

unfulfilled requests after modifying the obligations to outline specific deployment 

thresholds, rather than requiring that service be available at a customer’s “reasonable 

request.” In the Matter of Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, 

Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 5944 ¶ 6 (2017). 

46 See FCC, Strategic Plan 2018—2022, Strategic Goal 1, and; FCC, Connecting 

America: The National Broadband Plan, Long-Term Goal No. 3. 

47 47 U.S.C. § 1302(b); 47 U.S.C. §§ 254(b)(1), (b)(2).

FCC Uses Broadband 

Availability Data to 

Measure Broadband 

Access on Tribal Lands, 

Overstating Access on 

Tribal Lands
Page 26 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

divide may appear less significant as a national challenge, and FCC and 

tribal stakeholders working to target broadband funding to unserved or 

underserved tribal lands will be limited in their ability to make informed 

decisions. This increases the risk that residents living on tribal lands will 

continue to lack broadband access. Some tribal officials stated that 

inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan their own broadband 

networks and obtain federal broadband funding, and most of the tribal 

stakeholders we interviewed identified a pressing need for accurate data 

on the gaps in broadband access on tribal lands in order to ensure that 

tribes can qualify for federal funding and to effectively target the areas 

that need it most. For example, representatives for one tribal government 

that is providing broadband services said the government will not be able 

to use a federal grant to build broadband infrastructure in areas of their 

reservation that lack access, because the Form 477 data overstate actual 

access on the tribe’s land. As more than three quarters of the tribal 

governments we spoke to are working to provide broadband services on 

their lands in some capacity, overstating broadband access on tribal 

lands could affect the ability of a number of tribes to access federal 

funding to increase broadband access on their lands.

As previously discussed, FCC is considering proposals to modify its Form 

477 data collection as part of a 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but 

FCC officials told us that the Commission does not have a timeline for 

issuance of a final rule. While some of FCC’s proposals could help 

address some of the limitations identified above by, for example, 

collecting more granular nationwide broadband availability data, FCC has 

not addressed specifically the collection of more accurate and complete 

data on broadband access for tribal lands in this proceeding. FCC has 

identified the need to improve broadband data for tribal lands in particular, 

and as previously noted, in 2018 Congress directed FCC to develop a 

report evaluating broadband coverage in certain tribal lands and initiate a 

proceeding to address the unserved areas identified in the report.48 FCC 

officials told us that FCC has not determined how it will address this 

requirement, but it is currently considering its options, including potentially 

addressing the requirement as part of its ongoing proposed rulemaking 

on modernizing the Form 477 data collection. An evaluation of broadband 

coverage on tribal lands that relies on the current Form 477 data would 

 48 FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan; Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2018, div. P, §§ 508(a)(1), (a)(2)(B), (b).
Page 27 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

be subject to the limitations described above, including the overstatement 

of broadband access on tribal lands.

Additionally, FCC has demonstrated that it is possible in some 

circumstances to collect more granular data when such data collection is 

targeted to a specific need or area. For example, in 2017 FCC began 

requiring certain providers that receive funding through the Connect 

America Fund to report the latitude and longitude of locations where 

broadband is available, and FCC has noted that these more granular data 

are extremely useful to the Commission, especially for rural areas where 

census blocks can be quite large.49 A few large providers and trade 

associations similarly stated in public comments on FCC’s proposed 

rulemaking to modernize the Form 477 process that FCC should target its 

collection of more granular broadband data to areas where the data are 

most likely to be overstated—specifically, large, rural census blocks with 

low population densities, such as those on tribal lands. Additionally, as 

discussed above, FCC undertook a one-time special data collection for 

Mobility Fund II to ensure that the mobile broadband data it collected 

would be reliable for the intended use. By developing and implementing 

methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on 

broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be able to better 

identify tribal areas without access to broadband and to target federal 

broadband funding to the tribal areas most in need.

