U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–056 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–423 

GAO REPORTS RELATING TO BROADBAND 

INTERNET AVAILABILITY ON TRIBAL LANDS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

OCTOBER 3, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota, Chairman 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Vice Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

JON TESTER, Montana, 

BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada 

TINA SMITH, Minnesota 

T. MICHAEL ANDREWS, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

JENNIFER ROMERO, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on October 3, 2018 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Cantwell .............................................................................. 4 

Statement of Senator Daines .................................................................................. 3 

Statement of Senator Hoeven ................................................................................. 1 

Statement of Senator Murkowski ........................................................................... 34 

Statement of Senator Schatz .................................................................................. 29 

Statement of Senator Udall .................................................................................... 2 

WITNESSES

Blackwell, Geoffrey C., Chief Strategy Officer/General Counsel, Amerind Risk 

Management Corporation .................................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Enjady, Godfrey, President, National Tribal Telecommunications Association . 16 

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

Goldstein, Mark, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government 

Accountability Office ............................................................................................ 5 

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

Webre, Patrick, Chief, Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau, Federal 

Communications Commission ............................................................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

APPENDIX

Ferree, Thomas W., Chairman/CEO, Connected Nation , prepared statement .. 43 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto 

to: 

Geoffrey C. Blackwell ....................................................................................... 48 

Mark Goldstein ................................................................................................. 57 

Patrick Webre ................................................................................................... 55 

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to: 

Geoffrey C. Blackwell ....................................................................................... 46 

Mark Goldstein ................................................................................................. 56 

Patrick Webre ................................................................................................... 54 

(1) 

GAO REPORTS RELATING TO BROADBAND 

INTERNET AVAILABILITY ON TRIBAL LANDS 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:51 p.m. in room 

628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon. I call this oversight hearing to 

order. We do have a vote at 3:30, and what we will plan to do is 

just kind of work through that. So we will keep going, or at least 

at this point we plan to keep going until we’re completed, and then 

we will just hand off the gavel so that we can continue the hearing. 

Today we will examine two of the three reports from the U.S. 

Government Accountability Office that address broadband internet 

and other telecommunications access issues on tribal lands. All 

three GAO reports are in response to a July 2016 letter from Senators Barrasso, McCain, Daines, Schatz, Tester, Cantwell, 

Heitkamp and Heinrich. 

The first report, released September 7th, 2018, is entitled 

Broadband Internet: FCC’s Data Overstates Access on Tribal 

Lands. Among other recommendations in this report, the GAO recommended the FCC improve data collection methods to more accurately measure broadband access on tribal lands. 

The second report, released on September 28th, 2018, is entitled 

Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities 

Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers 

Tribes Face. In this report, GAO recommends that the Rural Utilities Services, RUS, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

identify and address regulatory barriers that impede tribal entities 

from obtaining Rural Utilities Service funding for broadband deployment. 

The third report, not addressed today, will involve research and 

information regarding the acquisition of spectrum by Indian tribes. 

I look forward to its release. 

As the Committee is aware, access to broadband communications 

furthers economic development, educational opportunities and public health and safety. Unfortunately, broadband access is lower on 

tribal lands than in any other part of the United States. According 

2 

to the Federal Communications Commission, as of December 2016, 

35.4 percent of tribal residents lacked access to fixed broadband 

services, compared to 7.7 percent for the rest of the U.S. population. We must work to ensure that tribes have equal access to 

high-speed internet and other advanced telecommunications infrastructure. We look forward to exploring ways in which Congress 

may help close the digital divide between Indian Country and the 

rest of the Nation. 

With that, I want to welcome our witnesses. Thank you for being 

with us this afternoon and for your willingness to testify. With 

that, I will turn to Vice Chairman Udall for his opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, for calling this 

hearing today on the very important topic of the digital divide in 

Indian Country. I want to thank all the witnesses for being here 

and introduce two of them that are on the panel today. 

Described by many as the cyber warrior, Geoff Blackwell was the 

first tribal member to work at the Federal Communications Commission. He now works with Indian tribes across the Country to secure Federal funding for broadband projects. 

I am also pleased to welcome Mr. Godfrey Enjady, from Mescalero Apache. He will also testify before the Senate Commerce Committee tomorrow about tribal broadband. Godfrey’s tireless work 

ethic is on display here in the Senate, and is exactly why we have 

been so successful in tackling the digital divide back home in New 

Mexico. 

Back home, that digital divide is something tribal communities 

know all too well. Eighty percent of those living on tribal lands in 

New Mexico do not have access to broadband. Just think about that 

for a moment. Four out of five people without broadband access, 

without access to a tool that is now a basic necessity for school, for 

health care, for economic development and for public safety. 

The findings of the Government Accountability Office are troubling. They suggest that the chasm between those with internet 

and those without may actually be even larger than previously reported. Without good, reliable and verifiable data, the FCC and the 

Rural Utilities Service are just flying blind. Bad data makes for 

bad decisions and there are tens of billions of Federal dollars at 

stake for tribal communities. 

I am concerned that much of this bad data results from a failure 

to include Indian tribes in the process. I have said it before and 

I will say it again, tribal consultation is not just a check the box 

exercise. Tribal consultation is about government-to-government relationships, but consultation is also about good governance. Robust 

consultation where the FCC doesn’t just show up and listen, but 

actually learns from tribes, will make for better data, better decisions and better outcomes for everyone. 

For example, in New Mexico, the Pueblo of Pojoaque, Santa 

Clara Pueblo, Tesuque Pueblo and Ohkay Owingeh joined together 

to form REDINet, a community-owned broadband network. With 

Federal grant funds, they were able to deploy 136 miles of fiber 

optic cables. That means that folks in the area can now connect in 

3 

life-changing ways, from telemedicine to distance learning. It also 

means first responders have the necessary communications equipment, a potentially life-saving difference. Despite the progress in 

some parts of Indian Country, GAO reports that the FCC and the 

RUS must do far more to get funding to tribes for shovel-ready 

projects. 

We now have four reports from the GAO on this topic, and another on the way. That is going to be five reports in a little over 

ten years. During that time, the FCC and the RUS sent to Indian 

tribes only 0.7 percent of their total Federal funds available. You 

heard those numbers right: a little less than $241 million of $34.6 

billion made available. 

While these GAO reports are extremely helpful, I urge my colleagues not to fall prey to paralysis by analysis. We know there is 

a digital divide. Whether it is 80 percent of the tribal population 

or 40 percent of the population left without broadband access, it is 

wholly unacceptable in this day and age when the internet is an 

absolute necessity. 

Now is the time to do something. I hope this hearing serves as 

a call to action and an opportunity to find out about what we can 

actually do today to start taking steps to close this divide. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Daines. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator DAINES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

High-speed internet is essential to any economy or community 

looking to succeed in the 21st century. I spent 12 years in the technology sector in Montana. I clearly see how technology removes geography as a constraint. 

Unfortunately, the GAO reports we are looking at today, which, 

as the Chairman referenced, a bi-partisan group of my colleagues 

and I, asked for detailed significant barriers to tribes’ access to 

broadband and the need for the Federal Government to work with 

tribes more closely to change that reality. One report finds that the 

Federal Communications Commission continues to lack accurate 

data on broadband availability on tribal lands, which we know has 

been a longstanding challenge. 

To tribes’ detriment, and as the report notes, the FCC’s overstatements of access limit the agency and tribes’ ability to target 

broadband funding to undeserved areas. So not only are tribal 

lands some of the most in need of better access to high-speed internet service, it’s like adding insult to injury here, but the Federal 

Government’s lack of accurate data about availability further impedes broadband deployment on tribal lands. This just becomes a 

self-perpetuating cycle. 

Lack of broadband service also hinders economic growth. It has 

the potential to create safety hazards. Anybody who lives out in 

Montana and other rural areas knows this. You get out your phone, 

you need to make an emergency, like a 911 call, and you can’t get 

a signal. Especially for tribes in the far reaches of our State, where 

many of them currently live. For example, during last year’s cripVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
4 

pling snowstorms, it was difficult at times to get in contact with 

tribal elders at Fort Belknap who were snowed in. 

Broadband is also essential to other key aspects of civic life on 

and off Indian lands, including health care, education, two other 

areas where tribes need support, rather than continued obstacles. 

I know the FCC has been working on improving this arena, as Mr. 

Webre is going to discuss in his testimony. I thank the agency for 

some of its recent steps that are heading in the right direction. 

I would urge the FCC to continue its efforts to work more closely 

with tribes. If they want to be heard, sit down at the table, have 

back and forth conversations, so that we more accurately reflect 

broadband availability in tribal lands, especially in Montana. And 

more practically, to work more closely with tribes to support 

broadband deployment where it is needed most. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cantwell? 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to 

thank you for holding the hearing, and the fact that our colleagues 

sent this letter requesting these reports are so important to us. I 

know we are going to hear from our witnesses that the GAO report 

includes that tribal land in its coverages, inaccurate and incomplete, and that we need to do more about the affordability of services. 

We have had our own experience being successful at actually delivering broadband to Neah Bay to the Makah Tribe, and working 

together in partnership with various resources to do that. The fact 

that we were able to partner with existing resources I think shows 

the fact that a lot of coordination is needed if we are going to pull 

off access in some of these areas. 

So the fact that the report on broadband land reports locations 

where providers could potentially provide service but aren’t, I think 

we need to get this data and information to understand the difference between those. And that the GAO criticizes the FCC for not 

having a process to obtain formal, specific input, as my colleague 

from New Mexico mentioned, is also important. 

These are government-to-government relations. And we need to 

honor them. It is one of the reasons I will be drafting a broadband 

bill on Indian Country, specifically updating the Communications 

Act to clarify that the FCC’s mandate to promote universal service 

in the advanced communications across the Nation includes tribal 

lands. It will also include other provisions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. 

Are there any other opening statements? All right, hearing none, 

we will proceed with our witnesses. 

First, we have Mr. Mark Goldstein, Director, the Government Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., then we will hear from Mr. 

Patrick Webre, who is the Chief of Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission. Then Mr. 

Godfrey Enjady, President, National Tribal Telecommunications 

Association, Mescalero, New Mexico, and then Mr. Geoffrey 

5 

Blackwell, Chief Strategy Officer and General Counsel, Amerind 

Risk, Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico. 

I want to remind witnesses that your full written testimony will 

be made part of the official hearing record, so if you will please 

keep your opening statements to five minutes so that we have time 

for questions. We will start with you, Mr. Goldstein. 

STATEMENT OF MARK GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL 

INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, 

good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to discuss GAO’s 

recent work on issues related to tribal telecommunications. 

In September, 2018, GAO issued two reports examining challenges regarding broadband access on tribal lands. GAO examined 

broadband data mapping issues as well as partnerships and Federal funding issues. My testimony today is based on our issued reports. 

GAO’s findings are as follows: The FCC collects data on 

broadband availability from providers. But these data do not accurately capture broadband access on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC 

collects data on broadband availability. These data capture where 

providers may have broadband infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be available for an entire census block if the 

provider could serve at least one location in the census block. This 

leads to over-statements of service for specific locations like tribal 

lands. 

FCC, tribal stakeholders and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because 

FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access, the ability to obtain service on tribal 

lands. 

Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors 

such as affordability, quality and denials of service that FCC and 

tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent to which Americans 

living on tribal lands can access broadband services. Overstatements of access limit efforts to target broadband funding and some 

tribal officials stated that inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan broadband networks, and obtain funding to address 

broadband gaps. 

Third, FCC does not have a formal process to obtain tribal input 

on the accuracy of broadband data. About half of the tribal stakeholders GAO interviewed raised concerns that FCC relies solely on 

data from providers, and most stated that FCC should work with 

tribes to improve the data accuracy. 

GAO identified some partnership arrangements between tribes 

and other entities to increase broadband access on tribal lands. 

Among the seven examples GAO identified, tribes partnered with 

different types of entities, including private broadband providers, a 

community access network provider, an electric cooperative, a regional consortium, and tribally-owned broadband providers. Almost 

all the partnerships improved broadband service on tribal lands. 

FCC and the Rural Utilities Service are the primary sources of 

Federal funding to deploy broadband infrastructure where the cost 

6 

1GAO, Broadband Internet: FCC’s Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands, GAO–18–630 

(Washington D.C.: Sept. 7, 2018). 2GAO, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to 

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

28, 2018). GAO also has ongoing work related to spectrum use on tribal lands for this Committee, which will be issued later in 2018. 3 Broadband service may be ‘‘fixed’’—that is, providing service to a single location, such as a 

customer’s home—or ‘‘mobile,’’ that is, providing service wherever a customer has access to a 

mobile wireless network, including while on the move, through a mobile device, such as a 

smartphone. 4For the purposes of this testimony, we use the definition of ‘‘tribal lands’’ from FCC’s 2018 

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

Use Areas; (2) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation and associated off-reservation trust land; (3) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting 

of reservation only; (4) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of off-reservation trust land only; (5) Statistical American Indian area defined for a federally recognized tribe 

that does not have reservation or off-reservation trust land, specifically a Tribal Designated Statistical Area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA); (6) Alaskan Native village statistical area; and (7) Hawaiian Home Lands established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission 

Act of 1921. See 33 FCC Rcd 1660 (2018). 

of providing service is high, including on tribal lands. GAO reviewed funding for four programs, three in FCC and one grant program in RUS, and found that in total less than 1 percent has gone 

directly to tribes or tribally-owned broadband providers. GAO 

found that only 14 tribal entities received Federal funding from 

FCC and RUS to increase broadband deployment from 2010 to 

2017. 

Finally, GAO noted several barriers that the tribes face in obtaining Federal funding for broadband. Tribes face regulatory barriers in applying for RUS grant funding, including preparing existing proposed network designs, demonstrating financial sustainability of the broadband project within five years, and obtaining 

matching funds. Although RUS conducts some outreach with 

tribes, it has not undertaken a formal assessment to identify and 

address the regulatory barriers that tribes may face in obtaining 

funds for broadband. 

GAO made several recommendations to the FCC regarding 

broadband data mapping and a recommendation to RUS regarding 

challenges that tribes face in obtaining Federal funds to support 

broadband for unserved areas. 

Mr. Chairman, this completes my oral statement. I am happy to 

respond to questions from the Committee. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

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

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our September 2018 reports on the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) data regarding broadband access on tribal lands 1 and barriers tribes face in obtaining federal funding for broadband deployment. 2 Broadband infrastructure is critical for economic development, educational 

and job opportunities, and public health and safety. 3 However, residents of tribal 

lands continue to have lower levels of broadband access than other Americans. 4

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

funding to areas lacking broadband access, and FCC has identified the need to work 

with tribes to ensure such information is accurate for tribal lands. Currently, the 

primary source of information regarding where broadband is and is not available is 

the FCC, which collects this information from broadband providers. FCC collects 

this data by requiring that fixed and mobile broadband providers report on their 

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

this form to determine which areas qualify for broadband funding. 

7 

5Other federal programs can also be used to fund broadband deployment, including additional 

RUS programs. A list of funding resources is available at: https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/ 

funding-list. 6 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111–5, 123 Stat. 115, 118– 

119 (2009). 7GAO–18–630 and GAO–18–682. 

8These interviews included representatives from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned providers, including visits to 9 tribal lands, and 10 organizations that include tribal entities or work 

with tribes on broadband issues. 9GAO–18–630 

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

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

broadband availability because FCC’s Form 477 instructs fixed broadband providers to report 

fixed broadband deployment by submitting a list of census blocks in which the filer makes 

broadband connections available. 11 A ‘‘typical service interval’’ refers to the amount of time between when a customer requests 

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

One barrier to increasing access to broadband on tribal lands is the cost to providers of deploying infrastructure to tribal lands located in rugged, sparsely populated areas. In an attempt to address this and other issues, the federal government 

administers a number of programs to subsidize broadband deployment in areas in 

which the return on investment has not attracted private investment. For example, 

FCC administers the Connect America Fund-a Universal Service Fund programwhich provides subsidies to fixed and mobile providers of telecommunications and 

broadband services in rural, insular, and other remote areas where the cost of providing service is high. To be eligible to receive subsidies under the Connect America 

Fund, a provider must be designated an eligible telecommunications carrier. In addition, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has a current program and had a prior program and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 

had a prior program that provided funding to improve broadband service in 

unserved or underserved areas. 5 The RUS and NTIA prior programs were authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to expand high-speed Internet service in unserved areas, and there is no current funding 

for these programs. 6

My statement today discusses: (1) the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband availability data accurately captures the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to access broadband Internet services; (2) the extent to which 

FCC obtains tribal input on the data; (3) examples of partnership arrangements 

that tribal entities have used to increase broadband deployment on tribal lands; and 

(4) barriers that tribal entities face in obtaining federal funding for broadband deployment. This statement is based on two reports that we issued in September 

2018. 7 To perform the work for our report on FCC’s broadband data, we analyzed 

FCC’s broadband availability data for tribal lands as well as FCC’s processes for collecting and using those data. We interviewed FCC officials as well as a non-generalizable sample of tribal and industry stakeholders and reviewed relevant FCC rulemaking proceedings. 8 To perform the work for our report on tribal partnerships and 

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

and NTIA. We also interviewed FCC, RUS, and NTIA officials and a non-generalizable sample of representatives from tribal governments, tribally owned broadband 

providers, and tribal associations. More detailed information about our scope and 

methodology can be found in our reports. 

The work upon which this testimony is based was conducted in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

FCC’s Data Overstate Broadband Access on Tribal Lands 

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

FCC collects broadband availability data from broadband providers, but its method 

for collecting the data does not accurately or completely capture broadband access— 

the ability to obtain service—on tribal lands. 9 Specifically, FCC directs fixed 

broadband providers to submit a list of census blocks where service is available on 

their Form 477 filings. In the Form 477 instructions, FCC defines ‘‘available’’ 10 as whether the provider does—or could, within a typical service interval or without an 

extraordinary commitment of resources—provide service to at least one end-user 

premises in a census block. 11 Thus, in its annual reports and maps of fixed 

broadband service, FCC considers an entire block to be served if a provider reports 

that it does, or could offer, service to at least one household in the census block. 

As shown in figure 1, FCC’s definition of availability leads to overstatements of 

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

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

8 

12Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 

FCC Rcd 6329 (2017). 13 In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd 1660 (2018). 14FCC officials we interviewed stated that FCC has not defined the term ‘‘broadband access,’’ 

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

stakeholders have noted that broadband access can be affected by factors such as the affordability and quality of the broadband services being offered and the extent to which providers 

deny service to those who request it. For example, see 2016 Broadband Progress Report 31 FCC 

Rcd 699 § 62 (2016); FCC, National Broadband Plan; FCC, Strategic Plan 2018–2022. FCC officials also identified the cost of deployment and regulatory barriers as important factors when 

determining whether an area has access to broadband. 15GAO–18–630. 16FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Mar. 16, 2010). 

availability in blocks where they do not have any infrastructure connecting homes 

to their networks if the providers determine they could offer service to at least one 

household. FCC has noted that overstatements of availability can be particularly 

problematic in rural areas, where census blocks cover larger areas. 

According to FCC officials, FCC requires providers to report fixed broadband 

availability where they could provide service to: (1) ensure that it captures instances 

in which a provider has a network nearby but has not installed the last connection 

to the homes, and (2) identify where service is connected to homes, but homes have 

not subscribed. FCC officials also told us that FCC measures availability at the census block level because sub-census block data may be costly to collect. However, 

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

service, it is not possible to tell whether the provider would be unable or unwilling 

to take on additional subscribers in a census block it lists as served. 12 In addition, 

when reporting on broadband access in tribal lands, 13 FCC uses the broadband 

availability data described above, and does not collect information on factors that 

FCC and tribal stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access. 14 These factors include affordability, service quality, and service denials. 

By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting accurate 

and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be better 

able to target federal broadband funding to tribal areas that need it the most. We 

recommended FCC develop and implement methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands. FCC agreed 

with this recommendation and stated that it is exploring methods to collect more 

granular broadband deployment data. 

FCC Does Not Have a Formal Process to Obtain Tribal Input on its 

Broadband Data 

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

input from tribes on the accuracy of the data and tribal stakeholders can face difficulties obtaining information from providers. 15 FCC’s 2010 National Broadband 

Plan noted the need for the federal government to improve the quality of data regarding broadband on tribal lands and recommended that FCC work with tribes to 

ensure that any information collected is accurate and useful. 16 Although the Plan 

also noted that tribal representatives should have the opportunity to review mapping data and offer supplemental data or corrections, FCC lacks a formal process 

to obtain tribal input on its broadband data. FCC officials told us that they address 

questions and concerns regarding providers’ coverage claims submitted to FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy. However, about half of the tribal representatives 

we spoke to stated that they were not aware of the Form 477 data or corresponding 


103a1.eps
9 

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

Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011). 18Office of Native Affairs and Policy, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline Competition Bureau Issue Further Guidance on Tribal Government Engagement Obligation Provisions of the Connect America Fund, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 8176 (2012). 19GAO–18–682. 20GAO–18–682. 

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

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

work more directly with tribes to obtain information from them to improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband deployment data for tribal lands. These stakeholders identified several ways in which FCC could work with tribes on this issue, including onsite visits, increased outreach and technical training, and opportunities for tribes to 

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

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

efforts to build technical expertise with respect to broadband issues. A few of the 

stakeholders we interviewed noted that tribes have faced difficulties when they attempt to challenge FCC’s broadband availability data. For example, in 2013, all of 

the tribal entities that challenged FCC’s data on mobile service availability were unsuccessful in increasing the number of eligible areas. A few tribal stakeholders provided varying reasons for this, one of which was the need for more technical expertise to help the tribes meet FCC’s requirements regarding the information needed 

to support a challenge. Because FCC lacks a formal process to obtain tribal input 

on its broadband data, FCC is missing an important source of information regarding 

areas in which the data may overstate broadband service on tribal lands. 

