a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

January 2006 TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Challenges to 

Assessing and 

Improving 

Telecommunications 

For Native Americans 

on Tribal Lands

GAO-06-189
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

January 2006

TELECOMMUNICATIONS 

Challenges to Assessing and Improving 

Telecommunications for Native 

Americans on Tribal Lands 

Highlights of GAO-06-189, a report to 

congressional requesters 

An important goal of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as 

amended, is to ensure access to

telecommunications services for all 

Americans. The Federal

Communications Commission has 

made efforts to improve the 

historically low subscribership rates 

of Native Americans on tribal lands.

In addition, Congress is considering 

legislation to establish a grant 

program to help tribes improve

telecommunications services on their 

lands. This report discusses 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 this 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 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 recommended action. 

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. While this data 

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

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

telephone subscribership rates, though 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 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 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, one of FCC’s universal service fund programs that 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 service. 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 private-sector partnerships. 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 the wireline 

carrier 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-06-189.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Mark L. 

Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 7

Tribal Telephone Subscribership Rate Is Substantially Below the 

National Level and Internet Subscribership Rate Is Unknown 10

Native Americans Can Benefit from Several General and 

Tribal-Specific Federal Programs to Improve 

Telecommunications Services 18

Multiple Barriers Exist to Improving Telecommunications on Tribal 

Lands 32

Tribes Are Addressing Barriers to Improved Telecommunications in 

Different Ways 39

Conclusions 53

Matters for Congressional Consideration 54

Agency Comments 54

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 57

Appendix II: List of Tribes, Alaska Regional Native Nonprofit 

Organizations, and Other Groups Interviewed 62

Appendix III: Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address Telecommunications 

Barriers 65

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Indian Affairs 80

Appendix V: Comments from the Institute of Museum and Library 

Services 81

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 82

Tables Table 1: Summary of RUS Grant Programs for Rural 

Telecommunications 19

Table 2: Summary of RUS Loan and Loan Guarantee Programs for 

Rural Telecommunications 20

Table 3: Summary of Key FCC Universal Service Programs 21

Table 4: Number of Enhanced Link-Up Participants and Funds 

Distributed to Service Providers 23

Table 5: Number of Enhanced Lifeline Participants and Funds 

Distributed to Service Providers 24

Table 6: Tribal Land Bidding Credits Awarded 26
Contents

Page ii GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Table 7: Status of Wireless Providers’ ETC Applications on Tribal 

Lands 29

Figures Figure 1: Map of Tribal Lands in the United States Based on 2000 

Census Data (Tribes Included in GAO’s 6 Site Visits Are 

Indicated by Name) 8

Figure 2: Telephone Subscribership Rates for Tribal Lands In the 

Lower 48 States and Alaska Native Villages, Based on 

Census 2000 Data 12

Figure 3: Telephone Subscribership Rates for the 25 Tribal Lands 

with the Most Native American Households, Based on 

Census 2000 14

Figure 4: Wireless Tower near Kyle, South Dakota on the Pine 

Ridge reservation (April 2005) 33

Figure 5: Coeur d’Alene Community Technology Center (April 

2005) 41

Figure 6: Computer Lab at the Mescalero Apache School (April 

2005) 42

Figure 7: Fiber Deployment on Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Reservation (April 2005) 44

Figure 8: MATI’s Voice over Internet Protocol Equipment (April 

2005) 49

Figure 9: NNTRC’s headquarters in Window Rock, AZ (April 

2005) 52

Abbreviations

ACS American Community Survey

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs

CPS Current Population Survey

ETC eligible telecommunications carrier

FCC Federal Communications Commission

ITI Indian Telecommunications Initiative

LSTA Library Services and Technology Act

OTSA Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area

NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration

RUS Rural Utilities Service

USAC Universal Service Administrative Company
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.

Contents

Page iii GAO-06-189 Telecommunications
Page 1 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

January 11, 2006 Letr

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Byron Dorgan

Vice Chairman 

Committee on Indian Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye

Co-Chairman

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation

United States Senate

The telephone subscribership rate for Native Americans living on tribal 

lands has historically lagged behind the overall national rate. This is part of 

a broader infrastructure problem on tribal lands, where conditions can 

make economic development difficult and residents may lack such basics 

as water and sewer systems. Data from the 2000 decennial census show 

that the approximately 588,000 Native Americans living on federal tribal 

lands were among the most economically distressed groups in the United 

States, with about 37 percent of Native Americans living below the federal 

poverty level.1

An important goal of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended 

(Communications Act) is to preserve and advance universal service. In the 

Communications Act, Congress directs the Federal Communications 

Commission (FCC) to base policies for the preservation and advancement 

of universal service on principles that include, among other things, making 

quality services available at reasonable rates and providing access to 

advanced services throughout the nation. Specifically mentioned in this 

regard are low-income consumers and those in rural, insular, and high-cost 

areas—categories that include many Native Americans living on tribal 

lands in rural or remote locations.2

 To help develop and improve 

telecommunications service on tribal lands, Congress is considering 

authorizing a grant program specifically for federally recognized tribes.3

 To 

1

 The national poverty level in 2000 was 12.4 percent. 

2

 47 U.S.C. § 254.

3

 S. 535, 109th Congress (2005).
Page 2 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

assist Congress, you requested that we examine several aspects of 

telecommunications on tribal lands. Accordingly, we reviewed 1) the status 

of telecommunications subscribership (telephone and Internet) for Native 

Americans on tribal lands in the lower 48 states and Alaska; 2) federal 

programs available for improving telecommunications on tribal lands; 3) 

the barriers that exist to improving telecommunications on tribal lands; 

and 4) how some tribes are addressing these barriers.

To determine the status of telecommunications subscribership for Native 

Americans on tribal lands in the lower 48 states and Alaska (there are no 

federally recognized tribal lands in Hawaii), we analyzed 2000 decennial 

census data for federally recognized reservations and trust lands. We did 

not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSAs) in our analysis.4

 We 

also interviewed officials representing individual tribes, tribal 

organizations, telecommunications providers, industry organizations, and 

federal agencies. To determine the availability of federal programs that 

provide financial and technical assistance to improve telecommunications 

services on tribal lands, we interviewed officials from several federal 

agencies and obtained information on federal programs. To determine the 

barriers that exist to improving telecommunications services on tribal 

lands and how some tribes have addressed these barriers, we interviewed 

tribal officials, tribal organizations, service providers, equipment 

manufacturers, federal agencies, and others. We reviewed previous studies 

that discussed telecommunications services on tribal lands. Additionally, 

we conducted interviews with officials of 26 tribes and 12 Alaska regional 

native nonprofit organizations, chosen on the basis of demographic and 

other information, such as actions being taken to improve 

telecommunications on their land. For our site visits, we then selected 6 

tribes that had taken some action to overcome one or more of the most 

frequently cited barriers to improving telecommunications. During the 

visits, we interviewed tribal officials and observed the tribes’ 

telecommunications systems, ongoing improvement efforts, and 

challenges. While the interviews and site visits cannot be projected to all 

tribes, the information gathered allows us to describe a range of barriers 

and how tribes are addressing these barriers. For more detailed 

information on how tribes were chosen for both the interviews and the site 

visits, and other aspects of our review, see appendix I. 

4

 OTSAs are statistical entities identified and delineated by the U.S. Census Bureau in 

consultation with federally recognized tribes in Oklahoma that do not currently have a 

reservation, but once had a reservation in that state. 
Page 3 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

We conducted our audit work from August 2004 through December 2005 in 

Washington, D.C., and at the 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. We assessed the reliability of 

Census 2000 data and found the data sufficiently reliable for the types of 

analyses that we conducted in this report. Our work was conducted in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief As of 2000, the telephone subscribership rate for Native American 

households on tribal lands was 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 households5

 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 

majority of them had rates below the national rate. For example, the 

Kalispel tribal land in Washington had a telephone subscribership rate of 

100 percent, while the tribal lands of the Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of 

Texas had a rate of 34 percent. While this data indicates some progress 

since 1990, 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 

5

 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-06-189 Telecommunications

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. For example, 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. In addition, the Census Bureau’s new survey 

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 has 

asked the Census Bureau to collect data on Internet subscribership, using 

this new survey. Census Bureau officials told us, however, that the bureau's 

internal policy is to not include questions on its new survey unless the 

collection of that data by the Census Bureau is mandated by law. They do 

not believe that such a mandate exists for the collection of data on Internet 

subscribership by the Census Bureau.

The Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS) 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. RUS 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. FCC also has a program that ensures that health care 

providers serving rural communities pay no more than their urban 

counterparts for telecommunications services necessary for the provision 

of health care. An additional universal service program, known as E-rate , 

provides discounts on telecommunications services for schools and 

libraries nationwide. In our interviews with tribal and state officials, we 

learned that some tribal libraries are not eligible to receive E-rate funds 

because of an issue involving federal eligibility criteria. The 

Communications 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. In addition to these general 

programs, FCC established four programs specifically targeted to 

improving telecommunications for residents of tribal lands. Enhanced 
Page 5 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Link-Up provides a one-time discount on the cost of connecting a 

subscriber to the telephone network and Enhanced Lifeline provides 

ongoing discounts on the cost of monthly service. The third program, the 

Tribal Land Bidding Credit program, provides financial incentives to 

wireless service providers to serve tribal lands. The fourth program, 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. 

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 barriers most 

often cited were the rural, rugged terrain of tribal lands, and tribes’ limited 

financial resources. Many tribal officials and service providers told us that 

the rural, rugged terrain of tribal lands can increase the cost of installing 

telecommunications infrastructure to provide or improve service. The 

costs of addressing this barrier, combined with tribes’ limited financial 

resources, can deter service providers from investing in 

telecommunications infrastructure on tribal lands because such 

investments are not viewed as cost effective. 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. A fourth barrier 

mentioned by both tribes and service providers is the difficulty of obtaining 

rights-of-way to deploy telecommunications equipment across some tribal 

lands, a process that involves individual landholders, tribal governments, 

service providers, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has fiduciary 

responsibility for tribal lands.

Tribes are addressing these barriers in different ways, according to our 

interviews with 26 tribes and 12 Alaska regional native nonprofit 

organizations, and our visits to 6 of these tribes that have taken or are 

taking action to improve their telecommunications. Specifically, to address 

the barriers of rural, rugged terrain and limited financial resources that 

have deterred investment in telecommunications on tribal lands, several 

tribes are moving toward owning or developing their own 

telecommunications systems. These tribes are using federal grants, loans, 

or other assistance; long-range planning; and private-sector partnerships to 

help improve service on their lands. Additionally, at 2 of the sites we 

visited, the tribally owned companies are focusing on extending and 

improving service rather than on maximizing profit. Some tribes have 

focused primarily on developing wireless technologies, which can be less 

expensive to deploy over long distances and rugged terrain, to address 
Page 6 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

these same barriers. In addition, 2 tribes we visited are addressing their 

need for improved telecommunications services by encouraging wireless 

companies to compete with wireline providers on their lands. One wireless 

company on each of the reservations obtained status as an eligible 

telecommunications carrier and so is able to access universal service funds 

and profitably provide service in these areas. To address their need for 

more technically-trained tribal members, 2 tribes we visited are developing 

their own training centers as well as establishing training relationships with 

educational institutions. To address the difficulty of obtaining rights-of-way 

to deploy telecommunications equipment across some tribal lands, one 

tribe is developing a right-of-way policy to make the tribal approval process 

more timely and efficient.

This report includes 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 services, including high-speed Internet, to Native 

Americans living on tribal lands; determine how this data should regularly 

be collected; and report to Congress on its findings. Second, Congress 

should consider amending the Communications Act of 1934 to facilitate 

and clarify the eligibility of tribal libraries for funding under the E-rate 

program. 

A draft of this report was sent to the following agencies for comment: the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Census Bureau, National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), FCC, 

General Services Administration, Institute of Museum and Library Services, 

and RUS. RUS and the General Services Administration offered no 

comments. BIA provided written comments, presented in appendix IV, 

stating that BIA recognized the need to update its rights-of-way regulations 

to include advanced telecommunications infrastructure and is working to 

include this in its trust related regulations. BIA will issue a Rights-of-Way 

Handbook in March, 2006, to ensure consistent application of existing 

regulations. The Institute of Museum and Library Services provided written 

comments, presented in appendix V, stating that the report accurately 

reflected its understanding of the relevant issues and concerns. NTIA 

offered technical comments, as did the Census Bureau and FCC, which we 

have incorporated where appropriate. In the draft, we recommended that 

FCC determine what additional data is needed to help assess progress 

toward the goal of providing access to telecommunications services, 

including high-speed Internet, to Native Americans living on tribal lands; 

determine how this data should regularly be collected; and report to 
Page 7 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Congress on its findings. In oral comments responding to this 

recommendation, FCC agreed that additional data is needed, but did not 

agree that it is the organization best positioned to determine what that data 

should be. FCC maintains that other federal agencies and departments 

possess expertise and more direct authorization to carry out this task. We 

continue to believe that FCC, as the agency responsible under the 

Communications Act for the goal of making available, as far as possible, 

telecommunications at reasonable charges to all Americans, is the 

appropriate agency to determine what data is needed to advance the goal of 

universal service and support related policy decisions—especially for 

Native Americans on tribal lands who continue to be disadvantaged in this 

regard.

Background According to the 2000 Census, approximately 588,000 Native Americans 

were residing on tribal lands.6

 Tribal lands vary dramatically in size, 

demographics, and location. They range in size from the Navajo Nation, 

which consists of about 24,000 square miles, to some tribal land areas in 

California comprising less than 1 square mile (see figure 1). Over 176,000 

Native Americans live on the Navajo reservation, while other tribal lands 

have fewer than 50 Native residents. The population on a majority of tribal 

lands is predominantly Native American, but some tribal lands have a 

significant percentage of nonNative Americans. In addition, while most 

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

metropolitan areas. Tribes are unique in being sovereign governments 

within the United States. The federal government has recognized the 

sovereign status of tribes since the founding of the United States. The U.S. 

Constitution, treaties, and other federal government actions have 

established tribal sovereignty. 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 

6

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

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

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

85 Stat. 688 (1971) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C. §§ 1601 et seq.). Tribal lands do not 

include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas, 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. 
Page 8 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

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.

Figure 1: Map of Tribal Lands in the United States Based on 2000 Census Data (Tribes Included in GAO’s 6 Site Visits Are 

Indicated by Name)a

a

Hawaii does not have any federally recognized tribes or tribal lands. Since July 2000, a number of bills 

have been introduced to provide a process for the recognition by the United States of a Native 

Hawaiian governing entity. Most recently, on January 25, 2005, H.R. 309 and S. 147--the Native 

Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2005--were introduced in the House and Senate, 

respectively.

Coeur

d’Alene

Reservation Pine Ridge

Reservation

Eastern Band

of Cherokee

Reservation

Navajo

Reservation Mescalero

Apache

Reservation

Tribal lands visited by GAO

Other tribal lands

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

Yakama

Reservation
Page 9 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

This map does not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas (OTSAs).

In Alaska, federal law directed the establishment of 12 for profit regional 

corporations, 1 for each geographic region comprised of Natives having a 

common heritage and sharing common interests, and over 200 native 

villages.7

 These corporations have become the vehicle for distributing land 

and monetary benefits to Alaska Natives to provide a fair and just 

settlement of aboriginal land claims in Alaska. The Native villages are 

entities within the state that are recognized by BIA to receive services from 

the federal government. The 12 regional corporations have corresponding 

nonprofit arms that provide social services to the villages.

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 have 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 services. According to tribal 

officials and government agencies, conditions on tribal lands have made 

successful economic development more difficult than in other parts of the 

country. A study done for the federal government, based on research 

gathered in 1999, found that the high cost and small markets associated 

with investment in tribal lands deter business investment.8

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, which states that the 

Federal Communications Commission 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 the people of the 

United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio 

communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges....”9

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

7

 In addition, a thirteenth corporation was established later for nonresident Alaska Natives. 

See, 43 U.S.C. § 1606.

8

 College of Engineering, New Mexico State University, Assessment of Technology 

Infrastructure in Native Communities, prepared at the request of the Department of 

Commerce, Economic Development Administration.

9

 47 U.S.C. §151.
Page 10 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

to quality telephone service regardless of their household income or 

geographic location. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 reaffirmed the 

commitment to universal service and expanded it to include not just 

traditional telephone service but access to advanced telecommunications 

services (such as high-speed Internet access) for schools, libraries, and 

rural health care providers. 

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.10 In June 2000, the FCC Chairman noted that the Commission’s 

universal service policies “had yielded a remarkable rate of telephone 

subscribership, above 90 percent for the nation as a whole.”11 However, he 

also 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. In August 2000, FCC identified certain categories of 

Americans, including Native Americans, who were having difficulty 

obtaining access to advanced telecommunications services. 