 49 This requirement applies only to locations that were deployed or upgraded with Connect 

America Funds after May 25, 2016. Under this data collection, FCC requires providers to 

report broadband as available at locations where (1) there is a current subscriber, or (2) a 

provider could offer service within 10 days upon request, and to report maximum 

available—not actual—speeds. FCC began collecting geolocation data from some carriers 

in 2016 and is expanding this requirement to remaining recipients of Universal Service 

Funds on a rolling basis. 32 FCC Rcd 6329 (2017).
Page 28 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

FCC uses data submitted by broadband providers via the Form 477 

process to develop maps and datasets depicting broadband services 

nationwide, and in specific locations, such as tribal lands, but does not 

have a formal process to obtain input from tribes on the accuracy of the 

broadband data. FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan noted the need for 

the federal government to improve the quality of data regarding 

broadband on tribal lands and recommended that FCC work with tribes to 

ensure that any information collected is accurate and useful. It also noted 

that tribal representatives should have the opportunity to review mapping 

data about tribal lands and offer supplemental data or corrections. 

Similarly, federal internal control standards note the need for federal 

agencies to communicate with external entities, such as tribal 

governments, and to enable these entities to provide quality information 

to the agency that will help it achieve its objectives.50 FCC officials told us 

that they address questions and concerns regarding provider coverage 

claims submitted to the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, which will work 

with tribal governments to help them identify inaccurate broadband data 

for tribal lands, and share tribal questions and concerns with the 

appropriate FCC bureaus.

51 However, FCC does not have a formal 

process for tribes (or other governmental entities) to provide input to

ensure that the broadband data FCC collects through the 477 process, or 

the resulting maps that FCC creates to depict broadband on tribal lands, 

are accurate. Similarly, FCC does not use other methods to verify 

 50 GAO-14-704G.

51 FCC officials also stated that they conducted a more proactive outreach campaign to 

inform tribes of the ability to participate in the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge process, 

which is discussed earlier and later in this report.

FCC Does Not Have 

a Formal Process to 

Obtain Tribal Input on 

Its Broadband Data, 

and Tribal 

Stakeholders 

Reported a Lack of 

Provider Engagement

FCC Does Not Have a

Formal Process to Obtain 

Tribal Input on Its 

Broadband Data
Page 29 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

provider-submitted Form 477 data on tribal lands against other sources of 

information, such as on-site tests or data collected by other agencies.52

When discussing the lack of a formal process for tribal representatives or 

other governmental entities to provide feedback on the accuracy of the 

477 broadband data, FCC officials noted that if consumers and local 

officials have information on individual locations that lack broadband 

service, such information does not indicate that the entire census block 

lacks broadband service. Additionally, FCC officials noted that providers 

attest to the accuracy of the data and that FCC staff validate the data by 

conducting internal checks to identify possible errors, such as unlikely 

changes in a providers’ coverage area, and may follow-up with a provider 

to discuss such changes. However, these checks do not include soliciting 

input from tribes.

About half of the tribal stakeholders we spoke to raised concerns that 

FCC’s broadband deployment data rely solely on unverified information 

submitted by providers. Additionally, most tribal stakeholders we 

interviewed told us that consistent with the recommendations in the 

National Broadband Plan, FCC should work directly with tribes to obtain 

information from them to improve the accuracy of its broadband 

deployment data for tribal lands. These stakeholders identified several 

ways in which FCC could work with tribes on this issue, including:

• conducting on-site visits with tribal stakeholders to observe the extent 

to which broadband infrastructure and services are present;53

• conducting outreach and technical assistance for tribal stakeholders 

to raise awareness and use of FCC’s broadband data; and

• providing opportunities for the tribes to collect their own data or submit 

feedback regarding the accuracy of FCC’s data.

 52 For example, USDA’s Rural Utilities Service sends field representatives to verify the 

presence or absence of broadband infrastructure before funding broadband grant projects. 

The field representatives may meet with local representatives as well as local providers, in 

addition to identifying any existing broadband infrastructure and testing the performance of 

the services provided. However, FCC officials said that they do not have the resources to 

conduct field tests of the data.