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

of provider-submitted broadband data as recommended in the National Broadband 

Plan, FCC could help tribes develop and share locally-specific information on 

broadband access and improve FCC’s data for tribal lands. However, the success of 

such an effort may rely on the tribes’ knowledge of, and technical ability to participate in, the process. Thus, we recommended FCC develop a formal process to obtain 

tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process. FCC agreed 

with this recommendation and stated that it will work with stakeholders to explore 

options for implementing such a process. 

Finally, some tribes face challenges accessing data from providers. In 2011, FCC 

required that providers receiving funds to serve tribal lands meaningfully engage 

with the tribes and discuss broadband deployment planning. 17 In 2012, FCC issued 

guidance on meeting this requirement and stated that the guidance would evolve 

over time based on the feedback of both tribal governments and broadband providers. 18 However, FCC has taken limited steps to obtain such feedback and has 

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

raised concerns about difficulties accessing information from providers regarding 

broadband deployment on their tribe’s lands (which providers may consider proprietary), and some providers told us that they attempt to engage with tribes, but the 

level of responsiveness they receive from tribes varies. Thus, we recommended, and 

FCC agreed, that FCC obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers to determine whether it needs to clarify its tribal engagement guidance. 

Few Tribal Broadband Partnerships Exist 

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

arrangements between tribes and other entities to increase broadband deployment 

on tribal lands are not widespread. 19 Because of the greater costs associated with 

deploying broadband on unserved tribal lands that are generally rural, with possibly 

rugged terrain, there may be little to no private sector incentive to deploy 

broadband or enter into a partnership arrangement to do so. The partnership examples we identified were ones that obtained federal funding under past programs 

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

different types of entities, including private providers, a community access network 

provider, an electric cooperative, a regional consortium, and tribally owned providers. 

Tribes Face Barriers to Obtain Federal Funding for Broadband Deployment 

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

of federal funding to deploy broadband infrastructure in rural and remote areas 

where the cost of providing service is high, including tribal lands. 20 Based on our 

10 

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

and most representative American Indian and Alaska Native organization serving the broad interests of tribal governments and communities. 22Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104–104, § 706, 110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996). 

review of the funding provided by four federal programs targeted to increase deployment in unserved areas, very little has gone directly to tribes or to tribally owned 

broadband providers. Specifically, we found that from 2010 to 2017, less than 1 percent of FCC funding and about 14 percent of RUS funding went directly to tribes 

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

during that time period and tribes and tribally owned providers received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent. 

FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan stated that tribes needed substantially 

greater financial support than was available to them at the time and that accelerating tribal broadband deployment would require increased funding. Furthermore, 

the National Congress of American Indians expressed concerns that the needs for 

federally funded broadband projects are greater on tribal lands but tribes do not receive the appropriate share of federal funding aimed at increasing broadband deployment. 21 Several of the tribes we visited told us they were trying to deploy 

broadband infrastructure or offer service because the private providers were not 

building out on their lands. 

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

federal funding from FCC and RUS to increase broadband deployment (see fig. 2). 

The tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned broadband providers we 

interviewed cited several barriers that tribes may face when seeking federal funding 

for broadband deployment. The two primary barriers these interviewees cited were 

(1) the statutory requirement for the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation and (2) grant application requirements. Regarding the statutory requirement for ETC designation, FCC officials told us there were 11 tribes that have providers designated as ETCs and therefore would be eligible to receive support from 

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

broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas. Although FCC adopted 

rules in 2011 to create CAF and modernize the program so that it could support 

broadband capable networks, FCC officials told us that most ETCs are the telephone 

companies that were in existence when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted into law. 22 According to FCC officials, FCC has explored whether it has authority to allow non-ETC providers to receive CAF support payments but determined that the statute is clear that only ETCs can receive program support. Between 2012 and 2017, FCC officials said FCC received nine ETC applications, four 

of which were from tribally owned providers. Of those four, only one tribally owned 

provider was designated as an ETC. 

According to representatives from a tribal association we contacted, FCC has provided ETCs with billions of dollars to deploy service to unserved areas, but FCC’s 

efforts have not always been successful in the hardest to reach areas, particularly 


103a2.eps
11 

23The Broadband Opportunity Council was tasked with producing specific recommendations 

to increase broadband deployment, competition, and adoption through executive actions within 

the scope of agency programs, mission, and budgets. 

tribal lands. The representatives stated that FCC’s competitive market approach 

does not work where competition cannot be supported and that there needs to be 

a different approach. Similarly, tribal officials from Idaho told us that although the 

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

deployed broadband on the tribal lands. Other tribal officials from Idaho told us that 

although private providers received CAF subsidies to deploy broadband service to 

their reservation, the private providers told the tribe it would be years before they 

offer service on tribal lands. 

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

providers we interviewed said tribes may face barriers completing federal grant applications to obtain funding for broadband deployment. For example, they said tribes 

face regulatory barriers in applying for RUS’s grant funding, including preparing existing and proposed network design, demonstrating financial sustainability of the 

broadband project within 5 years, and obtaining matching funds. 

The National Broadband Plan recommended that federal agencies facilitate tribal 

access to broadband funding opportunities. Furthermore, recognizing the need to reduce barriers to expand broadband deployment, the Broadband Opportunity Council, established in March 2015, issued a memorandum stating that federal agencies 

should use all available and appropriate authorities to identify and address regulatory barriers that may unduly impede either broadband deployment or the infrastructure to augment broadband deployment. 23 However, according to RUS officials, 

RUS has not taken steps to identify or address the barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant funding due to limited resources and multiple competing priorities for those resources. We recommended that RUS identify any regulatory barriers that may unduly impede efforts by tribes to obtain RUS grant funds for 

broadband deployment on tribal lands and implement any steps necessary to address the identified barriers. By doing so, RUS could help tribes obtain funding to 

expand broadband deployment on tribal lands. RUS neither agreed nor disagreed 

with this recommendation. 

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

completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions 

that you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. Now we will hear 

from Mr. Webre. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK WEBRE, CHIEF, CONSUMER AND 

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS BUREAU, FEDERAL 

COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Mr. WEBRE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am 

Patrick Webre, Chief of the FCC’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, or CGB. CGB oversees the FCC’s rulemaking efforts 

regarding consumer policy issues, including disability rights, and 

administers the FCC’s consumer information, education and outreach programs. 

CGB also directs the FCC’s collaborative partnerships with an 

outreach to State, local and tribal governments and organizations. 

In 2010, the Commission established the Office of Native Affairs 

and Policy, ONAP, within CGB, to develop and implement policies 

for assisting Native communities and to ensure that Native concerns and voices are considered in all relevant Commission proceedings and initiatives. ONAP was also created to address the 

troubling and persistent digital divide keeping residents on tribal 

lands from accessing the benefits of broadband. 

12 

Establishment of ONAP within CGB has promoted administrative efficiencies, management oversight and synergies within the 

Bureau’s intergovernmental responsibilities, while providing a 

home for dedicated Commission staff with specialized experience to 

serve as official Commission liaisons for ongoing consultation, engagement and outreach to American Indian, Alaska Native village, 

Hawaiian Homelands and other Native communities. 

Most importantly, the creation of ONAP has fostered Commission dialogue and robust engagement with tribes, tribal governments and inter-tribal organizations. It has furthered the Commission’s trust relationship with tribal nations and demonstrated its 

ongoing commitment to its 2000 tribal policy statement. 

In 2018 alone, ONAP has facilitated over 90 forms of tribal outreach and engagement. Bringing the benefits of broadband to all 

Americans, and closing the digital divide, is the Commission’s top 

priority. The digital divide is all too real, especially in Indian Country, with more than 35 percent of tribal residents lacking any access to fixed broadband. 

That is why the Commission has taking several recent steps to 

promote USF high-cost support to these areas most in need, so that 

they can enjoy the same benefits as Americans with broadband 

connectivity. The Commission has long recognized the vexing challenges associated with deploying broadband infrastructure and providing services on tribal lands, and believes that accurate, comprehensive data are vital to the Commission’s efforts to bridge the 

digital divide. That is why the Commission has primarily relied on 

Form 477 data for a limited purpose: identifying the too-many census blocks where no internet service provider has deployed fixed 

broadband infrastructure, and thus the areas that unambiguously 

need Federal funding through the Connect American Fund to get 

broadband. 

The Commission is committed to helping those residents on tribal lands. Efforts are underway to ensure that we collect the best 

possible broadband data so that we can target support where it is 

needed most. First and foremost, to unserved areas, and next, to 

partially served areas. Chief among these is a rulemaking opened 

last year to explore ways to collect more granular data through 

Form 477 without unnecessarily burdening those deploying 

broadband on tribal lands who often have few resources to spare. 

The agency sought comment on many complex issues associate 

with revising its methodology. Staff are actively analyzing the various options for providing a more precise picture of broadband deployment on tribal lands. Relatedly, the Commission has also been 

charged by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 to conduct 

an assessment and report on the availability of broadband services 

in Indian Country. The Commission is further directed to conduct 

a rulemaking to address the unserved areas identified in the report. We have begun work on that effort and will work with tribal 

officials and stakeholders to develop a clear picture of broadband 

deployment on tribal lands and address unserved areas. 

The Commission also believes that tribal input on the accuracy 

of provider-submitted data is important. The Commission has a formal challenge process in place, for example, regarding the Mobility 

Fund Two option that allows tribes to challenge the results of the 

13 

1 Establishment of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy in the Consumer and Governmental 

Affairs Bureau, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11104 (2010). 2 Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000). 

initial data collection. While we also have informal processes in 

place, we agree, more can be done to obtain tribal feedback. 

To this end, earlier this year, the Commission announced the renewal of the Native Nations Communications Task Force, comprised of elected or appointed leaders from federally-recognized 

tribal governments and senior Commission staff. The Commission 

is currently selecting tribal members and hopes to announce the 

membership in its first meeting shortly. 

Among other things, the task force would provide the Commission guidance on identifying barriers to broadband deployment 

unique to tribal lands. We also plan to task the task force to recommend a process for obtaining tribal input on provider-submitted 

broadband data, as well as assisting the Commission in gathering 

tribal feedback on the effectiveness of the Commission’s tribal engagement guidance. 

Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Webre follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK WEBRE, CHIEF, CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENT

AFFAIRS BUREAU, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

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

you for the opportunity to testify today about the recently released GAO report on 

the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) collection and reporting of 

broadband data for Tribal lands. I’m Patrick Webre, Chief of the FCC’s Consumer 

and Governmental Affairs Bureau (CGB). 

Before addressing the report, I’d like to provide the Committee with a brief background on CGB and its work on Tribal matters. CGB oversees the FCC’s rulemaking efforts regarding consumer policy issues, including disability rights, and administers the FCC’s consumer information, education, and outreach programs to enhance the public’s understanding of telecommunications matters and compliance 

with the FCC’s regulatory requirements. CGB also directs the FCC’s collaborative 

partnerships with and outreach to state, local, and Tribal governments and organizations. CGB further manages the agency’s consumer complaints, inquiry processes, 

and call center operations. 

In 2010, the Commission established the Office of Native Affairs and Policy 

(ONAP) within CGB. In so doing, the Commission stated its expectation that ONAP 

would bring ‘‘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 

governmental 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.’’ 1

Establishment of ONAP within CGB has promoted administrative efficiencies, 

management oversight, and synergies with the Bureau’s intergovernmental responsibilities, while providing a home for dedicated Commission staff with specialized 

experience to serve as official Commission liaisons for ongoing consultation, engagement and outreach to the American Indian, Alaska Native Village, Hawaiian Homelands, and other Native communities. Most importantly, the creation of ONAP has 

fostered Commission dialogue and engagement with Tribes, Tribal governments, 

and inter-Tribal organizations, furthered the Commission’s trust relationship with 

Tribal Nations, and demonstrated its ongoing commitment to its 2000 Tribal Policy 

Statement. 2 In 2018 alone, ONAP has already facilitated over 90 forms of Tribal 

outreach and engagement. 

Also this year, the FCC announced the renewal of the Native Nations Communications Task Force. The Task Force will be comprised of elected or appointed leadVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
14 

3Public Notice, FCC Seeks Nominations for Tribal Government Representatives to Serve on Renewed FCC Native Nations Communications Task Force (DA 18–127) (rel. Feb. 8, 2018). 4Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program; Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; WC 

Docket 11–10 (2017). 5 Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, H.R. 1625, 115th Cong., Division P, RAY BAUM’S 

Act, § 508 (2018). 

ers from federally recognized Tribal governments and senior Commission staff. It is 

intended to provide the Commission guidance on such matters as identifying barriers to broadband deployment unique to Tribal lands and ensuring that Tribal concerns are considered in all Commission proceedings related to broadband and other 

Commission undertakings that affect Tribal interests. 3 The Commission is currently 

selecting Tribal members and hopes to announce its membership and first meeting 

in the near future. 

GAO Reports and FCC Response. The GAO released two reports on Tribal 

broadband last month. The first report, titled FCC’s Data Overstate Access on Tribal 

Lands, examined the FCC’s approach to collecting broadband availability data and 

obtaining Tribal input on the accuracy of that data for Tribal lands. This report, 

to which the FCC responded, contains three recommendations for the Commission, 

which I will address in this testimony. The GAO released a second report late last 

week entitled Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face. That report examined the use 

of partnership arrangements between Tribal entities and other entities and contains 

a recommendation for the Rural Utilities Service. The second report has no recommendations for the Commission. 

Bringing the benefits of broadband to all Americans is the Commission’s top priority. But that is not an easy task in many parts of this country, particularly Tribal 

lands. The Commission has long recognized the particular challenges associated 

with deploying broadband infrastructure and providing services on Tribal lands, and 

agrees with GAO that accurate, comprehensive data are vital to the Commission’s 

efforts to bridge the digital divide, including on Tribal lands. The digital divide is 

all too real, especially in Indian Country. That is why the Commission has primarily 

relied on Form 477 data for a limited purpose—identifying the too-many census 

blocks where ‘‘no’’ Internet service provider has deployed fixed broadband infrastructure, and thus the areas that unambiguously need federal funding through the Connect America Fund to get broadband. This divide is especially stark on Tribal lands, 

as GAO recognizes, with more than 35 percent of Tribal residents lacking ‘‘any’’ access to fixed broadband. 

The Commission already has efforts underway to ensure that we collect the best 

possible data and is working to address each of the three recommendations advanced by the GAO. 

Methods to Collect and Report Data on Broadband Access to Specific Tribal Lands. 

GAO’s first recommendation is that the FCC Chairman ‘‘develop and implement 

methods—such as targeted data collection—for collecting and reporting accurate and 

complete data on broadband access to specific tribal lands.’’ The Commission agrees 

with the importance of having access to quality data and has efforts underway to 

enhance its understanding of unserved Tribal areas through better data. More 

granular data will be needed in the future. As our policies help deliver broadband 

to wholly unserved blocks, it will be more important to understand availability in 

partially served blocks. 

For this reason, the Commission last year opened a rulemaking on this issue 4 and 

remains dedicated to moving forward with this proceeding, including exploring ways 

to collect more granular data without unnecessarily burdening those who are deploying on Tribal lands and often have few resources to spare. In that proceeding, 

the Commission sought comment on a wide variety of issues related to making the 

Form 477 collection as efficient and effective as possible. Recognizing the potential 

benefits of increasing the granularity of deployment data the Commission collects, 

the agency sought public input on many issues associated with revising its methodology. The Commission is currently analyzing the potential efficiencies, usefulness, 

and burdens associated with various options. If an appropriate method for such a 

collection can be identified, this may address many of the concerns GAO raises in 

its report by providing the Commission with a more precise picture of broadband 

deployment on Tribal lands. 

Also relevant to GAO’s first recommendation is the requirement in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 that the Commission conduct an assessment regarding the availability of broadband services in Indian Country and report on the 

results by March 23, 2019. 5 Based on the results of that assessment, the legislation 

directs the Commission to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to address the unserved 

15 

areas identified in the report. We have begun work on that effort and will work with 

Tribal officials and stakeholders to develop a clear picture of broadband deployment 

on Tribal lands and address unserved areas. 

Process to Obtain Tribal Input on Provider-Submitted Broadband Data. The report’s second recommendation is that the Chairman of the FCC ‘‘develop a process 

to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process.’’ 

The Commission agrees that Tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted 

broadband data is important. Indeed, the FCC currently has in place a number of 

informal means by which Tribal officials and stakeholders can raise any concerns. 

For example, Tribal officials can, and do, raise concerns and questions about the 

data to the Commission’s ONAP, which shares them with the relevant agency bureaus. 

In addition, the Commission has given Tribes a direct role in evaluating and challenging providers’ claims of service coverage in the ongoing Mobility Fund Phase II 

(MF–II) proceeding. ONAP and the Commission’s Rural Broadband Auctions Task 

Force have cooperated on a number of initiatives to make Tribal leaders and others 

aware of the challenge process for the Mobility Fund II auction eligible areas and 

the importance of participating in that process. These efforts have included sending 

information in emails to the leaders and IT managers of all 573 federally recognized 

Tribes; conducting outreach, including conference calls and webinars open to all 

Tribes; formal presentations at multiple inter-Tribal conferences around the country; and a session at a July 31 Tribal workshop conducted at the Lac du Flambeau 

Reservation in Wisconsin that was open to all Tribes. 

The Commission agrees that, in addition to these mechanisms, implementing a 

formal process for continuing Tribal engagement could have significant value in 

helping the FCC understand both the extent of, and the specific issues that drive 

or hinder, broadband deployment on Tribal lands. We plan on tasking the Native 

Nations Communications Task Force with recommending a process on this very 

issue. Our efforts to improve Tribal engagement will include doing even more to 

help Tribes participate in existing processes, through technical and other outreach, 

as well as looking for additional avenues and methods for receiving Tribal input on 

deployment issues. 

Feedback from Tribal Officials and Providers on Providers’ Tribal Engagement Requirements. Finally, the report recommends that the FCC Chairman ‘‘obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of the FCC’s 2012 

statement to providers on how to fulfill their tribal engagement requirements to determine whether the Commission needs to clarify its tribal engagement statement.’’ 

We agree that seeking additional feedback on the overall effectiveness of the 2012 

Tribal Engagement Further Guidance Public Notice is desirable. 

We note that ONAP solicits and receives feedback from Tribes on whether and 

how providers are fulfilling the requirements of the rule, the effectiveness of the 

Commission’s guidance, and any problems encountered in the engagement process. 

ONAP regularly includes presentations on the Tribal engagement obligation at its 

Tribal workshops, which it conducts at different locations around the country 

throughout the year. Additionally, ONAP solicits and receives feedback on the engagement requirements from Tribes and other participants at inter-Tribal conferences and similar events. As a result of feedback concerning the availability of 

compliance reporting, the Commission has made changes to its filing requirements, 

and Tribal Nations will soon be able to obtain providers’ reports on their Tribal engagement efforts directly through a Universal Service Administrative Company online portal. We will continue to seek additional informal and formal feedback from 

Tribal officials, as well as feedback from providers, regarding the effectiveness of the 

guidance provided by the Commission thus far on how providers may fulfill their 

Tribal engagement requirements. We also plan on asking the Native Nations Communications Task Force to assist the Commission in gathering Tribal feedback. 

In addition to these efforts, the Commission has been taking other important actions to help bring broadband to Tribal lands. In August, the Commission concluded 

the Connect America Phase II auction to allocate support for fixed broadband deployment to certain eligible rural areas across the United States. Our preliminary 

review shows that about 80,000 winning locations are in Tribal areas. In addition, 

we are currently planning for the Tribal Mobility Fund II auction, in which a portion of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction’s $4.5 billion budget will be dedicated 

to funding mobile coverage in Tribal lands. And earlier this year, in recognition of 

the unique challenges carriers on Tribal lands face, the Commission raised the limits on operational expenditures for carriers serving these areas. It is also my understanding that staff is considering a petition for reconsideration from Mescalero 

16 

Apache Telecom, Inc. related to this action which, if granted, would bring even more 

support to Tribal areas. 

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

thank you once again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Webre. Mr. Enjady? 

STATEMENT OF GODFREY ENJADY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

TRIBAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. ENJADY. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven and Ranking Member Udall, and members of the Committee. Thank you very much 

for this opportunity to testify to you today. 

I am Godfrey Enjady, General Manager of the Mescalero Apache 

Telecom, Incorporated, MATI, located in Mescalero, New Mexico. 

Today I testify as the President of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association, NTTA, which is comprised of nine 

tribally-owned and operated telecommunications companies that 

provide voice, broadband and other communications services to 

their communities. 

Members of NTTA represent only a small portion of the 573 

tribes recognized by the Federal Government today. While areas 

served by NTTA members may have better broadband access than 

much of Indian Country, we agree with the study’s conclusion that 

a vast majority of the tribal areas are lacking in or overstating 

broadband coverage. 

NTTA members provide services in what is considered rural and 

high-cost. This situation causes the average cost permit to substantially exceed the national average. 

NTTA members have a high percentage of its consumer base that 

qualifies for a life-long program, a very important element in affordability and adoption of broadband services. We support the 

adoption of an enhanced Lifeline credit for Native communities. 