Tribal Telephone 

Subscribership Rate Is 

Substantially Below 

the National Level and 

Internet 

Subscribership Rate Is 

Unknown

According to data from the 2000 decennial census, the rate of telephone 

subscribership for Native American households on tribal lands was 

substantially below the national rate of 97.6 percent. While this data 

indicates some progress since 1990, changes since then are unknown due 

to a lack of more current data. Additionally, the rate of Internet 

subscribership is unknown because no federal survey has been designed to 

capture this information for tribal lands. 

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

Fuels, Statistical Brief, SB/95-11, (Washington, D.C.: April 1995). This statistical brief 

evaluated American Indian households on reservations with 500 or more American Indian 

Households that lacked telephone service. 

11 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and 

Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, 

CC Docket No. 96-45, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 12208 (2000).
Page 11 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Telephone Subscribership 

for Native American 

Households on Most Tribal 

Lands Was Substantially 

Below the National Rate in 

2000

According to the 2000 decennial census, the telephone subscribership rate 

for Native American households on tribal lands in the lower 48 states was 

68.6 percent, while for Alaska Native Villages it was 87 percent—both 

substantially below the national rate of 97.6 percent.12 Figure 2 shows the 

number of tribal lands within various percentile ranges of telephone 

subscribership for Native American households, based on our analysis of 

2000 decennial census data. We have separated Alaska Native tribal lands 

from the tribal lands in the lower 48 states because telecommunications 

infrastructure in Alaska differs from that of the lower 48 states due to 

Alaska’s weather and terrain. The data is shown for 198 tribal lands in the 

lower 48 states and 131 tribal lands in Alaska. Tribal lands with fewer than 

100 people are not included in the data available from the Census Bureau.13

In these areas, there must be at least 100 people in a specific group, 

including American Indian and Alaska Native tribal groupings, before data 

will be shown.

12 All telephone subscribership rates in this report are estimates derived from a sample 

collected through the Census 2000. Within most American Indian and Alaska Native areas, 1 

in every 2 households was asked detailed questions on population and housing 

characteristics, such as availability of telephone service. 

13 Census 2000 data product, American Indian and Alaska Native Summary File, includes 

tabulations of the population and housing data collected from a sample of the population 

(within most American Indian and Alaska Native areas, 1 in every 2 households). In these 

areas, there must be at least 100 people in a specific group, including American Indian and 

Alaska Native tribal groupings, before data will be shown. As a result of this threshold, even 

though as of March 2000, there were over 550 federally recognized tribes, Census 2000 data 

shows 198 lower 48 tribal lands and 131 Alaska Native Villages for people who indicated 

their race, alone or in combination, as American Indian and/or Alaska Native. 
Page 12 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Figure 2: Telephone Subscribership Rates for Tribal Lands In the Lower 48 States 

and Alaska Native Villages, Based on Census 2000 Data

a

 Telephone subscribership rates of Native American households with telephone service available are 

based on 2000 Census sample data. Within most American Indian and Alaska Native areas, 1 in every 

2 households was asked detailed questions on population and housing characteristics, such as 

availability of telephone service. This chart contains telephone subscribership rates for the 198 lower 

48 tribal lands and 131 Alaska Native Villages for which the Census Bureau published data regarding 

Native American households. In our analysis, we did not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas. 

As figure 2 shows, there was considerable variation among tribes regarding 

telephone subscribership rates, with some comparable or higher than the 

national rate but most below it—and many substantially so. We found, for 

example, that the Kalispel tribal land in Washington had a telephone 

subscribership rate of 100 percent, while the tribal lands of the Kickapoo 

Traditional Tribe of Texas had a rate of 34 percent. 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. The lands vary greatly in the number of Native American 

households located on them (from about 46,000 for the Navajo Nation to 

about 1,100 for Fort Berthold) and in geographic size, with the Navajo 

Nation’s lands comprising about 24,000 square miles and the Eastern Band 

of Cherokee’s land comprising about 83 square miles.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Number of tribal lands

Telephone subscribership rates

a

25

11

14

86

29

57

127

51

76

62

28

34

18

7

11 4 4 3

Alaska:

Lower 48:

2

2

3

1

0

3

>/= 97.6% 91-97.5% 81-90% 71-80% 61-70% 51-60% 41-50% 31-40%

Tribal lands in Alaska

Tribal lands in lower 48 states

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

National

telephone

subscribership rate: 97.6%
Page 13 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

As shown in figure 3, the Native American household telephone 

subscribership rates for these most populous tribal lands were all below 

the national rate of 97.6 percent.14 Nine of the 25 tribal lands, representing 

about 44 percent of Native American households on tribal lands in the 

lower 48 states, had telephone subscribership rates at a level below 78 

percent—which is about what the national rate was over 40 years ago when 

the 1960 decennial census was taken. The subscribership rate for the most 

populous tribal land—the Navajo—was only 38 percent. 

14 The calculations in this section of the report do not include Native American households 

located in Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas. 
Page 14 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Figure 3: Telephone Subscribership Rates for the 25 Tribal Lands with the Most Native American Households,a Based on Census 

2000

a

The Census 2000 data in this report are for the American Indian and/or 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 

Tribal land

Telephone

subscribership rateb

Yakama Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (WA)

(13) 1,977 88%

Navajo Nation Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (AZ,NM,UT)

(1) 45,817 38% Hopi Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (AZ)

(14) 1,781 66%

Tribal land

Telephone

subscribership rate

Native American

households

Native American

households

Pine Ridge Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (SD,NE)

(2) 3,106 75% Wind River Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (WY)

(15) 1,764 76%

(3) Osage Reservation (OK) 2,900 92% Fort Peck Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (MT)

(16) 1,763 86%

(4) Fort Apache Reservation (AZ) 2,801 55% Zuni Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (NM,AZ)

(17) 1,708 78%

(5) Flathead Reservation (MT) 2,585 92% Cheyenne River Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (SD)

(18) 1,688 88%

Tohono O'odham Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (AZ)

(6) 2,559 73% Colville Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (WA)

(19) 1,594 90%

(7) 2,540 71% Gila River Reservation (AZ) Leech Lake Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (MN)

(20) 1,431 85%

Blackfeet Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (MT)

(8) 2,434 91% (21) Standing Rock Reservation (SD,ND) 1,426 69%

Turtle Mountain Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (MT,ND,SD)

(9) 2,359 94% (22) Red Lake Reservation (MN) 1,310 87%

Eastern Cherokee

Reservation (NC)

(10) 2,238 91% Crow Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (MT)

(23) 1,246 84%

Rosebud Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (SD)

(11) 2,225 70% White Earth Reservation and

Off-Reservation Trust Land (MN)

(24) 1,161 85%

(12) San Carlos Reservation (AZ) 2,107 79% (25) Fort Berthold Reservation (ND) 1,124 90%

Source: GAO analysis of 2000 Census data.

65%

The 25 tribal lands listed below are the 25 with the 

highest number of Native American households

a

 in the 

lower 48 states. These tribal lands represent 93,644 of 

144,132 (65%) of Native American households in the 

lower 48 states as shown in Census 2000 data.
Page 15 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

units where the race of the householder is American Indian and/or Alaska Native alone or in 

combination with one or more other races.

b

Telephone subscribership rates of Native American households with telephone service available are 

based on 2000 Census sample data. Within most American Indian and Alaska Native areas, 1 in every 

2 households was asked detailed questions on population and housing characteristics, such as 

availability of telephone service. This chart contains telephone subscribership rates for the 25 lands of 

the 198 lower 48 tribal lands and 131 Alaska Native Villages with the most number of households for 

which the Census Bureau published data regarding Native American households. In our analysis, we 

did not include Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Areas. 

Because the 2000 decennial census is the most current data available on 

telephone subscribership rates on tribal lands, it is not known whether 

these rates have changed between 2000 and the present. To help improve 

the accuracy of the next decennial census and collect demographic, 

socioeconomic and housing data in a more timely way, the Census Bureau 

developed the American Community Survey (ACS), which includes a 

question on telephone service.15 In January 2005, the Census Bureau began 

sending out the ACS questionnaire to households. Annual results will be 

available for populations on all individual tribal lands by summer 2010, and 

sooner for tribal lands with populations over 20,000. This schedule is based 

on the time it will take to accumulate a large enough sample to produce 

data for areas with populations as small as 600 people.16

No Federal Data Available 

on Internet Subscribership 

Rates For Tribal Lands

The status of Internet subscribership on tribal lands is unknown because 

no federal survey has been designed to track this information. Although the 

Census Bureau and FCC currently collect some national data on Internet 

subscribership, and FCC also collects some state level data, none of their 

survey instruments are designed to estimate Internet subscribership on 

tribal lands. In addition, officials of both agencies told us that to the best of 

15 For Census 2000, as in several previous decennial census, two forms were used, a short 

form and a long form. The short form was sent to every household, and the long form, 

containing questions about population and housing characteristics, was sent to only a 

limited number of households. The American Community Survey replaced the long form 

questionnaire in the decennial census. The next decennial census will only consist of the 

short form questionnaire. For more information on the American Community Survey see 

GAO, Legal Authority for American Community Survey, B-289852 (Washington, D.C.: April 

4, 2002), The American Community Survey: Accuracy and Timeliness Issues, 

GAO-02-956R (Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2002), American Community Survey: Key 

Unresolved Issues, GAO-05-82 (Washington, D.C.: November 8, 2004).

16 Estimates will be based on 5-year average data for tribal lands with less than 20,000 people 

(available in 2010) and 3-year average data for tribal lands with populations between 20,000 

and 64,999 (available in 2008). Most tribal lands have less than 20,000 people. Tribal lands 

with populations of 65,000 people or more will have annual estimates (available in 2006).
Page 16 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

their knowledge, no other federal agency collects data on Internet 

subscribership.

Unlike telephone subscribership data, the 2000 decennial census did not 

collect information on Internet subscribership, nor is the Census Bureau 

currently collecting it on the ACS. The Census Bureau does collect some 

national data on Internet subscribership through the Current Population 

Survey (CPS). However, this monthly survey of households conducted by 

the Census Bureau for the Bureau of Labor Statistics is designed primarily 

to produce national and state estimates for characteristics of the labor 

force. To obtain national and state estimates on Internet subscribership 

rates, supplemental questions on Internet and computer use have been 

added to the CPS questionnaire. According to a Department of Commerce 

report, based on October 2003 CPS data, the Internet subscribership rate 

for U.S. households was about 55 percent.17 However, Commerce 

Department officials told us that the CPS sample cannot provide reliable 

estimates of Internet subscribership on tribal lands because there are not 

enough tribal land households in the sample to provide a reliable measure. 

FCC collects data on the deployment of advanced telecommunications 

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

Internet subscribership rates for tribal lands.18 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 fulfill its mandate, FCC has issued four 

reports, starting in January 1999, on the availability of advanced 

telecommunications capability in the United States. To obtain data for 

these reports, FCC requires service providers to report the total number of 

high-speed lines (or wireless channels), broken down by type of 

technology, for each state. For each of the technology subtotals, providers 

also report additional detail concerning the percentage of lines that are 

17 National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department of 

Commerce, A Nation Online: Entering The Broadband Age, (Washington, D.C.: September 

2004).

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

telecommunications, without regard to any transmission media or technology, as 

high-speed, 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.
Page 17 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

connected to residential users19 and 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 residential subscribers in each zip 

code to whom they provide high-speed service, and because tribal lands do 

not necessarily correspond to zip codes, this data cannot be used to 

determine the number of residential Internet subscribers on tribal lands. 

Finally, data on the availability of “dial-up” Internet access is not provided 

in these reports for any areas in the country because it is not considered an 

advanced telecommunications capability. 

The FCC has acknowledged that the zip code data present an elementary 

view of where high-speed Internet service subscribers are located.20 In 

particular, its data collection method does not fully describe some 

segments of the population, such as Native Americans residing on tribal 

lands. FCC has recognized that its section 706 data collection efforts in 

rural and underserved areas need improvement to better fulfill Congress’ 

mandate.21 Without current subscribership data, it is difficult to assess 

progress or the impact of federal programs to improve telecommunications 

on tribal lands. 

 In a September 2004 letter to the Census Bureau, the FCC Chairman at that 

time stated that in order to better implement section 706 of the 

Telecommunications Act, FCC needs to know the rate of Internet 

subscribership, and particularly, the rate of Internet subscribership in 

smaller and more sparsely populated areas of the country, that would 

include tribal lands. Given the limitations of the current Census Bureau and 

FCC data collection efforts, FCC requested the Census Bureau add a 

question to the ACS regarding Internet subscribership. The ACS is designed 

19 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, WC Docket No. 04-141, Report 

and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004). Under this Order, all facilities-based providers of 

broadband connections to end users are required to report broadband data, all local 

exchange carriers are required to report local telephone service data, and all mobile 

telephone carriers are required to report mobile telephone data. Providers subject to the 

requirements and regulations established in the Order had to complete and file the amended 

form no later than September 1, 2005, and semiannually thereafter.

20 Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capabilities to 

All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate such 

Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, CC Docket 

No. 98-146, Third Report, 17 FCC Rcd 2844, para. 24 (2002). 

21 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband Reporting, 19 FCC Rcd 22340 (2004). 
Page 18 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

to collect information for communities across the country, including small 

geographic areas such as small towns, tribal lands, and rural areas.

Both FCC and Census Bureau officials told us that if a question is added to 

the ACS, it would provide Internet subscribership data for the nation and 

smaller geographic areas. An FCC official also noted that a comparative 

survey like the ACS, one that shows the differences of Internet 

subscribership between tribal lands and other geographic areas, is far more 

valuable than a survey that only collects Internet subscribership data on 

tribal lands. Census Bureau officials mentioned to us, however, that there 

are several methodological issues related to making changes to the ACS. 

Because adding questions would lengthen the ACS and could result in a 

reduced response rate, the Census Bureau’s current practice is to add a 

question to the ACS only if it is mandated by law. They told us that section 

706 of the Telecommunications Act mandates that FCC, not the Census 

Bureau, be responsible for collecting data on advanced 

telecommunications. Therefore, Congress would need to pass legislation 

mandating that the Census Bureau collect Internet subscribership data. 

FCC officials told us that currently it is not clear whether FCC will pursue 

collection of Internet subscribership data. 

Native Americans Can 

Benefit from Several 

General and 

Tribal-Specific Federal 

Programs to Improve 

Telecommunications 

Services

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

responsible for several programs designed to improve the nation’s 

telecommunications infrastructure and make services affordable for all 

consumers. RUS’s programs focus on rural telecommunications 

development, while FCC’s universal service programs focus on providing 

support for areas where the cost of providing service is high, as well as for 

low-income consumers, schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities. 

All of these general programs can benefit tribal lands and Native American 

consumers. In addition, FCC has recognized the need to make special 

efforts to improve tribal telecommunications by establishing additional 

support programs specifically aimed at benefiting tribal lands and their 

residents. Issues have arisen, however, over some aspects of how eligibility 

for FCC’s universal service programs is determined with regard to tribal 

lands. 
Page 19 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

General Programs Available 

to Improve 

Telecommunications 

Services for Tribes

Federal efforts to expand telephone service in underserved areas date back 

to 1949 when the Rural Electrification Administration was authorized to 

loan monies to furnish and improve the availability of telephone service in 

rural areas throughout the United States. In 1994, RUS replaced the Rural 

Electrification Administration.22 RUS programs provide support to improve 

rural telecommunications infrastructure through grants, loans, and loan 

guarantees. Eligible participants in the RUS grant, loan, and loan guarantee 

programs include federally recognized tribes. The RUS grant, loan, and 

loan guarantee programs can be used to improve telecommunications 

infrastructure in rural areas, which include many of the tribal lands. Tables 

1 and 2 provide a summary listing of these grant and loan programs and 

eligible participants, along with recent funding levels. 

Table 1: Summary of RUS Grant Programs for Rural Telecommunications 

Source: Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-199, 118 Stat. 3 (2004). 

Note: Figures have been rounded.

a

 Fiscal Year 2004 Appropriations

22 RUS was established by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of 

Agriculture Reorganization Act of 1994. RUS is a component of the Department of 

Agriculture.

Program Purpose 2004 Funds

Community Connect 

Broadband Grants 

Provides grants to incorporated organizations, federally recognized tribes, 

state or local governments, and other entities including cooperatives, private 

corporations or limited liability companies organized on a for-profit or 

not-for-profit basis who will deploy broadband service in rural communities.

$9 milliona

Distance Learning and 

Telemedicine Grants 

Provides grants to incorporated organizations, federally recognized tribes, 

state or local governments, and other entities including private corporations 

organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis who operate a rural community 

facility or deliver distance learning or telemedicine services to entities that 

operate a rural community facility or to residents of rural areas to encourage 

and improve telemedicine services and distance learning services.

$25 milliona
Page 20 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Table 2: Summary of RUS Loan and Loan Guarantee Programs for Rural Telecommunications 

Source: Rural Utilities Service.

Note: Figures have been rounded.

a

Eligible entities include public bodies providing telephone service in rural areas as of October 28, 

1949, as well as cooperative, nonprofit, limited dividend, or mutual associations. Additionally, RUS 

generally will not make a loan to another entity to provide the same telecommunications service in an 

area served by an incumbent RUS telecommunications borrower providing such service.

b

This figure represents fiscal year 2004 loans approved under multiple fiscal years’ budget authority. 

