U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

74–487 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–414 

CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: 

CONNECTING NATIVE NATIONS AND COMMUNITIES 

TO THE 21ST CENTURY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 5, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia, Chairman 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

MARK WARNER, Virginia 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas, Ranking 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

ELLEN L. DONESKI, Staff Director 

JAMES REID, Deputy Staff Director 

BRUCE H. ANDREWS, General Counsel 

ANN BEGEMAN, Republican Staff Director 

BRIAN M. HENDRICKS, Republican General Counsel 

REBECCA SEIDEL, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on April 5, 2011 ................................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 35 

Statement of Senator Begich .................................................................................. 39 

WITNESSES

Myron P. Naneng, Sr., President, Association of Village Council Presidents 

(AVCP) .................................................................................................................. 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief, Office of Native Affairs and Policy, Federal Communications Commission ..................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Alapaki Nahale-a, Chairman, Hawaiian Homes Commission; and Director, 

Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ............................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Loris Taylor, Native Public Media and National Congress of American Indians (NACI) Telecommunications Subcommittee ............................................... 20 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

John Badal, CEO, Sacred Wind Communications, Inc. ........................................ 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

APPENDIX

National Translator Association, prepared statement .......................................... 45 

(1) 

CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: CONNECTING 

NATIVE NATIONS AND COMMUNITIES TO 

THE 21ST CENTURY 

TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:28 p.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Inouye, 

presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator INOUYE. I have been authorized by Chairman Rockefeller 

to preside over this very important hearing. 

In my 33 years of service on the Indian Affairs Committee, I’ve 

been fortunate to learn about the history of our country and its relations with the indigenous Native People who occupy and exercise 

sovereignty on this continent. 

As a nation we have changed courses many times in the policies 

governing our dealings with Native Americans; and Native People, 

history shows, have suffered greatly. 

Finally, over the last several decades we adopted a policy of recognizing and supporting the rights of this nation’s first Americans: 

Native Americans, Alaskan Natives and Native Hawaiians, and we 

must continue our resolve to uphold this policy; and telecommunications is an important investment we can make in the future. 

In 2004 I chaired a Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing 

on the Native American Connectivity Act. That hearing focused on 

ways to help tribal Governors develop the necessary telecommunications infrastructure so that native communities can have access 

to basic telephone service as well as broadband and wireless technology. 

While some progress has been made over the years, as clearly 

outlined in the Federal Communications Commission’s National 

Broadband Plan, there are significant unmet needs and opportunities in Indian and native communities. 

Today’s hearing will examine the ongoing communication challenges facing native communities, including Indian tribes, Alaska 

Native Villages and Hawaiian Homelands. 

Native Hawaiians have had a special political and legal relationship with the United States for the past 183 years, as evidenced 

2 

through treaties with the United States, and are included in more 

than 188 federal statutes. 

Historically, native communities had less access to telecommunication services than any other segment of the United States population. The lack of good, reliable and affordable telecommunications 

infrastructure impedes economic development, educational opportunities, language retention and preservation, and access to 

healthcare and emergency services. 

According to the most recent data, less than 70 percent of the 

households on tribal lands have basic telephone service, compared 

to the national average of approximately 98 percent. 

And, let me repeat this again: less than 70 percent of households 

on tribal lands have basic telephone service, compared to the national average of approximately 98 percent. 

Further, it is estimated that broadband reaches less than 10 percent—less than 10 percent—of tribal lands compared to 95 percent 

of households nationwide. 

In Hawaii, native communities face the challenge of being rural, 

remote and noncontiguous, both an island, as well as between islands. And Alaska shares many of these same challenges, since its 

rural and remote villages are isolated and not connected to road 

systems. 

So, I’m very pleased that the Federal Communications Commission has taken an active interest in identifying and working to 

meet the needs of native communities through its adoption of the 

National Broadband Plan and creating the Office of Native Affairs 

and Policy with Geoffrey Blackwell as its chief. 

The adoption of multiple agenda items of great interest to native 

communities last month is a testament to these efforts. 

I also appreciated the time Chairman Julius Genachowski and 

Mr. Blackwell spent in Hawaii learning firsthand about the special 

challenges facing native Hawaiian communities. 

Identifying the needs and how best to address them is only part 

of the equation. Reducing barriers and providing sufficient support 

to help native communities will be critical to the success. 

Of the $7.2 billion provided in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund broadband-related projects, only $46.3 million 

was awarded to Native American awardees by the Commerce Department’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. 

An additional $285 million was adopted for projects which 

claimed some benefit to tribes. 

The rural utility service, through its Broadband Improvement 

Program, provided $158 million in grants and loans to native communities or providers whose service may have touched native communities. 

Given the magnitude of the needs this can only be considered a 

small downpayment. Unfortunately, given the cost-cutting environment on Capitol Hill, creative funding mechanisms will be necessary to support efforts to fully connect native communities. 

The worst thing we can do is to provide for an empty promise. 

Too much of that has gone on over these many years; we have 

much to make up for in terms of our nation’s commitments to the 

native people of this land. 

3 

So, I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of witnesses on these important issues and working with the FCC and 

native communities to achieve our common goals. 

As you know, we have a whole panel here, but I was just notified 

that the President of the Association of Village Council Presidents, 

Myron P. Naneng, Sr., has to return immediately because there 

was a death in his family. 

And, so, if I may call upon President Naneng to give his testimony at this time. 

Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MYRON P. NANENG SR., PRESIDENT, 

ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS (AVCP) 

Mr. NANENG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inouye. I’d like 

to thank you for the opportunity to speak on broadband’s potential 

impact in rural Alaska, and more potentially, the positive impact 

that broadband will have in rural Alaska as well as for education 

and other issues that are affecting people that live in rural Alaska. 

My name is Myron P. Naneng, Sr., President of the Association 

of Village Council Presidents, representing 56 villages on the 

Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta, which is the size of the State of Oregon. 

I am a member of the State of Alaska Broadband Task Force, 

representing Alaska Federation of Natives, which is a statewide 

native organization. 

I have also served as chairman of a telephone company that provided local exchange, cellular and Internet services, United Utilities, from 1980 to 2008 when we sold the company. 

I will be providing copies of letters from AFN to Department of 

Commerce as part of the testimony to the Committee. 

If cellular services and usage is of any indication of the need for 

connectivity in rural Alaska today, it’s proven with a large demand 

of use by people who live in the villages. 

The cell phone service provider was not prepared for a high 

usage by people during the initial stages that it was introduced. 

Broadband has the same potential of making a bigger impact. It 

will enable users to obtain information quicker and make information available that was not even available 5 years ago. 

Today, our people in the villages want to be connected. I have a 

3-year-old granddaughter who can—who is proficient in the use of 

an iPhone and an iTouch. This is the wave of today for young people in our villages; and it’s quite amazing considering that there 

was only one phone in the villages in the 1970s that everybody had 

to share within their communities. 

Communication trends have been changing for the better; and 

opportunities that come with it have been embraced by all. Improved connectivity provides users with information on educational 

training and business opportunities as well as keeping up with current worldwide events. 

Information on jobs and opportunities that young people can 

apply for will be at their fingertips. This is going to create an information flow that is not available today and we all know that this 

is—this is now becoming a preferred method of communication for 

all our young people. 

4 

In rural Alaska the only way to travel to most villages is by 

small airplane operated by hub based carriers. When a health 

emergency occurs, the villages who have health aides who are the 

first responders and who communicate with health professionals, 

doctors, nurse and counselors, when they encounter a health situation. 

With the expanded broadband will provide better connectivity; 

thereby better communications between regional hospitals, even 

major hospitals, in cities to support our village healthcare system, 

many of which have tele—telemedicine communication systems. 

Many of the regional health corporations have established sub-regional clinics; and within the Y/K Delta we have five sub-regional 

clinics extended throughout the region. 

These sub-regional clinics have doctors and other healthcare professionals who support the villages in the surrounding areas as 

well. Even those regional clinics utilizing telemedicine communication systems to talk to a diagnosing of symptoms of those they’re 

administrating healthcare to. 

Broadband with the expansion of bandwidth will also allow 

schools to expand the educational and training opportunities of students in a village school, especially in villages that are not meeting 

the No Child Left Behind requirements. Educational programs and 

other training opportunities would not be available to students in 

rural communities because of remoteness or size; and it can be 

made available with broadband 

Most of the students in villages, even though they graduate from 

high school and continue on to higher education institutions still 

have to take remedial courses to prepare for college. We seek the 

implementation of broadband to help reduce this requirement and 

give more students an opportunity to succeed in courses they take 

in universities or training courses. 

Adults may not be able to travel to universities due to families 

and/or other reasons, can take educational courses through the expanded system from an accredited college that offer courses 

through the Internet. 

Nowadays we are seeing more young people getting their education by staying home and taking courses through the Internet. 

There are other—there are also many employer-sponsored training 

opportunities that can be delivered electronically if the infrastructure is in place. 

Again, a reminder that the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta is the size 

of the State of Oregon and there are no roads in rural Alaska, so 

the cost of everything especially is really, really expensive. To get 

to training we have to travel to a regional hub such as Bethel, St. 

Mary’s Aniak and on to Anchorage; and further if the training is 

out of state. The cost of a round-trip ticket from any one of our villages to Bethel can range between $150 to $900; and that’s just to 

Bethel. 

To consider the opportunities that will come with increased 

broadband, bandwidth and connectivity I think this will help in reducing the cost for people who live in rural Alaska. 

Another consideration is the fact that in rural Alaska there is no 

choice of providers and connectivity—connection; and the connection is weak. We currently do not have cell phone or Internet conVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
5 

nections in many remote parts of Alaska; where we do, the signal 

is not strong, resulting in many lost calls or no connectivity. Because we have no choice in providers we are limited to the provider 

of the service area, and at the mercy of the provider with regards 

to options, plan designs and costs. 

For many villages and their leaders the ability to identify funding which can be used for village purposes will be a major step for 

economic sustainability. Jobs can be created with this new technology that otherwise does not exist today. 

Grant submissions for granting agencies, especially now with the 

requirements to submit grants via Internet or paperless are hindering many of our villages to submit grant application and financing reporting today. Some have lost opportunities, so broadband 

will make it easier for villages and even regional organizations, 

such as AVCP, to submit grant applications before deadlines occur. 

This will create infrastructure expansion for both villages and regional entities that are working with villages, and create more job 

opportunities that currently do not exist in any of our villages. 

We see the benefits to broadband; the expansion of bandwidth; 

the positive changes it will bring, and opportunities in getting information and expanding local village economies. 

The potential use—the potential uses in search and rescue operations: telecommunications for health and—health services, education in schools and even public safety. Broadband expansion will 

help provide law enforcement with a better means of communications between village public safety officers who lead search and rescue operations and other law enforcement duties with other law enforcement personnel. 

A child from one of the European villages can most likely communicate with a Yupik, Cupik or Athabascan child from rural Alaska. Maybe even today it can be expanded through broadband. They 

might learn from our children that we do not have iced-piped sewer 

systems or igloos, but that honey buckets are still in the villages 

that cause health concerns in villages that don’t have water and 

sewer systems that are taken for granted in most of the United 

States communities. 

Maybe even our leaders in Congress or the Oval Office would realize that many Americans still lack the infrastructure that can improve the quality of life. For Americans who live in rural Alaska, 

broadband will bring the things into real time views, not just from 

Discovery Channel of Alaska shows but directly from people who 

live in rural Alaska and real people. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify and provide a short summary of what we anticipate will make a difference 

in rural Alaskan villages. And, we know that big—we know will 

make a bigger impact on educating not only those who live in rural 

Alaska, but those who live in urban America as well. 

And, I’d like to add a comment from one of the teachers in one 

of the schools a broadband can do and stated. It’s a principal from 

the village high school of Hooper Bay who made the comments, regarding—and for informational purposes, Hooper Bay’s closer to 

Russia than a lot of people think. It’s out in the Bering Sea Coast. 

Regarding high speed Internet service for Hooper Bay School students and community, currently our educational programs have beVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
6 

come very dependent on reliable high speed Internet connectivity 

with corresponding bandwidth to meet the demands of our students 

logging into computer-aided instructional program through the 

Internet. My Skills Tutor and Carnegie Math are two programs 

that are Internet dependent along with general instruction programs for Internet access provides the basis for research projects 

in all content areas. We frequently face a situation where 

broadband or band width cannot meet the needs of over 100 of our 

400 students requiring timely access to the Internet. 

When teachers assign a lesson dependent on Internet access and 

students cannot connect or get bumped off the connection it has serious consequences for the effectiveness of instruction and student 

engagement. 

Additionally, student access in community to complete homework 

assignments is not available at this time again compromising the 

potential of our students and expansion of our curriculum beyond 

the walls of the school. 

With that, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Naneng follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MYRON P. NANENG, SR., PRESIDENT, 

ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS (AVCP) 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Senate Commerce Committee. 

I thank you for this opportunity to share my views on potential impacts, more for 

the positive what broadband will do in rural Alaska. My name is Myron P. Naneng, 

Sr., President of Association of Village Council Presidents, representing 56 villages 

on the Yukon/Kuskokwim Delta, an area the size of the State of Oregon. I am a 

member of the State of Alaska Broadband Task Force, representing Alaska Federation of Natives, a Statewide Alaska Native Organization. I have also served as 

Chairman of a telephone company that provided local exchange, cellular and Internet services, United Utilities, Inc., from 1980 to 2008, when we sold the company. 

I am providing copies of letters from AFN to Department of Commerce as part of 

the testimony to the Committee. 

If cell phone service and usage is any indication of the need for connectivity in 

rural villages today, it was proven with the large demand by people in many villages. The cell phone provider was not prepared for the high percentage of users 

in the initial stages. Broadband has a potential of making a bigger impact. It will 

enable users to obtain information quicker and make information available that was 

not available even 5 years ago. Today people want to be connected. I have a 3-yearold granddaughter who can proficiently use the iTouch. This is the wave of today 

and the future, and is quite amazing considering there was only one phone in each 

village for the villagers to share in the early 70s. Communication trends have been 

changing for the better, and the opportunities that come with it are embraced by 

all. Improved connectivity provides users with information on educational, training 

and business opportunities as well as current world wide events. Information on 

jobs and opportunities that young people can apply for will be at their fingertips. 

This is going to create an information flow that is not available today in many villages and we all know this is the preferred method of communication for all young 

people. 

In rural Alaska, the only way to travel to most villages is by small airplanes operated by hub based carriers. When a health emergency occurs, the villages have 

health aides who are the first responders and who communicate with health professionals, doctors, nurses or counselors when they encounter a health situation. 

An expanded bandwidth of broadband will be provided better connectivity, thereby better communication between the regional hospitals or even major hospitals in 

cities to support the village health care systems—many of which have telemedicine 

communication systems. Many of the regional health corporations have established 

subregional clinics in the Y/K delta, the Yukon Kuskokwim Health Corporation has 

five subregional clinics that extend throughout the region. These subregional health 

clinics have doctors and other professional health care providers who support the 

villages in surrounding areas. Even these regional clinics utilize the telemedicine 

7 

communication systems to talk through the diagnosis of symptoms of those they are 

administering health care to. 

Broadband with the expansion of bandwidth will also allow schools to expand the 

educational and training opportunities of the students in school, especially in villages that are not meeting the No Child Left Behind requirements. Educational programs and other training opportunities that would not be available to students in 

rural communities because of remoteness or size will be available through 

broadband. Most of the students in villages, even though they graduate from high 

school and continue onto higher education institutions still have to take remedial 

courses to prepare for college. We see the implementation of broadband reduce this 

requirement and give more students an opportunity to succeed in courses they take 

in universities or training courses. 

