United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Testimony 

Before the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate

TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Challenges to Assessing 

and Improving 

Telecommunications for 

Native Americans on Tribal 

Lands 

Statement of Mark Goldstein, Director

Physical Infrastructure Issues 

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10 a.m. EST 

Tuesday, March 7, 2006 

 

GAO-06-513T 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

March 7, 2006

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

Challenges to Assessing and Improving 

Telecommunications for Native 

Americans on Tribal Lands 

Highlights of GAO-06-513T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation, United 

States Senate 

An important goal of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, is to ensure access to

telecommunications services for all 

Americans. This testimony is 

based on GAO’s January 2006 

report GAO-06-189, which reviewed 

1) the status of 

telecommunications subscribership

for Native Americans living on 

tribal lands; 2) federal programs 

available for improving

telecommunications on these 

lands; 3) barriers to improvements; 

and 4) how some tribes are

addressing these barriers.

What GAO Recommends

In a draft of its report provided for 

agency comment, GAO

recommended that FCC determine 

what data is needed to assess 

progress toward the goal of

providing access to 

telecommunications services to 

Native Americans living on tribal

lands and how this data should be

collected, and then report to 

Congress on its findings. FCC 

agreed more data is needed but 

maintained that it is not the 

organization best positioned to 

determine what that data should 

be. Given FCC’s response, 

Congress should consider directing 

FCC to carry out our

recommendation. In addition, 

Congress should consider 

amending the Communications Act 

to facilitate and clarify tribal

libraries’ eligibility for universal

service funds.

Based on the 2000 decennial census, the telephone subscribership rate for 

Native American households on tribal lands was substantially below the 

national level of about 98 percent. Specifically, about 69 percent of Native 

American households on tribal lands in the lower 48 states and about 87 

percent in Alaska Native villages had telephone service. This data indicates 

some progress since 1990, though changes since 2000 are not known. The 

U.S. Census Bureau is implementing a new survey that will provide annual 

telephone subscribership rates, but the results for all tribal lands will not be 

available until 2010. The status of Internet subscribership on tribal lands is 

unknown because no one collects this data at the tribal level. Without 

current subscribership data, it is difficult to assess progress or the impact of 

federal programs to improve telecommunications on tribal lands. 

The Rural Utilities Service and the Federal Communications Commission 

(FCC) have several general programs to improve telecommunications in 

rural areas and make service affordable for low-income groups, which would 

include tribal lands. In addition, FCC created some programs targeted to 

tribes, including programs to provide discounts on the cost of telephone 

service to residents of tribal lands. However, one of FCC’s universal service 

fund programs, which supports telecommunications services at libraries, has 

legislatively based eligibility rules that preclude tribal libraries in at least two 

states from being eligible for this funding. FCC officials told GAO that it is 

unable to modify these eligibility rules because they are contained in statute 

and thus modifications would require legislative action by Congress. 

The barriers to improving telecommunications on tribal lands most often 

cited by tribal officials, service providers, and others GAO spoke with were 

the rural, rugged terrain of tribal lands and tribes’ limited financial 

resources. These barriers increase the costs of deploying infrastructure and 

limit the ability of service providers to recover their costs, which can reduce 

providers’ interest in investing in providing or improving 

telecommunications services. Other barriers include the shortage of 

technically trained tribal members and providers’ difficulty in obtaining 

rights of way to deploy their infrastructure on tribal lands. 

GAO found that to address the barriers of rural, rugged terrain and limited 

financial resources that can reduce providers’ interest in investing on tribal 

lands, several tribes are moving toward owning or developing their own 

telecommunications systems, using federal grants, loans, or other assistance, 

and partnerships with the private sector. Some are also focusing on wireless 

technologies, which can be less expensive to deploy over rural, rugged 

terrain. Two tribes are bringing in wireless carriers to compete with wireline

carriers on price and service. In addition, some tribes have developed ways 

to address the need for technical training, and one has worked to expedite 

the tribal decision-making process regarding rights-of-way approvals. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-GAO-06-

513T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mark Goldstein 

at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Co-Chairman, and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the findings and 

recommendations of our January 2006 report, Challenges to Assessing 

and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal 

Lands.

