TRIBAL BROADBAND

FCC’s Data Overstate 

Access, and Tribes Face 

Barriers Accessing 

Funding

Statement of Mark Goldstein, Director,

Physical Infrastructure Issues

Testimony 

Before the Committee on Indian Affairs, 

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:30 p.m. ET

Wednesday, October 3, 2018

GAO-19-134T

United States Government Accountability Office
Letter

Page 1 GAO-19-134T 

Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our September 2018 reports on 

the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) data regarding 

broadband access on tribal lands1 and barriers tribes face in obtaining 

federal funding for broadband deployment.2 Broadband infrastructure is 

critical for economic development, educational and job opportunities, and 

public health and safety.3 However, residents of tribal lands continue to 

have lower levels of broadband access than other Americans.4

Policy-makers have noted the need for accurate information in order to 

target funding to areas lacking broadband access, and FCC has identified 

the need to work with tribes to ensure such information is accurate for 

tribal lands. Currently, the primary source of information regarding where 

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

information from broadband providers. FCC collects this data by requiring 

that fixed and mobile broadband providers report on their broadband 

deployment by filing a form twice a year (Form 477). FCC uses data from 

this form to determine which areas qualify for broadband funding.

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

to providers of deploying infrastructure to tribal lands located in rugged, 

 1

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

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

2

GAO, 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). GAO also has ongoing work related to spectrum use on tribal lands for 

this Committee, which will be issued later in 2018.

3

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

a customer’s home—or “mobile,” that is, providing service wherever a customer has 

access to a mobile wireless network, including while on the move, through a mobile 

device, such as a smartphone.

4

For the purposes of this testimony, we use the definition of “tribal lands” from FCC’s 2018 

Broadband Deployment Report. That report uses the following definition of tribal lands: (1) 

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

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

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

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

Indian area defined for a federally recognized tribe that does not have reservation or offreservation trust land, specifically a Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) or 

Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA); (6) Alaskan Native village statistical area; and 

(7) Hawaiian Home Lands established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. 

See 33 FCC Rcd 1660 (2018).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-19-134T 

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

the federal government administers a number of programs to subsidize 

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

attracted private investment. For example, FCC administers the Connect 

America Fund—a Universal Service Fund program—which provides 

subsidies to fixed and mobile providers of telecommunications and 

broadband services in rural, insular, and other remote areas where the 

cost of providing service is high. To be eligible to receive subsidies under 

the Connect America Fund, a provider must be designated an eligible 

telecommunications carrier. In addition, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 

has a current program and had a prior program and the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) had a prior 

program that provided funding to improve broadband service in unserved 

or underserved areas.5 The RUS and NTIA prior programs were 

authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act) to expand high-speed Internet service in unserved areas, 

and there is no current funding for these programs.6

My statement today discusses: (1) the extent to which FCC’s approach to 

collecting broadband availability data accurately captures the ability of 

Americans living on tribal lands to access broadband Internet services; 

(2) the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the data; (3) examples 

of partnership arrangements that tribal entities have used to increase 

broadband deployment on tribal lands; and (4) barriers that tribal entities 

face in obtaining federal funding for broadband deployment. This 

statement is based on two reports that we issued in September 2018.7 To 

perform the work for our report on FCC’s broadband data, we analyzed 

FCC’s broadband availability data for tribal lands as well as FCC’s 

processes for collecting and using those data. We interviewed FCC 

officials as well as a non-generalizable sample of tribal and industry 

stakeholders and reviewed relevant FCC rulemaking proceedings.8 To 

 5

Other federal programs can also be used to fund broadband deployment, including 

additional RUS programs. A list of funding resources is available at: 

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

6

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

118-119 (2009).

7

GAO-18-630 and GAO-18-682.

8

These interviews included representatives from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned 

providers, including visits to 9 tribal lands, and 10 organizations that include tribal entities 

or work with tribes on broadband issues.
Page 3 GAO-19-134T 

perform the work for our report on tribal partnerships and barriers to 

federal funding, we reviewed program documentation from FCC, RUS, 

and NTIA. We also interviewed FCC, RUS, and NTIA officials and a nongeneralizable sample of representatives from tribal governments, tribally 

owned broadband providers, and tribal associations. More detailed 

information about our scope and methodology can be found in our 

reports.