Adults who may not be able to travel to universities due to family and or other 

reasons can take educational courses through the expanded system from accredited 

colleges that offer courses through the Internet. Nowadays, we are seeing more 

young people getting their education by staying home and taking courses through 

the Internet. There are also many employer sponsored training opportunities that 

can be delivered electronically if the infrastructure is in place. Again, the YukonKuskokwim Delta is the size of Oregon and there are no roads in rural Alaska so 

the cost of everything is really really expensive. To get training we have to travel 

first to a regional HUB (Bethel, St Marys, Aniak) then on to Anchorage and further 

if the training is out of state. The cost of a round trip ticket from any one of our 

villages to Bethel can range from $150–$900—and that is just to Bethel. So consider 

the opportunities that will come with increased broad band width and connectivity. 

Another consideration is the fact that in Rural Alaska there is no choice of provider and the connection is weak. We currently do not have cell phone and Internet 

connection in many remote parts of Alaska and where we do the signal is not 

strong, resulting in many lost calls or no connectivity. Because we have no choice 

in providers we are limited to the provider of the service area and are at the mercy 

of the provider with regard to options, plan design and cost. 

For many villages and their leaders, the ability to identify funding which can be 

used for village purposes will be a major step for economic sustainability. Jobs can 

be created with this new technology, that otherwise does not exist today. Grant submissions to granting agencies, especially now with the requirements to submit 

grants via Internet or paperless is hindering many of our villages to submit grant 

applications and finance reporting today. Some have lost opportunities, so 

broadband will make it easier for villages and even regional organizations, such as 

AVCP to submit grant applications before deadlines occur. This will create infrastructure expansion for both villages and regional entities that are working with villages and create more job opportunities that currently does not exist in many villages. 

We see benefits to broadband and expansion of bandwidth, the positive changes 

it will bring and provide opportunities in getting information and expanding local 

economies in villages. The potential uses in search and rescue operations, the telecommunication for health services and education in schools. 

Broadband expansion will also help in providing law enforcement with a better 

means of communication between Village Public Safety Officers, who lead search 

and rescue operations and other law enforcement duties with other law enforcement 

personnel. 

A child from one of the European countries can most likely communicate with a 

Yupik’, Cupik’ or Athabascan child from a rural Alaska village. They might learn 

from our children that we don’t have iced piped sewer systems, or igloos, and that 

honey buckets are still in use in villages that cause health concerns in villages that 

don’t have water and sewer systems that are taken for granted in most of the 

United States communities. 

Maybe, our leaders in Congress and Oval office will realize that many Americans 

still lack the infrastructure that can improve the quality of life for Americans who 

live in rural Alaska, broadband will bring things into real time views, and not just 

from Discovery Channel of Alaska shows but by direct communications with real 

people. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify and providing a short summary of what 

we anticipate will make a difference in rural Alaska and villages, that we know will 

make a bigger impact on educating not only those who live in rural Alaska, but 

those who live in urban America as well. 

Quyana, Thank you. 

8 

ADDENDUM

Comments by Hooper Bay HS Principal Scott Ballard 

Regarding high speed Internet service for Hooper Bay School students and community: Currently our educational programs have become very dependent on reliable high speed Internet connectivity with corresponding bandwidth to meet the demands of our students logging in to computer-aided instructional programs through 

the Internet. 

My Skills Tutor and Carnegie Math are two programs that are Internet dependent, along with general instructional programs where Internet access provides the 

basis for research projects in all content areas. We frequently face a situation where 

our bandwidth cannot meet the needs of over 100 out of our 400 students requiring 

timely access to the Internet. When teachers assign a lesson dependent on Internet 

access and students cannot connect or get bumped off the connection, it has serious 

consequences for the effectiveness of instruction and student engagement. 

Additionally, student access in the community to complete homework assignments 

is not available at this time, again compromising the potential of our students and 

the expansion of our curriculum beyond the walls of the school. 

Quyana, Thank you. 

Senator INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank you very much for your 

testimony, and I realize because of death in your family you will 

have to rush off, so I have submitted questions for your consideration. 

But without objection, I’d like to recognize your Senator, Senator 

Begich for comments he may have. 

Senator BEGICH. Myron, thank you very much for being here, 

and I express my condolences for your loss. And, I know you have 

to leave. So, if I could again, first thank the Chairman for having 

this hearing, but ask if I could, just one question. We’ll have more 

for the record, but I know you need to go. 

So, the Universal Service Fund, which myself and Senator Thune 

have put a letter out asking other Senators to support us on this 

effort, impacts the 56 rural communities that you represent. How 

would you rate the importance of the Universal Service Fund for 

connectivity and accessibility for the villages? How important was 

it to really utilize? 

Mr. NANENG. Yes, it’s a very important part of being able to connect even the telephone systems within the village. Like I state in 

my testimony, there’s one phone for each village back in the 1970s. 

Universal Service Fund has given the telephone companies the opportunity to expand to each home. 

And, you know, if I could give an example for myself: I lived up 

at Fairbanks at the University of Alaska while going to school. My 

wife-to-be lived at Scammon Bay. Long distance dating by one telephone was not a very good situation, but I think—I believe that the 

Universal Service Fund has really made a big difference in making 

phones available to each and every home that was—is within the 

current system; and I think that Universal Service Fund can also 

be expanded to provide opportunities and expansion of the Internet 

and cellular phone systems. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you, Myron. And I think the 

only comment I’ll make is, I appreciate your testimony, because I 

think many times it’s hard for people to understand the value of 

communication within rural Alaska. You know, without it we can’t 

deliver medical services, educational services, as you just described, 

and basic commerce. 

9 

But the one piece of the whole, as I travel throughout rural Alaska is the whole issue with medical clinics, and the utilization and 

what it’s doing now to transform the villages to have the same kind 

of healthcare that any urban area could have through the Internet. 

And, that to me is most amazing. But, it takes bandwidth. 

Mr. NANENG. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. We may be connected, but we’re the slowest in 

the nation when it comes to bandwidth. Without that bandwidth, 

some of the clinics that are run through your villages will not have 

access that many of the rural communities or urban communities 

have; is that a fair statement? 

Mr. NANENG. Yes, it is. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Again, Myron, I don’t want to take 

much more of your time, but I really appreciate you traveling this 

distance, but I know you have to get back; and I really appreciate 

you being here today. 

Mr. NANENG. Yes. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. 

And now may I call upon the Chief of the Office of Native Affairs 

and Policy, Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission, Mr. Geoffrey Blackwell. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY BLACKWELL, CHIEF, OFFICE OF 

NATIVE AFFAIRS AND POLICY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you, Chairman and Senator Inouye. Mr. 

Chairman, Senator Inouye and members of the Committee, 

hushchay and thank you for this opportunity to testify today. 

The lack of communication services in Native America is alarming. Only 67 percent of residents in native nations have basic telephone service; less than 10 percent have access to broadband, 

which is fast becoming the lifeblood of our 21st century economy, 

education, healthcare and public safety. 

Broadband can do much to level the negative historical impacts 

on native communities, but it must be available, accessible and affordable to meet its promise. 

Diverse and comprehensive needs makes it clear that one size 

fits none. The enormity of our mission is vast. The purpose of the 

Office of Native Affairs and Policy is to change the way we approach the communications problems of native nations and communities. We are charged with developing and driving a native agenda 

across the Commission, but changing our rules alone is not enough. 

We cannot, and will not only sit in Washington, make minor 

tweaks to our rules to do what we think will work and wait to see 

if they do. Complex problems dictate the need for new policies and 

procedures and well thought out solutions. 

Under Chairman Genachowski’s leadership, with the entire Commission and all of its bureaus and offices, and in particular with 

the long-standing support of Commissioner Copps, there is a new 

way of doing native business at the Commission. 

Native Nations are front and center in that new paradigm. Our 

work with them is a strategic partnership in which we exercise the 

Commission’s trust relationship with Native Nations. To fulfill our 

mission we are fostering the Commission’s ongoing government-toVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
10 

government dialogue by working directly with Native Nations to 

understand their needs and empower them to provide solutions. 

Our approach is to work together to identify and remove barriers 

and build models that engage their anchor institutions. We seek to 

place Native Nations themselves in the center of those solutions; 

whether is through self provisioning of services or through new 

tribal centric methods of deployment with industry, public or private partners. 

This active involvement of Native Nations is critically important 

to finding lasting solutions. To fulfill our mission and transform the 

landscape our office cannot be just another outside from Washington. Instead, it must be a knowledgeable and respected Native 

Nations insider. 

Immediately after the unanimous vote that established our office 

we hit the ground running, actually, rolling out the office in Native 

America, while at the same time working across the Commission 

to surface actions and proposals. We logged thousands of miles on 

a listening tour from here west to the Hawaiian Home Lands. We 

went deep into Native Nations, seeking the input of American Indian, Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian leaders. 

In distance diagnosis sessions and classes from the native end of 

the signals we saw the human element of the lack of services, and 

the limitations of connectivity, speed, and reliability. Several times, 

we had to reset our phones, log off and log back in. 

After we kicked the dirt with the Native Nations we returned to 

Washington with knowledge in hand; and then, under the chairman’s leadership the commission launched a series of 

groundbreaking proceedings at its March 3rd open meeting, named 

Native Nations Day. 

From rules expanding prioritized broadcasting opportunities, to 

proposed rules for new mobile wireless licensing, to an omnibus inquiry on a range of issues related to broadband adoption and deployment, the proceedings of Native Nations Day will serve as a 

foundation for consultation as a critical component of the Commission’s rulemaking process. 

These include an inquiry on a Native Nations priority, to remove 

barriers to entry, the creation of a Native Nations broadband fund 

for myriad deployment purposes, and a commission-wide, uniform 

definition of tribal lands. 

Critical to the work of our office is also our close coordination 

with others across the commission, and we will continue to provide 

guidance on a variety of rulemakings and actions. 

One of our other top priorities is to overhaul, update and increase the collaborative value of the commission’s Indian Telecom 

Initiatives outreach program. In addition, our work with the FCC 

Native Nations Broadband Task Force will ensure that concerns 

are considered in all relevant proceedings and that new recommendations are developed. 

In conclusion, we have heard several recurring themes from native leaders: continue to meet with us; listen to us, and use what 

we tell you to bring connectivity to our communities. The overarching message is that if consultations are to be successful, if education and training sessions are to be productive, and if efforts to 

place Native Nations at the center of the process are to succeed, 

11 

we must do our work within—we must do our work with Native 

Nations largely within their communities. 

Native Nations are aware of our office’s abilities. Many have told 

us that in order to best help them, we must see the problems firsthand; work with them where the problems exist and endeavor to 

find the solutions in concert with them. 

We welcome all of these opportunities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. 

Mado. I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY BLACKWELL, CHIEF, OFFICE OF NATIVE AFFAIRS

AND POLICY, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the critical communications issues facing Native Nations and the Commission’s efforts to find solutions. 

The lack of telecommunications services in Indian Country is alarming. After over 

70 years of development and expansion of the telecommunications industry, only 

68.9 percent of residents in Native Nations have basic telephone service. The statistics for broadband penetration are even more troubling—less than 10 percent of 

residents of Native Nations have access to what is fast becoming the lifeblood of our 

21st century economy, educational opportunities, health care, and public safety. 

However, the oft-cited statistics paint only part of the picture—behind them lurks 

a stark reality. The negative impacts of history fell particularly hard on Tribal and 

Native Communities, and aspects of this history resulted in an alarming lack of critical infrastructures. Broadband opportunities can do much to level this history in 

bringing health care, education, and jobs to Native Nations, but it must be available, accessible, and affordable to meet its promise. The purpose of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy is to change the way we approach the communications problems of Native Nations and Communities. There are numerous and comprehensive 

communications needs throughout Indian Country, and there is great diversity within those critical needs. That is, the need for telemedicine is greatest for some Native 

Nations, while the needs for educational technology or public safety are paramount 

for other Native Nations. In many places, connectivity occurs only in border towns 

and along major transportation routes inside Native Nations. It is clear that one 

size fits none, and the enormity of our mission is vast. Changing our rules alone 

is not enough. We cannot—and will not—be able to only sit here in Washington, 

make minor tweaks to our rules to do what we think will work, and wait to see 

if they do. Complex problems dictate the need for new policies and procedures, and 

well thought-out solutions. 

That is the mission of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, created by a unanimous vote of the Commission on August 12, 2010, implementing a recommendation 

of the National Broadband Plan. The Office is charged with developing and driving 

a Tribal agenda at the Commission and serves as the Commission’s primary point 

of contact on Native issues. Under Chairman Genachowski’s leadership, and with 

the involvement of the entire Commission and all of its Bureaus and Offices, there 

is a new way of doing Native business at the Commission, and Native Nations are 

front and center in that new paradigm. Our work with Native Nations is a strategic 

partnership, one in which we effectuate and exercise the trust relationship that the 

Commission shares with Native Nations. 

The Office is charged with bringing the benefits of a modern communications infrastructure to all Native communities by, among other things, ensuring robust government-to-government consultation with Federally-recognized Tribal governments 

and other Native organizations; working with Commissioners, Bureaus, and Offices, 

as well as with other government agencies and private organizations, to develop and 

implement policies for assisting Native communities; and ensuring that Native concerns and voices are considered in all relevant Commission proceedings and initiatives. 

The Efforts of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy 

To fulfill its mission, the Office is fostering the Commission’s ongoing governmentto-government dialogue with Native Nations by working directly with them to understand their needs and empower them to provide their own solutions. New opportunities must be created for Native Nations and those who work with them to find 

12 

sustainable solutions. Our approach is to work together to identify and remove barriers to solutions and build models with Native Nations that engage their core community or anchor institutions. We seek to place Native Nations themselves in the 

center of those solutions, whether it is through actual self-provisioning of communications services or through new ‘‘Tribal-’’ or ‘‘Native-centric’’ methods of deployment with industry, public, or private partners. As Native Nations uniquely know 

and govern their communities, this active involvement is a critically important component to finding lasting solutions in their communities. 

Immediately after being established, we hit the ground running, actually rolling 

out our introduction of the Office in Native America, while at the same time working across the Commission to surface actions and proposals. We logged thousands 

of miles on a ‘‘listening tour’’ from here to the Hawaiian Home Lands, seeking the 

input of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian leaders. We went 

deep into the Native Nations, meeting collectively and individually with Native 

leaders and Native associations, Tribally-owned and operated communications providers, as well as talking with Native consumers and businesses. 

To obtain a firsthand view of the complexity of the problems, in places where the 

Commission had never been before, we engaged in distance education discussions 

from classrooms at the Native end of the signals. In remote health care clinics, accepting gracious invitations of the patients at the Native end of the line, we sat in 

on their diagnosis sessions with their far away doctors. We saw the human element 

of the lack of services, and the limitations of connectivity, speed, and reliability. 

Side-by-side with our Native Nation colleagues, we ‘‘kicked the dirt’’ within the Native Nations, to discuss how we can all help them with their development and deployment plans. Several times, we have had to reset our phones and blackberries, 

log off and log back in, and set our out-of-office automatic reply messages to let folks 

know we are traveling in unconnected regions. 

To fulfill our mission and transform the communications landscape, the Office of 

Native Affairs and Policy cannot be just another outsider from Washington. Instead, 

the Office must be a knowledgeable and respected Native Nations and Tribal lands 

insider. Collectively, our four senior staff members have over 40 years of experience 

working in the trenches of the Commission and directly with Native Nations. We 

stand ready for the challenge. 

Our work has just begun. Under the Chairman’s leadership, the Commission 

launched a series of groundbreaking endeavors at its March 3rd Open Meeting, on 

a day the Commission named ‘‘Native Nations Day.’’ It was a day of ‘‘firsts’’—the 

first time that the Commission used its meeting agenda to address matters entirely 

and specifically developed for Native Nations; the first time that Tribal leaders formally addressed the Commission at the start of an Open Meeting; and the first time 

that the Commission initiated a comprehensive inquiry and rulemaking proceeding 

focused exclusively on Native communications needs. 

From rules expanding broadcast opportunities, to proposed rules for new mobile 

wireless licensing opportunities, to an omnibus inquiry on a range of issues related 

to broadband adoption and deployment on Tribal lands, the proceedings of Native 

Nations Day will in part serve as the foundation for the nation-to-nation consultation with Native Nations that is a critical component of the Commission’s rulemaking process. 

The Proceedings of Native Nations Day—New Commission Approaches 

The Rural Radio Tribal Priority Order. Native Nations want to provide information and community news to their people, and are looking at radio programming to 

promote and preserve Native culture and language, and to advance cultural dialogue. Last year, the Commission took steps to address the imbalance in the number 

of radio stations licensed to Native Nations and communities, as compared to the 

rest of the country, when it adopted an historic Tribal Priority designed to award 

a decisive preference to any federally recognized American Indian Tribe or Alaska 

Native Village seeking to establish its first non-commercial radio station on its Tribal lands. The Tribal Priority was greeted with enthusiasm by Native Nations, but 

it was noted that certain Native Nations, because of their historical or geographic 

circumstances, might not be able to take advantage of the priority. In a Second Report and Order adopted on Native Nations Day, the Commission addressed these 

special circumstances by adopting provisions to address the needs of non-landed Native Nations and those with small or irregularly shaped lands that make it difficult 

to meet some of the requirements of the Tribal Priority. In addition, the Commission 

adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on proposals to apply 

the Tribal Priority to certain commercial FM channel allotments and potentially obviating the need to go to auction. The hope is that these new mechanisms can help 

13 

Native Nations deploy services in this critical and widely adopted media technology, 

as they also build designs and resources for new advanced broadband platforms. 

The Wireless Spectrum Tribal Lands Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. While competitive market forces have spurred robust wireless communications services in 

many areas of our country, wireless connectivity for Native Nations remains at significantly lower levels. Native Nations have expressed to us many concerns that the 

situations they face at home involve the very basics of public safety—the inability 

to make a wireless call in an emergency. Native Nations have asked the Commission for greater access to robust wireless spectrum to meet the challenges of terrain 

and distance that many Native communities face and, for some time now, the need 

for this action has been critical. On Native Nations Day, the Commission adopted 

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to promote greater use of spectrum to help close 

the communications gap on Tribal lands and to ensure that Native Nations are at 

the center of the decision-making process. This NPRM, one of the most important 

requests from Native Nations in the last decade, strives to put licenses in the hands 

of those who will value the spectrum and build out on Tribal lands. Three of the 

five proposals launched in the NPRM would create new opportunities for Native Nations to gain access to spectrum through Wireless Radio Services licenses, while the 

other two proposals are designed to create new incentives for existing licensees to 

deploy wireless services on Tribal lands. 

The Native Nations Notice of Inquiry. The Commission has said on many occasions that broadband is indispensable infrastructure for economic growth and job 

creation, and nowhere is that need more acutely felt than on Tribal lands. The lack 

of robust broadband services—and, in fact, even basic communications services— 

contributes to the challenges Native Nations face in building strong economies with 

diverse businesses and development projects. On Native Nations Day, therefore, the 

Commission launched a broad-based inquiry into a wide range of communications 

issues facing Native Nations—an inquiry that will provide a foundation for updating 

the Commission’s rules and policies to provide greater economic, market entry, and 

communications adoption opportunities and incentives for Native Nations. The result of a broad collaborative effort across the Commission, led by the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, the Notice will lay the groundwork for policies that can help 

Native Nations build economic and educational opportunities for their own Tribal 

lands. The Notice seeks comment on the best ways to support sustainable 

broadband deployment, adoption, and digital literacy training on Tribal lands. 

Among other important questions, the Commission also asks about the possibility 

of expanding the Tribal Priority concept into a Native Nations Priority, to identify 

and remove barriers to entry, rather than using a case-by-case waiver approach, 

thus making it easier for Native Nations to provide other services—wireless, 

wireline, and satellite—to their communities. The Commission also asks about opportunities to use communications services to help Native Nations address public 

safety challenges on Tribal lands, including the broad lack of 911 and E–911 services, and the needs of persons with disabilities on Tribal lands. 

Recognizing that, given their unique challenges and significant obstacles to 

broadband deployment, Native Nations need substantially greater financial support 

than is presently available, the Notice of Inquiry also seeks comment on a recommendation of the National Broadband Plan to establish a Native Nations 

Broadband Fund. The National Broadband Plan notes that grants from a new Native Nations Broadband Fund could be used for a variety of purposes, including 

bringing high-capacity connectivity to governmental headquarters or other anchor 

institutions, deployment planning, infrastructure build out, feasibility studies, technical assistance, business plan development and implementation, digital literacy, 

and outreach. In the Notice of Inquiry adopted on Native Nations Day, the Commission seeks comment on a number of issues associated with the establishment of the 

Native Nations Broadband Fund, including the need for such a fund, the purposes 

for which it would be used, and the level of funding. 

The Low-Income Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Low-Income program of the 

universal service fund, commonly known as Lifeline and Link Up, has been, and 

continues to be, a critically important component in extending the reach of communications services to Native Nations. But with a telephone penetration rate hovering 

below 70 percent and a broadband penetration rate well below ten percent, much 

remains to be done. According to Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., a Triballyowned telecommunications company, the telephone penetration rate for the Gila 

River Indian Community stands at 86 percent, still well below the national average 

of 98 percent but significantly above the average on Tribal lands. Gila River attributes its success in expanding the reach of telephone service largely to Lifeline, 

given that roughly 91 percent of the Community’s elders participate in Lifeline. At 

the afternoon session of its March 3d Open Meeting, the Commission adopted a NoVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
14 

tice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it proposes to reform and modernize Lifeline 

and Link Up—issues of great interest to Native Nations. 

The FCC–Native Nations Broadband Task Force. One of the top requests from Native Nations in the National Broadband Plan was the creation of a new FCC–Native 

Nations Broadband Task Force that would ensure that the Commission’s consultation with Native Nations is an ongoing, continuous dialogue and a shared effort between partners. Chairman Genachowski fulfilled this request when, on Native Nations Day, he appointed to the Task Force 19 members representing Native Nations 

and 11 members representing Bureaus and Offices across the Commission. The 

Task Force will ensure that Native concerns are considered in all relevant Commission proceedings and will work to develop additional recommendations for promoting 

broadband deployment and adoption on Tribal lands. The Task Force will also coordinate with external entities, including other Federal departments and agencies. 

These efforts will culminate in more efficient ways of working with our Native Nation partners, the industries, and the institutions of Native Nations. 

Conclusion: Coordinating and Consulting on a Commission-wide Native 

Agenda 

Critical to the work of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy is its close coordination with other Bureaus and Offices across the Commission. Major rulemakings now 

always include the involvement of Native interests. For example, working closely 

with the Wireline Competition Bureau in the universal service reform context, the 

Office ensured that Native concerns were heard about losing voice service while undergoing a transition to new broadband technologies that may take longer to embed 

themselves in Native America than in other parts of America. To that end, the Office ensured that the Commission sought comment on whether a separate mechanism would be appropriate for Native Nations. Similarly, the Office of Native Affairs 

and Policy is working closely with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as they 

develop the Mobility Fund, which is a set of initiatives to promote deployment of 

broadband and mobile services and to provide an investment in wireless infrastructures, through a financially sensible transformation of the universal service fund. 

With our help and guidance, the Commission proposes to address Mobility Fund 

support for Tribal lands on a separate track to provide adequate time to coordinate 

with Native Nations, seek their input, and find good solutions. We will continue to 

provide guidance on a variety of rulemakings and initiatives throughout the Commission. 

The Office of Native Affairs and Policy is ready to roll up our sleeves and pull 

out our laptops as we continue our mission. Native Nations Day was a success, and 

the Commission is proud of the work it has done so far. However, we must build 

on that success and the success of our other activities since the creation of the Office 

a mere eight months ago. Among other things, one of our top priorities is to overhaul, update, and increase the collaborative value of the Commission’s Indian 

Telecom Initiatives, or ITI, program, moving it from version 2.0 to version 10.0 and 

even beyond. We look forward to increasing the effectiveness and value of these regional workshops, trainings, consultation, and networking events. We also look forward to establishing a Federal interagency broadband working group that engages 

other Federal agencies concerned with Native Nations and with missions on Tribal 

lands related to broadband and communications deployment, such as education, 

health, public safety, energy, cultural preservation, and economic empowerment. 

With a new inter-agency initiative on Native broadband, the Federal government 

can coordinate both internally and directly with Native Nations on broadband-related policies, programs, and initiatives. 

Internally, we look forward to working with colleagues across the Commission to 

increase the value of the information tools that the Commission has for Native Nations and Communities. For example, the Commission’s Spectrum Dashboard 2.0, 

which was unveiled last month, allows users to view the licenses and spectrum 

leases that cover specific or all Tribal lands. We plan to continue holding meetings 

with Native Nations to discuss how this and other Commission information tools 

can be improved and more responsive to the needs of Tribal communications planners. We also look forward to reviving an internal training and speaker series for 

decision makers and colleagues across the Commission on how to work with Native 

Nations and the basics of how to coordinate and conduct consultations with Native 

Nations. 

In conclusion, we have heard several recurring themes in our conversations with 

Native leaders—continue to meet with us, listen to us, and use what we tell you 

to bring communications on Tribal lands into the 21st century. The overarching 

message is that, if consultations are to be successful, if future education and training sessions are to be well-attended and productive, and if efforts to inform, educate, 

15 

and put Native Nations at the center of the decision-making process are to succeed, 

we must do our work with Native Nations largely within their Native communities. 

Native Nations are aware of our Office’s abilities and many have told us that, in 

order to best help them solve communications problems, we must work with them 

where the problems exist, see the problems first-hand, and endeavor to find the solutions in concert with them. We welcome all of these opportunities. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Chief Blackwell. 

Regretfully, I must advise all of you that there’s a roll call ending 

at this moment so I will call this hearing to a recess, but I’ll be 

back in about 10 minutes. 

[Recessed.] 

Senator INOUYE. Sorry to keep you waiting. 

Our next witness is the Chairman of the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Mr. Alapaki Nahale-a. 

Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF ALAPAKI NAHALE-A, CHAIRMAN, HAWAIIAN 

HOMES COMMISSION; AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS 

Mr. NAHALE-A. Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Begich, 

Chairman Inouye, and members of the Committee aloha. My name 

is Alapaki Nahale-a, and I am the Chairman of the Hawaiian 

Homes Commission, which was created by Congress via the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. 

As the Chairman of the Commission, I also serve as the Director 

of the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, charged with filling 

the purpose of the Act, to provide homestead opportunities for Native Hawaiians on the 200,000 acres held in trust for their benefit. 

It is especially an honor for me to sit before you because I am a 

direct beneficiary of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. I was 

only five when our family received our homestead, but I remember 

it like it was yesterday. The program was a turing point for my 

family, giving us the opportunities that come with home ownership 

and proving us a solid foundation upon which I could build a quality life for my own family. 

And so, today, with gratitude in my heart and hopes for a better 

future, I thank you for this time to share the needs of the Hawaiian Community and the opportunities that broadband brings for 

the continued improvement of Native Hawaiians and all native 

people. 

About 20 percent of the nearly one and a half million residents 

of the State of Hawaii are Native Hawaiian, and this percentage 

will continue to rise. While most people associate Hawaii with Honolulu and Waikiki, at its heart, Hawaii is still a rural state. 

Broadband is a powerful tool that can be used to transform and 

advance our people with a greater level of economic self-sufficiency, 

educational achievement and cultural awareness and pride. 

Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, 

face similar social, economic challenges, and we can better address 

these problems and help to improve our chances for success 

through the use of technology and access to broadband. 

Broadband is a great equalizer for Hawaiians. It is the tool that 

will allow us to remain in our home communities and still thrive. 

16 

We can be safe with reliable access to police and fire protection; our 

young people can take advantage of college courses without having 

to move to another island; we can raise our families within our 

community because of enhanced economic opportunities; we can 

spread native language as a living language with high-speed 

connectivity between the schools, between the islands and beyond; 

and we can access healthcare specialists via teleconferencing from 

our local doctors’ offices. 

Ensuring equitable access to broadband is an important step in 

Congress’ clear intent with advancing rehabilitation and welfare of 

Native Hawaiians. 

Let me share with you some real examples: Last week I had the 

privilege to travel to the Island of Maui to visit Kahiki Nui, a 

20,000 acre Hawaiian Homelands Community on the Slopes of 

Haleakala. It is the largest and most remote of our active homelands. Getting there involves a three- hour, four-wheel drive offroad adventure; and while residents there have no grid of electricity or running water, they do have telephone and broadband 

service. They can surf the net, get e-mail and Skype with friends 

and family. 

With broadband access, remote parcels like Kahiki Nui can be 

opened up for greater homesteading possibilities. It allows my department to provide not only urban developer-built subdivisions, 

but also farming and ranch opportunities in remote areas. 

Broadband deployment also serves as incubators for economic development. Hawaiian Homes Technology or HHT is a job creation 

and community capacity-building initiative which began in the Native Hawaiian Homestead Community of Anahola on the Island of 

Kauai. Through the use of broadband the opened a business that 

converts legacy data from files, microfilm, microfiche, diagrams, 

blueprints and images into digital, electric files. HHT has been able 

to create living wage technology jobs and economically challenge 

the Native Hawaiian Communities and develop homegrown technology and managerial skills. 

Through broadband and information technology, Native Hawaiians can choose to live and work in the communities where they 

grew up without having to move away to support their families. 

On the education front, prior to being appointed to the Hawaiian 

Homes Commission, I was the Executive Director of a culturally 

based public charter school located on Hawaiian Homelands in 

Keaukaha on Hawaii Island. And, toward the end of my tenure we 

began planning for long distance learning opportunities so our students could take courses via the Internet that currently were not 

available to them. It’s similar to what Federal Communications 

Commission Chairman Julius Genachowski witnessed when he visited the rural Native Hawaiian Community of Nanakuli, where he 

witnessed firsthand how broadband connected the gifted high 

school student to an advanced placement calculus class being 

taught virtually from another island. 

Broadband has allowed our cash-strapped public school system to 

leverage limited teaching resources, to reach multiple campuses 

and more students. 

17 

In conclusion, broadband will allow Native Hawaiian Communities to leapfrog over the digital divide that has historically held 

us back, enabling us to succeed in the 21st Century and beyond. 

Sadly, nearly half of our homestead land does not have 

broadband connection. The FCC’s National Broadband Plan recommends establishing a Native Broadband Fund; we fully support 

this. We believe that the deployment of broadband into Hawaiian 

Homelands and rural Native Hawaiian Communities accelerates 

our ability to address the social, health, education, and economic 

challenges we face. 

With modern technology, imagination, and hard work, broadband 

infrastructure will allow Native Hawaiians to excel into the next 

century and beyond. 

Mahalo. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nahale-a follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAPAKI NAHALE-A, CHAIRMAN, HAWAIIAN HOMES

COMMISSION; AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS

Senator Inouye and members of the Committee, my name is Alapaki Nahale-a. 

I am the Chairman of the Hawaiian Homes Commission which was created by Congress through the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. As the Chairman of 

the Commission, I also serve as the Director of the Department of Hawaiian Home 

Lands, charged with carrying out the mission of the Act to provide housing and economic opportunities for Native Hawaiians utilizing the 200,000 acres that are held 

in trust for their benefit. It is especially an honor for me to sit before you, as I am 

among the 37,800 beneficiaries under this Act, born and raised on Hawaiian Home 

Lands in Keaukaha on the Island of Hawaii. Thank you for this opportunity to 

share with you the needs of the Hawaiian community. Broadband is a powerful tool 

to transform and advance our people to a greater level of economic self-sufficiency, 

educational achievement, and cultural awareness and pride. 

The eight primary islands and the immediate surrounding ocean area cover 

roughly 79,625 square miles which is slightly larger than the State of Nebraska. 

While most people associate Hawaii with Honolulu and Waikiki, Hawaii is, at its 

heart, a rural state. I have taken the liberty of attaching a map with my written 

testimony to illustrate the truly rural non-contiguous nature of our state. 

Today, Hawaii’s population is approximately 1.4 million people. Native Hawaiians 

make up about 20 percent of the state’s population and are most concentrated on 

rural Oahu and the neighbor islands. Our population is growing with Native Hawaiian students making up 28 percent of public school enrollment. Moreover, this percentage grows to 37 percent when you exclude Oahu schools. 

Native Hawaiians, like American Indians and Alaska Natives, face similar socialeconomic challenges. They are overrepresented in the negative indicators including 

income levels, health and well-being, educational levels, prison populations, and 

homelessness. It is my belief that we can address these problems and improve our 

chances for success through the use of technology and access to broadband. 

The State of Hawaii, and its rural Native Hawaiian communities in particular, 

face unique hardships in accessing broadband because of the state’s non-contiguous 

configuration in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Connectivity is provided by a combination of submarine fiber optic systems and terrestrial fiber systems. Since modern fiber optic systems no longer require a regeneration point in Hawaii, fewer 

trans-Pacific cables are located in Hawaii. Ultimately, this reduces Hawaii’s 

connectivity to the rest of the world and results in higher costs to users which directly impact the state’s ability to conduct advanced research, expand distance education, and further tele-health services for its citizens. 

In order for rural and remote Native Hawaiian communities to have access to 

broadband, the infrastructure must first reach the State of Hawaii before it can be 

deployed to the rural areas of Oahu and the difficult to reach remote communities 

on the neighbor islands. Once within our state’s borders, our islands are separated 

by miles of open ocean. As such broadband systems require both a heavily armored 

submarine and a protected terrestrial fiber optic network that is able to withstand 

the natural disasters that have historically plagued the Hawaiian Islands. This 

means higher costs for carriers to deploy and maintain network facilities with little 

means of recovering these expenses. In fact, some rural Native Hawaiian commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
18 

nities are relegated to dial-up service because service providers determined that any 

further upgrades were not cost-effective. 

Broadband is a great equalizer for our Native Hawaiian communities. It is a tool 

that will allow us to remain in our communities and thrive. We can be safe with 

reliable access to police and fire protection. Our young people can take college 

courses without having to move to another island. We can raise our families in our 

community because we have economic opportunities. We can access health care specialists in Honolulu via teleconferencing and tele-health technologies. 

In July 2010, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Julius 

Genachowski visited Hawaii to see firsthand the challenges that Hawaii and Native 

Hawaiians face. He addressed a Native Communications Roundtable attended by 

American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian leaders and community 

members who came to discuss their telecommunications challenges. Interestingly 

enough, whether the speaker represented the Inupiat people from northwestern 

Alaska, the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation from the great plains of North 

Dakota, or a Native Hawaiian homesteader from rural Waimea on Hawaii Island, 

the message was consistent—their biggest telecom challenges were the geographic 

isolation of their communities and the lack of capital to invest in a broadband infrastructure. These native leaders discussed with Chairman Genachowski the value of 

establishing a Tribal Broadband fund to support sustainable broadband deployment 

and adoption for native communities. He was given an aerial tour of Hawaii Island 

to see its expansive, remote nature, and the difficulty of reaching and connecting 

with many in Hawaiian communities. 

Chairman Genachowski also witnessed how broadband connected a gifted high 

school student from the rural Native Hawaiian community of Nanakuli on Oahu to 

an Advanced Placement calculus class being taught on the Island of Maui. In the 

early days, instructor Michele Sera taught students on other islands via the telephone, and later through a dial-up Internet connection. Today, she is able to effectively teach students from multiple locations through video-conferencing. Broadband 

allows our cash-strapped public school system to leverage limited teaching resources 

to reach multiple campuses. This gifted student was able to take an advanced class 

not offered at his campus without having to travel long distances from his rural 

neighborhood. He was not left behind. This enlightened example must be expanded 

to other courses and programs throughout the state. This can only happen with 

broadband connectivity. 

Native Hawaiians have led the way in the perpetuation of their native language. 

Their efforts have resulted in a highly regarded program where children learn and 

speak their native language from age three all the way through a doctoral program 

at the University of Hawaii at Hilo. Imagine how far and how fast this Native language renaissance can spread as a ‘‘living language’’ with high-speed connectivity 

between the schools, between the islands, and beyond. Embedded in the native language revival is a healthy dose of self-esteem about the literary greatness of our ancestors to propel our young people forward with self-confidence and optimism. 

Broadband deployment into Native Hawaiian communities can also serve as incubators for economic development. Hawaiian Homes Technology (HHT) is a job creating and capacity building initiative which began in the Hawaiian homestead community of Anahola on the Island of Kauai. Through the use of broadband, they 

opened a digitization business, converting legacy data from files, microfilm, microfiche, diagrams, blueprints, and images into electronic files. HHT has been able to 

create living wage technology jobs in economically challenged Native Hawaiian communities. Through broadband and information technology, Native Hawaiians can 

choose to live and work in the communities where they grew up without having to 

move away to support their family. With broadband infrastructure in more communities, a person’s imagination, entrepreneurship, and old-fashioned hard work will 

be the only limitation to success. 

Broadband deployment can also be a powerful tool to preserve Native Hawaiian 

culture and history. One such project, Ho‘olaupa‘i, focuses on digitizing daily newspapers published in the Hawaiian language between 1834 and 1949. For years, 

these newspapers languished in museum archives, many too fragile for people to access. Today, the newspaper pages are individually digitally scanned and converted 

into searchable text files using optical character recognition software. After being 

reviewed by language experts, these files are uploaded to www.nupepa.org, where 

members of the public can explore the wealth of information and wisdom stored in 

these pages. 

Hawaiian cultural treasures, locked safely behind the climate controlled walls of 

the Bishop Museum, can also now be shared with the community at large without 

ever stepping foot on the museum’s Honolulu campus. The website www.hawaiia 

live.org features images of Hawaiian artifacts and cultural treasures, along with priVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
19 

mary source materials which educators utilize to teach Hawaiian history and culture. The educational resources include contemporary videos, historic footage, archival audio files of songs and chants, essays, and lesson plans which are tied to the 

public school benchmarks. Through broadband, students and teachers now have unprecedented access to authentic Hawaiian educational resources. 

Broadband is just beginning to provide rural Native Hawaiian patients with quality acute health care services using tele-health technology which eliminates the time 

and expense of traveling to major hospitals on Oahu. On the rural island of Molokai, 

a Native Hawaiian cancer patient utilized video conferencing for a virtual consultation with her Molokai medical providers and her oncology specialists in Honolulu. 

The system was not perfect, and at times the screen images would pixilate or even 

freeze. Nevertheless, the patient and her husband explained how much they valued 

the videoconference tool, without which she would have had to travel to Oahu for 

each oncology treatment. Every trip is expensive, time-consuming, stressful, and 

emotionally and physically draining. The Molokai medical team even shared 

anecdotally that without the videoconferencing, some Native Hawaiian patients 

would forego treatment with specialists in Honolulu because of the cost and stress. 

Unfortunately this tele-health option is not yet widespread. However with improved technology and broadband infrastructure, the reliability and viability of this 

service will undoubtedly expand to other health care services. 

Despite the challenges of geography and expense, broadband can be the great 

equalizer for Native peoples, particularly those residing in rural communities. We 

believe it will allow Native Hawaiian communities to leapfrog over the digital divide 

that has historically held us back, enabling us to succeed in the 21st century and 

beyond. 

The FCC’s National Broadband Plan recommends establishing a Native Nations 

Broadband fund. We fully support this. We believe that the deployment of 

broadband into Hawaiian Home Lands and our rural Native Hawaiian communities 

accelerates our ability to address the social, health, education, and economic challenges we face. Thus far the Native Hawaiian community is beginning to recognize 

the transformative effect of broadband. With modern technology, imagination, and 

the necessary broadband infrastructure, Native Hawaiians will be able to excel into 

the next century and beyond. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 


405HAWAI1.eps
20 

And, now it’s my pleasure to call upon the President and Chief 

Executive Officer of the Native Public Media, Ms. Loris Ann Taylor. 

Ms. Taylor. 

STATEMENT OF LORIS TAYLOR, NATIVE PUBLIC MEDIA AND 

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS (NACI) 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Ms. TAYLOR. Thank you. Chairman Inouye, Senator Udall, members of the Committee, on behalf of the National Congress of American Indian and Native Public Media, I am honored to provide testimony on how to close the digital divide for our country’s Native 

Nations. 

In the United States, there are 565 federally recognized American Indian tribes and approximately 4.1 million American Indians 

and Alaska and Hawaiian Natives. Thirty-two percent of this population still is without basic telephone service. Twenty-five percent 

live at or below the poverty line. Twenty-two percent are unemployed. Ninety percent of Native Americans have no access to high 

speed Internet. Less than 0.3 percent of the broadcast stations in 

this country are licensed to Native Americans. 

The absence of adequate communications services in Native 

America is no accident. Decades of failed Federal policy, market 

forces, and the socioeconomic conditions of Native American populations, located in some of the most remote areas of the country, 

result in high build-out costs for all media. Because of these factors, wire-line carriers frequently end their deployments at the borders of tribal land or serve the populated fringes, not the entire 

reservation. 

In February 2010, the Federal Communications Commission 

adopted a proposal that promotes the sovereign rights of tribes by 

giving them a priority in the allocation of spectrum that serves 

tribal lands. The Native Nations priority is currently limited to 

broadcast spectrum and to tribes with reservations. 

Two hundred fifty-three tribes, almost half of the 565 federally 

recognized tribes, are landless. For the Native Nations priority to 

be truly meaningful, it must be extended to all tribes and to all 

forms of spectrum. 

We applaud recent FCC proceedings that explore that potential. 

Last year, the FCC established the Office of Native Affairs and 

Policy to coordinate Federal Communications’ policy and redress 

years of policy neglect of Native Nations. Within months of its creation, the Commission launched three proceedings. Those proceedings seek to extend the broadcast tribal priority to improve access to mobile wireless communications, and to inquire into ways 

of improving broadband deployment to Indian country and 

strengthening the FCC’s nation-to-nation consultation process. 

Collectively, these proceedings focus more attention on the communication needs of Native Americans than has been the case for 

the preceding history of the Communications Act. 

It is critical that this attention not be fleeting or symbolic. With 

a budget sufficient for its mission, the Office of Native Affairs and 

Policy cannot carry out its mission of consultation with tribes on 

a government-to-government basis. 

21 

There is currently no line item in the FCC’s budget for the Office 

of Native Affairs and Policy and its consultation with tribes. We 

ask that you take this office and its functions as seriously as we 

do by assuring that it is adequately funded. 

NCAI has proposed a budget of $1.5 million for the Office of Native Affairs and Policy. 

Only a handful of tribes and tribal organizations received grants 

from the Broadband Initiatives Program and the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program administered by the Department of 

Commerce and the Department of Agriculture. It is not too late to 

assure that funds intended to stimulate service to unserved and 

underserved areas can achieve that goal by bringing broadband 

service to tribal lands. 

We recommend that funds returned to those programs be reserved for the deployment of broadband services to tribal lands. 

We also support the establishment of a Native Nations 

Broadband Fund targeted to the needs of Indian country. We also 

believe that grants should not be limited to deployment costs. Access is part, and only part of the problem. Unlike telephone and 

broadcast services, which are instantaneously available, broadband 

technologies cannot effectively be used without training. 

Programs that teach digital literacy are needed, and Native 

Americas are eager to learn. A study conducted by Native Public 

Media and the New America Foundation shows that where Native 

Americans had Internet access, their rates of use intended to be 

higher than the national average. 

We therefore support the creation of a Native Nations Broadband 

Fund, with the ability to award grants for the advancement of digital literacy, as well as for providing service to tribal headquarters 

and other tribal anchor institutions. 

In reforming the Universal Service Fund to make broadband 

services more available, it is important not to destroy the traditional high cost, Lifeline and Link-up programs that make basic 

analog phone service affordable to many in Indian country. Existing programs are equally essential for traditional broadcast services, which remain the simplest, cheapest, and most effective form 

of mass communications. 

For the first time in 7 years the FCC in 2007 accepted applications for new non-commercial FM stations and has awarded construction permits that would double the number of native stations. 

Because of the economic recession and threatened cutbacks in 

Federal funding to MTIA’s Public Telecommunications Facilities 

Program many of those permits are now at risk of expiring. 

If these permits expire, the opportunity for reapplying is not likely to arrive for many years to come. 

We urge action on two fronts: first, to give the holders of these 

permits a chance to extend fundraising efforts, a 1-year tolling of 

the construction period for these permits; and second, the preservation of funding to the Public Telecommunications Facilities Program and Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

Without continued support for station operations from CPB, all 

native stations are in jeopardy. Some day Indian country will have 

access to high speed Internet services, wireless communications, 

22 

multiple platforms and all the wonders of new technology, but that 

day has not yet arrived, and will not arrive for some time to come. 

For the foreseeable future we need your help in preserving and 

expanding the Public Broadcast System in Indian country. 

And, on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians and 

Native Public Media, I again thank you for the opportunity to 

share this testimony with you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:] 

STATEMENT OF LORIS TAYLOR, NATIVE PUBLIC MEDIA AND NATIONAL CONGRESS OF

AMERICAN INDIANS (NACI) TELECOMMUNICATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE

Chairman Rockefeller, Ranking Member Hutchison, members of the Committee, 

on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (‘‘NCAI’’) and Native Public 

Media (‘‘NPM’’), I am honored to provide testimony on how to close the digital divide 

for our country’s Native Nations. 

In the United States, there are 565 federally recognized American Indian Tribes 

and approximately 4.1 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. Thirty-two 

percent of this population still is without basic telephone service. Twenty-five percent live at or below the poverty line. Twenty-two percent are unemployed. Ninety 

percent of Native Americans have no access to high speed Internet. Less than 0.3 

percent of the broadcast stations in this country are licensed to Native Americans. 

The absence of adequate communications services in Indian Country is no accident. Decades of failed Federal policy, market forces, and the socioeconomic conditions of Native American populations located in some of the most remote areas of 

the country result in high build-out costs for all media. Because of these factors, 

wireline carriers frequently end their deployments at the borders of Tribal land or 

serve the populated fringes, not the entire reservation. 

The Tribal Priority 

In February 2010, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a proposal that promotes the sovereign rights of Tribes by giving them a priority in the 

allocation of spectrum that serves Tribal lands. The Native Nations Priority is currently limited to broadcast spectrum and to Tribes with reservations. Two hundred 

fifty-three Tribes, almost half of the 565 federally recognized Tribes, are ‘‘landless.’’ 

For the Native Nations Priority to be truly meaningful, it must be extended to all 

Tribes and to all forms of spectrum. We applaud recent FCC proceedings that explore that potential. 

The Office of Native Affairs and Policy 

Last year, the FCC established the Office of Native Affairs and Policy to coordinate Federal communications policy and redress years of policy neglect of Native 

Nations. Within months of its creation, the Commission launched three proceedings. 

Those proceedings seek to extend the broadcast ‘‘tribal priority’’; to improve access 

to mobile wireless communications; and to inquire into ways of improving 

broadband deployment to Indian Country and strengthening the FCC’s nation-to-nation consultation process. Collectively, these proceedings focus more attention on the 

communications needs of Native Americans than has been the case for the preceding 

history of the Communications Act. 

It is critical that this attention not be fleeting or symbolic. Without a budget sufficient for its mission, the Office of Native Affairs and Policy cannot carry out its mission of consultation with Tribes on a government-to-government basis. There is currently no line item in the FCC’s budget for the Office of Native Affairs and Policy 

and its consultation with Tribes. We ask that you take this Office and its functions 

as seriously as we do by assuring that it is adequately funded. NCAI has proposed 

a budget of $1.5 million for the Office of Native Affairs and Policy. 

BIP and BTOP Programs 

Only a handful of tribes and tribal organizations received grants from the 

Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) and the Broadband Technology Opportunities 

Program (BTOP) administered by the Department of Commerce and Department of 

Agriculture. It is not too late to assure that funds intended to stimulate service to 

unserved and underserved areas can achieve that goal by bringing broadband service to Tribal Lands. We recommend that funds returned to those programs be reserved for the deployment of broadband services to Tribal Lands. 

23 

The Native Broadband Fund 

We support the establishment of a Native Nations Broadband Fund targeted to 

the needs of Indian Country. We also believe that grants should not be limited to 

deployment costs. Access is part, but only part of the problem. Unlike telephone and 

broadcast services, which are instantaneously available, broadband technologies 

cannot effectively be used without training. Programs that teach digital literacy are 

needed, and Native Americas are eager to learn. A study conducted by Native Public 

Media and New America foundation shows that where Native Americans had Internet access, their rates of use tended to be higher than the national average. We 

therefore support the creation of a Native Nations Broadband Fund, with the ability 

to award grants for the advancement of digital literacy, as well as for providing 

service to Tribal headquarters and other tribal anchor institutions 

Traditional Forms of Communications 

In reforming the Universal Service Fund to make broadband services more available, it is important not to destroy the traditional High Cost, Lifeline and Link-up 

programs that make basic analog phone service affordable to many in Indian Country. Existing programs are equally essential for traditional broadcast services, which 

remain the simplest, cheapest, and most effective form of mass communications. For 

the first time in 7 years, the FCC, in 2007, accepted applications for new noncommercial FM stations. It has awarded construction permits that would double the 

number of Native stations. Because of the economic recession, and threatened cutbacks in Federal funding to NTIA’s Public Telecommunications Facilities Program, 

many of those permits are now at risk of expiring. If these permits expire, the opportunity for reapplying is not likely to arise for many years to come. We urge action on two fronts: first, to give holders of these permits a chance to extend fundraising efforts, a 1-year tolling of the construction period for these permits; and second, the preservation of funding to PTFP and CPB. Without continued support for 

station operations from CPB, all Native stations are in jeopardy. 

Some day Indian Country will have access to high speed Internet services, wireless communications on multiple platforms, and all the wonders of new technology. 

But that day has not yet arrived and will not arrive for some time to come. For 

the foreseeable future, we need your help in preserving and expanding the public 

broadcast system in Indian Country. 

On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians and Native Public Media, 

I again thank you for the opportunity to share this testimony with you. 

Senator INOUYE. And, thank you very much, Madam President. 

And, now may I call upon the Chief Executive Officer of Sacred 

Wind Communications, Mr. John Badal. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN BADAL, CEO, 

SACRED WIND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

Mr. BADAL. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, I want to 

thank you for the opportunity and the invitation to speak to you 

today about something that I feel very passionate about. 

I also want to especially recognize my Senator, Senator Tom 

Udall from New Mexico, who has worked diligently and has the 

same passion as I in bridging the digital divide on Navajo Lands 

in New Mexico. 

I will briefly summarize the information I’ve given to the Committee, Mr. Chairman earlier this week. 

The three major actions that can be taken to deliver broadband 

to unserved tribes in our perspective is localize the service provider, create incentives and coordination with the Departments of 

Commerce and Agriculture, and the FCC, for tribal or rural telephone company ownership of the Telecom’s Systems serving the 

tribes, amend Federal rights of regulations that hamstring rural 

companies need to install infrastructure on federally-managed 

lands, continue and expand Federal programs that assure affordable services on tribal lands that promote—also promote computer 

24 

literacy and broadband education for the adult population in poor 

areas. 

Sacred Wind Communications is a private rural telephone company that was formed in 2004 to resolve the digital divide on the 

Navajo Reservation in New Mexico. We were created solely and 

simply to change a telecommunications formula that has not succeeded in reaching Navajo homes over the past seven decades. That 

formula, still applied on other parts of the Navajo Reservation and 

on many tribes and other rural areas of this country can be described as follows: The wrong class of company, using a single technology, lacking local synergies, is charged with the obligation to 

serve the most costly areas of the country. 

For example, in 2004 there were five national telephone companies that provided basic telephone services on portions of Navajo 

Nation, covering three states, and approximately the size of West 

Virginia. 

All were owned by an out-of-state company whose most unprofitable exchanges, more than likely, were the Navajo lands that they 

served. All were copper landline-oriented in their solutions approach, which ran afoul of the tribe’s sensitivities to land preservation and to the BIA’s rights of way processing. None had ventured 

into the wireless world, to reach into remote homes in a distance 

and land use friendly alternative to landline. 

The result for the Navajos was, and is, some of the lowest telecommunications availability in the country, on par with the Third 

World. 

The Navajo Nation is one of the poorest areas in the United 

States, with over 40 percent of the population below the national 

poverty level, who live in one of the highest costing areas to provide telecommunication services. 

Less than 60 percent of Navajo households have access to basic 

telecommunication services and far fewer have access to 

broadband. Where the Navajo Nation scores highest is in the instances of poverty, teen suicide, teen pregnancy, diabetes and disabling accidents. 

Sacred Wind in 2006 acquired the Last Mile assets of one of 

those five companies earlier referenced, and secured a $70 million 

loan from the USDA’s Rural Utility Service. 

At the time of acquisition only 26 percent of our customers had 

access to basic telephone service, and 1 percent of those living on 

the border with the nearby towns had access to broadband Internet 

service. 

Not only is it our mission to reach the elderly in remote areas 

with basic phone service, but an interesting statistic, and our experiences, cause us to believe that broadband will be popular in remote areas of Navajo lands. Sixty-one and a half percent of the 

grandparents on Navaho lands are the caregivers to their grandchildren. 

We, Sacred Wind, introduced the very first broadband link to the 

Navajo community in Northern New Mexico in 2007. We applied 

for and received the USDA RUS Grant to establish the very first 

personal computer and Internet training center in our territory. 

The center was visited by over 4,000 people in a 2-year period and 

was declared by the RUS to be one of their top success stories. 

25 

That center was used for academics, for job searches and for the 

sale of Navajo arts and crafts. 

Following that model, Sacred Wind developed a broadband service that is content-rich for our tribal customers. We have even 

added the newly produced Rosetta Stone Navajo Language training 

as an integral part of our broadband package. 

Our Internet subscriptions grew more than 100 percent in the 

last 12 months. 

Sacred Wind is unique in that we’re not a tribally-owned company, but in always our focus is tribal. We hire and train mostly 

Navajo and other tribal individuals, a number of whom are Army, 

Navy and Marine veterans who bring with them well-developed 

technical skills and a solid work ethic. 

Sacred Wind was recognized as—nationally in 2009 as the most 

inspiring small business in America, as part of an American Express NBC Shine-A-Light contest. 

And the nine or so telecommunications companies today that are 

owned by the tribes they serve have similar success stories, and 

along with Sacred Wind, tested—testified to the value of local ownership increasing basic and broadband avail—availability to over 

90 percent of our populations. 

A chief factor in delivering adequate tele—telecom services to 

tribal areas involves the ability to use Federal lands for infrastructure development. Unlike the permitting processes in place within 

boundaries of municipalities or counties, the permitting processes 

on federally-managed lands often serves as an impediment to development. 

In fact, the 4-year achievements of Sacred Wind might have been 

accomplished in three or even two, had a more efficient permitting 

process been made available. Generally, it takes Sacred Wind 2 

years to develop—or receive, rather, authorization to place any infrastructure via telecommunications power or a copper wire on tribal lands or allotted lands. 

The Navajo Nation manages a professional and effective land use 

review operation, which includes a land department review of the 

network plan, an environmental office review, a historical preservation office review, fish and wildlife, land appraisal, and Tribal Department of Justice review. 

After all that, the same documentation is then submitted to the 

BIA. The Navajo Nation and any tribe that builds its own rights 

of way review operations should be able to authorize infrastructure 

development on its own lands for their own people. 

Similarly, tribes should be given the opportunity to influence 

their own telecommunications future. The Federal Government 

through the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture and the 

FCC should coordinate targeted programs that would encourage 

and enable tribes to own and operate their own systems, which in 

many cases, might call for a partnership with a rural local telephone company, and assuming the service responsibilities of the 

out-of-state companies. 

Those should include regulatory changes that encourage the creation of privately owned service territories and wireless spectrum 

allocations that are coincident to tribal boundaries. 

26 

Such programs should not be limited to infrastructure development, but also computer literacy and Internet training that would 

accompany the expansion of broadband in unserved tribal areas. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. Thank you, 

members of the Committee. I am honored, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Badal follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN BADAL, CEO, SACRED WIND COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

Sacred Wind Communications is a private rural telecommunications company that 

was formed in 2004 to resolve the digital divide on the Navajo Reservation in New 

Mexico. We were created solely and simply to change a telecommunications formula 

that had not succeeded in reaching Navajo homes over the past 7 decades. That formula, still applied on other parts of the Navajo Reservation and on many tribal and 

other rural lands across our country can be described as follows: 

The wrong company, using the wrong technology, lacking adequate resources, is 

required to serve the most costly areas of the country. Or, algebraically: X+Y+Z = 

F– 

1. The company: A non-rural national or regional company, with bigger, more 

profitable markets elsewhere, will usually avoid too much attention to high-cost, 

low-return areas; 

2. The technology: Urban network (and marketing) solutions are applied in 

cookie cutter fashion to geographically and demographically diverse areas; 

3. The resources: With the more remote rural areas included in a larger telecom 

company’s rate base, the telecom company does not fully qualify for the Federal 

programs that support development of infrastructure in those remote areas. 

For example, in 2004 there were five local telecom companies that provided basic 

telephone services to portions of the Navajo Nation, an area the size of West Virginia: 

—All were owned by an out-of-state company whose most unprofitable area, 

likely, was the Navajo area they served; 

—All were copper landline-oriented in their solutions approach, which ran afoul 

of the tribe’s sensitivities to land preservation and to the BIA’s rights of way 

process; 

—None owned and operated a mobile wireless affiliate, which prevented them 

from seeking service alternatives. 

The result for the Navajos was, and is, some of the lowest telecommunications 

availability in the country, on par with parts of Africa. 

‘‘Localize’’ Service Delivery 

Sacred Wind acquired the ‘‘last mile’’ assets of one of those companies in 2006 and 

secured a $70 Million loan from the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service. At the time of 

acquisition, only 26 percent of our customers had access to basic telephone service 

and 1 percent of those, those living on the border with a nearby town, had access 

to broadband Internet service. 

Despite the U.S. Census Bureau’s data showing that over 50 percent of the Navajo households in this area were below the national poverty level, only 1 percent 

of our customers were participating in the federal Tribal Lifeline Program, a low 

income discount program, when we started. Part of the reason for this, we discovered, was that the Navajo tribal members living on the reservation shared the same 

telephone prefix numbers with the nontribal people living in nearby towns. Thus, 

the phone company’s employees could not easily identify a tribal resident from a 

nontribal resident. Another reason, though, for this omission can be attributed to 

the local phone company’s out-of-town ownership—it’s just too costly for them to 

focus on a high maintenance, low return customer base. 

The stories we hear about the elderly, without access to basic, let alone 

broadband, telecommunications services, surviving alone for 3 days with a broken 

leg or hemorrhaging as a result of a feral dog attack are not exaggerated. Such tragedies occur regularly in our remote areas. And, our intuitive assumptions that 

broadband will benefit tribal and other rural people to the same degree that urban 

populations are benefitted by broadband are borne out in the successes of triballyoriented companies. Sacred Wind, for example, introduced the very first broadband 

link to a Navajo community in northern New Mexico and concurrently, under the 

27 

auspices of an USDA–RUS Internet training grant, established the very first Personal Computer (PC) and Internet training center in that unserved area. The center 

was visited by over 4,000 people in a two-year period and was declared by the RUS 

to be one of their top success stories. We saw people applying for jobs online, we 

saw children using the Internet for academic research, and, one of the most popular 

uses of the Internet, we heard from many people who were able for the first time 

to e-mail and send photos to their family members in Iraq and Afghanistan. One 

young girl brought into the center a report she wrote for her class—it was the very 

first ‘‘A’’ she ever received. Such was the demand for selling Navajo handcrafts online, we developed an arts and crafts website for the community and witnessed that 

the artisans were able to sell their handcrafts for about 3 times what they would 

receive from the local trading posts. 

Following that model, Sacred Wind provided PC and Internet training to another 

Navajo community just prior to our rolling out broadband service in their areas. 

After an 8-month trial period, 64 percent of our customers were still subscribing to 

Internet services, though the majority at speeds under 768 Kbps. Nonetheless, we 

have experienced throughout our service territory an increase in our broadband subscriptions of over 100 percent just in the last year. 

Our experiences at the Internet training center led us to understand, too, that, 

in order to create a broadband service even more attractive to our customers, we 

had to develop a product that carried some cultural significance with it. It was not 

enough to advertise broadband service by a rate of speed and assume that our customers would realize the worth of that speed. Sacred Wind has designed, in collaboration with Navajo customers and Navajo government employees, a broadband service that offers ready access to Navajo history, to Navajo traditions, to modern preventative medical advice and traditional medicines, and to governmental programs. 

Just recently we signed an agreement with a Navajo language revival group to include, as a cornerstone in our service and integrated into our higher capacity 

broadband packages, Rosetta Stone’s Navajo Language online instruction. This is 

the most comprehensive, tribally focused broadband product available on Navajo 

lands today. 

Sacred Wind is unique in that we are not a tribally-owned company, but in all 

ways our focus is tribal. We hire and train mostly Navajo and other tribal individuals, a number of whom are Army, Navy, and Marine veterans who bring with them 

well developed technical skills and a solid work ethic. We have designed a fully 

Internet Protocol (IP)-based network tailor made for our geography: a robust fixed 

wireless tower infrastructure and fiber optic and copper landline network that now 

can reach over 60 percent of the unserved homes in our territory with both basic 

voice services and broadband. The remaining 40 percent will be reachable with the 

further installation of one or more relay poles from our main towers, a final stage 

that should be completed by 2013. Using the most efficient technology for a geographically challenging area, the company has increased basic telecommunications 

availability from 26 percent to 60 percent in four (4) years and broadband availability from 1 percent of its landline-served customers to 99 percent, and to 100 percent broadband availability to its fixed wireless-served customers. 

The 9 telecommunications companies today that are owned by the tribe they serve 

have similar success stories and, along with Sacred Wind, testify to the value of 

local ownership and local focus of a community’s telecom provider. But, even local 

ownership has limitations when it comes to seeking land use authorization on federally managed lands. 

Amend Federal Rights-Of-Way Practices 

A second chief factor in delivering adequate telecom services to tribal areas involves the ability to use Federal lands for infrastructure development. Unlike the 

permitting processes in place for installing copper wire, fiber optic cable or telecommunications towers within most municipal or county boundaries, the permitting 

processes on federally managed lands often serve as an impediment to growth. In 

fact, the four-year achievements of Sacred Wind described above could have been 

accomplished in two (2) years had a more efficient permitting process been made 

available. 

On Navajo-occupied lands in New Mexico Sacred Wind has applied for rights of 

way authorizations from the Navajo Nation, from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the 

Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, the county and the state. No 

process is as difficult as at the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Generally, it takes Sacred 

Wind two (2) years to receive authorization to place any infrastructure—be it a communications tower or a copper or fiber line—on tribal land or allotted lands. The 

Navajo Nation manages a professional and effective land use review operation, 

which includes a land department review of the network plan, an environmental ofVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
28 

fice review, an historical preservation office review, fish & wildlife, land appraisal, 

and tribal department of justice review. After all that, the same documentation is 

then submitted to the BIA. 

There is no distinction in the land use review process between a communications 

tower or fiber optic cable that is to serve only the Navajo people and a gas pipeline 

that would traverse tribal lands to supply off-reservation communities. 

In the most recent example of how the permitting process affects Sacred Wind’s 

network development, we submitted 21⁄2 years ago a request to attach a fiber optic 

cable along 11.6 miles of an electric pole line that has existed for over 30 years. 

That fiber route is needed to add capacity to our fixed wireless and copper infrastructure that serves over 500 customers. Because the fiber is to be attached to an 

existing pole line within an existing utility easement, we asked the BIA for a ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ from having to conduct a centerline survey and an archaeological 

and environmental assessment along the easement. We were told that, in order to 

qualify for the categorical exclusions to have such surveys and assessments waived, 

we were required to submit the centerline survey, archaeological and environmental 

assessments to demonstrate no possible harm to the easement! Such work cost us 

over $170,000; and the BIA appraised the easement for fee purposes to be over 

$100,000; and we’re still waiting for a notice to proceed. 

Coordinate Federal Government Policymaking 

Finally, a third factor, in part related to the second, that affects infrastructure 

development on tribal lands is the lack of coordination of assistance and policy 

among various government offices. With the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s longtime leadership in helping to develop telecommunications and broadband infrastructures in rural areas, and the U.S. Department of Commerce’s involvement in the 

Broadband Stimulus Program that stemmed from the American Recovery & Reinvestment Act, and the Federal Communications Commission’s commitment to develop a National Broadband Plan that would also benefit rural and tribal areas, one 

would assume that the Federal government speaks in unison in promoting the development of tribal and rural infrastructures. Contrarily though, it appears that the 

very model of rural telecommunications development is being torn apart. The local 

rural local exchange carriers (RLECs)—which include Sacred Wind and all tribally 

owned telecommunications carriers—are either handicapped in facing off their competition or are being threatened with a change in national telecommunications policy. 

For example, the Federal Universal Service Fund’s (USF) support for rural carriers—even as it is being reformed as we speak—carries restrictions in the use of 

the RLECs’ infrastructure that often penalize a company for the use of their networks for the provision of unregulated services. RLECs generally receive most of 

their USF support for provision of service along the ‘‘local loop’’ or last mile, and 

receive other forms of support for provision of interexchange services not associated 

with the local loop. Accordingly, when a company employs its infrastructure for 

broadband services to customers outside of its territory, or to deliver added capacity 

to others’ cellular phone towers, or to even use its own fixed wireless communications towers for mobile wireless communications, the company can actually lose 

more money from USF support than it could gain from free markets. As the Federal 

USF is being reformed, encouraging USF recipients to seek other sources of revenue 

could help sustain the company and the fund. 

The FCC, too, has been hosting regional forums on ways to stimulate telecommunications infrastructural development on tribal lands. I believe they will conclude that local ownership is the answer. While there is a state regulatory and FCC 

process for a tribe or rural local exchange carrier to acquire a larger company’s network, as the 9 telecom tribes and Sacred Wind have gone through, the process now 

involves seeking waivers from rules that have ‘‘frozen’’ further changes to forming 

new USF-supported territory. With the current USF program’s future uncertain, 

moreover, few USF-qualified companies would risk any new rural acquisitions or 

service territory expansions until the economics of such expansions were known. As 

it is, many RLECs in this country, including tribally owned telcos and Sacred Wind, 

are concerned about the USF reform’s impact on our ability to pay down our current 

construction loans. 

Similarly, while the FCC schedules from time to time auctions for the sale of spectrum licenses for mobile and fixed wireless communications services, and offers 

small rural and tribal carriers a discount from the auction sale price, the licensed 

territories are not coincident with tribal lands or with a small RLEC’s service territory. Such change in spectrum license allocation, while less favorable to the national 

or regional mobile wireless carriers, would make the bidding price and the use of 

the license more attractive to the smaller companies. 

29 

We RLECs indeed see ourselves caught in a policy war at the FCC that we may 

not be winning. As stated above, the locally owned rural carriers, among them all 

tribal telcos, have done a superlative job in building telecom networks in their 

areas. It is the national telecom companies that have fallen down in developing 

modern infrastructures in many of their rural service territories. These RLECs 

should be used as a model for further broadband development, but are threatened 

by the FCC’s apparent predilection toward mobility. With the FCC’s inclusion of mobile wireless carriers in the USF program, and the ultimate disbursement of over 

$1.5 Billion annually from the fund to national and regional mobile wireless carriers, less support for the past decade has been made available to RLECs, the local 

companies. Much of the contention surrounding USF reform today revolves around 

the FCC’s apparent abandonment of the RLEC-rural model in favor of a mobile carrier-national model. If this move toward mobility impacts RLECs as it portends to, 

rural employment, rural development, rural telecom service, and RLECs’ debt service may be adversely affected. 

This is not to say that mobile services development should not be encouraged in 

tribal and rural areas. It should be built around a ‘‘localized’’ model, though—one 

in which a tribe or RLEC would have opportunities to offer such alternative services 

to its customers either singly or in partnership with a larger carrier. But, as a policy 

matter, it certainly should not preempt ‘‘fixed’’ services to the home. 

No single technology is appropriate for Sacred Wind’s entire service territory 

where the distance between communities and the population density make landline 

deployment unaffordable, where the mountains and canyons within its territory, 

which separate hundreds of Navajo homes in small clusters many miles from each 

other, make mobile wireless communications unworkable in considerable parts of 

Navajo lands. Along flatter terrain, linked to communications towers that parallel 

a roadway, mobile wireless is appropriate. And, even satellite broadband has its 

place. All such alternative solutions should be made available to all Americans in 

as cost effective a manner as possible. [To distinguish one wireless technology from 

another in geographically challenging areas, fixed wireless systems take the antenna 

(and the signal) to the home, while with mobile service the customer must travel from 

the home to seek the antenna (and the signal)]. 

In either case of a mobile or satellite alternative for rural areas, the local RLEC 

with a fixed wireless infrastructure already in place offers the most viable solution: 

mobility can be added to the incumbent RLEC’s infrastructure and the RLEC’s technicians can be trained to service a satellite unit where the RLEC has partnered 

with a satellite company to offer such complementary services. The health of the 

RLEC is required in both cases. 

To ensure that tribes are given the opportunity to influence their own telecommunications future, the Federal government, through the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture and the FCC should coordinate to create more programs that 

would encourage RLECs to develop tribal-oriented systems, and to encourage tribes 

to own and operate their own systems, using all alternative telecommunications solutions to meet their needs. Many tribes will need your help. 

There exist in New Mexico, for example, three major tribes and 19 Indian Pueblos 

with populations that range from a few hundred to many thousands. Most are poor 

and all but the Mescalero Apache Tribe and the segment of Navajo lands served by 

Sacred Wind, are served by national or regional carriers. If USF support systems 

remain intact and the regulatory environment would be open to it, we believe that 

the majority of those tribes could economically justify acquiring and owning their 

own telecom systems or by way of tribal consortia. Only by understanding how each 

tribe is served today can we reach conclusions as to how they best can be served 

tomorrow. Resources for such understanding are near at hand—talk to the tribes 

and seek council from the nearest RLEC. 

Recommendations 

Our recommendations to help tribes bridge the digital divide are: 

1. Create and implement programs that encourage local ownership of telecom 

networks. 

a. Create FCC regulations that incent tribal or RLEC acquisitions. 

b. Revise FCC spectrum allocations and processes for tribal-specific spectrum use. 

c. Ensure that any FCC USF reform does not reduce tribal RLEC support. 

2. Continue and expand telecommunications development plans for tribal lands 

that take advantage of the most appropriate technologies. 

30 

a. Departments of Commerce and Agriculture should help tribes assess the 

viability of localizing telecom systems. 

b. Departments of Commerce and Agriculture should coordinate grant/loan 

projects that would incent tribal or local RLEC start-ups. 

3. Remove land use impediments for tribal infrastructures. 

a. Departments of Commerce, Agriculture, Interior, FCC, and Homeland 

Security should coordinate land use policies that affect telecom infrastructures on federally managed lands. 

b. New land use policies should take into account a system’s services to 

tribal members. 

c. Departments of Commerce and Interior should incent tribes to establish 

their own rights of way procedures and, where tribes have their own review 

operations in place, remove the Federal government from the process. 

d. Change the Federal utility easement application to include use of the 

easement by telecom utilities. 

e. Eliminate the archaeological & environmental study requirement on pole 

attachments on in-place pole lines. 

f. Eliminate the archaeological & environmental study requirement in an 

easement or on a site where such studies have already been conducted. 

4. Continue and expand PC literacy and Internet training programs for tribal 

members. 

a. Establish and implement programs supporting the development of 

broadband content that reinforces tribal culture and values. 

Attachment 1: Configuration of Fixed Wireless to Copper Landline Network 

with Fiber Optic Backbone for Capacity. ‘‘Distance Friendly’’ & 

Economical in Serving Wide or Geographically Challenging Unserved 

Tribal Areas 


405SACRE1.eps
31 

Attachment 2: Sacred Wind’s Internet Training for Rock Springs Chapter 

Members and at the Huerfano Chapter of the Navajo Nation, Enabled 

by an USDA–RUS Community Connect Grant 


405SACRE2.eps
32 

Attachment 3: Fixed Wireless Antenna Attachment on the Home, West of 

Yatahey, NM 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, very much, Mr. Badal. 

And, may I now begin the questioning. 

Mr. Blackwell, I have several questions. I’ll ask one, but I’ll submit the rest, if I may. 

Mr. Blackwell, there are 565 federally-recognized tribes, approximately 231 federally-recognized Native Alaskan entities and about 

38,000 beneficiaries of more than 200,000 acres of Hawaiian Homelands held in trust throughout the Hawaiian Island chain. And it’s 

a lot of ground to cover. And the scope and breadth of your responsibilities are, naturally, very great. 

Do you feel that you office has sufficient resources to fulfill your 

responsibilities and achieve your goals; if not, how much do you 

need? 

Now is a good time. I’m Chairman of the Appropriations Committee. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BLACKWELL. I’m well aware of that, sir. Well, now that we 

have an office we can do much—we can do much more than just 

what one person can do. I was that single person for 6 years. Now 

that we have an office, we can move forward on many fronts at the 

same time. 

The support that we have from the commission is clear and unambiguous from the unanimous decisions to create the office, and 

the Chairman is very supportive of our goals. These include increasing the consultation and coordination with native communities so that we can create more robust records for the commission 


405SACRE3.eps
33 

to act on. These goals include increasing the overhauling and increasing the effectiveness of the commission’s ITI Outreach or Indian Telecommunications Outreach program. And, it includes getting to places where the commission has never before been in Native America. 

Senator INOUYE. You don’t know how much you need? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, Senator, the offices—— 

Senator INOUYE. Seriously. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. I’m sorry? 

Senator INOUYE. Seriously. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, the office is still new. We are evaluating 

the need and working with the Chairman’s office and the Offices 

of the Managing Director to ensure that we have the resources that 

we need. 

If you wish, I can follow up with you on that, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. Please do, because I’ve been advised that you’re 

overworked, and you don’t have enough staff. So, I’ll be waiting for 

your response. 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you. 

Senator INOUYE. I’ll now call upon the Chairman of the Hawaiian 

Homelands. 

Now, will you tell the Committee how many families currently 

live on Hawaiian Homelands, and how many have access to 

broadband? 

Mr. NAHALE-A. We have approximately 10,000 homesteads right 

now; so, roughly, 10,000 families on the land. We don’t have hard 

numbers on how many access broadband. We estimate that less 

than half. A lot of those families have access to commercial 

broadband and so they’re not connecting for cost reasons. 

But, I want to highlight that one of the big issues for us is that 

less than half of our 200,000 acres has access to broadband currently; so that’s another issue for us, is how to—how to develop in 

regions where there is currently no broadband access. 

Senator INOUYE. I’m certain the Committee is not fully aware of 

the history of Hawaiian Homelands. 

Like most native people, when the Federal Government took the 

responsibility of dealing with them, in the case of Hawaiians, they 

put them out in the most remote areas, away from Honolulu. 

Nanakuli, when it was established, had a trail; same thing with 

Waimanalo. You would have to climb over a mountain or go on a 

beach trail to reach that community. 

The other homeland reservations were on other islands in remote 

areas, and one can imagine the challenges you have. 

What is the most remote? You mentioned one on Maui. Are there 

other remote communities? 

Mr. NAHALE-A. There are. We have other areas on Maui, Keanae 

and Hana. Hawaii Island we have land near, you know, near the 

top of Mauna Kea. I think those would be our most remote locations. 

If I could share very quick stories, Senator, mentioning other 

homesteads, my sister-in-law’s father, who’s already passed, told us 

stories about—there was an old road into their homestead, and so 

every day the material for their house, which they built by hand, 

was dropped at the highway, which was about a half-mile from the 

34 

homestead; so every day after school on the way home, they’d pick 

up a few pieces of lumber and walk it into their homestead; and 

that’s how they built their house. That area since has urbanized, 

but I would hate to develop Hawaiian homes in that fashion. 

Senator INOUYE. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I’ll be submitting a 

whole series of questions also for your consideration. 

Mr. NAHALE-A. Of course. 

Senator INOUYE. And now, Mr. Badal, in your testimony, you recommended that the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture 

should coordinate telecommunications grant and loan projects. 

In prior hearings before this committee on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, some members questioned the need for 

broadband programs in two departments. 

Do you have any opinion on that? 

Mr. BADAL. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. I believe that unless the 

tribes are given greater opportunity to develop infrastructure on 

their own—on their own lands, and unless they work—in many 

cases where they don’t have the technical skills within themselves—unless they work with the rural telephone company that is 

proximate to the reservation and has the telecommunications—has 

the telecommunications expertise, and unless there are incentives 

for the rural telephone company and the tribes, financial incentives, to start an in—an operation on a very high costing area to 

serve with low generation of income, this job is not going to get 

done any—in our lifetimes. 

Senator INOUYE. Well, Mr. Badal, I will be submitting also, several questions, if I may, for your consideration. 

Mr. BADAL. Sure. 

Senator INOUYE. I can imagine the problems you have because 

I’ve visited Navajo lands several times; and as you noted, they are 

much larger than some of the states of the union. 

Mr. BADAL. Yes, sir. 

Senator INOUYE. And, Ms. Taylor, if I may: Native Nations and 

communities have always faced a communications divide. We have 

seen it with traditional landline telephone services and wireless 

communications, but how does lack of access to high-speed Internet 

impact or divide our Native Nation’s face? Does it raise the stakes 

or make divide that we face more critical to remedy? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Thank you for that question. I think in the context 

of tribal homelands and—and you’ve referred to statistics earlier— 

ten percent broadband penetration rate. In some communities 

where 911 doesn’t exist, where roads remain unpaved, and where 

telephone service is still for one in three families—those are pretty 

dire situations in these communities. 

So, in terms of technology, if we want to spur the economy, if we 

want to improve education, if we want to make health available 

long distance, and if we want to improve education for our young 

people, we need technology. 

Last year, Native Public Media and the New America Foundation did a study on the Internet use, media and technology in Indian Country and found that where Native Americans were provided access to the technology, they were using it at a greater levels than their counterparts. 

35 

So, simply saying that—that without technology that people are 

not willing to adopt this is a misperception. You know, when we— 

when we think about the technology in terms of what America 

takes for granted, as I was flying in yesterday on the airplane, I 

saw all the towers that surround Washington, D.C. 

In Hopi Country, or in Navajo, or in Sioux Country, or even in 

the Hawaiian Homelands you—- you rarely see these towers because they don’t exist. If we’re going to bridge the digital divide, 

if we’re going to bridge the media divide, we need to have the technology. 

Senator INOUYE. And, you’re maintaining that we don’t at this 

time, obviously. 

Ms. TAYLOR. We don’t at this time. Let me just tell you, I come 

from the Village of Oraibi in Northeastern Arizona on the Hopi 

Reservation. In my village, to this day we have no running water, 

no electricity, no telephone, and certainly no broadband service. 

Last year, in 2010, at my home in Flagstaff, Arizona I was—my 

home was flooded three times. I can tell you that not only is technology important during a time when there’s an emergency, when 

you’re looking for real time information about the Red Cross or 

about the Forest Service, or about mitigation, or where you’re going 

to go in terms of shelter for that night, you need information; and 

whether it comes through the broadband technology, or whether it’s 

Terrestrial Radio station that, you know, that—this is something 

that is absent from Indian country. 

When you ride out to Hopi Country, for example, and where you 

may not—where the nearest hospital may be an hour and a half 

away, you literally are taking your life into your own hands. 

These conditions are prevalent, not just on the Hope Reservation, 

but across the nation, and so, I have to submit that we really are 

at a critical threshold. The longer we wait, the longer Indian country remains or lags behind. 

Senator INOUYE. In other words, what we take for granted, the 

other Americans, are not available to you at this moment. 

Ms. TAYLOR. Correct. 

Senator INOUYE. I thank you very much. I have many other questions I’d like to submit to you. 

Now, may I call upon Senator Udall. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Inouye, and thank you for 

your longstanding leadership on issues effecting Native Americans 

and Native Hawaiians. 

I know that the Chairman in many capacities has been a real 

champion, both on the Indian Affairs Committee, I think several 

times, and then with your role as Chairman of the Appropriations 

Committee in this hearing, where you serve in your role as pro 

tem, and the former Chair here. And it seems like wherever you 

are you end up being a great champion for tribes. 

So, all of us very much appreciate that, and I think we have benefited from it in our states, as Senator Begich and I know over the 

years. 

Senator INOUYE. Would you like to run my campaign? 

36 

[Laughter.] 

Senator UDALL. I’d be happy to. I’d be happy to. I think you just 

finished, though. And you didn’t have much of a problem. I think 

you might hurt yourself with me as a campaign manager. 

But, particularly, I’d like to thank all of the witnesses today, and 

thank you, Mr. Badal, for your comments. 

You know, most people probably can’t imagine life without a telephone; yet today, as Ms. Taylor said, more than 30 percent of the 

households in Indian country don’t have basic access to telephone 

service. 

For members of the Navajo Nation in particular, this situation 

is even worse. And, statistics don’t adequately convey the hardships created by this lack of telephone service. Not having a 

landline or cell phone reception can mean the difference between 

life and death. Imagine not being able to call an ambulance when 

you or your loved one is in medical danger. 

We recently had a man outside of Gallup, New Mexico, who 

missed two opportunities for a lifesaving kidney transplant because 

he lacked telephone service at home and could not be contacted at 

home to notify him about the transplants. 

Members of this committee know how essential it is that our nation’s rural areas and tribal lands are not bypassed when 

broadband networks are built out across the Nation. And although 

they are among the least connected, these areas are precisely 

where broadband technology can help the most, I think, as all of 

you have synthesized in your testimony. 

By overcoming physical distances and geographic isolation, 

broadband can help improve economic development; can help improve education; and can help improve access to healthcare. 

So, I was very pleased when FCC Chairman Genachowski paid 

particular attention to this issue and all of the commissioners 

pledged their support for addressing this appalling digital divide 

affecting Native Americans and establish the office. And, I hope 

they’ll follow your advice, Ms. Taylor, on the resources that are 

needed. And, I may have an opportunity here in a minute to ask 

Mr. Blackwell about that. 

But, Mr. Badal, maybe to start with you: Sacred Wind won a nationwide award for the most inspiring small business, and I’m 

pleased that you can be with us today to share that story. And, as 

you know, western states like New Mexico have more public lands 

and tribal lands than other areas in the country. 

And, the southwest can also be a sensitive place to build infrastructure, which is what we’re talking about doing here in many 

ways since we have archeological treasures and sites considered sacred to the region’s native communities. 

However, I think in your testimony, as I’ve read it, you have 

come up with several ways that you think we could do that a little 

bit better. 

Could you talk a little bit about how Federal agencies could 

make it easier to use existing easements and rights of way that 

have already been built; how to ensure the tribal sovereignty in 

that process is respected; and how do we ensure that local communities not feel like new infrastructure is being punched through 

their lands without their approval? 

37 

Mr. BADAL. Mr. Chairman—and thank you, Senator Udall. I’ll be 

glad to answer those questions. 

I think one of the things that—that could be immediately 

changed in Federal regulations is the—the establishment of what 

we call all utility easements. You know, when—when one utility 

company acquires, through a right-of-way process, which involves 

archeological and environmental assessments and centerline surveys, one—when one of those companies acquires an easement, it 

should be allowed to be occupied with less of a process by any other 

utility using the same easement. 

Let me give you an example: We have been working for two and 

a half years to string 11.6 miles of fiber along an electric pole line 

that has been in existence for over 30 years. We were—we even applied for a categorical exclusion from having to conduct archeological, environmental and centerline surveys for that easement because it had been in place for 30 years, and the archeological and 

environmental had already been done 30 years ago. 

Well, we were required to conduct the archeological, environmental assessments and the centerline survey as part of the application to apply for a categorical exclusion so that we wouldn’t have 

to conduct the archeological and blah, blah, blah. 

We’re still waiting for our notice to proceed after two and a half 

years. 

Another thing that I think could be done to change Federal regulations is to make a distinction in whether BIA, BLM or whatever 

land use authorization regulations they have, to make a distinction 

between infrastructure that is going to be directly surveying the 

tribe on whose land the facilities we placed from facilities that are 

placed on tribal lands across the tribal lands serve elsewhere. And, 

an easy example is, if a—well, an easy example: If Sacred Wind 

wants to install two miles of fiber that would run across the tribal 

lands, or if a telecommunications tower on—on tribal lands, the 

right- of-way process for us is exactly the same as stringing a 

high—a high voltage transmission line across Navajo lands to serve 

the City of Gallup or serve the City of Farmington or Albuquerque, 

and I think that’s wrong. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you for that answer. And, I have other 

questions also that I’d like to submit for the record, but I have two 

quick more questions, just one to Mr. Blackwell: 

And, not to get you into the budget issues, because I know you’re 

going to visit with the Chairman about that; but as you’re becoming operational, what resources or other initiatives do you see as 

being vital to the FCC’s success in addressing the digital divide on 

tribal and Native Hawaiian lands? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, thank you for the question. Consultation 

coordination is essential; the ability to work directly with native 

nations and native communities to find the solutions that will be 

lasting. It’s a—the process has lasted 70 years at a point where telephony has—has—the way in which the rules were created then 

largely didn’t result in—in significant service. We—the statistics 

have been cited time and time again. 

Right now, one of our goals is to place the native nation itself in 

the center of the process that it can be a unique demand 

aggregator; it can be an entity that can bring new solutions to— 

38 

to the fore. And, whether it’s the tribe serving itself or working in 

concert with a partner, I believe that that will provide new development models. 

We have a notice of inquiry open at the commission right now. 

All of these matters are being raised in it. We’re looking into the 

possibility of extending the native nation’s priority to other—identifying and removing other barriers to entry. We’re looking at employment and adoption models. 

That consultation and that solution—that development of solutions also has to occur within Native America. We can’t just sit 

here in Washington and try to come up with solutions. 

We have to go where the problems exist; that is how one best understands how to pull together the solutions. 

Beyond that, there is an incredible need right now, with the explosion of broadband, for additional training and information. 

Prior, when the Commission had a liaison to tribal governments—the job that I had for a while—I spent a lot of time pushing 

information into Indian country. 

Now we have partner organizations that we can work with that 

know their constituencies much better, can reach out and touch 

their grassroots much better than we can. 

It’s our job to share that information, to get into a two-way dialogue and return to Washington with—with that knowledge in 

hand to further affect our rules and create new opportunities. 

So, in a nutshell that’s the answer to your question. 

Senator UDALL. I appreciate that comment. 

Ms. Taylor, you know we know how indigenous languages and 

native languages are disappearing all across the world at a dramatic rate, and we see that also in the United States, in our tribes; 

Zuni, and Hopi, and Navajo, and others. 

Could you talk a little bit about native radio stations and new 

communication technologies that can be harnessed to preserve and 

enrich cultural activities in native languages; I know Mr. Badal 

talked a little bit about that in his testimony on the Rosetta Stone. 

Please. 

Ms. TAYLOR. Thank you. You asked me about the right subject. 

I love—radio is my life. 

In this country, out of the 565 Native Nations and Native Hawaiians and including the Alaska Natives, we have 42 native stations 

that are on air today; approximately 11 of those stations are 

streaming over the Internet. We have a great demand for communications, a good robust, healthy backbone in Native America. We 

have approximately 38 construction permits right now to build new 

stations; and then we have a few more that are still MX’ed across 

the country, and we hope that they’ll be untangled soon. 

And, I lay that as the framework to—to say how vital these stations are. 

When you, again, look at the context of what we have in terms 

of communications in Indian country or in Native America we’re— 

we don’t have a lot. So, these Terrestrial Radio stations in most 

tribal communities are the communication systems that—if you 

don’t have a tribal newspaper and if you don’t have television, if 

you don’t have broadband, these native stations are essential and 

critical in providing the information that we need to make deciVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
39 

sions on a day-to-day basis; information about our own health; information about the electoral process; whether it’s a tribal election; 

whether it’s a national election in terms of culture and language 

And, you’re exactly right. A lot of tribal communities are facing 

a—a—a real critical situation of—of language loss. What—what 

these stations do for their communities is to provide the vital, cultural and language programming. So, if you come to Sioux country, 

you’ll hear Sioux on the air. If you come to Navajo, where we have 

six stations, you’ll hear Navajo. If you go to Hawaii, you’ll hear Hawaiian language programming. 

This is essential, because at the end of the day, localism and diversity is important. With 565 nations and more, we contribute to 

the intellectual capacity of this country. We contribute to the diversity in terms of history, and culture, and language. We contribute 

to—to civil society in many ways. That’s what this country is 

about. And, these stations allow us to participate in democratic 

processes that’s available to all Americans. 

And, so, we’re really asking for something that—that other 

Americans already have. And, so, in terms of—of just what these 

stations play in—in tribal communities, I can’t emphasize enough. 

And so, so—so if we—if we’re looking at a—a—a serious defunding 

issue of public service media, which is, I understand around $400 

million, which is a lot of money, the unseen consequences to the 

smallest stations in this country that serve native nations is basically this: We will go dark if we lose funding because over—all our 

stations rely on funding, not just from PTFP and from CPB, of at 

least 50 to 100 percent. 

So, literally, we are the last to come on board; we’re going to be 

the first to feel the consequences. 

Senator UDALL. I appreciate your comments. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important hearing. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, very much. 

Senator Begich? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you. I just want to echo Senator Udall’s comments. You have been 

a great ally for the Alaska Native community and this hearing is 

a very important one because the new age of connectivity, not just 

for—as Myron talked about, before he had to leave—just having a 

phone to call someone, but it’s the commerce, the medical, the educational opportunities. It is really determinative, at least in my 

state, of the future of our rural community, especially the most remote. 

Ms. Taylor, when you were describing your home community, as 

you can imagine, I was thinking of many communities in Alaska 

that have the same situation. And, in a lot of ways it’s appalling 

to think that we have that in this country with the wealth and resources at our fingertips. To be very frank, it’s more of a comment. 

I have some questions I’m going to ask in a second, but when you 

think about the unemployment levels that we have—and I’ve heard 

the Chairman eloquently talk on the floor, and I can’t recite his 

exact quote, but I remember when we were talking about unemVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
40 

ployment might reach 10 percent and the Chairman said in Indian 

country, that would be a blessing if it could get to that. 

And, he’s right, because Myron, who was here earlier, his community hit almost 22 percent unemployment. A lot of our rural 

communities have 40–50 percent. 

Senator Udall, I remember when we were doing the stimulus bill, 

you made some incredible comments. You remember that 2 years 

ago we were running around this place trying to figure out how to 

solve the unemployment problem, and it was reaching eight, nine, 

10 percent. But we have communities all throughout rural America, and rural Alaska, for example, and Native country, Indian 

country, that has 30, 40, 50 percent unemployment; and if we’re 

going to attack that issue, part of it is going to be how we communicate. 

As you can imagine, throughout this time we get a lot of comments in our office about taxes. In rural Alaska, it will take about 

30 minutes to download a 1040-EZ form. I mean, that’s not the 

long form; it’s the short form. Thirty minutes to get the form, 

blank. And, then how they send it from there is another question. 

We’ve seen already almost a 50 percent drop in grant applications 

from rural communities because everything’s now done online, so 

in order to apply they have to go online; and if they can’t get online 

because they don’t have broadband or high speed broadband, it just 

complicates and folds out the problem. 

So, the hearing is important. 

Let me, if I can, first to you, Ms. Taylor. I think your comment 

on the Pullock service cuts of the Pullock T.V. radio. As you describe those small communities, the small communities will be the 

ones that really get hit; the small radio stations, because they have 

the base funding that I know, Senator Inouye, the late Senator Ted 

Stevens worked on aggressively to make sure those small communities had some sort of communication. 

So, I want to echo what you said, and I want to make sure I 

heard it, that if we have dramatic cuts in public radio, rural communities, Indian country communities, will be probably the hardest 

hit because not only will the station go dark, it will go off the air 

permanently because they have no other financial resources they 

can tap into—am I hearing you right? I want to make sure I’m not 

putting words in your mouth here. 

Ms. TAYLOR. You are absolutely on the money. We have stations 

that rely on funding from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting 

for their day-to-day operations. As I mentioned earlier, we have approximately 38 new stations that we would like to bring on-air, 

and—and these are stations that are self-service stations, primarily, that are being built to serve Native America. 

About 10 percent of these stations receive their operating revenue from tribal government, from state, county, religious organizations, and schools. And, that’s a very small amount. It—I think 

all of you are aware that the socioeconomic conditions in Native 

America are—are much more pronounced. Fifty percent high unemployment rate, joblessness; but still, most people will say, well, the 

creature needs our housing, you know, food on the table, a roof 

over your head. 

41 

I would have to say that information is just as essential. Without 

information, I don’t know how society can function adequately. I 

mean, right now, if you can just look at the landscape of what’s 

happening here in Washington, D.C., this—this budget discussion 

that we’re having at the national level seeps down to families on 

tribal homelands. They want to know what’s going on here, just as 

the people in Los Angeles, or New York, or any of the cities in Florida, and other states. 

So, you are—you are absolutely correct, we are facing a very serious situation. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. And, we’re very proud of 

those stations, KBNA, which is a nationally renowned, nativespeaking great program, but maybe there’s not an answer to it, but 

more of a statement; maybe there’s some that don’t want information to flow. 

So, I’ll leave it at that. 

Let me ask Mr. Blackwell: First off, thank you for being here; 

thanks for the focus that you’re bringing to this issue, and I, like 

Senator Udall, am anxious for you to get together with the Chairman and indicate your needs, because we know this is an important office for all the reasons that have already been stated by the 

testimony. 

One of the questions I have is about the FCC’s Native Task 

Force, how will you be working with that; and how will the FCC 

and the Native Nations and Communities be working together to 

implement some of that work that comes out of the task force? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Well, thank you for the question. That was 

the—the task force is comprised of elected and appointed tribal 

leaders from across Indian country, and we’ll be working directly 

with them to review existing proceedings at the commission to—to 

use them as a—a sounding board for ideas that—that are presently 

within the bureaus and offices. We also hope that through these 

members—let me step back for a second. 

The—the FCC Native Nation Broadband Task Force is comprised 

of elected and appointed tribal leaders and senior officials from 

across the bureaus and offices at the commission. 

So—so that would be the body that was working together. And, 

in our—we’re looking right now at scheduling our first meeting in 

the near future in a face-to-face format, and then following up, routinely, and trying to meet together as often as possible. 

But, part of the work also, is not just reviewing and making sure 

the Native voices are heard in all the relevant commission proceedings, but also to surface new issues, new recommendations. 

We also hope that through the Native leadership on this task 

force that it will become something of a watering hole for other 

tribes that are on the learning curve to understanding about 

what’s—what’s going on in the communications field, and new opportunities, and hope that we will lead to more Native Nations becoming involved in work with us at the Commission. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Badal, I don’t know if you noticed that the Chairman and I 

were smiling a little bit when you were testifying because the description you gave of the poles when you were trying to put wires 

42 

on them, and what you had to go through, was amazing, to be very 

frank with you. 

And, if I heard you right, did I hear you say, it’s regulatory requirements or it’s statutory requirements? 

Mr. BADAL. Well, these requirements are embodied in the Federal Government CFRs, and these are regulatory. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. BADAL. They are founded somewhere in the statute. But, I’ll 

see if I could—those regulatory—I think those rules require regulatory changes. 

Senator BEGICH. Here’s the question, and I think I know the answer to this. I know, when I was mayor of Anchorage we had a university campus area, kind of mixed use with the hospital and university. What we did with them, because every building had to go 

through zoning, was we did a campus-wide process which they developed; and once they developed it, then they went through it. We 

signed off on the process, but they made sure it worked with their 

campus setting; and we no longer participated until, of course, they 

went to the local city council to get approval for it; but not in the 

process—because it seemed like every time they’d come back, we’d 

have special parking requirements in one building; and they’d build 

a building right next door, have new requirements; and yet they 

wanted to share the parking, because they operate different times; 

and so we developed something where they kind of took control of 

that with some guidance from us, but then we stepped back. 

Is that something that would work on tribal lands? Because it 

sounds like we have multiple agencies you may have to go through 

to get a right-of-way. 

I’m not going to comment for the Chairman, but two and a half 

years to get something that already exists for something else, when 

all you’re doing is tacking another line on this pole with some 

holes, seems a waste of money, a waste of time, and the taxpayers 

and your rate payers are paying for this. Am I wrong? 

Mr. BADAL. It is a waste of time and resources. The right-of-way 

fees that we have to pay, I think, are unnecessary. We work on a, 

almost a daily basis with different offices of the Navajo Nation. I 

think we have a very good working relationship with the Navajo 

Nation’s Land Department that also often agrees with us, that getting—or conducting archeological permit or doing a centerline survey, or so. 

And in conducting an archeological assessment during an evaluation is—is unnecessary in certain instances where facilities—the 

easement already exists, or we’re replacing an analogue pedestal 

with a broadband loop carrier cabinet, that now provides 

broadband for everybody. 

The Navajo Nation believes that—that it has to follow BIA processes or their work gets bounced back. 

Senator BEGICH. Gotcha. 

Mr. BADAL. So—and, we’ve had meetings then with us and with 

the Navajo Nation with the BIA, and it’s—everybody says our 

hands are tied, our hands are tied because this is what is written. 

Senator BEGICH. But, they write the regulations. 

Mr. BADAL. Yes, sir. 

43 

Senator BEGICH. OK, I just want to make sure I’m not missing 

the boat here. So, I’m going to leave it at that. I look to the Chairman. I noticed in your written testimony you have several written 

recommendations regarding some ideas of changing procedures 

and, you know, to be very frank, BIA has a lot of things to do. This 

should be the least of their worries if they have tribal governments 

that are willing to manage that for them, because obviously, the 

tribal governments are going to manage for the best of their community, I would assume. 

Mr. BADAL. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. So, I think they’ll do the right thing at the end 

of the day, as long as the procedures are, you know, approved; and 

they often let the tribes do that. 

I mean, I’m perplexed, let me just say that, and maybe there 

should be a 6th seat there, maybe for the BIA, but we’ll leave it 

at that. 

But, I think your testimony and your recommendations are very 

interesting and maybe ones that we should help proceed with. 

Thank you, very much, to all of you. 

Senator INOUYE. If I could follow up on my friends’ inquiries: 

Mr. Badal, your problems were with the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

Mr. BADAL. Mr. Chairman, I’d hate to say my problems are—and 

I don’t mean to denigrate or criticize them. It’s—— 

Senator INOUYE. A challenge. 

Mr. BADAL. Yes, we have—we have challenges dealing with several layers of—of government, but I think the—the interpretation 

of the regulations are a little more stringent on—on—in our experience, on the BIA side. Now, I work with an Indian Pueblo, the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico as well. They have a BIA office right 

next door to the government offices, and they have a different relationship altogether. 

Senator INOUYE. But, I assume that the BIA, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, would be specially concerned with the welfare of Indian 

Country, and so I’m going to be chatting with them. 

Mr. BADAL. Thank you, sir, thank you. 

Senator INOUYE. And, Ms. Taylor, your testimony reminded me 

that at one time there were 50 distinct languages among Indians 

in this land. About how many are extinct now; do you have any 

idea? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Wow. 

Senator INOUYE. Because, for example, a Cherokee would not be 

able to communicate with a tribe up in the Pacific Northwest. 

Ms. TAYLOR. Well, you know, I was just reading about language 

families in indigenous Americas; 1491, the book—I don’t know if 

you read it—but they—the scientists estimated that at one time 

there were approximately 62 language families in America alone. 

Senator INOUYE. Sixty-two? 

Ms. TAYLOR. Sixty-two, which is remarkable, that there’s such an 

expansive linguistic asset, I would say in North America at one 

time. I don’t know if that number is true or correct. I don’t have 

any way to validate, but I can say that—that across the country, 

all the 565 federally-recognized nations, Alaska Natives, and the 

Hawaiians, many of them still speak their native language. And, 

44 

in some communities they are robust and healthy; in other communities they are facing a serious language loss. 

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, very much, Ms. Taylor. I just want 

to note that Mr. Blackwell had some training before he became a 

member of the Federal Communications Commission. He was a 

senior staffer on the Indian Affairs Committee, and his passionate 

concerns for Native Americans, Alaskans and Hawaiians, I’m 

happy to see, still exist in you. 

So, keep it up. I’m serious, because I want you to do a good job; 

and if you need more money to help these people, we’ll get it for 

you, believe me. 

Mr. BADAL. Thank you, sir. I will keep it up. 

Senator INOUYE. I want to thank the Chairman of the Office of 

Hawaiian Homelands for being with us today. It’s a long trip to be 

here just to testify. I hope you found your presence here meaningful. 

Mr. NAHALE-A. Absolutely. Thank you. 

Senator INOUYE. And, I will be carrying on a conversation with 

you on how better to help your departments. 

So, with that, thank you all very much for testifying before the 

Committee. 

And, I would like to announce that the record will be kept open 

for 2 weeks; if you have any additional statement to submit, please 

do so. If you want to make any changes to your testimony, you’re 

free to do so. 

Thank you, very much. 

Mr. NAHALE-A. Thank you, it’s an honor. 

[Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(45) 

1Today the Commission is refusing to accept any new TV translator applications, even in 

rural areas (see DA10–2070, October 28, 2010); the referenced notice states that the approximately 18 months that had been available for filing new applications was sufficient time for filing all that were needed. This reasoning is absolutely wrong, given the time it takes for planning, engineering, and arranging funding. The freeze on acceptance of new TV translator applications clearly demonstrates how repacking will result in the loss of expanded service to the 

public. 

A P P E N D I X 

Before the 

Federal Communications Commission 

Washington, DC 20554 

In the Matter of ) 

) 

Innovation in the Broadcast Television ) ET Docket No. 10–235 

Bands: Allocations, Channel Sharing, and ) 

Improvements to VHF ) 

To: The Commission 

COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL TRANSLATOR ASSOCIATION 

The National Translator Association (‘‘NTA’’) hereby comments on the above-captioned Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’), released November 30, 2010, and 

published in the Federal Register on February 1, 2011 (76 Fed. Reg. 5521). Comments were due within 45 days of Federal Register publication and, accordingly, 

these Comments are timely filed. 

NTA is dedicated to the provision of free over-the-air television and audio service 

to all areas that do not receive adequate coverage from a full complement of primary 

broadcast stations. Its membership includes, but is not limited to, owners and operators of TV translator and LPTV stations that rebroadcast the signals of full-service 

television stations. 

NTA urges the Commission to hold any decision on this Rulemaking in abeyance 

until all rulemakings and the Table of Allotments are released so that the entire 

rebanding plan can be considered. Many future proposals will have an impact on 

the questions raised in this proceeding. Further, the preamble to the instant Rulemaking states that this Rulemaking is in furtherance of a ‘‘National Broadband 

Plan.’’ There is no such thing as a ‘‘National Broadband Plan.’’ The plan forwarded 

to Congress by the Chairman’s office was never adopted by the Commission; from 

the timing, it appears that no other Commissioner saw the plan before it was released, and the plan itself contained no factual predicate for the need for 500 MHz 

of additional spectrum for wireless that the Chairman specified. 

There is a reason that, in the ordinary course of events—and prior to any implementing proceedings, a draft of such a plan would be released, public comment 

sought on the proposals, and the public policy developed. Nothing purifies ideas better than sunlight. 

Introduction 

NTA is participating in this and related Commission proceedings not because it 

believes that repurposing of up to 120 MHz of the existing television bands (hereinafter, ‘‘repacking’’) is in the public interest. but rather because the assumption at 

the highest levels of the Commission appears to be that repacking is going to occur 

and the only remaining questions concern the details.1 NTA believes that any repacking, even if confined to primary stations, will be greatly disruptive to the installed translator base. Translators have been fitted in on channels selected to avoid 

46 

2 NPRM, paras. 18–24. 

3Many translators take the signal down to the transport stream and apply the error correction capability of the 8VSB system, thereby ‘‘cleaning up’’ the signal before retransmitting it, 

but this processing is the same regardless of the number of program streams in the signal. 4Over the last 20 years, there have been many time periods during which the FCC has declined to accept new applications, forcing doubling up as new primary stations have become 

available. 5Freeze on the Filing of Applications for New Digital Low Power Television and TV Translator Stations, DA10–2070, October 28, 2010, at para. 1. 6See NTA Comments in MB Doc 03–185, dated Dec. 17, 2010, page 6. 

interference to primary stations and other translators. Any change in the primary 

stations’ channel assignments will have a ripple-down effect, as translators are 

forced to dodge the new full-service assignments. 

It is presumed that a large sum of money will be generated by the auction of the 

recovered spectrum. As described below, NTA urges the Commission to include a 

funding plan to cover the cost of any translator modifications made necessary by repacking changes, whether made necessary directly by a primary station change or 

indirectly by the forced change of another LPTV station or translator. It is important that any program for covering costs be set up as a grant program. Volunteer 

translator groups have trouble making initial outlays associated with reimbursement plans. 

Combining Multiple Program Streams Through a Single Translator 

Channel 

The NPRM discusses ‘‘Broadcast Television Channel Sharing’’ 2 by full service stations. The transmission of multiple program streams from different primary stations 

is already permitted under the translator rules, and a few translators are so operating. 

If a translator passes a single digital signal that has two or more program 

streams already combined in it, no extra equipment is required. The signal comes 

in fully encoded and goes out unchanged.3

If a translator is to receive and combine two separate program sources, however, 

the process gets much more complicated. It is necessary to go down to video and 

audio and process both programs through the full encoding routine. The extra equipment approximately doubles the cost of the translator equipment. Because there is 

no economic advantage and the quality (definition) of the combined outgoing program streams is compromised, such combining has been little used and only in those 

instances where two output channels are not available.4

If repacking forces a translator to combine two or more program sources at the 

translator input into one RF channel, substantial costs will be incurred. Simple fairness requires that such costs be covered from the auction proceeds. 

Impact of Moving Primary Stations 

If primary stations are forced to share one RF channel, there will be many instances where one or both will be required to relocate a significant distance as part 

of the process of combining programming streams. There are many instances where 

a translator is sited at a particular location because the input signal is uniquely 

available there. Changes in the location of the sources of primary signals are going 

to require modifications of a significant number of translator systems, including 

some relocations. 

Again the associated costs should be covered through a grant program financed 

from the auction proceeds. 

Forced Use of Low Band VHF Channels 

A significant number of translators are ‘‘stuck’’ on low band VHF channels, which 

are known to be undesirable for digital television. The technical inferiority of the 

low band VHF channels is not being accepted by the FCC as the basis for approving 

a minor change move to a high band VHF or UHF channel, in the absence of an 

actual conflict. 

Further, the Commission is not accepting major change applications.5 Thus it is 

not possible to file an application to move a low band VHF translator to a high band 

VHF or UHF channel as part of the process of moving to digital operation. 

Accordingly, NTA specifically requests that low band VHF translators be allowed 

to displace to high band VHF or UHF channels as a minor change when converting 

to digital operation. 

Improving the Performance of Digital Stations on VHF Channels 

NTA has already submitted comments in MB Docket No. 03–185,6 in which it was 

suggested that the maximum ERP for digital LPTV stations and translators be inVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:50 Jun 06, 2012 Jkt 074487 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\74487.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
47 

creased from 0.3 kW to 3.0 kW. As all translator applications are tested by the FCC 

for outgoing interference to other stations using the OET Bulletin 69 Longley-Rice 

Terrain Dependent Algorithm, there is very little potential for interference arising 

from such a power increase. NTA repeats the recommendation that the VHF ERP 

limit be increased to 3.0 kW. 

Conclusion 

When and if repacking occurs, there will be major disruptions of existing translator systems. NTA urges the Commission to remain constantly aware of the impact 

of repacking on the delivery of television programming to the translator-served public. 

NTA continues to believe that the Commission’s refusal to accept any new translator applications—even in rural areas—is unfair and unwise, and asks that the 

freeze be lifted at the earliest possible moment. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NATIONAL TRANSLATOR 

ASSOCIATION 

By: /s/ BYRON ST. CLAIR

Byron St. Clair 

President 

/s/ GEORGE R. BORSARI, JR. 

George R. Borsari, Jr. 

Its Attorney 

BORSARI & PAXSON 

5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. 

Suite 440 

Washington, DC 20015 

(202) 296–4800 

March 18, 2011 

Æ