Approved loans only indicate that an agreement between the lender (RUS, FFB, or a private lender) 

and a borrower has been reached to loan monies.

c

Federal Financing Bank is an instrumentality within the United States Department of the Treasury. 

Section 306 of the Rural Electrification Act authorizes RUS to offer 100 percent guarantees of loans 

made by FFB to qualified electric and telecommunications borrowers.

d

An entity is not eligible if it serves more than 2 percent of the telephone subscriber lines installed in 

the United States.

FCC also has several general programs to support improved 

telecommunications services. FCC’s universal service programs support 

the longstanding goal of making communications services available “so far 

as possible, to all the people of the United States.” The universal service 

Program Description 2004 Funds

Rural Telecommunications 

Loan Programsa

Hardship Provides loans bearing a 5 percent interest rate to eligible entities to finance 

the construction, operation, and/or improvement of telecommunications 

facilities to provide and improve telephone service in rural areas.a

$145 millionb

Cost of Money Provides loans bearing an interest rate tied to the Department of Treasury’s 

cost-of-money rate to eligible entities to finance the construction, operation, 

and/or improvement of telecommunications facilities to provide and improve 

telephone service in rural areas.a

$48.5 millionb

Federal Financing Bank (FFB)c Provides loan guarantees bearing interest rates equal to the Department of 

Treasury’s cost of money for debt instruments with similar maturities and 

options, plus one-eighth of one percent to eligible entities to finance the 

construction, operation, and/or improvement of telecommunications facilities to 

provide and improve telephone service in rural areas.a

$320 millionb

Distance Learning and 

Telemedicine Loans 

Provides loans to incorporated organizations or partnerships, federally 

recognized tribes, state or local governments, and other entities including 

private corporations organized on a for-profit or not-for-profit basis that operate 

a rural community facility or deliver distance learning or telemedicine services 

to entities that operate a rural community facility or to residents or rural areas 

to encourage and improve telemedicine services and distance learning 

services in rural areas.

$30.3 millionb

Rural Broadband Access Loan 

and Loan Guarantee Program 

Provides loans to eligible applicant cooperative, nonprofit, limited dividend or 

mutual associations, limited liability companies, commercial organizations, 

federally recognized tribes, and under certain circumstances, state or local 

governments that will deploy broadband services in rural communities.d

$602.9 millionb
Page 21 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

programs put in place in the 1980s focused on making telephone service 

affordable for low-income consumers and areas where the cost of 

providing service was high. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 extended 

the scope of federal universal service support to make advanced 

telecommunications services (such as high-speed Internet access) 

available to eligible public and nonprofit elementary and secondary 

schools, libraries, and nonprofit rural health care providers at discounted 

rates. Universal service program operations are carried out by a 

not-for-profit corporation, the Universal Service Administrative Company 

(USAC), under FCC’s rules and oversight. Table 3 lists key FCC universal 

service programs and recent funding levels that could be used to improve 

service on tribal lands in areas where the cost of providing service is high; 

lower the cost of service to low-income individuals; and support 

telecommunications services for local schools, libraries, and rural health 

care centers.23

Table 3: Summary of Key FCC Universal Service Programs

Source: USAC.

23 For additional information about these FCC programs, see GAO, Telecommunications: 

Federal and State Universal Service Programs and Challenges to Funding, GAO-02-187, 

(Washington, D.C., Feb. 4, 2002). 

Program Description 2004 Funds

High Cost Provides eligible local telephone companies with funds to serve consumers in 

remote or rural areas, where the cost of providing service comparable to that 

available in urban areas is substantially greater than the national average, 

thereby lowering rates for local and long distance service.

$3.5 billiona

Low Income (Lifeline and 

Linkup)

Assists qualifying low-income consumers through discounts on installation and 

monthly telephone services. Also provides free toll limitation service to prevent 

or limit the amount of long distance telephone calls. In 2000, FCC augmented 

this program to provide additional support for residents on tribal lands (known 

as Enhanced Lifeline and Linkup).

$758.8 milliona

Schools and Libraries 

(E-rate )

Assists eligible public and non-profit elementary and secondary schools and 

libraries through discounts on telecommunications and information services. 

Discounts are available for local and long distance telephone service, Internet 

access, internal connections (e.g., wiring and networking schools and 

libraries), and basic maintenance on internal connections.

$2.3 billionb

Rural Health Care Assists health care providers located in rural areas through discounts 

on telecommunications services. Discounts are provided to make rates 

for facilities in rural areas reasonably comparable to those in nearby 

urban areas.c

$35 millionb
Page 22 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Note: Figures have been rounded.

a

This figure represents USAC’s total unaudited disbursements during calendar year 2004.

b

This figure represents a USAC estimate for calendar year 2004.

c

Some public or non-profit health care providers not located in a rural area may receive some financial 

support for long distance charges necessary to connect to an Internet service provider.

In addition to financial assistance, RUS and FCC’s Wireless 

Telecommunications Bureau established the VISION program in 2004 as a 

joint policy initiative to provide technical assistance to improve the 

provision of wireless broadband service in rural communities. VISION is 

part of a larger Rural Wireless Outreach Initiative between RUS, FCC’s 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and private industry, that is intended 

to coordinate activities and information on financial and other assistance 

regarding telecommunications opportunities for rural communities. The 

program is designed to provide rural communities within the United States 

and its territories with on-site regulatory, legal, engineering, and technical 

assistance to identify barriers and solutions to providing wireless 

broadband services to these communities. Thirteen tribal organizations 

have applied for assistance from this program, though no awards had been 

made as of October 2005. 

The General Services Administration’s (GSA) Federal Technology Service 

(FTS) 2001 contract provides telecommunications services to federal 

agencies, the District of Columbia government, tribal governments, and 

insular governments such as American Samoa, at discounted prices. 

Several tribes, such as the Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin and the 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, have made use of the FTS 2001 contract to 

improve the telecommunications infrastructure on their lands.24

FCC’s Programs Targeted to 

Tribal Lands and Residents

Beginning in June 2000, FCC established additional support to improve 

telecommunications infrastructure deployment and subscribership on 

tribal lands. FCC took this step in recognition that Native American 

communities have, on average, the lowest reported telephone 

subscribership levels in the country.

24 GSA established the Native American Business Center that is overseen by GSA’s regional 

office in Denver, Colorado. The purpose of the center is to help tribal businesses participate 

as vendors in GSA contracts and assist tribes in accessing GSA contracts. 
Page 23 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Enhanced Link-Up and Lifeline

Programs

FCC’s Enhanced Link-Up and Lifeline programs, which began in 2000, 

provide additional discounts on the cost of telephone service for tribal and 

nontribal residents of tribal lands who have incomes at or below 135 

percent of the Federal Poverty Guidelines or who participate in one of 

several federal assistance programs, such as food stamps or Medicaid.25

Enhanced Link-Up provides qualified participants with one-time discounts 

of up to 100 dollars on installation fees. Enhanced Lifeline provides 

ongoing discounts on basic local telephone service that enable some 

qualified participants to pay as little as 1 dollar a month. 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. Tables 4 and 5 list the number of Enhanced Link-Up 

and Lifeline participants (both Native American and nonnative American 

residents of tribal lands) and the amount of support distributed between 

June 2000 and December 2004. 

Table 4: Number of Enhanced Link-Up Participants and Funds Distributed to Service 

Providers

Source: USAC.

Note: Years are calendar years. The program began in the middle of 2000. Dollar amounts and number 

of participants have been rounded.

25 There are multiple levels of Lifeline and Link-Up support. The lowest level of Lifeline 

support provides up to $6.50 per month in financial assistance, while the highest level 

(Enhanced Lifeline) provides up to $33.25 a month in financial assistance on a monthly 

phone bill for eligible subscribers on tribal lands. There are two levels of Link-Up support. 

The first level provides up to $30 in financial assistance for the installation charges for 

phone services. The second level (Enhanced Link-Up) provides up to 100 dollars in financial 

assistance for eligible subscribers on tribal lands. 

June-Dec. 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number of 

Participants 

2,040 23,360 29,900 22,290 41,030

Amount of 

reimbursements 

to providers

$61,590 $533,560 $832,660 $615,760 $1,277,340
Page 24 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Table 5: Number of Enhanced Lifeline Participants and Funds Distributed to Service 

Providers

Source: USAC.

Note: Years are calendar years. The program began in the middle of 2000. Dollar amounts and number 

of participants have been rounded.

At present, service providers file quarterly data forms with USAC that are 

used in reimbursing them for the discounts they give to their subscribers 

through the Link-Up and Lifeline programs. This data 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. State-level data, however, has limited use in 

measuring the performance of these programs with respect to individual 

tribal lands. Nearly all the states containing tribal lands have more than one 

of them, as shown earlier in figure 1, so their data is a sum total of multiple 

tribal lands.26 Moreover, some tribal lands extend across state lines. The 

Navajo Nation’s land, for instance, crosses the borders of Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Utah; and the Standing Rock Sioux’s tribal land crosses the 

borders of North and South Dakota. Consequently, the participation and 

funding data relevant to these tribal lands (and others like them) are split 

among the data of multiple states. 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? 

At one point, FCC took steps to obtain more detailed program data. When 

the Enhanced Link-Up and Lifeline programs were established in 2000, the 

Commission directed one of its bureaus to revise, as necessary, the form 

used by service providers for the general Link-Up and Lifeline programs 

June- Dec. 

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Number of 

Participants

18,690 56,820 112,190 147,200 176,390

Amount of 

reimbursements 

to providers

$507,780 $6,960,050 $17,954,810 $24,178,010 $30,346,090

26 According to 2000 Census, the population on tribal lands in states with only one tribal land 

comprises approximately 1 percent of the total population on all tribal lands.
Page 25 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

already in operation. In June 2003, FCC sought comment on changes to its 

Lifeline program, including the collection of additional data, and made 

revisions to the form. In December 2003, FCC received approval from the 

Office of Management and Budget for the revised form, which included 

requiring service providers to list the number of their Enhanced Lifeline 

subscribers by individual tribal land. However, in spring 2004, some service 

providers met with FCC officials to voice concerns that the collection of 

such information would be difficult to implement into their billing systems, 

but did not provide specific cost estimates for its implementation. In March 

2005, FCC indefinitely suspended the use of the revised form due to these 

concerns.27

Tribal Land Bidding Credit 

Program

FCC’s Tribal Land Bidding Credit program is designed to provide incentives 

for wireless providers to deploy wireless services across tribal lands.28 FCC 

is authorized to auction radiofrequency spectrum to be used for the 

provision of wireless services in the United States. Under the Tribal Land 

Bidding Credit program, FCC reduces the cost of a radiofrequency 

spectrum license to a winning bidder in a spectrum auction if the bidder 

agrees to deploy facilities and provide telecommunications service to 

qualifying tribal lands. The agreement includes constructing and operating 

a wireless system that offers service to at least 75 percent of the population 

of the tribal land area covered by the credit within 3 years of the grant of 

the license. Tribal lands with telephone subscribership below 85 percent 

are eligible for the program. 

The program began in 2000, with the first credits awarded in 2003. In total, 

the program has awarded credits to six licensees who have pledged to 

deploy facilities and provide telecommunications services to 10 tribal 

lands. Most of the credits to date have been awarded to two licensees for 

27 Wireline Competition Bureau Announces Delay of Effective Date for Revised Form 497 

Used for Low-Income Universal Service Support Until Further Notice, WC Docket No. 

03-109, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 4395 (2005).

28 Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands, WT Docket No. 

99-266, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 11794 

(2000).
Page 26 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

providing service on three tribal lands. Table 6 lists the dollar value of tribal 

land bidding credits awarded through April 2005.29

Table 6: Tribal Land Bidding Credits Awarded

Source: FCC.

Note: Dollar amounts have been rounded.

At present, it is unclear what the program’s long-term impact will be in 

creating a significant incentive to deploy wireless service on tribal lands. 

FCC has acknowledged that the program is underutilized by service 

providers, attributing this to economic and technical factors. Several 

industry and tribal stakeholders expressed concerns that the program has a 

limited ability to improve service on tribal lands. These stakeholders stated 

that the main problem with the program is that tribal land bidding credits 

deal with the least expensive cost element of providing wireless service to 

tribal lands: the spectrum license. In fact, they said that spectrum to serve 

tribal lands can be acquired more economically through spectrum leasing 

29 These figures include the spring 2005 Broadband PCS (Personal Communications 

Services) spectrum auction, the second largest spectrum auction conducted in terms of 

auction revenue bids since the formation of the tribal land bidding credit program. 

Broadband PCS services encompass a variety of mobile and fixed radio services with 

two-way data capabilities that compete with existing cellular and specialized mobile radio 

services.

Licensee Name Tribal Land To Be Served Date License(s) Awarded

Dollar Value of 

Bidding Credit

Crown Castle White Mountain Apache (AZ) 10/1/2003 $3,157,000

Milky Way Broadband Uintah and Ouray (UT) 11/23/2004 $263,500

Nemont Communications Turtle Mountain (ND) 1/12/2005 $137,000

Ronan Telephone Blackfeet (MT) 1/29/2004 $182,000

Scott MacIntyre Walker River Paiute (NV) 5/13/2003 $182,000

Space Data Eastern Band of Cherokee (NC) 4/15/2003 $34,300

Space Data Ft. McDermitt Paiute and Shoshone (NV 

and OR)

4/15/2003 $269,800

Space Data Hualapai (AZ) 4/15/2003 $102,300

Space Data Jicarilla Apache (NM) 4/15/2003 $15,050

Space Data Hualapai & Jicarilla Apache (AZ and NM) 4/15/2003 $1,419,500

Space Data Navajo (AZ, NM, UT) 1/12/2005 $42,260

Total $5,804,710
Page 27 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

arrangements with other licensees than through the Tribal Land Bidding 

Credit program. In their view, the main barrier to deploying wireless 

service on tribal lands is the high cost of network infrastructure, such as 

cellular towers. During 2006, FCC will have an opportunity to begin 

reviewing the actual effect of the program. By then, licensees who received 

Tribal Land Bidding Credits in 2003 are supposed to have met the 

requirement to cover 75 percent of the tribal land area for which their 

credit was awarded. 

Indian Telecommunications 

Initiative

In spring 2002, FCC established the Indian Telecommunications Initiative 

(ITI) to provide assistance to improve telecommunications services on 

tribal lands. The Initiative’s strategic goals are to improve tribal lands’ 

telephone subscribership rates, increase the telecommunications 

infrastructure, and inform consumers about the financial support available 

through federal programs, such as the universal service programs. ITI also 

seeks to promote understanding, cooperation, and trust among tribes, 

government agencies, and the telecommunications industry to address 

telecommunications issues facing tribal lands. 

Since its inception, ITI has organized several informational workshops to 

provide tribes and tribal organizations with information about federal 

telecommunications programs such as Enhanced Lifeline and Link-Up. ITI 

has also used these workshops to disseminate information about FCC rules 

and policies that affect the deployment of telecommunications services on 

tribal lands, such as cellular tower siting procedures. FCC senior officials 

and other staff also attend and participate in a variety of meetings on 

telecommunications issues with tribal officials. FCC has also distributed 

educational materials to tribes and tribal organizations about its universal 

service programs and other issues of interest.

Some Issues Involving 

Tribes Have Arisen with 

Respect to Federal 

Universal Service Programs

The implementation of universal service programs is largely the joint 

responsibility of federal and state government. However, the sovereign 

status of tribes raises unique issues and concerns. Service providers, tribal 

officials, and others have cited two specific areas of concern. One involves 

FCC’s process to determine whether the FCC has jurisdiction to designate 

service providers as eligible to receive universal funds for serving tribal 

lands. A second is related to the statutory limitations of tying the eligibility 

for universal service funding under the E-rate program for tribal libraries to 

state Library Services and Technology Act funds. 
Page 28 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Designation of Eligible 

Telecommunications Carriers

Some stakeholders we spoke with emphasized that deployment of services 

on tribal lands, particularly by wireless carriers, might be improved if FCC 

had a more timely process for determining its jurisdiction to designate a 

provider wanting to serve tribal lands as an Eligible Telecommunications 

Carrier (ETC). As defined by the Communications Act, service providers 

must be designated as an ETC in order to participate in FCC’s universal 

service programs.30 The Act gives the individual states the primary 

responsibility for designating ETCs. Initially, the Act made no provision for 

cases where a service provider might not be subject to state jurisdiction, 

such as those operating on tribal lands. In 1997, Congress amended the Act 

by requiring FCC to determine a service provider’s eligibility to receive 

federal universal service funds in cases where a state lacks jurisdiction to 

make an ETC determination.31 In response, FCC developed a process by 

which a service provider seeking ETC status for serving a tribal land may 

petition the Commission to determine whether the provider is subject to 

the state commission’s jurisdiction. If the FCC finds that the state does not 

have jurisdiction, FCC can make the ETC determination.