The work upon which this testimony is based was conducted in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

In our September 2018 report on broadband access on tribal lands, we 

found that FCC collects broadband availability data from broadband 

providers, but its method for collecting the data does not accurately or 

completely capture broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on 

tribal lands.9 Specifically, FCC directs fixed broadband providers to 

submit a list of census blocks where service is available on their Form 

477 filings. In the Form 477 instructions, FCC defines “available”10 as 

whether the provider does—or could, within a typical service interval or 

without an extraordinary commitment of resources—provide service to at 

least one end-user premises in a census block.11 Thus, in its annual 

reports and maps of fixed broadband service, FCC considers an entire 

block to be served if a provider reports that it does, or could offer, service 

to at least one household in the census block. As shown in figure 1, 

FCC’s definition of availability leads to overstatements of fixed broadband 

availability on tribal lands by: (1) counting an entire census block as 

served if only one location has broadband, and (2) allowing providers to 

report availability in blocks where they do not have any infrastructure 

connecting homes to their networks if the providers determine they could 

offer service to at least one household. FCC has noted that 

overstatements of availability can be particularly problematic in rural 

areas, where census blocks cover larger areas.

 9

GAO-18-630.

10We use the term broadband availability to refer to broadband deployment. FCC officials 

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

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

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

filer makes broadband connections available. 

11A “typical service interval” refers to the amount of time between when a customer 

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

FCC’s Data Overstate 

Broadband Access on 

Tribal Lands
Page 4 GAO-19-134T 

Figure 1: Overstatement of Broadband Availability in FCC’s Form 477 Data

According to FCC officials, FCC requires providers to report fixed 

broadband availability where they could provide service to: (1) ensure that 

it captures instances in which a provider has a network nearby but has 

not installed the last connection to the homes, and (2) identify where 

service is connected to homes, but homes have not subscribed. FCC 

officials also told us that FCC measures availability at the census block 

level because sub-census block data may be costly to collect. However, 

FCC acknowledged that by requiring a provider to report where it could 

provide service, it is not possible to tell whether the provider would be 

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

lists as served.12 In addition, when reporting on broadband access in 

tribal lands,13 FCC uses the broadband availability data described above, 

and does not collect information on factors that FCC and tribal 

 12Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 

32 FCC Rcd 6329 (2017). 

13In 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).
Page 5 GAO-19-134T 

stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access.14 These factors 

include affordability, service quality, and service denials.

By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting 

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

FCC would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal 

areas that need it the most. We recommended FCC develop and 

implement methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete 

data on broadband access specific to tribal lands. FCC agreed with this 

recommendation and stated that it is exploring methods to collect more 

granular broadband deployment data.

As we reported in September 2018, FCC does not have a formal process 

to obtain input from tribes on the accuracy of the data and tribal 

stakeholders can face difficulties obtaining information from providers.15

FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan noted the need for the federal 

government to improve the quality of data regarding broadband on tribal 

lands and recommended that FCC work with tribes to ensure that any 

information collected is accurate and useful.16 Although the Plan also 

noted that tribal representatives should have the opportunity to review 

mapping data and offer supplemental data or corrections, FCC lacks a 

formal process to obtain tribal input on its broadband data. FCC officials 

told us that they address questions and concerns regarding providers’

coverage claims submitted to FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy. 

However, about half of the tribal representatives we spoke to stated that 

they were not aware of the Form 477 data or corresponding maps, or 

raised concerns about a lack of outreach from FCC to inform tribes about 

the data. Most of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed told us that FCC 

should work more directly with tribes to obtain information from them to 

 14FCC officials we interviewed stated that FCC has not defined the term “broadband 

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

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

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

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

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

Plan; FCC, Strategic Plan 2018-2022. FCC officials also identified the cost of deployment 

and regulatory barriers as important factors when determining whether an area has 

access to broadband.

15GAO-18-630.

16FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Mar. 16, 2010).

FCC Does Not Have 

a Formal Process to 

Obtain Tribal Input on 

its Broadband Data
Page 6 GAO-19-134T 

improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband deployment data for tribal 

lands. These stakeholders identified several ways in which FCC could 

work with tribes on this issue, including onsite visits, increased outreach 

and technical training, and opportunities for tribes to collect their own data 

or submit feedback regarding the accuracy of FCC’s data.

FCC’s National Broadband Plan also noted the importance of supporting 

tribal efforts to build technical expertise with respect to broadband issues. 

A few of the stakeholders we interviewed noted that tribes have faced 

difficulties when they attempt to challenge FCC’s broadband availability 

data. For example, in 2013, all of the tribal entities that challenged FCC’s 

data on mobile service availability were unsuccessful in increasing the 

number of eligible areas. A few tribal stakeholders provided varying 

reasons for this, one of which was the need for more technical expertise 

to help the tribes meet FCC’s requirements regarding the information 

needed to support a challenge. Because FCC lacks a formal process to 

obtain tribal input on its broadband data, FCC is missing an important 

source of information regarding areas in which the data may overstate 

broadband service on tribal lands.

By establishing a process to obtain input from tribal governments on the 

accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data as recommended in the 

National Broadband Plan, FCC could help tribes develop and share 

locally-specific information on broadband access and improve FCC’s data 

for tribal lands. However, the success of such an effort may rely on the 

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

Thus, we recommended FCC develop a formal process to obtain tribal 

input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes 

outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the 

process. FCC agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will 

work with stakeholders to explore options for implementing such a 

process.

Finally, some tribes face challenges accessing data from providers. In 

2011, FCC required that providers receiving funds to serve tribal lands 

meaningfully engage with the tribes and discuss broadband deployment 

planning.17 In 2012, FCC issued guidance on meeting this requirement 

and stated that the guidance would evolve over time based on the 

 17In the Matter of Connect America Fund, Report and Order and Further Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011).
Page 7 GAO-19-134T 

feedback of both tribal governments and broadband providers.18

However, FCC has taken limited steps to obtain such feedback and has 

not updated the guidance. About half of the tribal stakeholders we 

interviewed raised concerns about difficulties accessing information from 

providers regarding broadband deployment on their tribe’s lands (which 

providers may consider proprietary), and some providers told us that they 

attempt to engage with tribes, but the level of responsiveness they 

receive from tribes varies. Thus, we recommended, and FCC agreed, that 

FCC obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers to determine 

whether it needs to clarify its tribal engagement guidance.

In our September 2018 report on tribal partnerships, we found that 

partnership arrangements between tribes and other entities to increase 

broadband deployment on tribal lands are not widespread.19 Because of 

the greater costs associated with deploying broadband on unserved tribal 

lands that are generally rural, with possibly rugged terrain, there may be 

little to no private sector incentive to deploy broadband or enter into a 

partnership arrangement to do so. The partnership examples we 

identified were ones that obtained federal funding under past programs 

funded by the Recovery Act. Among these examples, tribes partnered 

with several different types of entities, including private providers, a 

community access network provider, an electric cooperative, a regional 

consortium, and tribally owned providers.

We also reported in September 2018 that FCC and RUS are the primary 

sources of federal funding to deploy broadband infrastructure in rural and 

remote areas where the cost of providing service is high, including tribal 

lands.20 Based on our review of the funding provided by four federal 

programs targeted to increase deployment in unserved areas, very little 

has gone directly to tribes or to tribally owned broadband providers. 

Specifically, we found that from 2010 to 2017, less than 1 percent of FCC 

funding and about 14 percent of RUS funding went directly to tribes and 

 18Office of Native Affairs and Policy, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline 

Competition Bureau Issue Further Guidance on Tribal Government Engagement 

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

(2012).

19GAO-18-682.

20GAO-18-682.

Few Tribal Broadband 

Partnerships Exist

Tribes Face Barriers 

to Obtain Federal 

Funding for 

Broadband 

Deployment
Page 8 GAO-19-134T 

tribally owned providers. Combined, FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6 

billion during that time period and tribes and tribally owned providers 

received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent.

FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan stated that tribes needed 

substantially greater financial support than was available to them at the 

time and that accelerating tribal broadband deployment would require 

increased funding. Furthermore, the National Congress of American 

Indians expressed concerns that the needs for federally funded 

broadband projects are greater on tribal lands but tribes do not receive 

the appropriate share of federal funding aimed at increasing broadband 

deployment.21 Several of the tribes we visited told us they were trying to 

deploy broadband infrastructure or offer service because the private 

providers were not building out on their lands.

Through our analysis, we found that from 2010 to 2017, 14 tribal entities 

received federal funding from FCC and RUS to increase broadband 

deployment (see fig. 2).

 21According to its website, the National Congress of American Indians is the oldest, 

largest, and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving 

the broad interests of tribal governments and communities.
Page 9 GAO-19-134T 

Figure 2: Percentage of Tribal Entities and Non-Tribal Broadband Providers Receiving Funds from Ongoing FCC and RUS 

Programs to Increase Broadband Deployment, 2010-2017

a

FCC funding includes the Mobility Fund Phase I, Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I, and Connect America 

Fund.

The tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned broadband 

providers we interviewed cited several barriers that tribes may face when 

seeking federal funding for broadband deployment. The two primary 

barriers these interviewees cited were (1) the statutory requirement for 

the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation and (2) grant 

application requirements. Regarding the statutory requirement for ETC 

designation, FCC officials told us there were 11 tribes that have providers 

designated as ETCs and therefore would be eligible to receive support 

from FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF)—the largest source of federal 

funding for broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas. 

Although FCC adopted rules in 2011 to create CAF and modernize the 

program so that it could support broadband capable networks, FCC 

officials told us that most ETCs are the telephone companies that were in 

existence when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted into 

law.22 According to FCC officials, FCC has explored whether it has 

 22Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, § 706, 110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996). 
Page 10 GAO-19-134T 

authority to allow non-ETC providers to receive CAF support payments 

but determined that the statute is clear that only ETCs can receive 

program support. Between 2012 and 2017, FCC officials said FCC 

received nine ETC applications, four of which were from tribally owned 

providers. Of those four, only one tribally owned provider was designated 

as an ETC.

According to representatives from a tribal association we contacted, FCC 

has provided ETCs with billions of dollars to deploy service to unserved 

areas, but FCC’s efforts have not always been successful in the hardest 

to reach areas, particularly tribal lands. The representatives stated that 

FCC’s competitive market approach does not work where competition 

cannot be supported and that there needs to be a different approach. 

Similarly, tribal officials from Idaho told us that although the provider in 

their area has received millions of dollars in CAF subsidies, it has not 

deployed broadband on the tribal lands. Other tribal officials from Idaho 

told us that although private providers received CAF subsidies to deploy 

broadband service to their reservation, the private providers told the tribe 

it would be years before they offer service on tribal lands.

Additionally, the tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned 

broadband providers we interviewed said tribes may face barriers 

completing federal grant applications to obtain funding for broadband 

deployment. For example, they said tribes face regulatory barriers in 

applying for RUS’s grant funding, including preparing existing and 

proposed network design, demonstrating financial sustainability of the 

broadband project within 5 years, and obtaining matching funds.

The National Broadband Plan recommended that federal agencies 

facilitate tribal access to broadband funding opportunities. Furthermore, 

recognizing the need to reduce barriers to expand broadband 

deployment, the Broadband Opportunity Council, established in March 

2015, issued a memorandum stating that federal agencies should use all 

available and appropriate authorities to identify and address regulatory 

barriers that may unduly impede either broadband deployment or the 

infrastructure to augment broadband deployment.23 However, according 

to RUS officials, RUS has not taken steps to identify or address the 

barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant funding due to limited 

 23The Broadband Opportunity Council was tasked with producing specific 

recommendations to increase broadband deployment, competition, and adoption through 

executive actions within the scope of agency programs, mission, and budgets.
Page 11 GAO-19-134T 

resources and multiple competing priorities for those resources. We 

recommended that RUS identify any regulatory barriers that may unduly 

impede efforts by tribes to obtain RUS grant funds for broadband 

deployment on tribal lands and implement any steps necessary to 

address the identified barriers. By doing so, RUS could help tribes obtain 

funding to expand broadband deployment on tribal lands. RUS neither 

agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation.

Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee, 

this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to 

any questions that you may have.

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

contact Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 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 statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony 

are Rose Almoguera, Katherine Blair, Keith Cunningham, Crystal 

Huggins, Sally Moino, and Tina Paek. Other staff who made contributions 

to the reports cited in this testimony are identified in the source product.

GAO Contact and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(103044)
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.
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.