The difficulties in serving remote, dispersed communities situated in hard to serve, tough terrain areas has been thoroughly 

highlighted in Congressional testimony and on the record at the 

FCC and RUS. They are also highlighted in the recent GAO study 

that we are discussing today. 

The GAO study acknowledges many of the barriers to access to 

broadband services on tribal lands. The main source of information 

regarding broadband availability is the National Broadband Map. 

As the GAO points out, this data has not been updated since 2015. 

NTTA members, as providers of broadband and telecom services 

to their communities, report access information to the FCC by filing a form 477. We do this twice a year. The form 477 filings are 

the FCC’s main tool for evaluating broadband coverage and performance throughout the United States, by using census blocks for 

fixed broadband providers and shapefiles for mobile providers. On 

one level, as a snapshot, it provides very useful information. However, all parties interested in robust broadband access need more 

granular and detailed information. The reliance on census block 

data is inadequate. 

I must emphasize a point made in the GAO study: the collection 

of more granular data or information will require more resources. 

Whether it be the FCC, the NTIA, or the RUS, more funding and 

17 

personnel will be needed. Congress has recently acknowledged this 

by providing NTIA with some additional funding for maps. As you 

know, tribes are in need of a lot of that. 

NTTA members also know that the need for more detailed datagathering and analysis will fall on us to provide these services. 

This is something that is needed desperately by tribes. I have firsthand experience that this takes many staff hours and stretches our 

funding even further. 

My company is currently working through the FCC process to dig 

deeper into the data that the form 477 provides for purposes of 

gathering and getting information and funding relief regarding 

operational expenses. The FCC’s Chairman Ajit Pai has questioned 

the wisdom of operational expense caps, and I encourage him and 

the rest of the Commission to continue to work with us to get a 

positive outcome in this current matter. 

The GAO study mentions two areas of data the FCC does not collect: affordability and quality of service. These are two very important aspects to the take rate of broadband service, especially in remote tribal communities. In many instances, the price of broadband 

access for many consumers is simply out of reach. Broadband accessibility is not a luxury, it is a necessity in today’s modern world. 

Low quality of service, experienced in many tribal communities, 

leads to frustration and less take rate by consumers. Outages, slow 

speed and high latency results in inefficiency and low productivity. 

This form of data collection must be addressed. 

The GAO study looks into the lack of engagement between tribal 

communities and the broadband providers that serve them. NTTA’s 

tribally-owned and operated communications providers are a part 

of their Native community. However, we do not see the need to improvement engagement between tribal entities, Federal, State and 

local governments and private business on many far-ranging 

issues. NTTA agrees with the study’s three recommendations: more 

targeted data collection, a formal process to obtain tribal input, and 

better engagement by all involved entities. 

In reference to the just-released GAO study regarding partnerships that states that, from 2010 to 2017, less than 1 percent of 

FCC funding and about 14 percent of RUS funding went directly 

to tribes and tribally-owned providers. Thank you, Senator Udall, 

for stating that earlier in his opening statement. This illustrates 

the need for funds that are targeted for use on tribal lands. 

More work needs to be done by all parties interested in this 

issue. We all share the worthy goal that consumers, no matter 

where they live or work, need accessible, robust and affordable 

broadband services to prosper and thrive in the modern and everevolving world economy. 

Thank you, sir, and I will be available for questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Enjady follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GODFREY ENJADY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRIBAL

TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

Chairman Hoeven, Ranking Member Udall and members of the Committee, thank 

you for this opportunity to testify today. I am Godfrey Enjady, General Manager of 

Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. (MATI) located in Mescalero, New Mexico. Today 

I testify as President of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association 

(NTTA), which is comprised of the nine Tribally-owned and operated telecommuniVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
18 

cations companies that provide voice, broadband and other communications services 

to their communities. Those companies are Cheyenne River Sioux Telephone Authority, Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc., Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., 

Hopi Telecommunications, Inc., Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc., Saddleback Communications, San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc., Tohono O’odham 

Utility Authority, and Warm Springs Telecom. The Nez Perce Tribe and Sacred 

Wind Communications are associate members. 

Members of NTTA represent only a small portion of the 573 Tribes recognized by 

the federal government. While areas served by NTTA members may have better 

broadband access than much of Indian Country, we agree with this study’s conclusion that a vast majority of Tribal areas are lacking in or overstating broadband 

coverage. 

Mescalero Apache Telecom serves the entirety of the Mescalero Apache Reservation located in the remote South Central Mountains of New Mexico. Prior to MATI 

purchasing its service area and building its network in 2001, 52 percent of the Mescalero Apache Tribe received no service, and 48 percent received only basic voice 

service. MATI provides services in what is considered a rural, high-cost area and 

serves an average population density of two customers per square mile. This situation causes the average cost per loop to substantially exceed the national average. 

MATI, like all NTTA members, has a high percentage of its consumer base that 

qualifies for the Lifeline program, a very important element in the affordability and 

adoption of broadband service. We support the adoption of an enhanced Lifeline 

credit for Native communities. 

I want thank members of this committee for your leadership on this issue. I also 

want to thank the staff at GAO for their knowledge and professionalism. I, along 

with other NTTA members, participated in interviews with GAO. We appreciate 

their work. 

The difficulties in serving remote, dispersed communities situated in hard to 

serve, rough terrain has been thoroughly illuminated in Congressional testimony 

and on the record at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and with 

USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS). They are also highlighted in the recent GAO 

study that we are discussing today (GAO–18–630). 

The September 2018 GAO study acknowledges many of the barriers to access to 

broadband services on Tribal lands that are primarily located in rugged, sparsely 

populated areas. The main source of information regarding broadband availability 

is the National Broadband Map. As the GAO points out, this data has not been updated since 2015. 

NTTA members, as providers of broadband and telecommunications services to 

their communities, report access information to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) by filing a Form 477. We do this twice a year. The Form 477 filings 

are the FCC’s main tool for evaluating broadband coverage and performance 

throughout the United States by using census blocks for fixed broadband providers 

and shapefiles for mobile providers. On one level, as a snapshot, it provides very 

useful information. However, all parties interested in robust broadband access need 

more granular and detailed information to decide policy issues, subsidization and investment levels, and the use of various technologies. 

I must emphasize a point made in the GAO study—the collection of more granular 

information will require more resources. Whether it be the Federal Communications 

Commission, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 

(NTIA) or the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, more funding and personnel will be 

needed. Congress has recently acknowledged this by providing NTIA with some additional funds for mapping. NTTA members also know that the need for more detailed data gathering and analysis will fall on us to provide. I have firsthand experience that this takes many staff hours and stretches our funding even further. In 

response to an Order released by the Commission earlier this year, my company is 

currently working through the FCC process to dig deeper into the data than the 

Form 477 provides for the purpose of getting funding relief regarding operational 

expenses (which are currently capped). FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has questioned the 

wisdom of the operational expense caps and I encourage him and the rest of the 

Commission to continue to work with us to get a positive outcome in this current 

matter. 

The GAO study mentions two areas of data the FCC does not collect, affordability 

and quality of service. These are two very important aspects to the take rate of 

broadband service, especially in remote Tribal communities. In many instances, the 

price for broadband access for many consumers is simply out of reach. Broadband 

accessibility is not a luxury; it is a necessity in today’s modern world. Low quality 

of service, experienced in many Tribal communities, leads to frustration and less 

19 

take rate by consumers. Outages, slow speeds and high latency results in inefficiency and lower productivity. This form of data collection must be addressed. 

The FCC is considering proposals to modify the Form 477 data collection. NTTA 

encourages the Commission to work quickly to formulate a final rule. 

The GAO study looks into the lack of engagement between Tribal communities 

and the broadband providers that serve them. That is not a problem in the communities served by NTTA members. NTTA’s Tribally-owned and operated communications providers are a part of their Native community. However, we do see the need 

to improve engagement between Tribal entities, federal, state and local governments, and private businesses on many far ranging issues (rights-of-way, easements, pole and tower siting, etc.). 

NTTA agrees with the study’s three recommendations: more targeted data collection, a formal process to obtain Tribal input (including outreach and technical assistance), and better engagement by all involved entities. 

In reference to the just released GAO study (GAO–18–682) regarding partnerships, NTTA wants to stress the information on page 16 of the document—’’Specifically, from 2010 to 2017, we found that less than 1 percent of FCC funding and 

about 14 percent of RUS funding went directly to tribes and tribally owned providers. Combined, FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6 billion during that time period and tribes and tribally owned providers received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent.’’ This illustrates the need for funds that are targeted for use on Tribal lands. 

More work needs to be done by all parties interested in this issue. We all share 

the worthy goal that consumers, no matter where they live or work, need accessible, 

robust and affordable broadband services to prosper and thrive in the modern and 

ever evolving world economy. 

Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Blackwell. 

STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY C. BLACKWELL, CHIEF STRATEGY 

OFFICER/GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERIND RISK MANAGEMENT 

CORPORATION 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall and 

members of the Committee, [greeting in Native tongue], and thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today about the recently-released 

GAO reports. 

As you know, I testified before this Committee twice, as the first 

chief of the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy. Having returned to work in Indian Country, it is my honor to appear again 

today in the spirit of the trust relationship. 

AMERIND is located on the Pueblo of Santa Ana, and it is a 32- 

year old tribally-owned and federally-chartered Section 17 corporation. AMERIND is one of the few multi-tribal financial institutions. 

We support economic opportunity across Indian Country by protecting tribal housing, tribal governments, businesses, and work 

forces. We even provide cyber security protection. 

With the vision of tribes protecting tribes, AMERIND protects almost $14 billion in tribal properties. We serve hundreds of tribes, 

and we know Indian Country. Because we know a vast majority of 

Indian Country lacks broadband, almost three years ago our board 

of directors created AMERIND Critical Infrastructure, our division 

that provides strategic planning for tribal broadband deployment, 

subsidy grant and loan application management, and regulatory 

compliance. 

In the context of these GAO studies, I am here today with 

thoughts on three topics: tribal broadband data, tribal government 

engagement and broadband partnerships. First, the data. Developing data-driven solutions has long been the mantra of government to solve the digital divide. With this in mind and in the conVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
20 

text of these GAO reports, the FCC’s most recent numbers are 

alarming in how they overstate the levels of broadband on tribal 

lands. The accuracy of the data is questionable and does not reflect 

reality. 

Furthermore, the manner in which deployment is measured is 

not based on actual deployment, but on potential deployment, 

which is meaningless if it cannot be achieved. And broadband deployment on tribal lands is affected by additional factors not currently taken into account, such as affordability. 

I have been fortunate to set foot in over 200 Indian reservations, 

many Alaska Native villages and many Hawaiian Homesteads. My 

experience tells me that the data is not the reality. While there 

have been incremental and important improvements, we still have 

much work to do. 

Polices and rules should not be created in a vacuum, but must 

be rooted in the real world experience and analysis. Indian Country 

stands ready to work with the FCC to determine a process that will 

collect and clarify the data, and create a reliable path forward for 

mapping legislative and regulatory solutions. 

Second, tribal government engagement. The best approach to developing comprehensive broadband solutions is to work together to 

remove barriers and build models with tribal nations that engage 

their core community and anchor institutions. Data will paint a 

picture, but the parties need to genuinely discuss what is happening on the ground. 

It was upon this foundation that the FCC adopted a tribal government engagement obligation in 2011. However, it has not met 

its intended potential. Tribal leaders relay that the data that carriers provide is often heavily redacted or comes with the unforeseen 

requirement of a non-disclosure agreement. As a result, tribes do 

not have the opportunity afforded them in the rules to review data 

about their own lands before it is used to make decisions regarding 

Federal funding and policy priorities. 

Several years of data and experience is now available, and Indian Country is ready to work with the FCC to evaluate compliance 

and develop best practices. This will require a deep commitment to 

substantive consultation with tribal nations. The FCC’s Office of 

Native Affairs and Policy is the vehicle designed to drive this effort 

to bring the parties together, evaluate challenges and needs, and 

help develop regulatory solutions. 

Third, broadband partnerships in Indian Country. Regulatory solutions that have seen success in the past two decades have necessarily created more recalcitrant streams of the digital divide, 

where those regulations have not driven deployment. The thesis 

here is simple: put more of those precious dollars where they are 

truly needed, and make them more effective. We should stop doing 

things that are antithetical. 

Many tribal nations recognize that they may be the only ones 

willing to take on the debt to bring partnerships and robust 

broadband to their communities. There are few but important examples of tribally-provided networks, including tribal telcos, wireless networks and the two tribally-owned fiber networks in New 

Mexico that provide hope, a foundation and potential models upon 

which to build. 

21 

In conclusion, the pervasive lack of broadband access prevents 

residents of tribal lands from accessing information and services 

critical in the 21st century. The FCC is obligated to open the door 

for every citizen to become part of the digital future of our Country, 

and to ensure that tribal nations enjoy a secure and enduring place 

in that future. Tribal nations need digital equity, and want to work 

together as trust partners to make broadband deployment a reality. 

Because however precious Federal funds are targeted, rules are developed and definitions are created, they must be rooted in the reality of Indian Country. 

Mvto, thank you, and I look forward to whatever questions you 

may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY C. BLACKWELL, CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER/ 

GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERIND RISK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION

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

you for the opportunity to testify today about the recently released GAO reports on 

the state of broadband on Tribal lands. 

As you know, I testified before this Committee twice during my tenure as the 

founding Chief of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Office of Native 

Affairs and Policy. Having returned to work in Indian Country, it is my pleasure 

to appear before you again today. I am here again in the spirit of the unique trust 

relationship that Tribal Nations share with the United States federal government, 

and again from the Tribal side of that important relationship. 

I work as the Chief Strategy Officer and General Counsel of AMERIND Risk 

Management Corporation (‘‘AMERIND Risk’’). AMERIND Risk, located on the Pueblo of Santa Ana, is a federally chartered and Tribally-owned corporation, organized 

and incorporated by the United States Department of Interior under Section 17 of 

the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. § 5124, as amended, and has certain powers, privileges, and immunities granted by that statute. 

AMERIND was created in 1986 to address the housing crisis and the inability of 

Tribal Nations to secure insurance for their housing on the open market. Today, 

AMERIND Risk does business across seven business lines, with hundreds of Tribes 

and Tribal businesses, in 38 states. AMERIND Risk generates and supports economic development across Indian Country by offering insurance products for Tribal 

housing, Tribal governments and businesses, and Tribal workers compensation, for 

example, and living up to its motto of Tribes Protecting Tribes. 

AMERIND Risk now protects almost $14 billion in Tribal physical infrastructures—homes, headquarters buildings, and other structures. A vast majority of 

these structures are on the wrong side of the digital divide. So, almost three years 

ago, in an effort both to diversify business and to ‘‘give back’’ to Indian Country, 

the AMERIND Risk Board of Directors created AMERIND Critical Infrastructure 

(‘‘ACI’’). With ACI’s motto of Tribes Bringing Tribes Broadband, this 

groundbreaking division provides a wide range of services across Indian Country, 

including strategic planning for sovereign Tribal broadband deployment; broadband 

subsidy, grant, and loan application management; regulatory management and compliance; and social impact funding. 

AMERIND Risk is also making investments in Indian Country. In 2018, our 

Board of Directors made a multi-million dollar loan to the First Nations Oweesta 

Corporation (‘‘Oweesta’’) for Tribal projects. The Board’s investment will allow 

Oweesta to leverage larger amounts of lending capital for Native Community Development Financial Institutions, or CDFIs. Our intention with this investment is to 

see it magnified many times to fund housing and all manners of infrastructure in 

Indian Country. 

I also serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Native Public Media; CoChair of the National Congress of American Indians’ (NCAI) Economic, Finance and 

Community Development Committee; Co-Chair of NCAI’s Telecommunications and 

Technology Subcommittee; and Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors of Arizona 

State University’s American Indian Policy Institute. 

While there has been incremental improvement in recent years, residents of Tribal lands continue to disproportionately lack access to broadband. Beginning in 2015, 

the FCC defined a benchmark speed of 25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream (25/ 

22 

1 Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN Docket No. 17-199, 2018 Broadband Deployment 

Report, 33 FCC Rcd 1660 (2018) (2018 Broadband Deployment Report). 

3) as necessary to support the ‘‘advanced telecommunications capability’’ that Congress identified in Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Yet, according to the Commission’s 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 1 released in February, 

Tribal lands continue to be left far behind from receiving these advanced services 

envisioned by Congress. For example, 36 percent of residents on Tribal lands lack 

access to fixed broadband service at the benchmark speed of 25/3, as compared to 

7 percent nationwide. And the disparity grows even more striking on Tribal lands 

in rural areas, where 59 percent of residents lack access to what has become the 

high-speed Internet lifeblood of our 21st century economy, educational opportunities, 

health care, and public safety. 

A more detailed breakdown of the FCC’s most recent data on the state of 

broadband access in different regions of Indian Country is provided below. 

Deployment (Ten Thousands) on Tribal Lands with Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/ 

3 Mbps Services and Mobile LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps 

2012 Pop. and 

% 

2013 Pop. and 

% 

2014 Pop. and 

% 

2015 Pop. and 

% 

2016 Pop. and 

% 

All Tribal Lands 111.653— 

28.8% 

138.505— 

35.5% 

221.177— 

56.2% 

225.788— 

57.0% 

254.954— 

63.9% 

Rural Areas 14.228—7.2 28.306—14.1 59.658—29.5 61.377—30.1 84.452—40.9 

Urban Areas 97.425—51.5 110.198— 

57.9 

161.519— 

84.5 

164.412— 

85.6 

170.502— 

88.5 

Alaskan Villages 0.022—0.1% 7.126— 

28.2% 

11.329— 

44.4% 

11.027— 

42.7% 

13.483— 

51.5% 

Rural Areas 0.013—0.1 2.113—13.1 4.214—25.8 3.920—23.7 6.096—36.2 

Urban Areas 0.010—0.1 5.013—54.9 7.115—77.4 7.107—76.7 7.387—79.0 

Hawaiian Homelands 2.850— 

89.8% 

2.924— 

90.6% 

3.169— 

96.9% 

2.955— 

88.9% 

2.961— 

88.6% 

Rural Areas 0.250—50.9 0.235—45.0 0.455—83.0 0.246—43.9 0.250—43.5 

Urban Areas 2.600—96.9 2.688—99.4 2.715—99.8 2.709—98.0 2.711—98.0 

Lower 48 States 21.111— 

19.9% 

32.069— 

30.0% 

41.861— 

38.8% 

45.187— 

41.5% 

49.278— 

44.6% 

Rural Areas 5.680—8.1 13.364—18.9 18.512—25.8 20.668—28.4 23.360—31.6 

Urban Areas 15.432—43.0 18.705—51.9 23.349—64.8 24.519—67.8 25.918—71.2 

Tribal Statistical 

Areas 87.669— 

34.6% 

96.386— 

37.8% 

164.818— 

64.2% 

166.619— 

64.5% 

189.232— 

73.0% 

Rural Areas 8.285—7.4 12.594—11.2 36.477—32.1 36.542—32.0 54.746—47.6 

Urban Areas 79.384—56.1 83.793—58.8 128.341— 

89.7 

130.077— 

90.3 

134.486— 

93.3 

Pop. Evaluated 387.603— 

100% 

390.508— 

100% 

393.310— 

100% 

396.401— 

100% 

399.114— 

100% 

Source: 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, Table 5 

While these numbers are alarming, taking into account the most recent GAO 

study on the matter, they grossly overstate the levels of broadband access on Tribal 

lands. The accuracy and reliability of the data itself is questionable. The FCC Form 

477 data, from which these statistics were generated, is carrier-reported data that 

receives some review by the FCC and no review by Tribal governments. Moreover, 

the manner in which deployment is measured is not necessarily based on actual deployment but, in many instances, on potential deployment. That potential is meaningless if it cannot be achieved, and the achievement of broadband deployment on 

Tribal lands is importantly related to additional factors not currently taken into account. This current approach results in a skewed and overstated depiction of 

broadband deployment in Indian Country. 

And these statistics paint only part of the picture—behind them lurks a stark reality. In my life and career, I have been fortunate to set foot on over 200 federal 

Indian reservations nationwide, on dozens of Alaska Native Villages, and on Hawai 

’ian Homesteads throughout the Hawai’ian Islands—and my experiences are that 

the data simply does not reflect the reality. A potential service offering to as little 

23 

as one household within a census block or tract does not equate to deployment, and 

therefore does not reflect the reality of the digital divide in Indian Country. Plain 

and simple. The data must be improved and Tribal Nations are more than willing 

to help. 

Tribal lands continue to suffer from the historical negative impacts of how, when, 

and where they were created. Aspects of this history resulted in an endemic lack 

of critical infrastructures, which persists today. In fact, almost no critical infrastructure has come to Tribal lands without federal investment, oversight, and regulation. 

Broadband opportunities can do much to overcome this negative history by bringing 

health care, education, jobs, and the opportunities of hope to Indian Country. But 

broadband must be available, accessible, and affordable to meet its promise. 

It was in the context of the persistent disparity in communications services on 

Tribal lands that GAO initiated a series of engagements on the persistent challenges facing broadband deployment across Indian Country. The first GAO report, 

entitled ‘‘Broadband Internet: FCC’s Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands,’’ was 

released on September 7, 2018, and examines issues associated with carrier-provided data measuring broadband access on Tribal lands and its impact on 

broadband deployment across Indian Country. The second GAO report, entitled 

‘‘Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address and Funding Barriers Tribes Face,’’ was released on September 28th and examines the use of partnership arrangements between Tribal entities—Tribal governments and telecommunications providers owned by Tribes—and other entities, and 

their impact on broadband funding and deployment across Indian Country. 