1

 According to the 2000 Census, about 588,000 Native Americans 

were residing on tribal lands.2

 Telephone subscribership rates on these 

lands have historically lagged behind the overall national rate. In 1990, 

only 47 percent of Native American households on tribal lands had 

telephone service compared to about 95 percent of households nationally. 

In our report we discuss: 1) the current status of telecommunications 

subscribership for Native Americans living on tribal lands; 2) federal 

programs available for improving telecommunications on these lands; 3)

barriers to improvements; and 4) the ways in which some tribes are 

addressing these barriers. 

To address these issues, we reviewed Census data and interviewed 

officials at federal agencies that support telecommunications on tribal 

lands. We also interviewed officials representing telecommunications 

providers and industry organizations. Additionally, we interviewed 

officials of 26 tribes in the lower 48 states and 12 Alaska regional native

nonprofit organizations, chosen on the basis of demographics and other 

factors, such as actions being taken on their land to improve 

telecommunications. We also visited 6 tribal lands to learn more about the 

challenges the tribal members were facing, and actions they were taking to 

improve their telecommunications services.3

 We performed our work in 

 1

GAO-06-189, (Washington, D.C., Jan. 11, 2006). Available through GAO’s Web site 

(www.gao.gov).

2

For our report, GAO defined tribal lands as lands that include any federally recognized 

Indian tribe’s reservation, off-reservation trust lands, pueblo, or colony, and Alaska Native

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

203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.) Tribal lands do 

not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas, and the population figure of 588,000 does 

not include the 325,000 Native Americans living on OTSAs. The source of the data that GAO

used throughout this report was the Census 2000 American Indian and Alaska Native 

Summary File. The term “Native Americans” is used to refer to people who identified 

themselves as American Indians and/or Alaska Natives alone or in combination with one or

more races. 

3

The six tribes are: Coeur D’Alene Tribe of the Coeur D’Alene Reservation, Idaho;

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, Washington; Eastern Band of

Cherokee Indians of North Carolina; Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation, 

South Dakota; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; and

Navajo Nation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. 

Page 1 GAO-06-513T 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards from 

August 2004 to December 2005. For more information about the 

methodology used, see our report, Challenges to Assessing and 

Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands. 

In summary, we found that: 

• The most recent census data, from the year 2000, indicate that the 

telephone subscribership rate for Native American households on tribal 

lands is still substantially below the national rate. About 69 percent of 

these households in the lower 48 states had telephone service, which is 

about 29 percentage points less than the national rate of about 98 percent.

About 87 percent of Native American households in Alaska native villages 

had telephone service, also considerably below the national rate. We do 

not know the rate for Internet subscribership for tribal lands due to a lack 

of such data from either the Census Bureau or the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC). 

• The Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service and the FCC have 

several general programs to improve telecommunications in rural areas 

and make service affordable for low-income groups, which would include 

tribal lands and their residents. In addition, FCC created some programs 

targeted to tribal lands, including programs to provide discounts on the 

cost of telephone service to residents of tribal lands, and financial 

incentives to encourage wireless providers to serve tribal lands. However, 

we found that FCC is not collecting sufficient data to assess the extent to

which its efforts to increase telecommunications deployment and 

subscribership on these lands are succeeding. Also, one of FCC’s 

programs to support telecommunications for libraries has legislatively 

based eligibility rules that preclude tribal libraries in at least two states 

from being eligible for this funding. 

• Native American officials, service providers, and others cited several 

barriers to improving telecommunications on tribal lands. The most 

frequently mentioned were the rural, rugged terrain of tribal lands and the

tribes’ limited financial resources. These barriers increase the costs of 

deploying infrastructure and limit the ability of service providers to 

recover their costs. Other barriers cited include the shortage of technically 

trained tribal members and the service providers’ difficulty in obtaining 

rights of way to deploy their infrastructure on tribal lands. 