To date, FCC has received ten applications for ETC designations involving 

tribal lands. Six of the applications were from tribally-owned wireline 

service providers, and four were from non-tribally-owned wireless service 

providers.32 FCC provided the tribally-owned wireline providers with ETC 

status within a few months of their application.33 Two different non-tribally 

owned wireless service providers petitioned FCC for ETC designation on 

three separate tribal lands.34 As indicated in table 7, FCC granted one of 

these three petitions in 10 months. Another was withdrawn by the provider 

30 Eligible Telecommunications Carriers are required to offer services that are supported by 

Federal universal support mechanisms including services, such as local telephone service, 

access to emergency services, and operator assistance, and to advertise the availability of 

such services and charges. 47 U.S.C. § 214(e).

31 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6).

32 However, FCC dismissed two of these applications because the applicants were in process 

or had already been designated as an ETC by a state commission. One was from a 

tribally-owned service provider, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority 

(CRSTTA). One was from a non-tribally owned provider, Smith Bagley, Inc.. 

33 CRSTTA filed a petition for ETC designation with FCC, however FCC dismissed it because 

the South Dakota Commission had already designated CRSTTA as an ETC.

34 Smith Bagley Inc. filed a petition for ETC designation to serve multiple tribal lands within 

the Arizona and New Mexico, however FCC dismissed it because Smith Bagley had already 

applied for this designation with the Arizona and New Mexico Commissions.
Page 29 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

after more than three years with no FCC decision, while the third has been 

pending at FCC for more than 3 years.

Table 7: Status of Wireless Providers’ ETC Applications on Tribal Lands

Source: GAO analysis of FCC data.

FCC has noted that determining whether a state or FCC has ETC 

jurisdiction regarding a tribal land is “a legally complex and fact specific 

inquiry, informed by the principles of tribal sovereignty, federal Indian law, 

treaties, as well as state law.”35 When we asked about the long timeframes 

involved with the first and third items in table 7, FCC officials explained 

that they must conduct a case-specific inquiry for each application to 

determine whether the Commission has the authority to make an ETC 

designation. In its 2001 Western Wireless decision, FCC noted that it would 

resolve the Western Wireless ETC decision in light of the guidance 

provided by the Supreme Court in Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 

(1981).36 This case sets out the guiding principle that Indian tribes lack 

jurisdiction to regulate nonmembers on the reservation, but it recognized 

Applicant

Tribal Land To Be 

Served State Application Filed Resolution Timeframe

Western Wireless Crow Reservation Montana August 1999 Application 

withdrawn in June 

2003

3+ years 

Western Wireless Pine Ridge Reservation South Dakota January 2001 Granted in October 

2001

10 months

Smith Bagley Inc. Navajo Reservation 

(Utah portion)

Utah May 2002 Still pending 3+ years 

35 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and 

Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, 

15 FCC Rcd 12208, at para. 8.

36 Western Wireless Corporation Petition for Designation as an Eligible 

Telecommunications Carrier for the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, CC Docket 

No. 96-45, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 16 FCC Rcd 18145, para. 14 (2001).
Page 30 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

two exceptions.37 Applying this framework to the service agreement 

between the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Western Wireless, FCC granted 

Western Wireless ETC status over its service to tribal members living 

within the Pine Ridge reservation.

FCC has not issued any further guidance on how it will make its ETC 

decisions on tribal lands. FCC officials told us that the information needed 

to make a determination may change from application to application. They 

said that they try to complete these designations in a timely fashion, but 

applicants may not provide sufficient information, and staff normally 

dedicated to these issues may need to focus on other issues facing FCC. In 

2000, FCC sought public comment on the creation of a 6-month timeline for 

the resolution of jurisdictional issues surrounding an ETC designation on 

tribal lands.38 However, in 2003 FCC formally decided against creating this 

timeline because determining FCC’s jurisdiction over ETC designation on 

tribal lands “is a legally complex inquiry that may require additional time to 

fully address.”39

Tribal Libraries’ Eligibility for 

E-rate Funding

Some tribal officials we spoke with emphasized the importance of tribal 

libraries as a means for members to have Internet access and expressed 

concern about their difficulty in obtaining E-rate funding for their libraries. 

Under current eligibility requirements, tribal libraries can apply for 

universal service fund support through the E-rate program provided they 

meet eligibility requirements. The Communications Act defines E-rate 

37 Under the first Montana exception, “[a] tribe may regulate, through taxation, licensing, or 

other means, the activities of nonmembers who enter consensual relationships with the 

tribe or its members, through commercial dealings, contracts, leases or other 

arrangements.” Under the second Montana exception, “[a] tribe may . . . exercise civil 

authority over the conduct of non-Indians on fee lands within its reservation when that 

conduct threatens or has some direct effect on the political integrity, the economic security, 

or the health or welfare of the tribe.” 450 U.S. 544, 565, 566 (1981).

38 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and 

Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, 

15 FCC Rcd 12208. The Commission committed to resolve, within six months of the date 

filed, all ETC designation requests for non-tribal lands that are properly before it under 

section 214(e)(6). The Commission also committed to resolve within six months of release 

of an order resolving the jurisdictional issue, any request for ETC designation on tribal land. 

See, paras. 151-152, 114, and 121, respectively.

39 Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service; Promoting Deployment and 

Subscribership in Unserved and Underserved Areas Including Tribal and Insular Areas, 

CC Docket No. 96-45, Twenty-Fifth Order on Reconsideration, Report and Order, Order, and 

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 10958, para. 27 (2003).
Page 31 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

eligible libraries as those eligible for assistance from a state library 

administrative agency under the Library Services and Technology Act 

(LSTA),40 which provides federal grant funds to support and develop library 

services in the United States. LSTA has two types of library grants that 

primarily relate to governmental entities: one for states and one for 

federally recognized tribes and organizations that primarily serve and 

represent Native Hawaiians.41To be eligible for E-rate funds, a tribal library 

must be eligible for state LSTA funds and not just tribal LSTA funds. 

The eligibility criterion has practical implications for tribal libraries. 

Although we did not survey all the states on this issue, officials in two 

states told us that their state laws preclude tribal libraries within their 

states from being eligible to receive state LSTA funds, which has the effect 

of making them ineligible to receive E-rate funds. Officials in Oklahoma 

said that only county and city libraries are eligible for state funding such as 

LSTA monies. Tribal libraries are not county or city libraries and therefore 

not eligible for Oklahoma’s state LSTA funds. One former tribal librarian in 

Oklahoma told us that she did not apply for E-rate funding because the 

state library administrative agency provided her with documentation 

indicating that the tribe was not eligible for state LSTA funds. Montana 

officials told us that their state law also has similar limitations regarding 

tribal libraries’ eligibility for state LSTA funds.

The eligibility criterion also has practical implications for the E-rate 

program. Libraries applying for LSTA funds must self-certify their 

eligibility. As part of its integrity process, USAC requires a third party 

verification of the eligibility requirement. Thus, USAC verifies a library’s 

eligibility for E-rate funds by asking state library administrative agencies to 

provide written certification of a library’s eligibility for state LSTA funds.42

This process has prompted a number of comments from several of those 

we interviewed. Some tribal and state library agency officials noted that the 

current eligibility criterion infringes on tribal sovereignty by involving the 

state in tribal library E-rate funding. One state librarian, for example, 

40 The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, provides that a library or library 

consortium not eligible for assistance from a State library administrative agency under the 

Library Services and Technology Act (LSTA), 20 U.S.C. § 9121 et seq. would not be entitled 

to E-rate funds. 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(4).

41 20 U.S.C. § 9141 and 20 U.S.C. § 9162. The Institute of Museum and Library Services 

(IMLS) administers the Library Services and Technology Act.

42 In the case of a state library, USAC seeks third party verification from IMLS.
Page 32 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

expressed discomfort at being put in the position of acting on behalf of a 

sovereign tribe and expressed the strong belief that eligibility for E-rate 

funding should be a matter between the tribe and USAC, without 

involvement by state government agencies. USAC officials told us that they 

have received some E-rate applications from tribal libraries.43 In those 

cases, a USAC board member successfully worked with the states in 

question to obtain the certifications. However, USAC officials and the 

USAC board member emphasized the time-consuming nature of these 

resolution efforts. 

In fall 2002, FCC, USAC, and the Institute of Museum and Library Services 

(IMLS) officials met to discuss possible remedies for this situation. These 

discussions produced a consensus that a change to the E-rate eligibility 

requirement for libraries defined in the Communications Act could 

facilitate tribal libraries’ eligibility for E-rate funding. These discussions 

focused on a modification to the Act that would allow tribal libraries 

eligible for funding from either a state library administrative agency or 

tribal government under the LSTA to be eligible for funding under the 

E-rate program. FCC officials told us that modifications to the Act would 

require legislative action by the Congress, because such modifications 

cannot be made by FCC through a Commission order or administrative 

proceeding. 

Multiple Barriers Exist 

to Improving 

Telecommunications 

on Tribal Lands

Tribal and government officials, Native American groups, service 

providers, and other entities we interviewed cited several barriers to 

improving telecommunications on tribal lands. The two barriers most often 

cited by officials of the tribes and Alaska regional native non-profit 

organizations we interviewed were the rural location and rugged terrain of 

tribal lands and tribes’ limited financial resources. The third most often 

cited barrier was a lack of technically trained tribal members to plan and 

implement improvements in telecommunications. 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. 

43 The E-rate application does not ask for a tribal designation.
Page 33 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Rural Location and Limited 

Financial Resources Were 

the Most Often Cited 

Barriers 

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 officials of tribes and Alaska Native Villages we 

interviewed. These two barriers were also cited by representatives of 

service providers and federal agencies. These two barriers are interrelated, 

can deter providers from investing in infrastructure on tribal lands, and 

contribute to the low levels of subscribership on many tribal lands. 

Tribal lands are mostly rural and characterized by large land areas, rugged 

terrain such as mountains and canyons, low population density, and 

geographic isolation from metropolitan areas. Figure 4, from the Pine Ridge 

Indian Reservation in South Dakota, illustrates some of these 

characteristics. 

Figure 4: Wireless Tower near Kyle, South Dakota on the Pine Ridge reservation 

(April 2005) 

Source: GAO.
Page 34 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

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

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,44

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 

$3,000.45 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. Several of these tribal officials told us that their tribal 

governments must use their tribes’ limited financial resources on other 

priorities such as water and sewer lines, housing, and public safety. In 

addition, high levels of poverty on many tribal lands may also make it less 

likely that tribal residents will subscribe to those telephone and Internet 

services that are available, particularly when geographic barriers have 

increased the costs of those services. For example, a Yakama Nation tribal 

official told us that many residents cannot afford a computer or Internet 

access; some cannot even afford telephone service. 

44 Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 required FCC to institute the 

Federal-State 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.

45 Rural 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 35 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

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

cost of installing telecommunications infrastructure) and tribes’ limited 

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

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

from making investments in telecommunications on tribal lands. This lack 

of investment can result in a lack of service, poor service quality, and little 

or no competition. With regard to a lack of service, an official with the 

Yakama Nation told us that while many tribal residents in the more heavily 

populated areas have access to telephone service, the tribe’s service 

provider has not built additional infrastructure to reach less populated 

areas and has no plans to do so in the near future. 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, that there were no immediate plans to expand the service area, 

and that there were cost issues in providing 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)46 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. With regard to service quality, of the 38 tribes and tribal 

representatives we interviewed, 9 mentioned service quality as a barrier to 

improved telecommunications. One tribe told us that their local provider 

has no local service office and few technicians, so that the company may 

take days to repair or respond to a problem. With regard to the lack of 

competition, officers of 2 tribes told us that because there is only 1 

provider, they have no choice but to pay the prices being charged for 

services, even though they think the prices are too high.

Lack of Technically-Trained 

Tribal Members Can Impede 

Planning and Was the Third 

Most Commonly Cited 

Barrier

The third barrier most commonly cited by tribal representatives was the 

lack of tribal members trained in or knowledgeable about 

telecommunications technologies. 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 

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

data transmission than can be provided over a conventional telephone line.
Page 36 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

manage existing systems. For example, one tribal official told us that he is 

currently understaffed and is running a multi-tribe wireless network with 

just one other person. Another tribal official told us that there is only one 

tribal member with formal training in telecommunications and that the 

tribe needs a well trained person to take charge of the tribe’s 

telecommunications needs. An official of the Coeur d’Alene tribe, who has 

technical training, told us that the tribe does not have a sufficient number 

of technically knowledgeable staff members to develop and maintain 

needed telecommunications systems.

The same Coeur d’Alene tribal official 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. In addition, one non-tribal stakeholder mentioned that a lack 

of training prevented tribes from choosing appropriate technologies for 

their specific needs. One industry stakeholder mentioned that tribes 

needed a better understanding of the range and capacity of shared 

spectrum wireless technology so they would not be disappointed by its 

limitations.47 A 1995 Office of Technology Assessment study of 

telecommunications on tribal lands stated that most Native American 

reservations, villages, and communities would benefit from developing a 

plan or vision of how telecommunications could best meet their 

educational, health, economic development, and cultural needs.48 In 1999, 

the Department of Commerce estimated that very few tribes had 

telecommunications plans.49 Of the 38 tribes and tribal organizations we 

interviewed, 14 told us they have some type of technology plan and 7 more 

said they had a plan in development. 

47 Shared spectrum, also known as unlicensed spectrum, allows the user to utilize a 

particular set of radiofrequency spectrum without obtaining a license from a spectrum 

license holder.

48 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Telecommunications Technology and 

Native Americans: Opportunities and Challenges, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, August 1995).

49 College of Engineering, New Mexico State University, Assessment of Technology 

Infrastructure in Native Communities, prepared at the request of the Department of 

Commerce, Economic Development Administration.
Page 37 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Industry stakeholders also told us that having tribal staff knowledgeable in 

telecommunications policies improves the process of deploying services on 

tribal lands. One service provider told us that if tribes delegated 

telecommunications decisions to a tribal governmental committee, the 

company could provide service more effectively and efficiently. Instead, 

when a company has to bring telecommunications decisions before the full 

tribal council, the process can be very time consuming because the full 

tribal council meets infrequently and telecommunications issues are often 

not at the top of the agenda. Another provider told us that having staff 

knowledgeable in telecommunications policies and procedures, such as 

rights of way and contract issues, allows providers to more quickly and 

effectively deploy services because time is not spent negotiating over 

unfamiliar terms. 

Rights-of-Way Issues Were 

Also Cited as a Barrier to 

Improved 

Telecommunications 

Services on Tribal Lands

According to several service providers and tribal officials, obtaining a 

right-of-way through Indian lands is a time-consuming and expensive 

process that can impede service providers’ deployment of 

telecommunications infrastructure.50 The right-of-way process on Indian 

lands is more complex than the right-of-way process for non-Indian lands 

because BIA must approve the application for a right-of-way across Indian 

lands. BIA grants or approves actions affecting title on Indian lands, so all 

service providers installing telecommunications infrastructure on Indian 

lands must work with BIA or its contractor (realty service provider) to 

obtain a right-of-way through Indian lands.51 To fulfill the requirements of 

federal regulations for rights-of-way over Indian lands and obtain BIA 

approval, service providers are required to take multiple steps and 

coordinate with several entities during the application process. These steps 

must be taken to obtain a right-of-way over individual Indian allotments as 

well as tribal lands. Several of the steps involve the landowner, which could 

be an individual landowner, multiple landowners, or the tribe, depending 

on the status of the land. For example, the right-of-way process requires a) 

50 The term “Indian lands,” which includes tribal trust lands and Indian allotments, is used in 

this discussion of rights-of-way because the term “tribal lands” used elsewhere in this report 

encompasses types of land not subject to BIA right-of-way approval.

51 The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEA), as amended, 

directs Interior, at the request of a tribe, to contract with Indian tribes or tribal organizations 

to carry out the services and programs the federal government provides to Indians. 

Therefore, as authorized by the ISDEA, regional nonprofit corporations or tribal entities can 

assume management of the realty function from BIA to perform realty services for Indian 

lands. See, 25 U.S.C. § 450f. 
Page 38 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

written consent by the landowner to survey the land; b) an appraisal of the 

land needed for the right-of-way; c) negotiations with the landowner to 

discuss settlement terms; d) written approval by the landowner for the 

right-of-way; and e) BIA approval of the right-of-way application.52

Service providers told us that a lack of clarity in federal regulations for 

rights-of-way over Indian lands can also slow down the right-of-way 

approval process. During the right-of-way approval process, BIA has a 

responsibility to ensure that the right-of-way suits the purpose and size of 

the equipment being installed on the land. However, federal regulations do 

not have guidance or descriptions for advanced telecommunications 

infrastructure, which would assist BIA in evaluating telecommunications 

rights-of-way applications. According to a Department of the Interior 

official, descriptions and guidance for advanced telecommunications 

infrastructure are absent because the regulations were created prior to the 

advent of modern telecommunications equipment. For example, the federal 

regulations have guidance and descriptions for the size of the right-of-way 

needed and voltage levels of electrical equipment that can be installed for 

commercial purposes,53 but similar descriptions and guidance are not 

available for advanced telecommunications rights-of-way. According to 

service providers, this lack of clarity can cause grey areas for BIA when it 

attempts to classify the type of advanced telecommunications 

infrastructure the service provider intends to install and whether it is for 

commercial or residential purposes. This adds time to the right-of-way 

approval process because BIA has to determine if the regulations allow for 

the installation of the applicant’s infrastructure. A BIA official 

acknowledged that portions of the federal regulations, including the 

section on telecommunications infrastructure, are outdated. As a result, 

BIA is currently revising the regulations to better apply to modern utility 

technologies, including advanced telecommunications infrastructure, but 

timeframes for completion of this work have not been established. 