53 FCC has done such site visits in the past and reported on discrepancies between their 

observations of broadband infrastructure on tribal lands and the National Broadband Map, 

noting, “[w]e walked along a route where a carrier had reported broadband service via 

fiber on the National Broadband Map, yet saw none.” Federal Communications 

Commission, Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report (2012).
Page 30 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

FCC’s National Broadband Plan notes the importance of supporting tribal 

efforts to build technical expertise with respect to broadband issues, and 

federal internal control standards state that federal agencies should 

obtain quality information from external entities.54 Officials we interviewed 

in FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy told us that they provide some 

outreach and technical assistance to tribal officials at regional and 

national workshops, and FCC officials stated that they conducted specific 

outreach to tribal entities regarding the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge 

process,55 while, about half of the tribal representatives we spoke to 

stated that they were not aware of the Form 477 data or corresponding 

maps, or raised concerns about a lack of outreach from FCC to inform 

tribes about the data. Some tribal stakeholders stated that if FCC were to 

solicit tribal input as part of its verification of the broadband data and 

maps, technical training and assistance could help tribes use and provide 

feedback on the data, or improve the collection and submission of their 

own data. A few of the stakeholders we interviewed noted that tribes can 

face difficulties when they attempt to challenge FCC’s broadband 

availability data. For example, in 2013, prior to the auction that distributed 

Tribal Mobility Fund Phase 1 support, FCC allowed interested parties to 

challenge FCC’s preliminary determinations regarding which census 

blocks lacked 3G or better service and would be eligible for support in the 

auctions.56 However, all of the tribal entities that challenged the accuracy 

of FCC’s data were unsuccessful in increasing the number of eligible 

areas. According to FCC officials, the tribal entities did not provide 

sufficient or sufficiently verifiable information to support their challenges. 

A few tribal stakeholders provided varying reasons for this, one of which 

was the need for more technical expertise to help the tribe meet FCC’s 

requirements.

 54 GAO-14-704G.

55 In commenting on a draft of this report, FCC described its outreach to tribal entities 

regarding the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge process as sending e-mails to the leaders 

and information technology managers of all 573 federally recognized tribes, conference 

calls and webinars open to all tribes, formal presentations at multiple inter-tribal 

conferences around the country, and a session at a tribal workshop conducted at the Lac 

du Flambeau Reservation in Wisconsin that was open to all tribes. 

56 In 2011, as part of its reform to the Universal Service Fund programs and the 

establishment of new funding mechanisms, FCC decided to use data from a third-party 

source to identify census blocks without wireless coverage, stating that it could not use 

Form 477 data due to a lack of census block-level data for wireless service or data from 

the National Broadband Map due to concerns regarding inconsistencies in how wireless 

services were reported. 
Page 31 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Because FCC lacks a formal process to obtain tribal input on its 

broadband data, FCC is missing an important source of information 

regarding areas in which the data may overstate broadband service on 

tribal lands. Tribal stakeholders are able to provide a first-hand 

perspective on the extent to which service is available within their lands 

and the extent to which factors like affordability, service quality, and 

service denials affect residents’ ability to access broadband. FCC plans to

award nearly $2 billion in support from the Connect America Fund to 

areas that it has identified as lacking broadband, including tribal lands.

Any inaccuracies in its broadband data could affect FCC’s funding 

decisions and the ability of tribal lands to access broadband in the 

future.

57 Additionally, in its 2017 report on tribal infrastructure, the 

National Congress of American Indians stressed the importance of 

including tribal governments in a leadership role with respect to collecting 

data on local infrastructure needs.58 Specifically, it stressed the need for 

the federal government to invest in tribal data systems and researchers to 

generate useful, locally specific data that can inform the development and 

implementation of infrastructure development projects and assess the 

effectiveness of those projects over time. By establishing a process to 

obtain input from tribal governments on the accuracy of providersubmitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical 

assistance, as recommended in the National Broadband Plan, FCC could 

help tribes develop and share locally specific information on broadband 

access, which would in turn improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband 

data for tribal lands. The success of such an effort may rely on the tribes’ 

knowledge of, and technical ability to participate in, the process.

 57 As part of Connect America Fund Phase II, FCC is conducting a reverse auction by 

which providers submit bids for support to provide fixed broadband service to specific 

unserved areas. The auction is scheduled to begin July 24, 2018. FCC is not conducting a 

challenge process to determine whether any census blocks are incorrectly listed as having 

fixed broadband service, although it has conducted challenge processes in the past before 

awarding funds. In explaining this decision, FCC stated that a prior challenge process was 

time consuming and administratively burdensome, and it was difficult for challengers to 

prove that a company was not serving an area it claimed to serve. FCC also stated that 

the 477 data was reliable because providers are required to file the data and attest to its 

accuracy. In the Matter of Connect America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, 

Rural Broadband Experiments, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 5949 ¶¶ 58-59 (2016).