• Some tribes are making significant progress in addressing these barriers. 

For example, we found that several tribes are moving toward owning or 

developing their own telecommunications systems using federal grants, 

Page 2 GAO-06-513T 
loans, or partnering with the private sector. Some are focusing on wireless 

technologies, which can be less expensive to deploy over rural rugged 

terrain. Two tribes of the six tribes we visited are bringing in wireless 

carriers to compete with wireline carriers on price and service. In 

addition, some tribes have developed ways to address the need for 

technical training, and one tribe we visited has worked to expedite the 

tribal decisionmaking process for rights-of-way approvals. 

Our report has two matters for congressional consideration. First, 

Congress should consider directing FCC to determine what additional data 

is needed to help assess progress toward the goal of providing access to 

telecommunications service on tribal lands, including advanced services 

such as high-speed Internet, and how this data should collected. Second,

Congress should consider amending the Communications Act of 1934 to 

facilitate and clarify the eligibility of tribal libraries for funding under 

FCC’s telecommunication support program for libraries. 

I would now like to present additional detail on the results of our work. 

Tribal lands vary dramatically in size, demographics, and location, ranging 

from the Navajo Nation, with 24,000 square miles and over 176,000 Native

American residents, to tribal land areas in California comprising less than 

1 square mile with fewer than 50 Native American residents. Most tribal 

lands are located in rural or remote locations, though some are near 

metropolitan areas. Also, some tribal lands have a significant percentage

of nonNative Americans residing on them. 

Tribes are unique in being sovereign governments within the United 

States. Their sovereign status has been established by the U.S.

Constitution, treaties, and other federal actions. To help manage tribal 

affairs, tribes have formed governments or subsidiaries of tribal 

governments that include schools, housing, health, and other types of 

corporations. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the 

Department of the Interior has a fiduciary responsibility to tribes and 

assumes some management responsibility for all land held in trust for the 

benefit of the individual Native American or tribe.

Native American tribes are among the most economically distressed 

groups in the United States. According to the 2000 Census, about 37 

percent of Native American households had incomes below the federal

poverty level—more than double the rate for the U.S. population as a 

whole. Residents of tribal lands often lack basic infrastructure, such as 

water and sewer systems, and telecommunications systems. 

Background 

Page 3 GAO-06-513T 
The federal government has long acknowledged the difficulties of 

providing basic services, such as electricity and telephone service, to rural 

areas of the country. The concept of universal telephone service has its 

origins in Section 1 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 

(Communications Act) which states that the FCC was created “for the 

purpose of regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication 

by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all people 

of the United States, a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire 

and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable 

charges . . . .”

4

 The goal of universal service is to ensure that all U.S. 

residents have access to quality telephone service regardless of their 

household income or geographic location. A 1995 report by the Census 

Bureau based on 1990 census data noted that about 47 percent of Native 

American households on tribal lands had telephone service, compared to 

about 95 percent of households nationally.5

 In June 2000, the FCC 

Chairman noted that telephone subscribership among the rural poor was 

roughly 20 percent lower than the rest of the nation, while Native 

Americans living on tribal lands were only half as likely as other 

Americans to subscribe to telephone service. 

As of 2000, the telephone subscribership rate for Native American 

households on tribal lands had improved since 1990, but was still 

substantially below the national rate, while the rate for Internet 

subscribership on tribal lands was unknown due to a lack of data. 

According to data from the 2000 decennial census, about 69 percent of 

Native American households6

 on tribal lands in the lower 48 states had 

telephone service, which was about 29 percentage points less than the 

national rate of about 98 percent. About 87 percent of Native American 

households in Alaska native villages had telephone service, also 

considerably below the national rate. Telephone subscribership rates for 

Native American households on individual tribal lands in 2000 varied 

widely. A few tribal lands had rates above the national level, but the 

Tribal Telephone 

Subscribership Rate is 

Substantially Below 

the National Level and 

Internet 

Subscribership Is 

Unknown 

 4

47 U.S.C. §151. 

5

Bureau of the Census, Housing of American Indians on Reservations—Equipment and

Fuels, Statistical Brief, S/B95-11, (Washington, D.C.: April 1995). 