As mentioned above, BIA requires that service providers obtain approval 

from the individual landowner or the tribe for a right-of-way. Service 

providers told us that obtaining landowner consent for a right-of-way 

across an individual Indian allotment is time consuming and expensive, 

which can delay or deter deployment of telecommunications infrastructure 

52 25 C.F.R. §169.3 (2005).

53 25 C.F.R §§ 169.22(a), 169.27 (2005).
Page 39 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

on tribal lands. For example, one service provider told us that an individual 

Indian allotment of land can have over 200 owners, and federal regulations 

require the service provider to gain approval from a majority of them.54 The 

official stated that the time and cost of this process is compounded by the 

fact that a telecommunications service line often crosses multiple 

allotments. In addition, if the service provider cannot obtain consent for 

the right-of-way from the majority of landowners, the provider is forced to 

install lines that go around the allotment, which is also expensive.

Tribes Are Addressing 

Barriers to Improved 

Telecommunications in 

Different Ways 

Several tribes are moving towards owning or developing part or all of their 

own telecommunications systems to address the barriers of tribal lands’ 

rural location and rugged terrain and tribes’ limited financial resources, 

which can deter service providers from investing in telecommunications on 

tribal lands. These tribes 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. 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. 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.

Several Tribes Are Moving 

Towards Developing Their 

Own Telecommunications 

Systems to Address Multiple 

Barriers 

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 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. 

54 See, 25 C.F.R. § 169.3 (2005).
Page 40 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Four of the 6 tribes we visited are developing their own 

telecommunications systems to address the lack of investment by 

telecommunications companies. These tribes are addressing their limited 

financial resources to fund telecommunications improvements by one of 

three methods. Two of the 4 have obtained federal funds, another has 

reduced its use of services from the current provider to help fund its own 

system, and a fourth tribe has partnered with a local business also 

adversely affected by poor telecommunications service. Two of these tribes 

also told us that they have been able to provide better service and lower 

prices than the incumbent provider because they are more concerned 

about providing service than about making a profit. 

Coeur d’Alene Tribe The Coeur d’Alene Tribe in Idaho is using an RUS grant to overcome its 

limited financial resources and develop its own high speed wireless 

Internet system. Tribal officials told us that the wireline service provider 

for the Coeur d’Alene Tribe had not deployed the necessary equipment to 

offer high speed Internet access to all residents on tribal lands because 

deploying the equipment was not profitable. (An official of the service 

provider told us that high speed Internet was only available in certain 

areas, that there were no immediate plans to expand the service area, and 

that there were cost issues in expanding service to the more remote and 

less densely populated parts of the reservation.) The tribe applied for an 

RUS Community Connect Broadband grant to purchase and deploy a 

wireless system to provide high-speed Internet access to all residents of the 

tribal land. This type of grant can be used for expenditures for a wide array 

of infrastructure and related needs, including necessary equipment that 

many tribal members cannot afford. For example, the grant allows for the 

purchase of equipment required to connect households and businesses to 

the wireless system, and for the construction of a community technology 

center for training and Internet access. The grant is being used to fund 5 

towers to ensure that the wireless system reaches all populated Coeur 

d’Alene lands, as well as fiber optic cable, technical staff, and operational 

costs. The grant will make high-speed Internet access available to all 

residents at the Community Technology Center, shown in figure 5, at no 

cost, and high-speed Internet access to homes and businesses will be 

available for purchase. The grant will also provide tribal members training 

in computer use and maintenance. Tribal officials told us that after the first 

2 years of operation, they expect to earn sufficient revenue from system 

subscribers to fund needed maintenance and improvements. 
Page 41 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Figure 5: Coeur d’Alene Community Technology Center (April 2005)

Mescalero Apache The Mescalero Apache in New Mexico used RUS loans to overcome 

financial barriers and establish their own telecommunications company. 

The tribe also borrowed equipment from an equipment manufacturer until 

it was able to purchase its own. Tribal officials told us that their former 

service provider had not invested adequate funds in the 

telecommunications network on Mescalero Apache tribal lands to provide 

high quality voice or data services. They added that, as a result, telephone 

service was poor and high quality voice and data services, such as Internet 

access, were not widely available. The Mescalero Apache Tribal 

Government purchased the telecommunications network from the local 

telephone company that had been providing service on the tribal land. The 

tribe formed Mescalero Apache Telecommunications, Inc. (MATI) to 

develop this network and directed the company to focus on providing 

services to all Mescalero Apache lands and not just on maximizing profit. 

MATI then rebuilt the system, putting in more than 1,000 miles of fiber-optic 

cable and providing high-speed Internet access as well as local and long 

distance telephone service. According to a MATI official, telephone and 

high-speed Internet access, such as DSL, are now nearly universally 

available within reservation boundaries. MATI has deployed various 

high-speed Internet access services to tribal businesses and schools. Figure 

6 shows the Mescalero Apache School computer lab which utilizes 

MATI-provided Internet connectivity. 

Source: GAO.
Page 42 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Figure 6: Computer Lab at the Mescalero Apache School (April 2005)

Yakama Nation The Yakama Nation in Washington established a long-range plan to 

overcome its financial barriers by using funds saved over the past few years 

through reduction of the tribal government’s use of telecommunications 

services from its provider. The tribe is using these savings to develop its 

own telecommunications system to provide telephone and high-speed 

Internet access. The tribe is also using monies from the negotiation of 

utility rights-of-way. The tribal government made the decision to develop its 

own telecommunications company several years ago, partly in response to 

the increase in monthly telecommunications charges levied by the local 

provider, which raised the tribe’s annual cost from $275,000 to $325,000. At 

that time, the tribe put together a long-range plan that required the tribe to 

reduce its use of the current provider’s services, and use the resulting 

savings to develop its own system. A tribal official told us that long-range 

financial planning and careful budgeting have been important to the tribe’s 

success and that infrastructure has been purchased or installed each year 

based on what the tribe could afford. Since 1998, the tribe has used annual 

savings from reduced telephone services and funds from other services to 

establish a telecommunications company, and then purchase related 

equipment. The tribe was able to purchase this fiber optic cable at 25 

Source: GAO.
Page 43 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

percent of its retail price and negotiated with a local contractor to install 

the fiber at a price far below the market rate. The tribe plans to sell the 

equipment necessary to connect to the new telecommunications system to 

tribal members and tribal businesses. 

Eastern Band of Cherokee The Eastern Band of Cherokee in North Carolina overcame financial 

barriers by partnering with another local business to build a fiber optic 

cable network throughout and beyond its tribal lands to provide high-speed 

Internet access and transport. The Eastern Band of Cherokee’s tribal lands 

are located in the Smokey Mountains and are geographically isolated from 

major metropolitan areas that have Internet access points. As a result, it is 

expensive to connect infrastructure in the area to the nearest high-speed 

Internet access points. A tribal official told us that the tribe’s service 

provider did not expand or upgrade the telecommunications infrastructure 

on tribal lands because the provider did not find the additional investment 

in infrastructure to be profitable. (The provider representative told us that 

providing DSL to most parts of the reservation would not be profitable as 

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

remote rural areas would require an investment that would be difficult to 

justify.) A tribal official told us that one example of the poor service quality 

is an outage that occurred within the past year. All communications 

services were unavailable for 48 hours in 6 counties because a cut was 

made in the company’s copper wire. Since the system has no backup 

provision, there was no service until the cut was repaired. The Cherokee 

told us their casino lost millions of dollars during the outage, and that the 

loss for the region as a whole was estimated at $72 million. To improve 

service and offer residents on tribal lands high-speed Internet access, the 

tribe partnered with a local corporation that provides electronic income 

tax filing services, and had also suffered financial loss from the recent 

outage. Together, the tribe and the corporation are constructing a fiber 

optic cable network, both on and off tribal lands. Figure 7 shows fiber 

being deployed for this network. The Eastern Band of Cherokee and their 

partner have formed a company that will act as both a wholesaler and a 

retailer of telecommunications services. A company official told us that 

because of the cost of putting in the fiber and the low density of the service 

area, a private, for-profit company would never have made this level of 

investment. Officials of the tribe and the company told us that the tribe will 

use its ownership in these networks and future planned deployment of 

cable and wireless infrastructure to ensure that all residents of tribal lands 

can receive high-speed Internet, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol), and 
Page 44 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

other information and content applications at costs and quality levels 

comparable to or better than metropolitan areas.55

Figure 7: Fiber Deployment on Eastern Band of Cherokee Reservation (April 2005)

Some Tribes Have Focused 

on Wireless Technologies to 

Address Barriers of Rural 

Location and Rugged 

Terrain and Limited 

Financial Resources 

Several tribes we interviewed have focused their efforts on wireless 

technologies to help address the barriers of tribal lands’ rural, rugged 

location and tribes’ limited financial resources, with funding for these 

efforts coming from both public and private sources. Service providers and 

equipment manufacturers told us that wireless service is often less 

expensive to deploy across large distances than wireline service because 

55 Voice over Internet Protocol, also called VoIP, is the routing of voice conversations over 

the Internet or any other Internet Protocol network. 

Source: GAO.
Page 45 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

wireless infrastructure, such as a tower, is less expensive to deploy than a 

wireline infrastructure. 

Examples of tribes focusing on wireless technologies include the following: 

• Several tribes have deployed shared spectrum wireless networks to 

provide high-speed Internet access.56 For example, the Southern 

California Tribal Chairman’s Association (SCTCA), a consortium of 17 

federally recognized tribes, received a grant from a private foundation to 

establish a wireless network, called the Tribal Digital Village Network 

(TDVNet), to provide high-speed Internet access to all 17 tribes. SCTCA 

tribes are located in Southern California in remote and hilly terrain and 

scattered across 150 square miles. In addition to its low cost, TDVNet 

utilizes shared spectrum technologies because the equipment can 

operate on solar power. This is particularly important in remote areas 

where electrical power may not be available. TDVNet staff are also 

developing Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) capabilities to provide 

telephone service over high-speed Internet access in those tribal 

communities where the deployment of wireline service is cost 

prohibitive. The Coeur d’ Alene and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and 

California are deploying similar networks.

• Service provider officials in Alaska told us that satellite 

telecommunications systems are the only telecommunications options 

to provide telephone service for many Alaska Native Villages because 

the vast distances from these areas to existing infrastructure make 

wireline systems too expensive to install.57 A major Alaska service 

provider is utilizing a combined satellite and shared spectrum wireless 

network to extend high-speed Internet access to many Alaska Native 

Villages. 

In addition, 2 tribes we visited addressed their need for improved 

telecommunications services by encouraging wireless companies to 

compete with wireline providers for customers on their lands. In both 

56 As previously noted, shared spectrum allows the user to utilize a particular set of 

radiofrequency spectrum without obtaining a license from a spectrum license holder.

57 Some stakeholders noted that satellite service has some quality of service issues due to a 

high latency problem caused by the signal traveling 22,000 miles out into space to the 

satellite and back to Earth again. This signal delay can make the service unsuitable for 

certain interactive applications.
Page 46 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

cases, the wireless companies have obtained status as an ETC and are able 

to obtain universal service funds, particularly the High Cost Fund and 

Enhanced Lifeline and Enhanced Linkup, to profitably provide service in 

these areas. 

Oglala Sioux The Oglala Sioux in South Dakota encouraged a wireless company to 

provide service in the area in order to improve services and reduce the cost 

of telephone service to the tribal land customers. According to tribal and 

wireless service provider officials, the key to developing this solution was 

the wireless provider’s ability to use universal service funds to help 

subsidize the costs of its network and offer discounted telephone service to 

tribal land residents. To access universal service funds, the wireless 

provider, with consent from the tribe, applied to FCC for ETC status, which 

was granted in 2001, enabling the wireless provider to access universal 

service funds. The tribe also worked with the provider to create an 

expanded local calling area that included all areas of the reservation and 

the town of Rapid City, South Dakota. According to a tribal official, the 

addition of Rapid City, South Dakota, as part of the local calling area was 

an important cost-saving measure for the tribe because a significant 

number of Oglala Sioux live in the Rapid City area. 

According to tribal and service provider officials, this wireless service 

allows tribal members to reach public safety services from nearly any 

location on tribal lands. A tribal official said that this is particularly 

important due to the tribe’s large land area, remote location, and the 

summer and winter weather extremes in the area. The tribal official also 

told us that the wireless provider initially anticipated having about 300 

customers on the Oglala Sioux’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation land, but 

had about 4,000 customers within 1 year of offering service.

Navajo Nation The Navajo government has encouraged 2 wireless providers to offer 

services on Navajo lands in competition with wireline providers. The 

Navajo Nation encourages providers to deploy wireless 

telecommunications networks because providing wireline 

telecommunications throughout the Navajo Nation is cost prohibitive due 

to the tribe’s large land area, which is about the size of West Virginia. 

Census data indicate that residents on Navajo lands in Arizona, New 

Mexico, and Utah are among the most economically distressed groups in 

the United States. Tribal officials told us that competition is the best 

method to lower prices and improve services. One wireless provider has 

been able to access universal service funds to make service more 

affordable. Officials from wireless companies told us that access to 
Page 47 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

universal service program funds combined with the use of less costly 

wireless technologies provides a viable business case for entry onto Navajo 

lands.

Some Tribes Are Addressing 

the Need for More 

Technically-Trained Tribal 

Members Through 

Mentoring and Partnerships 

Some tribes we visited discussed ways they were developing technical 

expertise in telecommunications, while others spoke of the importance of 

the technical expertise they had, particularly in helping them plan for 

telecommunications improvements. 

Addressing Need for More 

Technically-Trained Tribal 

Members 

Tribal, industry, and government stakeholders said that training in 

telecommunications technologies provides tribal members with some of 

the necessary skills to operate the tribes’ own telecommunications 

networks. Several tribal officials told us that having staff with the technical 

expertise necessary to plan and manage telecommunications 

improvements was critical to their efforts. However, less than half of the 

tribal officials we interviewed told us that their tribes have developed 

telecommunications plans or estimated the cost of planned improvements.

One tribe that has taken steps to get needed technical training is the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe. The tribe plans to provide two colleges with access to its 

new high-speed Internet system in exchange for distance learning classes 

and technical training. Similarly, the Yakama Nation has proposed to 

connect a local university to its telecommunications system in exchange 

for technical training for its staff. A Yakama official emphasized that having 

trained staff to manage and maintain the telecommunications system once 

it is operational is very important, and the tribe determined that this kind of 

exchange with a local university would help provide the staff with the 

necessary training. 

The Mescalero Apache Tribe has improved its technical capacity by hiring 

technically trained staff, and has created a technical mentoring program. 

MATI hired tribal and non-tribal members to operate its telephone 

company. Although about half of MATI’s staff consists of non-tribal 

members, tribal officials expect to hire more tribal members as they 

receive the necessary training. Many of the employees who are not tribal 

members are experienced and technically proficient. MATI has created a 

mentoring program partnering the experienced and technically trained 

employees with newer employees. The goal is to create a self-sufficient 

tribal staff with the knowledge to understand and operate a 
Page 48 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

telecommunications network. In addition, the company offers technical 

consulting services to other tribes that are interested in providing their own 

telecommunications network. 

MATI also hosts an annual telecommunications conference for tribes and 

municipal governments to inform them about the basics of 

telecommunications finance and technology. In addition, MATI has used its 

technical expertise to explore new ways to deploy telecommunications 

services. Figure 8 shows MATI’s Voice over Internet Protocol service 

platform that it utilizes as a means to send voice conversations over the 

Internet. 
Page 49 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Figure 8: MATI’s Voice over Internet Protocol Equipment (April 2005)

Source: GAO.
Page 50 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

To address the current lack of computer and Internet knowledge among its 

tribal members, the Coeur d’Alene Tribe plans to provide training and 

Internet access at the Community Technology Center as long as their 

budget permits. Those attending training will be assisted by the recently 

hired technical staff in repairing and refurbishing computers that belonged 

to tribal offices, and will be allowed to keep the computers for home use 

once the work is complete. The Yakama Nation and Eastern Band of 

Cherokee also plan to train tribal members in computer and Internet use at 

an existing tribal technology center.

Using Technical Expertise for 

Effective Planning

Officials of several tribes told us that having staff with technical expertise 

was critical to their efforts to plan their telecommunications. For example, 

a tribal official of the Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the 

Rincon Reservation, told us that a tribal member with technical knowledge 

determined the need for improved Internet access and identified the 

appropriate technology (wireless broadband). He also identified a funding 

opportunity to bring high-speed Internet access to 17 Southern California 

tribes, most of which did not have Internet access because of geographic 

barriers and prohibitive infrastructure costs. 