Broadband Deployment Data on Tribal Lands 

Again, the current FCC data on broadband availability on Tribal lands does not 

reflect the reality of Indian Country. While there has been incremental improvement in broadband access in Indian Country, we still have much to do. Indian Country stands ready to help all those that will be involved in a process that will collect 

and clarify the data, and create a reliable path forward for mapping legislative, regulatory, and on the ground projects. Data driven solutions have been the mantra 

of governments—federal, state, and Tribal—throughout the enduring lifespan of the 

digital divide. 

This is as true today as it was in 2011, when this Committee articulated this 

same concern and when I had the privilege of testifying before you in my previous 

role as Chief of the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy. I relayed at that time 

that a major concern of Tribal leaders involved the accurate measurement of the actual state of broadband availability on Tribal lands—specifically, the depth and accuracy of the data on the state of services on their lands. I described the 2011 Native American Summit in Salt Lake City, during which my staff and I witnessed 

representatives of the Goshute Confederated Tribes explain to the Utah broadband 

mapping manager that the gross overestimation of wireless broadband coverage on 

the Goshute Reservation actually precluded the Tribe from applying for federal 

grants and loans for a Tribal project that would address their lack of services. 

And this was not an isolated incident, but rather stands as but one example of 

many about which I learned first-hand during my tenure at the FCC and continue 

to learn now that I have returned to work in Indian Country. This is a cycle that 

can—and must—be changed if the goal of universal broadband across Tribal lands 

is to be realized. Comprehensive Tribal-specific, quantifiable, accurate, and reliable 

data is the predicate upon which investment—be it federal, Tribal, state, or private—depends. And it is also the foundation upon which universal broadband deployment across Tribal lands will be realized. 

How will this be accomplished? As this Committee understands so well, there is 

no ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach in Indian Country. Rather, ‘‘one size fits none’’ is a 

more accurate characterization, which is why data specific to individual Tribal lands 

is so very critical. And, as reflected in GAO’s Tribal broadband data recommendations, this will require both a dedicated process to collect broadband data specific 

to Tribal lands and a dedicated process to substantively involve Tribal Nations in 

the review of carrier-reported data. These processes are two sides of the same coin 

and, in many ways, interrelated. That is, both processes share the same goal—the 

collection of comprehensive and accurate data reflecting the actual state of 

broadband on Tribal lands. They are also inherent in the FCC’s trust relationship 

with Tribal Nations and are a critical component of the agency’s 2000 Tribal Policy 

24 

2See Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000) (Tribal Policy Statement). 3TRACI L. MORRIS, NATIVE PUBLIC MEDIA, & SASCHA D. MEINRATH, NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION, NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNET USE IN INDIAN COUNTRY (2009) (NPM/NAF New Media Study). 4TRACI MORRIS & BRIAN HOWARD, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY INSTITUTE, TRIBAL TECHOLONGY ASSESSMENT: THE STATE OF INTERNET SERVICES ON TRIBAL LANDS (release pending) (Tribal Technology Assessment). 5See Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663,17868-69, para. 637 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), aff’d sub nom. In re: FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014). 

Statement. 2 And both processes will require substantive Tribal government involvement and the full support, cooperation, and partnership of the federal government. 

This is not an easy task—but bridging the digital divide in Indian Country has 

certainly proven to be far from an easy task. Partnerships, policies, and rules are 

not created in a vacuum, but instead are rooted in real world experience and analysis. Indian Country stands ready to work in partnership with the FCC to determine the best approaches, the best vehicles, and the most culturally appropriate 

ways in which to collect this critical data. 

And there is something important here to understand about the data, to ensure 

that it is meaningful. Data on the digital divide in Indian Country must take into 

account everything—every condition—that contributes to it. In addition to the census blocks that take into account remoteness or terrain, Indian Country data must 

also account for the factors that contribute to adoption, such as affordability and 

availability. The thesis here is simple—get more broadband deployment where it is 

needed. Make resources effective and available, so that broadband offerings are affordable and available. We all need to coordinate on things that comport with that 

thesis—and stop doing things that are antithetical. 

I would like to share with you two examples of comprehensive quantitative and 

qualitative Tribal broadband studies produced in recent years. Both studies focused 

on deployment (accessibility) and adoption (uses) of broadband in Indian Country. 

The first study, released in 2009, is entitled ‘‘New Media, Technology and Internet 

Use: Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses’’ and was produced by Native Public 

Media and the New America Foundation. 3 It was the first study of its kind, and 

contained groundbreaking data on the state of broadband in Indian County. The second study, due to be released shortly, is entitled ‘‘Tribal Technology Assessment: 

The State of Internet Service on Tribal Lands’’ and is produced by the American 

Indian Policy Institute of Arizona State University. 4 This is an update on the 2009 

study, and both studies are Tribal-centric and contain compelling data on the deployment and adoption of broadband in Tribal communities. Both studies confirm 

that quantifiable, accurate, and reliable Tribal-specific broadband data can be collected, compiled, and analyzed—in other words, it can be done. Improving Indian 

Country’s broadband data can be done, and it must be done. 

The FCC’s Tribal Government Engagement Obligation 

As I stated when I testified before this Committee in 2011, Tribal engagement is 

a critical component of broadband deployment. That concept is as true today as it 

was in 2011. The best approach to developing and coordinating well thought-out solutions is to work together to identify and remove barriers to solutions and build 

models with Tribal Nations that engage their core community or anchor institutions. 

As Tribes govern with a unique understanding of their communities, their vested 

and active involvement is critically important to finding lasting solutions in their 

communities. Tribal Nations need to be at the center of those solutions, whether it 

is through self-provisioning or through other new ‘‘Tribal-centric’’ methods of engagement and deployment with industry, public, or private partners. These models 

must respect the cultural values and sovereign priorities of Tribal Nations and be 

infused with the local knowledge that will lead to better opportunities for successful 

deployment in Tribal communities. 

It was upon this foundation that the FCC adopted a Tribal government engagement obligation in 2011, as part of the reform of the universal service High-Cost 

program and the transition to the Connect America Fund (CAF). 5 The FCC agreed 

with commenters that engagement between Tribal governments and communications providers is vitally important to the successful deployment and provision of 

service on Tribal lands. The FCC therefore required, at a minimum, that eligible 

telecommunications carriers (‘‘ETC’’) demonstrate on an annual basis that they have 

meaningfully engaged with Tribal governments in their universal service supported 

areas, and that such discussions must include, at a minimum: 

25 

• A needs assessment and deployment planning with a focus on Tribal community 

anchor institutions; 

• Feasibility and sustainability planning; 

• Marketing services in a culturally sensitive manner; 

• Rights of way processes, land use permitting, facilities siting, and environmental and cultural preservation processes; and 

• Compliance with Tribal business and licensing requirements. 

In addition, also in the context of High-Cost/CAF reform, the FCC required ETCs 

to provide a wide range of data on telecommunications and broadband services and 

deployment to the FCC, state commissions, the Universal Service Administrative 

Company (USAC), and Tribal governments. 

It is fair to say that the Tribal government engagement obligation has not lived 

up to its intended potential. While some providers have taken the obligation seriously, many more have viewed it as a ‘‘check the box’’ requirement for the receipt 

of millions of dollars in universal service funding. Both during and since my tenure 

at the FCC, Tribal leaders have relayed innumerable situations in which they simply receive a template letter once a year from their providers as their sole effort 

to comply with the Tribal government engagement obligation. 

Perhaps even more disturbing, Tribal leaders have relayed that the data ETCs 

are required to provide to them annually more often than not is heavily redacted 

and, as a result, unintelligible. This is data about service on their own Tribal lands. 

In other instances, Tribal leaders are presented with non-disclosure agreements 

with the demand that they be signed if the Tribes want access to their own 

broadband data. There is no provision in the FCC’s rules that allows these practices, 

yet they continue nonetheless. As a result, not only do Tribes not have the opportunity to substantively review data before it is used to make decisions with respect 

to federal funding and policy priorities, they are, in many instances, not even given 

the opportunity afforded them in the FCC’s rules to review data about service on 

their own lands. 

Now that several years’ worth of data and experience is available, it is time to 

seriously evaluate compliance and develop best practices going forward. These processes will require substantive consultation with Tribal Nations pursuant to the 

FCC’s trust relationship with Tribes. They will also require a deep commitment 

from all parties involved, including providers, Tribal Nations, inter-Tribal organizations, and the FCC—all with the shared goal of making broadband universally 

available across Indian Country. 

Partnerships 

Regulatory investment solutions that have seen incremental success in the past 

two decades have also created more recalcitrant strains of the digital divide in areas 

where those regulatory solutions have not driven deployment and adoption. Many 

Tribal Nations recognize the reality that they are part of the solution not only for 

achieving good data on broadband access, but also part of the solution in Triballydriven projects that will bring connectivity to their communities. In an environment 

where few outside and non-Tribal entities are willing to make the investment and 

confront the potential debts of deploying on Tribal lands, Tribes themselves are confronting the challenges and opportunities of becoming their own providers—in whatever form that may take. 

Tribal Nations are having to analyze the ‘‘ownership economics’’ of their own 

projects that would bring broadband to their own corners of Indian Country. Those 

who are willing to take on the challenge and face the debts as de facto providers 

of last resort need help. They need all of our help. It is high time that everyone 

involved in this challenge acknowledge this reality and the potential of Tribal 

projects developed by Tribal Nations. 

AMERIND is located on the Pueblo of Santa Ana, in north central New Mexico 

about 30 miles from Albuquerque, the state’s largest city. We only received 

broadband service within the last couple of years when a water project nearby 

brought fiber down the road adjacent to our building. This is an all too common occurrence on Tribal lands, and is exacerbated in the most remote parts of Indian 

Country. Often the incumbent’s fiber is just across the road from Tribal lands—or 

is even running across Tribal lands—and yet the incumbent will not provide service 

to the Tribe. 

This is the very situation facing many of the Tribes in New Mexico. Knowing that 

there was strength in numbers and that incumbents and other providers would 

never provide the level of service that the Tribes both wanted and needed, two separate consortia formed to leverage the federal E-rate program and finally bring 

broadband to Tribal schools and libraries on six Pueblos. With the expertise, guidVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
26 

ance, and advocacy of the ACI team, the two Tribal consortia secured almost $8 million in federal E-rate subsidy dollars to bring Tribally-owned fiber networks to their 

Pueblo communities. 

Together, the Middle Rio Grande E-rate Consortium—comprised of the Santa 

Ana, San Felipe, Santo Domingo, and Cochiti Pueblos—and the Jemez-Zia E-rate 

Consortium—comprised of the Jemez and Zia Pueblos—built 60 miles of Tribally 

owned and controlled fiber at a 95 percent discount afforded by the E-rate program. 

These networks are now providing a dramatic increase in broadband speeds (from 

3 Mbps to 100 Mbps and beyond) and an equally dramatic decrease in cost (from 

over $100 per megabit per month to less than $7 per megabit per month)—all for 

the benefit of Tribal schools and libraries. Both networks were ‘‘lit,’’ or operational, 

in the summer of 2018. 

These two first of their kind Tribal projects represent what can be done to bring 

broadband to communities in Indian Country through effective partnerships. Such 

efforts are few and far between now, but these partnerships provide hope, a foundation, and a potential model upon which to build. 

In conclusion, the ubiquitous lack of access to broadband services over Tribal 

lands continues to create a divide preventing residents of Tribal lands from accessing information and services critical to our 21st century economy. Community-oriented and truly effective deployment of communications technologies within Indian 

Country, however, has the potential to level the negative social, cultural, and economic impacts that history has caused Tribal Nations to endure. New commercial, 

educational, and health care opportunities, as well as social stability and quality of 

life issues, can genuinely be improved through broadband. And most importantly, 

extending broadband across Indian Country will achieve a more equal opportunity 

for all Americans—opening the door for every citizen to become a part of the digital 

future of our country and ensuring that Tribal Nations enjoy a secure and enduring 

place in that future. 

The FCC is obligated to undertake this effort pursuant to its mandate in the Communications Act that ‘‘access to advanced telecommunications and advanced services 

should be provided to all regions of the Nation.’’ They are also obligated to undertake this effort pursuant to the trust relationship and trust responsibility they share 

with Tribal Nations. They owe this effort to consumers nationwide, who pay for the 

universal service subsidy programs. But most of all, they owe it to Tribal Nations, 

who have waited so very long for digital equity and stand ready to work together 

as equal partners, pursuant to their trust relationship with the federal government, 

to finally make it a reality. Because, however precious federal funds are targeted, 

rules are developed, and definitions are created, they must be rooted in the reality 

of Indian Country. 

Mvto, and thank you again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I look forward to answering any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to thank all our witnesses. I will 

start with the first five-minute round of questions. 

Director Goldstein, in both reports, the GAO recommends improvements to data collection. For example, the GAO suggests the 

Chairman of the FCC develop a formal process to obtain tribal 

input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data and 

provide outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate 

in that evaluation. 

Can you talk to us about how this lack of information has had 

a negative impact on the tribal communities? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In our discussion with providers as well as the tribes, we found that the lack of, and FCC 

agrees to some extent as well, that the lack of data has several implications that are negative for tribal lands. The first is, of course, 

that there is no assurance that there is any accuracy or completeness in the information itself, that maps tribal broadband. So it is 

impossible to know with any assurance whether tribes have full access to broadband. 

In our discussions with tribes to complete these reports, almost 

every single tribe we talked with said that the FCC data and the 

maps did not at all reflect what they believe the experience and reVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
27 

ality to be on their land. This is equally important, not just to understand progress being made in Indian Country to improve 

broadband and to close the digital divide, it is also important because much of the funding that comes from the Federal Government, from the FCC and RUS and others, is based on the accuracy 

of these maps and whether or not there are funds that would be 

made available. Those are based in large part on these maps as 

well, and tribes have found that they cannot get funding in many 

instances, because the data is inaccurate and therefore, their ability to obtain funding is rejected. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Webre, the GAO report on mapping and data questions shows that the FCC’s method for collecting 

data collection results is an overstatement of broadband service 

and access in both rural and tribal communities. This inaccuracy 

prevents the Commission from directing Federal funding opportunities to places that need it most. So how does the FCC plan to revise 

the process to collect more accurate and detailed data? 

Mr. WEBRE. Thank you, Senator. We understand that there is 

room for improvement. We have an ongoing proceeding that’s currently ongoing, it’s been going on for a year now. Chairman Pai announced it last year, in an attempt to get better, more accurate 

data, more comprehensive data, so that we can do a better job of 

funding areas that are truly unserved. 

There are some technical issues that we would have to overcome 

to get more granular data, sub-census raw data, incur some technical issues that we have to work through. There are also some 

burdens, additional burdens that may be put on the providers who 

are providing this service, some of whom are very small providers 

and who have limited resources. 

So we have to take all of those things into account. But the 

Chairman is very focused on this proceeding, and also on the fact 

that we do need better data. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that includes engagement with tribal government? 

Mr. WEBRE. Absolutely. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Enjady, as a provider how would the National Tribal Telecommunications Association modify the provider 

data collection process to obtain more detailed broadband access 

data? So how do we make sure we get that better data? 

Mr. ENJADY. Well, obviously we are going through a proceeding 

at the FCC on some op-ex relief. So we have been going out into 

the field and actually taking the data itself. So we have done it by 

ourselves, we are hoping through the process that the FCC eventually will come up with a process to do this, so that in the future, 

we hope, working together with the FCC, they can actually see exactly how this data is collected and how it works for us. 

It is something that tribes do need, especially more funding for 

these areas, to make sure tribe get online. Obviously you need to 

get it for Social Security, you need to get in, and they say, go to 

the web. Well, some of these guys don’t know any of this stuff. But 

they do need more access, and hopefully we can do that with the 

FCC. I am sure, the office of ONAP and everybody else over there 

have been great to work with. So I want to make sure that, ChairVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
28 

man Pai, too, has been very good to work with us. Hopefully they 

can support us in Indian Country. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Vice Chairman Udall? 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just, a quick 

aside. Today I received a letter from Chairman Pai, and I would 

like to extend a quick thank you to the Chairman and his staff for 

responding to my request to fix issues in the tribal operations expense order that harmed both MATI and Sacred Winds’ ability to 

serve their communities. Today the Chairman responded to these, 

directed to staff, to provide relief to these carriers. 

Mr. Webre, the FCC issued guidance in 2012 about tribal engagement. The GAO reports that that guidance is now stale. In 

fact, the GAO observed the ‘‘The FCC has limited information regarding whether its tribal engagement requirement is fulfilling its 

intended purpose.’’ When can we expect the FCC to update its 2012 

guidance on what tribal engagement should include? 

Mr. WEBRE. Thank you for the question, Senator. On an informal 

basis, the Commission, through ONAP, has received feedback from 

tribes on how the engagement obligation has been going over the 

years. We understand that is not enough. We do share that internally with other members of the Commission, other bureaus and offices, to let them know what we are hearing, the feedback we are 

hearing. 

But we do understand we need to do more. Earlier this year, the 

Chairman announced the reconstitution of the Native Nations 

Communications Task Force. This, we think, will be an excellent 

topic for them to handle, for them to discuss. Then as we go forward, we will look at ways that we can put best practices in or 

something to update that guidance, that as you mentioned, was 

first instituted in 2012. 

Senator UDALL. Do you have a timeline for us? 

Mr. WEBRE. Well, we’re hoping to announce the membership of 

the Native Nations Communications Task Force in a week or so. 

So we will also announce a date of their first meeting, and we expect that to be one of the topics of their first meeting. 

Senator UDALL. And I expect your intention is to try to really get 

this updated so that we know what we are dealing with. 

Mr. WEBRE. Absolutely. We would like to get the feedback from 

them first, make sure we understand what the issues are, and then 

socialize what can be done with them to better improve the process. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Enjady, your written testimony highlights 

the importance of tribal consultation, and tribal partnerships to 

shrink the digital divided in Indian Country. You also noted the 

need to improve engagement between tribal entities, Federal, 

State, local governments and private businesses regarding various 

issues such as water rights of way, easements and so on. Can you 

provide recommendations on how to improve the consultation process between all entities? 

Mr. ENJADY. Thank you, Senator Udall, Vice Chairman. Recommendations, I think New Mexico, the State PRC and us, and everybody else, has shown a good example of how we can work together and provide best services for New Mexico. We were one of 

the first providers in New Mexico to be able to do that. I want to 

29 

thank some of the commissioners from New Mexico that have really helped us in this area. 

Engagement with tribes and allowing us to voluntarily come to 

them and ask them, can you help us to be able to start this process 

of providing services to our tribal nation, and that was one of the 

things that really helped us a lot. And your help in New Mexico 

has been monumental in getting this started here for a lot of 

places. 

Examples for this can be seen through New Mexico and to all the 

other tribal players, as well as in other areas, where there are a 

lot of tribal carriers providing these types of services. I think, if we 

can get some movement in the future from ILECs, Tribal Nations 

and with ONAP, that we are working together, one thing that we 

are working together on is hopefully a conference down in Mescalero to save, to keep the tires of the telecom, see how we provide 

these services. I think that can be a shining example, especially if 

we can get more people out in the field to be able to see exactly 

what rough terrain that we provide these services in, how we need 

four-wheel drive just to get up some of these mountains and peaks 

to provide these services through microwave or fiber optic. 

So these are some of the things that we can look at, and hopefully we can recommend that. Just going out into the field and 

being able to see this first-hand, then you can see the examples of 

what’s really happening out in Indian Country. Thank you, sir. 

Senator UDALL. [Presiding] Mr. Enjady, I think you ae absolutely 

right, seeing it first-hand is tremendously important. I am going to 

come back to the rest of the panel on this same question about recommendations, but I am going to ask Senator Schatz to take his 

turn at this point. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Ranking Member Udall. 

Mr. Webre, how do you think the FCC is doing mapping generally and on mapping in tribal lands? In plain English, how do 

you think you are doing? 

Mr. WEBRE. I think there is certainly room for improvement, 

Senator, and I think that is what we are doing in the ongoing proceeding. We are looking to make improvements on the availability 

of data and the accuracy of data and the comprehensiveness of the 

data. 

Senator SCHATZ. I want to make one observation. I listened very 

carefully to your five minutes of testimony. I know this space. It 

is true, that sometimes Senators only pay passing attention to testimony and just wait for their turn to talk. I listened to every word 

you said. And I don’t understand what you said. And I don’t hear 

a sense of urgency at all as it relates to this issue. 

What I don’t understand, specifically, is why the burden is on 

tribal governments, and why, outside of tribal lands, the burden is 

on individual communities and municipalities to say, these maps 

are wrong. Why is it not the Federal Communication Commission’s 

job, plenty of funding, and plenty of expertise—to get it right the 

first time. As opposed to saying, here are maps, and you may avail 

yourselves of an appeals process. And, well, I am on a tribal govVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
30 

ernment, or on a county some place, and I am supposed to go back 

to the FCC, fill out forms, get smart on broadband mapping and 

the burden of proof is on the people not covered, not on the Federal 

Communications Commission. 

So tell me why the burden shouldn’t be on you to get it right the 

first time? 

Mr. WEBRE. Well, I believe the burden is on us to get it right. 

Senator SCHATZ. Are you getting it right the first time? 

Mr. WEBRE. With regard to the—— 

Senator SCHATZ. Are you getting it right the first time? 

Mr. WEBRE. We are attempting to get it right. We know we can 

do better. And that is why we have an ongoing proceeding. 

Senator SCHATZ. Yes or no question. Are you getting it right the 

first time? 

Mr. WEBRE. Yes, we—no, we are not getting it right in the way 

that we would like, but we are working on getting it right by this 

open proceeding. 

Senator SCHATZ. But the way you talk right now is, what is maddening for communities who are not covered. Because you are acting as though the question is some kind of compliance with a rule 

or statute or a process. And I respect rules, statutes and processes. 

But if you’re sitting there and you look at a map and you know 

your community, I looked at Senator Udall, I was sitting next to 

Senators Tester and Heitkamp, who say, I can look at this map 

and tell you off the top of my head how flawed this map is. 

So it is not just that there is some kind of corner or topographic 

idiosyncrasy or whatever it may be that you can’t get a cell tower 

or you can’t get broadband. It is not that. It is that on its face these 

maps are ridiculous. 

And to the extent that it is a problem generally, and you know 

it is, it is a huge problem on tribal land. And then I was also struck 

by what you said, that you don’t want to overburden the providers, 

you are going to overburden the providers in collecting the data. 

And you want to open up a challenge process. And this goes back 

to whose job is this. Whose job is this? I am asking you a question. 

Mr. WEBRE. It is certainly the FCC’s job to find out where it is, 

where deployment is needed. And we do have to take that into account. We have to take into account various things, including burdens that would be placed on providers, as well as technical challenges with getting more granular data. 

Senator SCHATZ. When I heard Mr. Goldstein’s testimony from 

GAO, I hadn’t looked at the fact that he was from GAO. And it was 

such a takedown of the way you guys operate, that I was actually 

shocked that it was GAO, because FCC overstates broadband access on tribal lands, does not have a formal process to obtain tribal 

input and broadband data, few tribal broadband partnerships exist 

and tribes face barriers to obtain Federal funding for broadband 

deployment. 

Then I hear from you, and I am not sure that you answered any 

one of those questions, other than, we are entering into a proceeding. So can you tell us, and we have 36 seconds left, I would 

just like to hear, first of all, for the record, how you are going to 

deal with all of this on a timeframe that makes a regular person 

31 

living in tribal lands satisfied that you understand how urgent this 

is. That is for the record. 

But in the remaining 20 seconds, can I just at least hear from 

you that you feel, as an agency, a sense of urgency? 

Mr. WEBRE. I agree, we do as an agency feel a sense of urgency. 

As you may know, this proceeding is taking place in the Wireline 

Competition Bureau. I am the Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau. So I don’t have the expertise in order to 

provide you with a valid response. 

But I can certainly go back to the Commission, and we can have 

a more fulsome answer for you. 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Schatz, if you want to get a full answer 

from your question, that would be fine. 

Senator SCHATZ. I don’t think I am going to get a full answer, 

but I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Okay, thank you. I couldn’t agree with Senator 

Schatz more, Mr. Webre, I think it is important that you take these 

questions back and you answer them seriously, and you indicate to 

all the folks who are interested here that you really intend to solve 

this. I think the GAO has laid it out in a pretty dramatic way. 

The FCC’s process of data collection is skewed. We don’t have 

any doubt about that, do we, Mr. Goldstein? I mean, it is a skewed 

process? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. That is correct, sir. Two years ago when I appeared before the Committee, I mentioned that we believe that that 

was the case, and these reports certainly show that it is so. 

Senator UDALL. This is one where the industry controls the data, 

and has all the power. And when tribes do challenge the data, it 

is costly, it is time-consuming, and Indian Tribes don’t often win. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. They almost never win, sir. In fact, from our information, they do not. 

Senator UDALL. Your report mentions needing a formal tribal engagement process that allows for meaningful tribal input as part 

of the FCC’s data collection. Can you expand on that suggestion 

and what you think ought to be happening? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, sir. I think it is a three-pronged process. I 

think that the FCC does need to be more involved in understanding exactly where the maps are not accurate. They do not 

verify the information that is provided by providers. They do some 

logic checks and the like to see if previous 477 submissions are 

similar to what they have now and make sure there are no large 

gaps. 

But it is really left up to the provider to, as you said, sir, to be 

able to provide information. The FCC pretty much takes it at face 

value. Tribes really do not have an opportunity to submit information to that process. And when they do try to challenge the information, they are rarely, if ever, successful. 

Senator UDALL. You said three parts, right? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Being the FCC, the providers and the tribes. 

They all need to work more closely. There does need to be a more 

formal process to engage all the groups. It may be that some kind 

of, there is a discussion about proceedings, but proceedings take 

years to, typically, for FCC, to complete. I’m saying there is no time 

32 

frame or time limit, goals to when this particular proceeding is to 

be completed. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. And Mr. Webre, there is no doubt that the 

maps are not accurate? 

Mr. WEBRE. We feel that the maps are accurate in that they 

show where it is clear that there is no broadband availability, in 

those census blocks. So we know it is clear in that regard. We know 

we can do better on the other part of it, where there is partial deployment in census blocks. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Enjady and Mr. Blackwell, what are the two 

most important components necessary for the FCC to develop a 

successful formal tribal engagement process? 

Mr. ENJADY. Thank you, Senator Udall. One of those processes 

would be to designate a, find a person that actually will engage the 

company that they’re getting data from, or working with some of 

the larger companies. I know one time when they sent a letter, it 

goes to a tribal nation and they check off a box and it is done. But 

nothing comes back, because sometimes the tribes are kind of wondering exactly what is going on there. 

I know a lot of tribes, we were just at an NTTA meeting Monday. 

I was talking to the folks at REDINet, and I said, have you guys 

seen any tribal engagement, were you asked these questions? Have 

you seen that at Pojoaque, have you seen that at San I, or any of 

these other pueblos there? And they said no, we haven’t really seen 

it. That shows to me clearly that the companies that are larger are 

just throwing a letter, and if they get word back, it’s check the box, 

we made engagement. 

And that is true, that is something that we talked about yesterday in Pojoaque, at our NTTA meeting. So these are some of the 

issues that we need to do a little bit better job, some kind of selfcertification from the tribes, showing that there was engagement, 

showing a letter saying that the tribes are working together. 

I think more communication is needed. Instead of just checking 

a box, we need to be able to talk, just like we are today, to make 

things be made aware. I know some people are trying to do the 

best they can, but like I said, at times like we are, we are shortstaffed, less funding means less smaller companies. We are not 

able to do all these things. With Lifeline and all these other issues, 

we have become social workers. We have had to go out and hunt 

these guys down. 

And it helps me out to get these Lifeline people, get them on 

Lifeline to get more customers, to be able to provide the broadband 

services. But it is just—we are small, so we are trying to do the 

best we can. And I hope that clarifies a little bit of what the tribes 

need to be able to get to do this. 

Senator UDALL. I think it does. I think you are talking about a 

really meaningful step and meaningful engagement with the tribe 

for the provider to try to really understand what is going on on the 

ground. 

Mr. Blackwell? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you for the question. If I may, I would 

like to take some time to be able to supplement the record and follow up. 

Senator UDALL. Please do. 

33 

Mr. BLACKWELL. But off the top of my head, there are two things 

that jump immediately to mind. The first is, as a part of an overall 

effort to dedicate a tribal budget, a consultation budget at the FCC 

for these efforts. That would be sort of an overarching thought. 

More granular at this point in time, I think clarification, the need 

for the raw data. Tribal nations need the raw data, so clarify that 

there shouldn’t be redactions, or NDAs that need to be signed. 

Beyond that, I do believe that there is, to create a mechanism 

within the FCC, so that the data, as it comes and can be analyzed 

by the FCC, to create sort of a map of issues on a tribe-by-tribe, 

region-by-region basis. I testified that the digital divide now is very 

different from 20 years ago. Where things have worked, it has necessarily created greater challenges in other areas. 

So if there are issues here that have to do with terrain or affordability, or if there are issues here that have to do with spectrum 

opportunities and other things, that the Commission can have the 

tools to start addressing those at a granular level. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. And when you say the tribes need the raw data, 

Mr. Enjady, do you agree with that? 

Mr. ENJADY. It does. But when they get the raw data, is there 

anybody at the tribe that can decipher this information? What does 

it really mean to them? What do we need? 

All they know is that tribes need better broadband services. And 

it is up to everybody else to hopefully help them with that. That 

is why we are in trust. I mean, we have been in trust for so long. 

So these are some of the things that we need help with. 

I, myself, fortunately, was able to go and work for the larger 

phone companies. I came up through the ranks and I was able to 

leave the company and come back to the tribe and help them out. 

I used to work for a large corporation that gave me the skills I 

needed to be able to build a telephone company for our tribe. And 

that is one thing that, there is not a lot of me out there. If you look 

at it, there is only nine recognized telephone companies in the 

United States. There are 573 recognized tribes. All of them should 

have telephone companies, but they don’t. 

So it is a hard thing, it is very difficult. There are a lot of barriers in the way that keep tribes from having the broadband service they need. It is something that needs to be developed, and I 

think if we work with the tribes together, I think we can help them 

out. I think the FCC, if we work with them together, I think they 

can understand both of us and how we can provide information. 

One thing I was always told when I worked with the phone company, we are a communication company, but we are the worst at 

communicating with each other. And that has been true, it is 

tough. Thank you, sir. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, did you have a comment on the raw data? I saw you nodding your head, about the 

tribes being entitled to get the raw data? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I do think, as Mr. Enjady said, that some tribes 

would be able to, I think effectively use that information. Some 

may not. They may not have all the resources and skills they would 

need. I think it is incumbent, however, on the providers, to engage 

with the tribes on a more regular basis, not just checking a box. 

Some of them we have found almost never meet with the tribes and 

34 

are not really willing to not just engage with them but even to provide services where they said they were going to provide them. And 

tribes are understandingly frustrated by that. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. The first question I asked earlier had to do 

with tribal consultation and it being very important to shrinking 

the digital divide. I really only focused on one witness, so I want 

to expand that to the rest of the panel. Does anyone else have any 

other recommendations on how to improve the consultation process, 

the tribal consultation? Mr. Blackwell? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Mr. Vice Chairman, as a former regulatory attorney, I love this stuff. Godfrey is right, it is complex. So one of 

the key recommendations I would make is that as a predicate to 

consultation that there be trainings, that generally that before the 

Commission asks a question that the Commission get out into the 

field and explain the rules, explain the processes. I know the Commission has had success in this before. 

The other recommendation that I would make is something else 

that the Commission has done before, is get the senior leadership 

from the bureaus, the decision makers, face to face with tribal leaders. That is something the Commission has done before with its 

task force and we look forward to seeing that again. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Mr. Webre, do those sound reasonable to 

you, reasonable suggestions? 

Mr. WEBRE. Yes, I do think that sounds reasonable, Senator. And 

we do, just to let you know, ONAP does have very close relationships with tribal members, as Mr. Enjady had mentioned before. 

We reach out to them on a regular basis. They have our direct 

phone numbers and our email addresses. Any time they have questions for us, we are happy to answer them. 

We also go out into the field a lot during the course of a year. 

We do tribal workshops, where we explain the tribal engagement 

obligation to the tribes. Also, if they are interested in becoming eligible to become telecommunications carriers, we can also provide 

training on how to do that. We are always looking for ways to help 

the tribes. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. 

Senator Murkowski, if you are ready, I am happy to have you go. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to 

our panel of witnesses, I watched you, Mr. Goldstein and you, Mr. 

Webre, on the TV, so I got some of it. But I didn’t receive the benefit from you. 

But I want to thank you and the Chairman for having this hearing today. It is so incredibly important, as we know. As I travel out 

to rural Alaska and visit with kids, it is really great, everyone has 

a cell phone. But you know what, I would venture to say that not 

only the vast majority but maybe 95 percent of those kids are not 

on any plan. It is their camera. But their ability to really utilize 

the technology that other children around the Country might have 

access to is limited. 

I think about the direct impact on how you educate a child. Our 

State has moved to a testing system where you do your tests onVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
35 

line. I think it was Sand Point, out in the Aleutians, remote fishing 

village out there. And mostly, probably Aleut families. System can’t 

maintain itself during the time of testing, the system crashes. So 

okay, we are just going to test one grade at a time. System still 

crashes. What they ended up doing, one kid at a time takes the 

standardized exam until they get through every one in the school. 

The impact for us on access to health care, as you know, in Alaska, we have been extremely innovative when it comes to telehealth. And we make up for the lack of providers in these rural 

communities with our tele-health carts. You can have a community 

health aide on the line with somebody in Anchorage, and it is all 

beautiful, it is all fabulous, except when you need it most and everything freezes. When I was out in Unalaska and they were demonstrating to me the new infrastructure that they have, they said, 

we have everything except for the piece that connects it all together. 

So you don’t have reliable health care. You don’t have reliable 

education. I was out in the Bering Straits region, and we were out 

in the community of Savoonga, out on St. Lawrence Island. There 

is a lot of maritime traffic that we are seeing, as more and more 

ships are coming through the straits, as we are seeing ice freed up. 

Shipping has increased by nearly 60 percent in the last eight years. 

But what happens is you don’t have the ability to communicate 

with these vessels that are coming through, who are trying to basically ensure that there is ship to shore communications. In the 

meantime, what you have are walrus hunters, hunters who are out 

in a 20-foot skiff in open water, and you have some big vessel, some 

big tanker bearing down on you. If you don’t know what is coming 

and what is going, some of the hunting groups are literally forced 

to call someone on land. They have their sat phone in the boat, 

they call someone on land and then that person calls a vessel 

tracking service provider to find the contact information for the 

ship before they can directly communicate with that vessel to let 

them know, you have whalers in the area, you have walrus hunters 

in the area. So we are talking about some life and death situations. 

Let me ask my question, now that I have consumed practically 

my full five minutes. And I think this is for you, Mr. Webre, with 

the FCC. Satellite technology, capable of download and upload 

speeds, but what we are seeing, the latency is still too high for deployment and use of critical technology that is needed out in many 

of these villages. Latency over the satellite connections, which is 

what most of our rural villages use, is four times higher than the 

maximum threshold standards that are defined by the International Telecommunications Union. 

So the question is, whether or not the FCC is looking at revising 

this official broadband definition, and include the latency and packet loss as a broadband benchmark, versus just upload, download 

speeds. I guess the broader question, what do you intend to do to 

address the latency issue? 

Mr. WEBRE. Senator, thank you for the question. It is a very important one. Unfortunately, as Chief of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, that is not within my area of expertise. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Who would do that, then? 

36 

Mr. WEBRE. It depends on the technology. It could be our Wireless Competition Bureau. It could be our Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. It could be our Wireline Competition Bureau, or it 

could be our International Bureau if it deals with satellite service. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I think it is a conversation we would certainly like to know, understand a little bit better. Because again, 

we have some issues there where we are not quite sure what may 

be coming. So if we can have some discussion, I think that would 

be helpful. 

Mr. WEBRE. Absolutely. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. And Mr. Chairman, this may have already 

been asked and answered, and I apologize. But when, and I think 

Mr. Goldstein, I will direct this to you, you had stated in your testimony that one of the barriers to increasing access on tribal lands 

is the cost of providers that are deploying infrastructure onto tribal 

lands and that there are a number of Federal programs that subsidize broadband deployment in these areas. 

But you have expressed concern that the return on investment 

hasn’t attracted that private investment. We certainly see that. 

Any suggestions that you can provide in terms of what more can 

be done to encourage these public-private partnerships for the 

broadband deployment? We have some things that are going on in 

Alaska that we are excited about, but access to capital is a challenge. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. I think it is no coincidence 

that all of the partnerships that we identified, and there were only 

seven that we were able to identify, there may be others out there. 

But we looked at grants and all the Federal funds to try and discern what the partnerships were. All of the partnerships that we 

found, the funds that they received came from ARRA, the Recovery 

Act funds. They did not come from current funds. 

So I think you are right in saying that this is an issue of capital, 

and the amount of funding that is going to Indian Country may not 

be sufficient to entice providers. As we indicated earlier in our testimony, of all the funds that are provided by the FCC and by RUS, 

just a very small fraction of those funds have actually gone to tribal lands. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It just seems like it’s such a challenge because in so many of these areas, you’re remote, so you are truly, 

in Alaska, we are literally at the end of the line. Of course, we 

know how expensive that is. 

But the areas that you’re serving, the population base is so 

small. So how is that attractive to anybody from an investment 

perspective? So you recognize the challenge but you don’t have a 

super-duper great answers on how we can attract it. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I would probably be in a different line of business if I knew that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Yes, we all would. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have wellconsumed my time. I appreciate the Committee working on these 

issues, because it does make a big difference in terms of how we 

can help to provide opportunities around Indian Country. If you are 

37 

not in the same field, it is really pretty tough to play the game. 

So thank you, sir. 

Senator UDALL. You are absolutely right. 

Mr. Webre, are you happy to take her question back to the proper bureau and get an answer for us on the one she asked? 

Mr. WEBRE. Yes, Senator, I would be happy to do that. 

Senator UDALL. That would be great. 

Mr. WEBRE. And if I could make a distinction, a point. 

Senator UDALL. Yes, please do. 

Mr. WEBRE. We have heard today about the GAO’s second report 

on partnerships and how less than 1 percent of the FCC’s funding 

has gone to tribes. I think what that really means is less than 1 

percent of the funding has gone to tribally-owned entities. There 

are plenty of privately-owned entities that aren’t affiliated with the 

tribes that are serving broadband in these tribal communities. 

So I do think that number is much higher. Thank you. 

Senator UDALL. Will you get us a proper answer under the criteria you are laying out? 

Mr. WEBRE. We can certainly look into that data for you, sir, yes. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Murkowski, if you have any additional 

questions, please, go ahead. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I was just looking at some of the information that I have here. It says that, as you mentioned, GAO found 

that less than 1 percent of FCC funding, about 14 percent of RUS 

funding, went directly to tribes and tribally-owned providers. Combined, FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6 billion during that time 

period, and tribes and tribally-owned providers received $235 million, or about .7 percent. 

So I think it does speak to the real challenge that we face here. 

Mr. WEBRE. To be clear, again, that is tribally-owned. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Tribally-owned, right. 

Mr. WEBRE. There are plenty of private providers who are out 

there providing service. 

As a matter of fact, the Connect America Fund Phase Two option 

just took place and the preliminary numbers are in. Over 80,000 

of those bidders, 80,000 tribal areas, will be covered by Connect 

America Fund Two funding. And some are going to be serviced by 

tribally-owned entities, and we will work with them to get ETC 

status, so they can provide those broadband deployment funds to 

their areas. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Enjady had something. 

Mr. ENJADY. One thing I wanted to add to that, on the portion 

of funding that you are talking about, especially grant money, 

there is a lot of money out there for grants and the ARRA is one 

of the things that you guys talked about. 

But the biggest thing that I have seen come back to us from our 

NTTA members is that when they took that ARRA money they lost 

a lot of their sustainable funding come from the FCC. So that’s the 

biggest thing is, once you build it, you have to maintain it. Most 

tribes don’t have that ability to do that. The high cost fund is one 

of the mechanisms that was used to provide funding for that to 

keep sustainability moving forward. 

But a lot of that has been reduced, and we have a hard cap on 

us, for small ILECs like us. There is also a budget control mechaVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
38 

nism that is involved in that, that keeps us from getting all the 

funds that we need. There has been a catch-up fund that the FCC 

has instituted to kind of get us caught up. But moving forward, 

that still has to be in play for us to be able to provide the services 

that we need. We build these networks, but we have to maintain 

it, make sure the fiber is maintained. Today I had a fiber cut in 

Mescalero. So I have to roll people out there, have to get things 

fixed. These are some of the things that we have to pay for as we 

keep moving forward. We hope they will keep that funding up and 

cumulative for us who use it and take the needs that we need out 

of it. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for your excellent engagement here. 

Among the many obstacles to closing the digital divide in Indian 

Country is the FCC’s Eligible Telecommunications Carrier, or ETC 

designation. Tribes must receive this designation to be eligible for 

FCC funds. Mr. Goldstein, the GAO report makes clear that ETC 

designation is not just a burden, but has prevented many tribes 

from acquiring FCC funding. 

Would you say the requirement of being designated an ETC is 

having a disparate impact on tribes to receive more Federal funding? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes, Senator, it is. And I know that FCC has 

looked at this issue in the past, to try to determine whether they 

could provide tribes with this kind of a distinction, and if you could 

provide universal service funds without it. They pretty much found 

that they could not. So this is really a statutory impediment in 

many ways. It may be something that Congress wants to look at 

over time to see if the 1996 Act perhaps could be changed so that 

there would be more tribes that could be involved in this way. 

Senator UDALL. And as a policy matter, do you think that might 

be a good idea? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think that Congress should look at it. We have 

not actually made it as a specific recommendation in terms of doing 

the work. But I do think that we are looking at a fairly antiquated 

process at this point. The 1996 Act really, it was mainly telephone 

companies that got the ETC designations. And of course, today, the 

high-cost program now involves broadband. So the landscape has 

changed radically since the Act was passed. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Webre, how can the FCC improve the process for tribes applying to become an ETC? 

Mr. WEBRE. We always, through ONAP, work with the tribes, if 

they are interested in becoming eligible telecommunications carriers. We have a training program, we do outreach to them. We go 

out into the tribal areas and do workshops. So we talk about how 

you can become an ETC. 

What Mr. Goldstein said is correct, it is a statutory obligation. 

There are rules that we can’t really change in order to help the 

tribes become ETCs. So that is kind of where we are in the process. 

Senator UDALL. Now, for the overall panel, what practical recommendations are needed to help tribes access this Federal funding? I don’t know if, Mr. Enjady, or Mr. Blackwell, you want to 

weigh in? 

39 

Mr. ENJADY. I couldn’t hear that. 

Senator UDALL. What practical recommendations are needed to 

help tribes access this Federal funding, the Federal funding that 

comes through the ETC? 

Mr. ENJADY. Mescalero Apache Telecom is probably one of the 

last tribal telecoms to become an ETC. And that was back in 2001. 

Other than that, I don’t think there’s any other tribal nations that 

have applied formally, like I did. I think there are two right now 

that are pending. One is the Warm Springs Tribe, and they are trying to become an ILEC with ETC. 

Now, there are certain levels of the ETC, if you didn’t know that. 

There is one that is a competitive ETC, CETC and a regular ETC. 

That keeps you from getting the funding that you need for your 

area. 

This is the sustainability portion that I was talking about earlier. 

This is what keeps the funding coming to us to be able to provide 

the services in the rural areas. Because we have no customers out 

there. For every mile of cable that we throw out there, or fiber, it 

costs us anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000 a mile. And with that 

in place, and I have two customers on that mile, how long will it 

take me to recover that funding? 

So there is a mechanism at the FCC that helps me borrow that 

money and be able to get the money back, that return on investment, the ROI. So it is very difficult. So we need to be able to get 

the funding needed for us. 

But again, CETC, you don’t get all that funding, and you don’t 

get the full funding. But with the new CAFE II funding, that is a 

ten-year program, that funding will be made available even if you 

are just a CETC or ETC, it doesn’t matter. So that is a process that 

is happening right now. I am sure there is a few of our providers 

that have gotten awards for that. So we are looking to see how that 

is going to work out. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Blackwell, any thoughts on this? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Yes. This is a very important area of the regulations. It was one of the first areas I really dove into in 2000, when 

I first went to work at the FCC. In fact, I worked on Godfrey’s and 

MATI’s ETC designation. 

Recently, the Commission has done ETC designations, in the last 

10 years, Hopi Telecom, Standing Rock, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority Wireless. But as far as practical considerations, as long as 

the applications are complete, I think one could ask for a streamlined process at the FCC. There are many priorities at the FCC. 

One could ask the FCC to make this a top priority, ETCs on tribal 

lands, and ask the Commission to dedicate staff to the effort. The 

Bureau is very busy at all times, the Wire and Competition Bureau. 

Perhaps another thought is developing a template for ETC designations, almost as a technical training method. 

But I do want to make a point, I want to be respectful of your 

time. My experience tells me I need to be bold here. I do agree with 

what Mr. Goldstein said, there is a statutory question here. We are 

talking about access to, Godfrey mentioned the high-cost fund. 

Well, the high-cost fund, for 20 years, has been pumping $4 billion 

into this situation, and we have only come this far. 

40 

This is a question of capital. And no critical infrastructure has 

come to Indian Country without significant Federal investment and 

oversight and regulation. So it is time for a new authority for the 

Commission, a new direction, new authorities. It is time for a tribal 

broadband fund. This has been a recommendation that has been 

coming from the lips of Indian Country for a decade now, and I am 

only reiterating what my committee told Chairman Pai this past 

February. 

I will see a question about ETC, and I will raise you one tribal 

broadband fund. 

Senator UDALL. Right, thank you. Thank you for that bold recommendation. 

Mr. Enjady, your telcom is in a unique position. MATI is not only 

a part of the telcom industry, but also responsible for serving Indian lands, which means that if the FCC requires more data, that 

task will fall on your shoulders. 

How can the FCC both require more granular data like latitude 

and longitude of service areas, but avoid imposing such burdensome requirements that you spend all your time with paperwork? 

Mr. ENJADY. Thank you, Vice Chairman Udall. Thank you for the 

question. 

I think if we can, and I know the FCC is short-staffed in a lot 

of areas. But if we can make, like Geoffrey was saying, a template, 

to come out and be able to go with us, place to place, and provide 

the data that we need, especially going house to house. 

Now, as you know, Indian Country is in desperate need of housing. We have so many families, multiple families living under one 

roof. So it is a big issue that is happening right now. Do we divide 

those homes up? Just getting more homes in Indian Country is 

tough. Our population is growing and we need more homes. 

With that comes broadband, too, being able to communicate and 

do what we need to do as we provide these services. It is difficult 

in this situation of getting to provide the services that we need. I 

would just like to say that, please come out, talk with us. NTTA 

as a whole would welcome FCC to come out and work with us and 

be able to develop these templates that I talk about, and be able 

to work and get the granular data that they need. 

Looking at the census block as Mr. Goldstein pointed out, when 

one entity or person or home has broadband, the whole is counted 

as having broadband. It is quite skewed. So we need to go house 

to house, and we can provide that data right now. That is part of 

the RUS mapping. Once you become, since you cannot collateralize 

tribal lands and go out to a conventional bank and get money, RUS 

has been our banker. So they require different information. They 

have an area of coverage map that could be probably applied to, 

that could be used on that side. 

There are different ideas that we have that we can work together. But we just need to get together and do it in the first place. 

Senator UDALL. Yes. Mr. Blackwell, you also sit in a unique position, having worked for the FCC and now with Indian tribes. In 

your experience, what can the FCC do to make sure everyone has 

the best available data? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Thank you very much for the question, Mr. Vice 

Chairman. I think one of the first things FCC can do is create a 

41 

formal intake process. The other is really to get the right folks in 

the carriers and in the tribal nations talking to each other, the 

mapping folks, the IT folks, the GIS folks. Folks who have much 

better technical expertise than I do in that area, maybe the folks 

who do the sales and marketing and maybe make the attorneys sit 

on the outside of the meeting, so that folks can really begin to engage on what the data means. Of course, the predicate being that 

tribes receive the data and get some training on how to analyze it. 

I would, if I may, I would like some time to be able to think 

about the answer and follow up with you, sir. 

Senator UDALL. The record will be open for two weeks. For all 

of these questions, you will have the opportunity to get information 

in the record. 

Nearly one-third of the kids in New Mexico are at risk of falling 

behind in school, simply because they can’t get on the internet at 

home. It is past time to end the homework gap in New Mexico and 

in all of Indian Country. That is why I introduced S. 2958 earlier 

this year, to push the FCC to look for more innovative solutions, 

like putting wi-fi on school buses as part of its work with the E– 

Rate program to get students connected. 

It is also why I was alarmed to see that the two E-rate specific 

recommendations from the GAO’s 2016 report on tribal broadband 

have not been addressed. To make sure E–Rate is reaching students in Indian Country we need to know that the FCC is not still 

using junk data to track tribal applications. 

Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Webre, has the FCC made any progress 

addressing these two recommendations? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Senator Udall, I will get back to you specifically 

on that. We have not looked, we do follow up on an annual basis 

and I am happy to get back to you for the record. 

But one thing I would mention is we have just begun work for 

the Congress. It is a mandate that was recently passed, in which 

we are examining exactly what you are looking at and talking 

about, which is low-income education. We have already identified 

some examples where we are going to go out and take a look at 

kids who are able to complete their work on school buses and 

things like that. We have ongoing work in this area. 

So we will hopefully shed some additional light on this. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. Mr. Webre? 

Mr. WEBRE. Yes, Senator. As a result of the GAO’s open recommendation that the FCC improve the reliability of FCCD data 

related to institutions that serve E–Rate defined tribal program applications, beginning in funding year 2017, year after the GAO recommendation was given to us in 2016, we did implement that recommendation. Specifically, the E–Rate forms now include guidance 

about when a school or library should identify itself as tribal. 

USAC has greatly enhanced its method for collecting this information by improving the tribal checkbox in USAC’s system. 

In addition, USAC’s tribal liaison encourages tribal applicants to 

check this box so that USAC can better understand who is participating in the E–Rate program and provide tribal outreach and 

training, and assess those outreach and training efforts. The funding year 2017 ended in June 30th of this year, and applicants are 

all still submitting their invoices. So we haven’t had a chance to 

42 

look at a fulsome record yet. But we are encouraged by this development and we look forward to getting that information. 

Senator UDALL. Mr. Webre, when exactly will this Committee see 

accurate data from the E–Rate program about its work in tribal 

lands? 

Mr. WEBRE. We do think within a short period of time, Senator, 

once we get all the 2017 funding year invoices in. 

Senator UDALL. That is good. We will be looking forward to that. 

For Mr. Blackwell, would allowing more flexibility at E–Rate for 

innovation, like putting wi-fi on school buses, help address the digital divide in tribal schools faster? 

Mr. BLACKWELL. Yes, absolutely. There are thousands of tribal 

children who ride long bus rides back and forth to school. The thing 

that I think of when I hear your question is, so many places in Indian Country I have seen kids sprawled out after hours in a parking lot next to a tribal headquarters or tribal library trying to catch 

the spillover wi-fi. 

If E–Rate were able to put wi-fi in buses, it would just simply 

extend the classroom. I think that is a good idea. Now, the bus 

driver might have to block some social media. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BLACKWELL. But yes, I think it is a great idea. I can’t think 

of a single tribal educator I have ever met that would disagree. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Let me just close here by thanking all of 

the witnesses. I don’t think there is anything more important in Indian Country than getting Indian Country connected to the rest of 

society and the world. So this has been a very, very important 

hearing. I really appreciate Chairman Hoeven for focusing in on 

this and working with me on it. 

If there are no more questions for today, members also may submit follow-up written questions for the record. The hearing record 

will be open for two weeks. I want to thank the witnesses for their 

time and testimony. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:21, the hearing was adjourned.] 

(43) 

1http://www.connectednation.org/get-connected 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS W. FERREE, CHAIRMAN/CEO, CONNECTED NATION

SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS

• As the single largest grantee under the SBI program, Connected Nation (CN) 

managed broadband mapping and planning projects across 12 states and 1 territory (spanning 42 percent of the U.S. landmass). 

• Accurate and granular broadband mapping is one of the most critical tools in 

developing sound broadband policy to close the digital divide. 

• While our mapping efforts have been highly successful, the SBI program as a 

whole faced a number of challenges, and the current Form 477 data collection 

process is deficient in at least five significant ways. 

• We believe any future broadband mapping effort must prioritize the accuracy 

and granularity of broadband maps at the street or parcel level of detail but 

must also prioritize the protection of providers’ proprietary and confidential information that may be used to derive more granular coverage footprints. 

• A viable and effective path forward would be for Congress to establish a single, 

independent, third-party clearinghouse for broadband data collection and mapping. This clearinghouse would have responsibility for carrying out five (5) primary tasks: 

1) Broadband data collection and analysis, working with the service provider 

community through a rigorous non-disclosure agreement framework; 

2) GIS mapping of broadband availability and speeds, derived from infrastructure and subscriber data submitted by service providers, at the street or parcel level of detail; 

3) Processing feedback submitted by consumers and other stakeholdersto highlight areas of concern on the map-areas that may need refinement; 

4) In-field validation of the maps once they are produced, driven primarily by 

the public feedback received, to ensure continual refinement of the maps over 

time; and 

5) Mapping where federal funding will result in network buildout, to ensure that 

there is no duplication of support for the expansion of service among the various federal programs that invest in broadband. 

Introduction 

Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and members of the Committee, thank 

you for inviting me to share Connected Nation’s insights in this important proceeding this afternoon. My name is Tom Ferree and I serve as Chairman and CEO 

for Connected Nation, a national non-profit organization with a 17-year history of 

measurably improving lives and strengthening communities through increased access to, and adoption of, broadband and related technologies. 

Headquartered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, Connected Nation’s work has impacted more than 30 states, and we served as the nation’s single largest grantee 

under NTIA’s State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant program. Under SBI, we managed broadband mapping and planning projects across 12 states and 1 territory, representing 42 percent of the U.S. landmass, and our mapping and data validation 

techniques have been widely recognized as ‘‘best practices’’ by NTIA, the FCC, and 

others. Connected Nation also has a long history working at the grassroots level in 

more than 600 communities through initiatives like our Connectedsm Community 

Engagement Program, in which we help local leaders build comprehensive technology action plans for their communities. 1

44 

2https://www.broadbandmap.gov/ 

3 Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Ohio, Puerto Rico, 

South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. 

Our work is also extensive in tribal communities. Since 2013, Connected Nation 

has traveled expansively through Indian reservations and tribal villages from west 

of the Mississippi River to the westernmost portions of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska to test, validate, and map broadband coverage. Mobile drive testing, conducted 

as part of the FCC’s Mobility Fund Phase I and outside plant audits conducted during the SBI program witnessed firsthand the challenges facing tribes as they struggle to gain access to even the most basic broadband service. In addition to mobile 

drive testing and ‘‘in-the-field’’ infrastructure verification, we also played a key role 

in completing an inventory of school connectivity assets in every school across all 

53 of Alaska’s public school districts, spending numerous hours and resources on 

areas with largely indigenous populations. Many of the areas in Alaska, some only 

accessible by boat or plane, dramatically illustrated how the most rural of Native 

Americans, including students, are being left on the wrong side of the digital divide. 

Connected Nation’s experience on the ground in these communities has helped us 

develop an intimate understanding of the impact that broadband has on rural and 

tribal areas, and there can be no doubt that accurate and granular broadband mapping is one of the most critical tools in developing sound broadband policy to close 

the digital divide. Unfortunately, the existing broadband maps are inaccurate, are 

overstated, and largely misrepresent available connectivity in tribal communities 

today, as noted in a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released 

in September. 

We believe strongly in the importance of accurate and granular broadband data 

collection and mapping for three reasons: 

1) To inform better decisionmaking on where public resources should be invested to support broadband buildout, 

2) To avoid potential overbuild situations where service may already be available at a comparable speed and cost, and 

3) To ensure accountability for the ratepayer and taxpayer dollars once public 

investments have been made. 

Today, we look forward to discussing the successes and lessons learned from our 

experiences with broadband mapping as well as the current Form 477 data collection process administered by the FCC. Our intent is not to be critical, but rather 

to foster an understanding of how we believe the process could be improved for the 

future to best represent coverage in rural and tribal areas. 

Lessons Learned from the SBI Mapping Program and the Form 477 Process 

The SBI Program, which was created by the Broadband Data Improvement Act 

of 2008, states the opportunity to, among other things, establish a broadband mapping program and submit broadband data to NTIA twice a year from 2010 through 

2014. This data was used to create the nation’s first comprehensive national 

broadband map in 2011, which unfortunately has not been updated since the program ended in 2014. 2 Connected Nation was selected by 12 states and 1 territory 

to collect, process, analyze, and map broadband data, while also collecting feedback 

from the public on where revisions should be made. 3

Throughout the SBI Program, Connected Nation averaged provider participation 

rates of 95 percent across our states, despite the fact that this program was largely 

voluntary. This was primarily due to the emphasis we placed on provider relationship-building, as well as our willingness to accept information in whatever format 

it was available and to assist providers who needed help. By 2014, we had established data-sharing relationships with more than 1,200 unique broadband service 

providers of all sizes, with non-disclosure agreements in place with many of them 

to ensure protection of their proprietary and confidential information. 

While our mapping efforts were highly successful, the SBI program as a whole 

faced a number of challenges. Since every state had its own mapping agency or 

third-party partner, this meant that multiple methodologies were employed in collecting provider information, analyzing the data, and mapping the results. This also 

meant that providers, many of whom operate in more than one state, had to juggle 

not only multiple points of contact and data requests, but they had to report their 

information in varying ways to satisfy those requests. 

Additionally, known best practices, such as those we developed to represent mobile and fixed wireless coverage propagation, were not required to be adopted across 

all states. For example, fixed wireless coverage in some states continued to be repVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
45 

resented as full circles or drastic polygons that did not reflect the true coverage on 

the ground. Unfortunately, some of these inaccuracies persist even today in the 

Form 477 data being submitted to the FCC. 

As the SBI program transitioned to the Form 477 filing process in October 2014, 

we began mapping and refining this data for state partners that have chosen to continue their mapping programs. Unfortunately, a number of challenges remain: 

1) Form 477 requires providers to report census blocks where they provide service. If even one household in a given block is served, the entire block is considered as having service, resulting in a significant overstatement of availability. This is particularly problematic in rural areas where census blocks 

can be very large—some being larger than the entire state of Connecticut. 

Yet these are the areas where broadband availability is most lacking and 

needs to be most accurately defined. 

2) Since some providers rely on third-party vendors to compile Form 477 data 

and the filings are primarily in .csv (comma-separated values) format, providers that do not have GIS (geographic information system) capabilities 

have no way of visualizing their service territories to ensure accuracy, resulting in overstated or understated reporting. 

3) Some known providers from the SBI years are simply missing from the Form 

477 dataset, meaning that they are likely not filing as required. 

4) Wireless coverage during the SBI years (when properly mapped) was developed from propagation modeling based on tower locations and signal penetration. Under Form 477, however, wireless coverage is reported by census block 

just like any other type of fixed service, indicating areas as served where 

there may actually be no service for miles. 

5) Missing data and inaccurate filings also may have the effect of understating 

service capabilities, putting the providers themselves at risk for overbuild, 

since Form 477 data is now used to direct federal subsidies toward areas 

lacking robust broadband. 

A Path Forward 

Taking into consideration these lessons learned, Connected Nation would like to 

offer a few observations and recommendations regarding the future of broadband 

mapping and how we can make sure our rural and tribal areas are well represented. 

First, any future mapping effort must prioritize the accuracy and granularity of the 

maps themselves to ensure that the nation’s broadband landscape is fully understood at the street address or parcel level of detail. Census block data is not sufficiently granular as we look to solve the broadband gap in rural and other insular 

areas of the United States. 

Second, that level of granularity requires the protection of providers’ proprietary 

and confidential information. Such protection is needed to safeguard critical infrastructure from vandalism, sabotage, or worse, and to preserve the confidentiality of 

competitively sensitive infrastructure and subscriber information, which should remain closely held. 

Third, any future mapping effort must be premised on a uniform reporting mechanism to eliminate inconsistencies in state-by-state reporting. That uniformity in reporting will provide decision-makers the high level of confidence needed to target 

federal funding to broadband deployment projects and a piecemealed approach to 

data collection will not achieve the end goal of a comprehensive, reliable, and granular map. 

We are aware that concerns have been raised in the past that more granular data 

cannot or should not be collected, either because doing so could present an increased 

burden (and unfunded mandate) on providers, or because the collection of such data 

would require government access to infrastructure and/or subscriber location data 

that the government has no business possessing. We agree that these are legitimate 

concerns but posit that a viable solution exists that would yield a more granular 

understanding of service availability, while protecting the confidential and proprietary nature of the data that would be used to produce it. 

As Congress considers funding and other incentives to promote broadband deployment, we believe it should also consider establishing a single, independent, thirdparty clearinghouse for broadband data collection and mapping that is accountable 

to Congress, the FCC, the public, and the provider community, and it should cover 

all 50 states, the 5 inhabited U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. This 

clearinghouse would have responsibility for carrying out five (5) primary tasks: 

1) Broadband data collection and analysis, working with the service provider 

community through a rigorous non-disclosure agreement framework; 

46 

2) GIS mapping of broadband availability and speeds, derived from infrastructure and subscriber data submitted by service providers, at the street or parcel level of detail; 

3) Processing feedback submitted by consumers and other stakeholders to highlight areas of concern on the map-areas that may need refinement; 

4) In-field validation of the maps once they are produced, driven primarily by 

the public feedback received, to ensure continual refinement of the maps over 

time; and 

5) Mapping where federal funding will result in network buildout, to ensure that 

there is no duplication of support for the expansion of service among the various federal programs that invest in broadband. 

To be clear, Connected Nation believes that broadband service providers have a 

reasonable expectation that their proprietary and competitively sensitive infrastructure and subscriber data should be protected from disclosure. The good news is that 

the public disclosure of such information isn’t necessary to serve the public interest. 

Instead, that information could be protected and analyzed by a single non-government clearinghouse entity to derive broadband coverage and speed capabilities without revealing the more sensitive characteristics of any given network. Connected 

Nation has proven throughout its history that a neutral, third-party aggregator of 

infrastructure data can both hold that information tightly and produce accurate and 

granular coverage maps from it—maps that are much more accurate than the current Form 477 process yields. 

Another important function that a clearinghouse entity should play is on-theground field validation of coverage in geographic areas that warrant additional scrutiny, as well as areas where federal dollars are being invested to build out new infrastructure. This should involve the deployment of network engineers to visit communities, visually inspect infrastructure assets, conduct drive-testing of wireless 

networks, and make coverage adjustments to the maps accordingly. The public 

should also play an important role in providing feedback on the map, and their feedback should be used to both engage providers in refining coverage depictions, as well 

as helping to determine where field audits should take place. 

We hope that Congress will consider a clearinghouse as a path forward to serve 

the public interest by informing federal decisionmaking on infrastructure investments, ensuring accountability for those dollars as they are spent, and protecting 

sensitive provider data all at the same time. By facilitating accurate and granular 

mapping, Congress can ensure that broadband on tribal lands is properly depicted 

and future federal efforts to close the digital divide are aptly targeted. We look forward to answering any questions that you may have. 

Thank you. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

GEOFFREY C. BLACKWELL

Tribal Priorities for FCC 

In your testimony, you discussed the importance of FCC understanding tribal priorities on the ground level. You discussed a dedicated tribal budget and accessibility 

to correct data to understand the broadband access challenges in Indian Country. 

You also mentioned potentially writing a letter to the FCC regarding the importance 

of tribal access to broadband. 

Question 1. How else can the Committee be helpful to ensure the FCC prioritizes 

tribal needs and funding? 

Answer. I am happy to provide a bold answer to this question. I have been working in this arena for almost twenty years and, as I stated in my oral testimony, 

what I have learned about the challenges of the digital divide in Indian Country 

in those twenty years has taught me to be bold in my proposals. I firmly believe 

that Congress should create a Tribal Broadband Fund to, finally, spur infrastructure 

deployment on Tribal lands and in Native communities. This is not a new proposal, 

but it has new potential. The federal government and the Federal Communications 

Commission (‘‘FCC’’) have been supporting the telecommunications industry with 

billions of dollars a year through the Universal Service Fund programs, including 

the High Cost Fund (also known as the Connect America Fund) and the Lifeline 

program. These billions have only brought us this far in Indian Country. When we 

learn what the actual figures are on broadband deployment in Indian Country, after 

the corrections are made in response to the GAO findings on the data being inaccurate, there will be an even greater impetus to focus on the problem that these 

currents programs have not, cannot, solve. 

47 

It is time for a new program—a targeted program with bold priorities to bring 

connectivity where the U.S. has not previously been able to bring it. It is time for 

a Tribal Broadband Fund, a program dedicated to actually delivering on the proverbial promise to Indian Country. Done well, the Tribal Broadband Fund will make 

all the difference and go a long way toward articulating both the federal government’s commitment to, and faith in, Indian Country. 

Again, this is a not a new proposal. It was needed before, but now its time has 

really come. Indian Country first coalesced around this proposal in response to the 

federal calls for input on a national broadband plan in 2009. The FCC accepted this 

input and first supported this recommendation in its 2010 National Broadband 

Plan, when it said: 

Recommendation 8.18: Congress should consider establishing a Tribal 

Broadband Fund to support sustainable broadband deployment and adoption in 

Tribal lands, and all agencies that upgrade connectivity on Tribal lands should 

coordinate such upgrades with Tribal governments and the Tribal Broadband 

Fund grant-making process. 

Acknowledging the ‘‘unique connectivity challenges’’ facing Indian Country back 

in 2010, the FCC went on to explain this recommendation by stating that support 

from a Tribal Broadband Fund ‘‘would be used for a variety of purposes, including 

bringing high-capacity connectivity to Tribal headquarters or other anchor institutions, deployment planning, infrastructure buildout, feasibility studies, technical assistance, business plan development and implementation, digital literacy, and outreach.’’ 

While much progress in broadband connectivity has occurred in Indian Country 

since 2010, the most recent broadband deployment statistics on Tribal lands remain 

appalling. According to the GAO, the statistics are actually worse than the reports 

indicate. As I stated in my testimony, the most recent FCC data, contained in its 

2018 Broadband Deployment Report and released in February of this year, shows 

that Tribal lands continue to be left far behind from receiving the advanced services 

envisioned by Congress. For example, 36 percent of residents of Tribal lands lack 

access to fixed broadband service at the FCC’s benchmark speed of 25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream (‘‘25/3’’), as compared to 7 percent nationwide. And the disparity grows even more striking on Tribal lands in rural areas, where 59 percent 

of residents lack access to what has become the high-speed Internet lifeblood of our 

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

And, as everyone now knows, and Tribal Nations have always known, it’s worse 

than that. 

There are broadband success stories in Indian Country, such as the Middle Rio 

Grande and Jemez and Zia E-rate consortia in our state of New Mexico that obtained universal service E-rate funding to bring Tribally owned fiber broadband networks to the schools and libraries of six Pueblo communities. While these successes 

are to be celebrated and will serve as a model for future E-rate consortia, such accomplishments are, sadly, much too few and far between in Indian Country. As long 

as the majority of federal broadband funding goes to incumbent carriers, incumbent 

thinking, incumbent models, and incumbent apathy, the innovation necessary to 

bring broadband infrastructure to many remote and cyclically under-privileged and 

economically distressed Tribal lands will lay fallow. 

That is why a Tribal Broadband Fund is more necessary in 2018 than it was 

when the FCC recommended its creation in 2010. Inertia is often the greatest challenge and it is time to address it. There are those who will oppose a Tribal 

Broadband Fund. Some will oppose because it is not their idea, or they do not stand 

to benefit. Others will oppose because it is simply a change from the world in which 

they operate. Others will say it cannot be afforded, or it isn’t necessary if some 

tweaks and changes are made to the current programs. Others will suggest yet another pilot program or commission another study. None of that matters, especially 

when compared to the enormity of the problem and the various dangers inherent 

in the lack of connectivity for these communities. 

What we have now simply isn’t working in enough places to make a measureable 

difference. Carriers and providers will find ways to adapt and derive value in a new 

subsidization and build out program. Pilot programs for broadband in Indian Country have done very little compared to the glaring enormity of the problem. It is time 

to be bold. And anyone who knows anything about the Universal Service Fund 

knows that it has the resources to afford the amounts it will take to bring about 

change. We are talking about a level of funding that may take many millions, but 

not many billions. I know this because, in 2009, three very active inter-Tribal organizations then involved in developing responses to the National Broadband Plan 

docket also came together to develop a potential total figure for the amount that 

48 

a Tribal Broadband Fund would need to be successful. Although the organizations 

chose not to publish that figure at that time, those same organizations and the same 

cadre of Tribal telecom policy analysts could easily re-engage on the effort. 

There will also be those who say that the FCC doesn’t have the authority to create a new fund among its Universal Service Fund mechanisms. Although I personally doubt that, Congress can and should easily clarify this question before it is even 

offered. The onus should be placed upon those with the responsibility, and it should 

be a shared effort with Indian Country to develop such a fund. The FCC has some 

of the best regulatory communications attorneys, economists, and engineers in government, and with Congressional oversight and paired with the intellectual resources, research, and analysis capabilities of Indian Country and institutions dedicated to working with Tribal Nations to bring about a change in broadband deployment, I am confident that the development of a Tribal Broadband Fund can be well 

planned out, calibrated for operational efficiencies, properly funded, and created 

with the correct targets, abilities, and measurements for successful outcomes. 

This will not be too simple or too easy a task, but it will be a very worthy and 

important task. Perhaps it is most important to state that the need for such a Tribal 

Broadband Fund, and its ultimate goals, is completely congruent with the goals of 

Universal Service itself. A substantial fund, targeted specifically to broadband deployment on Tribal lands, will bring 21st century connectivity to Tribal lands and 

Native communities that, but for such funding, will never see meaningful 

connectivity. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO GEOFFREY C. BLACKWELL

Streamlined Application Process 

Reading through the GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of the same concerns that tribal communities have are shared by those in rural areas more generally. Specifically, under section titled ‘‘Grant Application Requirements,’’ the report says quote ‘‘Representatives from eight of the tribes we contacted told us that 

in general, the language included in the federal grant applications is difficult to understand or the administrative requirements of federal grants are burdensome.’’ 

This is similar to concerns I have heard from others in both tribal and nontribal 

rural areas in Nevada. 

Question 1. Do you believe streamlining the application processes for broadband 

programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband buildout? 

Answer. Yes, I believe streamlining the application processes for broadband programs should be one important part of a comprehensive strategy to make broadband 

programs more accessible and, as a result, to encourage broadband deployment 

across Indian Country and other parts of rural America. In addition to streamlining 

application processes, I believe that this comprehensive strategy should be comprised of the following components: (1) strategic and timely review and processing 

of broadband funding applications; (2) technical assistance—before, during, and 

after broadband deployment; and (3) genuine and purposeful engagement and education. 

A significant data point from the past is the experience and outcome of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The Notice of Funds Available application strategy of certain federal agencies in response to the mandates of the Stimulus 

Act, especially when paired with a ‘‘shovel ready’’ project approach, did not help Indian Country. Not at all. The process to deploy on Tribal lands is simply more complicated, thus planning and technical assistance processes in Indian Country often 

take longer. Often taking the time needed to genuinely train and engage to develop 

good deployment plans and business models makes all the difference. Many Tribal 

Nations either already are, or have the genuine potential to become, the economic 

mitochondria in their regions, and it is time for lawmakers and regulators to recognize and engage on that potential. 

Streamlining broadband funding application processes is a delicate balance between federal agencies’ fiduciary responsibilities with respect to federal dollars and 

creation of a ‘‘gotcha’’ process for applicants. Often, a simple and inadvertent mistake dooms a new, inexperienced, or even veteran Tribal applicant to the rejection 

pile. It is often difficult for federal officials in Washington, DC to understand that 

those completing complex broadband applications undertake that task in addition 

to their regular, full-time jobs as Tribal planners, IT professionals, teachers, school 

or hospital administrators, or a myriad of other in-house Tribal professionals. While 

there have been incremental improvements over the years with some federal 

49 

broadband programs, such as the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Erate program, there is much yet to be accomplished. 

Strategic and timely review and processing of broadband funding applications is 

closely related to the current challenges associated with broadband application processes. The often extremely long and drawn-out application review period serves as 

a serious impediment to broadband deployment. Consider the FCC’s E-rate program, 

for example. This very valuable and successful program still has serious challenges 

with timely review and approval of broadband applications for schools and libraries. 

Often, applications are not approved until well into, or at the end of, the program’s 

funding year. The practical impact of this process is that applicants are forced to 

seek a waiver from the FCC or, in some cases, are automatically given an extra year 

to use the E-rate funding—both of which result in yet another year in which those 

schools and libraries continue to lack 21st century connectivity and all of its benefits. 

Compare the current experience of E-rate with that of the Stimulus Act when, in 

my opinion, things simply moved too fast to be of impact to areas that had the worst 

effects of the digital divide. Had the agencies involved in the stimulus programs 

taken a deliberate, but calculated, amount of time to actively engage in consultation 

with Tribal Nations and other unserved communities about what projects could be 

possible with the help of a gauged amount of technical assistance and coordination, 

I believe a great deal more government investment in rural and Tribal lands would 

have resulted. I am familiar with what it takes to bring broadband projects together 

in rural and Tribal communities. City economics don’t often work. With the Stimulus Act, ‘‘demand aggregation’’ was not a part of the planning—it was speed and 

impact. But the ‘‘bang for the buck’’ analysis went only so far. Technical assistance 

planning that engaged these communities to aggregate their core community institutions and other institutional users would have presented some compelling stimulus rural projects, in my opinion. But as it was, a majority of the actual infrastructure funding went to incumbents in areas where there was already a measure of 

broadband deployment. 

There are many definable reasons as to why these areas of the country lack service, and projects based on simple economic measures, like population density, or on 

unrealistic timing, will always lack the indicators of success in rural and Tribal 

communities. These are areas where most corporations would not venture based on 

their own business models, so I have consistently encouraged federal lawmakers and 

regulators to envision new models and work closely with these communities to determine sustainable models that engage on the realities of their situations and that 

are based on more than simple economic puts and takes. Many Tribal Nations, responding to the lack of interest from for-profit companies and other outside entities, 

are forced to face the reality of somehow having to deploy broadband themselves. 

They have to confront the reality of their own ownership economics and, in their 

environments, federal dollars are essential. With few exceptions, no critical infrastructure has ever come robustly to Indian Country without significant federal involvement, investment, and oversight. 

I understand that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility with regard to federal dollars, but a better balance must be struck that helps both the process and the applicants. 

Tribal Expertise 

In the GAO report on partnerships one of the concerns mentioned is that tribes 

often do not have some of the technical expertise necessary to access some of the 

funding that is available. This is also a concern that stakeholders have raised with 

me as one of the major problems for getting some of this funding to where it is truly 

needed. The GAO notes that the Rural Utilities Services has provided some funding 

for technical assistance for applicants, funding that enabled RUS to address some 

of the barriers tribes face. However, according to the report, RUS has not adequately taken steps to identify or address the barriers tribes face when applying for 

RUS grant funding, including lack of expertise. 

Question 2. What can the federal government do better to bring some technical 

help to tribes? 

Answer. Providing specific and dedicated technical assistance funding for outside 

expert entities to work with Tribal Nations is a very important and productive step 

that the federal government can take to bring technical help to Tribes in the 

broadband arena. And this funding must cover all facets of broadband projects—before, during, and after broadband deployment. Such a mechanism would help the 

government ensure that federal dollars are being invested and utilized wisely and 

for the long-term benefit of Tribal communities. 

50 

While technical assistance provided directly by federal government agencies is always welcome, it cannot substitute for on the ground, side-by-side assistance and 

support. Largely located in Washington, DC, far from Tribal lands both geographically and culturally, government staffers generally do not live daily with the remoteness and the terrain issues that define many Tribal lands. This is not a criticism, 

but it is a fact. Providing Tribes with the necessary funding to choose those from 

whom they want to receive technical assistance will lead to broadband deployment 

that will benefit generations to come. 

Question 3. Are federal workshops helpful? 

Answer. Yes, federal workshops can be helpful, if planned and conducted properly 

and in partnership with Tribal Nations and communities. When I served as Chief 

of the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP), I overhauled the Commission’s Tribal training program. In 2012, my team and I identified and implemented 

a paradigm that incorporated the following components: (1) consultation with Tribal 

Nations; (2) responsiveness to the needs and requests of Indian Country; (3) a targeted regional approach; (4) smaller but more engaged and vested audiences; (5) a 

far more interactive approach; and (6) a Native Learning Lab with laptop computers 

pre-loaded with training modules and dedicated staff members to answer individual 

questions and/or assist with regional issues. Perhaps most importantly, our efforts 

to consult with Tribal Nations to elicit their input and responses to our regulatory 

approaches were predicated on a measured amount of training and technical education. Telecommunications policy and regulations are complex areas, but are not 

insurmountable areas to understand with targeted and interactive training and education efforts. This approach was transformative to the FCC’s policies and progress 

on Tribal government matters, and my staff and our team from across the FCC received accolades from remote corners of Indian Country. 

Another key element to any federal workshop or Tribal consultation is the presence of actual decision makers on all sides. I found early on in my federal work that, 

when senior decision makers and policy experts from across the FCC actually 

stepped foot into Tribal workshops in Indian Country, it not only attracted the presence of elected and appointed senior Tribal officials, but it also engaged them in a 

meaningful way that a routine training did not. It built relationships and trust, and 

it informed many an effort first hand if the senior decision maker was present. My 

eyes were opened many times in such conversations, and I owe a debt of gratitude 

to many senior officials from both sides of those tables for what I learned from them 

in those interactions. It is imperative that Tribal workshops involve decision makers, not only trainers or outreach staffers. 

I also cannot emphasize enough the importance of an interactive approach to any 

federal workshop. While presentation of materials and information is important, it 

is not enough. Quite the contrary—a shared federal/Tribal experience is necessary. 

The most popular segment of the FCC’s consultation and training workshops during 

my tenure as Chief of ONAP was almost unanimously a panel comprised of Tribal 

leaders, IT directors, and other IT professionals. This panel discussed and debated 

broadband issues unique to their communities and engaged the audience in the discussion—which was educational and informative to both the conference participants 

and the FCC staff members in attendance. 

Workshops, and the materials and issues presented, also have to remain fresh to 

remain relevant. Federal presenters must imagine themselves as participants in the 

audience and ask, ‘‘Why is what I’m hearing relevant to the challenges at home?’’ 

There are few things worse than hearing the same material, presented in the same 

way, time and time again. We also learned on numerous occasions that workshops 

coordinated among several federal agencies with broadband programs—such as the 

FCC, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Commerce—can make 

very effective use of the time and money of both Tribal Nations and the federal government. 

Telemedicine 

In Nevada, we’ve recently completed the Nevada Broadband Telemedicine Initiative. It has been a great example of a public-private partnership, including Switch, 

a Nevada tech company and the Nevada Hospital Association, as well as local and 

federal cooperation to improve the rural quality of life in the state. For example, 

when Desert View Hospital in Pahrump recently celebrated their connectivity they 

talked about how they are able to triage mental health issues via telemedicine without the necessary costs of transport to Las Vegas, as an example. I am very excited 

about this and how these applications can work for our native communities in Nevada, many of whom live hundreds of miles from the nearest population center. 

Question 4. Is this any unique challenges for rural tribal communities accessing 

telemedicine that may differ from other remote places? 

51 

Answer. Yes, there are unique challenges facing Tribal communities. For example, 

access to broadband is much lower in Tribal rural communities than in non-Tribal 

rural communities. Recognizing the GAO’s findings about the seriously inferior quality of the FCC’s data, even what appears in the most recent reports is starkly severe. According to the FCC’s most recent data, contained in its 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 59 percent of residents of rural Tribal lands lack access to 25 

Mpbs downstream/3 Mpbs upstream (25/3) broadband service. This dire statistic 

compares to another unacceptable statistic—30 percent of residents of non-Tribal 

rural areas lack access to 25/3 service. Again, according to the GAO study, this is 

an overstatement. It is a unique frustration that the only data we have is inaccurate. But nevertheless, it is clear that broadband deployment in rural parts of Indian Country is far lower than other parts of the nation, which presents a serious 

impediment to, among other things, accessing telemedicine. 

In addition, the definition of ‘‘rural area’’ for purposes of certain federal 

broadband funding programs exacerbates telemedicine challenges in Indian Country. For example, the FCC’s Rural Health Care universal service subsidy program 

defines ‘‘rural area’’ by using U.S. Census Bureau definitions. While perhaps making 

sense from Washington, DC, the practical reality in Indian Country is that many 

areas not meeting the FCC’s definition of ‘‘rural area’’ are what anyone setting foot 

in these areas would determine to be rural. For example, there are several Pueblo 

communities in New Mexico that, while located between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, 

are about as rural as you can get. Yet, these Pueblos are deemed non-rural for purposes of the Rural Health Care program. Terminology that is not in line with reality 

can itself be termed a failure of government. The practical effect of failing to meet 

the FCC’s definition of ‘‘rural area’’ means that many Tribal communities are precluded from the very subsidies that would facilitate access to telemedicine. A more 

reasonable definition, rooted in the reality of rural Tribal communities and rural 

America in general, would correct this ongoing error. 

Rural Spectrum 

In Nevada, we have two main metropolitan areas and the rest of the population 

lives in small towns and rural areas often separated by hundreds of miles. Tribal 

communities in these areas are not only separated by distance, but also by mountainous and remote terrain. Another challenge is that this land is almost always 

owned by the federal government, so we have a very unique situation in Nevada 

as we try to build out broadband to some of the rural and tribal communities that 

live in these areas. One of the issues that has arisen is that wireless spectrum 

works differently in mountainous areas than it does on flat land or in the city. 

Question 5. What challenges that arise with getting the right spectrum to bring 

fixed wireless to these areas? 

Answer. This is an area where I have chosen to spend a focused amount of time 

during my career, both as a federal regulator and a Tribal representative, always 

as a broadband policy advocate. Spectrum licensing and the access to spectrum is 

a key to unlocking the immense wireless divide that many communities in rural and 

Tribal regions experience. There are numerous challenges with providing access to 

spectrum and wireless coverage to Tribal and rural communities across the country, 

including: 

• The lack of wireless services is where the biggest digital divide is occurring. The 

problem is not so much a lack of spectrum as it is a lack of access to spectrum. 

• Large amounts of spectrum are warehoused and not built out by those who hold 

the spectrum licenses. Many Reservations have dozens of licensees holding spectrum over their lands but those licensees either decline to provide service or decline to sublease the spectrum to those who would build out. 

• Potential sublease negotiations and discussions often fail before they even get 

a chance to begin. The FCC’s secondary markets regulations are spongy. They 

lack due process and procedures that make it possible for parties, including 

Tribal Nations and smaller, more market sensitive carriers, to get genuine engagement from the license holders. These regulations do not include concrete 

guidelines or methods that would ensure actual subleases, through partitioning 

or disaggregation of spectrum, seeing the negotiation table, much less actual 

build out. Moreover, the FCC has not acted on proposals contained in its 2011 

Spectrum Over Tribal Lands Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘Spectrum Over 

Tribal Lands NPRM’’) that would augment Tribes’ ability to sub-lease spectrum. 

• The FCC regulatory notions of build-out to rural and Tribal lands should be 

overhauled and updated. Whereas wireless services were seen 25 years ago as 

a luxury and never a complete alternative option to wireline services, now wireVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
52 

less services are the primary method by which mobile citizens in rural and Tribal communities stay in touch. 

• The licensing areas themselves need to be overhauled to attract and incentivize 

new entrants and new, more small market based approaches. Rural and Tribal 

community economics are not the economics of pure population density. More 

rural and Tribal community oriented models that engage communities at many 

levels, including their core community institutions, have a chance to succeedif provided the potential that spectrum licensing holds. A license is a bankable 

asset that can bring the ability to attract investment. 

• It is time to start looking to new entrants and new incentive strategies involving spectrum because it is clear that the larger national wireless companies will 

not build out to Tribal lands and rural communities. The FCC simply cannot 

incentivize carriers to go where, pursuant to their own business models, there 

is no economic incentive to serve. The FCC has tried to pay the wireless industries to build our for over 18 years, to no significant avail. Since 2000, for example, the Tribal Lands Bidding Credits program has not met with success. The 

offer was simple—work with a Tribe and build out to its lands to a particular 

level and the FCC will provide back to you the value of what you have spent 

in buildout in a credit for spectrum in the FCC’s highest-bidder wins spectrum 

auctions. It was a groundbreaking approach in 2000, but it has been a failure 

at bringing any measurable buildout to Tribal lands. Why? Because, while the 

price of spectrum has gone up so far through any imaginable roof in the FCC’s 

Auctions (see the results of the FCC’s Advanced Wireless Spectrum 3 auction), 

Indian Country with all its challenges and relatively impoverished low population density continues to remain an unattractive area for the major wireless 

corporations. This is especially true with such significant federal regulation. It 

is time to recognize the need for new license based incentives. 

• As a result, Tribes have been forced to look at ownership economics, making 

the difficult choice of providing service themselves and going into debt because 

no one else will provide service. 

The solution to this enduring challenge and injustice is to make spectrum available and accessible to those who will use it on Tribal lands—smaller market sensitive companies, including most importantly, Tribal Nations themselves. Giving 

Tribal Nations spectrum, and empowering the opportunities of smaller market sensitive business models, is a necessary next step. 

The FCC is rightly proud of its elaborate and largely successful wireless licensing 

framework. I shared in that pride for a significant portion of my career. But Indian 

Country and rural America were largely an afterthought in that framework. And 

when it comes to the effects of regulatory mechanisms, that framework has not led 

to better build out in Indian Country. In many communities, it is beyond laughable 

as to how bad the service is—it is actually dangerous. It is time to do something 

new and different. 

In 2011, over 7 years ago, the FCC unanimously launched the Spectrum Over 

Tribal Lands NPRM. The FCC has yet to take any action on this NPRM but, among 

many proposals, there are multiple that are still quite relevant and viable. Among 

these, the FCC proposed a Tribal priority (similar in concept to the priority in has 

had in effect for the same time period for full-power commercial radio licenses) that 

would be made available only for unserved or underserved Tribal lands for qualifying Tribal entities, designated as such by the relevant Tribal government. For 

such Tribal lands within a geographic area covered by an unassigned license, the 

FCC sought comment on a proposal that a Tribal priority would permit a qualifying 

Tribal entity to proceed in licensing without proceeding to competitive bidding. This 

would greatly reduce the cost of initiating and providing service on Tribal lands. 

The rationale for this approach is the same for both full-power commercial radio licenses and wireless spectrum licenses because, in both situations, Tribes have a 

governmental responsibility for, among other things, public safety. Consider the 

wild fires in California and other western states, and the continuing critical and 

unmet need for interoperable communications across Tribal lands and rural America 

becomes even more dire. 

The inability to access spectrum held under existing spectrum licenses via secondary markets negotiations processes, as discussed above, also continues to plague 

Tribal Nations. In its 2011 Spectrum Over Tribal Lands NPRM, the FCC sought 

comment on a Tribal proposal for the creation of a formal negotiation process 

through which a Tribe that had been refused good faith negotiations regarding a 

secondary markets transaction within a wireless licensee’s geographic area of license could require the licensee to enter into such negotiations. This approach 

would prevent Tribes from being foreclosed from access to existing, unused spectrum 

53 

over their lands. If the FCC will not take the next steps, any steps, it is time for 

Congress to act to shake loose new thinking, or shake loose new action on these still 

highly viable options. 

Congress and the FCC hold in their hands the solution to many of these spectrum 

challenges facing Tribal lands and rural America in the form of an open rulemaking 

proceeding. For all of the reasons discussed above, Congress should direct the FCC 

to take action on its 2011 Spectrum Over Tribal Lands NPRM to effectuate the Tribal Priority and the new secondary markets mechanisms. 

Question 6. What challenges arise with getting infrastructure built on federal 

lands? 

Answer. This is a difficult question to answer. Or rather, the answer could be so 

long and complex so as to recall memories of an old encyclopedia. As Tribal lands 

are federal lands, a large portion of my other answers are relevant here. However, 

in simple terms, there are two major areas in my experience that come immediately 

to mind among the many challenges. The first is having effective and reliable processes for the use of the federal lands, such as leaseholds, rights-of way, easements, 

and other such methods of legally deploying communications infrastructures. It goes 

without saying that these legal property law processes should be respected and followed, but it is important to note here that I have either witnessed or learned about 

the presence of communications infrastructure on dozens of Indian reservations that 

lack the proper federal authorization. It was saddening to see dark fiber on a reservation that was never known about or lighted because it was laid without the 

proper right-of-way. These processes must be prioritized for communications infrastructure. Federal land management agencies must engage a new element of their 

personas and recognize they have a responsibility to play a role in the deployment 

of broadband nationwide. Leaseholds and rights-of-way must be properly valued. 

Federal lands should be appropriately and properly made available to deployment, 

rather than stand as obstacles. 

A related major area that comes immediately to mind is the coordination of efforts 

when federal lands are used. It could be a very good idea to re-convene federal interagency task force or working group efforts, but these should involve practice level 

experts who will contribute, not figureheads. Collocations of wireless infrastructures 

on federal towers should be made available, if not actually marketed. When trenches 

are dug for placement of infrastructure into the ground, the famous ‘‘dig once’’ ideology should be recognized and other deployments should be included as appropriate, as possible. ‘‘Dig once’’ is a simple concept, but can be challenging in practice. 

Environmental and cultural preservation regulation as they apply to communications infrastructures is an area where I have spent a large amount of time. This 

is a complex and often-controversial arena. First, I believe one cannot turn one’s 

back on the historic and cultural heritage of our communities. Reviews should be 

budgeted and accounted for in planning and programmatic funding. Secondly, I 

think the controversies should be placed in the hands of the experts, with the mandate to find middle ground. In the face of complexity and challenges to the environmental and cultural preservation review processes, there is an alarming trend to 

juxtapose those requirements against the goals of deployment and development. 

In my opinion, this is a mistake. These are areas of governmental priorities that 

should not be balanced against each other. Instead, as much as possible, they should 

be harmonized. Connectivity should not come at the price of environmental and cultural preservation impacts. And while there are places that are simply too sacred 

to see a tower placed in their midst, or fiber trenched through, the cultural preservation process should be cognizant of the need and place that connectivity occupies 

in society. One must acknowledge a history of impact and loss of cultural resources 

and sites of religious and cultural significance in Indian Country. If Tribal preservation officials are leery of industries, it is not for no reason at all. These are areas 

where lawmakers and regulators should engage with experts, avoid the hyperbole 

in arguments, and avoid simply making rough policy cuts based on the outlier cases 

or the radical opposing viewpoints held by certain of those in industry and the preservation community. Lawmakers and regulators should seek to find the common 

ground, uphold the law, call out parties that offend or take advantage of the system, 

and reward those who participate or coordinate in the deployment of infrastructure 

that maximizes the potential for deployment and minimizes the potential for cultural preservation impacts. 

54 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

PATRICK WEBRE

Tribal E-Rate Timeline 

During the hearing, I mentioned that two E-Rate specific recommendations from 

the 2016 GAO Report on tribal broadband have not been addressed. When I asked 

about the progress on addressing those two recommendations, you replied that the 

FCC implemented the first recommendation; the program forms now contain guidance on what qualifies as ‘‘tribal.’’ You also stated the USAC’s tribal liaison encourages tribal applicants to identify themselves as tribal so it can track who is participating in the E-Rate Program, leading to more accurate data. 

Question 1. What else has the FCC done to ensure further progress in addressing 

these two recommendations from the 2016 GAO report on tribal broadband? 

Answer. The Commission implemented the first recommendation from the 2016 

GAO Report (GAO–16–222) (i.e., to provide guidance on what qualifies as ‘‘Tribal’’ 

on E-Rate program forms) in funding year 2017. Specifically, the E-Rate program 

forms now include guidance about when a school or library should identify itself as 

‘‘Tribal,’’ and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) has greatly enhanced its method for collecting this information by improving the Tribal ‘‘check 

box’’ in its system. 

Regarding the second recommendation, the FCC has directed USAC to improve 

its IT systems for purposes of data collection and reporting about the E-Rate program, and USAC has made substantial progress in this area. For example, in November 2017, USAC rolled out its OpenData platform, which makes E-Rate program 

data-including data on Tribal schools and libraries-available to the public. It’s available at https://opendata.usac.org/. We anticipate this data will be more informative 

as schools and libraries follow the new guidance on how they can identify themselves as ‘‘Tribal,’’ and we expect this data will help the Commission assess its 

progress in ensuring that all Tribal schools and libraries have affordable access to 

broadband. 

Question 2. When will we see accurate data from the E-Rate program in tribal 

lands? 

Answer. The Commission remains committed to ensuring that all Tribal schools 

and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies. To ensure 

that we have accurate data on all Tribal applicants within the E-Rate program, 

USAC’s Tribal liaison encourages Tribal applicants to check the ‘‘Tribal’’ box on ERate applications so that USAC can better understand who is participating in the 

E-Rate program, provide relevant Tribal outreach and training, and assess the effectiveness of those outreach and training efforts. Educational efforts have included 

conducting monthly conference calls with Tribal applicants and multiple Tribal-specific training sessions on an annual basis; coordinating with Tribal organizations 

such as the Bureau of Indian Education, the Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries and Museums, the National Indian Education Association, the National Congress of American Indians, Native Public Media, and the Alaska Tribal Administrators Association; maintaining and updating a Tribal-specific reference webpage on 

USAC’s website; and distributing newsletters tailored to the needs of Tribal applicants. To this end, USAC’s Tribal liaison, in coordination with the Commission’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy and Wireline Competition Bureau, has made significant strides in engaging Tribal governments and communities, explaining the relevance of the E-Rate program to eligible Tribal schools and libraries, and helping 

eligible Tribal schools and libraries successfully participate in the E-Rate program. 

Challenge Process for Form 477 Data Collection 

During the hearing, I mentioned the process for challenging data collected using 

Form 477. When Tribes challenge the data, Tribes endure a costly appeals process 

and often are unsuccessful. Tribes also report that this process is skewed in that 

the Industry controls the reporting of data. 

Question 3. How many Tribes have appealed the data collected from Form 477? 

Answer. The Commission uses FCC Form 477 to collect voice and broadband data 

from all facilities-based providers of mobile and fixed telecommunication providers. 

This data is used to produce reports of the state of voice and broadband coverage 

in the United States, as well as appropriately inform FCC policy decisions. As recognized in the current Form 477 rulemaking (FCC 17–103), the FCC currently collects 

information at the census block level, and the Commission is currently considering 

the best ways to improve the level of detail the Commission collects while appropriately balancing the costs and burdens on the companies submitting the information. 

55 

The semi-annual Form 477 collection currently does not have a formal challenge 

process as the collection is designed for providers of voice and broadband service to 

report where they can reasonably provide service upon a request from a customer. 

This data is then used to produce the various maps and reports the Commission 

provides on the state of voice and broadband service in the United States. When 

this data is used to inform the Commission’s funding and policy decisions, the Commission appropriately considers the limitations of the Form 477 data. This has resulted in multiple formal challenge processes for Commission funding. 

For example, in both the A–CAM (DA 16–842) and CAF II (DA 15–383) proceedings the Commission instituted a formal challenge process to the areas determined eligible by the models and Form 477 data. No Tribes or Tribal carriers participated in these challenge processes. 

Although the Mobility Fund Phase II auction does not rely on Form 477 data (but 

instead separately submitted, standardized mobile broadband data), the Commission 

opened a window for challenges that lasted through November 26, 2018. Sixteen 

Tribal governments participated in the MF II challenge process (DA 18–1225). 

In the Commission’s April 2018 Tribal Opex Order, the Commission gave relief 

to carriers serving Tribal lands, but limited that relief to carriers that had not yet 

deployed 10/1 Mbps service to 90 percent or more of the housing units on the Tribal 

lands in its study area. Mescalero Apache Telecom Inc. has filed a petition challenging the Form 477 used to find that Mescalero Apache had more the 90 percent 

deployment. 

Question 4. How many Tribes were successful? 

Answer. With respect to MF II challenge process, on December 7, 2018, Chairman 

Pai announced that the FCC has launched an investigation into whether one or 

more major carriers violated the MF–II reverse auction’s mapping rules and submitted incorrect coverage maps. The Commission has suspended the next step of the 

challenge process—the opening of a response window—pending the conclusion of 

this investigation. 

With respect to the petition filed by Mescalero Apache Telecom Inc., on December 

20, 2018, the Commission adopted an order granting relief to the carrier. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO PATRICK WEBRE

Streamlined Applications Process 

Reading through the GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of the same concerns that tribal communities have are shared by those in rural areas more generally. Specifically, under section titled ‘‘Grant Application Requirements,’’ the report says quote ‘‘Representatives from eight of the tribes we contacted told us that 

in general, the language included in the federal grant applications is difficult to understand or the administrative requirements of federal grants are burdensome.’’ 

This is similar to concerns I have heard from others in both tribal and nontribal 

rural areas in Nevada. 

Question 1. Do you believe streamlining the applications processes for broadband 

programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband buildout? 

Answer. Yes. In all of the Commission’s rulemakings devoted to broadband buildout, the Commission focuses on how to best reduce regulatory burdens while ensuring consumer protections. 

RUS and E-Rate 

Looking at the recent GAO Report on partnerships on tribal lands, there is a focus 

on ways RUS could help tribes obtain funding to expand broadband deployment on 

their lands—including through RUS’s grant program. I understand that there are 

60,000 mostly rural K–12 Native students who attend federally-supported schools 

that do not have the broadband infrastructure required for digital learning in the 

classroom. 

Question 2. Are any of you aware if there are ways that RUS grant programs 

could be leveraged to provide the matching funds for the FCC’s E-Rate program in 

order to connect these students? 

Answer. Yes. In the E-Rate program, the Commission will match, on a dollar-perdollar basis, up to an additional 10 percent of funds for high-speed connection construction, so long as the connection meets the Commission’s connectivity targets of 

at least 100 Mbps per 1,000 students and staff (users) in the short term and 1 Gbps 

Internet access per 1,000 users in the longer term as set forth in the 2014 First ERate Order (FCC 14–99). Thus, if an E-Rate eligible Tribal school received RUS 

grant funding to construct a high-speed broadband connection, the Commission 

56 

would provide additional funding to match, on a dollar-per-dollar basis, up to 10 

percent of the high-speed broadband connection construction costs, so long as the 

project provided broadband that meets the Commission’s connectivity targets. 

Rural Spectrum 

In Nevada we have two main metropolitan areas and the rest of the population 

lives in small towns and rural areas often separated by hundreds of miles. Tribal 

communities in these areas are not only separated by distance but also mountainous 

and remote terrain. Another challenge is that this land is almost always owned by 

the federal government, so we have a very unique situation in Nevada as we try 

to build out broadband to some of the rural and tribal communities that live in 

these areas. One of the issues that has arisen is that wireless spectrum works differently in mountainous areas than it does on flat land or in a city. 

Question 3. What challenges arise with getting the right spectrum to bring fixed 

wireless to these areas? 

Answer. The Commission has worked diligently to make available additional spectrum for use in rural and tribal areas to reduce the cost of providing service. For 

example, through the broadcast incentive auction, we have repurposed 84 MHz of 

spectrum from the broadcast TV band to be used for advanced wireless use nationwide. The Commission also recently started an auction of 1.55 gigahertz of spectrum 

in the 24 and 28 GHz bands that will be essential to 5G deployment and other advanced services, and is working to facilitate an auction of the Upper 37, 39, and 47 

GHz bands to further support these types of services. Furthermore, the Commission 

sought comment on opening a new local priority filing window for rural Tribal Nations in the 2.5 GHz spectrum band. Such a window would allow rural Tribal Nations an opportunity to access 2.5 GHz spectrum to address the educational and 

communications needs of their communities and residents on rural Tribal lands, including the deployment of advanced wireless services in areas that currently lack 

such service. 

Question 4. What challenges arise with getting infrastructure built on federal 

lands? 

Answer. The FCC generally has no direct role in land management agencies’ decisions concerning infrastructure deployment on federal lands, but we have taken important steps to support government-wide efforts to reduce barriers to infrastructure 

investment and deployment. The FCC participated in an interagency working group 

formed in 2016 to streamline federal agencies’ review, pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act, of the effects of proposed communications deployments on 

historic properties. That working group’s efforts culminated on May 24, 2017, with 

the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation’s issuance of a Program Comment 

that authorizes federal agencies to accelerate their processes for identifying and considering the effects of communications infrastructure projects on historic properties, 

and to exempt certain undertakings from historic-preservation review under specified conditions. And on January 24, 2018, the Broadband Deployment Advisory 

Committee (BDAC), voted to adopt the report of its Working Group on Streamlining 

Federal Siting, which recommended that all federal land-management agencies be 

directed to harmonize their application forms, fees, and procedures for environmental and historic preservation review, communicate more clearly with applicants 

during the review process, and prioritize their consideration of broadband siting applications such that all review be completed within 60 days. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TOM UDALL TO

MARK GOLDSTEIN

Tribal E-Rate Timeline 

During the hearing, I mentioned that two E-Rate specific recommendations from 

the 2016 GAO Report on tribal broadband have not been addressed. When I asked 

about the progress on addressing those two recommendations, you replied that you 

will get back to me on this and that the GAO does follow up on an annual basis. 

Question 1. Is GAO aware of any FCC progress in addressing these two recommendations from the 2016 GAO report on tribal broadband? 

Answer. The two open recommendations are from GAO–16–222 and state that 

FCC should (1) improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions that receive E-Rate funding by defining ‘‘tribal’’ on the program application, and (2) develop performance goals and measures to track progress on achieving its strategic 

objective of ensuring that all tribal schools and libraries have affordable access to 

modern broadband technologies. On October 24, 2018, we requested an update from 

FCC on the status of its efforts to implement these recommendations. An FCC offiVerDate Mar 15 2010 13:18 Jan 07, 2019 Jkt 034056 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\DOCS\34056.TXT JACK
57 

1Pub. L. No. 111–5, 123 Stat. 115, 118–119 (2009). 

cial told us that our request was being reviewed by subject matter experts; however, 

FCC was not able to provide us with the requested information in time to be included in this response before the hearing record is closed. We will continue to actively work with FCC on the steps it is taking to implement these recommendations 

and will update the status on our website as appropriate. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO

TO MARK GOLDSTEIN

Streamlined Application Process 

Reading through the GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of the same concerns that tribal communities have are shared by those in rural areas more generally. Specifically, under section titled ‘‘Grant Application Requirements,’’ the report says quote ‘‘Representatives from eight of the tribes we contacted told us that 

in general, the language included in the federal grant applications is difficult to understand or the administrative requirements of federal grants are burdensome.’’ 

This is similar to concerns I have heard from others in both tribal and nontribal 

rural areas in Nevada. 

Question 1. Do you believe streamlining the application processes for broadband 

programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband buildout? 

Answer. While we have not conducted any recent work necessary to answer this 

question, our work has shown that completing federal grant applications to obtain 

funding for broadband deployment can be challenging for tribes. As we stated in our 

September 2018 report, tribal officials we interviewed told us the grant application 

process for broadband infrastructure may be resource-intensive and time-sensitive, 

thus putting an administrative and financial burden on tribes. For example, some 

of the tribal officials we contacted cited difficulties preparing requirement application materials between the time a grant announcement was made and the submission deadline. Further, tribal officials we contacted from New Mexico and Oklahoma 

told us the constrained timeframes prevented them from effectively preparing a 

comprehensive application package. 

Tribal Expertise 

In the GAO report on partnerships one of the concerns mentioned is that tribes 

often do not have some of the technical expertise necessary to access some of the 

funding that is available. This is also a concern that stakeholders have raised with 

me as one of the major problems for getting some of this funding to where it is truly 

needed. The GAO notes that the Rural Utilities Services has provided some funding 

for technical assistance for applicants, funding that enabled RUS to address some 

of the barriers tribes face. However, according to the report, RUS has not adequately taken steps to identify or address the barriers tribes face when applying for 

RUS grant funding, including lack of expertise. 

Question 2. What can the federal government do better to bring some technical 

help to tribes? 

Answer. Dedicated funding and technical assistance grants have helped some 

tribes acquire the technical expertise they need to access broadband infrastructure 

funding. For example, RUS previously administered the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), authorized by the Recovery Act in 2009 1 to expand high-speed Internet 

service in unserved areas. In addition to providing funding to deploy broadband infrastructure, BIP included funds specifically for technical assistance. In our September 2018 report, we noted that 12 technical assistance grants went to tribal communities to develop regional plans to provide broadband service in rural areas that 

remain critically unserved. During the course of our review, RUS officials told us 

that RUS would need dedicated funding, such as that authorized by BIP, to provide 

technical assistance for tribes. The RUS officials believe that such technical assistance would help tribes overcome some of the barriers that they face in applying for 

RUS grants. 

Question 3. Are federal workshops helpful? 

Answer. During the course of our review, RUS officials told us they have held a 

number of external training and outreach events, such as workshops and seminars, 

with tribes over the past 5 years to provide information about RUS’s broadband programs. For example, in April 2018, before the 2018 Community Connect grant’s application deadline, RUS hosted a webinar on various requirements for grant applications. RUS officials told us that RUS’s outreach efforts generally focus on specific 

58 

programs and instructing potential applicants on program requirements and how to 

complete application packages. Although GAO did not conduct a formal review of 

the effectiveness of these workshops and outreach events, RUS officials told us they 

strive to make outreach efforts interactive so that there is two-way communication 

between the agency and tribes. In addition to workshops, RUS officials said they 

reach tribes through direct contact, telephone calls, emails, and joint outreach with 

FCC. 

Æ