6

The Census 2000 data in this report are for the American Indian and Alaska Native alone or

in combination with one or more other races. Households are classified by the race of the 

householder. When the term Native American households is used, it refers to the total 

number of occupied housing units where the race of the householder is American Indian

and/or Alaska Native alone or in combination with one or more other races.

Page 4 GAO-06-513T 
majority of them had rates below the national level. To get a better 

understanding of telephone subscribership rates by individual tribe and 

population size, we reviewed data for the 25 tribal lands with the highest 

number of Native American households. These 25 tribal lands represent 

about 65 percent of all Native American households, as shown in Census 

2000 data, and had a range in telephone subscribership rates from 38 

percent for the Navajo Nation Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land 

(located in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) to 94 percent for the Turtle

Mountain Reservation and Off-Reservation Trust Land (located in 

Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota). 

While Census data indicate that the average subscribership rate for Native

Americans on tribal lands has increased from about 47 percent of 

households in 1990 to about 69 percent in 2000, changes in telephone 

subscribership rates since the 2000 decennial census are not known. In 

order to provide more current data, the U.S. Census Bureau (Census 

Bureau) has begun to gather telephone subscribership data through a new, 

more frequent survey that will provide demographic and socioeconomic 

data on communities of all sizes, including tribal lands. However, because

it will take time to accumulate a large enough sample to produce data for 

small communities, annual reports will not be available for all small 

communities, including tribal lands, until 2010. 

The rate of Internet subscribership for Native American households on 

tribal lands is unknown because neither the Census Bureau nor FCC 

collects this data at the tribal level. One survey performed by the Census 

Bureau that collects data on Internet subscribership can provide estimates 

for the nation as a whole, but the survey’s sample cannot provide reliable 

estimates of Internet subscribership on tribal lands. The Census Bureau’s 

new survey will provide data on tribal lands but does not include a 

question on Internet subscribership. Without current subscribership data, 

it is difficult to assess progress or the impact of federal programs to 

improve telecommunications on tribal lands. 

FCC collects data on the deployment of advanced telecommunications 

capability in the United States, but this data cannot be used to determine 

Page 5 GAO-06-513T 
Internet subscribership rates for tribal lands.7

 Pursuant to section 706 of 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996, FCC is required to conduct regular 

inquiries concerning the availability of advanced telecommunications 

capability for all Americans. To obtain this data, FCC requires service 

providers to report a list of the zip codes where they have at least one 

customer of high-speed service. Because the providers are not required to 

report the total number of their residential subscribers in each zip code, 

because tribal lands do not necessarily correspond to zip codes, and 

because these data do not include information on “dial-up” users (i.e., 

those who access the Internet without a broadband connection), these 

data cannot be used to determine the number of residential Internet 

subscribers on tribal lands. The FCC has recognized that its section 706 

data collection efforts in rural and underserved areas need improvement 

to better fulfill Congress’ mandate.8

The Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service and FCC are 

responsible for several general programs designed to improve the nation’s 

telecommunications infrastructure and make services affordable for all 

consumers, which can benefit tribes and tribal lands. The Rural Utilities 

Service has grant, loan, and loan guarantee programs for improving 

telecommunications in rural areas. FCC has several programs (known as 

“universal service” programs) to make telephone service more affordable 

for low-income consumers and consumers living in areas, such as rural 

areas, where the cost to provide service is high. 