Officials of 14 of the 38 tribes and tribal organizations we interviewed told 

us that they have developed a technology plan. An official of the Coeur 

d’Alene Tribe told us that plans are important to ensure that tribes have 

selected technologies that are appropriate for their tribal needs and 

geography. All 6 of the tribes we visited are taking actions to improve their 

telecommunications based on plans they developed.

Most of the tribal officials we interviewed told us that their tribes do not 

have cost estimates for improving telecommunications. The Coeur d’Alene 

tribal official told us that determining the cost of new systems and making 

plans to pay for these improvements is important. This official added that 

plans should not only include information about how to finance the system, 

but should also describe the means to pay for training of staff so they will 

have the technical expertise required to maintain and manage the current 

or proposed system. For example, Yakama Nation and Coeur d’Alene tribal 

officials stated that they designed telecommunications systems that will 

produce revenue from customers sufficient to pay for improvements, 

maintenance, and technically trained staff. 
Page 51 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

One Tribe is Developing a 

Right-of-Way Policy to Make 

the Tribal Approval Process 

More Timely and Efficient

Navajo Nation officials and service providers told us that the Navajo 

Nation’s right-of-way approval process is time consuming and expensive, 

which has delayed or deterred the deployment of telecommunications 

infrastructure on Navajo land. For example, an official from one service 

provider told us that this tribal approval process impedes service because 

the timeline for obtaining tribal council approval varies for each 

right-of-way application, tribal departments can differ on the goals and 

price of the right-of-way, and it takes extra time for these departments to 

reach consensus. A Navajo official agreed that their right-of-way processes 

can delay deployment of telecommunications infrastructure and increase 

its cost because timelines vary for each application. Another official told us 

that a major reason for this slow process is that tribal entities involved in 

Navajo’s internal rights-of-way process have different opinions on the goals 

and price of telecommunications rights-of-ways. For example, some tribal 

officials expect high up-front rights-of-way fees based on their experiences 

for granting rights-of-way for natural resources like coal, which would 

typically produce a higher revenue stream than telecommunications.58

To address this issue, Navajo officials are developing an approach to 

reduce the time and expense required to obtain tribal consent for a 

telecommunications right-of-way across their land. The Navajo Nation 

Telecommunications Regulatory Commission (NNTRC) has drafted a 

policy to streamline tribal consent for telecommunications rights-of-way. 

(Figure 9 shows the NNTRC’s headquarters in Window Rock, Arizona.) One 

of NNTRC’s functions is to decrease the barriers service providers 

encounter while deploying telecommunications infrastructure on the land. 

Through information gathering sessions between commissioners and 

service providers, the commission determined that the Navajo process for 

the approval of telecommunications rights-of-way needed to be changed 

because the deployment of telecommunications services was being 

delayed. In order for NNTRC to make changes to the Navajo right-of-way 

58 Navajo officials and service providers told us that the tribal consent process for 

telecommunications rights-of-way has been dictated by tribal regulations for natural 

resources rights-of-way. The Navajo Nation is able to charge a higher price for natural 

resource rights-of-way because the extraction of the resource leads to continuous and high 

revenue streams for the applicant. In contrast, telecommunications rights-of-way in rural 

areas are not likely to yield similar revenue streams. Several Navajo officials and service 

providers told us that Navajo’s natural resource right-of-way price for a telecommunications 

right-of-way is cost prohibitive, because the service provider’s revenue from the 

infrastructure will not justify the installation cost of the telecommunications equipment of 

high rights-of-way fees. 
Page 52 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

process, the Tribal Council first granted NNTRC full authority over 

telecommunications issues, such as rights-of-way for telecommunications 

infrastructure. 

Figure 9: NNTRC’s headquarters in Window Rock, AZ (April 2005)

To address the barriers service providers encounter with the Navajo 

right-of-way process, NNTRC drafted a policy that grants NNTRC the sole 

responsibility for providing tribal approval for a right-of-way. This would 

allow “one stop shopping” for the service providers, who would no longer 

have to coordinate with multiple tribal departments and offices. According 

to a Navajo official, this policy is currently being reviewed for approval by 

Source: GAO.
Page 53 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

several of their tribal government departments. Following this approval 

process, NNTRC intends to implement this policy. 

In addition, NNTRC officials stated that there is a more feasible price 

structure for telecommunications rights-of-way that better reflects the 

market value of telecommunications rights-of-way. This price structure 

would include an upfront payment covering the market value of the land 

plus an additional percent of future earnings from the equipment. The 

officials told us that this type of arrangement would assist the service 

provider’s business case because the provider would have to release less 

capital in the beginning of the project, while offering telecommunications 

services to Navajo residents. Once the infrastructure begins to produce a 

revenue stream and has a viable business case, the Navajo Nation would 

receive a percentage of these funds for the life of the infrastructure. 

Conclusions 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 

and subscribership of telecommunications services, as of 2000, Native 

Americans on tribal lands still lag significantly behind the rest of the nation. 

The underlying cause of this problem is difficult to determine 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 is succeeding. 

One difficulty we found relates to a statutory provision in the 

Communications Act which precludes some tribal libraries from benefiting 

from a universal service program. The current statutory provision 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 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. However, 

FCC has stated that it cannot modify the eligibility criteria in the statute. 

Clarifying this issue could help bring high-speed Internet access to more 

residents of tribal lands through their tribal libraries. 

In reviewing how some tribes are addressing barriers to improving 

telecommunications services on tribal lands, we found that tribes took a 

variety of approaches for addressing these barriers, suggesting that 
Page 54 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

flexibility in planning and implementing telecommunications 

improvements on tribal lands is important. Because circumstances vary 

widely, we do not know the extent to which other tribes and Alaska Native 

Villages may be able to benefit from the experiences of these six. However, 

given that many tribes and Alaska Native Villages face similar barriers, 

policy makers working to assist tribes and Alaska Native Villages in 

improving telecommunications may want to consider the approaches 

employed by these tribes. 

Matters for 

Congressional 

Consideration

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.

To facilitate Internet access for tribal libraries, Congress should consider 

amending the Communications Act of 1934 to allow libraries eligible for 

Library Service and Technology Act funds provided by the Director of IMLS 

to either a state library administrative agency or to a federally recognized 

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

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report for comment to BIA, the Census Bureau, 

NTIA, FCC, General Services Administration, Institute of Museum and 

Library Services, and RUS. BIA provided written comments, presented in 

appendix IV, stating that BIA recognized the need to update its 

rights-of-way regulations to include advanced telecommunications 

infrastructure, and is working to include this in its trust related regulations. 

BIA stated that it will issue a Rights-of-Way Handbook in March 2006, to 

ensure consistent application of existing regulations. RUS and the General 

Services Administration responded that they had no comments. The 

Institute of Museum and Library Services provided written comments, 

found in appendix V, stating that the report accurately reflected its 

understanding of the relevant issues and concerns. NTIA offered technical 

comments, as did the Census Bureau and FCC, which we have 

incorporated where appropriate. In the draft report, we recommended that 

the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission direct FCC staff 

to determine what additional data is needed to help assess progress toward 

the goal of providing access to telecommunications services, including 

high-speed Internet, to Native Americans living on tribal lands; determine 
Page 55 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

how this data should be regularly collected; and report to Congress on its 

findings. In oral comments responding to our recommendation, FCC 

agreed that additional data is needed to help assess progress toward the 

goal of providing access to telecommunications services, including 

high-speed Internet. However, FCC did not agree that it is the organization 

best positioned to determine the data needed in this context, noting that 

other federal agencies and departments possess expertise and more direct 

authorization to determine whether and what economic and demographic 

data are needed to support policy making. In view of FCC’s disagreement 

with our recommended action, we have made it a matter for Congressional 

consideration. We continue to believe that FCC, as the agency responsible 

under the Communications Act for the goal of making available, as far as 

possible, telecommunications at reasonable charges to all Americans, is the 

appropriate agency to determine what data is needed to advance the goal of 

universal service and support related policy decisions—especially for 

Native Americans on tribal lands who continue to be disadvantaged in this 

regard.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days after 

the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the 

appropriate congressional committees, tribal organizations and 

governments, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Census Bureau, Economic 

Development Administration, Federal Communications Commission, 

General Services Administration, Indian Health Service, Institute of 

Museum and Library Services, National Science Foundation, National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration, Rural Utilities 

Service, Universal Service Administrative Company, and the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget. We will make copies available to others 

upon request. In addition, this report will be available at no cost on the 

GAO web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you have any questions about the 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. 

Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
Page 56 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who contributed to 

this report are listed in appendix VI.

Mark L. Goldstein

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 57 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

The objectives of this report were to determine: 1) the status of 

telecommunications subscribership (telephone and Internet) for Native 

Americans on tribal lands in the lower 48 states and Alaska; 2) federal 

programs available for improving telecommunications services on tribal 

lands; 3) the barriers that exist to improving telecommunications on tribal 

lands; and 4) how some tribes have addressed these barriers.

To respond to the objectives of this report, we gathered information from a 

variety of sources. Specifically, we gathered information by (1) reviewing 

material relevant to telecommunications on tribal lands from federal, state, 

Native American, academic, non-profit, and private sources; (2) 

interviewing federal and state regulatory agency officials; (3) interviewing 

officials of national and regional Native American organizations; (4) 

interviewing officials of telecommunications provider and equipment 

manufacturer organizations; (5) conducting telephone interviews of tribal 

officials on 26 tribal lands and 12 Alaska regional native non-profit 

organizations; and (6) making site visits to six tribal lands.

To provide information on the status of telecommunications subscribership 

for Native Americans on tribal lands in Alaska and the lower 48 states, we 

analyzed data from the 2000 decennial census. To determine telephone 

subscribership, we used Census 2000 data product, American Indian and 

Alaska Native Summary File. This summary file includes tabulations of the 

population and housing data collected from a sample of the population 

(within most Native American and Alaska Native areas, 1 in every 2 

households). In these areas, there must be at least 100 people in a specific 

group, including Native American and Alaska Native tribal groupings, 

before data will be shown. In our analysis of this 2000 Census data we did 

not include Native individuals or households located in Oklahoma Tribal 

Statistical Areas (OTSA). OTSAs are statistical entities identified and 

delineated by the Census in consultation with federally recognized Native 

American tribes in Oklahoma that do not currently have a reservation, but 

once had a reservation in that state. Boundaries of OTSAs are those of the 

former reservations in Oklahoma, except where modified by agreements 

with neighboring tribes for data presentation purposes. We also excluded 

all other tribal lands in the Census 2000 data that were not federally 

recognized. As a result of these exclusions and the Census reporting 

threshold, the data show 198 lower 48 tribal lands and 131 Alaska Native 

Villages for people who indicated their race, alone or in combination, as 

American Indian and/or Alaska Native. We assessed the reliability of the 

data from the Census Bureau by interviewing knowledgeable agency 

officials about data collection methods, particularly those pertaining to 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 58 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

collection of data on tribal lands, reviewing existing documentation on 

Census data, and conducting electronic testing of the data. We determined 

that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To determine the status of Internet subscribership on tribal lands, we spoke 

to the Census Bureau about the Current Population Survey (CPS). The CPS 

is a monthly survey of households conducted by the Census Bureau for the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics, and is designed primarily to produce national 

and state estimates for characteristics of the labor force. To obtain national 

and state estimates on Internet subscribership rates, supplemental 

questions on Internet and computer use have been added to the CPS 

questionnaire. However, the CPS sample cannot provide reliable estimates 

of Internet subscribership on tribal lands.

To determine the availability of federal programs that improve 

telecommunications on tribal lands, we interviewed agency officials from 

the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Universal Service 

Administrative Company (USAC), the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), the 

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Economic Development Administration 

(EDA), the Indian Health Service (IHS), the Institute of Museum and 

Library Services (IMLS), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the 

General Services Administration (GSA). To determine the funding amounts 

for these programs, we reviewed annual federal budget data and agency 

documents. To learn about FCC programs targeted to tribal lands, we 

interviewed tribal officials, FCC staff, and service providers. To learn the 

amount of funds disbursed and number of program subscribers for 

Enhanced Lifeline and Enhanced Linkup, we obtained information from 

the Universal Service Administrative Company. To assess the reliability of 

the FCC’s data for the Enhanced Lifeline and Enhanced Linkup programs, 

we interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and the 

systems that produced them. The FCC does not track this information by 

tribal lands; however, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 

to present the total amount of money disbursed by year and the total 

number of subscribers to these programs by year. 

To assess the reliability of FCC’s data on Tribal Land Bidding Credits, we 

interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the data and the systems 

that produced them. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 

for the purposes of our report. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 59 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

To learn what barriers exist to improve telecommunications services on 

tribal lands, we analyzed information from various federal agencies, such 

as the Census Bureau, FCC, the Department of Commerce, as well as 

reports from a private foundation, the Benton Foundation and a national 

tribal organization, the National Congress of American Indians. We 

reviewed two previous studies of telecommunications technology on tribal 

lands. We also reviewed testimony from hearings before the Senate 

Committee on Indian Affairs and the House of Representatives Committee 

on Financial Services and Committee on Resources. We conducted 

interviews with national and regional tribal organizations, major local 

service providers, selected wireless equipment manufacturers, and nonprofit organizations that have contributed to improving 

telecommunications on tribal lands. Finally, we conducted interviews with 

officials of 26 tribes and 12 Alaska regional native nonprofit organizations. 

We selected officials of tribal lands for interviews by first separating the 

Alaska Native Villages from the federally recognized reservations in the 

lower 48 states because telecommunications infrastructure in Alaska 

differs from that of the lower 48 due to Alaska’s weather and terrain. To 

learn about the barriers facing Alaska Native Villages and the efforts to 

overcome them, we interviewed officials from 12 Alaska regional native 

nonprofit organizations. To learn about the barriers facing tribes in the 

lower 48 states, we interviewed tribal officials from a total of 26 of the 

more than 300 tribal lands of the lower 48 states, selected by using 

demographic and economic indicators from both 1990 and 2000 Census 

data for natives and nonnatives, as well as information from various 

reports, studies and testimonies on individual tribal efforts to improve 

telecommunications.

To select tribes in the lower 48 states to interview, we focused on the larger 

and more populated tribal lands in the lower 48 states, using Census data to 

select those tribes with populations over 100 persons and those tribal lands 

larger than one square mile. We also excluded tribal lands for which there 

was no 1990 Census data because without this data we could not identify 

change in telephone subscribership rates from 1990 to 2000. We then 

grouped the remaining tribal lands into 8 population categories, ranging in 

size from over 30,000 to under 500. Having postulated that the major 

barriers to increased telephone subscribership might be associated with 

poverty, geographic isolation, and lack of technical skills, we used the 1990 

and 2000 Census data to determine for each of these tribal lands the 

percent of the population at or below the poverty level, the mileage of tribal 

lands from the closest population center of over 15,000, the percent of 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 60 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

those over 25 without a high school diploma, and the change in telephone 

subscribership rate from 1990 to 2000. We selected tribal lands from each 

of the 8 population groups with a range of scores on the above described 

criteria. Within the group of tribal lands that met the above criteria, we also 

strove to select tribal lands, where possible, from different geographic 

regions of the county. Using this methodology, we selected 21 tribal lands 

for interview. We used data from the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses’ 

American Indian and Alaska Native summary file. 

In addition to the 21 tribal lands selected, we also selected five tribal lands 

that had made efforts to improve telecommunications. We learned about 

these tribes from our analysis of documents from FCC, a national tribal 

organization, scholars and nonprofit organizations, as well as from our 

interviews with tribes, tribal organizations, service providers and 

equipment manufacturers. Tribes’ efforts included establishing tribally 

owned telecommunications companies, introducing new technologies to 

provide Internet access, developing programs to provide technical training 

for tribal members, and establishing a tribal regulatory agency to improve 

telecommunications, including the rights-of-way processes on tribal land. 

The telephone interviews conducted with officials from these 26 tribal 

lands and 12 Alaska regional native nonprofit organizations covered topics 

such as which companies provide wireline and wireless telephone service 

and Internet access on tribal lands; what factors contributed to any change 

in telephone subscribership rates from 1990 to 2000 (as derived from 

Census data); any barriers tribes faced in improving telecommunications 

services on tribal lands; how those barriers had been addressed; tribes’ 

experience with applying for various federal programs and with providers 

seeking Eligible Telecommunications Carrier status or applying for Tribal 

Lands Bidding Credits. 

Based on our analysis of the compiled research and interviews, we 

determined that tribes faced barriers in one or more of the following four 

categories: financial, geographic, technical, or rights-of-way. From our 

interviews, we identified 11 tribes as potential candidates for site visits 

because they were confronting one or more of these four barriers, had 

made progress in improving telecommunications services on their lands, 

and as a group, represented a range of population and tribal land sizes, as 

well as geographic locations. We then selected 6 of these tribes for site 

visits, assuring that, as a group, they represented all of the identified 

barriers and were located in different geographic regions of the lower 48 

states. In addition to interviewing tribal officials at the six sites we visited, 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 61 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

we also interviewed officials of some of the companies that provided 

telecommunications service to those sites regarding their views about the 

barriers to improving telecommunications services on tribal lands.

We conducted our audit work from August 2004 through December 2005 in 

Washington, D.C., and at the 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. Our work was conducted in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 62 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Appendix II

List of Tribes, Alaska Regional Native 

Nonprofit Organizations, and Other Groups 

Interviewed ApendxiI

A. Native American Tribes in the Lower 48 States State

Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana MT

Brighton Reservation of the Seminole Tribe of Florida FL

Coeur D'Alene Tribe of the Coeur D'Alene Reservation ID

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon OR

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation WA

Dresslerville Colony of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California NV, CA

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians of North Carolina NC

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation AZ

Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe MN

Ho-Chunk Nation of Wisconsin WI

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation AZ

Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation NM

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians MS

Navajo Nation AZ, NM, UT

Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation MT

Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation SD

Paiute-Shoshone Indians of the Bishop Community of the Bishop Colony CA

Pueblo of Picuris NM

Pueblo of Santa Clara NM

Quileute Tribe of the Quileute Reservation WA

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation CA

San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation AZ

Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation ND

Tuscarora Nation of New York NY

White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation AZ

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska NE, IA

B. Alaska Regional Native Non-Profit Organizations

Aleutian Pribilof Island Association

Association of Village Council Presidents

Bristol Bay Native Association

Central Council

Chugachmuit

Cook Inlet Tribal Council

Copper River Native Association

Fairbanks Native Association
Appendix II

List of Tribes, Alaska Regional Native 

Nonprofit Organizations, and Other Groups 

Interviewed

Page 63 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Kawerak, Incorporated

Kodiak Area Native Association

Maniilaq Association

Tanana Chiefs Conference

C. Other Groups Interviewed

Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians

Alaska Communications Systems Group Inc.

American Indian Higher Education Consortium

American Distance Education Consortium

American Indian Library Association

BalsamWest FiberNET, LLC

Bay Area Research Wireless Network

BellSouth Corporation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

California State Library

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority

Cingular Wireless, LLC

Crown Castle International, Corp.

CTIA- The Wireless Association

Dandin Group, Inc.

GCI, Inc.

Golden West Telecommunications

Intelsat, Ltd.

Iridium, LLC

Lukas, Nace, Gutierrez, & Sachs

Mescalero Apache Telecommunications, Inc.

Metaswitch

Mobile Satellite Ventures, LP

Montana State Library

Motorola, Inc.

National Congress of American Indians

National Indian Telecommunications Institute

Nations Connect of America

Native Networking Policy Center

Navajo Communications Company, Inc.

North Dakota State Library

Oklahoma Department of Libraries

Olympic Technology, Inc.

(Continued From Previous Page)
Appendix II

List of Tribes, Alaska Regional Native 

Nonprofit Organizations, and Other Groups 

Interviewed

Page 64 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Source: GAO.

OnSat Network Communications, Inc.

Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies

Pew Internet & American Life Project

Power Line Communications Association

Proxim Corporation

Qwest Communications International, Inc.

Regulatory Commission of Alaska

Sacred Wind Communications, Inc.

San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc.

SBC Communications, Inc.

Smith Bagley, Inc.

Solectek

South Dakota Public Utilities Commission

Space Data, Corp.

Sprint Corporation

Sprint PCS

TelAlaska, Inc.

Terabeam Wireless

United Utilities

United Power Line Council

Verizon Communications, Inc.

Western Wireless, LLC

(Continued From Previous Page)
Page 65 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers ApendxiI

We visited six tribes—the Coeur d’Alene of Idaho, the Yakama of 

Washington, the Eastern Band of Cherokee of North Carolina, the 

Mescalero Apache of New Mexico, the Oglala Sioux of South Dakota, and 

the Navajo of Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah—to determine how they 

approached their particular barriers to improving their 

telecommunications services. These tribes vary in size, geography, and 

other characteristics. In addition, we discussed approaches to overcoming 

barriers with officials of other tribes, service providers, and other entities, 

and found that tribes use numerous approaches to overcome the barriers 

they face. The approaches taken by a tribe often address more than one 

barrier. 

The Coeur d’Alene Tribe 

Developed a System to 

Provide High-Speed Internet 

Access for Tribal Residents 

Using an RUS Grant

The Coeur d’Alene, whose tribal lands cover 523 square miles in northern 

Idaho, used an overall strategy of developing the tribe’s own system to 

provide high-speed Internet access for tribal members. Within this 

telecommunications strategy, the tribe’s particular approaches included 

applying for and obtaining an RUS grant, negotiating for rights-of-ways, and 

developing technical expertise.

Background The Coeur d’Alene’s tribal lands are located about 27 miles from Coeur 

d’Alene, Idaho, the nearest population center of 15,000 or more inhabitants. 

According to the 2000 Census, 1,303 Native Americans were living on the 

Coeur d’Alene lands. The estimated per capita income for Native 

Americans on Coeur d’Alene lands was $10,267, or less than half the 

national estimate of $21,587, while the poverty level was 28 percent, 15.6 

percent above the national estimate of 12.4 percent. The unemployment 

level was 18 percent, or 12.2 percent above the national unemployment 

level of 5.8 percent. 

Barriers According to tribal officials, the tribe’s major barriers to improved 

telecommunications services included the following:

Financial: Many tribal residents are poor and a tribal official said many 

cannot afford high-speed Internet service. This official told us that the 

Coeur d’ Alene face an underemployment problem, as many people are 

employed but are paid low wages and have little money to spend on 

communications services. This official also told us that in addition, the 

tribe itself does not have the funds to pay for telecommunications 

equipment and services for its residents.
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 66 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Geographic: Service providers have not expanded the telecommunications 

infrastructure across the tribe’s lands or upgraded the infrastructure to 

provide high-speed Internet access, partly because the large land area 

consisting of hilly and mountainous terrain makes expansion of the 

infrastructure expensive. According to a Coeur d’Alene tribal official, 

service providers determined that the cost of infrastructure expansion or 

improvement was too great to offer service to a limited number of tribal 

land residents, many of whom could not afford high speed Internet access. 

Lack of tribal technical capacity: A tribal official told us that the tribe does 

not have a sufficient number of technically knowledgeable staff members 

to develop and maintain needed telecommunications systems.

Rights-of-way: This became an issue for the tribe after it decided to put up 

its own wireless system. Tribal officials told us that they could not afford to 

pay the prices asked by some landowners and residents within reservation 

boundaries for rights-of-way to locate equipment on their land. 

Approaches To obtain better telecommunications services, the tribe decided to develop 

its own telecommunications system that would offer high-speed Internet 

access to all residents. One of the tribal members who had received 

technical training and was knowledgeable about high-speed Internet access 

determined that such access was possible at affordable rates and that the 

tribe’s large and rugged land area made a wireless system the least 

expensive choice. According to a tribal official, high-speed Internet access 

will improve access to business and educational opportunities, 

telemedicine services, and better enable the tribe to preserve its language 

and history. 

Since the tribe did not have sufficient funds to develop a 

telecommunications system on its own, the technically trained tribal 

member applied for an RUS Community Connect grant. This type of grant 

can be used for expenditures for a wide array of infrastructure and related 

needs, such as household and business connection equipment as well as 

the construction of a community technology center. In May 2003, the tribe 

was awarded a $2.8 million grant that will be used to pay for five towers, 

fiber optic cable, equipment to send and receive wireless signals for all 

tribal households and businesses, technical staff to deploy and operate the 

system for 3 years, operational costs, and the community technology 

center. As of July 2005, the system was complete and operating. The 

technically trained tribe member is now managing the system. 
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 67 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Once the tribe received the grant, it had to overcome the barriers of 1) 

obtaining rights-of-way in order to locate equipment and 2) developing a 

technically knowledgeable staff to eventually operate the planned system. 

Rather than paying for rights-of-way across private land, the tribe acquired 

the rights-of-way they needed for access roads and equipment in exchange 

for connections to the system. To address the current lack of technical 

knowledge among tribal residents, the tribe is working with two local 

colleges to increase its technical knowledge. The tribe is offering the 

college access to its new broadband system in exchange for distance 

learning classes and technical training. The tribe has also made plans to 

receive technical training from the Mescalero Apache Tribe, which owns its 

own system and provides training in telecommunications. In addition, to 

increase interest among tribal members in Internet access and computer 

usage, the tribal government plans to provide tribal members with training 

and Internet access at the tribe’s community technology center for as long 

as its budget will allow. Those attending training will be assisted by the 

recently hired technical staff in repairing and refurbishing computers that 

belong to the tribe and are no longer needed. They will be allowed to keep 

the computers for home use once the work is complete. 

Services are being offered for free for 2 years to the Benewah Medical 

Center, local libraries, fire and police departments on tribal land, as well as 

tribal and local public schools. The system will also make telemedicine 

services available so that those who are uninsured or underinsured can 

obtain the expertise of physicians not located on tribal lands. In addition, 

tribal members and non-tribal members will have high-speed Internet 

access at the community center at no cost. However, there will be a fee for 

high-speed Internet access to homes for tribal and non-tribal members 

living within reservation boundaries. Tribal officials told us that, after the 

first 2 years of operation, they expect to earn sufficient revenue from 

subscribers within tribal boundaries to fund needed maintenance and 

improvements, as well as offset the costs of operating the Community 

Technology Center. 

Additionally, tribal officials told us that they are planning to purchase a 

local cable company to acquire the company’s lines and the rights-of-way 

that the company has negotiated across land within reservation 

boundaries. The tribe is hoping to use revenue from the broadband Internet 

system to provide broadband through cable services to current and future 

customers. Tribal officials expect the broadband services to attract 

businesses and are planning to provide technical support to new 

businesses on tribal lands, such as writing software. 
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 68 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

The Yakama Nation Is 

Developing a Wireless 

Telephone System and HighSpeed Internet over Cable 

Using Financial Planning to 

Help Deploy Infrastructure 

The Yakama Nation, whose lands encompass 2,153 square miles in south 

central Washington, is developing its own telecommunications system that 

will offer wireless telephone and high-speed Internet access to all tribal 

land residents. The tribe has developed a long-range plan to finance 

development through savings accumulated over several years, mainly by 

reducing the amount of services purchased from the incumbent 

telecommunications provider and negotiating rights-of-way for 

telecommunications infrastructure. 

Background The Yakama Nation’s tribal lands are located about 24 miles from Yakima, 

Washington, the nearest population center of 15,000 or more inhabitants. 

According to the 2000 Census, 31,646 residents were living on Yakama 

tribal lands, 7,756 of them being Native Americans. Estimated per capita 

income for Native Americans on Yakama lands was $8,816 or less than half 

the national estimate of $21,587, while the poverty level was 31 percent, 

18.6 percent above the national estimate of 12.4 percent. Unemployment 

levels were 23 percent, or 17.2 percent above the national unemployment 

level of 5.8 percent.

Barriers According to the tribal official with whom we spoke, the tribe’s major 

barriers to improved telecommunications services included the following:

Financial: According to the tribal official, in the past few years, the tribe’s 

main industry, timber, has not done well, and unemployment rates and 

poverty have been above the national average. Many residents cannot 

afford telephone service and some of those who are not connected cannot 

afford the installation cost to become connected to the current 

infrastructure. The tribal official told us that many tribal members cannot 

afford a computer or Internet access, and the Internet access that is 

available is mostly low-speed dial-up service. The tribal official also said 

that the in the past few years, the local service provider had raised its 

recurring monthly charges, resulting in an annual bill to the tribe of 

$325,000, an increase of $50,000 in annual costs, which was difficult for the 

tribal government to afford.

Geographic: While many tribal residents in the more heavily populated 

areas have access to telephone service, the tribal official told us that the 

tribe’s service provider has not built additional infrastructure to reach less 

populated areas and has no plans to do so in the near future. In addition, 

the tribal member told us that the service provider had established calling 

zones that make calls from one part of the reservation to another long 
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 69 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

distance. This has increased the cost of telephone service for both 

residents and the tribal government. 

Lack of Tribal Technical Capacity: The tribal official stated that the tribe 

does not have a sufficient number of technically knowledgeable tribal 

members to develop and maintain needed telecommunications systems.

Approaches The Yakama Nation is addressing these barriers by developing its own 

telecommunications system that will provide wireless telephone service 

and high-speed Internet access to the tribal government and the community 

at large. The tribal official told us that seven years ago, the tribe determined 

that it could improve telecommunications services by forming its own 

company, offering telecommunications services to tribal residents and 

tribal businesses as well as other homes and businesses, both on and off 

tribal lands. This official also said the tribe has developed a business plan 

to receive its license from the state of Washington to operate as a 

competitive local exchange carrier, allowing it to sell its services. The tribal 

official told us the system will improve education by providing high-speed 

Internet access to tribal schools and offer residents greater access to jobs 

and business opportunities. The tribal official also told us that although the 

system is not yet complete, the Yakama Tribal Government buildings are 

now connected to each other through a Local Area Network (LAN) and 

have high-speed Internet access. This level of service has reduced the fees 

the tribe pays to the local service provider, allowing the tribe to increase 

the funding available for developing its own telephone telecommunications 

system.

To overcome the funding barrier, the tribe put together a long-range plan 

that required the tribe to reduce its use of the current provider’s services 

and then use the savings to develop its own system. Since 1998, the tribe 

has used annual savings from reduced telephone services and funds from 

other services to establish a telecommunications company and then 

purchase needed equipment. The technically trained tribal member who 

headed the planning and development of this system told us that because of 

the downturn in the telecommunications sector in the past few years and 

the long-range plans the tribe had made, the tribe was able to purchase 

surplus fiber at 25 percent of its retail price. In addition, the tribe was also 

able to negotiate with a local contractor for installation of the fiber at a 

price far below market rates. The tribal official told us that long-range 

financial planning and careful budgeting have been important to the tribe’s 

success and that infrastructure has been purchased or installed each year 

based on what the tribe could afford. 
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 70 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

The tribe is addressing its lack of technical capacity in a number of ways. 

The tribe has proposed to connect a local university to its 

telecommunications system in exchange for technical training. In addition, 

the tribe plans to train residents in computer and Internet use at an existing 

tribal technology center. The tribal official emphasized that determining 

how the tribe could afford the cost of trained staff to manage and maintain 

the system once it is operational was a very important part of their 

planning. The tribe determined that the system could produce revenue to 

pay for technically trained staff and necessary maintenance by offering 

wireless telephone and high-speed Internet access to areas adjacent to 

tribal lands. 

The tribe plans to erect additional towers; offer homes and businesses the 

opportunity to purchase equipment to connect to the system; and connect 

the tribally-owned system to the public switched network.1

 The tribal 

official told us that several locations are available to connect to the public 

switched network and they will select the location that offers the tribe the 

best price. The tribal official estimates that the system will be complete in 1 

to 2 years.

Eastern Band of Cherokee 

Partnered with Local 

Business to Install, Own and 

Operate 

Telecommunications 

Networks for High-Capacity 

Transmission Services

The Eastern Band of Cherokee, whose tribal lands cover about 82 square 

miles in the Smoky Mountains of western North Carolina, has improved 

telecommunications infrastructure and services, particularly high-capacity 

transmission and Internet-based services, by deploying two fiber networks 

-- a tribally-owned fiber-optic ring within the reservation area, and a jointlyowned fiber optic network in three states. To build these networks, Eastern 

Band of Cherokee partnered with a local business, provided part of the 

funding, and is applying for a USDA RUS loan jointly with their partner 

company. 

Background The Eastern Band of Cherokee’s tribal lands are located about 33 miles 

from Asheville, North Carolina, the nearest population center of 50,000 or 

more inhabitants. According to the 2000 Census, there were 6,132 Native 

Americans living on Eastern Band of Cherokee’s tribal land. The estimated 

per capita income for Native Americans on Eastern Band of Cherokee 

lands was $12,248, somewhat more than half the national estimate of 

1

 A public switched network is any common carrier network that provides a connection 

between two or more users such that the users have exclusive and full use of the 

connection.
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 71 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

$21,587, while the poverty level was 24 percent, 11.6 percent above the 

national estimate of 12.4 percent. The unemployment level was 9 percent, 

or 3.2 percent above the national unemployment level of 5.8 percent.

Barrier Tribal officials told us that the major barrier to improved 

telecommunication services the Eastern Band of Cherokee faced was:

Geographic: Tribal lands are geographically isolated by the Smokey 

Mountains and there is low population density in the area. According to a 

tribal telecommunications company official, prices for fiber-optic 

transmission networks and high-speed Internet access points are many 

times higher than in major metropolitan areas, where such connections are 

plentiful and competitively priced. A major contributor to the high cost of 

service is the transmission of data. This official said that voice, data, and 

Internet traffic from this rural mountain community must be hauled long 

distances for aggregation and connection to the national backbones of 

telecommunications and Internet service providers. The carriage provided 

by the local telephone company is priced at rates that are distance 

sensitive, making them some of the highest in the state. However, 

according to a tribal official, despite the local provider’s prices, the 

provider’s current telecommunications infrastructure on Eastern Band of 

Cherokee’s tribal lands is out of date and malfunctions frequently, causing 

interruptions in service.

Approach To improve access to fiber-optic infrastructure and to lower the cost of 

transmission for Internet service providers, as well as for schools, 

hospitals, rural clinics, government agencies and residents on tribal lands, 

the tribe constructed two fiber-optic networks. The first is a network that 

provides access within the reservation; the second is a network that 

provides an interconnecting network through parts of three states and is 

referred to as a middle-mile network. According to one of the tribal 

telecommunications company officials we interviewed, the middle-mile 

network is a very high-capacity network that can move large amounts of 

information at high speeds with plenty of capacity for future growth. This 

official told us that to deploy this middle-mile network, the tribe partnered 

with a private firm, one of the largest electronic tax filers in the United 

States and one of the largest employers in the region after the tribe. 

Together, they formed a joint venture company to construct, own, and 

operate the network. The company official also told us that the joint
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 72 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

venture company leases dark fiber 2 and also operates as a certificated 

competitive local exchange carrier and interexchange carrier in three 

states. The networks support very high capacities for real-time, interactive 

applications such as three-dimensional modeling and simulation. The 

company also offers open access to its dark fiber on short-term and longterm leases (up to 20 years) to any requesting entity and sells its fiber and 

services at rates pegged to the wholesale rates being charged in large 

metropolitan areas. 

The company official stated that system deployment began in September, 

2003, with completion expected by the end of 2005 and will consist of about 

257 miles of underground fiber optic cable. A tribal official told us the tribe 

wanted to help attract new businesses to the area as well as help existing 

companies modernize and expand. Of equal importance to the tribe are 

improvements and enhancements in government services, health care and 

education, and residential Internet access. A telecommunications company 

official told us the joint venture has already begun providing wide-area data 

and Internet transmission services for a four-site hospital system in the 

area, greatly reducing the hospital system’s costs and providing throughput 

speeds of only 6 seconds for transmission of x-ray images between sites. 

Officials of the tribe and the company told us that the tribe will use its 

ownership in these networks and future planned deployment of cable and 

wireless infrastructure to ensure that all residents of tribal lands can 

receive high-speed Internet, VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol), and other 

information and content applications at costs and quality levels 

comparable to or better than metropolitan areas. The tribe is currently 

planning facilities and programs for computer training laboratories for 

tribal members to learn about computers, networks, and the Internet, and 

is also planning for workforce retraining programs.

The Mescalero Apache 

Purchased the Local 

Telecommunications 

Company and Improved 

Services Using RUS Loans

The Mescalero Apache reservation covers 719 square miles and is located 

in south eastern New Mexico. The Mescalero Apache addressed their 

telecommunications issues by purchasing the local telephone company 

with the help of RUS loans and developing initiatives to improve the tribe’s 

technical capacity to provide telephone service and high-speed Internet 

access.

2

 Dark fiber refers to fiber optic cable that is in place, but not being used.
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 73 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Background According to the 2000 Census, there were 2,932 Native American residents 

living on Mescalero Apache land. The estimated per capita income for 

Native American residents was $7,417, slightly more than one-third the 

national estimate of $21,587, while the level of poverty was 37 percent, 

24.6 percent above the national estimate of 12.4 percent. The 

unemployment level was 17 percent, 11.2 percent above the national 

unemployment level of 5.8 percent.

Barriers According to tribal officials, before the Mescalero Apache purchased the 

local telecommunications company, the tribes’ major barriers to improving 

telecommunications service included the following: 

Geographic: The size of the reservation makes the deployment of wireline 

infrastructure expensive and the small number of tribal residents limits the 

ability of the service providers to recoup their investment. Tribal officials 

told us that the former local service provider was unwilling to upgrade the 

telecommunications network on the Mescalero Apache reservation to 

provide high-quality voice or data services. 

Lack of Tribal Technical Capacity: In 1995, the tribal Council passed a 

resolution stating the tribe’s intention to purchase the former telephone 

service provider’s network. However, the tribe did not have a sufficient 

base of technically knowledgeable tribal members to operate the former 

provider’s telephone network.

Approaches To overcome these barriers, the tribal government purchased the former 

wireline service provider’s network on the reservation. The tribal 

government then formed the company, Mescalero Apache 

Telecommunications, Inc. (MATI), to develop this network to provide 

higher quality telecommunications services than previously available. MATI 

then rebuilt the network by installing more than 1,000 route miles of fiber 

optic cable to provide high-speed Internet access as well as local and long 

distance telephone service. According to a MATI official, telephone and 

high-speed Internet access are now nearly universally available within the 

reservation and Gigabit Ethernet, which is nearly 1,000 times faster than 

DSL, has been deployed to the Mescalero casino. In addition, this MATI 

official told us that the number of residential telephone subscribers on the 

Mescalero Apache tribal lands has increased from 10 per cent to 97 percent 

since these improvements were made to the network.

To address the geographic issue, the MATI official said that the tribal 

government instructed MATI to focus on providing services to the 
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 74 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

reservation rather than maximizing profit, which could limit investment in 

services. 

Additionally, MATI utilizes various approaches to improve its technical 

capacity to offer higher quality services. Specifically, it developed strategic 

relationships and training to improve the staff’s technical capabilities to 

operate telecommunications technologies. For example, the MATI official 

told us that when MATI was starting to provide service, MATI was able to 

borrow a switch from a manufacturer. Currently, MATI has an agreement 

with a VoIP equipment manufacturer to deliver voice calls over the 

Internet. This agreement has allowed MATI to begin to deploy this 

technology to customers outside the reservation over a shared spectrum 

wireless network. The MATI official said that this relationship has also 

allowed MATI to train their personnel on the use of this equipment.

The MATI official also told us that MATI created a technical mentoring 

program to build tribal telecommunications capacity. Although about half 

of MATI’s staff consists of non-tribal members, tribal officials expect to hire 

more tribal members as they receive technical training and non-tribal 

members retire. Newer tribal staff are paired with experienced non-tribal 

staff for the purpose of learning telecommunications technologies. The 

MATI official said that the goal is to create a self-sufficient tribal knowledge 

base to understand and operate the telecommunications network. This 

official said that MATI’s development of its technical capabilities has also 

allowed it to offer technical consulting services to other tribes that are 

interested in providing their own telecommunications network. For 

example, Coeur d’Alene tribal officials told us that they plan to use MATI 

staff to train some of their telecommunications staff and increase the 

tribe’s technical capacity to operate a telecommunications network. The 

MATI official also told us that MATI hosts an annual telecommunications 

conference for tribes and municipal governments to inform them about the 

basics of telecommunications finance and technology. 

The Oglala Sioux Partnered 

With a Wireless Provider to 

Create Competition and 

Increase Telephone 

Subscribership

Oglala Sioux lands cover approximately 3,150 square miles and are located 

in southwestern South Dakota. To improve telecommunications services 

on their tribal lands, the Oglala Sioux partnered with Western Wireless 

Corporation (now merged with Alltel), a wireless service provider, to offer 

wireless phone service on their lands in competition with the wireline 

provider. According to tribal and Western Wireless officials, access to the 

Universal Service High Cost Fund and Enhanced Link-Up and Lifeline 

programs allows Western Wireless to recover some infrastructure 
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 75 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

deployment costs and offer discounted telephone service to residents of 

the Oglala Sioux’s Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

Background The Oglala Sioux tribal lands are located in southwestern South Dakota, 

about 80 miles south of Rapid City, South Dakota, the nearest population 

center of 50,000 or more inhabitants. According to the 2000 Census, 14,334 

Native Americans were living on these tribal lands.3

 The estimated per 

capita income for Native Americans was $5,624, slightly more than onequarter the national estimate of $21,587, while the poverty level was 55 

percent, more than 40 percent above the national estimate of 12.4 percent. 

The unemployment level was 37 percent, or 32.2 percent above the national 

unemployment level of 5.8 percent.4

Barriers According to tribal and industry officials, the tribe’s major barriers to 

improved telecommunications services included the following:

Financial: According to a tribal official, tribal members have limited 

financial resources to purchase telecommunications services. Census data 

indicate that the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is one of the most 

economically distressed tribal lands in the United States. Over one half the 

population falls below the federal poverty line while unemployment is 

more than six times the national estimate. 

Geographic: The Pine Ridge Indian Reservation is geographically isolated 

and has a low population density, which according to the tribal official, has 

limited the number of companies interested in providing 

telecommunications services. According to the 2000 Census, 

approximately 14,000 Oglala Sioux were living on the 3,150 square mile 

reservation, an area about one and half times the size of Delaware. The 

tribal official also told us that geographic isolation of the Pine Ridge Indian 

Reservation also meant that it was difficult for tribal members to reach 

public safety services when traveling through remote areas of the 

reservation.

3

 The tribal official with whom we spoke at Oglala Sioux told us that this number does not 

coincide with tribal figures, which indicate there are almost twice this number of Native 

Americans living on this land.

4

 The tribal official with whom we spoke said the tribal unemployment levels were closer to 

80 percent.
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 76 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Approaches To overcome these barriers, the Oglala Sioux partnered with a wireless 

service provider to offer wireless phone service to residents of the Pine 

Ridge Indian Reservation. The Oglala Sioux Tribe and the wireless provider 

signed a service agreement to formalize this partnership. The agreement 

defined the provider’s responsibilities to provide wireless phone service 

and the tribe’s responsibilities and rights to advertise the service and 

receive leasing fees for the wireless towers on its land.5

According to a tribal official and provider officials, the key to deploying 

wireless service on the Pine Ridge reservation was the provider’s ability to 

access federal universal service funds to subsidize its network costs (High 

Cost fund) and offer discounted telephone service (Enhanced Link-Up and 

Lifeline). In order to access these funds, the provider, with consent from 

the Oglala Sioux Tribe, applied for and received an eligible 

telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation from FCC in 2001. This 

enabled the provider to access High Cost funds as well as the Enhanced 

Link-Up and Lifeline programs, which lower the costs of telephone service 

for low-income customers. 

The provider deployed several towers in diverse areas of the reservation to 

provide wide-spread coverage. The tribe also worked with the provider to 

create an expanded local calling area for its customers that included all 

areas of the reservation as well as Rapid City, South Dakota. According to a 

tribal official, the addition of Rapid City as part of the local calling area was 

an important cost-saving measure for the tribe because a significant 

number of Oglala Sioux live in the Rapid City area. 

A tribal official told us that wireless telephone service has improved public 

safety and the general quality of telecommunications service on the Pine 

Ridge reservation. According to tribal and provider officials, tribal 

members can reach public safety services, such as 911, from nearly any 

location on the reservation. According to a tribal official, this is particularly 

important due to the summer and winter temperature extremes on the 

reservation. The wireline service provider officials also noted that the 

wireless provider’s presence as a competitor has helped to sharpen their 

focus on providing high-quality services. A tribal official told us that the 

wireless provider initially anticipated having about 300 customers on 

5

 The agreement outlined additional items for each party such as revenue sharing between 

Western Wireless and the Oglala Sioux for monies generated from the service.
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 77 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Oglala Sioux tribal lands, but had about 4,000 customers within 1 year of 

offering service.

The Navajo Nation is 

Addressing 

Telecommunications 

Barriers by Streamlining 

Tribal Government 

Processes, Encouraging 

Competition, and 

Emphasizing Wireless 

Technologies 

The Navajo Nation is the largest federally recognized tribe and tribal land in 

the United States. According to the 2000 Census, the Navajo Nation covers 

over 24,000 square miles, an area roughly the size of West Virginia, and 

extends into the states of Arizona, New Mexico and Utah.6

 To improve 

telecommunications on their lands, the Navajo are streamlining the tribal 

rights-of-way process to aid service providers; encouraging competition in 

order to improve prices and service quality; and emphasizing wireless 

technologies better suited to the geography of the tribal land. 

Background The Navajo Nation’s tribal lands are not located near any major 

metropolitan area. According to the 2000 Census, 176,256 Native 

Americans were living on Navajo tribal lands. The estimated per capita 

income for Native Americans on Navajo lands was $6,801, less than onethird the national estimate of $21,587, while the poverty level was 44 

percent, 31.6 percent above the national estimate of 12.4 percent. The 

unemployment level was 26 percent, or 21.2 percent above the national 

unemployment level of 5.8 percent.

Several telecommunications providers, both wireline and wireless, serve 

the Navajo Nation; however, not all areas within the reservation have 

access to voice or data service. Two providers provide high-speed Internet 

connectivity on parts of the reservation. One of them offers DSL to 

households at various places on the reservation. However, an official from 

this company noted that DSL works best if deployed within 15,000 feet of 

the central office, while many residents live beyond the 15,000-foot limit. 

The other provider offers high-speed Internet connections through satellite 

at 110 Navajo Nation chapter houses. However, one tribal official told us 

that the tribal chapter house connections are not financially sustainable in 

the long term. All three states (Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah) granted a 

library designation to the 110 chapter houses, and all chapter houses were 

approved by USAC for library E-rate funds. This official also stated that the 

6

 According to Navajo officials, based on a tribal estimate, the Navajo Nation covers about 

27,000 square miles.
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 78 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

tribe uses E-rate funds to pay for about 85 percent of the annual $3 million 

cost for satellite connectivity. However, the official told us that the tribe 

must pay the remaining 15 percent of the cost, or about $450,000, and that 

Navajo officials consider this amount to be a high cost.

Barriers According to tribal officials, the tribe’s major barriers to improving 

telecommunications services include the following:

Geographic: Geographic isolation has increased the cost of providing 

service on Navajo lands and limited the number of companies interested in 

providing telecommunications services. The distances needed to connect 

communities and homes with copper wires or fiber optic cable make 

wireline telecommunications systems expensive. For example, the tribe 

estimated in 1999 that it cost about $5,000 to connect a new wireline 

subscriber. The installation of wireless infrastructure is also expensive due 

to the vast network of towers and power access needed to relay signals 

around the rugged landscape. Service providers have told us the cost of 

deploying telecommunications infrastructure on Navajo lands impedes the 

provision of services. 

Rights-of-way: According to tribal officials, several factors combine to 

make obtaining rights-of-way across Navajo trust lands difficult, and serve 

as deterrents to extending and improving the tribe’s telecommunications 

infrastructure. Both service provider and tribal officials told us that the 

tribal government’s process for approving rights-of-way across trust lands 

is time-consuming and expensive. In addition, tribal officials told us that 

obtaining approval of rights-of-way from BIA across Indian allotments 

within tribal boundaries can also be very time-consuming and expensive 

because ownership of these lands has been divided among a large number 

of heirs, and at least 51 percent of the heirs must approve any change in the 

status of the land. In some cases, the location of many of these heirs is 

unknown. 

Approaches To address these barriers and improve telecommunications services on the 

reservation, tribal leaders formed the Navajo Nation Telecommunications 

Regulatory Commission (NNTRC). The Navajo Nation requires service 

providers to supply the NNTRC with information about their intended 

service areas, service offerings, and network buildout plans. This 

information allows the NNTRC to review providers’ plans for providing 

services and then holds them accountable for fulfilling those plans. The 

NNTRC encourages providers to attend hearings to comment on the 

barriers they encounter to providing telecommunications services. As a 
Appendix III

Six Tribes’ Efforts to Address 

Telecommunications Barriers

Page 79 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

result, the NNTRC works with the service providers to reduce or remove 

barriers.

The NNTRC is addressing geographic barriers by encouraging providers to 

deploy wireless telecommunications systems that are more appropriate for 

the Nation’s large geographic area. NNTRC is also addressing the cost of 

services on the Navajo Nation by encouraging multiple providers to offer 

services, thus creating competition. NNTRC officials told us that 

competition is the best method to lower prices and improve services. 

Currently, NNTRC works with wireless companies to encourage them to 

extend their service throughout the Navajo Nation. Officials from wireless 

companies serving and seeking to serve the Navajo Nation told us that 

access to universal service program funds combined with their use of less 

costly wireless technologies provides a viable business case for their entry 

onto Navajo lands. 

Tribal officials told us that the NNTRC drafted a rights-of-way policy that 

includes new procedures to make the tribe’s process for approving rightsof-way more efficient and timely for service providers. According to a 

Navajo official, this policy is currently being reviewed for approval by 

several of their tribal government departments. Following this approval 

process, NNTRC intends to implement this policy.
Page 80 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Appendix IV

Comments from the Department of the 

Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs ApendxiIV
Page 81 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Appendix V

Comments from the Institute of Museum and 

Library Services ApendxiV
Page 82 GAO-06-189 Telecommunications

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

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

Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Carol Anderson-Guthrie and John 

Finedore, Assistant Directors; Edda Emmanuelli-Perez, Michele Fejfar, 

Logan Kleier, Michael Mgebroff, John Mingus, Mindi Weisenbloom, 

Alwynne Wilbur, Carrie Wilks, and Nancy Zearfoss made key contributions 

to this report.

(543112)
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