58 National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Tribal Infrastructure: Investing in Indian 

Country for a Stronger America, An initial report by NCAI to the Administration and 

Congress, 2017.
Page 32 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

When discussing the need to improve data regarding broadband on tribal 

lands, FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended that FCC 

develop a process for tribes to receive information from providers about 

broadband services on tribal lands. In 2011, FCC required that Eligible 

Telecommunications Carriers (providers receiving Universal Service 

Funds from FCC) serving tribal lands meaningfully engage with tribes 

regarding communications services (including broadband).59 Specifically, 

the providers must file an annual report documenting that this 

engagement included a discussion of, among other things, a needs 

assessment and deployment planning for communications services, 

including broadband. FCC’s 2012 guidance on fulfilling the engagement 

obligations, which FCC officials confirmed is still in effect, noted that the 

stated goal of the engagement requirement was to benefit tribal 

government leaders, providers, and consumers by fostering a dialogue 

between tribal governments and providers that would lead to improved 

services on tribal lands. The guidance further noted that the tribal 

engagement process “cannot be viewed as simply another ‘check the 

box’ requirement by either party,” and states that a provider should 

“demonstrate repeated good faith efforts to meaningfully engage with the 

tribal government.”60 Finally, FCC noted in its 2012 guidance that the 

guidance would evolve over time based on the feedback of both tribal 

governments and broadband providers and that FCC would develop 

further guidance and best practices.61 This approach is consistent with 

federal internal control standards, which call for agencies to communicate 

with, and obtain quality information from, external parties.62

About half of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed raised concerns about 

difficulties accessing information from providers regarding broadband 

deployment on their tribe’s lands, a key part of the provider engagement 

process, according to FCC’s guidance. For example, a representative 

from one tribe stated that a provider declined his requests to meet more 

 59 In the Matter of Connect America Fund, Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011).

60 Office of Native Affairs and Policy, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline 

Competition Bureau Issue Further Guidance on Tribal Government Engagement 

Obligation Provisions of the Connect America Fund, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 8176 

(2012).

61 27 FCC Rcd 8176 (2012).

62 GAO-14-704G.

Half of the Tribal 

Stakeholders We 

Interviewed Reported a 

Lack of Provider 

Engagement
Page 33 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

than once a year to discuss the provider’s deployment of broadband 

services on the tribe’s land. A representative from another tribal 

government stated that some providers are very focused and transparent 

about their broadband plans and work with the tribe, while other providers 

treat tribal engagement as a “box to check” and send the tribe broadband 

deployment information that is not useful because it is redacted. Similarly, 

some tribal stakeholders stated that providers heavily redacted 

deployment information (which providers may consider proprietary) or 

required the tribe sign non-disclosure agreements to access deployment 

data. According to one tribal stakeholder, these non-disclosure 

agreements could possibly require tribes to waive tribal sovereign 

immunity in order to view the data.

Some of the industry stakeholders we interviewed stated that they 

attempt to engage with tribes but the level of responsiveness from tribes 

varies. For example, some stakeholders stated that they send letters and 

do not hear back from tribes. One stakeholder stated that they make 

repeated attempts to contact tribes when they do not hear back after their 

initial contact, while another stated that a provider meets regularly with 

some tribes.

Although FCC stated in its 2012 guidance that it would update the tribal 

engagement guidance and develop best practices based on feedback 

from tribal governments and broadband providers, it has taken limited 

steps to obtain such feedback from providers and tribal governments to 

determine whether its guidance is enabling meaningful tribal engagement. 

Additionally, FCC has not updated the guidance or issued best 

practices.63 Thus, FCC has limited information regarding whether its tribal 

engagement requirement is fulfilling its intended purpose. FCC officials 

we interviewed said that the Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) 

provided information and, in some cases, held training sessions about the 

tribal engagement obligation during workshops with tribal representatives, 

and encouraged representatives to contact ONAP with any concerns. 

ONAP officials also noted that they handle complaints from tribes 

regarding a lack of provider engagement and reach out to providers to 

address tribal concerns. ONAP officials stated that they have had internal 

discussions about whether the guidance is clear or needs revision, but 

 63 Office of Native Affairs and Policy, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline 

Competition Bureau Issue Further Guidance on Tribal Government Engagement 

Obligation Provisions of the Connect America Fund, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 8176 

(2012).
Page 34 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

this has not gone beyond internal discussions.64 A few of the tribal 

stakeholders provided examples of the benefits of providers engaging 

with tribes to ensure tribal representatives have access to information 

regarding broadband availability on their lands. For example, one 

representative stated that this information could help the tribes plan 

deployments by focusing on areas that they know the provider does not 

plan to serve. Another representative stated that tribal engagement could 

help improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband maps. By obtaining 

feedback from both tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness 

of FCC’s tribal engagement guidance to determine whether changes are 

needed, FCC would be better positioned to ensure that tribal 

governments and providers are sharing information in a manner that will 

lead to improved services on tribal lands.

FCC has collected data and developed maps and reports depicting 

broadband on tribal lands and has noted the lower levels of broadband 

access on tribal lands, in comparison to other areas. However, limitations 

in FCC’s existing process for collecting and reporting broadband data 

have led FCC to overstate broadband access on tribal lands. By taking 

steps to address these limitations and to collect data that more accurately 

and completely depict broadband access on tribal lands, FCC would have 

greater assurance that it is making progress on reducing the digital divide 

on tribal lands and targeting broadband funding to tribal lands most in 

need. Without taking these steps, FCC increases the risk that residents 

living on tribal lands will continue to lack broadband access.

Compounding the limitations in FCC’s data collection process is FCC’s 

lack of a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of providersubmitted broadband data for tribal lands. By developing a process to 

solicit tribal input and ensuring that tribes know about the process and are 

equipped with the technical skills and abilities necessary to provide this 

information, FCC would be better able to ensure the accuracy of its 

broadband data for tribal lands. Moreover, FCC would be able to obtain 

firsthand, locally specific information on broadband access that could 

inform FCC’s policies and funding decisions and help FCC achieve its 

goal of increasing broadband access for all Americans, including those 

 64 FCC officials also noted that industry stakeholders filed petitions for reconsideration of 

the tribal engagement obligation and FCC’s 2012 guidance (these petitions cited concerns 

with FCC’s process for developing the requirements, among others), but noted that these 

petitions remain pending.

Conclusions
Page 35 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

living on tribal lands. Finally, by obtaining feedback from providers and 

tribal stakeholders on the effectiveness of FCC’s tribal engagement 

guidance, FCC would be better positioned to assess whether its guidance 

is helping providers meet requirements and ultimately whether providers’ 

engagement is fulling its intended purpose of fostering a dialogue 

between tribal governments and providers that would lead to improved 

services on tribal lands.

We are making the following three recommendations to the Chairman of 

the Federal Communications Commission.

• The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should 

develop and implement methods—such as a targeted data 

collection—for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on 

broadband access specific to tribal lands. (Recommendation 1)

• The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should 

develop a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of 

provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and 

technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process. 

(Recommendation 2)

• The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should 

obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the 

effectiveness of FCC’s 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill 

their tribal engagement requirements to determine whether FCC 

needs to clarify the agency’s tribal engagement statement. 

(Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for review and comment. In 

written comments provided by FCC (reproduced in appendix III), FCC 

agreed with our findings and recommendations. In its written comments, 

FCC described efforts, some of which are already under way, that it felt 

would address each recommendation and stated its intent to build upon

those efforts. For example, FCC explained that it is exploring methods to 

collect more granular broadband deployment data and noted the need to 

balance the burden on Form 477 filers. FCC also noted that it is starting 

work to address a statutorily-required evaluation of broadband coverage 

on certain tribal lands. We agree that increasing the granularity of 

deployment data is helpful in addressing data accuracy issues, but we 

also note that it is important to collect data related to factors that affect 

broadband access on tribal lands. 

Recommendations

Agency Comments 
Page 36 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

FCC also described informal efforts to collect tribal feedback on providers’ 

broadband data and stated it would explore options for a formal process 

to collect feedback. Regarding our recommendation related to providers’ 

engagement efforts, FCC outlined its existing methods by which tribal 

stakeholders can provide feedback on providers’ engagement efforts and 

agreed that seeking additional feedback from tribal stakeholders and 

providers would be desirable. We agree that improving feedback in these 

ways could help FCC determine whether it needs to clarify its tribal 

engagement statement. FCC also provided technical comments, which 

we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, 

and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix IV.

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: List of Interviewees

Page 37 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Representatives from tribal governments or tribally owned broadband providers

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (OK)

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (WA)

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (MN)

Fort Belknap Indian Community (MT)

Gila River Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ)

Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ)

Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe (WA)

Karuk Tribe (CA)

Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe (MN)

Makah Tribe (WA)

Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (AZ, NM, UT)

Nez Perce Tribe (ID)

Osage Nation (OK)

Pueblo of Acoma (NM)

Pueblo of Pojoaque (NM)

Pueblo of San Ildefonso (NM)

Taos Pueblo (NM)

Red Spectrum Communications (Coeur d’Alene Tribe (ID))

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Networks, LLC (NY)

San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc. (AZ)

Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association - Tribal Digital Village Network (CA)

Spokane Tribe of Indians and Spokane Tribe Telecom Exchange (WA)

Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. (ND, SD)

Warm Springs Telecommunications Co. (OR)

Yurok Tribe and Yurok Connect (CA)

Representatives from tribal associations/consortiums that include tribes

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians

Middle Rio Grande Pueblo Consortium

National Congress of American Indians

National Tribal Telecommunications Association

Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)

REDINet

Representatives from companies/academic groups that work with tribes

AMERIND Risk

Arizona State University, American Indian Policy Institute and School of Public Affairs 

Appendix I: List of Interviewees
Appendix I: List of Interviewees

Page 38 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Mobius Legal Group PLLC

Turtle Island Communications

Representatives from providers/trade associations (non-tribally owned)

AT&T

CenturyLink

CTIA

Commnet

Frontier

Inland Cellular

King Street Wireless

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative

NTCA

Pine Telephone Company

Rural Wireless Association

Verizon

a

Representatives from companies that collect broadband data

Alexicon

Connected Nation

Government Agencies (non-tribal)

Census Bureau

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service

Federal Communications Commission

Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs

National Telecommunications and Information Administration

Housing and Urban Development

Indian Health Service

Minnesota Office of Broadband Development

Source: GAO. | GAO-18-630

a

One broadband provider we interviewed did not want to be included in this appendix.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

This report discusses the extent to which: (1) the Federal 

Communications Commission’s (FCC) approach to collecting broadband 

availability data accurately captures the ability of Americans living on 

tribal lands to access broadband Internet services and (2) FCC obtains 

tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data for 

tribal lands.

To address both objectives, we analyzed FCC’s December 2016 fixed 

and mobile broadband availability data—the most recent data at the time 

of our review—to identify the speeds, technologies, and availability 

providers reported for federally recognized tribal lands.1 Providers 

currently report this information to FCC by filing a “Form 477,” twice a 

year. We also used 2010 U.S. Census data to identify census blocks 

completely or partially on tribal lands. To assess the reliability of FCC’s 

data and 2010 U.S. Census data, we reviewed a previous GAO reliability 

assessment, and for FCC’s data we conducted electronic testing and 

analysis of the data, reviewed FCC guidance and documentation, and 

interviewed FCC officials.2 Based on the results of our analysis, we 

determined the data to be reliable for our purposes, which were: (1) to 

inform our selection of tribal governments and providers for interviews 

and visits, as described below, and (2) to develop maps depicting fixed 

and mobile broadband availability for the nine tribal lands we selected for 

visits, in order to obtain tribal representatives’ feedback on the data. 

Specifically, we mapped;

• fixed broadband data according to speed and technology, and

 1 We defined federally recognized tribal lands consistent with FCC’s definition in its 2018 

Broadband Deployment Report. Specifically, we considered tribal lands to be: (1) Join Use 

Areas; (2) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation and 

associated off-reservation trust land; (3) legal federally recognized American Indian area 

consisting of reservation only; (4) legal federally recognized American Indian area 

consisting of off-reservation trust land only; (5) Statistical American Indian area defined for 

a federally recognized tribe that does not have reservation or off-reservation trust land, 

specifically a Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical 

Area (OTSA); (6) Alaskan Native village statistical area; and (7) Hawaiian Home Lands 

established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. See 33 FCC Rcd 1660 ¶¶ 

31-32 (2018).

2 We reviewed the data reliability assessment from GAO, Broadband: Additional 

Stakeholder Input Could Inform FCC Actions to Promote Competition, GAO-17-742 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept.19, 2017). 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

• mobile data for long-term evolution (LTE) services by provider for 

each tribal land.3

We used those maps during our visits to discuss the accuracy of the data 

with representatives for each tribal government or tribally owned provider. 

Though we analyzed all up and download speeds that providers reported 

in the Form 477, for the purposes of this report we defined “broadband” 

as fixed Internet service reaching at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps) 

download and 3 Mbps upload speeds, in accordance with FCC’s 

advanced telecommunications capability benchmark in its 2018 

Broadband Deployment Report.4 We also report on the availability of 

mobile broadband, which, for the purposes of this report, does not have a 

speed threshold and refers to long-term evolution (LTE) services.

To address both objectives and obtain tribal government representatives’ 

feedback on the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for their lands, we 

interviewed representatives from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned 

providers, including visits to 9 tribal lands. We considered a range of 

factors when we selected tribal governments and tribally owned providers 

for interviews, including our analysis of Form 477 data, recommendations 

from tribal, industry, or government stakeholders regarding tribal and nontribal representatives familiar with broadband data issues, and 

demographic and geographic characteristics, among others. For example, 

we considered demographic characteristics such as unemployment rate 

from the 2011– 2015 American Community Survey data, and geographic 

characteristics such as rurality from the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes data. The tribes 

included in our review vary with respect to location, level of broadband 

availability according to FCC, land mass, and population size and density. 

The results of our interviews are not generalizable to all tribal 

governments or tribally owned broadband providers. In addition to tribal 

governments and tribally owned providers, we interviewed six tribal 

organizations and four stakeholders who work with tribes on broadband 

issues. For reporting purposes, we developed the following series of 

indefinite quantifiers to describe the tribal responses from the 35 entities 

representing tribal stakeholders we interviewed:

• 3 to 7 is defined as “a few;”

 3 LTE is an industry standard that is part of the fourth generation of wireless 

telecommunications technology, which is currently in common use. 

4 33 FCC Rcd 1660 ¶¶ 31-32 (2018).
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

• 8 to 15 is described as “some;”

• 16 to 20 is described as “about half;”

• 21 to 27 is described as “most;” and

• 28 to 34 is described as “almost all.”

A full list of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed can be found in 

appendix I.

Further, to obtain industry perspectives, we reviewed public comments 

submitted by providers and industry associations in FCC’s ongoing 2017 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Modernizing the Form 477 Data 

Program.

5 We also interviewed 10 non-tribally owned fixed and mobile 

broadband providers and three industry associations to understand 

providers’ views on the Form 477 and how providers interact with tribal 

governments. When selecting providers for interviews, we included 

providers that reported serving the lands of tribal governments we 

interviewed and selected providers that varied in the percentage of tribal 

lands they reported serving. The providers we interviewed represent 

large, nationwide carriers as well as small, local carriers, and offer 

broadband via a variety of technologies, including fiber optics, digital 

subscriber line (DSL), fixed wireless, and mobile LTE.6 The results of our 

interviews with providers are not generalizable to all broadband providers. 

In addition, to address both objectives, we interviewed representatives 

from other government entities, as well as private companies that collect 

and report broadband data. A full list of the industry stakeholders we 

interviewed can be found in appendix I.

To identify the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband 

availability data reflects the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to 

actually access broadband Internet services, we reviewed documentation 

of the Form 477 process, including submission guidance, and FCC’s 

proposals and public comments in its 2017 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking on Modernizing the Form 477 Data Program and Mobility 

 5 Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

32 FCC Rcd 6329 (2017).

6 Digital subscriber line (DSL) service typically refers to Internet services delivered over 

traditional copper phone lines.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Fund Phase II proceedings.7 We also interviewed FCC officials, industry 

stakeholders, and tribally owned broadband providers to understand 

FCC’s current process for collecting broadband data. To understand the 

purpose of the Form 477 data collection process and FCC’s strategic 

goals, we reviewed relevant statutes, and FCC documents, including 

FCC’s Strategic Plan 2018––2022, the National Broadband Plan, and 

FCC’s broadband deployment and progress reports.

8 Given the

importance placed on broadband access in these documents, we 

interviewed tribal stakeholders, as described above and reviewed FCC 

documents to identify factors affecting the ability of Americans living on 

tribal lands to access broadband Internet services. We also reviewed 

previous GAO work that identified barriers to broadband access on tribal 

lands.9 We compared the Form 477 process to FCC’s strategic goals and 

to factors affecting broadband access to determine the extent to which 

the Form 477 was designed to collect information on those factors and to 

meet FCC’s goals. We further evaluated this information against the 

Government Performance and Results Act, as enhanced by the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010 and Standards for Internal Control in the 

Federal Government.

10 We also reviewed documentation for other FCC 

data collection programs, including the Measuring Broadband America

program and the Urban Rate Survey, to determine the extent to which 

FCC collected data on factors affecting broadband access outside of the 

Form 477 process.

To determine the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy 

of provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands, we interviewed 

FCC officials and analyzed FCC documents regarding the collection 

 7 32 FCC Rcd 6329 (2017); Connect America Fund Universal Service Reform—Mobility 

Fund, Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6282 (2017); 

Instructions for Filing 4G LTE Coverage Data to Determine Areas Presumptively Eligible 

for Mobility Fund II Support, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 7023 (2017).

8 Communications Act of 1934, Pub. L. No. 73-416, 48 Stat. 1064 (1934), as amended by 

Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 706, 110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996) 

(codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 151); FCC, Strategic Plan 2018-2022 (Washington, 

D.C.); 33 FCC Rcd 1660 ¶¶ 31-32 (2018); 31 FCC Rcd 699 (2016).

9 GAO, Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement 

Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, GAO-16-222 

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2016)

10 Government Performance and Results Act, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993), 

as enhanced by GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866, 

3867 (2011). (codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1115(b)(2), (6)); GAO, Standards for Internal Control 

in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2014).
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

procedures for the Form 477 data and FCC’s policies for working with 

tribal governments, as well as Connect America Fund documents 

regarding requirements for providers to share information with tribal 

governments.11 We also reviewed documents on past FCC Universal 

Service Fund processes to challenge broadband data and identified prior 

instances in which tribal governments or tribally owned providers 

challenged FCC’s broadband data and the outcomes of those challenges. 

Additionally, we interviewed tribal stakeholders, as described above, to 

understand the extent to which: (1) FCC involves tribal governments and 

other stakeholders in the validation of Form 477 broadband data, (2) tribal 

governments can access broadband data from FCC or providers, and (3) 

FCC’s Form 477 data accurately reflected broadband access on their 

lands. For the nine tribal lands we visited, we asked tribal governments or 

tribally owned providers to identify where the data do or do not accurately 

reflect broadband access on maps of FCC’s data. Further, to identify how 

providers complied with FCC’s tribal engagement requirement and obtain 

their perspectives, we interviewed providers and industry associations. 

We compared FCC’s data validation procedures and tribal stakeholders’ 

feedback on the process to FCC’s policies for working with tribal 

governments, FCC recommendations from the National Broadband Plan

and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

12 We also 

interviewed and received written comments from officials from other 

federal agencies that have broadband programs, including USDA Rural 

Utilities Service, the National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), and others, in addition to a state agency and three 

private companies that collect and report broadband data to understand 

how other entities collect and validate broadband data.13

We conducted this performance audit from June 2017 to September 2018 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

 11 Statement of Policy on Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with 

Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000). 47 C.F.R. § 54.313 (a)(5); 

Further Guidance on Tribal Government Engagement Obligation Provisions of the 

Connect America Fund, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 8176 (2012).

12 Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Notice of Inquiry and Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 6657 (2010); GAO-14-704G

13 We received written comments from one company that collects broadband data.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 45 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 46 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 47 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 48 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 49 GAO-18-630 Tribal Broadband Data

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant 

Director); Crystal Huggins (Analyst in Charge); Katherine Blair; Lilia 

Chaidez; Camilo Flores; Adam Gomez; Serena Lo; Jeffery Malcolm; John 

Mingus; Joshua Ormond; Jay Spaan; James Sweetman, Jr.; Elaine 

Vaurio; and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(102121)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.