In addition to these general programs, FCC has recognized the need to

make special efforts to improve tribal telecommunications and established 

four programs specifically targeted to improving telecommunications for 

residents of tribal lands. The Tribal Land Bidding Credit program provides 

financial incentives to wireless service providers to serve tribal lands. The 

Indian Telecommunications Initiative disseminates information to tribes 

and tribal organizations on telecommunications services on tribal lands, 

including universal service programs and other areas of interest. 

Native Americans Can 

Benefit from Several 

General and TribalSpecific Federal 

Programs to Improve 

Telecommunications 

Services 

 7

Section 706(c)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 defines advanced 

telecommunications, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as highspeed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate

and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any

technology. See, Pub. L. No. 104-104, Title VII, § 706, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153, reproduced

in the notes under 47 U.S.C. § 157. 

8

Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004). 

Page 6 GAO-06-513T 
Enhanced Link-Up, which provides a one-time discount on the cost of 

connecting a subscriber to the telephone network, and Enhanced Lifeline, 

which provides ongoing discounts on the cost of monthly service, provide 

more support per customer than the regular Link-up and Lifeline 

programs. As with FCC’s other universal service programs, the service 

providers are reimbursed from FCC’s universal service fund for the 

discounts they give to the programs’ participants.

Regarding Enhanced Lifeline, we found that, at present, data provided to

the program administrator9

 from the service providers can be broken out 

by state, but not by tribal land, because the reporting form does not ask 

service providers to indicate the number of participants and amount of 

funding by tribal land. Because FCC does not have data on program 

participation and funding by individual tribal land, some basic questions 

cannot be answered: what percentage of residents of particular tribal 

lands are benefiting from the programs and how have the participation 

rates on individual tribal lands changed over time? 

An additional universal service program, known as E-rate, provides 

discounts on telecommunications services for schools and libraries 

nationwide. One of our key findings is that some tribal libraries are not 

eligible to receive E-rate funds because of an issue involving federal 

eligibility criteria. The current statutory provision under the 

Communications Act does not allow tribal libraries to obtain E-rate 

funding for libraries unless the tribal library is eligible for assistance from 

a state library administrative agency under Library Services Technology 

Act (LSTA). In at least two cases, tribes have not applied for E-rate funds 

because their tribal libraries are not eligible for state LSTA funds. 

Tribal and government officials, Native American groups, service 

providers, and others with whom we spoke cited several barriers to 

improving telecommunications service on tribal lands. The rural location 

and rugged terrain of most tribal lands and tribes’ limited financial 

resources were the barriers to improved telecommunications most often 

cited by the officials of tribes and Alaska Native Villages we interviewed. 

Generally, these factors make the cost of building and maintaining the

Multiple Barriers 

Exist to Improving 

Telecommunications 

on Tribal Lands 

 9

FCC designated a not-for-profit corporation, the Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC) to carry out the day-to-day operations of the universal service programs, 

although FCC retains responsibility for overseeing the programs’ operations and ensuring

compliance with the commission’s rules. 

Page 7 GAO-06-513T 
infrastructure needed to provide service higher than they would be in 

urban settings. For example, more cable per customer is required over 

large, sparsely populated areas, and when those areas are mountainous, it 

can be more difficult and costly to install the cable. The Rural Task Force, 

formed by the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service,10

documented the high costs of serving rural customers in a report issued in 

January 2000, which stated that the average telecommunications 

infrastructure cost per customer for rural providers was $5,000, while the

average infrastructure cost per customer for non-rural providers was 

$3,000.11 Officials from 17 tribes and 11 Alaska regional native non-profit 

organizations we interviewed told us that the rural location of their tribe is 

a telecommunications barrier. 

Tribes’ limited financial resources are also seen as a barrier to improving 

telecommunications services on tribal lands. Many tribal lands—including 

some of those we visited, such as the Navajo, the Mescalero Apache, the 

Yakama, and the Oglala Sioux—have poverty rates more than twice the 

national rate, as well as high unemployment rates. The 2000 U.S. Census 

showed that the per capita income for residents on tribal lands was $9,200 

in 1999, less than half the U.S. per capita income of $21,600. Officials of 33

of the 38 Native American entities we interviewed told us that lack of 

financial resources was a barrier to improving telecommunications 

services. 

