TRIBAL 

BROADBAND

FCC Should 

Undertake Efforts to 

Better Promote Tribal 

Access to Spectrum

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2018

GAO-19-75

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-19-75, a report to 

congressional requesters

November 2018

TRIBAL BROADBAND 

FCC Should Undertake Efforts to Better Promote 

Tribal Access to Spectrum

What GAO Found

The tribal entities GAO contacted cited various barriers to obtaining spectrum 

licenses in bands that can be used to provide broadband services. According to 

its analysis of data from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), GAO 

identified 18 tribal entities that held active spectrum licenses in such bands. For 

example, of these 18 tribal entities, 4 obtained licenses through secondary 

market transactions—that is, they bought or leased the license from another 

provider, and 2 obtained a license through an FCC spectrum auction. Licensed 

spectrum is generally preferred because it offers better quality of service 

compared to unlicensed spectrum; however, almost all of the tribal entities GAO 

contacted said that they are accessing unlicensed spectrum to provide Internet 

service. They identified barriers to obtaining licensed spectrum through auctions 

and secondary market transactions, barriers such as high costs and, in the case 

of secondary market transactions, a lack of information on who holds licenses 

over tribal lands. Because most spectrum allocated for commercial use has 

already been assigned, the secondary market is one of very few avenues 

available to tribal entities that would like to access licensed spectrum.

FCC has taken steps to promote and support tribal access to spectrum. For 

example, FCC issued proposed rulemakings in 2011 and 2018 that sought 

comment on tribal-specific proposals, such as establishing tribal-licensing 

priorities and initiating processes to transfer unused spectrum licenses to tribal 

entities. However, FCC has not finalized these rules and is in the process of 

responding to comments to the 2018 rulemaking. Also, while FCC has made

additional spectrum available for broadband use in recent years, tribal

stakeholders cited limitations with the spectrum FCC has made available. For 

example, FCC allows broadband providers to operate in unused television

broadcast bands on an unlicensed basis. While stakeholders GAO interviewed 

cited some advantages of these bands, such as being useful to reach remote 

customers, they also noted technical and cost limitations that reduced the 

potential to improve tribal access to spectrum. FCC stated that it is implementing 

spectrum initiatives and recognizes the importance of promoting a robust 

secondary market to improve communications throughout the United States, 

including tribal lands. However, GAO found that FCC has not collected data

related to tribal access to spectrum, analyzed unused licensed spectrum that 

exists over tribal lands, or made data available to tribal entities in an accessible 

and easy manner that could be beneficial in their efforts to obtain spectrum 

licenses from other providers. By collecting data on the extent that tribal entities 

are obtaining and accessing spectrum, FCC could better understand tribal 

spectrum issues and use this information as it implements ongoing spectrum 

initiatives. Further, given that the secondary market is one of few ways for tribal 

entities to access licensed spectrum to be able to provide Internet service, FCC 

could promote a more robust secondary market by analyzing unused licensed 

spectrum over tribal lands and using that information to inform FCC’s oversight 

of the secondary market. Additionally, by making information available on who 

holds spectrum licenses over tribal lands, FCC could remove a barrier tribes may 

face in attempting to obtain spectrum through the secondary market.

View GAO-19-75. For more information, 

contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 

or goldsteinm@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

In 2018, FCC estimated that 35 

percent of Americans living on tribal 

lands lack broadband service 

compared to 8 percent of Americans 

overall. Broadband service can be 

delivered through wireless 

technologies using radio frequency 

spectrum. According to FCC,

increasing tribal access to spectrum 

would help expand broadband service 

on tribal lands. GAO was asked to 

review spectrum use by tribal entities—

tribal governments and tribally owned 

telecommunications providers.

This report examines (1) tribal entities’

ability to obtain and access spectrum 

to provide broadband services and the 

reported barriers that may exist, and 

(2) the extent to which FCC promotes 

and supports tribal efforts to obtain and 

access spectrum. GAO interviewed 16 

tribal entities that were using wireless 

technologies. Selected entities varied 

geographically, among other 

characteristics. GAO analyzed FCC’s 

license and auction data as of 

September 2018, reviewed FCC’s 

rulemakings on spectrum for 

broadband services, and interviewed 

other tribal and industry stakeholders 

and FCC officials. The information 

presented is not generalizable to all 

tribes or industry participants.

What GAO Recommends

FCC should (1) collect data on tribal 

access to spectrum; (2) analyze

unused licensed spectrum over tribal 

lands; and (3) make information 

available in a more accessible manner 

that would promote tribes’ ability to 

purchase or lease spectrum licenses 

over their lands from other providers.

FCC agreed with the 

recommendations.
Page i GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Letter 1

Background 5

Selected Tribal Entities Reported Barriers to Obtaining Licensed 

Spectrum 12

FCC Has Some Efforts to Enhance Tribal Access to Spectrum, but 

FCC Does Not Collect or Communicate Key Information to 

Tribal Entities 20

Conclusions 29

Recommendations for Executive Action 29

Agency Comments 30

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 31

Appendix II Auctioned Licensed Spectrum Available for Commercial 

Broadband Services 36

Appendix III Comments from the Federal Communications Commission 39

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 41

Tables

Table 1: Limitations of Unlicensed Spectrum Identified by 

Tribal Entities 15

Table 2: List of Entities Interviewed 32

Table 3: Auctioned Licensed Spectrum Frequency Bands the 

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Has Made 

Available for Commercial Broadband Services 36

Figures

Figure 1: Fixed and Mobile Wireless Broadband 7

Figure 2: Examples of Spectrum Frequency Bands Available for 

Commercial Broadband Services 9

Contents
Page ii GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Figure 3: Proposals Made in Federal Communications 

Commission’s (FCC) 2011 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to Promote Tribal Access to 

Spectrum 21

Abbreviations

AWS Advanced Wireless Services

CBRS Citizens Broadband Radio Service

FCC Federal Communications Commission 

GHz gigahertz 

Mbps megabits per second 

MHz megahertz 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

ONAP Office of Native Affairs and Policy 

PCS Personal Communications Service 

WCS Wireless Communication Services

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-19-75 Tribal Broadband

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 14, 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 service is viewed as vital to economic growth and improved 

quality of life across the country. In 2018, the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) reported that an estimated 35 percent of Americans 

living on tribal lands lack access to broadband services, compared to 8 

percent of all Americans.1 Furthermore, the gap in broadband access 

between rural areas and rural tribal lands is even larger. In particular, 

FCC reported in 2018 that nearly 60 percent of Americans living on rural 

tribal lands nationwide lack broadband access, compared to about 31 

percent of rural Americans overall.2 We have previously reported that 

 1

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). As of September 24, 2018, there were 573 

federally recognized Indian tribes. Federally recognized tribes have a government-togovernment relationship with the United States and are eligible to receive certain 

protections, services, and benefits by virtue of their status as Indian tribes. In this report, 

the term “tribal lands” refers to any federally recognized Indian tribe’s reservation, offreservation trust lands, pueblo, or colony; land held in trust by the federal government for 

Indian(s); and Alaska Native regions established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act, but do not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas.

2

Levels of broadband access may vary between specific tribal lands, which may not be 

reflected in these nationwide figures. We previously reported that FCC’s broadband data 

overstate broadband access on tribal lands. As such, it is possible that the percentage of 

Americans living on tribal lands that lack broadband access is higher than reported. See 

GAO, Broadband Internet: FCC’s Data Overstate Access Tribal Lands, GAO-18-630

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 7, 2018).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

tribal lands can have challenging terrain and low population densities that 

increase the cost and reduce business incentives for high-speed Internet 

deployment.3 According to FCC, this lack of service on tribal lands could 

impede efforts by Indian tribes to achieve self-governance and promote 

economic opportunity, education, public safety, and cultural preservation. 

Broadband service can be delivered through wireless technologies using 

radio frequency spectrum.4 According to FCC, wireless technologies are 

cost-effective for some remote and sparsely populated areas compared to 

wireline broadband technologies, such as buried fiber optic or copper 

cables, which can be costly to install where there is challenging terrain.5

According to FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan, some tribes have 

successfully used wireless technologies to deliver Internet access, and

increasing tribal access to and use of spectrum would create additional 

opportunities to expand broadband service on tribal lands.6 Congress has 

delegated responsibility for regulating commercial and other nonfederal 

spectrum use to FCC, and as part of its responsibilities, FCC assigns 

spectrum licenses through auctions and other mechanisms; oversees 

secondary market transactions, such as leasing a spectrum license;7 and 

promulgates regulations for the use of licensed and unlicensed 

spectrum.8 FCC has asserted that its authority to regulate nonfederal 

spectrum use applies to the spectrum over tribal lands. In FCC’s 2000 

policy statement on establishing its relationship with tribes, FCC stated 

that it recognizes that the federal government has a fiduciary 

responsibility in its dealings with tribes and has a longstanding policy of 

 3

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).

4

Spectrum is the part of the natural spectrum of electromagnetic radiation lying between 

the frequencies of 3 kilohertz and 300 gigahertz.

5

For additional information on the types of broadband technologies, see, 

https://www.fcc.gov/general/types-broadband-connections.

6

In March 2010, an FCC task force issued the National Broadband Plan that included a 

centralized vision for achieving affordability and maximizing use of high-speed broadband.

See FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

7

FCC promulgates regulations for the secondary market, and its rules permit licensees to 

lease portions of the licensed spectrum rights to others.

8

FCC implements its policy initiatives through a process known as rulemaking, which is 

the government-wide process for creating rules or regulations that implement, interpret, or 

prescribe law or policy. 5 U.S.C. § 551(4), (5).
Page 3 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

promoting tribal self-sufficiency and economic development.

9 As a result, 

FCC has recognized its own general responsibility to tribes.

You asked us to review issues related to spectrum use by tribal entities—

tribal governments and telecommunications providers owned by tribes. 

This report examines (1) tribal entities’ ability to obtain and access 

spectrum to provide broadband services on tribal lands and the reported 

barriers that may exist, and (2) the extent to which FCC promotes and 

supports tribal efforts to obtain and access spectrum for broadband 

services.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant statutes and 

regulations,10 FCC documents, including FCC’s Statement of Policy on 

Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian 

Tribes,

11 the National Broadband Plan,12 FCC’s current strategic plan,13

and academic and government publications identified through a literature 

search of spectrum-related issues on tribal lands.

To obtain information on tribal entities’ ability to obtain and access 

spectrum, we identified tribal entities that have applied to participate in 

FCC’s spectrum auctions or that have obtained spectrum licenses for 

frequency bands that can be used for broadband services by analyzing 

FCC data on (1) the participants in all relevant auctions, and (2) spectrum 

license holders that were active as of September 6, 2018—the date that 

FCC downloaded this data for our review. To identify tribal entities in 

these data, we reviewed the list of federally recognized tribes and 

identified search terms related to these tribes. We then identified partial 

matches between the identified search terms and the FCC data on 

auction applicants and license holders, and manually reviewed these 

matches based on information from interviews, Internet research, and 

professional judgment. Because tribal entities may have applied to 

 9

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

Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000).

10Communications 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. 53, 153 (1996) 

(codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 151).

1116 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000).

12FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

13FCC, Strategic Plan 2018—2022 (Washington, D.C.).
Page 4 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

participate in a spectrum auction or may hold spectrum licenses under 

names that did not include the search terms we identified based on the 

names of federally recognized tribes, there may be additional tribal 

entities that we did not include in our analysis. We also analyzed FCC’s 

license data to determine how tribal entities obtained these licenses, 

including through an FCC auction, administrative assignment, or a 

secondary market transaction. To assess the reliability of FCC’s data, we 

manually reviewed the data and interviewed FCC officials. Based on the 

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

purpose to describe the extent that tribal entities have participated in 

auctions and obtained spectrum licenses; however, our analysis does not 

capture the extent that tribal entities may have obtained a license that is 

no longer active. In addition, we obtained stakeholder views on the 

barriers that tribal entities may face in obtaining spectrum licenses by 

interviewing 24 tribal entities, 3 tribal associations, 7 private providers that 

deliver Internet services over tribal lands, 3 industry associations that 

represent rural and urban telecommunications providers, 3 regional 

consortia, 3 companies that work with tribal entities, and 1 academic 

group. Of the 24 tribal entities we selected to interview, 16 were using 

wireless technologies to provide Internet service.

14 We selected tribal 

entities to have variation in geographic location, level of broadband 

deployment, population size and density, and urban or rural distinction. 

We selected other stakeholders to represent a range of views and those 

with experience working with Indian tribes and broadband service. The 

views presented in our report are not generalizable to those of all 

stakeholders.

To determine the extent that FCC promotes and supports tribal entities’

efforts to obtain and access spectrum, we reviewed relevant FCC 

rulemaking proceedings. We summarized stakeholder perspectives on 

these rulemakings by interviewing the tribal entities, tribal associations, 

regional consortia, industry associations, and private providers noted 

above, and by reviewing public comments submitted by private providers, 

industry and tribal associations, and tribal governments and providers. 

 14While FCC defines broadband as Internet connection speeds of a certain threshold, we 

were not able to identify many tribal entities that were able to provide services at that 

speed. FCC, in its 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, sets a benchmark speed for 

wireline data rates of 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload, but 

does not have a similar benchmark for mobile broadband services. Mbps 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). 33 FCC Rcd 1660 (2018).
Page 5 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

We identified FCC’s efforts to provide tribal entities with spectrum-related 

assistance and communications by interviewing FCC officials and 

reviewing documentation, such as presentations provided at FCC-led 

tribal training workshops, e-mail communications with tribal entities, and 

public notices related to spectrum use over tribal lands. We also 

interviewed FCC officials on the information that they collect, analyze, 

and report related to tribal use of spectrum and reviewed related 

documentation, including the FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy’s 

2012 Annual Report and FCC’s license and auction data.15 We compared 

FCC’s efforts to increase tribal entities’ abilities to obtain and access 

spectrum against recommendations made in FCC’s National Broadband 

Plan,

16 FCC’s current strategic plan,17 and Standards for Internal Control 

in the Federal Government related to using quality information.18

Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in greater detail.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to November 

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 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 certain powers of sovereignty and 

self-government, including some power to manage the use of their 

territory and resources and control economic activity within their 

jurisdiction.19 Some tribal lands include reservations—land set aside by 

treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or 

federal statute or administrative action for the residence or use of an 

 15FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.). This 

is the only report that the Office of Native Affairs and Policy has issued on tribal issues.

16FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

17FCC, Strategic Plan 2018-2022 (Washington, D.C.).

18GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G

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

19See e.g. New Mexico v. Mescalero Apache Tribe, 462 U.S. 324, 335 (1983) (citing 

Merrion v. Jucarilla Apache Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 137 (1982); see Montana v. United 

States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981).

Background
Page 6 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Indian tribe.20 Some tribal lands include parcels with different ownership; 

for example, parcels may be held in trust by the federal government for 

the benefit of a tribe or an individual tribal citizen. Trust and restricted 

lands can affect a tribe’s ability to use their land as collateral to obtain a 

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

the 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. Indian tribes may form governments and 

subsidiaries to help manage tribal affairs including schools, housing, 

health, and economic enterprises.

Internet access in the United States is generally privately financed. 

Broadband providers build infrastructure and sell broadband services to 

individual consumers. We previously reported that tribal lands can have 

conditions that increase the cost of broadband deployment, such as 

remote areas with challenging terrain, which increases construction costs, 

as well as relatively low population densities and incomes that make it 

difficult to recoup deployment costs.21 These conditions may make it less 

likely that a service provider will build or maintain a network. Some tribal 

governments provide Internet access to their members, through an 

information-technology or utility department, and others have created 

their own telecommunications companies to provide services. FCC has 

reported that in many instances, tribal governments must build and pay 

for their own communications infrastructure to ensure Internet access will

be “delivered across Indian Country.”22

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. 

Telecommunications providers use a range of technologies to provide 

 20The land within the reservation may include a mixture (or checkerboard) of tribal trust 

land, individual Indian trust land, and non-Indian land.

21GAO, Telecommunications: Challenges to Assessing and Improving 

Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, GAO-06-189 (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 11, 2006) and GAO-16-222.

22FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report (Washington, D.C.). The 

term “Indian country” refers to all land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the 

jurisdiction of the U.S. government, all dependent Indian communities within U.S. borders, 

and all Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished including 

any rights-of-way running through an allotment. See 18 U.S.C. § 1151.
Page 7 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

broadband service, including cable, fiber, satellite, and wireless. Wireless 

broadband connects users to the Internet using spectrum to transmit data

between the customer’s location and the service provider’s facility, and 

can be transmitted using fixed wireless and mobile technologies, as 

shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Fixed and Mobile Wireless Broadband

a

Satellite communication is also a wireless technology that exchanges data using a satellite in the sky 

and a dish on earth.

Fixed wireless broadband technologies establish an Internet connection 

between fixed points, such as from a radio or antenna that may be 

mounted on a tower, to a stationary wireless device located at a home. 

This technology generally requires a direct line of sight, and can be 

delivered two ways: (1) as a point-to-point transmission—between two 

fixed points—or (2) as a point-to-multipoint transmission—from one point 

to multiple users. Mobile wireless broadband technologies also establish 

a connection to the Internet that requires the installation of antennas, but 
Page 8 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

this technology provides connectivity to customers wherever they are 

covered by service, including while on the move, such as with a cell 

phone.

Spectrum is the resource that makes wireless broadband connections 

possible. Spectrum frequency bands each have different characteristics 

that result in different levels of ability to cover distances, penetrate 

physical objects, and carry large amounts of information. For example, 

lower frequency bands are able to transmit signals that travel greater 

distances, thus requiring the use of fewer antennas, and are able to 

penetrate solid objects. Higher frequency bands are able to transmit more 

data, but are more easily obstructed.

FCC administers spectrum for nonfederal users—such as state, local 

government, and commercial entities—through a system of frequency 

allocation and assignment.23 Allocation involves segmenting the radio 

spectrum into bands of frequencies designated for use by particular types 

of radio services or classes of users, such as commercial and nonfederal 

broadband services. Examples of some of the frequency bands that can 

be used by commercial and nonfederal entities for broadband services 

are shown in figure 2. Appendix II presents a full list of the auctioned 

licensed frequency bands that FCC told us could be used to provide 

broadband services.

 23The Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA) is responsible for managing the federal government’s use of 

spectrum. FCC and NTIA jointly determine the amount of spectrum allocated for federal, 

nonfederal, and shared use. FCC and NTIA also specify service rules, which outline the 

technical and operating requirements for stations using specific frequency bands.
Page 9 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Figure 2: Examples of Spectrum Frequency Bands Available for Commercial Broadband Services

a

Radio frequencies are measured in units of Hertz, or cycles per second. The term megahertz (MHz) 

refers to millions of Hertz and gigahertz (GHz) to billions of Hertz.

The frequency bands that can be used for broadband services are either 

licensed or unlicensed. For licensed spectrum, FCC can assign licenses 

through auctions, in which prospective users bid for the exclusive rights to 

transmit on a specific frequency band within geographic areas, ensuring 

that interference does not occur. License holders may sell or lease their 

license, in whole or in part, to another provider, a process that is known 

as a secondary market transaction, with FCC’s approval. FCC requires 

license holders to meet specified buildout requirements within a specified 

amount of time or face penalties, typically termination of all or part of the 

license.24 These buildout requirements are designed to ensure that 

 2447 C.F.R § 1.946(c).
Page 10 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

licensees put spectrum to use within a specific period rather than let it sit 

idle and vary based on the type of license.25

FCC has also assigned licenses administratively in two frequency bands 

that can be used for broadband services. Specifically, prior to 1996 FCC 

assigned geographic licenses for exclusive use in the Educational 

Broadband Service (2496-2690 megahertz (MHz)),26 and from 2005 to 

2015, FCC assigned non-exclusive nationwide licenses in the 3650-3700 

MHz band, where use of the band may be shared by other license 

holders.27 FCC also authorizes the use of some spectrum for broadband 

services without a license on a non-exclusive basis. With unlicensed 

spectrum, an unlimited number of users can share frequencies using 

wireless equipment certified by FCC, such as wireless microphones, baby 

monitors, and garage door openers. In contrast to users of licensed 

spectrum, unlicensed users have no regulatory protection from 

interference by other licensed or unlicensed users in the bands.28 If 

multiple users are operating simultaneously on the same frequency band, 

the transmissions may be susceptible to interference, which reduces the 

quality of service.

FCC’s rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by law with 

opportunities for the public to participate during each step.29 In general, 

 25For example, as of January 2014, FCC’s buildout requirements for Broadband PCS 

licenses require licensees to provide service to at least one-third of the population in the 

licensed area within 5 years of initial license grant, and two-thirds of the population within 

10 years of initial license grant. Alternatively, licensees may provide substantial service to 

their licensed area within the appropriate 5- and 10-year benchmarks. For entities that 

hold 39 GHz licenses, FCC requires that substantial service must be provided within the 

license area within 10 years of the initial license grant.

26FCC suspended the processing of Educational Broadband Service applications in 1993 

and only twice since then opened filing windows—the last one in 1996. Since then, FCC 

has granted a number of requests for waiver and special temporary authority to permit use 

of these frequencies.

27In June 2018, FCC made the 37-38.6 GHz band, also known as the Lower 37 GHz 

band, available to nonfederal users for broadband services on a non-exclusive basis, but 

is licensed by rule. In the Matter of Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile 

Radio Services, Third Report and Order 32 FCC Rcd 10988 (2018). 

28While there are no regulatory protections against interference for users of unlicensed 

spectrum, FCC has certification rules and standardized protocols that help to mitigate 

interference and users must accept any interference caused by all compliant devices in 

these bands.

29See 5 U.S.C. § 553. 
Page 11 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

FCC initiates a rulemaking in response to statutes, petitions for 

rulemaking, or its own initiative, and releases a Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking (NPRM) to propose new rules or to change existing rules.30

Any interested person may submit comments as part of the public record 

through electronic filings and meetings with FCC officials. Following 

internal analysis of the public record, FCC staff may propose actions for 

consideration for a vote, such as adopting final rules, amending existing 

rules, or stating that there will be no changes. All of FCC’s sitting

commissioners vote on these items.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 directed FCC to 

develop a plan to ensure every American had access to high-speed 

Internet.31 In March 2010, an FCC task force issued the National 

Broadband Plan that included a centralized vision for achieving 

affordability and maximizing use of high-speed Internet.32 The plan made 

many recommendations to FCC, including that FCC should take into 

account the unique spectrum needs of tribal communities when 

implementing spectrum policies and evaluate its policies and rules to 

address obstacles to spectrum access by tribal communities. With regard 

to tribal lands, the plan recommended that FCC increase its commitment 

to government-to-government consultation with tribal leaders and 

consider increasing tribal representation in telecommunications planning. 

FCC established the Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) in July 

2010 to promote the deployment and adoption of communication services 

and technologies to all native communities, by, among other things, 

ensuring consultation with tribal governments pursuant to FCC policy.

 3047 C.F.R. § 1.412.

31American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat 115 

(2009).

32FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2010).
Page 12 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Through our analysis of FCC license data as of September 2018, we 

identified 18 tribal entities that held active spectrum licenses in bands that 

can be used to provide broadband services.33 Because tribal entities may 

hold licenses using entity names that do not include the search terms we 

identified in our review of the list of tribes in the Federal Register, there 

may be additional tribal entities that we have not identified. We found that 

most of the tribal entities obtained the licenses through FCC 

administrative assignment rather than through an FCC spectrum auction 

or secondary market transaction.

Thirteen of the tribal entities we identified in FCC’s license data held 

administratively assigned licenses, and these licenses are subject to 

certain limitations and were only available to applicants for limited time 

periods.34 Eleven of these administratively assigned licenses are nonexclusive nationwide licenses in the 3.65 GHz frequency band (3550-

3700 MHz) and were available between 2005 and 2015, when FCC 

issued a new rule for this band and stopped accepting new applications 

for these licenses. Two of the tribal entities we identified held 

administratively assigned Educational Broadband Service licenses in the 

2.5 GHz frequency band (2496-2690 MHz). These licenses allow for the 

transmission of educational materials by accredited educational 

institutions and government organizations, including tribes, engaged in 

formal education and require that licensees use the spectrum for 

educational purposes for a certain amount of time each week. Both of 

these tribal entities obtained these licenses after the last filing window 

closed in 1996 through a waiver and special temporary authority permit.35

 33As of September 2018, there were over 27,000 active spectrum licenses held by over 

4,400 licensees. 

34One of these thirteen tribal entities also held a license obtained through a secondary 

market transaction.

35FCC has granted a number of requests for waiver and special temporary authority to 

permit use of Educational Broadband Service frequencies. 

Selected Tribal 

Entities Reported 

Barriers to Obtaining 

Licensed Spectrum

Few Tribal Entities Have 

Obtained Spectrum 

Licenses, Although 

Representatives from 

Selected Tribal Entities 

Emphasized the 

Importance of Licensed 

Spectrum
Page 13 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Four tribal entities we identified in FCC’s license data held a total of 13 

active licenses obtained through secondary market transactions, such as 

leases and sales of portions of partitioned licenses.36 Of these 13 

secondary market transactions, 2 involved nationwide providers.

Two of the tribal entities we identified held active licenses in bands 

available for broadband deployment that they obtained through an FCC 

spectrum auction. One of these tribal entities won with a winning bid of 

over $800,000 in a 2015 auction, and the other won two licenses with 

winning bids of under $50,000 in a 2002 auction. This second tribal entity 

also qualified for but did not win a 2003 auction. In addition to these two 

tribal entities, we identified the following four tribal entities that had

applied to participate in auctions with varying results but did not hold 

active licenses in frequency bands available for broadband deployment 

as of September 2018:37

• Two tribal entities each won a single spectrum license. The first won 

its license, which has since expired, in 2000, and the second won its 

license, which it has since been transferred to a nationwide provider 

through a secondary market transaction, in 2003. The first tribal entity 

also applied but did not qualify to participate in a 2001 auction.38

• One tribal entity qualified to participate but did not win in a 2003 

auction, and another tribal entity applied but did not qualify to 

participate in a 2008 auction.

In addition, representatives from 2 of the 16 tribal entities we interviewed 

that were using wireless technologies told us that they use licensed 

spectrum that is owned by a private provider through a partnership 

relationship. We have previously reported that some tribes have formed 

 36One of these four tribal entities also held an administratively assigned license.

37As with our analysis of FCC license data, there may be additional tribal entities that 

applied to participate in FCC spectrum auctions not reflected in our report if the applicant 

name used did not include a search term we identified in our review of the list of federally 

recognized tribes in the Federal Register. 

38Requirements to qualify for auctions may include limits on combined total assets and 

combined gross revenues in a certain number of years preceding the auction. 
Page 14 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

partnership arrangements with other entities to increase broadband 

access on tribal lands.39

Most (14 of 16) of the tribal entities we contacted that were using wireless 

technologies told us that they are accessing various unlicensed bands, 

such as the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, to provide service. 

Representatives from eight of these tribal entities reported using only 

unlicensed spectrum for their fixed wireless networks. Representatives 

from 13 tribal entities told us that unlicensed spectrum had the advantage 

of being free, and representatives from one tribal entity told us that the 

equipment needed to access these spectrum bands is less expensive 

than equipment for accessing other spectrum bands. Representatives 

from some tribal entities reported success in using unlicensed spectrum 

in certain circumstances. For example, one tribal entity reported using 

unlicensed spectrum for homes in remote areas where the only potential 

signal degradation is from trees as well as to set up local hot spots that 

can serve 5 to 10 users at a time. Another tribal entity reported using 

primarily unlicensed spectrum to carry signals to end users together with 

non-exclusive licensed spectrum (3.65 GHz band) for locations where 

there is congestion in the unlicensed bands.

However, representatives from the tribal entities we contacted that were 

using wireless technologies emphasized the advantages of licensed 

spectrum and discussed their experiences with the limitations of 

unlicensed spectrum. As described earlier, exclusive-use spectrum 

licenses protect license holders from interference from other users, 

whereas unlicensed spectrum provides no protection against interference. 

Representatives from 13 of 16 tribal entities identified the fact that 

unlicensed spectrum is available at no cost as an advantage of this type 

of spectrum. However, representatives from 15 of the 16 tribal entities 

identified limitations associated with unlicensed spectrum, such as 

interference, as described in table 1.

 39GAO, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to 

Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, GAO-18-682 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 28, 2018).
Page 15 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Table 1: Limitations of Unlicensed Spectrum Identified by Tribal Entities

Limitation of 

unlicensed 

spectrum

Number of tribal 

entities that 

identified this 

limitationa

Examples of tribal entities’ experiences with this limitation

Interference 11 Representatives reported that users experience interference from a variety of devices 

that use unlicensed spectrum such as Bluetooth devices, baby monitors, remote 

controls, cordless phones, smart televisions, and highway signage.

Speed or capacity 12 Representatives from one tribal entity reported that there is insufficient unlicensed 

bandwidth available to provide high-speed Internet for a whole town. The entity is 

currently able to offer 25 megabits download speed, but as it gets more subscribers, it 

will be unable to maintain this speed.

Representatives from another tribal entity indicated that unlicensed spectrum lacks the 

capacity and speed to provide residential broadband.

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by tribal entities. | GAO-19-75

a

Tribal entities may have identified more than one limitation of licensed spectrum.

Tribal associations, an academic group, a tribal consortium, and FCC 

have all highlighted the importance of exclusive-use licensed spectrum for 

tribal entities. Specifically, both a tribal association and an academic 

group we contacted discussed interference and other challenges of 

unlicensed spectrum. Representatives from one tribal association pointed 

out that unlicensed spectrum might not be available in the future if it is 

allocated for other purposes. Representatives from a tribal consortium we 

contacted told us that they are already using all of the available 

unlicensed spectrum for providing Internet access and that they cannot 

expand service without encountering interference and capacity limitations.

Lastly, ONAP reported in 2012 that unlicensed spectrum is not an option 

across all tribal lands and that tribal access to robust licensed spectrum is 

a critical need.40

Representatives from the stakeholders we interviewed told us that there 

are also non-technological benefits for tribal entities to obtain greater 

access to licensed spectrum. For example:

• Enhanced ability to deliver additional Internet service.

Representatives from one of the tribal associations, an academic 

group, and six of the tribal entities said that increased access to 

licensed spectrum would enable them to deliver their own Internet 

services and bridge service gaps, thus improving Internet access to

 40FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.).
Page 16 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

their members. For example, representatives from three of these tribal 

entities said that such access would enable them to deploy in areas 

where providers that currently hold licenses were not willing to deliver 

services. In addition, representatives from another tribal entity said 

that having access to licensed spectrum is one factor that would 

enable the tribe to establish its own telecommunications company.

• Ability to sell or lease spectrum for profit. Representatives from 

one tribal association, an academic group, and two tribal entities told 

us that holding spectrum licenses would enable tribal governments to 

sell or lease their licenses. For example, we heard from one of these 

tribal entities that it was able to sell portions of its license that did not 

cover tribal lands and to use the profits from the sale to invest in its 

own network infrastructure.

• Opportunities for federal funding. Access to licensed spectrum may 

also provide tribal entities with more opportunity to obtain federal 

funding, specifically through two Universal Service Fund programs—

the Mobility Fund and the Tribal Mobility Fund. These programs 

provide funding to broadband service providers to expand service in 

areas where it is not available, including tribal lands. However, service 

providers must hold, lease, or show they have access to licensed 

spectrum to participate in these programs, among other 

requirements.41 For example, the National Congress of American 

Indians stated that two tribal entities submitted applications to 

participate in the Mobility Fund program but were not eligible to 

participate in part because they did not hold a spectrum license. 

Moreover, representatives from two of the tribal entities we 

interviewed told us that they considered applying for one of these 

programs but realized they were ineligible because they did not have 

access to licensed spectrum.

Furthermore, representatives from one of the tribal associations, an 

academic group, and seven of the tribal entities told us that having 

access to licensed spectrum would enable tribes to exercise their rights to 

sovereignty and self-determination. Representatives from three of the 

tribal entities we contacted said that they view spectrum as a natural 

 41In order to apply to participate in the Mobility Fund program, an applicant must be 

designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier, with one narrow exception for 

tribally owned or controlled entities. To qualify, a tribally owned or controlled entity may 

have an application pending for eligible telecommunications carrier designation. FCC 

allowed this exception to afford tribes an increased opportunity to participate at auction.
Page 17 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

resource that should be managed by the tribe.42 FCC officials, however, 

told us that spectrum is not considered a reserved right under treaties 

with Indian tribes, as it is not explicitly stated. In addition, representatives 

from four of the tribal entities told us that having access to licensed 

spectrum would ensure that spectrum is being used in a way that aligns 

with tribal goals and community needs, further supporting their rights to 

self-determination.

Representatives from the tribal entities we contacted identified several 

barriers to accessing licensed spectrum through spectrum auctions and 

secondary market transactions.43 Regarding spectrum auctions, 

representatives from tribal entities that provide wireless Internet service

most frequently (13 of 16) indicated that spectrum licenses are too 

expensive for tribal entities. For example, over 60 percent (983 of 1,611) 

of the winning bids from a 2015 spectrum auction, including bids for 

spectrum over non-tribal lands, were over $1 million. Representatives 

from one tribal entity explained that auction licenses are often too 

expensive for tribal entities because these licenses cover large 

geographic areas that may include non-tribal urban areas as well as rural 

tribal areas. Moreover, representatives from eight tribal entities stated that 

they are unable to obtain financing to participate in auctions because 

tribal governments cannot use tribal lands as collateral to obtain loans. In 

addition, representatives from eight tribal entities mentioned that 

participating in spectrum auctions requires auction-specific expertise that 

tribal entities may not have.

Tribal entities also face barriers obtaining spectrum through secondary 

market transactions. Most of the spectrum allocated for commercial use 

has already been assigned through spectrum auctions and other 

mechanisms to private providers, including licensees that may not be 

providing service on tribal lands. In a single geographic area, several 

 42We did not analyze this issue as it was outside the scope of the report.

43In addition, representatives from six tribal entities identified barriers to accessing 

licenses in the 3.65 GHz band and in the Educational Broadband Service band, both of 

which are administratively assigned licenses. For example, representatives from two tribal 

entities told us that accessing spectrum in the Educational Broadband Service band was 

challenging because most licenses are held by other providers. In addition, 

representatives from two tribal entities stated that the equipment required to deploy 

wireless services in the 3.65 GHz band is more expensive than equipment for unlicensed 

spectrum and was not widely available. Representatives from two of the tribal entities we 

contacted were unaware that these licenses were available.

Representatives from 

Selected Tribal Entities 

Reported Cost and Other 

Barriers to Accessing 

Licensed Spectrum
Page 18 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

frequency bands could be used to deploy broadband services, as shown 

in figure 2, and licenses for these various frequency bands may be held 

by different providers. There may be tribal areas where providers hold 

licenses for bands but are not using the spectrum to provide Internet 

access. In other tribal areas, services may be offered using one or two of 

the spectrum licenses with the other licenses in the area remaining fallow 

and inaccessible to tribal entities. All three of the tribal associations we 

contacted confirmed that there are unused spectrum licenses over tribal 

lands, and representatives from a nationwide provider indicated that they 

only deploy services if there is a business case to support doing so.44

Accordingly, the secondary market is one of few avenues available to 

tribal entities that would like to access licensed spectrum. However, 

representatives from tribal entities we contacted identified the following 

challenges related to participating in the secondary market:

• Lack of willing sellers. Representatives from eight of the tribal 

entities, one of the tribal representative groups, and an industry 

association we contacted indicated that spectrum license holders are 

often unwilling to participate in secondary market transactions, citing a 

variety of reasons. For example, representatives from one tribal entity 

stated that large carriers have no business incentive to negotiate 

secondary market agreements with tribal entities and that tribal 

entities do not have the resources to make such transactions 

sufficiently lucrative for license holders. Representatives from another 

tribal entity stated that license holders may lack knowledge about the 

areas covered by their licenses, including tribal areas, and therefore 

may be unwilling to consider secondary market transactions. 

Representatives from a tribal representative group told us that license 

holders may be unwilling to consider secondary market transactions 

with tribal entities because spectrum is a valuable resource that may 

become even more valuable over time, and a representative from an 

industry association indicated that transaction costs such as legal fees 

outweigh any potential income from such transactions. None of the 

private providers we contacted reported entering into a secondary 

market transaction with tribal entities, but one of these providers 

stated that it had never been approached by a tribal entity interested 

 44As described above, FCC uses buildout requirements to ensure that spectrum is put to 

use. However, representatives from one of the tribal associations we interviewed told us 

that because the geographic size of licenses are often very large, providers are able to 

meet their buildout requirements without delivering services across tribal lands by 

targeting their deployment in larger, urban areas.
Page 19 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

in a secondary market transaction and was unaware of challenges 

that are unique to tribal entities.

• License holders unknown. Representatives from eight of the tribal 

entities we contacted stated that it is difficult to determine who holds 

spectrum licenses. For example, two tribal entities had to hire 

consultants to identify who held licenses for spectrum over the tribes’

lands, and another tribal entity relied on the expertise of its non-tribal 

partner to identify the license holders.

• Unaware of secondary market transactions. Representatives from 

six of the tribal entities we contacted were unaware of the possibility 

of accessing licensed spectrum through a secondary market 

transaction prior to our contacting them.

Accordingly, secondary market transactions involving tribal entities are 

rare. As discussed above, our analysis of FCC license data identified four 

tribal entities that have successfully accessed licensed spectrum in this 

manner. Regarding one of these tribal entities’ experiences with the 

secondary market, the tribal representative we contacted stated that an 

Indian-owned telecommunications consulting company was pivotal in 

identifying the license holder and facilitating the transaction and that the 

transaction would not have happened without the consulting company. 

Representatives from this company told us that they conducted an 

analysis to identify unused spectrum licenses over the tribe’s land. The 

company identified three providers holding such licenses, but only one of 

those providers was willing to participate in a secondary market 

transaction. Representatives from another of the tribal entities that 

accessed licensed spectrum through the secondary market told us that 

they relied on the expertise of their non-tribal partner to facilitate these 

transactions.
Page 20 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

We found that FCC has taken the following actions to increase tribal 

access to and use of spectrum: (1) initiated proposed rulemakings on 

promoting tribal access to spectrum, (2) adopted rules to increase 

spectrum available for broadband use, and (3) conducted outreach and 

training for tribal entities on spectrum-related issues.

FCC issued two NPRMs—one in March 2011 and one in May 2018—that 

included policy options intended to enhance tribal access to spectrum. At 

the time of our report, FCC had not adopted new rules or taken further 

action on the 2011 rulemaking,45 and FCC had not taken further actions 

since the comments period ended on September 7, 2018, on the May 

2018 rulemaking.46 According to FCC officials, the 2011 NPRM 

addressed several recommendations made in the National Broadband 

Plan to promote the greater use of spectrum over tribal lands.47 Among 

other things, the 2011 NPRM sought comments on three proposals to 

 45In the Matter of Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by Promoting 

Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 26 

FCC Rcd 2623 (2011).

46In the Matter of Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT 

Docket No. 18-120 (2018).

47FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

FCC Has Some 

Efforts to Enhance 

Tribal Access to 

Spectrum, but FCC 

Does Not Collect or 

Communicate Key 

Information to Tribal 

Entities

FCC Has Taken Steps to 

Promote and Support 

Tribal Entities’ Ability to 

Obtain Spectrum, 

However These Efforts Are 

Not Likely to Address 

Tribal Spectrum Needs

Initiated Proposed 

Rulemakings on Promoting 

Tribal Access to Spectrum
Page 21 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

create new spectrum access opportunities for tribal entities (see fig. 3).48

FCC officials told us that they have reviewed public comments to the 

proposed rulemaking, but have no current plans to take further actions.

Figure 3: Proposals Made in Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to 

Promote Tribal Access to Spectrum

We reviewed the public comments FCC received that pertained to the 

three proposals, which included comments from tribal associations, tribal 

governments, rural and nationwide industry associations, and tribal and

private providers.49 Based on our analysis of the comments that included 

positions on the proposal for a tribal licensing priority, eight 

stakeholders—including industry associations, private providers, and a 

tribal government—were supportive of this proposal.50 However, we found 

that stakeholder views differed on implementing good faith negotiations 

 48The 2011 NPRM included other proposals not related to enhancing tribal access to 

spectrum, but rather to incentivize build-out in tribal areas by license holders, such as 

making modifications to the Tribal Lands Bidding Credit Program and creating 

Construction Safe Harbor provisions.

49We identified 16 stakeholders that provided public comments on these proposals, 

including 3 tribal associations, 2 rural industry associations, 4 nationwide associations, 4 

private providers, 1 rural non-tribal provider, 1 tribal provider, and 1 tribal government. Not 

all stakeholders provided comments on each proposal.

50Stakeholders’ views differed on how the tribal licensing priority provision should be 

structured.
Page 22 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

and on the build-or-divest processes. In general, the tribal stakeholders 

indicated that they were supportive of these proposals, while the industry 

associations and private providers were not. In addition to reviewing the 

public comments, we asked representatives from the tribal and industry 

associations and private providers that we interviewed about their views 

of these proposals.51 Representatives from the three tribal associations 

and two rural industry associations were generally supportive of all three 

of the proposals, while representatives from one of the private providers 

that we interviewed told us they did not support any of the three 

proposals, because, for example, they said that there are more effective 

ways to increase broadband service over tribal lands.52 Representatives 

from another private provider said that they supported the tribal priority 

process but did not indicate their views on the other two proposals.53

Representatives from six tribal entities and a representative from a tribal 

consortium told us that these types of proposals would help them obtain 

spectrum.

In May 2018, FCC issued an NPRM that sought comments on 

establishing a tribal priority window for tribal nations located in rural areas 

as part of a process to re-license the Educational Broadband Service 

spectrum band.54 As described above, FCC originally allocated this band

to qualifying educational institutions and government organizations for the

transmission of educational materials. While FCC permitted licensees to 

lease their excess capacity to commercial providers, FCC reported that 

significant portions of this band were not being used, primarily in rural 

areas. In an effort to make additional spectrum available for broadband 

use, FCC issued this NPRM seeking comments on options to promote the 

use of this spectrum over tribal lands. One of the options included 

implementing a local priority filing window so that tribal entities could get 

 51Representatives from the nationwide industry association that we contacted referred us 

to the comments they submitted to the 2011 NPRM, which indicated their support for the 

implementation of a tribal priority process, but not for the implementation of a good faith 

negotiation process or the build-or-divest proposal.

52Representatives from the rural industry associations both supported the tribal priority 

process and the build-or-divest process but differed in their support on the good faith 

negotiations process; however both agreed that some of the proposals should be 

expanded to include non-tribal rural providers.

53Representatives from the other private provider did not indicate their position on any of 

the proposals.

54In the Matter of Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, DA 

18-394 (2018).
Page 23 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

access to unassigned spectrum prior to an FCC auction. In a June 2018 

order, FCC extended the comment deadline for the NPRM to August 8, 

2018, partly in response to a request for a deadline extension. As a result, 

FCC also extended the deadline to respond to those comments to 

September 7, 2018. Because FCC was in the process of responding to 

these comments at the time of our review, we did not analyze these 

comments.

FCC has made additional unlicensed and licensed spectrum available for 

broadband use and has implemented rules that according to FCC, may 

make it easier for rural providers to obtain licenses.55 However, these 

efforts were not targeted to tribal entities, and according to ONAP’s 2012 

report, allocating additional unlicensed spectrum may not be a technically 

feasible solution for all tribal entities, and such spectrum may not have 

the necessary capacity to handle an increase in users.56 In addition, 

representatives from the tribal associations and entities we contacted told 

us that there are limitations to the extent that these efforts can address 

the spectrum needs of tribal entities. In particular, they discussed the 

effect of FCC’s changes to the rules on the use of TV white space 

spectrum and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum:

• TV white space spectrum: In 2010, FCC made additional unlicensed 

spectrum available for broadband use by allowing providers to 

operate in the TV bands at locations where those frequencies were 

not in use, known as TV white space,57 but none of the tribal entities 

we interviewed was using this spectrum. A representative from a tribal 

consortium said that it used TV white space spectrum, and 

representatives from three of the tribal entities said that they were 

 55FCC has issued two NPRMs on making spectrum in certain bands above 95 GHz and 

between 3.7 GHz and 4.2 GHz available for broadband services on an unlicensed basis. 

See, In the Matter of Spectrum Horizons, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 33 

FCC Rcd 2438 (2018) and In the Matter of Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz 

Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 2018 LEXIS 1827 (2018).

56FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.).

57In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum 

for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3GHz Band, Second Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18661 (2010). FCC adopted additional rules on the use 

of TV white space in 2012, rules that included increasing antenna height limitations to 

make it easier for rural providers to deploy broadband services. See, In the Matter of 

Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed 

Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3GHz Band, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, 

28 FCC Rcd 5330 (2012).

Adopted Rules to Allocate 

Additional Spectrum for 

Broadband Use
Page 24 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

considering using it in the future because TV white space spectrum 

can better pass through some environmental barriers, such as trees, 

reaching more remote customers. However, representatives from five 

tribal entities, one tribal consortium, one academic group, and three 

companies that we interviewed told us about several limitations to the 

use of TV white space spectrum. For example:

• limited bandwidth capacity, which causes lower speeds, high 

latency,58 and limits the number of households that can be served;

• equipment needed to access TV whitespace spectrum is 

expensive and less available;

• the spectrum may not always be available; and

• similar to other unlicensed frequency bands, as described above, 

there is potential for interference and difficulty to pass through 

extreme terrain.

• Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) Spectrum: In 2015, FCC 

made additional licensed spectrum available for broadband use when 

it issued a new rule for the 3.65 GHz frequency band (3550-3700 

MHz).59 However the tribal entities who held licenses in this band 

indicated there are limitations to their ability to use this band and their 

future use of this spectrum remains unknown. As described earlier, 

FCC had allocated non-exclusive nationwide licenses in this band. In 

the 2015 rule, FCC created the CBRS, increased the amount of 

spectrum allocated for commercial broadband use, and implemented 

a new licensing scheme. This three-tier priority licensing scheme for 

spectrum sharing included auctioning exclusive-use geographic 

licenses and allowing non-exclusive use of the band where a license 

holder is not operating, an approach that is intended to provide a lowcost entry point for users, but will have no protections from 

interference. Representatives from four of the five tribal entities that 

we contacted that held licenses in this band said that there were 

technical advantages to using it, such as the ability for a signal to 

pass through dense forests. However, representatives from two tribal 

entities said that the high cost of the equipment needed to access this 

spectrum prevented them from either using the frequency band 

 58Latency refers to the amount of time it takes for data to travel from a computer to a 

server and back again.

59In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial 

Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, Report and Order and Second Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking 30 FCC Rcd 3959 (2015).
Page 25 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

extensively or at all. In addition, representatives from two tribal entities 

said that they were not sure about their ability to access this band in 

the future given the changes made in FCC’s 2015 rulemaking.60

FCC’s 2015 rule also created small-sized and shorter-termed 

licenses, which FCC stated would decrease the costs of obtaining a 

license and help rural providers access it. However, FCC issued an 

NPRM in 2017 that sought comments on suggested changes to 

CBRS, including increasing the geographic area covered by licenses 

and lengthening the license term.61 In October 2018, FCC adopted 

rules that, among other changes, increased the license area from 

census tracks to counties and extended the license term from 3 to 10 

years, which FCC officials told us were modest changes made to 

accomplish FCC’s goals of creating incentives for investment, 

including in urban and rural areas, encouraging efficient spectrum 

use, and promoting robust network deployments.

62

FCC’s ONAP conducts training, consultation, and outreach to tribal 

entities on spectrum-related issues. For example, ONAP officials told us 

that they have conducted 21 training and consultation workshops for tribal 

entities on broadband and telecom since 2012, where spectrum has been 

discussed in general in the introduction and has been addressed 

specifically in separate sessions in some of the workshops. These 

officials also told us that they communicate with tribal entities prior to 

when FCC holds auctions or when implementing regulatory actions or 

policies that will affect tribal governments and spectrum over their lands. 

While representatives from 9 of the 16 tribal entities using wireless 

technologies told us that they had received some outreach on spectrum-

 60In the 2015 rules, FCC, with some exceptions allowed entities with existing licenses to 

continue operations until April 17, 2020 or until the expiration date of their authorization. 

Existing licensees whose licenses expire before April 17, 2020 are allowed to request a 

one-time renewal not to exceed April 17, 2020. Entities that registered their site, 

constructed, began operating, and were in compliance with FCC’s rules prior to April 17, 

2015, were granted exclusive use the band until the end of their license term.

61In the Matter of Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band; Petitions for 

Rulemaking Regarding the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking and Order Terminating Petitions, 2017 FCC LEXIS 3329 (2017).

62In the Matter of Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band, Report and Order, 

FCC 18-149 (2018). FCC officials told us that the new rules also provided licensees with 

the ability to renew, new performance requirements, expanded secondary market rights, 

bidding credits for small and rural entities, including a tribal land bidding credit, and other 

changes to the technical rules and auction methodology. In addition, FCC officials said 

that because the new rules are intended to increase investment, the cost of equipment 

should decrease. 

Conducted Outreach and 

Training for Tribal Entities on 

Spectrum-Related Issues
Page 26 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

related issues from FCC, representatives from 2 of these entities said that 

they had not.63 In addition, ONAP issued a report in 2012 to provide FCC 

with a review of its work with tribal governments and organizations, 

including information on its tribal broadband efforts, priorities, and tribal 

consultations.64 Among other things, the report included case-study 

information on tribal entities’ efforts to access spectrum. Although the 

report stated that this would be the first of such annual reporting, this is 

the only report that ONAP has issued on tribal issues. According to ONAP 

officials, ONAP has not published subsequent reports because it provides 

FCC with information on its work with tribal governments and 

organizations, including spectrum-related matters, through more frequent 

informal briefings and regular updates.

FCC has not consistently collected information related to tribal access to 

spectrum. For example, FCC does not collect data on whether holders of 

spectrum licenses or auction applicants are tribal entities even though it 

collects self-reported data on licensee type, such as corporation and 

government entity. To obtain this information, FCC could include an 

option for the licensee type, along with the other options, in applications 

for future licenses and auctions that allows an applicant to identify as a 

tribal government or tribally owned entity. FCC officials told us that they 

use information on licensee type to determine eligibility for a license. 

Because eligibility is not based on whether the applicant is a tribal entity, 

FCC officials said this information is not needed. However, without this 

information, FCC does not have a comprehensive understanding of the 

extent that tribal entities are attempting to obtain or access licensed

spectrum or have been successful at obtaining and accessing it.

Additionally, FCC does not analyze information on unused licensed 

spectrum that exists over tribal lands, even though FCC has 

information—broadband availability data from providers and information 

on geographic areas covered by spectrum licenses—that could be used

for such analysis. As we described earlier, representatives from all three 

of the tribal associations we contacted reported that there are unused 

spectrum licenses over tribal lands that could present opportunities 

through the secondary market for tribal entities to obtain spectrum. When 

 63Five of the tribal entities we contacted did not provide us with responses on whether 

they had received outreach on spectrum-related issues from FCC.

64FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.).

FCC Does Not Collect Key 

Information Related to 

Spectrum over Tribal 

Lands or Communicate It 

to Tribal Entities
Page 27 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

we asked FCC officials why they do not analyze the extent that unused 

spectrum licenses exists over tribal lands, they told us that the spectrum 

data noted above is not specific enough to allow for a license by license 

analysis of unused spectrum. For example, they said that broadband 

availability data from providers is aggregated across wide spectrum 

bands to minimize reporting burdens on the wireless industry, and the 

data are not sufficiently detailed to identify which spectrum blocks and 

licenses are being used in particular areas. However, FCC could use this 

data to conduct, at a minimum, high-level analysis that would result in 

useful information on the extent to which unused spectrum exists over 

tribal lands. In addition, FCC officials told us that they evaluate the 

effectiveness of FCC’s secondary markets policies, which FCC views as 

a mechanism to promote the increased use of unused spectrum licenses, 

but this approach does not include an analysis of unused spectrum 

licenses as part of these efforts. As a result, FCC’s evaluations of the 

secondary market may not accurately reflect how these policies affect 

tribal access to spectrum. Because the secondary market is one of few 

ways for tribal entities to access licensed spectrum, an analysis of unused 

licensed spectrum that exists over tribal lands would enable FCC to better 

promote a robust secondary market that provides additional opportunities 

for tribes to access spectrum.

FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan stated that ongoing measurement 

of spectrum utilization should be developed to better understand how 

spectrum resources are being used because some studies indicated that 

spectrum goes unused in many places much of the time. The plan also 

stated that any spectrum utilization studies that FCC conducts should 

identify tribal lands as distinct entities. In FCC’s February 2018 strategic 

plan, FCC stated that it will implement ongoing initiatives that will assist in 

spectrum policy planning and decision making, promote a robust 

secondary market in spectrum, and improve communications services in 

all areas of the United States, including tribal areas. Additionally, 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

agencies should use quality information, including information that is 

complete, to inform the decision-making processes.65

FCC also does not make information on spectrum-license holders 

available in an easy or accessible manner; such information could be 

beneficial to the tribes in their efforts to obtain spectrum in the secondary 

 65GAO-14-704G.
Page 28 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

market. As described earlier, the secondary market is a significant 

mechanism for tribal entities to obtain spectrum licenses, but 

representatives from the tribal entities we interviewed reported challenges 

related to participating in the secondary market, such as not knowing 

whom to contact should they wish to engage in a secondary market 

transaction to obtain a spectrum license. In July 2014, FCC stopped 

updating its spectrum dashboard, which provided the public with a way to 

identify who holds licenses in what areas, including features that allowed 

users to identify spectrum allocated and assigned in tribal lands. ONAP 

stated in its 2012 report that this feature represented the first step for 

individual tribal entities to reach out to licensees and seek leasing, 

partnership, or other arrangements that could ultimately result in the 

provision of service over tribal lands.66 FCC officials told us that the public 

may view electronic records of all wireless spectrum licenses in FCC’s 

Universal Licensing System, using a wide range of license and 

geographic parameters, such as licensee names, radio services, 

spectrum bands, and geographic locations. However, we attempted to 

navigate the Universal Licensing System to determine spectrum-license 

holders for specific tribal lands using geographic parameters, but we were 

unable to successfully do so because the system is so difficult to use.

Furthermore, as described above, representatives from eight of the tribal 

entities that we contacted stated that it is difficult to determine who holds 

spectrum licenses. When we asked FCC officials why they do not 

communicate information to tribes about spectrum-related transactions 

over tribal lands, FCC officials also told us that they issue public notices 

on applications for all proposed spectrum transactions and on the winning 

bidders of all auctions, but they have not made it a practice to reach out 

directly to tribes to make them aware of when providers have obtained 

spectrum licenses that cover tribal lands.

The National Broadband Plan stated that FCC should make data 

available that would promote a robust secondary market for spectrum 

licenses, such as information on how and to whom spectrum is allocated 

on tribal lands. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal 

Government state the need for federal agencies to communicate with 

external entities and to enable these entities to provide quality information 

to the agency that will help it achieve its objectives.67 Tribal governments 

are an example of such external entities. The ability of tribal governments 

 66FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.).

67GAO-14-704G.
Page 29 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

to make informed spectrum planning decisions and to participate in 

secondary market transactions is diminished without information from 

FCC on the spectrum transactions that occur over tribal lands. Providing 

this information in a manner that is accessible and easy for tribal entities

to obtain could enable them to enter into leasing, partnership, or other 

arrangements to obtain spectrum.

Broadband service on tribal lands continues to lag behind the rest of the 

country, especially on rural tribal lands, which could hinder tribal efforts to 

promote self-governance, economic opportunity, education, public safety, 

and cultural preservation. FCC has reported that wireless technologies 

that access spectrum to deliver broadband services are cost-effective for 

remote and sparsely populated areas, such as tribal lands. However, 

FCC’s efforts to promote and support tribal entities’ access to spectrum 

have done little to increase tribal use of spectrum, as only very few tribes 

are accessing spectrum to be able to provide Internet service. 

Additionally, FCC lacks information that could help inform its decisionmaking processes related to spectrum policy planning, which is intended 

to improve communications services in all areas of the United States, 

including tribal lands. By collecting data on the extent that tribal entities 

are obtaining and accessing spectrum, FCC could better understand tribal 

spectrum issues and use this information as it implements ongoing 

spectrum initiatives. Furthermore, the secondary market is one of few 

ways for tribal entities to access licensed spectrum to be able to provide 

Internet service, and FCC has recognized the importance of promoting a 

robust secondary market. FCC could promote a more robust secondary 

market by analyzing data to better understand how much unused licensed 

spectrum exists over tribal lands and using that information to promulgate 

regulations and to evaluate how FCC policies affect tribal participation in 

the secondary market. Additionally, by making information on who holds 

spectrum licenses over tribal lands more accessible and easy to 

understand, FCC could remove a barrier tribes may face in attempting to 

obtain spectrum through the secondary market.

We are making the following three recommendations to the Chairman of 

FCC.

• The Chairman of FCC should collect data on the extent that tribal 

entities are obtaining and accessing spectrum and use this 

information as FCC implements ongoing spectrum initiatives.

(Recommendation 1)

Conclusions

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 30 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

• The Chairman of FCC should analyze data to better understand the 

extent that unused spectrum licenses exist over tribal lands, such as 

by analyzing the data for a sample of tribal lands, and as appropriate 

use this information to inform its oversight of the secondary market.

(Recommendation 2)

• The Chairman of FCC should make information on spectrum-license 

holders more accessible and easy to understand for interested 

parties, including tribal entities, to promote their ability to purchase or 

lease spectrum licenses from other providers. (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for comment. In its comments, 

reproduced in appendix III, FCC agreed with the recommendations. 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 FCC, 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

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 31 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

This report examines (1) what is known about the ability of tribal entities 

to obtain and access spectrum to provide broadband services on tribal 

lands and the reported barriers that may exist; and (2) the extent to which 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promotes and supports 

tribal entities’ ability to obtain and access spectrum for broadband 

services.

To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant statutes and 

regulations1 and FCC documents, including FCC’s Statement of Policy on 

Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian 

Tribes,2 the National Broadband Plan,

3 and FCC’s current strategic plan.4

We interviewed FCC officials and representatives from 3 tribal 

associations, 7 private providers that deliver Internet services over tribal 

lands, 3 industry associations that represent rural and urban 

telecommunications providers, 3 regional consortia, 3 companies that 

work with tribal entities, and 1 academic group. In addition, we selected 

24 tribal entities—13 Indian tribes and nations and 11 tribally owned 

providers—to interview.

To identify tribal entities that were using wireless technologies, we 

obtained recommendations from stakeholders, reviewed data on relevant 

federal grants, such as the Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program, and conducted Internet research. We then selected 16 tribal 

entities considering (1) stakeholder suggestions, (2) population, (3) 

population density, and (4) urban or rural designation. We visited 7 of 

these tribes in Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington State. The views 

represented in our report are not generalizable to those of all 

stakeholders. See table 2 for a complete listing of the entities we 

interviewed. We also conducted a literature review to identify relevant 

academic, government, and media publications that were published 

between January 1, 2013, and January 11, 2018, that discuss the 

importance of and options to enhance tribal access to spectrum.

 1

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. 53, 153 (1996) 

(codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 151).

2

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

Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000).

3

FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2010).

4

FCC, Strategic Plan 2018-2022 (Washington, D.C.).

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 32 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Table 2: List of Entities Interviewed 

Tribal entities (tribal governments and telecommunications providers owned by 

tribes) 

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)

Makah Indian 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)

Pueblo of Santa Clara (NM)

Red Spectrum Communications (ID)

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

San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc. (AZ)

Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. (SD)

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

Taos Pueblo (NM)

Warm Springs Telecommunications Co. (OR)

Yurok Tribe (CA)/Yurok Connect

Tribal associations

National Congress of American Indians

National Tribal Telecommunications Association

Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)

Regional consortia

Middle Rio Grande Pueblo Consortium 

REDINet 

Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association - Tribal Digital Village Network

Groups that work with tribes

Carlson Wireless Technologies

Microsoft
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Turtle Island Communications

Industry associations

CTIA 

NTCA

Rural Wireless Association

Private providers

AT&T

CenturyLink

Commnet

Frontier

Inland Cellular

Verizon

Source: GAO | GAO-19-75

To identify tribal entities that applied to participate in spectrum auctions or 

that held active spectrum licenses in bands that can be used to provide 

broadband service, we analyzed (1) FCC data on entities that applied to 

participate in auctions for spectrum in these bands and (2) FCC data on 

spectrum licenses in these bands that were active as of September 6, 

2018. We also analyzed FCC license data, together with license 

information publicly available through FCC’s Universal Licensing System, 

to determine whether the tribal entities that held active licenses obtained 

those licenses through an FCC spectrum auction, administrative 

assignment, or the secondary market. We then reviewed the list of 

federally recognized tribes in the Federal Register and identified search 

terms related to these tribes. For example, we identified the following 

search terms based on the federally recognized tribe, Yurok Tribe of the 

Yurok Reservation, California, “Reservation, Tribe, and Yurok.” We then 

used the identified search terms to search for tribal entities in FCC’s data 

on auction participants and spectrum license holders. We manually 

reviewed these matches to identify tribal entities based on information 

from interviews, Internet research, and professional judgment. Because 

tribal entities may have applied to participate in spectrum auctions or may 

hold spectrum licenses under names not associated with their tribes, 

there may be additional tribal entities that we were unable to identify. 

Through interviews with FCC officials and review of related 

documentation, we determined that the license and auction participant 

data are sufficiently reliable for our purpose of identifying some tribal 

entities that have applied to participate in a spectrum auction or held 

active spectrum licenses as of September 2018. However, our analysis 

does not capture the extent that tribal entities may have obtained a 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

license that is no longer active. To identify tribal entities that used 

unlicensed spectrum to deliver unlicensed service, we interviewed the 

tribal entities identified above. In addition, we obtained stakeholder views 

on the advantages and disadvantages of using unlicensed and licensed 

frequency bands and any barriers that tribal entities face in obtaining 

spectrum licenses by interviewing the selected stakeholders noted above.

To determine the extent to which FCC promotes and supports tribal 

entities’ efforts to obtain and access spectrum, first, we reviewed FCC’s 

proposals in its ongoing 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In the 

Matter of Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by 

Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands and its 

ongoing 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In the Matter of 

Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band. We summarized public comments 

submitted, as of August 2018, by private and tribal providers, rural and 

nationwide industry associations, tribal associations, and tribal 

governments on FCC’s 2011 proposed rulemaking. We did not analyze 

comments on FCC’s 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking because FCC 

was in the process of responding to these comments at the time of our 

review. Second, we reviewed rules that FCC officials identified that 

increased the availability of unlicensed and licensed frequency bands for 

broadband use and that may be particularly useful for tribal entities. 

These rules included FCC’s 2010 and 2012 rules related to TV white 

space spectrum and its 2015 rule and 2017 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking related to the Citizens Broadband Radio Services (CBRS) 

spectrum.5 We identified tribal entities that had been using CBRS 

frequency bands by reviewing FCC licensed data and TV white space 

frequency bands through interviews with tribal entities and regional 

consortia. Third, we identified FCC’s outreach activities to provide tribal 

entities with assistance on spectrum-related issues by interviewing FCC 

officials and reviewing documentation on the content of FCC-led trainings 

and workshops, e-mail correspondences, and related publications, such 

 5

In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum 

for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3GHz Band, Second Memorandum 

Opinion and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 18661 (2010); In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation in 

the TV Broadcast Bands; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz 

and in the 3GHz Band, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 5330 (2012); 

In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to Commercial 

Operations in the 3550-3650 MHz Band, GN Docket No. 12-354, Report and Order and 

Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2015); In the Matter of Promoting 

Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band; Petitions for Rulemaking Regarding the Citizens 

Broadband Radio Service, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order Terminating 

Petitions, 2017 FCC LEXIS 3329 (2017).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

as public notices. Lastly, we interviewed FCC officials on the information 

that they collect, analyze, and report related to tribal use of spectrum and 

reviewed related documentation, including FCC’s Office of Native Affairs 

and Policy 2012 Annual Report and FCC’s license and auction data.6 We 

interviewed stakeholders, as noted above, and summarized their views of 

FCC efforts. We also compared FCC’s efforts against FCC’s 2018-2022 

strategic plan, recommendations made in FCC’s National Broadband 

Plan, and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government

related to using quality information.7

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to November 

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 the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 6

FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report, (Washington, D.C.).

7

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

National Broadband Plan (Washington, D.C.: 2010); GAO, Standards for Internal Control 

in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G (Washington, D.C.: September 2014).
Appendix II: Auctioned Licensed Spectrum 

Available for Commercial Broadband Services

Page 36 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

We identified the spectrum frequency bands that the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) has made available for commercial 

broadband services and that FCC assigns licenses through auctions. 

Table 3 describes these licenses, including the number and date of 

related auctions.

Table 3: Auctioned Licensed Spectrum Frequency Bands the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Has Made 

Available for Commercial Broadband Services

FCC radio 

service code

Frequency band, megahertz (MHz)/gigahertz 

(GHz)a Radio service description

Auction(s) Auction date

closed

AH 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Advanced Wireless 

Service

96 2/27/2014

AT 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-

2180 MHz

Advanced Wireless 

Service-3 (AWS-3)

97 1/29/2015

AW 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz Advanced Wireless 

Service (AWS-1)

66

78

9/18/2006

8/20/2008

BB 1390-1392 MHz 

Block A: 1392-1393.5 and 1432-1433.5 MHz 

Block B: 1393.5-1395 and 1433.5-1435 MHz

(1.4GHz)

Wireless 

Communications 

Services

69 3/8/2007

BC 1670-1675 MHz (1.6 GHz) Wireless 

Communications 

Services

46 4/30/2003

BR 2496-2502 MHz, 2602-2615 MHz, 2616-2673.5 

MHz (2.5 GHz)

Broadband Radio Service 06

86

3/28/1996

10/30/2009

CJ 800 MHz

Block C: 849-850.5/894-895.5 MHz

Block D: 850.5-851/895.5-896 MHz

Commercial Aviation AirGround Radiotelephone65 6/2/2006

CL 800 MHz

Block A:

Mobile: 824-835 MHz, 845-846.5 MHz

Base: 869-880 MHz, 890-891.5 MHz

Mobile: 835-845 MHz, 846.5-849 MHz

Base: 880-890 MHz, 891.5-894 MHz

Cellular Services 77 6/17/2008

Appendix II: Auctioned Licensed Spectrum 

Available for Commercial Broadband 

Services
Appendix II: Auctioned Licensed Spectrum 

Available for Commercial Broadband Services

Page 37 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

FCC radio 

service code

Frequency band, megahertz (MHz)/gigahertz 

(GHz)a Radio service description

Auction(s) Auction date

closed

CW Block A: 1850-1865, 1930-1945 MHz

Block B: 1870-1885, 1950-1965 MHz

Block C: 1895-1910, 1975-1990 MHz

Block D: 1865-1870, 1945-1950 MHz

Block E: 1885-1890, 1965-1970 MHz

Block F: 1890-1895, 1970-1975 MHz

Broadband Personal 

Communications Service 

(PCS)

4

5

10

11

22

35

58

71

78

3/13/1995

5/06/1996

7/16/1996

1/14/1997

4/15/1999

1/26/2001

2/15/2005

5/21/2007

8/20/2008

CY 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Narrowband PCS 96 2/27/2014

WS Block A: 2305-2310 MHz paired with 2350-2355 

MHz

Block B: 2310-2315 MHz paired with 2355-2360 

MHz

Block C: 2315-2320 MHz

Block D: 2345-2350 MHz

(2.3 GHz)

Wireless 

Communications 

Services

14 4/25/1997

WT 600 MHz 600 MHz Band 1002 3/30/2017

WU 700 MHz Upper Band (Block C: 710-716 MHz 

and 740-746 MHz)

Wireless 

Communications 

Services

60 7/26/2005

WY 700 MHz Lower Band

Block A: 698-704 and 728-734 MHz

Block B: 704-710 and 734-740 MHz

Block C: 746-757 and 776-787 MHz

Block D: 758-763 and 788-793 MHz

Block E: 722-728 MHz

Wireless 

Communications 

Services

73

92

3/18/2008

7/25/2011

WZ 700 MHz Lower Band, Guard Bands

Block C: 710-716 and 740-746 MHz

Wireless 

Communications 

Services

60 7/26/2005

YC 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio

851.0125-854.7375 MHz / 806.0125-809.7375 

MHz

Block A: 401-420 and 861.0-861.5 MHz paired 

with 816.0-816.5 MHz

Block B: 421-480 and 861.5-863.0 MHz paired 

with 816.5-818.0 MHz

Block C: 481-600 and 863.0-866.0 MHz paired 

with 818.0-821.0 MHz

Specialized Mobile Radio, 

806-821/851-866 MHz, 

Auctioned

16

34

43

12/8/1997

9/1/2000

1/17/2002

YD 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio

Blocks A thru T: half in 935-940 MHz and half in 

the 896-901 MHz

Specialized Mobile Radio, 

896-901/935-940 MHz, 

Auctioned

7

55

4/15/1996

2/25/2004
Appendix II: Auctioned Licensed Spectrum 

Available for Commercial Broadband Services

Page 38 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

FCC radio 

service code

Frequency band, megahertz (MHz)/gigahertz 

(GHz)a Radio service description

Auction(s) Auction date

closed

UU 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz (24 GHz) Upper Microwave Flexible 

Use Service

54

102

7/28/2004

Future

DV 12.2-12.7 GHz Multichannel Video and 

Distribution and Date 

Service

53

63

1/14/2004

12/7/2005

UU 27.5-28.35 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible 

Use Service

17

23

101

3/25/1998

5/12/1999

Future

LD 29.1-29.25 GHz and 31-31.3 GHz Local Multipoint 

Distribution Service 

17

23

3/25/1998

5/12/1999

UU 37.6-38.6 GHz (Upper 37 GHz) Upper Microwave Flexible 

Use Service

Future Future

UU 38.6-40 GHz (39 GHz) Upper Microwave Flexible 

Use Service

30 5/8/2000

UU 47.2-48.2 GHz (47 GHz) Upper Microwave Flexible 

Use Service

Future Future

Source: GAO analysis of FCC information.|GAO-19-75

a

Radio frequencies are grouped into bands and are measured in units of 

Hertz, or cycles per second. The term megahertz (MHz) refers to millions 

of Hertz and gigahertz (GHz) to billions of Hertz.
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 39 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission
Appendix III: Comments from the Federal 

Communications Commission

Page 40 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 41 GAO-19-75 Tribal Broadband

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Sally Moino (Assistant Director), 

Anne Doré (Analyst in Charge), Enyinnaya David Aja, Katherine Blair, 

Stephen Brown, Camilo Flores, Georgeann Higgins, John Mingus, Josh 

Ormond, Frank Rusco, Rebecca Rygg, Jay Spaan, Andrew Stavisky, 

James Sweetman, Jr., Hai Tran, and Michelle Weathers made key 

contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(102430)
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.