These two barriers, the rural location of tribal lands (which increases the 

cost of installing telecommunications infrastructure) and tribes’ limited 

financial resources (which can make is difficult for residents and tribal 

governments to pay for services) can combine to deter service providers

from making investments in telecommunications on tribal lands, resulting 

in a lack of service, poor service quality, and little or no competition. For 

example, a representative of the company that provides service to the

Coeur d’Alene tribe told us that high-speed Internet was only available in 

certain areas of the Coeur d’Alene tribal land and that there were cost 

 10Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required FCC to institute the FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service. 47 U.S.C. § 254 (a)(1). The board makes 

recommendations to implement the universal service provisions of the Act. The board is

comprised of FCC commissioners, state utility commissioners, and a consumer advocate 

representative. 

11Rural Task Force, The Rural Difference: Rural Task Force White Paper 2, (Washington

Utilities and Transportation Commission, January 2000), http://www.wutc.wa.gov/rtf

(downloaded August 25, 2005).

Page 8 GAO-06-513T 
issues in providing this service to the more remote and less densely 

populated parts of the reservation. Another provider’s representative told

us that providing digital subscriber lines (DSL)12 to most parts of the 

Eastern Band of Cherokee’s reservation would not be profitable because 

the land is rugged and to connect many of those who live out in remote 

rural areas would require an investment that would be difficult to justify. 

The third barrier most often cited by tribal officials is a shortage of 

technically trained tribal members to plan and implement improvements 

on tribal lands. Officials of 13 of the 38 Native American tribes and tribal

organizations we interviewed told us that lack of telecommunications 

training and knowledge among tribal members is a barrier to improving 

their telecommunications. Some of these officials said they needed more 

technically trained members to plan and oversee the implementation of 

telecommunications improvements, as well as to manage existing systems. 

An official of the Coeur d’Alene tribe, who has technical training, also told 

us that tribes without technically trained staff would be at a disadvantage 

in negotiating with service providers. This official added that having tribal

members trained in telecommunications was necessary to ensure that a 

tribe’s planned improvements included the equipment and technology the 

tribe wanted and needed.

A fourth barrier cited by tribal officials and other stakeholders is the 

complex and costly process of obtaining rights-of-way for deploying 

telecommunications infrastructure on tribal lands, which can impede 

service providers’ deployment of telecommunications infrastructure. In 

part, this is because BIA must approve the application for a right-of-way 

across Indian lands and to obtain BIA approval, service providers are 

required to take multiple steps and coordinate with several entities during 

the application process. 

From our interviews of officials of 26 tribes and 12 Alaska regional native 

non-profit organizations, we found that 22 are addressing the need to

improve their telecommunications services by developing or owning part, 

or all, of their own local telecommunications network. Some of those we 

spoke to told us that they were doing this because their provider was 

unwilling to invest in improved telecommunications services, in part due 

Tribes Are Addressing 

Barriers to Improved 

Telecommunications 

in Different Ways. 

 12Digital Subscriber Line is a broadband connection that provides greater capacity for 

faster data transmission than can be provided over a conventional telephone line. 

Page 9 GAO-06-513T 
to the barriers of the tribe’s rural location, rugged terrain, and limited 

financial resources. An additional 10 tribes told us that they have 

considered or are considering owning part or all of their 

telecommunications systems. 

The tribes we visited are using federal grants, loans, or other assistance, 

long-range planning, and private-sector partnerships to help improve 

service on their lands. In addition, some tribes have addressed these 

barriers by focusing on wireless technologies, which can be less costly to 

deploy across large distances and rugged terrain. For example, the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe in Idaho is using a Rural Utilities Service grant to overcome 

its limited financial resources and develop its own high-speed wireless 

Internet system. 

Some tribes are addressing the shortage of technically-trained tribal 

members to plan and implement improvements on tribal lands through 

mentoring and partnerships with educational institutions. For example, 

the Yakama Nation has proposed to connect a local university to its 

telecommunications system in exchange for technical training for its staff. 

The Mescalero Apache Tribe has improved its technical capacity by hiring 

technically trained staff and pairing them with less trained staff, creating a

technical mentoring program. 

To help reduce the time and expense required to obtain a right-of-way 

across tribal lands, one tribe is developing a right-of-way policy to make 

the tribal approval process more timely and efficient. Also, a BIA official 

acknowledged that portions of the federal regulations for rights-of-way 

over Indian lands, including the section on telecommunications 

infrastructure, are outdated. BIA is currently revising the regulations to 

better apply to modern utility technologies, including advanced 

telecommunications infrastructure, though the timeframes for completion 

of this work have not been established. 

Our report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications 

for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, contains more information on 

these and other tribal initiatives, as well as detailed case studies of six 

tribes’ efforts to improve their telecommunications infrastructure and 

services. 

Under the principles of universal service, as established by Congress, FCC 

has recognized the need to promote telecommunications deployment and 

subscribership on tribal lands. Despite improvements in both deployment 

Summary 

Page 10 GAO-06-513T 
and subscribership of telecommunications services, as of 2000, Native 

American households on tribal lands still lag significantly behind the rest

of the nation. Progress in dealing with the underlying causes of this 

problem is difficult to assess because of a paucity of current information 

about both deployment and subscribership of telecommunications for 

Native Americans on tribal lands. Moreover, this lack of adequate data

makes it difficult for FCC and Congress to assess the extent to which 

federal efforts designed to increase telecommunications deployment and 

subscribership on these lands are succeeding. 

We found there is a statutory provision in the Communications Act which 

precludes some tribal libraries from benefiting from a universal service 

program. The Act stipulates that a library’s eligibility for E-rate support is 

dependent on whether the library is eligible for certain state library funds. 

Yet the tribal libraries in at least two states are precluded under state law 

from being eligible for such funds, which has the effect of making these 

libraries ineligible to apply for E-rate funds. FCC officials told us that 

modifying the federal eligibility criteria to resolve this situation would 

require legislative action by the Congress. Clarifying this issue could help

bring high-speed Internet access to more residents of tribal lands through 

their tribal libraries. 

In a draft of our report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving 

Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, provided 

for agency comment, we recommended that FCC determine what data is 

needed to assess progress toward the goal of providing access to 

telecommunications services to Native Americans living on tribal lands 

and how this data should be collected, and then report to Congress on its 

findings. FCC agreed that more data is needed but maintained that it is not 

the organization best positioned to determine what that data should be. 

Given FCC’s response, we added as a matter for congressional 

consideration that Congress should consider directing FCC to determine 

what additional data is needed to help assess progress toward the goal of

providing access to telecommunications services, including high-speed 

Internet, for Native Americans living on tribal lands; determine how this 

data should regularly be collected; and report to Congress on its findings. 

We also suggested that to facilitate Internet access for tribal libraries, 

Congress should consider amending the Communications Act of 1934 to 

allow libraries eligible for Library Services and Technology Act funds, 

provided by the Director of Institute of Museum and Library Sciences to 

either a state library administrative agency or to a federally recognized 

tribe, to be eligible for funding under the E-rate program. 

Page 11 GAO-06-513T 
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you or other members of the committee may have about

our findings. 

For questions regarding this testimony, please contact me on (202) 512-

2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this 

testimony include Carol Anderson-Guthrie, Edda Emmanuelli-Perez, John 

Finedore, Michelle Fejfar, Logan Kleier, Michael Mgebroff, John Mingus, 

Mindi Weisenbloom, Alwynne Wilbur, Carrie Wilks, and Nancy Zearfoss. 

Page 12 GAO-06-513T 

Contact and 

Acknowledgements 

(543166) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It 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. 
GAO’s Mission 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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER