Assessment of

Technology Infrastructure in

Native Communities

Dr. Linda Ann Riley

Dr. Bahram Nassersharif

Dr. John Mullen

College of Engineering

Box 30001

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, NM 88003

Prepared for

Economic Development Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

Washington, D.C. 20230

This report was prepared under award number 99-07-13799 from the Economic Development Administration, 

U.S. Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the 

authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Economic Development Administration.
About the logo

The logo for this project was designed by Dr. Bahram Nassersharif with input from Drs. Riley and Mullen. 

The logo represents technology infrastructure in Native communities depicting telecommunications and 

digital circuits in a pueblo or village setting supported by both human engineered infrastructure (the 

triangles) and natural infrastructure (earth, water, and skies depicted in the colors filling the triangles).
i

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

● ● ● ● ● ●

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is the result of efforts by many dedicated Native 

Americans who genuinely participated and contributed to the 

expert interviews, summit working groups, summit 

presentations, and the tedious task of assisting in getting the 

surveys completed. 

We are especially grateful to Dr. Kelly Robinson of the 

Economic Development Administration for his genuine interest 

in this project, and his contributions in reviewing the draft final 

report.

The Principal Investigators could not have completed this work 

without the help and support of the following individuals:

Panel of Experts George Baldwin, Professor of Social and Behavioral Science, California 

State University-Monterey Bay

Victor Chavez, Manager, Regional & Small Business Partnering 

Department, Sandia National Laboratories

Bob Cita, Director, Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium 

(SEARHC)

William DeHaas, Tribal Planner, Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma

Robert Gemmell, Manager of Information Systems, Suquamish Tribe, 

Washington

Petuuche Gilbert, Realty Officer, Tribal Councilman, Acoma Pueblo

Desmond Jones, Central Office Engineer, Navajo Communications 

Company

Rex Kontz, Acting Manager, Engineering and Technical Services 

Division, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA)

Tim McGee, Acting Manager of Information Systems, Cherokee Nation 

of Oklahoma

Thomas Pagano, CPA, CVA, Telecommunications Valuation Consultant

Ken Robbins, President, National Center For American Indian Economic 

Development 

Randy Ross, Executive Director, Indian Center, Inc.

Roy Sahali, Project Manager, Tribal Connections Project, National 

Network of Libraries of Medicine/University of Washington 

(NN/LM), Health Science Library 

Daniel Sanchez, Telecommunications Consultant 
ii Acknowledgements

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Pat Spears, President, Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

John Tahsuda, Deputy Attorney General, Oneida Tribe of New York

Emily Ipalook Wilson, Special Assistant to Administrator, Samuel 

Simmonds Memorial Hospital, Arctic Slope Native Association

Victor Chavez, Manager Regional & Small Business Partnering Expert Interviewees

Department, Sandia National Laboratories

Harold Felipe, Information Systems Manager, Sky City Casino

Mathew Foster, Economic Development Planner, Pueblo of Sandia

Bernadine Garcia, Tribal Economic Development Planner, Acoma 

Pueblo

Petuuche Gilbert, Realty Officer, Tribal Councilman, Acoma Pueblo

Desmond Jones, Central Office Engineer, Navajo Communications 

Company

Rex Kontz, Acting Manager Engineering and Technical Services 

Division, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA)

Joyce Merrill, Vice President, Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, Indian 

Pueblo, Marketing, Inc.

Angela R. Padilla, Assistant Vice President, NationsBank, Community 

Investment Group

Eric Vigil, Rural Business -- Cooperative Service Specialist, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Rural Development

Scott Zuiderveen, Assistant Vice President, NationsBank, Commercial 

Banking

Asa'carsarmiut Tribe Survey Respondents

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes, Fort Peck Indian Reservation

Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians

Chalkyitsik Village

Cheyenne-Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation

Crow Tribe of Montana

Evansville Village

Hopland Band of Pomo Indians

Hughes Village

Igiugig Village

Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope
iii

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Lovelock Paiute Tribe of the Lovelock Indian Colony

Makah Indian Tribe

Manokotak Village

Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Mille Lacs Band

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, White Earth Band

Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government

Native Village of Chistochina

Native Village of Eyak

Native Village of Gambell

Native Village of Kipnuk

Native Village of Nightmute

Native Village of Noatak

Native Village of Ruby

Native Village of Shishmaref

Native Village of Tanana

Native Village of Tuntutuliak

Navajo Nation of Arizona, New Mexico & Utah

Ninilchik Village

Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation

Ponca Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

Ponca Tribe of Nebraska

Pueblo of Acoma

Quinault Tribe

Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians

Seneca Nation of New York 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Mission Indians

South Naknek Village

Stillaguamish Tribe of Washington

Tohono O'odham Nation of Arizona

Tonto Apache Tribe of Arizona

Tunica-Biloxi Indian Tribe of Louisiana

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota
iv Acknowledgements

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska

Yomba Shoshone Tribe of the Yomba Reservation

Ms. Mandy Chavez, NMSU Support Staff

Ms. Jaye Hawkins, NMSU

Desiree Benally Student Assistants

Martha Cobb

Thomas Garmong 

Robert Gillihan

Aiya Hart

Carlos Lara 

Shannon Manuelito

John Roberson

Larry Smith
v

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

● ● ● ● ● ●

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction On August 6, 1998, President Clinton directed the Department 

of Commerce, in conjunction with the Department of Interior 

and Native American tribes, to undertake a technology 

infrastructure study of American Indian and Alaska Native 

communities. The study was to fulfill three fundamental goals: 

1. Assess the current state of technology infrastructure in 

Native communities;

2. Identify and describe the challenges and barriers to 

technology infrastructure development in Native 

communities; and 

3. Propose solutions for overcoming these challenges and 

barriers. 

After conducting a nationwide review of proposals, the 

Commerce Department’s Economic Development 

Administration contracted with the College of Engineering at 

New Mexico State University (NMSU) to conduct the study 

between January and June of 1999. This report presents the 

findings of that research.

Scope of Study This project defined the concept of “technology infrastructure” 

very broadly to include all forms of infrastructure that routinely 

affect economic development. While many people 

automatically associate the term with telecommunications, it is 

clear that telecommunications infrastructure alone cannot 

improve the economic conditions in Native communities 

without a sound network of roads, utilities, and similar 

infrastructure. Likewise, technology infrastructure 

development cannot proceed unless Native communities have a 

certain minimal capacity in the form of a skilled labor force, 

capability to undertake technology and strategic planning, and 

resources to finance infrastructure investment. 

The study included Native communities throughout the lower 

48 states and Alaska.

The Current State of 

Technology Infrastructure 

in Native Communities

By just about any measure used, individuals living in Native 

communities or villages typically have less income, receive less 

education, and suffer from higher unemployment and poverty 
vi Executive Summary

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

rates than individuals in non-Native communities. Native 

communities also lag far behind non-Native communities in 

“basic” infrastructure such as roads, utilities, and housing. The 

gap between Native and non-Native communities is even greater 

in “advanced” technology infrastructure such as Internet access, 

cellular telephone service, and cable TV. Many Native 

communities have made important gains in some types of basic 

technology infrastructure. However, these gains are more than 

offset by the rapid growth in the importance of, and demand for, 

advanced technology infrastructure. 

For example, results from the survey associated with this project 

show:

• Only 39% of rural households in Native communities have 

telephones compared to 94% for non-Native rural 

communities.

• Approximately 26% of tribes report that they do not have 911 

service. 

• 44% of tribes have no local radio stations, and for those tribes 

with radio stations, these stations are rarely tribally owned.

• In rural areas, (population areas with less than 2,500 

individuals), 12% of Native households lack electricity and 

23% lack gas.

• Of rural Native households, only 22% have cable television, 

9% have personal computers, and of those, only 8% have 

Internet access.

• 61% of tribes report not having a single manufacturing 

facility in their community.

• Only 17% of the responding tribes have a technology 

infrastructure plan, 44% have an economic development plan 

and 35% have a strategic plan in place.

• Nearly 90% of Native schools and libraries have both 

computers and Internet access.

Tribes overwhelmingly identified their top investment priorities 

as housing, roads, waste water technology and medical facilities 

while expressing the opinion that basic levels of technology 

infrastructure must be in place to lay the foundation for more 

advanced levels.
vii

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Today, many Native communities find themselves in a vicious 

circle. The weak economic base of these communities makes it 

difficult to support infrastructure investment. And in turn, the 

poor state of infrastructure undermines their ability to undertake 

and attract successful economic development initiatives. 

Barriers to Development of 

Technology Infrastructure 

in Native Communities

Native, government and private sector participants in our 

research identified many barriers that interfere with tribal efforts 

to develop and maintain technology infrastructure in Native 

communities. The most important of these include: 

• The generally weak economic base of these Native 

communities that prevents them from investing in either 

physical infrastructure or worker training necessary to 

support technology infrastructure;

• Geographical remoteness that raises the cost of providing 

technology infrastructure;

• Distrust on the part of some Native Americans of specific 

new technologies and of federal assistance;

• Lack of an integrated, interagency Native American 

investment strategy;

• Federal policy that fails to reflect the severity of the 

technology gaps faced by Native Americans,

• Insufficient information dissemination regarding federal 

programs available to the tribes; and

• Insufficient planning in Native communities.

In general, while there are many programs already in place 

intended to improve the current state of technology 

infrastructure in Native communities, these programs could be 

better coordinated into an overall Native American investment 

strategy. 

Recommendations for 

Closing the Technology 

Infrastructure Gap between 

Native and non-Native 

Communities

Based on our research and extensive discussion with project 

contributors, we recommend that the federal government 

provide assistance and encourage private investment for 

developing Native technology infrastructure. This can be 

accomplished by: 

• Developing a long-term, consistent federal investment 

strategy for Native technology infrastructure that also 

encourages the development of public and private 

partnerships. The federal government should continue to 

serve as a catalyst to spur private investment such as the 

Administration’s New Markets Initiative. This strategy 
viii Executive Summary

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

should identify specific investments needed, assign 

responsibility for those investments to specific agencies and 

partners, and estimate budgetary needs and timelines to 

complete the necessary investments; 

• Increasing funding, developing incentive programs, and 

facilitating strategic partnerships for development of 

Native technology infrastructure. The most badly needed 

investments are for physical infrastructure, planning 

assistance, and workforce development;

• Improving the efficiency with which existing Native 

infrastructure programs are delivered. As part of this 

recommendation, we suggest a series of interagency working 

groups. The charge of these groups would be to: target 

specific types of infrastructure initiatives; identify program 

strengths, weaknesses and gaps, and; maximize synergy 

between different agency programs funding similar Native 

infrastructure areas; and

• Recognizing the sovereignty of tribes to plan, develop, and 

manage their own technology infrastructure. Most 

important, the federal government should give tribes greater 

authority to grant utility right of ways and to purchase land 

needed for effective technology infrastructure development.

Consistent with these broad, cross-cutting policy suggestions, 

we recommend that the federal government support 

improvements in specific infrastructure areas by:

• Assisting Native communities to upgrade their basic 

utilitiesproviding funding, establishing programs, and 

involving private sector participants in technology transfer to 

tribes, as well as simplifying federal review of their 

development efforts;

• Assisting Native communities to upgrade their 

educational facilities and programs for workforce 

development and managerial training. Most notably, 

greater support is needed for distance education programs 

and computer facilities in Native schools and the networks 

needed to connect them to the rest of the world; 

• Increasing funding for, and coordination of, federal 

programs to help Native communities install and maintain 

telecommunications infrastructure;

• Setting standards, facilitating partnerships and creating 

programs needed to encourage the development of 

telemedicine programs; and
ix

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

• Increasing program and technical support for, and 

highlighting successful private initiatives in, Native 

American economic development activities. 

Methodology To arrive at these findings, NMSU researchers: 

1. Conducted interviews with Native technology experts, tribal 

planners, utilities managers, federal and private technology 

infrastructure program managers, and technology transfer 

experts from the national laboratories;

2. Undertook a technology infrastructure survey targeted at all 

federally recognized tribes;

3. Convened a Native Technology Infrastructure Summit of 

nationally recognized Native experts to discuss, analyze, and 

propose solutions for technology infrastructure development 

in Native communities; and 

4. Reviewed prior scientific, governmental and other literature 

related to Native technology infrastructure development.

For more information on this study, please contact:

Dr. Linda Ann Riley (505) 646-2475; 

E-mail: linriley@nmsu.edu

Dr. Bahram Nassersharif (505) 646-3502; 

E-mail: bn@nmsu.edu

Dr. John Mullen (505) 646-2958; 

E-mail:jomullen@nmsu.edu

College of Engineering, Box 30001

New Mexico State University

Las Cruces, New Mexico 88003

Project Website: http://alpha.nmsu.edu/~tech

Project E-mail: tech@alpha.nmsu.edu
x Executive Summary

• 

• 

• •••
xi

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

● ● ● ● ● ●

 CONTENTS

Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Chapter 1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1-1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1-2 W hy Study Native Communities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1-3 W hat is Technology Infrastructure? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1-4 W hy are Technology Infrastructure Needs Different in Native 

Communities? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1-5 Elements of the Project Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1-6 Scope of the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1-7 Plan for the Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Chapter 2 The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in 

Native Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2-1 Where Are We Now? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2-2 The Demand for Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities 10

2-1 The Supply of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities . . 15

2-2 Advanced Technology Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Chapter 3 Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure

Development in Native Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3-1 Common Challenges Faced by Native Communities . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3-2 Obstacles to Specific Types of Technology Infrastructure. . . . . . . . 36

3-3 Obstacles to Telecommunications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

3-4 Obstacles to Distance Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
xii Contents

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

3-5 Obstacles to Telemedicine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3-6 Lagging Technology Infrastructure Investment as an Obstacle to 

Manufacturing and Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Chapter 4 Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure 

Gap in Native Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4-1 Synopsis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

4-2 Develop a Long-Term, Consistent Federal Investment Strategy 

for Native Technology Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4-3 Increase Funding to Break the Vicious Circle of Poverty and 

Weak Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4-4 Improve the Efficiency of Existing Federal Infrastructure 

Programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4-5 Strengthen Tribal Sovereignty to Develop and Manage their Own 

Technology Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4-6 Infrastructure-Specific Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4-6.1. Utilities, W ater, and W aste W ater Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

4-6.2. Education Programs and Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

4-6.3. Telecommunications Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4-6.4. Telemedicine Facilities and Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4-6.5. Economic Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

4-7 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix A Survey Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A-1 A Preliminary Model of Federally Recognized Native American 

Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

A.1.1. Stratification of the Preliminary Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

A-2 Survey Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Appendix B Summit Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

B-1 Summit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

B-2 Expert Panel Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

B.2.1. Principal Investigators’ Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

B.2.2. Summit Facilitators’ Biographies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
xiii

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Appendix C Summit Working Group Summary Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

C-1 Economic Development/Industry/E-Commerce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

C-2 Utilities/Roads/W ater/W aste W ater . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

C-3 Education/Distance Learning/Culture and Language Preservation . 98

C-4 Telecommunications/Internet Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

C-5 Medical Health/Telemedicine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Appendix D Website . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
xiv Contents

• 

• 

• •••
xv

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

● ● ● ● ● ●

 LIST OF TABLES

 TABLE 2.1: Ten Most Populous American Indian Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

TABLE 2.2: Native American Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

TABLE 2.3: Population of the Ten Largest Reservation or Trust Lands Native 

Communities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

TABLE 2.4: Alaska Native Regional Corporations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

TABLE 2.5: College Enrollment, American Indians by Selected Characteristics: 

1980 to 1996 (in thousands). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

TABLE 2.6: Ten Lowest Telephone Penetration Rates for Reservations in 1990 . . . 17

TABLE 2.7: Percentages of Homes, Businesses, Schools and Health Care 

Providers with Telephones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

TABLE 2.8: Reservation Recap - Plumbing and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

TABLE 2.9: Reservation Recap - Waste Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

TABLE 2.10: Percentage of Tribes with Various Infrastructure Services and 

Breakdown of Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

TABLE 2.11: Summary of Basic Infrastructure in Place for Tribes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

TABLE 2.12: Percentage of Tribes with Various Advanced Infrastructure Services 

and Breakdown of Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

TABLE 2.13: Percentages of Homes, Businesses, Schools, and Health Care 

Providers with Cable, Computers and Internet, Unweighted for 

Native American Community Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

TABLE 2.14: Plans and Programs in Place . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

TABLE 2.15: Allocation of One Million Dollars on Tribal Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

 TABLE A.1: Native American Communities and Population by Population Strata. . . 80

 TABLE A.2: Native American Communities and Population by Land Ownership 

Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
xvi List of Tables

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 TABLE A.3: Native American Communities and Population by 

Land Configuration Strata. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

 TABLE A.4: Native American Communities and Population by Community 

Land Area Strata . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
1

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 Chapter 1

● ● ● ● ● ●

 INTRODUCTION

1-1. Overview

On August 6th, 1998, at a conference entitled “Building 

Economic Self-Determination on Indian Lands,” President 

Clinton announced a multifaceted plan for improving economic 

conditions in American Indian and Alaska Native communities. 

As one element of this plan, the President directed the 

Department of Commerce to undertake a technology 

infrastructure study with collaboration from the Department of 

the Interior and tribal governments. 

This report presents the findings from that study, undertaken 

between January and June of 1999. The report documents the 

current state of technology infrastructure in Native 

communities, then identifies and describes barriers to improving 

that technology infrastructure. Finally, it makes suggestions for 

funding, policy, and strategic alternatives to overcome these 

barriers.

1-2. Why Study Native Communities?

Government statistics and academic studies have consistently 

documented significant disparities in economic performance 

and technology between Native and non-Native communities in 

the U.S. By just about any measure used, on average, 

individuals living in Native communities or villages have less 

income, receive less education, and suffer from higher 

unemployment and poverty rates than individuals in other types 

of U.S. communities. The gap between Native and non-Native 

communities is even greater in “advanced” technology 

infrastructure such as Internet access, cellular telephone service, 

and cable TV.

...”To continue our focus on infrastructure technology needs and 

business development in American Indian and Alaska Native 

communities, I direct the following actions.

First, I direct the Secretary of 

Commerce, in collaboration with 

the Department of the Interior and 

tribal governments, to report 

back to me within 9 months on 

the state of infrastructure technology needs in Indian communities, including distance learning 

facilities, telecommunications 

capabilities, and manufacturing 

facilities. This report should identify the infrastructure technology 

needs in Indian country and set 

forth proposals that would help 

address these needs.”...

WILLIAM J. CLINTON

August 6, 1998
2 Chapter 1: Introduction

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

What makes these statistics even more significant is that instead 

of improving over time, there is evidence in a number of cases 

of worsening trends. Today, many Native communities find 

themselves in a vicious circle where their weak economic base 

makes it difficult to support infrastructure investment, and the 

poor state of their infrastructure undermines successful 

economic development.

Regardless of the type of development strategies or masterplans 

adopted by Native communities, a necessary prerequisite for 

improving the economic well-being of these communities is a 

certain level of technology infrastructure.

1-3. What is Technology Infrastructure?

Most people understand intuitively what infrastructure is. It is 

the roads, telephone lines, sewers, and similar large capital 

investments needed to keep towns and cities functioning. 

Usually, but not always, the size of these investments and the 

shared character of their benefits necessitates significant public 

involvement, both in terms of funding and setting standards for 

quality and access. In recent years, economists, urban planners, 

and others have gradually expanded the definition of 

infrastructure to include “softer” support areas such as 

education and health maintenance systems. While not “bricks 

and mortar,” it is clear that these areas represent important 

public investments necessary to support a healthy economy and 

functioning communities. They are human and institutional 

capital investments, rather than investments in physical capital.

Most people have a more difficult time defining what 

technology infrastructure is, and it is not readily apparent why 

Native technology infrastructure is any different than other 

kinds of technology infrastructure. Technology infrastructure 

simply refers to those fundamental investments in physical, 

human, and institutional capital needed to support continued 

technological progress in our communities. Usually, this has 

been explained in terms of economic development. The most 

common example provided is investment in advanced 

telecommunications infrastructure, such as fiber optic cables 

and microwave relays needed to conduct modern business.

Technology infrastructure 

simply refers to those fundamental investments in physical, human, and institutional 

capital needed to support 

continued technological 

progress in our communities.
Why are Technology Infrastructure Needs Different in Native Communities? 3

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

However, technology infrastructure is much more than this. It 

includes investments necessary to upgrade the skills of workers 

to develop and use new technology as it becomes available. It 

also includes institutional changes needed to support 

technological advance. Examples include investments in 

systems for registering Internet addresses and the setting of 

standards for digital transmissions. Technology infrastructure is 

also not limited to purely economic applications. It can include 

cultural institutions, recreation, health and welfare, and any 

other aspect of daily life. An example would be the 

development and deployment of systems for digitally cataloging 

and displaying museum collections. 

1-4. Why are Technology Infrastructure Needs Different in Native 

Communities?

Understanding what technology infrastructure is still does not 

tell us why technology infrastructure needs may be different in 

Native communities than elsewhere. There are at least two 

reasons why Native technology infrastructure may be different.

Poor state of existing 

infrastructure

First, the poor state of existing infrastructure in most Native 

communities means there is less of a foundation to build on than 

in other communities. A number of Native communities, for 

instance, have poor telephone service and low rates of telephone 

penetration. In such communities, continued technological 

progress requires either that telecommunications access is first 

improved, or that future technologies not be heavily dependent 

on existing systems. 

Different technological 

needs

Second, Native communities may have different technological 

needs than other communities. Technology demands in urban 

areas for instance, may be very different than those in rural 

areas; and people in poor communities may have very different 

expectations of new technologies than individuals in wealthier 

areas. 

Likewise, the technological demands of a community are partly 

determined by cultural factors. The experts contributing to this 

study steadfastly insisted that new technologies adopted in their 

communities should respect their languages, religions, oral 

traditions, methods of governance, and attitudes toward privacy 

and community. 
4 Chapter 1: Introduction

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Because the technology infrastructure needs in any community 

depend on its existing state of technology and technological 

goals, it is not surprising that there is tremendous variety in how 

different Native communities define technology infrastructure. 

In every interview we conducted, in our survey, and at the 

beginning of the Native Technology Infrastructure Summit, we 

asked Native contributors to the project to define“technology 

infrastructure.” We received nearly as many responses as there 

were participants.

For some, technology infrastructure meant installing T1 lines; 

for others it meant modernizing basic utilities. Some Native 

respondents defined technology infrastructure in terms of 

specific outcomes such as, “connectivity within the community” 

and “interconnectivity to the rest of the world.” Other 

contributors stressed the need for technology infrastructure to 

improve economic capacity and skills within the community. 

Those tribes with active industrial enterprises and economic 

development strategies located in, or close to urban areas 

viewed technology infrastructure as gaining higher computer 

penetration levels in homes or businesses. Another technology 

infrastructure goal for these tribes was to integrate Internet 

capabilities into tribal planning models. This included building 

a Native skill base to develop and apply geographical 

information system (GIS) planning.

Alternatively, for other tribes in rural communities 

encompassing large land areas, technology infrastructure meant 

getting basic utilities such as electricity and plumbing into 

homes. For the Alaska Native communities and villages, 

establishing road access, availability of health care through 

telemedicine mechanisms and bridging distance and time gaps 

to take advantage of education programs through the Internet 

were major definers of technology infrastructure. These 

Alaskan villages, many of which are geographically isolated, 

viewed technology infrastructure as a means to close space, time 

and expertise gaps.

There exists no single 

technology solution or 

strategy equally applicable 

for every American Indian 

and Alaska Native 

community.

Clearly, the way that tribes define technology infrastructure, the 

specific barriers to development they face, as well as the 

technologies and economic development strategies appropriate 

to their situation vary significantly from one community to 

another. Therefore, in discussing the challenges and barriers to 

technology infrastructure development, it is important to 

Technology infrastructure 

should provide the framework that facilitates effective 

resource management while 

supporting a tribe’s specific 

cultural preservation, education, economic development 

and community health goals. 

Respondent to the project 

survey
Elements of the Project Plan 5

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

remember that there exists no single technology solution or 

strategy equally applicable for every American Indian and 

Alaska Native community.

1-5. Elements of the Project Plan

Prior studies have identified a series of barriers that inhibit 

technology infrastructure development in Native communities 

including: 1) the prohibitive costs of building the technology 

infrastructure; 2) the lack of training on how to use the 

technologies; 3) attaining the education on how, and what to 

select as the technologies to meet specific tribal development 

needs; 4) federal law/policy which makes it difficult for Native 

communities to access funding and programs; 5) right-of-way 

issues; and 6) tribal, state and federal approval processes [1, 6, 

8, 10]. Our research builds on these earlier studies, but goes 

further by highlighting current programs and initiatives, and 

proposing new solutions directed to overcome technology 

infrastructure gaps between Native and non-Native 

communities.

The NMSU research team employed a number of different 

methodologies to assess the current state of technology 

infrastructure in Native communities and generate solutions for 

the identified technology gaps. These methodologies included:

• Convening a panel of 17 national experts at a Native 

Technology Infrastructure Summit. These individuals 

represented a range of expertise in Native technology 

infrastructure areas including telecommunications, utilities, 

medical/health, education/training and economic 

development. The names of these experts are found in 

Appendix B.

• Conducting a series of expert interviews and focus group 

interviews with:

• telecommunication technology managers, tribal 

planners, tribal utilities managers, economic 

development planners and Native technology transfer 

managers from the Department of Energy National 

Laboratories;

• tribal representatives and consultants attending Native 

American related Federal Communications Commission, 

(FCC) hearings and technology infrastructure 

conferences; and
6 Chapter 1: Introduction

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

• representatives from the Departments of the Interior 

(DOI), Commerce and Agriculture as well as Native 

owned and operated computer networking firms and 

financial institutions funding Native infrastructure 

projects.

• Completing a literature search and background study of 

technology infrastructure studies undertaken to date 

involving Native communities. 

• Conducting a national technology infrastructure survey of all 

federally recognized tribes allowing each tribe to offer input 

on the issues of technology gaps, challenges and technology 

implementation barriers in their communities. 

• Creating a website documenting the progress, findings and 

various resources related to this project. A great deal of 

expanded information pertaining to the expert contributions, 

tribal databases and survey results is found at the website. 

The project website is: http://alpha.nmsu.edu/~tech and the 

project e-mail address is: tech@alpha.nmsu.edu. At the 

conclusion of the project funded by EDA, responsibility for 

maintaining and supporting the Website was assumed by 

New Mexico State University. A sitemap of the Website is 

included as Appendix D.

• Compiling the final report in electronic and paper form 

summarizing the background literature, input from the panel 

of experts, and recommendations for strategic alternatives 

serving to close the technology gaps in Native communities. 

This report is also available in PDF file format at the website.

1-6. Scope of the Project

As defined in the President’s directive, the scope of this project 

involves the approximately 740,000 American Indians, Eskimos 

and Aleuts of Alaska, (collectively called Native Americans) 

living in Native communities. Native communities are those 

areas classified as: 1) reservation or trust areas; 2) Tribal 

Jurisdiction Statistical Areas; 3) Tribal Designated Statistical 

Areas; and 4) Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas.

1-7. Plan for the Report

As a first step to finding solutions, Chapter 2 of this report 

presents the current state of technology infrastructure in Native 

communities. Chapter 3 discusses the barriers and challenges to 
Plan for the Report 7

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

technology infrastructure development. Finally, Chapter 4 

proposes solutions in the form of policy reforms, changes to 

federal laws or regulations, private/public partnerships, and new 

or expanded funding initiatives. 
8 Chapter 1: Introduction

• 

• 

• •••
9

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 Chapter 2

 THE CURRENT STATE OF TECHNOLOGY

● ● ● ● ● ●

INFRASTRUCTURE IN NATIVE COMMUNITIES

2-1. Where Are We Now? 

Before we can assess the technology infrastructure needs of 

Native Americans or make suggestions for improving federal 

policy or private investment strategies, it is necessary to present 

a picture of where we are today. In this chapter, we describe the 

existing state of technology infrastructure in Native 

communities and discuss how this state is affected by 

geographic, demographic, and economic factors.

One of the greatest challenges in assessing the state of 

technology infrastructure in Native communities is the lack of 

current, statistically valid data. The last comprehensive survey 

of infrastructure reported across the total population of Native 

Americans and Alaska Natives was the 1990 Census. Although 

the Bureau of the Census has conducted updates of housing 

using “the American Housing Survey” since 1990, the sample 

size for Native Americans is too small to be statistically valid. 

Consequently, the American Housing Survey includes Native 

Americans in the aggregated group called “other minority” [24]. 

In addition, the Census relies on a process of self-identification 

as “Native American” and generally reports statistics on the 

basis of the total Native American population in contrast to 

Native Americans living in Native communities. 

Other agencies such as the National Telecommunication and 

Information Administration (NTIA), the FCC, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA), Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) and Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(HUD) have also explored infrastructure in Native communities 

using surveys, case studies, formal hearings and expert 

interviews [3, 10, 13, 14, 25]. In particular, the Commerce 

Department’s NTIA has worked to bring Native issues to the 

attention of key policymakers as part of its work on universal 

service policies to assist low income and rural areas. In 
10 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

addition, through its Falling Through the Net reports, NTIA has 

examined the “digital divide” among America’s households. 

However, all of the various agency studies have typically have 

focused on smaller subsets of the Native population living in 

certain regions or participating in selected programs. 

To get a more comprehensive and updated picture of the current 

state of Native technology infrastructure, we have 

complemented the 1990 Census data with our own survey 

conducted for this project. This survey was mailed to 

approximately 550 federally recognized tribes with follow-up 

phone calls made to tribes in targeted subgroups to assure 

representation from all types of Native communities. 

Because of the short duration of this project, surveys were still 

being received from tribes as the final report went to press. 

Nonetheless, the survey results presented in this chapter are 

based on responses that are representative of the population of 

all contacted tribes. Forty-eight tribal responses are included in 

this analysis representing 289,400 of the 740,000, or 

approximately 40% of all Native Americans living in Native 

communities. Appendix A presents a detailed discussion of the 

survey methodology, response rate, and a copy of the survey 

instrument. The project website provides periodic updates of the 

survey analysis as addition tribal responses are added to the 

database.

2-2. The Demand for Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

According to the 1990 Census, there were about two million 

Native Americans, (American Indians and Alaska Natives), 

living in the United States. Table 2.1 lists the ten most populous 

tribes in the U.S. These tribes account for a little more than half 

of the total population of American Indians and includes 

individuals living in both Native and non-Native communities. 

Consistent with the Presidential directive that motivated this 

study, we have focused on those 38% of Native Americans that 

live in designated Native communities. The breakdown of 

Native community type and the percentage of Native Americans 

living in these communities is presented in Table 2.2. 

Reservations and trust lands constitute the largest category of 

Native communities. Table 2.3 lists the ten most populous 

reservations in the United States. Note that the Navajo 
The Demand for Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities 11

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Reservation is an order of magnitude larger than the next largest 

reservation, Pine Ridge. American Indians living on the Navajo 

Reservation constitute approximately 34% of all Indians living 

on reservation or trust lands and 20% of all Indians living in 

Native communities. Therefore, the effect of the Navajo 

population on weighted aggregate statistics, (such as the 

Census), is dramatic. 

In addition to reservations and trust lands, approximately 

254,000 Native Americans live in Native non-reservation 

communities consisting of Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical Areas 

and Tribal Designated Statistical Areas. 

 TABLE 2.1: Ten Most Populous American Indian Tribes

Tribe Number

Cherokee 308,000

Navajo 219,000

Chippewa 104,000

Sioux 103,000

Choctaw 82,000

Pueblo Indians 53,000

Apache 50,000

Iroquois 49,000

Lumbee 48,000

Creek 44,000

Source: Adapted from Paisano, et al. [5], Figure 2.

TABLE 2.2: Native American Communities

Type of Area Population Percent

Reservation and Trust Lands 437,431 22.3%

Tribal Jurisdiction Statistical Areas 200,789 10.2%

Tribal Designated Statistical Areas 53,644 2.7%

Alaska Native Village Statistical Areas 47,244 2.4%

Other Non-Native Communities 1,220,126 62.3%

Source: Adapted from Paisano, et al. [5], Figure 11.
12 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Most of the remaining residents of Native communities live in 

Alaska Native Regional Corporations. Table 2.4 lists the ten 

most populous Alaska Native Regional Corporations. About 

half of these Regional Corporations have populations 

comparable to the top ten reservations, although none are 

anywhere near as large as the Navajo Reservation. The 

Regional Corporations are often spread over great distances and 

vary in the degree to which each forms a cohesive community.

Clearly, Native Americans are distributed widely in terms of 

community type and geographical location (even 

acknowledging the large Navajo population). It is important to 

keep this diversity in mind when characterizing Native 

technology infrastructure needs. 

Native communities are overwhelmingly rural. For the 48 tribes 

responding to our survey, the average community size is just 

over 6,000 individuals and ranges from very small Alaskan 

villages to the Navajo Nation. The great distances and rugged 

terrain of these communities often pose a significant challenge 

TABLE 2.3: Population of the Ten Largest Reservation or Trust Lands Native Communities

American Indian Reservations and Trust Lands

Native

Population

% of all Native

Population Living

on Reservation or

Trust Lands

Navajo Reservation and Trust Lands - Arizona, New Mexico, Utah 143,405 32.8%

Pine Ridge - Nebraska, South Dakota 11,182 2.6%

Fort Apache - Arizona 9,825 2.2%

Gila River - Arizona 9,116 2.1%

Papago - Arizona 8,480 1.9%

Rosebud - South Dakota 8,043 1.8%

San Carlos - Arizona 7,110 1.6%

Zuni Pueblo - Arizona, New Mexico 7,073 1.7%

Hopi - Arizona 7,061 1.6%

Blackfeet - Montana 7,025 1.6%

Total of the Ten Largest Reservation or Trust Lands 218,320 50%

Source: Adapted from U.S Bureau of the Census [16].
The Demand for Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities 13

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

when laying transmission lines, roads, and similar infrastructure 

networks. The small populations of these communities often 

makes them unattractive markets for private utilities.

Population Trends Native Americans are also one of the fastest growing population 

groups in the U.S. Between April 1, 1990 and July 1, 1998, the 

U.S. resident population grew by 8.7%, while the American 

Indian and Alaska Native resident population grew by 

14.3% [15]. By 2009, the American Indian and Alaska Native 

population is expected to reach 2.6 million, more than a third 

higher than in 1990. Driven by this population growth, the 

number of Native American households is projected to be 

890,000 in 2009, an increase of 150,000 over today’s 

figure [11]. This rapid population growth and new household 

formation is a major concern for infrastructure planning, and 

several of the experts interviewed for this project noted that 

funding of Native American infrastructure has failed to keep 

pace with this growth. 

Further compounding the infrastructure needs of Native 

Americans, especially with regard to schools, education, and 

training, is the age distribution. Overall, the Native American 

population is young. As of July 1, 1998, approximately 38% of 

TABLE 2.4: Alaska Native Regional Corporations

Regional Corporation Population

Cook Inlet 18,600

Calista 16,800

Sealaska 11,600

Doyon 10,800

Bering Straits 6,150

NANA 5,200

Bristol Bay 4,640

Arctic Slope 4,340

Koniag 2,130

Aleut 2,120

Source: Adapted from Paisano, et al. [5].
14 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

the American Indian, Eskimo, and Aluet resident population 

was under the age of 20, compared to 28.7% for the U.S. 

resident population [9].

As a group, Native Americans also tend to be economically The Economy

distressed. Moreover, the impoverished state of these 

communities has not improved dramatically in recent years. 

While the growing popularity of gaming operations among 

tribes has drawn considerable public attention, gaming has not 

been a major force in economic development for Native 

Americans overall [7]. Our experts identified fewer than a 

dozen Native communities where gaming has had major 

economic benefits. 

Unemployment rates among Native Americans remain among 

the highest in the nation. For the communities in our survey, 

reported unemployment rates averaged 42% and reported per 

capita income averaged $10,296.* By contrast, the most recent 

government data available shows that the U.S. national 

unemployment rate was only 4.5% in 1998 and average income 

was approximately $24,000 in 1996 [26, 28]. According to the 

1990 Census, the poverty rate for Native Americans was 31% 

compared to 13% for all Americans [27]

Consistent with the depressed economic state of most Native 

communities, educational attainment is typically very low. 

According to our survey, just 47% of Native Americans living in 

the responding communities graduated high school.† For 1997, 

the comparable national average was over 82% [17, 18]. As 

shown in Table 2.5, the number of Native Americans pursuing 

college degrees at all levels has steadily increased, however 

during 1996, fewer than one percent of Native Americans 

received bachelor degrees. 

*. Per capita income weighted by population. Due to the significant 

influence of the Navajo tribe, this figure is much lower than a similar 

unweighted figure. However, even without allowing for the dominance 

of the Navajo community, the average income of $14,022 is still 

extremely low.

†. Weighted by population.
The Supply of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities 15

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

2-1. The Supply of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

For the purposes of our study we divide technology 

infrastructure into two main categories: basic and advanced. 

Basic technology infrastructure includes those services that are 

considered essential for everyday economic activities and to 

maintain an average standard of living. This includes 

telephones, roads, water and sewer systems, basic educational 

facilities and the like. Advanced technology infrastructure 

includes services that might be considered optional or 

unnecessary for conducting business and living comfortably by 

a significant segment of the population. 

Figure 2.1 presents a model for analyzing and understanding 

the state of progression from basic to advanced technology 

infrastructure in Native communities. 

We should note that while there is a progression from basic to 

advanced, this hierarchy is neither absolute nor strictly linear. 

In most cases, Native communities should have basic 

technology infrastructure in place before moving to advanced 

technology infrastructure. At the same time, some Native 

communities pursue advanced technologies precisely because 

they can help offset weaknesses in basic infrastructure. As an 

example, many Alaskan villages wish to invest in advanced 

telecommunications infrastructure to compensate for poor road 

networks. Their hope is that Internet connections will allow the 

communities to send their children to school, train their 

workers, have access to good doctors, and join in cultural 

exchanges. 

TABLE 2.5: College Enrollment, American Indians by Selected 

Characteristics: 1980 to 1996 (in thousands)

Year/Characteristic 1980 1990 1996, est.

Male 37.8 47.6 55.7

Female 46.1 66.1 78.2

Public Institution 74.2 100.2 116.3

Private Institution 9.7 13.6 17.7

American Indian Total 83.9 113.7 134.0

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, adapted from [27].
16 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

The exact division between basic and advanced technology 

infrastructure is imprecise. Nonetheless, we make the 

distinction for two reasons. First, Native communities cannot be 

expected to develop advanced technologies if their basic 

technology infrastructure is vastly inferior. Second, the issues, 

processes, and systems associated with developing basic and 

advanced technology infrastructure are quite different. 

As an example, installing telephones in Native communities is 

primarily an issue of funding, whereas installing advanced 

telecommunications requires a substantial leap in the level of 

economic activity and skills in the community to support the 

infrastructure.

By any conventional measure, Native communities lag far Telephones

behind the rest of the country in basic technology infrastructure. 

The most frequently-cited measure of this is telephone 

penetration rates. According to the 1990 Census of Population, 

just 53% of Native households on reservation and trust lands had 

telephones [21], compared to the current rate of 94% for all 

American homes. Table 2.6 shows the telephone penetration 

rates for the ten “least connected” reservations. 

For 1999, the average penetration rate for telephones in 

households across all tribes responding to the survey in rural 

areas is just 39%. Since approximately 20% of all Native 

Basic Infrastructure Advanced Infrastructure

Communications 

(Video)

Television Cable television, satellite television, 

Internet

Communications 

(Audio)

Telephones Cellular telephones, digital 

telephones, geographical 

information systems, Internet

Education Community, local schools, home 

schooling

Distance learning, virtual 

classrooms

Health Community based clinics Telemedicine, teleexamining rooms

Energy Electricity, gas, oil Solar, fuel cells

Shelter Traditional housing, mobile, 

manufactured houses

“Smart” houses

FIGURE 2.1: Hierarchical Model of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities
The Supply of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities 17

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Americans living in Native communities are living on the 

Navajo Reservation, these figures are heavily influenced by the 

low (22%) penetration rate on the Navajo Reservation. If the 

Navajo Reservation is removed from the calculations, the 

percentage of households in Native communities with 

telephones jumps to 71%. Table 2.7 shows the telephone 

penetration figures for tribes responding to the survey.

According to our survey, only 6% of tribes have their own 

TABLE 2.6: Ten Lowest Telephone Penetration Rates for Reservations in 1990

Reservations and Trust Lands

Penetration Rate

(Percent of Homes

with a Telephone)

San Carlos Reservation, AZ 16.1%

Navajo Reservation and Trust Lands, AZ-NM-UT 18.4%

Gila River Reservation, AZ 22.2%

Mississippi Choctaw Reservation and Trust Lands, MS 33.6%

Fort Apache Reservation, AZ 35.5%

Northern Cheyenne Reservation and Trust Lands, MT-SD 39.0%

Pine Ridge Reservation and Trust Lands, NE-SD 41.4%

Mescalero Apache Reservation, NM 41.6%

Devils Lake Sioux Reservation, ND 42.6%

Standing Rock Reservation, ND-SD 43.2%

All reservations and trust lands 53.4%

Source: For reservations with 500 or more households: U.S. Bureau of the Census, adapted from [21].

TABLE 2.7: Percentages of Homes, Businesses, Schools and Health Care Providers with Telephones 

Basic Telephone

% Native American homes 

with Basic Telephone

% of

Businesses

with

% of

Schools

and

Libraries

with

% of

Health

Care with

Areas with

2,500 pop.

or more Rural

Responding Tribes excluding Navajo 68% 71% 96% 97% 92%

Responding Tribes including Navajo 41% 39% 96% 99% 99%

Source: Source: New Mexico State University Survey, 1999. Based on 48 responses.
18 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

telephone exchange. We also found that average household 

telephone installation costs for responding tribes was $78. The 

typical household monthly service costs were $100 for 

telephone basic service and $126 for long distance service 

within the community. The average waiting time for service 

installation was 8.3 days. 

As of 1990, the overwhelming majority of Native households Water and Sewer

received their water from off-site utilities. This is especially 

true for reservation lands located in the Western U.S., where 

households had the least complete plumbing and kitchen 

facilities. See Table 2.8. As of the 1990 Census, approximately 

20% of all Native housing units on reservations lacked complete 

plumbing facilities. 

Based on our survey, it is not totally clear how much conditions 

have improved by 1999 (because we did not ask exactly the 

same question as used in the Census). Overall, 88% of tribes 

reported that they had some water and sewer provision on their 

lands, with tribes being at least partial owners of two-thirds of 

these facilities. Virtually all schools and health care facilities, 

and 96% of businesses now have water supplied to them. 

However, approximately 40% of rural households still have 

inadequate water provision. 

Table 2.9 summarizes sewerage data for reservations with the 

worst sewer systems in 1990. At that time, fewer than half of all 

Native households used public sewage treatment facilities, and 

approximately 18% of Native households disposed of their 

sewage by some means other than public sewer, septic tank or 

cesspool. Again, the Navajo Reservation had the least 

developed infrastructure, with 49% of all households lacking 

complete plumbing, 44% of households lacking complete 

kitchens, and 46% of households disposing of their sewage by 

other means.

From the survey conducted for this project as well as expert 

interviews conducted with tribal utilities managers, the 1999 

numbers for the Navajo tribe were not much better than the 1990 

numbers. However other tribes showed some real progress 

overall. By 1999, our survey respondents indicated that 

virtually all schools and medical facilities, and 86% of all 

businesses, had sewerage infrastructure. 
The Supply of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities 19

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Electricity, Gas, and Other 

Basic Infrastructure

Electricity and gas (including oil and propane) are among the 

areas of most complete infrastructure development in Native 

communities. Virtually all tribes responding to our survey have 

gas and electricity available to schools, libraries, and health care 

facilities. However, tribes still report that in rural areas, 12% of 

Native households lack electricity and 23% lack gas. Only a 

quarter of the surveyed tribes generate their own electricity. 

As part of our survey, we also asked tribes to report on areas not 

commonly covered by the Census and other data providers. 

While most tribes have some access to emergency medical 

transportation, 26% of the tribes have no 911 service. 

Surprisingly, 44% of tribes have no local commercial radio 

stations and for those tribes with radio stations, these stations 

are rarely tribally owned. Moreover, while commercial radio 

stations are rare, it’s important to note that public radio and 

television stations are becoming more prevalent. Over the past 

TABLE 2.8: Reservation Recap - Plumbing and Equipment

Water

from

public

system or

private

company

Water

from

individual

well

Water

from

some

other

source

Percent

lacking

complete

kitchen

facilities

Percent

lacking

complete

plumbing

facilities -

total

Navajo Reservation and Trust Lands, AZNM-UT64.2% 22.3% 13.4% 44.3% 49.1%

Hopi Reservation and Trust Lands, AZ 76.5% 7.7% 15.8% 30.6% 46.7%

Papago Reservation, AZ 77.6% 21.1% 1.3% 24.8% 32.0%

San Carlos Reservation, AZ 92.7% 2.0% 5.3% 16.6% 21.6%

Pine Ridge Reservation and Trust 

Lands, NE-SD

55.8% 39.6% 4.6% 18.2% 20.9%

Gila River Reservation, AZ 97.6% 2.4% 0.0% 15.2% 18.0%

Salt River Reservation, AZ 93.5% 2.9% 3.6% 13.3% 17.9%

Fort Apache Reservation, AZ 91.6% 2.2% 6.2% 13.1% 14.5%

Cattaraugus Reservation, NY 7.8% 80.1% 12.2% 9.6% 13.4%

Acoma Pueblo and Trust Lands, NM 88.0% 8.7% 3.3% 7.4% 12.5%

All reservations and trust lands 70.3% 22.8% 7.0% 17.5% 20.2%

Source: Adapted from U.S Bureau of the Census [14] and [20].
20 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

two decades, NTIA’s Public Telecommunications Facilities 

Program has helped to fund the creation of forty public radio 

and television facilities in Native communities throughout the 

country. Low power television and public radio, if funded 

adequately and managed properly, can play important roles in 

conveying public information, information on health subjects, 

economic development, distance learning and cultural 

TABLE 2.9: Reservation Recap - Waste Water

Disposing of

sewage by

public sewer

Disposing of

sewage by

septic tank or

cesspool

Disposing of

sewage by

other means

Navajo Reservation and Trust Lands, AZ-NM-UT 36.4% 18.1% 45.5%

Hopi Reservation and Trust Lands, AZ 46.5% 10.5% 43.0%

Papago Reservation, AZ 36.0% 32.5% 31.5%

Pine Ridge Reservation and Trust Lands, NE-SD 55.8% 39.6% 21.2%

Salt River Reservation, AZ 19.0% 67.6% 13.4%

San Carlos Reservation, AZ 74.0% 12.7% 13.3%

Cattaraugus Reservation, NY 7.3% 81.0% 11.7%

Cheyenne River Reservation, SD 71.8% 17.3% 10.9%

Fort Apache Reservation, AZ 75.2% 14.5% 10.3%

Gila River Reservation, AZ 46.9% 43.8% 9.4%

All reservations and trust lands 48.2% 33.4% 18.4%

Source: Adapted from U.S Bureau of the Census [14].

TABLE 2.10: Percentage of Tribes with Various Infrastructure Services and Breakdown of Ownership

Community Services

Fully Owned by

the Tribe

Partially Owned

by the Tribe

Not Owned by

the Tribe

No Service

Available

Local newspaper 26% 2% 47% 26%

Broadcast radio 9% 0% 53% 38%

Emergency transport 25% 8% 63% 4%

911 service 15% 7% 52% 26%

Source: Source: New Mexico State University Survey, 1999. Based on 48 responses. 
The Supply of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities 21

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

preservation. For example, KNBA-FM in Anchorage, which is 

controlled by Alaska Natives, is dedicated specifically to the 

education and information needs of their community.

Likewise, nearly a third of reservations report having no local 

newspaper, and newspapers which are available to the tribe are 

predominately non-tribally owned and distributed. Table 2.10 

shows the percentage of tribes with various infrastructure 

services. 

Summary for Basic 

Infrastructure

Finally, we asked tribes to give an assessment of their current 

basic technology infrastructure. The rating was on a scale of 1 

to 5, as follows:

1. No infrastructure in place;

2. Poor infrastructure in place: bare minimum;

3. Fair infrastructure in place: adequate for most purposes;

4. Good infrastructure in place: adequate for all but the most 

extreme purposes;

5. Excellent infrastructure in place: could not be better.

The results are summarized in Table 2.11.

Note that no area of infrastructure was rated as “good.” 

Electricity and telephones were rated the highest. This is 

especially interesting given the frequent importance that outside 

TABLE 2.11: Summary of Basic Infrastructure in Place for Tribes

Source: Source: New Mexico State University Survey, 1999. Based

on 48 responses. 

Levels of Infrastructure in Place Average of all respondents

Water 3.1

Roads 2.7

Electricity 3.6

Telephones 3.6

Waste water facilities 2.5

Law enforcement 2.5

Education/training 2.7

Medical/health 3.1
22 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

analysts have placed on improving telephone penetration. 

Waste water facilities and law enforcement services were 

assessed as the most problematic forms of infrastructure, with 

roads and educational systems also being considered less than 

fair. 

2-2. Advanced Technology Infrastructure

Advanced technology infrastructure includes equipment and 

services needed to pursue business and improve the quality of 

life using more sophisticated technology. What is included in 

this category depends in part on the existing technological status 

of the tribe and economic status of the region under study. For 

our purposes, advanced technology infrastructure includes 

cellular phone systems, cable and satellite TV services, distance 

learning and telemedicine facilities, Internet access, pagers, and 

even personal computers. For many Americans, some of these 

items are viewed as necessities. For most Native Americans 

however, they are still luxuries, or at least uncommon enough 

that they have not become a central requirement for conducting 

business. 

The advanced nature of these forms of infrastructure is also 

suggested by the lack of reliable data for evaluating their 

penetration into Native communities. Most of these items were 

not covered in the 1990 Census, and while more recent surveys 

have been conducted by the Census Bureau and other 

researchers, these have rarely been targeted at Native 

communities. 

As part of our survey, we asked respondents to indicate whether 

their tribe had access to cellular phone or pager service, as well 

as cable and satellite TV. As shown in Table 2.12, all of these 

services have made significant inroads in Native communities. 

In the vast majority of cases, tribes rely on outside service 

providers. Indeed, the only area where tribes appear to have any 

significant ownership presence is in cable TV. 

Still, the fact that these services are available in a Native 

community does not mean they have a high penetration rate at 

the level of individual households and businesses. As part of our 

survey, we also asked tribes to estimate penetration rates for 

cable TV, personal computers, and Internet access. These 

results are shown in Table 2.13. 
Advanced Technology Infrastructure 23

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

In general, cable TV, personal computers, and Internet service 

have made only minimal penetration into Native households, 

especially in those rural areas where most Native Americans 

live. While approximately half of Native businesses have both 

computers and Internet access, we need to remember that there 

are relatively few Native businesses. The majority of access to 

all three forms of infrastructure appears to be via institutional 

facilities such as schools, libraries, and health clinics. 

Surprisingly, nearly 90% of Native schools and libraries have 

both computers and Internet access. While we do not know the 

actual state of the equipment and services in place, we believe 

that the high level of connectivity in these institutions can be 

attributed to, in part, the Clinton Administration’s policy of 

connecting all classrooms, libraries, and health clinics to the 

Internet by the year 2000, and the eligibility of BIA schools to 

participate in the E-Rate Program created by the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996. 

TABLE 2.12: Percentage of Tribes with Various Advanced Infrastructure Services and Breakdown of Ownership

Community Services

Fully Owned by

the Tribe

Partially Owned

by the Tribe

Not Owned by

the Tribe

No Service

Available

Cellular telephone service 0% 2% 71% 27%

Pager service 0% 0% 63% 37%

Cable television 13% 4% 62% 21%

Direct broadcast satellite television 2% 2% 79% 17%

Source: Source: New Mexico State University Survey, 1999. Based on 48 responses. 

TABLE 2.13: Percentages of Homes, Businesses, Schools, and Health Care Providers with Cable, Computers 

and Internet, Unweighted for Native American Community Size

Technology

% of Native American homes 

% of Businesses

with

% of Schools

and Libraries

with

% of Health

Care with

Areas with

2,500 pop. or

more Rural

Cable television 50% 34% 24% 46% 29%

Computer 15% 14% 73% 90% 88%

Internet access 10% 8% 43% 82% 62%

Source: Source: New Mexico State University Survey, 1999. Based on 48 responses. 
24 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

When asked to rate reservation-wide Internet infrastructure 

quality on a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 meant no infrastructure in 

place at all and 5 meant excellent infrastructure in place, survey 

respondents rated it at 2.3, which is just above “poor, the bare 

minimum.” On a scale of 1 to 5, the quality of distance learning 

facilities was rated at 2.2, again barely passable. 

Economic Development 

Capacity

It is difficult to speak of “economic development infrastructure” 

as a unique category of investment. After all, all types of 

infrastructure contribute to economic development. 

Nonetheless, there are certain broad-based contributors to 

technologically sophisticated economic development that are 

not easily captured in discussions of other infrastructure types. 

First, economic development depends in large part on the stock 

and quality of private capital in place. Second, economic 

development can be assisted by careful planning to develop 

strategies for overcoming economic weaknesses and exploiting 

economic strengths of the community. These planning activities 

are especially important in technology-led economic 

development, where large fixed investments and long-term 

commitment are needed.

By nearly any measure, Native communities today lack the 

resources and capacity they need to promote economic 

development. In terms of private capital, very few tribal 

communities have any form of manufacturing. According to 

our own survey, fully 61% of tribes report not having a single 

manufacturing facility in their community. Of those tribes that 

do have manufacturing, 44% of these facilities are tribally 

owned, in whole or in part.

Likewise, our survey indicates that just 65% of tribes have any 

type of resident construction company. Only 39% of tribes have 

any sort of industrial park. Of these, nearly two-thirds are 

tribally owned, in whole or in part. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 

1 means no infrastructure in place and 5 means infrastructure 

fully in place, our survey respondents ranked the quality of 

industrial parks as 1.6. This is by far, the lowest ranking our 

survey respondents gave any form of infrastructurefalling 

below the bare minimum (a ranking of 2). 

Equally disturbing, the majority of Native communities 

responding to our survey have no plan on how to proceed. As 

shown in Table 2.14, only 42% of tribes have a land use plan. 

Economic development and strategic planning is even less 
Advanced Technology Infrastructure 25

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

common, and several experts told us that their plans were 

severely out of date. Even more dramatic was the number of 

tribes without telecommunications, technology infrastructure, 

and training plans. All of these plans are essential for making 

investments in advanced technology infrastructure.

A number of tribal representatives indicated during the expert 

interviews that there was a fundamental inability on the part of 

some tribes to attract economic development projects. Many of 

the experts interviewed expressed frustration that more funding, 

tax incentive, and partnership programs are not available to help 

tribes attract economic activity to their communities. However, 

the lack of strategic planning in place raises serious questions 

about the ability of tribes to utilize such assistance effectively if 

it was offered. 

Today, it is not even clear what tribal priorities are regarding 

technology infrastructure investments. Do tribes, for instance, 

believe they should seek parity in basic technology 

infrastructure first? Or, alternatively, do they see investment in 

advanced telecommunications infrastructure as a way of 

overcoming weaknesses in other types of infrastructure such as 

roads and basic telephone? As a first step toward answering 

such questions, we asked tribal managers to rank their 

investment priorities for us. Specifically, we asked them, “If 

you had $1 million dollars to spend on infrastructure 

development for your tribe, how and where would you allocate 

TABLE 2.14: Plans and Programs in Place

Source: Source: New Mexico State University Survey, 1999. Based

on 48 responses.

Does your tribe have any of the 

following plans or programs in 

place?

% responding

yes

% responding

no

Technology infrastructure plan 17% 83%

Telecommunications plan 17% 83%

Strategic plan 35% 65%

Economic development plan 44% 56%

Technology training plan 13% 87%

Land use plan 42% 58%
26 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

the money?” Table 2.15 summarizes their responses. We have 

averaged their responses to arrive at a single investment figure 

across the responding tribes. Each row in the table indicates the 

share of a hypothetical $1 million budget these survey 

respondents would allocate to each type of infrastructure.

The message from this table is unmistakable. The survey 

respondents place overwhelming priority on meeting basic 

needs for shelter, sewage disposal, and transportation before 

they invest in advanced technology infrastructure. Still, 

individual tribes have different priorities based on the state of 

their existing infrastructure and goals. Certainly, our survey 

results do not substitute for real planning. 

TABLE 2.15: Allocation of One Million Dollars on Tribal Infrastructure

Source: Source: New Mexico State University Survey, 1999. Based

on 48 responses.

Ranking Infrastructure Area

Allocation in

Dollars

1 Housing $185,903

2 Roads $120,447

3 Waste water technology $103,591

4 Medical health facilities $102,227

5 Education $96,175

6 Water $87,786

7 Other $66,959

8 Internet $54,480

9 Law enforcement $52,474

10 Distance learning $40,529

11 Utilities $33,602

12 Electricity $32,166

13 911 Services $15,529

14 Telephones $8,131

Total $1,000,000
Advanced Technology Infrastructure 27

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Another interpretation of this table is that categories may also 

include technology-based spending; for instance, health and 

medicine probably includes some spending for telemedicine. 

The fact that tribes want better basic technology infrastructure 

also does not mean they want parity with non-Native areas. An 

indicator of this is their attitude toward telephones and 911 

service. While somewhat absent on tribal lands, these are still 

viewed as low priorities compared to other needs. Still, the 

basic conclusion is clear; repeatedly, experts told us that they 

believed this basic infrastructure had to be in place before 

significant economic development investments could be 

undertaken.
28 Chapter 2: The Current State of Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•
29

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 Chapter 3

 CHALLENGES AND BARRIERS TO

TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IN

● ● ● ● ● ●

NATIVE COMMUNITIES

3-1. Common Challenges Faced by Native Communities

Today’s Native communities are extremely diverse and are 

located in a variety of geographical settings. As a result, they 

have widely varying levels of technology infrastructure and face 

diverse challenges to upgrading that infrastructure. Yet nearly 

all of these Native communities face one or more of the 

following challenges in developing their technological 

infrastructure:

• Lack of a strong economic base that inhibits private 

investment and skills development; 

• Geographical remoteness and terrain which raises the cost 

of providing technology infrastructure; 

• Native distrust of new technologies and federal assistance;

• Lack of a comprehensive, integrated, interagency Native 

American technology infrastructure investment strategy;

• Federal policy that fails to consider the severity of the 

technology gap faced by Native American;

• Inadequate information on the part of Native Americans 

regarding opportunities and assistance available; and

• Insufficient strategic planning by tribes.

Let’s consider each of these in more detail.

Lack of a Strong Economic 

Base

Without question, the greatest obstacle that most tribes face to 

developing technology infrastructure is that they start from a 

severely disadvantaged economic position. Very few tribes have 

strong local industry or service sectors developed through tribal 

or private investment initiatives. While some tribes have access 

to gaming revenues, they are the distinct minority, and only a 

handful of these are successful enough to fund serious economic 

development activities. For most Native communities, a weak 
30 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

economic base and poor infrastructure are mutually reinforcing. 

Without good jobs, Native Americans generate neither the 

income nor the taxes needed to build and maintain modern 

technology infrastructure. Conversely, the poor state of 

infrastructure makes it extremely difficult to establish new 

economic activities that create jobs.

The pervasive nature of this problem is exemplified by the low 

telephone penetration rates seen in many Native communities. 

We reported in Chapter 2 for instance, that just 22% of Navajo 

households have telephones, (according to the research 

undertaken for this project.) Navajo utility experts assure us that 

many more households have access to phone lines than is 

suggested by this figure. The issue is affordability, especially 

when considering the high connection charges to receive first 

service. Even where telephones are available, many lowincome families simply cannot afford to maintain their service. 

On the Navajo reservation, where individuals earn an average 

income of just $6,352 per year, 35% of new telephone 

connections are eventually disconnected.

Given the difficulties they have generating new capital, many 

Native communities badly need federal assistance and private 

investment to break free from this vicious circle of poverty and 

poor infrastructure. In our survey results, inadequate funding 

was the single most frequently listed barrier to technology 

infrastructure development. Lack of funding was identified by 

75% of respondents as one of their three top infrastructure 

concerns. 

In several instances, Native contributors to our research 

expressed the opinion that the federal government provides 

costly aid packages to foreign governments while neglecting 

investment on Native lands. Several of our experts also noted 

that existing funding formulas have failed to account for rapid 

population growth on Native lands. Consequently, programs 

designed to expand infrastructure on tribal lands have actually 

lost ground. For many tribes, funding intended for upgrading 

and extending existing infrastructure has been insufficient even 

to maintain utility systems that are severely past their useful life. 

This is especially the case for waste water, sewage, and waste 

disposal systems.

“Nonpayment of fees is a 

major issue that Navajo 

Communication Company 

faces. This is particularly the 

case for long distance 

charges. Approximately fifty 

percent unemployment exists 

on the Navajo Reservation. 

Therefore the question of 

having a phone or not is an 

issue of luxury versus 

necessity.”

Desmond Jones

Central Office Engineer

Navajo Communications 

Company
Common Challenges Faced by Native Communities 31

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

At the same time this lack of capital makes it difficult for tribes 

to invest in their own infrastructure, the weak state of their 

economies makes Native communities poor locations and 

markets for private firms. External private telephone 

companies, manufacturing entities, and service establishments 

have all tended to avoid investing in Native communities relative 

to other, more profitable, markets. Commercial companies 

argue that doing business on the reservation requires charging 

higher rates to reflect the risk and cost of operating in more 

remote and economically distressed locations.

In addition to the immediate effects of underemployment, the 

generally low level of commercial activity in tribal communities 

undermines skills development necessary for technological 

progress. Many tribes have a strong desire to own and operate 

commercial enterprises; however in many cases they lack the 

necessary technical expertise, training, and education to 

undertake this effort. 

For individuals wishing to remain on tribal lands, the lack of 

economic opportunity creates a disincentive to receive an 

education. For those tribal members that do pursue high school 

and college studies, it is usually a major economic sacrifice to 

return to, or remain on tribal lands once trained. Our survey 

results show that, of the responding tribes, only 47% of their 

members had finished high school. Several tribal technology 

managers we interviewed believed they could not hire new 

specialists because the pay levels necessary to attract these 

individuals were higher than the salaries earned by tribal 

leaders. 

The result is that Native communities have a tremendous 

shortage of skilled workers in those occupations central to 

planning, installing, and maintaining technologically 

sophisticated infrastructure. Even when such workers are 

present, Native communities usually lack diversity in their skills 

base. This shortage of a skilled and diversified workforce also 

creates an economic leakage from Native communities, since 

tribes must hire outside expertise. Many of our Native experts 

expressed frustration at continually having to rely on nonNative consultants and contractors.

Geographic Remoteness In many cases, the weak economic base of Native communities 

is exacerbated by their remote location. In fact, geographical 

remoteness can be both an incentive and a barrier to technology 

“In case of default, banks need 

some form of equity to 

guarantee a loan made on 

Indian land. The land cannot 

be used as equity as it is 

normally because the bank 

could not take the land away. 

Equity is an issue in providing 

the necessary capital for 

Native technology 

infrastructure development.” 

Meeting with representatives 

from NationsBank
32 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

infrastructure development. On the one hand, technology 

infrastructure can be a critical tool to overcoming the isolation 

and economic disadvantages imposed by remote locations. At 

the same time, it can be extremely expensive to provide services 

to remote locations. Not only is it expensive to lay roads, pipes, 

and cables across remote areas, but it often requires an extensive 

efforts to acquire rights-of-way. These costs can be especially 

severe where tribal lands are discontiguous. Tribes also find that 

neighboring counties often fail to provide public infrastructure 

in areas adjoining their lands. Consequently, even if a tribe is 

successful at developing its own infrastructure, connecting to 

the rest of the world can be challenging.

Another impediment to providing telecommunications services 

is the rugged terrain of many Native lands. Regardless of the 

technology deployed, the very nature of the terrain, (and in the 

case of Alaska, climate), in these unserved areas makes 

construction and maintenance of facilities costly and difficult.

Distrust of New 

Technologies and Federal 

Assistance

As with other communities, Native Americans often disagree 

regarding the benefits and risks of new technologies. In several 

cases, the technology experts contributing to our study believed 

that their tribal leaders have failed to recognize the full benefits 

of adopting new technologies. However, these experts also 

agreed that new technologies often raise very real and difficult 

cultural issues unique to tribes. For instance, electronic 

communication based on writing may undermine cultural values 

based in an oral tradition. Similarly, many people interviewed 

believed that widespread public access to Native languages, 

religion, and art over the Internet poses a threat to the integrity 

of cultural intellectual property. 

This also has a very real economic component. In recent years, 

for instance, it has become increasingly common to see 

fraudulent Indian art appearing on the Internet, a problem of 

great concern to our experts. To date, there are few government 

programs designed to develop culturally sensitive educational 

curricula or protect Native intellectual property rights. 

This apprehension regarding new technology is often 

complicated by the distrust some Native Americans have for the 

federal government and private assistance providers. As a result, 

tribes often discount the value of externally provided 

information about new technologies. 

“There are few roads on the 

Navajo Reservation. There is 

really no source of funding 

for the roads since the tribe 

does not have the funding 

mechanisms for roads. And 

because of the non-tax status 

of the Indian reservation, 

there are also no funds 

available for public works.”

Rex Kontz, Acting Manager, 

Engineering and Technical 

Services Navajo Tribal 

Utilities Authority
Common Challenges Faced by Native Communities 33

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Similarly, our experts expressed concern that tribes have 

repeatedly been taken advantage of by outsiders. One expert, 

for instance, complained that a local telecommunications 

equipment representative tended to sell his tribe whatever 

equipment was in inventory with little regard for the tribe’s 

unique needs. Other experts suggested that while negotiations 

were ongoing with a telecommunications provider, the provider 

was extremely attentive to the tribe’s needs. However, once the 

contract was signed, the provider would not respond to tribal 

requests for assistance and T-1 line orders. We have not 

completely investigated these or other specific cases reported to 

us, so it is possible there is some reasonable explanation in these 

instances. Frankly, this is less important than the fact that such 

stories continue to document tremendous frustration by Native 

Americans in their dealings with non-Native businesses. 

Lack of a Comprehensive, 

Integrated, Interagency, 

Native American Investment 

Strategy

With the absence of a comprehensive and integrated interagency 

strategy, the full potential of tribal technology infrastructure 

development is not realized. At times, this results in missed 

opportunities to achieve greater efficiency. To be sure, this has 

started to change in the 1990s, and there is greater coordination 

among agencies today than even a few years ago. Still, the 

Native experts participating in our study raised several specific 

examples where further integration is needed. 

For example, USDA’s Rural Development Programs, (RUS), 

BIA, and EDA all fund economic development projects on tribal 

lands. Each program however, has a slightly different focus, 

regulations, application process, and eligibility requirements. If 

these programs were coordinated with a single referral point and 

a single integrated federal strategy, synergistic benefits from 

both a financial and economic perspective might be realized. A 

similar example is provided by federal policy toward investing 

in Native Internet access. The IHS, BIA, RUS, Department of 

Education, NASA, DOD and indirectly the FCC through the ERate program, are all funding “connectivity” for tribes, but with 

limited interagency coordination. However, the FCC currently is 

in the process of gathering data and developing strategies to 

improve coordination.

In some cases, the lack of federal policy coordination is 

manifested as inconsistencies or redundancies related to 

program requirements. To give an example, several experts 

noted that both the Indian Health Service (IHS) and the BIA 

require separate Y2K compliance reports even though much of 
34 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

the same information is included in each report, albeit in 

different formats. This problem is not unique to Native 

communities. However, the burden Native communities bear is 

greater because of their limited resources.

In other cases, poor coordination of investment is manifested as 

gaps in program coverage. For example, the national 

laboratories and the Small Business Administration (SBA), 

have a variety of collaborative services to assist in business 

infrastructure development and technology transfer. However, 

the labs cannot normally provide these same services to tribes 

because they are considered a form of government and not a 

small business. Consequently, even though tribal governments 

are typically one of the most important economic entities in 

Native communities, they are ineligible for this innovative 

program. 

There are some signs this may be changing. Recently, both 

Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories have obtained 

special help from the SBA in designating tribally owned 

enterprises as small businesses to make them eligible for 

assistance. This has allowed Laguna Industries (of the Laguna 

Pueblo) to receive technical and business consulting assistance 

needed to complete a defense contract worth millions of dollars 

of revenue to the tribe. A similar reclassification of tribal 

enterprises allowed the Northern Pueblos of New Mexico to 

receive technical assistance to set up an advanced 

telecommunications and Internet system. Unfortunately, these 

success stories remain exceptions to the rule, and obtaining 

special redesignation for each tribal unit is a complicated and 

time-consuming process. 

Federal Policy that Fails to 

Consider the Severity of 

Native American 

Technology Gaps

Too often, federal policies intended to help Native Americans 

develop their technology infrastructure have failed to 

understand the severity of the technology gap they face. Some 

federal agencies, for instance, now require electronic 

submission of grant and funding applications (e.g., the National 

Science Foundation). This effectively excludes tribes with poor, 

or non-existent Internet access. Even when paper submission of 

forms is still allowed, some tribes believe that federal agencies 

give preference to those application forms submitted 

electronically. 
Common Challenges Faced by Native Communities 35

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

The same problem results when federal or private investment 

programs require that tribes have basic levels of infrastructure 

in place to be eligible to compete for a program. For example, 

to qualify for Universal Service Funds, applicants must have 

911 service. However, as we saw from our earlier survey 

results, many tribes do not have 911 service. Although the FCC 

is willing to consider exceptions to this requirement, no tribe 

knew of this policy. And even before 911 service can be 

instituted, rural addressing systems and road access must be 

available to facilitate this service. For some tribes, these basic 

levels of infrastructure are still not developed. 

Inadequate Information In numerous instances, we found that Native Americans were 

unaware of programs and policies designed to help them. In 

some cases, this results from the fact that these policies are 

subject to frequent change. Nearly always, this lack of 

information was symptomatic of the technology infrastructure 

gaps these communities face. To give an obvious example, the 

majority of public and private assistance providers today are 

shifting their information dissemination activities to the World 

Wide Web. In principle, this has a tremendous potential to 

increase and speed the dissemination of important information 

to tribes, many of which have slow mail delivery service. 

However, in the absence of good Internet access in Native 

communities, this policy may systematically place Native 

Americans at an information disadvantage. This highlights the 

importance of providing meaningful community access to the 

Internet at schools, libraries, rural health facilities and federal 

offices.

Lack of Planning Developing effective technology infrastructure requires 

planning. As documented in Chapter 2, very few tribes have 

strategic plans, economic development plans, or technology 

plans in place. The Native experts assisting in our study 

repeatedly identified inadequate tribal strategic planning as a 

barrier to technology infrastructure development, describing in 

detail how their communities have neither the skills nor systems 

in place to undertake such planning efforts

They also argued there are few sources of funding to hire 

new people or to acquire computers, geographical information systems software, and other resources that non-Native 

communities take for granted. As one expert explained, 

planners in his tribal office work almost exclusively preparing grant applications--not planning. 
36 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Typically, many federal assistance programs depend on the 

performance of the applicant to ensure the success of a proposed 

economic development project. For example, EDA may fund an 

infrastructure project such as an industrial park on the basis of 

an economic strategic plan. Once the project is built, however, 

it is the applicant that must plan and take the steps necessary to 

assure success for the project. Because of the nature of federal 

programs and funding, mixing infrastructure development funds 

with planning or assessment funds is uncommon. Equally 

distressing, when informed that the EDA has programs in place 

to fund strategic planning, none of our experts were aware that 

such programs existed, even though several of their 

communities had received various types of EDA funding in the 

past. In large part, this may stem from the fact that EDA’s 

planning program funds are severely limited and consequently 

EDA cannot realistically expect to fund new applicants. 

However, the current trend is for new grant applications to 

contain some requirement for performance measures. In 

addition, the federal government currently has a few on-going 

demonstration projects with Native communities that require 

feasibility assessments, coupled with intensive technical 

assistance.

3-2. Obstacles to Specific Types of Technology Infrastructure

To a greater or lesser degree, the barriers described previously 

apply across the board to many different kinds of technology 

infrastructure. In most cases, tribes face a number of these 

barriers and their effect on investment in traditional 

infrastructure such as roads, water, and electricity is fairly 

straightforward. Understanding these barriers helps us to 

understand why Native communities tend to lag so far behind 

other communities with respect to infrastructure development.

Unfortunately, as we enter a new economic era requiring more 

advanced types of infrastructure, the economic position of 

Native communities is likely to erode further without dramatic 

federal, private and tribal action. First of all, advanced 

telecommunications-oriented infrastructure relies on traditional 

infrastructure to be effective. Quite simply, the ability to deploy 

these modern systems depends critically on good roads, 

structures, and educational and training facilities. Second, these 

“The people of the tribe need 

training on developing local 

area networks, building Web 

pages and other technologies. 

Currently, the tribe pays for 

outside computer consultants 

to provide such services. In 

addition, there's a very strong 

need to be able to use GIS 

software for planning 

purposes. The BIA provides 

GIS databases but there is no 

local expertise to use this 

service”

Bernadine Garcia

Tribal Planner

Acoma Pueblo
Obstacles to Telecommunications 37

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

newer systems impose their own challenges and barriers that are 

likely to compound the problems faced by all distressed 

communities, and Native communities in particular. Let us now 

consider several specific categories of advanced technology 

infrastructure.

3-3. Obstacles to Telecommunications

Modern telecommunication services have the potential to help 

Native communities by freeing them from geographic isolation; 

opening up new overseas markets by means of E-commerce; 

providing access to Native cultural resources held elsewhere; 

and by allowing Native communities throughout the U.S. to 

share their experiences in using different economic 

development strategies. However, some tribes today have only 

the most rudimentary telecommunications infrastructure. More 

importantly, these Native communities are falling further 

behind. While utility companies in communities across the U.S. 

are installing fiber optic cable at a frantic rate, some Native 

communities continue to struggle to get basic telephone access.

This point is clearly illustrated in the continuing series of reports 

published by the NTIA. The Falling Through the Net reports 

document that over time, the growth in telecommunications and 

Internet access has occurred more rapidly at higher income 

levels and varies among demographic groups and geographic 

areas. The divide between certain groups of Americans 

increased between 1994 and 1997, resulting in a widening gap 

between those at the upper and lower income levels. Rural areas 

lagged behind urban and central cities with respect to rates for 

online access. Though the sample size for Native Americans is 

too small to be statistically valid, these conclusions generally 

support our survey research suggesting that Native communities 

continue to lag far behind the national and rural telephone 

penetration rates. NTIA plans to release an updated study in 

July, 1999 that will go beyond the state of household 

connectivity and examine where Americans are gaining access 

and what they are doing on-line.

Virtually all of the barriers described earlier in this chapter deter 

investment in telecommunications infrastructure in Native 

communities. For private firms, Native communities are seen as 

small markets with high entry and service costs, and significant 
38 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

business risk. Even where private telecommunications firms 

wish to serve Native communities, they must overcome several 

significant barriers.

Almost without exception, our experts identified the need to Right-Of-Way Issues

acquire rights-of-way as a major impediment to developing 

technology infrastructure, especially in telecommunications. 

Unlike other areas, most tribal lands do not have established 

utility corridors. Furthermore, the trust status of tribal lands 

often means that private utilities seeking rights-of-way must 

apply to both the BIA and tribal government for approval, a 

complex and time-consuming process requiring a large number 

of certifications and assessments. As an example of this, Figure 

3.1 shows the flowchart associated with the Navajo 

Communications Company process for gaining a right-of-way. 

This process can take anywhere from three to five years for a 

telecommunications line.

Utilities operating in different regions may face a slightly 

different process. However, right-of-way acquisition for small 

line extension or cable reinforcement may routinely take from 

60 days to 12 months. Right-of-way acquisitions to provide 

service in an unserved area can take two to three years and cost 

hundreds of thousands of dollars. In nearly every case, the 

difficulty in establishing rights-of-way deters private investment 

by decreasing the profitability of providing services in Native 

communities. 

The requirement for federal approval of rights-of-way across 

tribal lands is imposed by statutes dating from 1948. Authority 

for approving rights-of-way is delegated by the Secretary of the 

Interior to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Current law provides 

that no right-of-way shall be made without the consent of the 

proper tribal officials. There are other considerations that the 

Secretary must review prior to approving a right-of-way. One of 

the more significant considerations is the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969. This statute requires 

that any federal action include an assessment of the potential 

environmental impacts. There are numerous other statues that 

are also applicable including threatened and endangered 

species, clean water and air, and historic preservation. These 

functions are not a requirement of the BIA but are congressional 

mandates. Failure of the BIA to comply with these mandates is 

a violation of federal law.

“The land value for right-ofway is a major issue. For 

example, the railroad pays 

the tribe only $1 a year for 

crossing through tribal land. 

The court case in 1910 

provided a onetime $10,000 

payment for the railroad 

easement. As a result of 

these past experiences, the 

tribe is very reluctant to 

provide private right of away 

access.”

Petuuche Gilbert,

Tribal Councilman

Acoma Pueblo
Obstacles to Telecommunications 39

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

FIGURE 3.1: Typical right-of-way flow-chart for NCC

M eeting with the BIA

R e q u e st l a n d sta tu s a n d

e xi sti n g su rve ys fro m B IA

S u b m it a p p lica tio n to th e trib e

fo r p e rm i ssi o n to su rve y

S u b m it a p p lica tio n to th e trib e fo r

p e rm i ssi o n to d o e n vi ro n m e n ta l a n d

b i o l o g i ca l a sse ssm e n t

D e scri p ti o n o f p ro j e ct

D e scri p ti o n o f V e g e ta ti o n

A g re e m e n t in d e m n ifyin g U .S . la n d o w n e rs

S u b m i t to B IA l e g a l d e scri p ti o n

o f th e p ro p o se d ri g h t-o f-w a y

Stipulations

M a p s w i th l e g a l d e scri p ti o n

T ype of Land

B IA a n d T ri b e i ssu e p e rm i ts

P e rm it to S u rve y

P e rm i t to d o a rch e o l o g i ca l a sse ssm e n t

P e rm it to p e rfo rm e n viro n m e n ta l a n d

b i o l o g i ca l a sse ssm e n t

O b ta i n w ri tte n co n se n t fro m o w n e r a n d a l l o te e s

O b ta i n ch a p te r co n se n t fro m i d e n ti fi e d ch a p te rs

O b ta i n cro ssi n g co n se n t fro m o th e r ri g h t-o f-w a y h o l d e rs

P e rfo rm a rch e o l o g i ca l re se a rch a n d su rve y

P e rfo rm e n vi ro n m e n ta l a n d b i o l o g i ca l a sse ssm e n t

S u b m it a rch e o lo g ica l a n d

e n vi ro n m e n ta l re p o rts to th e tri b e

S u b m it e n viro n m e n ta l a n d

b i o l o g i ca l re p o rts to B IA

E n vi ro n m e n ta l re p o rts to th e N H P D B i o l o g i ca l re p o rts to B IA

E n viro n m e n ta l Q u a lity D e p a rtm e n t

N H P D re vi e w s re p o rts

T ri b a l F i sh a n d W i l d l i fe re vi e w s

re p o rts

N H P D In fo rm e d N C C o f n e w re q u i re m e n ts a n d

p o l i cy fo r e th n o g ra p h i c stu d i e s

N C C fi l e d a p p l i ca ti o n fo r p e rm i ssi o n to p e rfo rm

e th n o g ra p h i c stu d i e s

N C C p e rfo rm s

e th n o g ra p h i c stu d i e s

NCC Subm it

e th n o g ra p h i c stu d y to

NHPD

N H P D p re p a re s

cle a ra n ce /re co m m e n d a tio n s

New M exico SHPO

co n cu rs

N H P D si g n s o ff

S u b m i t e th n o g ra p h i c stu d y to

B IA E n viro n m e n ta l Q u a lity

D e p a rtm e n t

B IA E n viro n m e n ta l Q u a lity

D e p a rtm e n t si g n s o ff

B IA P ro p e rty M a n a g e m e n t

re vie w

T ri b a l re vi e w p ro ce ss

D i vi si o n o f N a tu ra l R e so u rce s

for S A S

F i sh a n d W i l d l i fe D e p a rtm e n t

Review

H i sto ri c P re se rva ti o n re vi e w

Navajo EPA

N a tu ra l R e so u rce s

D e p a rtm e n t

D e p a rtm e n t o f Ju sti ce

P re si d e n t o f N a va j o N a ti o n

L e g i sl a ti ve C o u n ci l

R e so u rce s C o m m i tte e

O ffi ce o f th e P re si d e n t

B IA R e a l P ro p e rty

G ra n t o f R ig h t-o f-W a y fro m

BIA
40 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Nonetheless, our experts generally felt that BIA involvement in 

granting right-of-way requests represents an infringement of 

their tribal sovereignty. A few people interviewed even 

suggested that the federal government has, at times, granted 

rights-of-way across tribal lands without informed consent from 

the tribes in question. In some cases, tribes also had sovereignty 

disputes with state governments stemming from historical 

easement agreements concerning railroad rights-of-way. We 

cannot speak to the validity or circumstances of specific claims. 

However, it is clear that any policy diluting tribal control over 

land use undermines tribal efforts to establish their own utilities 

and to negotiate favorable contracts with service providers. 

Furthermore, to the extent that federal and state governments 

raise tax revenues or charge fees to utilities or service providers 

on Native lands, it makes it more difficult for tribes to fund their 

services, because they cannot charge their own fees without 

raising costs.

Many tribes have a strong desire to own and operate their own 

telecommunications infrastructure. Unfortunately, some tribes 

face additional barriers to investing in telecommunications 

infrastructure. First, most tribes don’t have the capital or the 

skills to undertake such development. Second, private utilities 

have been reluctant to sell capacity to tribes in the fear that they 

will lease the excess capacity to competitors. Also, current 

Universal Service rules limit support when an exchange is 

purchased from large telecommunications carriers. Third, the 

manner in which local access transfer areas (LATA) have been 

designated was viewed by the experts contributing to this study 

as another impediment to building a telecommunications 

infrastructure. 

One program positively impacting the tribal telephone 

penetration rates and tribal ownership of telecommunications 

companies is the Rural Utility Service, (RUS) of the USDA. 

This program has provided financing to five tribally-owned 

telecommunications companies. In areas served by those 

companies, telephone penetration rates averaged 28% before 

RUS involvement, and have risen to 78% after involvement. In 

addition, 60 non-tribal firms financed by RUS provide service to 

over 27,000 Native Americans. Unfortunately, much more 

assistance is still needed. 
Obstacles to Telecommunications 41

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Given the remote location of many tribes, some see microwave 

and other wireless communication methods as especially 

attractive because they can reduce the need for investment in 

telecommunications lines. Unfortunately, the large distances, 

low population density and rugged terrain involved also make 

wireless options expensive. Furthermore, current technology 

makes some wireless technologies a narrow band service in a 

broadband world. In addition, few tribes can compete in 

government auctions of broadband spectrum. Even if tribes 

pooled their resources, Native contributors to this report felt that 

the FCC rules preclude the partitioning of licenses. However, 

the FCC responds that it does allow for the partitioning of 

licenses under certain conditions. The point may be moot, 

because there is little available spectrum that has not already 

been auctioned off. From a cultural perspective, the placement 

of microwave towers and other wireless structures on tribal 

lands may be in direct conflict with a tribe’s belief system 

regarding the sacredness of their skies and land.

Just as private firms operating in Native communities struggle to 

acquire rights-of-way, tribes often struggle to acquire new lands. 

This is especially important where tribes wish to connect remote 

areas by purchasing parcels to fill in their discontiguous land 

holdings. Our experts suggested that there is no consistent 

federal land acquisition policy. Furthermore, it was mentioned 

that the BIA processing of land acquisition applications is often 

a slow and complex process. Again, Native groups resent the 

involvement of the federal government in approving their land 

acquisitions−something they view as a matter of tribal 

sovereignty.

While it is true Indian tribes struggle to acquire new lands, it is 

not because the BIA does not have a procedure in place to assist 

the tribes. There are prescribed regulations that govern the 

process by which an Indian tribe may make an application to the 

Secretary of the Interior to take title to land in trust on behalf of 

the tribe. However, these acquisitions are not exempt from 

controversy. State and local government have concerns 

regarding the potential impacts on their government because of 

removal of the lands from the tax roles.
42 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

3-4. Obstacles to Distance Learning

Universities and colleges around the nation are building 

programs to support distance education. However, our experts 

and survey respondents repeatedly cited the following barriers 

to delivering distance education to tribal schools and 

community centers: 

• insufficient access to advanced technologies such as 

computers and the Internet;

• lack of tribal ownership of these services and insufficient 

funding for tribes to construct their own infrastructure; and

• shortage of education and training programs that are 

culturally relevant, and acceptable to tribal leadership. 

The FCC, RUS, and NTIA all have important distance education 

funding initiatives in Native communities (described more fully 

in the next chapter). However, it is clear that the demand for 

these programs greatly exceeds what they can provide given 

existing budget constraints. This underscores the need for 

greater private sector involvement in this area.

3-5. Obstacles to Telemedicine

In its most basic form, telemedicine uses advanced 

telecommunications infrastructure to provide access to a doctor 

or a diagnostician located at a distance from the patient. 

Telemedicine practices have helped many tribes and Native 

Alaska communities overcome the great geographic distances 

that separate them from immediate, high quality health care. As 

the technology exists today, telemedicine is most useful for 

interpreting X-rays, electro-cardiograms (EKGs), and similar 

diagnostic tests. The value of the approach is more limited 

where a tactile interaction between patient and doctor is 

required. Telemedicine is often not available for those remotely 

located Native communities that need it most. 

Some of the barriers that must be overcome to increase the 

availability of telemedicine are not unique to Native 

communities. Because the technology is new, there is still 

uncertainty regarding which technology will become the 

standard for telemedicine delivery. This deters investment by 

communities fearful that their technology will quickly become 
Obstacles to Telemedicine 43

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

obsolete. The current lack of standards is also critical because 

incompatible hardware and software across the network can 

bring the system down.

There is debate regarding licensing standards for physicians 

practicing telemedicine. As a result, a physician licensed in one 

state may be prohibited from providing treatment to patients in 

other states.

Furthermore, programs such as Medicare and Medicaid set up 

their payment schedules and rates on the basis of “laying of 

hands” by the health care provider. With telemedicine, portions 

of the patient’s treatment encounter and treatment never involve 

a doctor actually touching a patient. Consequently, some of 

these treatments are not reimbursable by Medicare or medical 

insurance. Other costs that may not be reimbursable include 

video teleconferencing, time of computer technicians, and 

uplink charges. 

Other telemedicine barriers are more specific to Native (and 

other distressed) communities. Most important, Native 

communities cannot easily afford the costly, highly specialized 

investments required for telemedicine, including reliable twoway video capability and specialized “tele-examining rooms.” 

The FCC’s Universal Service Fund and E-Rate Program are 

designed to subsidize these types of costs, including 

infrastructure development necessary for establishing 

“connectivity.” Unfortunately, participants in our study 

identified several weaknesses in these programs as they pertain 

to funding telemedicine facilities on tribal lands. 

First, the rules and eligibility requirements governing the ERate program for schools and hospitals are generally very 

complex. Second, the published benchmark rates for 

establishing universal service funding are calculated with 

models that do not necessarily consider rural Native 

communities. In some cases, this makes the potential level of 

support too low to be of benefit to Native communities. 

A third telemedicine barrier raised by Native contributors is that 

infrastructure provided under the E-Rate program cannot be 

used for purposes other than telemedicine. As an example, 

equipment and Internet services paid for with E-Rate funds 

cannot be used for community distance education when the 

telemedicine facility is not being used for its main purpose 

unless the distance education provider is also an eligible E-Rate 
44 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

recipient. Only when this is the case, with an approved cost 

allocation model, can the E-Rate supported telemedicine lines 

be used for other purposes. Any revenue that a clinic or hospital 

might receive for providing services using E-Rate supported 

telemedicine lines is prohibited. However, this policy is 

applicable to all communities not just Native ones. The reason 

for this policy is to enforce acceptable and appropriate use of 

Internet services. Still, this is perceived as a major economic 

barrier in remote locations such as Alaskan villages, where 

hospitals and health clinics are often expected to serve as 

providers of other types of community services. 

Our experts also recognized the need for patient security if 

telemedicine lines were used for dual purposes. In principle, 

data encryption is one way to allow dual use of the Internet 

connection and also protect patient privacy. However, there is 

currently no common, accepted encryption system for 

transferring data and maintaining patient records. 

Telemedicine requires that individuals be trained both in the 

technology of hardware and software, and in health care. At 

present, especially in remote areas, developing staff with these 

skills is difficult. First, there are few local programs for training 

in these specialized fields; and second, it is difficult to attract 

individuals possessing these dual skills to remote geographical 

locations where salaries are far lower than in major urban 

telemedicine centers.

Another barrier to fully implementing a telemedicine 

mechanism involves the relationship between local exchange 

carriers and long-distance carriers. Especially in Alaska, local 

carriers do not stand to profit from telemedicine, which is based 

on a long-distance connection. This is due to the nature of 

community contractual agreements with local carriers and the 

gateway services they provide.

Finally, telemedicine technicians working in remote Native 

areas, (most notably Alaska) may need to speak Native 

languages and present the telemedicine technology to the 

patient in a culturally acceptable way. It may also be necessary 

to work with tribal or village leaders to create ethnomedical 

profiles, ethnic profiles, and programs in telemedicine cultural 

sensitivity. To reduce the demands on telemedicine 

practitioners, current demonstration projects have developed 
Lagging Technology Infrastructure Investment as an Obstacle to Manufacturing and Economic Development 45

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

health care CDs in Native languages and computers with Native 

keyboard sets for typing. All of these initiatives require 

additional funding from public and private sources.

3-6. Lagging Technology Infrastructure Investment as an Obstacle to 

Manufacturing and Economic Development 

We started this chapter by arguing that the most serious obstacle 

to technology infrastructure development in Native 

communities is the fragile state of the economy. However, the 

real point is that infrastructure and economic development are 

mutually supportive and interdependent. Poor economic 

capacity is both a cause and a result of weak infrastructure 

development. There is little doubt that poor roads, electrical 

distribution systems, housing and schools hurt the 

competitiveness of Native communities today. Lagging 

technology infrastructure development on tribal lands can only 

place Native communities at an even greater economic 

disadvantage in the future. Without affordable access to the 

Internet, distance learning and similar technologies, Native 

Americans will find it difficult to obtain the capital and skills 

they need to compete effectively. They will find it increasingly 

difficult to track new market developments as a greater 

proportion of commerce is carried out on-line and with greater 

speed. And finally, without a reliable basic infrastructure 

system of roads, electricity and utilities, the development, 

growth and success of Native or private enterprises on tribal 

lands will not occur.
46 Chapter 3: Challenges and Barriers to Technology Infrastructure Development in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•
47

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 Chapter 4

 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CLOSING

THE TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE GAP IN

● ● ● ● ● ●

NATIVE COMMUNITIES

4-1. Synopsis

Today, virtually all American Indian and Alaska Native 

communities lack the technology infrastructure common to 

other American communities. While some tribal communities 

have made important gains in specific areas, the gaps in 

technology infrastructure are widening as a result of the rapid 

emergence of new technologies and related infrastructure 

requirements. Without significant action, tribal economies in the 

future will be even less able to compete successfully in the 

economic mainstream of America than they are today. 

The most fundamental barriers to technology infrastructure 

development identified in this report have existed for decades, if 

not longer, and cannot be eliminated with quick fixes and simple 

solutions. Real solutions must look beyond what any single 

administration or private partnership can hope to achieve. These 

solutions will require long-term strategic planning with tribal 

and community-based participation. This is essential to ensure 

that these strategies will reflect the wide variety of tribal needs 

and goals, and support sustainable tribal development. Given 

the present barriers to capital formation in Native communities 

and the depressed state of many tribal economies, much of the 

capital tribes need for technology infrastructure investment is 

likely to come from sourcesespecially the private 

sectorlocated outside these communities. It is essential 

therefore, to secure the participation and cooperation of private 

utilities and service providers as part of the development and 

implementation of these strategies. Likewise, state and county 

governments, particularly in rural areas, should be encouraged 

to work cooperatively with tribal governments to ensure that the 

infrastructure of tribal and non-tribal communities are complete 

and seamless across political boundaries.
48 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

In particular, the federal government can facilitate technology 

infrastructure improvements in several key ways. First, there 

must be a consistent federal investment strategy for tribal 

communities, with an emphasis on encouraging private 

investment necessary to provide the fundamental services 

needed to support information technologies. Among these are: 

power and phone lines, fiber optics, and communications 

satellite coverage. Second, resources must be provided to 

enable tribes to develop the infrastructure essential to economic 

and business development. Third, the federal government must 

improve the efficiency of its own program delivery to tribal 

communities, expand the types of programs available to tribes, 

and better communicate program availability to tribes. Finally, 

the government must work to support tribally-directed 

economic growth by strengthening tribal sovereignty. 

4-2. Develop a Long-Term, Consistent Federal Investment Strategy for 

Native Technology Infrastructure 

In order to effect sustained economic growth and development 

in Native communities, the federal government must take the 

lead in instituting a coordinated investment strategy to enhance 

the technology infrastructure in tribal communities. This is not 

to suggest that federal agencies do not work with each other. To 

give just one example of federal agency collaboration, the BIA 

and the FCC have worked closely with one another to encourage 

greater utilization of the E-Rate Program by Native K-12 

schools. However, cooperation by two or three agencies on 

selected initiatives does not constitute a comprehensive, 

integrated investment strategy. 

In 1998, the Clinton-Gore Administration made a significant, if 

preliminary step in the right direction when representatives of 

major federal agencies, in consultation with the Domestic 

Policy Council, issued the Joint Report to the President, 

“Economic Development in Indian Country.” This report 

provided a partial list of federal economic development 

programs operating in Native communities (some of which 

provide support for infrastructure development), as well as 

several recommendations for change. 

The next step is to develop an investment strategy building on 

this Joint Report that identifies specific infrastructure goals and 

investments necessary to meet the report recommendations as 
Develop a Long-Term, Consistent Federal Investment Strategy for Native Technology Infrastructure 49

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

well as encouraging and involving private sector involvement. 

The strategy should also include budget estimates and clarify 

which agencies have responsibility for each investment. Finally, 

it must include time lines for achieving important milestones 

and methods for measuring performance. 

To maximize the potential for success, this interagency strategic 

planning effort must be replicated on an intra-agency basis. 

Each agency should establish an Indian policy or tribal liaison 

office similar to those in place at the Departments of Justice, 

Interior, and EPA, and as recently committed to by the 

Department of Commerce. These offices should be placed at a 

sufficiently high level of the organization to participate fully in 

the development and coordination of tribal policy. Individual 

agencies may choose a political appointee as director, but the 

office should include career employees to ensure long-term 

continuity. We recommend that careful attention be given to the 

structure and function of the office to guarantee that its role is 

appropriately reflected to serve a policy function. The role of 

this office should not be limited to referral services or that of an 

information clearinghouse. Each agency also needs field 

representatives with expertise in Native issues that can serve as 

initial points of contact for tribal governments and coordinate 

collaboration on a regional basis. 

A few federal agencies have already made progress in this 

direction. A good example is HUD’s Office of Native American 

Programs (ONAP), which is dedicated solely to serving and 

implementing Native American programs such as the Native 

American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act 

(NAHASDA) of 1996, the Indian Community Development 

Block Grant Program, the Section 184 Indian Housing Loan 

Guarantee Program and the Title VI Tribal Housing Activities 

Loan Guarantee Program. There are currently 178 full time 

equivalent staff positions in ONAP and each ONAP employee is 

an expert on Indian housing and/or community development 

matters. These employees also help to coordinate policy across 

different offices/divisions within the agency and with other 

agencies.
50 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

4-3. Increase Funding to Break the Vicious Circle of Poverty and Weak 

Infrastructure 

Significant increases in public and private investment are 

required to break free of the current situation in which poor 

infrastructure and poverty conspire to depress economic activity 

in Native communities. Resources most badly needed include 

capital investment, planning assistance, workforce development 

and training, and information and data provision.

Native communities need to make substantial investments to Capital Investment

upgrade their technology infrastructure to standards that nonNative communities would consider minimally acceptable. 

These needs are greatest in basic infrastructure areas such as 

water and waste water systems. In our survey, tribes 

overwhelmingly ranked inadequate funding as the single 

greatest obstacle to making those investments. In the fiscal 

austerity of the 1980s, federal aid supporting Native 

infrastructure investment programs declined significantly. The 

Clinton-Gore Administration has taken important steps to 

reverse this trend by increasing aid to selected existing programs 

and new initiatives. It is difficult to determine the funding 

actually available to Native communities under these programs, 

because they are available to all distressed communities. 

However, it is clear that resources are available. To give a few 

important examples:

• Since 1993, the RUS has provided millions of dollars in loans 

and grants for building distance education infrastructure in 

rural areas and a number of tribes are making progress in the 

area of distance learning using satellite technology. 

• NTIA’s Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure 

Assistance Program (TIIAP) provides grants on a 

competitive basis to non-profit entities, including tribal 

governments. Since 1993, eighteen tribal projects have been 

funded, and in several cases, these projects have brought 

Internet access to the community for the first time. These 

projects are providing important models for how Native 

communities can use technology in innovative ways to 

improve the quality of life. The White Mountain Apache 

Tribe of Arizona is using TIIAP to build a community- wide 

network to improve economic development and educational 

opportunities on the reservation. And, the Oglala Sioux Tribe 

in Pine Ridge, South Dakota, is using TIIAP to develop a 
Increase Funding to Break the Vicious Circle of Poverty and Weak Infrastructure 51

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

digital wireless home health care service network that will 

use a paging system to coordinate responses from health 

services and emergency services to high-risk patients.

• The Air Force Small Business Office has launched a joint 

effort with the Native American Development Corporation of 

Montana and Wyoming to increase the number of Native 

American firms awarded Air Force contracts. In June, 1999, 

the Air Force awarded a contract to Chugach Management 

Services Inc., a Native-owned, Alaskan corporation for 

outsourcing the base civil engineering function at MacDill 

AFB in Florida. The contract is for ten years with an 

estimated value of $549 million.

• Many HUD programs allow for the purchase of computers 

and computer related equipment and software as eligible 

expenses. In 1998, HUD funded a number of tribal programs 

and initiatives associated with economic development, 

technology training and employment apprenticeships in 

tribal industries. This is all in addition to the $600 million in 

Indian Housing Block Grants (IHBG) awarded in 1998.

• The Department of Treasury’s Community Development 

Financial Institution (CDFI) program provides several 

million dollars per year to capitalize loan funds that 

communities may use to fund local business ventures.

• In FY 1998, SBA approved $76.5 million worth of loans to 

Native-owned small businesses, triple the number of loans 

made in 1993. SBA, working in cooperation with BIA, has 

also established 18 tribal business information centers to 

assist tribal entrepreneurs with technical and information 

services.

These programs, while significant, pale in comparison to what 

is needed. Clearly, the federal government cannot meet these 

needs alone. Greater private involvement is an absolute 

necessity. Recognizing this, current Administration strategy 

seeks to increase the role of the private sector. Microsoft 

Corporation, for instance has helped NASA to support programs 

of the American Indian Science and Technology Education 

Consortium (AISTEC) to prepare American Indian students for 

careers in science, engineering, and mathematics. Likewise, as 

an example, the Air Force has entered into a number of MentorProtege agreements in which tribally owned or affiliated 

businesses receive assistance from larger, more established 

businesses. 
52 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Unfortunately, the high cost and small markets associated with 

investment in Native communities continue to deter widespread 

private sector involvement. The public-private partnerships that 

have emerged, while valued and often very successful, have 

been modest. For the future, the Administration has far more 

ambitious plans to expand private sector involvement in Native 

communities. Most notable among these is the President’s New 

Market Initiative included in his FY2000 budget. This initiative 

consists of a series of tax credits and incentives designed to spur 

private investment in distressed communities worth an 

estimated $15 billion. These incentives would be available to 

Native communities. 

The increased scale and private sector involvement of this 

initiative are certainly steps in the right direction. Still, it is 

equally important to maintain and expand public sector 

programs for those critical areas where private sector 

participation fails to materialize. 

Careful planning increases the efficiency and effectiveness of Planning Assistance

public and private technology infrastructure investment. Tribal 

governments need increased funding and technical assistance to 

undertake such planning and to develop strategies for 

encouraging greater private investment. Recently, tribes have 

been given access to previously unavailable planning resources. 

Most notably, they have been granted eligibility under the 

Empowerment Zone Program/Enterprise Community (EZ/EC) 

program jointly run by USDA and HUD, and the Pine Ridge 

reservation has been designated an Empowerment Zone. In 

total, 18 tribes were selected to participate in the Round II 

EZ/ECs program. Among other benefits, this makes the 

community eligible for planning assistance of the sort needed 

(and requires them to undertake that planning effort). NASA 

has also furthered planning efforts among tribes by providing 

GIS training to tribes in Northern California. 

Future assistance for planning should include funding for 

technology infrastructure needs assessments. These needs 

assessments must reflect the unique conditions facing each 

tribal community. However, they should also utilize 

standardized methodologies that allow funding agencies to 

develop more reliable estimates of national investment needs in 

Native communities. Recognizing that plans are “living 

documents” that require continual updating, and that planning 

consists of implementation as well as document preparation, 
Increase Funding to Break the Vicious Circle of Poverty and Weak Infrastructure 53

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

some portion of the funding should be made available on a 

continuing basis. An example of this is EDA’s Planning 

Program, which provides ongoing funding to more than 60 

tribal planning efforts for the purposes of preparing and 

implementing plans, as well as building economic development 

capacity. 

Workforce Development and 

Training

Unless Native communities upgrade the skills of their residents, 

they will continue to have difficulty making informed 

investments in, and maintaining technology infrastructure. As a 

result, these Native communities will continue to lose 

significant amounts of revenue to outside contractors, and in the 

process, lose control over their technological futures. 

Some Federal agencies, such as the Department of Labor, 

through the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and its 

successor, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), have programs 

in place which are already increasing the employability of 

individuals in the Native American community through 

educational and occupational training. For instance, under the 

JTPA Title IV-A program for Program Year 1998, the 

Department of Labor invested $54 million in 183 Native 

American grantees to increase workforce development and 

training in the Indian community. Through the Welfare-toWork Program created in 1997, the Department is also spending 

$15 million annually in FY 1998 and 1999 on the Indian and 

Native American Welfare-to-Work Program (INA WtW). For 

Fiscal Year 1998, the Department invested $15 million in 86 

grantees to help move Long-Term/Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families recipients from dependence on public 

assistance into positions where they can become self- sufficient 

and better provide for themselves and their families. These two 

programs (INA WtW and JTPA/WIA) together help over 40,000 

Native American participants (adults and youth) annually 

upgrade their skills and obtain better jobs in their communities.

These programs are useful, although it is not clear how much of 

the training provided serves to increase the kinds of technology 

competency of individuals required to support major 

infrastructure improvements in the community. Training 

programs need to do more than focus just on employability. One 

excellent mechanism already in place to take a lead role in this 

effort is the network of Tribal Colleges. Toward this end, the 

federal government should support the long-term development 

of vocational technology curricula in Tribal Colleges and other 
54 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

colleges that can create a supply of future technology workers 

for tribes. Until economic activity and wages in Native 

communities increase overall, tribes also should have access to 

funding programs to support higher salaries or other benefits to 

attract and keep skilled workers in tribal communities. 

Research, Outreach and 

Data

Strategic planning by both federal and tribal government 

officials is hampered by the lack of baseline data and 

information. While tribal governments are located throughout 

the U.S. and are subject to a wide range of economic conditions, 

most of the existing economic data is highly aggregated, 

detracting from the overall utility of the information for specific 

tribes. Moreover, most existing economic data is restricted to 

employment and education measures. The data are simply not 

available to analyze properly those factors that contribute to 

high unemployment, lack of skills, or other critical weaknesses 

in the local economy. Without a proper understanding of these 

weaknesses, it is difficult to design effective strategies to 

remedy those weaknesses. 

Tribes have recognized the importance of current and reliable 

data for their communities and have sought to develop their own 

data sources. The Intertribal GIS Council, for instance, is using 

TIIAP funds to develop an electronic database of tribal land and 

geography to help the tribes make important policy decisions 

concerning natural and cultural resources. Still, each federal 

agency working with tribes should dedicate a specific and 

publicly identifiable portion of its annual budget for assessing 

native technology infrastructure needs in their area of 

expertise/responsibility. These investments in data collection 

and maintenance should be developed in the context of the 

agency and interagency strategic planning processes described 

previously.

4-4. Improve the Efficiency of Existing Federal Infrastructure Programs 

for American Indians and Alaska Natives 

The federal government needs to improve the efficiency with 

which it delivers its own programs for Native Americans. In all 

fairness, several of the agencies that work closely with Native 

Americans on infrastructure issues have made tremendous 

progress, despite the fact that many of the issues agencies have 

had to tackle are extremely complex. Consider the case of 

Universal Service provision to Native communities. Prior to 
Improve the Efficiency of Existing Federal Infrastructure Programs for American Indians and Alaska Natives 55

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

1998, Universal Service Funds were administered exclusively 

by the states. This was a problem, because states do not 

negotiate directly with tribes, which are considered sovereign 

governments. This caused tribes considerable frustration in 

trying to gain access to Universal Service Funds. In 1998 

President Clinton signed legislation into law that allows tribal 

entities not subject to state jurisdiction, to apply directly to the 

FCC to qualify for Universal Service support. FCC 

representatives concede that rules governing this program still 

remain in a state of flux, especially as applicable to tribes. 

Nonetheless, there has clearly been significant improvement 

and the FCC is continuing to make improvements based on 

extensive tribal input. 

We need to make sure this progress continues across all the 

agencies working with Native communities. To promote 

interagency cooperation at the highest policy levels, President 

Clinton has created the Domestic Policy Council Working 

Group on Native Americans. This is useful, but has very wide 

responsibilities. The model needs to be extended down to the 

operational level of the agencies involved. It also needs to be 

allowed to focus more closely on specific infrastructure issues. 

To promote tribal access to federal technology programs and to 

improve the efficiency and effectiveness with which these 

programs are delivered in tribal communities, we propose to 

create several interagency working groups. Each working group 

will address a specific infrastructure area such as 

telecommunications, educational facilities, and so on. Each will 

also serve to coordinate program activities between the agencies 

participating on the working group. 

The 1998 Joint Report to the President recommended an 

inventory of federal Indian programs and the creation of a 

referral center within BIA to handle questions about Native 

economic development programs. This is a good first step. The 

interagency working groups we are recommending would take 

the next step by having each agency in each working group 

create an electronic inventory of its procedures, eligibility 

requirements, funding levels, etc. Each agency should also 

outline its strongest assets and capabilities. The working groups 

could then identify areas of inconsistency and duplication 

among federal programs, as well as specific steps to remedy 

these inconsistencies. Each working group would also 

systematically identify opportunities for greater private sector 
56 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

involvement and interagency cooperation to assist Native 

communities in developing their technology infrastructure, 

making the best possible use of each agency’s unique resources. 

Logically, this should be a prerequisite to new investment.

4-5. Strengthen Tribal Sovereignty to Develop and Manage their Own 

Technology Infrastructure

Tribal economic development cannot be separated from 

sovereignty issues. Without clear and unencumbered authority 

to negotiate contracts, develop their lands, and make similar 

economic decisions, Native Americans are placed at a serious 

competitive disadvantage and cannot hope to attract private 

sector investment. To strengthen tribal sovereignty, the federal 

government needs to adhere to certain principles. Specifically, 

it should:

• Ensure that all government agencies are fully aware of, 

and understand the principle of tribal sovereignty and 

institute processes to ensure adherence to federal Indian 

laws and policies.

• Include tribal representation in meetings with state, 

county, and local governments regarding agency 

initiatives and the development of programs and policies 

related to information technology, communications, and 

community development.

• Remove any procedural or other obstacles which would 

limit tribal participation in agency programs or activities, 

particularly with regard to infrastructure development.

• Engage in meaningful tribal consultation when agency 

actions, decisions, or proposals affect tribal communities.

• Sponsor research to ensure that federal and tribal policymakers have adequate information to make reasoned 

decisions concerning the infrastructure and economic 

needs of tribal communities.

• Develop and disseminate information which will foster a 

greater understanding of the political, social, and 

economic status of tribes within government, the private 

sector, and the general public.

The current Administration has made real and important 

progress in strengthening tribal sovereignty. Both by Executive 

Memorandum and Executive Order, President Clinton has 

directed federal employees and agencies to respect and support 
Infrastructure-Specific Recommendations 57

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

tribal sovereignty and recognize tribal governments, including 

religious freedom. Of course, supporting sovereignty means 

more than making promises. The Clinton-Gore Administration 

has fought efforts by states to impose new taxes on tribes and put 

real resources into strengthening tribes as independent 

communities. 

The federal government could further strengthen tribal 

sovereignty by turning greater authority for infrastructure 

development over to tribes. Current policies require tribal 

governments to obtain inordinate degrees of federal approval for 

granting rights-of-way, purchasing land, and undertaking other 

actions that are relatively simple elsewhere. Giving tribes 

greater authority would make it easier for them to reap the 

benefits of infrastructure investment and give them added 

incentives to make those investments. It would also make it 

easier for tribes to secure private sector involvement and 

negotiate contracts. Rather than concerning itself with the dayto-day decisions involving tribes, the federal government should 

empower tribes to exercise their sovereignty more effectively by 

providing them with technical assistance, planning, and 

workforce development as described above. Much of this 

assistance could be delivered through the existing network of 

Tribal Colleges that are members of AIHEC and regional 

universities. 

The recommendations above are general and apply across all 

types of technology infrastructure. In the course of our 

research, we have also identified a series of recommendations 

needed to promote the development of specific types of 

technology infrastructure. 

4-6. Infrastructure-Specific Recommendations

4-6.1. Utilities, Water, and Waste Water 

Facilities

The federal government must work aggressively to help 

Native communities improve their basic utilities as a 

foundation for advanced technology infrastructure. Again, 
58 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

there are many existing programs in this area. One such 

program is USDA’s Rural Housing Service 504 loan and grant 

program, which can be used to finance Native utility hook-ups.

In addition, the federal government should:

• Reassess utility infrastructure needs on a program-byprogram basis, making assessments based on future 

needs, (including population growth) rather than 

historical funding levels. Set specific targets and fund 

these programs fully to meet those targets. 

• Streamline or eliminate the right-of-way clearance 

process. 

• Streamline or eliminate the tribal land acquisition 

clearance processes.

• Revise existing policies to give tribes greater jurisdiction 

over utilities and roads on tribal lands. 

• Develop and fund training programs for community 

planners and utility managers in the Tribal Colleges. 

These programs should include curricula on contract 

negotiation, strategic planning, needs assessment, 

conducting feasibility studies, as well as basic financial 

modeling. 

• Assist tribes to develop alternative and renewable energy 

sources.

• Develop programs through the national laboratories that 

support transfer of utility and construction technology to 

Native communities. An example would be Sandia 

National Laboratory’s program to install fuel cells as a 

power source in remote Alaska Native Villages. 

4-6.2. Education Programs and Facilities

Education represents one of the biggest single success stories 

for federal policy to help Native Americans in recent years. 

Toward this end, several different agencies now fund education 

programs and projects of critical value to Native Americans. In 

addition to the E-Rate Program and NTIA efforts described 

earlier: 

• The Department of Education has a number of programs in 

place which can serve as models for replication by other 

agencies or private entities. For example, under a 

Technology Innovation Challenge Grant, the Native 

American Technology Consortium will train almost 3,000 
Infrastructure-Specific Recommendations 59

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

teachers serving 45,000 students on the Navajo Reservation 

in the innovative use of educational technology. Another 

Department of Education program, The Star Schools 

program, is providing $2 million to the Mountain Plains 

Distance Learning Partnership involving tribes in Colorado, 

Montana, Wyoming and Utah. This partnership is 

developing an electronic, virtual campus, employing twoway audio and visual interactive connection using fully 

scalable, high speed digital ATM microwave transmission 

and receiving classrooms.

• The National Science Foundation (NSF) has invested for over 

a decade in the development of high performance computing 

infrastructure in Tribal Colleges.

• NASA, in partnership with Microsoft Corporation, is funding 

programs of the American Indian Science and Technology 

Education Consortium (AISTEC) to prepare American 

Indian students for careers in science engineering, and 

mathematics.

• BIA’s Office of Indian Education Programs (OIEP) has 

formed partnerships with the National Museum of the 

American Indian and companies such as Microsoft, Intel and 

3Com to provide culturally relevant educational programs 

such as virtual museums and cultural preservation projects 

that can be shared with communities throughout the world.

• NTIA’s Public Telecommunications Facilities Program has 

funded the planning and construction of a distance learning 

network providing each of the 30 American Indian Higher 

Education Consortium (AIHEC) member schools with a 

satellite receive terminal and related video classrooms. An 

additional nine AIHEC colleges have VSAT earth station 

capability that allows them to transmit culturally relevant 

educational programming to all the AIHEC member schools.

To sustain and build on these existing efforts, the federal 

government should:

• Enhance and strengthen coordination between federal 

programs to fund Internet connections in Native schools. 

• Increase overall funding levels for Internet connections to 

tribal schools, possibly along the lines of the National 

Science Foundation’s Connections Program for 

Educational Institutions. 
60 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

• Continue to fund Tribal College and regional university 

distance education programs as well as expanding support 

for private partnerships specifically address building tribal 

economic capacity. 

• Assign the Department of Education the task of assessing 

educational and training needs for Native Americans to 

work with, and manage key technologies. 

• Expand funding for culturally sensitive technology 

curricula for Native communities. Funding should 

include teacher training/scholarships. 

• Encourage internship/apprenticeship programs between 

the private sector and Tribal Colleges to provide on-thejob training to Native Americans in industrial fields. 

Develop technical training curricula. 

• Create incentives for new college graduates to return to 

work in Native communities, including wage subsidies if 

necessary. 

4-6.3. Telecommunications Infrastructure

To ensure Native communities do not fall further behind in 

critical new technologies, the federal government must create a 

comprehensive and coherent investment strategy for 

telecommunications infrastructure which involves participants 

from tribes as well as the private sector.

The Administration’s Efforts 

in Building 

Telecommunications 

Infrastructure

In 1993, the Clinton Administration recognized the importance 

of telecommunications and information technologies as a 

foundation for the nation’s economic prosperity. The 

Administration set forth a vision for the development of a 

National Information Infrastructure (NII) based on procompetitive policies that would promote vigorous private-sector 

investment and reduce the cost of technology and service for all 

communities. Tribes were encouraged to embrace this vision so 

that their communities would be able to enjoy the benefits of the 

NII, including enhanced education, economic development, 

health care, public safety and delivery of government services. 

In 1996, President Clinton signed into law the 

Telecommunications Act of 1996 -- a major cornerstone of the 

Administration’s NII effort. The Act expanded the definition of 

universal service by creating the E-Rate Program to provide 

discounts for telecommunications equipment and connections 

for all schools, libraries and health clinics. 
Infrastructure-Specific Recommendations 61

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Even though there are a number of complexities associated with 

the administration and eligibility for E-Rate discounts, many 

tribal schools and libraries in particular have benefited from the 

program. Overall, 26% of BIA schools or approximately 56 

schools participated in the E-Rate discount program in 1998. 

These schools received on average a discount of nearly 80%. 

Yet, even with such progress, tribes still have a long way to go 

before they can fully participate in the new information 

economy. We know that the state of connectivity in Native 

communities generally is poor. But, in order to identify 

effective solutions to this problem, a critical step is defining the 

need and identifying areas for solutions.

Recommendations in 

Implementing the 

Telecommunications Act of 

1996

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provides for comparable 

rates and services between rural and urban areas, “just, 

reasonable and affordable,” to all Americans and requires 

carriers to serve previously unserved communities. The 

deregulations implementing that law are still being developed. 

The FCC should ensure that the promise of the Act is a reality 

for Native Americans and should: 1) provide for enhanced 

“Lifeline” and “Link-Up” support to tribal ares not subject to 

state jurisdiction; 2) provide relief from the two year wait for 

Universal Service Funds for new carriers providing service to 

tribal communities; 3) remove the per line cap on Universal 

Service Funds for acquired exchanges; and 4) institute 

meaningful carrier of last resort procedures for tribal 

communities.

In addition, the federal government should: 

• Increase funding for Native telecommunications 

infrastructure by developing tax incentives to promote 

private investment.

• Within the training programs for tribal utility managers 

recommended above, develop specialized curricula for 

telecommunications managers. 

• Revise HUD policies, or better communicate existing 

policies regarding the program support for wiring houses 

for telephones. Investigate the costs and possible funding 

mechanisms for providing full connections from houses to 

the telephone network. 

• Reserve portions of the broadband spectrum for Native 

use.
62 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

• Develop 911 emergency programs coupled with a Native 

community rural addressing program.

• Revise and develop more consistent federal policies 

regarding LATA boundaries.

• Revise USF benchmark calculation models and FCC 

policies with respect to policy effects on tribally owned 

and operated telephone enterprises. 

• Simplify E-Rate eligibility criteria to include Native 

communities more fully. Review regulations related to 

multiple use of infrastructure funded under E-Rate 

telemedicine programs. 

• Create private/public partnerships with BIA in 

administration and negotiation of BIA school Internet 

projects. Examples of partnerships might include NSF, 

Department of Education, private foundations, etc.

• Implement programs to better define the revenue and 

investment needs of telecommunications constituent 

groups involved in Native communities from a provider 

viewpoint, i.e., LECs, long distance carriers, Internet 

service providers, etc.

• Develop level-of-service criteria for local exchange 

carriers that would allow Native American communities 

to take advantage of alternate providers in a franchise area 

when the primary provider cannot or will not provide 

timely and adequate service.

4-6.4. Telemedicine Facilities and Programs 

Telemedicine represents an important strategy whereby 

Native communities utilize new technologies to overcome 

their isolation and weaknesses in the existing transportation 

and health care networks. The federal government should 

support telemedicine programs of Native communities by:

• Working with the medical community, insurers, and other 

related parties to accelerate the development of legal and 

technology standards for telemedicine. This should 

include making more of the costs associated with 

telemedicine eligible for traditional insurance payments.

• Providing greater funding for telemedicine facilities, 

including tele-examining rooms. Presently RUS lends for 

these initiatives.
Infrastructure-Specific Recommendations 63

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

• Assisting Native telemedicine programs to piggyback on 

other networking projects (e.g., schools, libraries, DOI, 

military, Forest Service, Coast Guard, National Park 

Service, etc.). 

• Creating medical training/skills programs for 

telemedicine, delivered through culturally appropriate 

mechanisms.

• Working to review E-Rate rules that currently inhibit 

multiple uses of infrastructure. Explore possibilities of 

having Department of Defense (DoD) and National 

Laboratories provide necessary encryption technology.

4-6.5. Economic Development 

Over the longer run, increasing businesses, expanding business 

activity, job training, and encouraging entrepreneurial initiatives 

are the only means to increase the resources and skills that tribal 

communities need to build local capacity and ensure economic 

viability. One of the best ways to promote economic 

development within tribes and tribal communities is through the 

fostering of an entrepreneurial culture. Entrepreneurship and 

small businesses have always been the backbone of a strong 

American economy. And these are the keys to job creation and 

our continued leadership in the global economy of the 21st 

century. Several new sources of economic development support 

have emerged in recent years that can promote entrepreneurship 

in Native communities. 

• Indian tribes are participating in two of the five EZs, 

including the Oglala Sioux Tribe on the Pine Ridge 

Reservation in South Dakota and the Desert Communities 

EZs in California with three participating Indian tribes. Of 

the 20 ECs, eight include tribal entities. Under these 

programs, the federal government provides tax benefits for 

businesses, flexible grants to carry out comprehensive 

revitalization strategies, and the ability to apply for waivers 

from federal programs enabling local communities to better 

address their particular needs.

• Although a very small program, CDFI has invested several 

million dollars annually in a number of Native 

American-owned investment funds serving Native American 

communities. For example, the Fund made a $1 million grant 

to First American Credit Union, which provides basic 

financial services to Native Americans in Arizona, parts of 

New Mexico, and Utah. The CDFI Fund is also conducting 
64 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

a study on barriers to lending and investment, and will make 

recommendations for ways to expand access to capital in 

Native communities. 

If fully funded, the New Markets Initiative might also channel 

significant capital into Native communities. 

In addition, there are a number of successful private/tribal 

partnerships aimed at building tribal economic development 

capacity. As an example, Intel Corporation has partnered with 

tribal governments and Tribal Colleges in New Mexico to offer 

a two-year associates program to address the company’s 

challenge of locating a skilled electronics workforce. Similarly, 

IBM has joined forces with several Tribal Colleges to develop, 

prepare and retain workers in the computer industry.

The federal government should continue to support such efforts 

by: 

• Increasing funding for Native economic development, 

including funds for strategic planning and capacity building.

• Implementing fully the clearinghouse for federal agency 

economic development initiatives currently under 

development at BIA. The program should include follow-up 

as well as initial referral services. 

• Revising SBA definitions that prohibit tribal enterprises from 

receiving small business assistance.

• Conducting independent quality audits of previous federal 

infrastructure development and deployment projects 

undertaken in Native communities as compared with projects 

undertaken in non-Native communities. These audits will 

serve to upgrade Native infrastructure project standards to 

comparable levels as projects undertaken in non-Native 

communities.

• Establishing an internship/exchange program to provide 

Native economic developers experience working off the 

reservation (or conversely to bring in outside expertise) on a 

temporary basis.

• Continuing to support and emphasize programs which build 

private-sector partnerships for economic development 

training, Native-owned contracting and job training.
Conclusion 65

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

4-7. Conclusion

Modern technology infrastructure provides wonderful 

opportunities for Native communities to strengthen their 

economies, educate their children, improve their standard of 

living, overcome geographic isolation, and sustain their cultural 

heritage. However, barriers such as geographic isolation, access 

to education, limited infrastructure, and other disadvantages 

continue to exclude tribes from the economic mainstream of this 

nation. We now have a chance to ensure that tribes are not 

excluded from the Information Age. The lack of infrastructure 

is a major remaining barrier to tribal economic growth. Today 

the opportunity and the means to remove this barrier are at hand.

The Native, government and private contributors to this study 

have helped identify many suggestions to remove the barriers to 

tribal infrastructure development. What is needed now is a 

coherent and sustained commitment to improving the situation. 

This will require significant public and private investments in 

both physical structures and people. 

The existing state of infrastructure development in Native 

communities as well as the federal and private policies serving 

to impede certain types of development has taken a long time to 

evolve. Without question, change is occurring. However, all 

contributors to this research agree−immediate and committed 

federal help in funding, and facilitating private sector 

partnerships can make a difference.
66 Chapter 4: Recommendations for Closing the Technology Infrastructure Gap in Native Communities

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•
67

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

● ● ● ● ● ●

 REFERENCES

[1] Office of Technology Assessment U.S. Congress, “Telecommunications Technology and Native Americans: 

Opportunities and Challenges,” (Washington, DC: U. S. 

Government Printing Office, 1995).

[2] Daley, William M., Aida Alvarez, and Bruce Babbitt, 

“Economic Development in Indian Country,” (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Small Business Administration, 

1998).

[3] Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Answers to Frequently-Asked 

Questions,” http://www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/q_and_a.html, (U.S. Department of the Interior, April 

2, 1998).

[4] Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Indian Entities Recognized 

and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States 

Bureau of Indian Affairs,” http://www.doi.gov/bia/aitoday/q_and_a.html, (U. S. Department of the Interior, 

December 21, 1998).

[5] Paisano, Edna L. et. al. We the First Americans. U.S. 

Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics 

Administration, Bureau of the Census. September 1993.

[6] Duffy, Diane and Jerry Stubben, “An Assessment of 

Native American Economic Development: Putting Culture and Sovereignty Back in the Models,” Studies in 

Comparative International Development 32, no. 4 (1998): 

52-78.

[7] Anonymous, “Intergovernmental Compacts in Native 

American Law: Models for Expanded Usage,” Harvard 

Law Review 112, no. 4 (1999): 922-939.
68 References

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

[8] Governor Mary Thomas, “Response to Federal Communications Commission Questionnaire,” (Gila River 

Indian Community, 1999).

[9] U.S. Census Bureau, “Resident Population Estimates of 

the United States by Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin,” 

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/nation/intfile3-1.txt. (Washington, D.C., Population 

Estimates Program, Population Division, December 28, 

1998).

[10] “One-Stop Mortgage Centers: Building Local Capacity to 

Promote Homeownership in Indian Communities,” Interagency Draft Report, Washington, D.C., March 29, 1999.

[11] U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 4. Projected Number of 

Households by Type, Race and Hispanic Origin,” 

http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/hhfam/table4n.txt. (Washington, D.C., U. S. Bureau of the 

Census, May 1996).

[12] Tiller, Veronica E., Tiller’s Guide to Indian Country 

(Albuquerque, NM: BowArrow Publishing Co., 1996).

[13] McConnaughey, James W. and Wendy Lader, “Falling 

Through the Net II,” http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/net2/falling.html. (Washington, DC, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 1997).

[14] U.S. Census Bureau, “Housing of American Indians on 

Reservations: Structural Characteristics,” SB/95-10, 

April, 1995. Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of 

Commerce, 1995.

[15] U.S. Census Bureau, “Population Projections of the 

United States by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 

1995 to 2050,” P25-1130, http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p25-1130/. (Washington, D.C., U. S. 

Bureau of the Census, February 1996).
69

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

[16] U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 53: Population Living on 

Selected Reservations and Trust Lands and American 

Indian Tribes with 10,000 or More American Indians: 

1990,” The Official Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the 

United States, 1998.

[17] U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 303: College Enrollment, by 

Selected Characteristics: 1980 to 1996,” The Official Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the United States (1998).

[18] U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 328: Degrees Earned, by 

Level and Race/Ethnicity: 1981 to 1995,” The Official 

Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the United States (1998).

[19] National Congress of American Indians. (Myrtle Beach, 

CA, October 17-23 1998).

[20] U.S. Census Bureau, “Housing of American Indians on 

Reservations: Plumbing,” SB/95-9, April, 1995. Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Commerce, 1995.

[21] U.S. Census Bureau, “Housing of American Indians on 

Reservations: Equipment and Fuels,” SB/95-11, April, 

1995. Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Commerce, 

1995.

[22] Racine-Myers, C., American Indian Higher Education 

Consortium, http://www.fdl.cc.mn.us/pages/aihec/, Alexandria, VA, 1999.

[23] Sturgis, Amy, “Tale of Tears,” Reason, http://www.reason.com/9903/fe.as.tale.html, March, 1999.

[24] U.S. Census Bureau, “American Housing Survey,” 1995. 

Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Commerce, 1995.
70 References

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

[25] Division of Program Statistics et al., “Regional Differences in Indian Health,” http://www.tucson.ihs.gov/PublicInfo/Archives/Publications/Trends/Trends96/96RDpv.p

df, Washington, D.C., 1996.

[26] Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Regional and State Employment and Unemployment (Monthly),” 

http://stats.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nws.htm. Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Labor, May 1999).

[27] U.S. Census Bureau, “Statistical Abstract of the United 

States,” http://www.census.gov/statab/www/. (Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Commerce, April, 1995).

[28] Bureau of Economic Analysis, “1997 State per Capita 

Personal Income and State Personal Income,” BEA 98-

10, http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/spi497.htm. 

(Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Commerce, 

April, 1998).
71

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

● ● ● ● ● ●

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

U.S. Supreme Court, “Morton v. Mancari,” 417 U.S. 535, June 

17, 1974. 

O'Brien, Sharon, American Indian tribal governments, vol. 192 

of, Civilization of the American Indian (Norman, OK: 

University of Oklahoma Press, 1989).

Pommersheim, Frank, “Tribal-State Relations: Hope for the 

Future,” South Dakota Law Review 36 (1991): 239, 245.

The National Center for American Indian Enterprise 

Development, “Assessment of Infrastructure Needs in 

Arizona Indian Reservations,” the Arizona Department of 

Commerce, 1999.

Paisano, Edna L., “The American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut 

Population,” in Population Profile of the United States: 

1995, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population 

Reports (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing 

Office, 1995).

Bybee, Shannon, “Responsible gaming: The bottom line,” The 

bottom line 13, no. 6 (1998): 8-10.

Cray, Dan, “Navajo vs. Navajo,” Time 152, no. 4 (1998): 4.

Jahrig, Shannon H., “Business on the Reservation,” Montana 

Business Quarterly 35, no. 3 (1997): 15-16.

Grunewald, Rob, “Cranberries and New Factories Create Jobs 

for Red Lake Tribe,” Fedgazette 11, no. 1 (1999): 10.
72 Bibliography

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Directorate of Civil Works, “Planning Programs and Activities: 

Planning Assistance to States Program,” 

http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/functions/cw/, U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers, 1999.

Office of Research and Development, “Hoopa Valley Indian 

Reservation Transportation Plan 1996-2001,” 

http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/hoopa/transportation.html, 

December 5, 1996. Hoopa, CA, Hoopa Valley Tribe, 

1996.

Warm Springs Extension, “Home Economics Education,” 

http://www.orst.edu/dept/wsext/homec.htm, Oregon State 

University, 1998.

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 

“Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, Program 

Target: Native American Organizations,” 

http://aspe.os.dhhs.gov/cfda/iben40.htm, Washington, 

DC, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

1999.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Counties ranked by American Indian 

population in 1997,” 

http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/county/rank/

cori97.txt, April, 1995. Washington, D.C., U. S. 

Department of Commerce, 1997.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Communications and Information 

Technology,” in Statistical Abstract of the United States

(Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Commerce, 

1998), 569-586.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Census 2000 American Indian and 

Alaska Native Programs,” 

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/aian/aian.html, 

Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Commerce, 1999.
73

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

U.S. Census Bureau, “American Indian Heritage Month: 

November 1-30,” http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/cb98ff13.html, Washington, D.C., U. S. 

Department of Commerce, 1998.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Foreign-Born Population Reaches 25.8 

Million, According to Census Bureau,” 

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/cb98-57.html, 

Washington, D.C., U. S. Department of Commerce, 1998.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Education,” in Statistical Abstract of the 

United States (Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of 

Commerce, 1998), 158-205.

Dalaker, Joseph and Mary Naifeh, “Poverty in the United 

States: 1997,” P60-201, 

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/poverty.html, 

Washington, DC, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998.

Faber, Carol S., “Geographical Mobility: March 1996 to March 

1997 (Update),” P20-510, 

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/mobility.html, 

Washington, DC, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998.

Faber, Carol S., “Geographical Mobility: March 1996 to March 

1997 (Update): Detailed Tables for Current Population 

Report P20-510,” P20-510u, 

http://www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/mobility.html, 

Washington, DC, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1998.

Savage, Howard A., “Home-Ownership Affordability,” in 

Population Profile of the United States: 1997, Current 

Population Reports, (Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office, 1998), 54-55.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Minority- & Women- Owned Business 

Enterprises -- 1992,” 

http://www.census.gov/csd/mwb/1992/, Washington, 

D.C., U. S. Bureau of the Census, 1996.
74 Bibliography

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 34: Resident Population by Race, 

Hispanic Origin, and State: 1997,” The Official Statistics: 

Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998).

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 54: Social and Economic 

Characteristics of the American Indian Population: 

1990,” The Official Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the 

United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998).

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 327: First Professional Degrees 

Earned in Selected Professions: 1990 to 1995,” The 

Official Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 202.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 919: Telephone Systems: 1985 to 

1996,” The Official Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the 

United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 575.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 920: Telephone Communication - 

Operating Revenue and Expenses: 1990 to 1996,” The 

Official Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 575.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 921: Cellular Telephone Industry: 

1990 to 1997,” The Official Statistics: Statistical Abstract 

of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 576.
75

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 922: Wireless Bureau Stations 

Authorized, by Class: 1996,” The Official Statistics: 

Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 576.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 923: Radio and Television 

Broadcasting Services—Finances: 1990 to 1996,” The 

Official Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 576.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 924: Copyright Registration, by 

Subject matter: 1990 to 1997,” The Official Statistics: 

Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 577.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 925: Public Television 

Programming: 1984 to 1996,” The Official Statistics: 

Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 577.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 926: Public Broadcasting 

Systems—Income, by Source; 1990-1996,” The Official 

Statistics: Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 577.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 927: Cable Television—Systems 

and Subscribers: 1970 to 1997,” The Official Statistics: 

Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 578.
76 Bibliography

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 928: Cable and Pay TV—

Summary: 1980 to 1997,” The Official Statistics: 

Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 578.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 929: Cable and Pay TV—Revenue 

and Expenses: 1990 to 1996,” The Official Statistics: 

Statistical Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 578.

U.S. Census Bureau, “Table 930: Microcomputer Software 

Sales: 1995 to 1996,” The Official Statistics: Statistical 

Abstract of the United States 

http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/98statab/cc98stab.

htm (1998): 579.

The Center for Economic Development Research and 

Assistance, “A Marketing Research Study of Potential 

Target Markets for ATIIN, Inc.: Volume 1 - Tribes with 

Gaming Operations,” December 12, 1995. Las Cruces, 

NM, College of Business Administration and Economics, 

New Mexico State University, 1995.

“National Native American Small Business Conference” (San 

Diego, CA, 1997).

“Tribal Healthcare 2000: Telecommunications and Telmedicine 

Conference and Trade Show” (San Diego, CA, 1997).

Hansen, Paulette, Madonna Peltier Yawakie, and Mel Yawakie, 

“Proceeding Excerpts July 1998” (paper presented at the 

National American Indian Telecommunication Workshop, 

Radisson Hotel, Albuquerque, NM, July 28 – 30, 1998 

1998).

Minnesota AISES Professional Chapter Website, 

http://bioc02.uthscsa.edu/~yawakie/.
77

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Yawakie, Madonna Peltier and Paulette Hansen, “Improving 

Tribal Telecommunication Service Levels and 

Telehealth,” http://aises.uthscsa.edu/~yawakie/SDP.html, 

San Diego, CA, 1999.

Chandler, Ken, “Rural Utilities Service Check-list of How to 

Start a Utility with Government Financing” (paper 

presented at the Improving Tribal Telecommunication 

Service Levels and Telehealth, San Diego, CA, 1999).

Buchanan, Hank, “Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative” 

(paper presented at the Improving Tribal 

Telecommunication Service Levels and Telehealth, San 

Diego, CA, 1999).

Hall, Gabriel, “Identification of Business Partners & Financial 

Structures” (paper presented at the Improving Tribal 

Telecommunication Service Levels and Telehealth, San 

Diego, CA, 1999).

Rouleau, Michael A., “Testimony of Michael A. Rouleau, Vice 

President, Marketing for Enterprise Networking, US West 

Communications before the U.S. Senate Committee on 

Indian Affairs on Native American Business 

Development,” April 21, 1999.

Stevens, A. J., “Overcoming Obstacles to Telephone Service to 

Indians on Reservations,” Chandler, AZ, Presentation 

made to FCC by Citizens Communications and Navajo 

Communications Company, 1999.

Wiese, Charles G., Overcoming the Obstacles to Telephone 

Service for Indians on Reservations (Comments of 

General Manager of the Tohono O'Odham Utility 

Authority to the FCC: Comments of General Manager of 

the Tohono O'Odham Utility Authority to the FCC), 

Comments.
78 Bibliography

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Woster, Terry, “Storm Warning: Don't rely on cellular phone to 

save you,” Argus Leader, Wednesday, Nov. 26, 1997 

1997.

Deloria, Vine, Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle, American Indians, 

American Justice (Austin, Texas: University of Texas 

Press, 1983).
79

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 Appendix A

● ● ● ● ● ●

 SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The purpose of administering the survey associated with this 

study was to assess the current state of technology infrastructure 

in Native communities. As with any survey, the primary 

concern is projectability of the results. To this end, a stratified 

random sampling design was used. The following summarizes 

the preliminary model and compares it to the group returning 

surveys.

A-1. A Preliminary Model of Federally Recognized Native American 

Communities

Surveys were sent to all tribal communities including 

reservations, trust lands, tribal jurisdictional areas, rancherias, 

colonies, and Alaskan villages that are under the jurisdiction of 

federally recognized Native American tribes, nations, bands, 

corporations, or other entities. The primary concern was that all 

Native communities be represented.

The primary source of Native American tribes was Indian 

Entities Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the 

United States Bureau of Indian Affairs [4]. The primary source 

of information about Native American communities was Tiller's 

Guide to Indian Country [12]. For the most part, the two sources 

are in close agreement. The general exceptions are in Alaska 

and California, probably due to the fact that many entities have 

been recognized in those two states in the three years since 

Tiller's Guide was published. 

In most cases, each community represents a single entity, and 

vice-versa. There were approximately ten exceptions. If several 

locations were governed as a single unit, they were considered 

parts of a single community, but if each location has its own 

government, it was considered separate, even if confederated. 

The model contained 559 distinct Native American 

communities. 
80 Appendix A: Survey Methodology

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

A.1.1. Stratification of the Preliminary Model

The community model was stratified along four dimensions: 1) 

total community population; 2) type of land ownership; 3) 

configuration of land; and 4) total land area.

Total Community 

Population

Total community population includes both Native American and 

non-Native American residents. This reflects the size of an 

infrastructure problem in terms of number of potential users on 

lands under the jurisdiction of the entity in question. In most 

cases, this number is stated in Tiller's Guide. Total community 

population was estimated for those communities without census 

values in Tiller's Guide on a case-by-case basis. Estimated total 

community population was broken into four stratum, as shown 

in Table A.1. Note that although stratum 1 consists of only 22 

communities, it accounts for 78 percent of the population in all 

eligible communities. Conversely, although stratum 4 accounts 

for over 40% of the communities in the study, it includes less 

than 1% of the population.

The degree to which a Native American government can install Type of Land Ownership

and manage technology infrastructure depends on the degree to 

which it has jurisdiction over its land area. Therefore the 

grouping of different types of ownership into stratum was made 

on the basis of possible difficulty establishing infrastructure. 

Four stratum were identified.

In stratum 1, the band, tribe, or nation owns land in a special 

status recognized by the federal government. This includes 

reservations, trust lands, rancheria, and colonies. In stratum 2 

the land is not owned by the Native American government, but 

Table Note 

Each table displays the total 

number of communities and the 

number of communities which 

responded to (resp.) surveys in 

each stratum.

 TABLE A.1: Native American Communities and Population by Population 

Strata

Communities Estimated

Stratum Range Total Resp Total Pop. Percent

1 10,000 or more 22 4 1,678,657 78.4

2 1,000 to 9,999 108 15 355,309 16.6

3 200 to 999 191 11 88,452 4.1

4 0 to 199 238 18 19,552 0.9

 Totals 559 48 2,141,970 100.0
A Preliminary Model of Federally Recognized Native American Communities 81

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

by members in allotments or possibly fee simple. In stratum 3 

the Native American government owns the land, but not with a 

special federal status. These include fee simple and state trusts. 

Stratum 4 consists of Alaska Native communities. The 

breakdown of the stratum is shown in Table A.2. Note that 

while the majority of communities are in stratum 1 or 4, over 

two-thirds of the population is in stratum 2.

Land Configuration Land configuration was stratified into three levels with each 

successive level representing a higher degree of difficulty or 

complexity in establishing infrastructure. The first stratum 

includes communities that consist of a single contiguous area of 

land. Stratum 2 includes communities that consist of several 

separated areas of land. Stratum 3 includes communities that 

contain many separated pieces of land or are situated in more 

than one state. In the “checkerboard” configuration many plots 

within the community are owned by non-members. In Table A.3 

note that although 85% of communities are contiguous, nearly 

80 percent of the total population live on lands that are not.

 TABLE A.2: Native American Communities and Population by Land 

Ownership Strata

Communities Estimated

Stratum Ownership Total Resp Total Pop. Percent

0 No land 23 1 2,015 0.1

1 Reservation/Trust 204 15 361,363 16.9

2 Member-owned 85 9 1,460,726 68.2

3 No Federal Status 25 3 242,291 11.3

4 Alaskan Village 222 20 75,565 3.5

Totals 559 48 2,141,970 100.0

 TABLE A.3: Native American Communities and Population by Land Configuration Strata

Communities Estimated

Stratum Description Total Resp. Total Pop. Percent

1 Contiguous 474 39 466,662 21.8

2 Several sections 39 4 898,668 41.9

3 Checkerboard /Multi-state 46 5 776,640 36.3

Totals: 559 48 2,141,970 100.0
82 Appendix A: Survey Methodology

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

When considering total land area as shown in Table A.4, stratum Total Land Area

0 consists of all communities with either no statement of 

community area or a statement that the community owns no land 

area. It is proposed that some in this stratum may actually 

belong in one of the other stratum. Stratum 1 includes 

communities up to 10,000 acres, the size of a small town. 

Stratum 2 includes communities between 10,000 and 100,000 

acres, the size of a moderately large city or small county. 

Stratum 3 includes communities between 100,000 and one 

million acres, the size of a moderately large county. Finally, 

Stratum 4 includes communities greater than one million acres 

in size, the size of a moderately large state. 

A-2. Survey Instrument

The project team attempted to send a copy of the survey 

instrument to every federally recognized Native American tribe. 

Additionally, the team followed-up with telephone calls to a 

representative sample of 168 communities. A total of 48 usable 

responses were received at the time of this report. Responses 

received after the project deadline will be incorporated into the 

survey summary posted on the project web page. The survey 

instrument is reproduced on the following four pages. 

 

 TABLE A.4: Native American Communities and Population by 

Community Land Area Strata

Communities

Stratum Area (Acres) Total Resp Population Percent

0 0 58 3 9,767 0.5

1 1 to 9,999 156 8 96,964 4.5

2 1,000 to 99,999 183 13 511,490 23.9

3 100,000 to 999,999 138 18 523,933 24.5

4 1,000,000 or more 24 6 999,816 46.6

Totals: 559 48 2,141,970 100.0
Survey Instrument 83

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Technology Infrastructure Study

Native Communities Focus

Introduction

The purpose of this survey is to assist the federal

government in shaping policy and developing

funding plans for building technology infrastructure

in native communities. Ultimately, the findings

from this survey will become a portion of a report

submitted to the White House. Responses to this

survey will remain confidential, no individual or

group will be directly associated with any specific

response. Therefore, please feel free to add any

comments. Use additional paper if necessary. 

When finished with the survey, either mail the

survey back to the address on the last page, fax to

(505) 646-2976, or send as an email attachment to

tech@alpha.nmsu.edu If you have any questions

with regard to this survey, please call Marie Madrid

at (505) 646-4923 or email your questions to:

tech@alpha.nmsu.edu

In this survey, the term “Native American” is used to

describe both American Indian and Alaskan Native

populations. "Community" refers to the land area

under the jurisdiction of your Tribal, National, or 

other Native American government. Please answer

all questions in this survey with respect to your

Tribe, Nation, Village or Community.

Respondent Name 

Title 

Tribe, Nation, Village or Community 

 

Department 

Address 

Phone Number 

Email 

Total community population 

Native American Population 

Community size: 9 Acres 9 Sq. Miles

Percent of adults with high school diploma 

Unemployment rate 

Per capita income 

Technology Infrastructure Questions

1. For each of the items below, please indicate to the best of your knowledge, what percentage of homes,

businesses, schools and health care providers (hospitals, clinics, etc.) within your community possess the following:

Percentage of Native

American Homes with...

Percentage of

Businesses

with...

Percentage of

Schools and

Libraries

with...

Percentage of

Health Care

with...

Areas with

2,500 pop. or

more

Rural

Basic Telephone

Single Party Telephone

Electricity

Utility - Water

Utility - Sewage

Gas, Oil or Propane

Cable Television

Computer

Internet Access
84 Appendix A: Survey Methodology

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

2. There are many different ideas about exactly what

the term “technology infrastructure” means. In your

opinion, what does “technology infrastructure” in

native communities mean to you?

 

 

3. Please list the three most important areas of 

technology infrastructure for your tribe.

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. If you were given one million dollars to spend on

building the following infrastructure areas for your

tribe, how and where would you allocate the money?

(For example, you might spend $500,000 on distance

learning, $250,000 on telecommunications and

$250,000 on housing.) Write in your allocations

next to each category.

Infrastructure Area Allocation of $1

million dollars

Water $ 

Roads $ 

Electricity $ 

Housing $ 

Telephones $ 

Waste water technology $ 

Medical/health facilities $ 

Law enforcement $ 

911 Emergency services $ 

Utilities (gas, oil, fuel) $ 

Distance learning $ 

Education $ 

Internet access $ 

Other $ 

Total $ 1,000,000 

5. What do you see as the five greatest barriers or challenges that your tribe faces in developing a technology

infrastructure? And what type of strategy, idea or policy reform might address that challenge or barrier?

Barriers or Challenges to Technology

Infrastructure Development

Strategy, idea or policy reform that would address the

challenge or barrier

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6. What types of initiatives or projects are presently underway with your tribe that are contributing to building a

technology infrastructure? Can you briefly describe three specific projects? Who is backing or funding the project? 

(For example, BIA, tribe, USDA, IHS, RUS, USF, EDA, etc.)

Project 1: Backing or funding

Project 2: Backing or funding

Project 3: Backing or funding
Survey Instrument 85

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

7. What types of infrastructure are needed in your

tribe to strengthen the following areas?

Area Types of Needed

Infrastructure

Education

(K through 12)

Industrial

development -

manufacturing

Cultural

preservation

Business

development

services, retail,

financial

Economic

prosperity

Quality of life

Selfdetermination

Workforce

training

8. How would you evaluate where (your tribe,

community....) is at present for the following areas

on a scale of 1 to 5 corresponding to the following

measures? Please circle the number that most

closely represents the infrastructure state for your

tribe.

1 — No infrastructure in place

2 — Poor infrastructure in place: Bare minimum

3 — Fair infrastructure in place: 

 Adequate for most purposes

4 — Good infrastructure in place: 

 Adequate for all but the most extreme purposes

5 — Excellent infrastructure in place: 

 Could not be better

No Excellent

 Infrastructure Infrastructure

Distance learning 1 2 3 4 5

Water 1 2 3 4 5

Roads 1 2 3 4 5

Electricity 1 2 3 4 5

Telephones 1 2 3 4 5

Waste water facilities 1 2 3 4 5

Internet access 1 2 3 4 5

Medical/health 1 2 3 4 5

Law enforcement 1 2 3 4 5

Industrial parks 1 2 3 4 5

Education/training 1 2 3 4 5

9. Please indicate which of the following services are available in your community and place an “X” in all of the

boxes that describe the type of ownership for each of these services.

Fully Owned by

the Tribe

Partially owned

by the Tribe

Not owned by

the tribe

No service

available

Electricity

Water/sewage

Local newspaper

Broadcast radio

Telephone

Cellular telephone service

Pager service

Cable television

Direct broadcast satellite

television service
86 Appendix A: Survey Methodology

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Fully Owned by

the Tribe

Partially owned

by the Tribe

Not owned by

the tribe

No service

available

Emergency transport

911 service

Manufacturing operations

Industrial parks

Construction companies

Other 

10. On average, what is the typical installation cost

for the following services?

Telephone $ 

Cable television $ 

Internet access $ 

11. On average, what is the typical monthly cost for

the following service?

Basic Local Telephone $ 

Long-distance Telephone calls within the

community. $ 

Cable television $ 

Internet access $ 

12. What is the average waiting time, (in days), for

each of the following services?

Telephone Days

Cable television Days

Internet access Days 

13. Does your tribe have any of the following plans

or programs in place?

Technology infrastructure plan 9 Yes 9 No 

Telecommunications plan 9 Yes 9 No 

Strategic plan 9 Yes 9 No 

Economic development plan 9 Yes 9 No

Technology training plan 9 Yes 9 No 

Land use plan 9 Yes 9 No 

14. What programs, plans, groups, individuals or

agencies would you say are the greatest

“facilitators” of building a technology infrastructure

for your tribe? (For example, the universal service

fund, the rural utilities service, Indian Health Service

programs, innovative tribal council, etc.)

 

 

15. Is there anything else that you would like to add

concerning building a technology infrastructure for

your community that hasn’t been covered in this

survey? (Please add additional paper if necessary.)

 

 

Thank you so much for your participation in this survey.

If you desire a copy of the survey results, please check here:

9 Yes, I am requesting a copy of the survey results. Please indicate your mailing address:

Return this survey to:

9 Use the address on the first page of the survey. New Mexico State University/Linda Riley

College of Engineering

Use this address: MSC 4230, Las Cruces, NM 88003

Name: Title 

Address 
87

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 Appendix B

● ● ● ● ● ●

 SUMMIT MATERIALS

B-1. Summit

Ms. Lesley Kabotie, 

Summit Facilitator

The Technology Infrastructure Summit was convened in Las 

Cruces, New Mexico on March 25th and 26th, 1999. A 

distinguished group of Native American experts attended the 

summit. In an intense two-day workshop format, these 

participants presented, discussed, debated, and documented 

challenges and barriers to technology development as well as 

policy changes that could facilitate technology infrastructure 

development and deployment in Native communities. 

Materials from the workshop are replicated in the following 

pages. Ms. Lesley Kabotie facilitated the group discussions 

during the first day of the summit. Dr. Perry Horse facilitated 

the second day of discussions and the working groups.

B-2. Expert Panel Biographies

George Baldwin Dr. Baldwin received B.A. degrees in Psychology and Sociology from 

Northeastern State University in Tahlequah, Oklahoma. He earned his 

Masters degree in Indian Manpower Economics and his Ph.D. in 

Sociology from Oklahoma State University. He is presently a Professor 

and Faculty Planner at California State University Monterey Bay. At 

CSUMB, he is Director of the Institute for Community Networking, the 

American Indian and Alaska Native Census Information Center and 

executive planner for the Social and Behavioral Science Center.
88 Appendix B: Summit Materials

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Mr. Chavez is currently the Manager of the New Ventures, Victor A. Chavez

Entrepreneurial, and Regional Economic Development Programs for 

Sandia National Laboratories. Mr. Chavez holds a Bachelor degree in 

University Studies with a Concentration in Economics from the 

University of New Mexico. Mr. Chavez also has a Masters in Public 

Administration from the University of New Mexico and is currently 

obtaining an Executive Masters in Business Administration.

Mr. Cita received his B.S. in Computer Science from the University of Bob Cita

Colorado at Boulder. He is currently Director of Information Services 

with Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC). 

SEARHC is a non-profit Native-administered health corporation 

providing health care services to Alaska Natives and American 

Indians.

Mr. DeHaas is a member of the Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Oklahoma and William DeHaas

is presently employed as the Tribal Planner. He is a graduate of the 

University of Kansas, Lawrence. Mr. DeHaas is presently involved in 

Strategic Planning, Land Reform, and developing a Class II gaming 

enterprise. 

Mr. Gemmell is the Manager of Information Systems and a member of Robert Gemmell

the Suquamish Tribe on the Port Madison Indian Reservation near 

Seattle. 

Mr. Gilbert is the Pueblo of Acoma Realty Officer and a tribal Petuuche Gilbert

councilman for Acoma Pueblo. He has been involved in tribal 

economic and community development for over 20 years.

Mr. Jones is a Central Office Engineer for the Navajo Communications Desmond D. Jones

Company. He is from Rock Point, Arizona. He holds a B.S. in Electrical 

Engineering Technology from Arizona State University.

Mr. Kontz is an Acting Manager for the Engineering and Technical Rex P. Kontz

Services Division of the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority, “an Independent 

Enterprise of the Navajo Nation.” He is presently a member of the 

Navajo Nation Health Care Design Team, a twenty-member task force 

that is working to formulate a plan to contract the U.S. Indian Health 

Care System from the Federal Government on the Navajo Nation.

Mr. McGee is a native Oklahoman and a member of the Cherokee Tim McGee

Nation. He is presently Acting Manager of Information 

Systems/Network Administrator for the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. 

In 1982, Mr. McGee received a B.S. from Northeastern State 

University in Chemistry with a Mathematics minor and a B.S. in 

Biology, with a Zoology emphasis.
Expert Panel Biographies 89

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Thomas G. Pagano Mr. Pagano is a founding owner of Johnson, Stone & Pagano, P.S. He 

is a Certified Public Accountant and a Certified Valuation Analyst with 

the National Association of Certified Valuation Analysts. He is also a 

certified estate planner. He received his B.S. in Commerce from the 

University of Santa Clara in 1973.

Kenneth E. Robbins Mr. Robbins is the President for the National Center for American 

Indian Enterprise Development. He has a B.S. degree in Finance from 

Arizona State University and over 20 years of management and 

technical assistance experience. Ken is an enrolled member of the 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe.

Randy Ross Mr. Ross is the Executive Director of the Indian Center, Inc. in Lincoln 

NE. His education includes undergraduate training at the University of 

South Dakota, Vermilion, SD 1974-76, Black Hills State College, 

Spearfish, SD 1979-1982 and Oglala Lakota College, Rapid City, SD 

1986-1993. 

Roy Sahali Mr. Sahali is the Tribal Connections Project Manager for a joint project 

by the National Library of Medicine and University of Washington. 

Daniel Sanchez Mr. Sanchez is a former leader for the Pueblo of Acoma tribe, where 

he served as the tribal secretary. He is a realtor with Centerfire, Inc. 

and currently a lobbyist for the tribe with state and federal 

governments.

Pat Spears Mr. Spears is President of the Intertribal Council on Utility Policy. The 

Council is actively involved on a national level with highlighting and 

promoting policy affecting tribal utility concerns.

John Tahsuda III Mr. Tahsuda is acting general counsel for the Oneida Indian Nation. Mr. 

Tahsuda received his J.D. with a specialization in International Legal 

Affairs from Cornell Law School in Ithaca, New York and his B.S., in 

Business Administration in 1990 from Oklahoma State University.

Emily Ipalook Wilson Ms. Wilson presently holds the position of special assistant to the 

administrator of Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital. She is involved 

with the Arctic Slope Native Association and the Tribal Connections 

Project.
90 Appendix B: Summit Materials

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

B.2.1. Principal Investigators’ Biographies

Dr. Riley presently holds a faculty position in the Department of Linda A. Riley

Industrial Engineering at New Mexico State University. She received 

her M.S.I.E. and Ph.D., from NMSU in 1997 and 1993, respectively. 

She also received her M.B.A from Suffolk University in 1982 and her 

B.S.B.A. in Marketing from Boston University, 1978. Dr. Riley has 

extensive experience working with Native American tribes in the areas 

of design and coordination of planning, economic development master 

planning, and enterprise evaluation.

Dr. Mullen presently holds a faculty position in the Department of John Mullen

Industrial Engineering at New Mexico State University. He received his 

B.A., in Mathematics from the University of Pennsylvania in 1968, his 

M.S. in Industrial Engineering from Iowa State University in 1984 and 

his Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from Iowa State University in 1994. 

Dr. Nassersharif is presently Department Head and Professor of Bahram Nassersharif

Mechanical Engineering in the College of Engineering at New Mexico 

State University. He received his B.S. in Mathematics from Oregon 

State University in 1980 and his Ph.D. in Engineering in 1983 also from 

Oregon State University. He has extensive experience in design, 

management, implementation, and systems integration of advanced 

information and high-performance computing and networking 

technologies.

B.2.2. Summit Facilitators’ Biographies

Dr. Horse is a Senior Associate with MDC, Inc., Chapel Hill, NC. He Perry G. Horse

received his B.S. in Commercial Studies from Haskell Institute, 

Masters in Education from Harvard University and his Ph.D. in Higher 

Education from the University of Arizona. 

Ms. Kabotie, a member of the Crow Tribe, and currently provides Lesley J. Kabotie

consulting services in education and training development, facilitation 

services and strategic planning through the Alire Group in Denver, 

Colorado. She is pursuing a Masters Degree in Non-Profit 

Management at Regis University.
Expert Panel Biographies 91

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

FIGURE B.1: Panel of Experts from left to right (standing) Bahram Nassersharif, Pat Spears, Victor Chavez, 

Daniel Sanchez, Rex Kontz, Roy Sahali, Bob Cita, Desmond Jones, Tim McGee, Randy Ross, Linda A. Riley, 

(sitting) William DeHaas, George Baldwin, Robert Gemmell, Ken Robbins, Emily Ipalook Wilson, Petuuche 

Gilbert, Thomas Pagano, John P. Mullen. . Absent from the picture is John Tahsuda.
92 Appendix B: Summit Materials

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Panel of Experts

Native Technology Infrastructure Summit

Las Cruces, New Mexico

March 25-26, 1999

George Baldwin

Professor of Social and Behavioral Science

California State University-Monterey Bay

100 Campus Center, Bld 17

Seaside, CA 93955

George_Baldwin@monterey.edu

(831) 582-3625 (voice)

(831) 582-3566 (fax)

Victor Chavez

Manager

Regional & Small Business Partnering

Department

Sandia National Laboratories

PO Box 5800, MS 1380

Albuquerque, NM 87185-1380

vachave@sandia.gov

(505) 843-4190

(505) 843-4175

Bob Cita, Director

Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium

SEARHC

3245 Hospital Drive

Juneau, AK 99801

bob@searhc.org

(907) 463-4085

(907) 463-4075 (fax)

William DeHaas

Tribal Planner

Otoe-Missouria Tribe

8151 Hwy 177

Red Rock, OK 74651

(580) 723-4466

(580) 723-4273 (fax)

Robert Gemmell

Information Technology Director

Sequamish Tribe of Washington

robertgemmell@hotmail.com

P.O. Box 64

Sequamish, Oregon

(360) 394-5234 (wk)

Petuuche Gilbert

Tribal Councilman

Acoma Pueblo

PO Box 309 Rt. SP30/SP32

Tribal Administration Bld.

Pueblo of Acoma, NM 87034

petuuche@aol.com

(505) 552-6604

(505) 552-6600

Desmond Jones

Central Office Engineer

Navajo Communications Company

PO Box 6000

Window Rock, AZ 86515

ddjones@czn.com

(520) 871-3745

(520) 871-3749 (fax)

Rex Kontz

Acting Manager

Engineering and Technical Services Division

Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (NTUA)

PO Box 170 North Rt. 12

Ft. Defiance, AZ 86504

rpkontz@ntua.com

(520) 729-6275

(520) 729-6241 (fax)

Tim McGee

Acting Manager of Information Systems

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma

tmcgee@cherokee.org

(918) 456-0671

(918) 456-6485 (fax)

Thomas Pagano

Johnson, Stone & Pagano, P.S.

Certified Public Accountants

1501 Regents Blvd

Suite 100

Fircrest, WA 98466-6060

(253) 566-7070

(253) 566-7100 (fax)
Expert Panel Biographies 93

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Ken Robbins

President, National Center For American Indian

Economic Development

953 E. Juanita

Mesa, AZ 85204

naiedken@aol.com

(602) 545-1298

(602) 545-4208

Randy Ross

Executive Director

Indian Center, Inc.

1100 Military Road

Lincoln NE 60508

rross@tmn.com

(402) 438-5231

Roy Sahali

Project Manager

Tribal Connections Project

National Network of Libraries of Medicine

University of Washington (NN/LM)

Health Science Library

Box 357155

Seattle, Washington 98195-7155

rs@u.washington.edu

http://www.tribalconnections.org/

(206) 543-9253

(206) 543-8262

(206) 543-2469 (fax)

Daniel Sanchez

Tribal Consultant

Lands and Telecommunications

PO Box 309

Rt. SP30/SP32

Tribal Administration Bld.

Pueblo of Acoma, NM 87034

(505) 552-6604

(505) 552-6600

Pat Spears

President, Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

143 Lakeview Court

Pierre, South Dakota 57501

pspears2@aol.com

(605) 945-1905 (wk)

(605) 224-2520 (fax)

John Tahsuda

Deputy Attorney General

Oneida Tribe of NY

jtahsuda@aol.com

(315) 762-2898

(315) 361-6429 (fax)

Emily Ipalook Wilson

Special Assistant to Administrator

Samuel Simmonds Memorial Hospital

Arctic Slope Native Association

PO Box 1390

Barrow, AK 99723

ewilson@alaska.his.gov

(907) 852-4611

(907) 852-0357 (fax)
94 Appendix B: Summit Materials

• 

• 

• •••
95

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 Appendix C

 SUMMIT WORKING GROUP

● ● ● ● ● ●

SUMMARY REPORTS

Working groups were a major component of the Native 

Technology Infrastructure Summit in Las Cruces, New Mexico. 

Five groups and topical areas were identified based on 

discussion of priorities during the first morning of the summit. 

The working groups then met to discuss issues, challenges and 

barriers, and potential solutions. 

The working groups considered the following topics

• Economic Development, Industry, and E-commerce

• Utilities, Roads, Water, and Waste Water

• Education-distance learning, culture and language 

preservation

• Telecommunications and Internet Access

• Medical Health and Telemedicine

The details of working group discussions are provided at the 

project web site (see Appendix D). Summaries of the key points 

highlighted by each working group is presented in this 

Appendix.
96 Appendix C: Summit Working Group Summary Reports

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

C-1. Economic Development/Industry/E-Commerce

Daniel Sanchez: Tribal Consultant, Acoma Pueblo; Participants

Ken Robbins: President, National Center for American Indian 

Economic Development; 

Victor Chavez: Manager, Regional and Small Business Partnering, 

Sandia National Laboratories; 

William DeHaas: Tribal Planner, Otoe-Missouria Tribe; 

Patrick Spears: President, Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

• There is a need to encourage the private and public sectors, Key Points

national laboratories, entrepreneurs, and tribal partnerships 

in technology business development in telecommunications 

and energy infrastructure.

• Tribal leadership is in need of technology education on the 

potential for increased efficiency in tribal services.

• Technology infrastructure is critical for successful economic 

development.

• Renewable resources involve undeveloped sources of energy 

for utilities on tribal lands.

• There is no existing organized planning program for 

telecommunications technology, energy generation, or tribal 

utility development.

• Water, waste water treatment, roads, and solid waste 

collection and disposal systems are in need of renovation and 

expansion to serve tribal populations and support economic 

development.
Utilities/Roads/Water/Waste Water 97

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

C-2. Utilities/Roads/Water/Waste Water

Participants Bob Gemmel: Information Technology Director, Sequamish Tribe;

John Tahsuda: Deputy Attorney General, Oneida Tribe; 

Rex Kontz: Acting Manager, Navajo Tribal Utility Authority

Key Points • Right-of-way is a significant issue for the tribes. It is 

complicated by a bureaucratic process involving the tribal 

government and the BIA. The financial revenue from 

granting rights-of-way can be a significant economic 

incentive for the tribes. Negotiation of rights-of-way is 

complicated by a lack of a market value assessment system.

• The specific tribal needs for utilities, roads, water, and waste 

water require a significant amount of planning.

• A need exists for Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

revisions. The current CFRs do not adequately address the 

issues of jurisdiction regarding utility, road, water, and waste 

water.

• Historical events and agreements have governed much of the 

right-of-way negotiations for the reservations; e.g., railroad 

rights-of-way.

• A significant need exists for training and technical assistance. 

• A “coordinating point” or clearinghouse for federal agency 

initiatives (loan programs, etc.) is needed to provide 

information to the tribes, including an orientation program 

for federal agencies to explain government-to-government 

relationships. This would remove duplication and 

redundancy. 
98 Appendix C: Summit Working Group Summary Reports

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

C-3. Education/Distance Learning/Culture and Language Preservation

George Baldwin: Professor, California State University; Participants

Emily Ipalook Wilson: Special Assistant to the Administrator, Arctic 

Slope Native Association

• An indigenous culture educational policy and resources for Key Points

curriculum development (particularly in science and 

technology) is needed.

• Access and Internet connectivity for distance learning are of 

crucial importance to Native communities because of their 

geographical remoteness. Connectivity programs are needed 

that specifically address the needs of the Native 

communities.

• Information and media literature for Indian education and 

Indian programs (i.e., intellectual property rights and cultural 

appropriateness) are needed.

• Curriculum development programs that are culturally and 

linguistically appropriate are needed.

• Early childhood and cultural resource programs are needed. 

Programs that support multimedia display, and cultural 

repositories are also needed. Very little funding exists for 

these types of programs and they are very useful for 

education.

• Overall funding for educational programs is extremely 

limited in Native communities. Official tribal web sites 

(where content is controlled by the tribe) are needed.
Telecommunications/Internet Access 99

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

C-4. Telecommunications/Internet Access

Participants Tim McGee: Acting Manager of Information Systems, Cherokee 

Nation; 

Thomas Pagano, CPA, CVA, Telecommunications Valuation 

Consultant

Desmond Jones: Central Office Engineer, Navajo Communications 

Company; 

Randy Ross, Executive Director, Indian Center, Inc.

Key Points • Universal access (and USF) policy must treat the Native 

communities as equal to all other rural communities. 

• A new policy initiative for the BIA schools is needed (similar 

to the Department of Education’s Schools 2000 program). 

BIA is providing the funding to connect the schools but it 

needs to be expanded.

• Native libraries need funding for Internet connections. 

Education and training of the library and information 

technology staff is very important.

• Provide consultant services through the BIA (or IHS) to help 

educate the tribes. BIA is helping with schools only but is not 

helping tribal administration. In the Navajo Nation, the tribe 

is connected through the IHS network. 

• There is overlap between the IHS and BIA Internet 

connection programs. A more integrated and unified 

approach would be more effective.

• Most tribes do not have an integrated plan for information 

infrastructure development. Assistance in strategic planning 

for information technology is needed.

• Technology can be a threat to traditional values and ways of 

life. It is important to also understand the culture and 

philosophies of the Indian nations. 

• A disparity of access exists across the country– 

telecommunication companies do not invest in the tribes. 

Telephone companies engage in deployment red-lining in 

Native communities for advanced services.
100 Appendix C: Summit Working Group Summary Reports

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

C-5. Medical Health/Telemedicine

Bob Cita: Director, Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium; Participants

Roy Sahali: Project Manager, Tribal Connections Project

• The physician's role is very different in telemedicine from Key Points

traditional medicine. Telemedicine can’t handle tactile 

practices of traditional medicine. Best applications for 

telemedicine include skin rashes and radiology.

• Regulations regarding telemedicine are complex. There is a 

very tedious application process.

• Eligibility of telemedicine for E-Rates is too narrowly 

defined.

• There is a need for additional trained technicians and teleexamination rooms in Native communities. Programs for 

training and education are needed; for example, train-thetrainer models.

• Connection bandwidth is very important in telemedicine. 

High-end application of telemedicine [e.g., magnetic 

resonance imaging (MRI) and real-time radiology] cannot be 

considered at 56K connection speeds.

• Federal funding (including USF) must allow for the creation, 

building, and maintaining of infrastructure.

• In Alaska, there is a problem with participation by local 

exchange carriers (LECs). Carriers will not make much 

money connecting hospitals with clinics over long distances. 

Telemedicine requires “big pipes,” i.e., T-1 between sites. 

• Telemedicine network infrastructure could be built by 

leveraging other networking projects (e.g., schools, libraries, 

DOI, military, Forest Service, Coast Guard, and National 

Park Service). Technology transfer from the defense industry 

can provide the needed encryption system. 

• Develop public/private partnerships to provide managed 

health care via telemedicine. Tribes should determine what 

services are needed.
101

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

 Appendix D

● ● ● ● ● ●

 WEBSITE

A Website for the project has been established at the following 

URL http://alpha.nmsu.edu/~tech

This site contains the latest project information and will 

continue to grow with additional information throughout the life 

of this EDA project. Figure D.1 shows the main screen on the 

home page. This final report can be found at the Website in PDF 

format.

The website also contains additional detailed information that 

was excluded from the final report for the sake of brevity. 
102 Appendix D: Website

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

FIGURE D.1: Assessing Technology Infrastructure in Native Communities Website
103

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

● ● ● ● ● ●

 INDEX

Numerics

911

emergency programs 62

service 20, 26, 27

A

Acoma

Pueblo and Trust Lands 19

Acoma Pueblo 36, 38

AIHEC 59

Air Force Small Business Office 51

AISTEC 51, 59

See also American Indian Science and Technology 

Education Consortium

Alaska 32

Alaska Native 11

communities 1, 4

Alaska Natives 9

Alaskan villages 12

Aleut 13

American Indian v, 1

American Indian Higher Education Consortium 59

American Indian Science and Technology Education 

Consortium 51, 59

See also AISTEC

Apache 11

apprenticeships 51

Arctic Slope 13

audit 64

B

bandwidth 100

barriers

federal government 32

federal policy 32

geographical remoteness 31

loss of tribal control 40

planning 35

shortage of skilled workers 31

technology infrastructure development 35

telecommunications infrastructure 40

tribal ownership 42

basic infrastructure 19, 21

basic technology infrastructure 15, 27

Bering Straits 13

BIA 9, 33, 36, 40, 55, 59, 61, 62, 64, 99

clearinghouse 64

Office of Indian Education Programs 59

schools 23, 99

See also Bureau of Indian Affairs

Block Grant Program 49

Bristol Bay 13

broadband spectrum 41

Bureau of Indian Affairs 79

See also BIA

Bureau of the Census 9

See also Census

C

cable 22, 32

Calista 13

capital

investment 50

lack of 31, 40, 45

Cattaraugus Reservation 19, 20

CDFI 51, 63

See also Community Development Finanical 

Institution

Census 10, 11, 14, 22

1990 9

CFR 97

See also Code of Federal Regulations

checkerboard 81

Cherokee 11

Cheyenne River Reservation 20

Chippewa 11

Choctaw 11

Chugach Management Services Inc. 51

Clinton-Gore Administration 48, 50, 57

Coast Guard 100

Code of Federal Regulations 97

See also CFR

Community Development Financial Institution 51

See also CDFI

community population 80

computer

acquisition 35

consultants 36

lack of 42

native keyboards 45
104 Index

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

penetration 4, 23

personal 22

personal computer 22

technicians 43

consultant

BIA 99

computer 36

outside 31

contractors 31

Cook Inlet 13

Creek 11

cultural

education 98

exchanges 15

factors 3

heritage 65

institutions 3

intellectural property 32

preservation 4, 95, 98

relevance 42

resources 54

sensitivity 32, 41, 44, 63, 98, 99

values 32

D

Department of Agriculture 6

Department of Commerce v, 1, 6, 49

Department of Defense 63

See also DoD

Department of Education 58, 60, 62, 99

Department of Health and Human Services 9

See also HHS

Department of Housing and Urban Development 9

See also HUD

Department of Labor 53

Department of the Interior 6

See also DOI

Department of Treasury 51

Departments of Justice 49

Devils Lake Sioux Reservation 17

digital divide 10

distance education 42

programs 4

distance learning 24, 26, 42, 45, 50

DoD 63

See also Department of Defense

DOI 100

See also Department of the Interior

Domestic Policy Council 48

Working Group on Native Americans 55

Doyon 13

E

easement

historical agreements 40

EC 52, 63

See also Enterprise Community

E-commerce 37

economic

disadvantage 45

growth 48

plan 24

position 36

economic development v, 2, 5, 35, 45, 63

barrier 45

barriers 31, 45

capacity 24

comprehensive strategy 36

industrial park 24

infrastructure 24

plan 25

strategies 2

Economic Development Administration v, 36

See also EDA

Economic Development in Indian Country 48

economic opportunity 31

economy 14

benefits 14

distressed 14

EDA 33, 36, 101

See also Economic Development Administration

education 4, 21, 26

attainment 14

bachelor degrees 14

barriers 31

college 14

cultural heritage 65

cultural policy 98

cultural sensitivity 60

curricula 32

early childhood programs 98

high school 31

schools 45

tribal schools 42

electricity 19, 21, 26, 36, 45

electronic

proposal submission 34

emergency

transport 20

Empowerment Zone 52

Empowerment Zone Program 52

See also EZ
105

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

Enterprise Community 52

See also EC

entrepreneurship 63

EPA 49

E-Rate 23, 33, 48, 58, 60, 61, 62, 63, 100

discounts 61

excess capacity 40

expert interviews 5, 25

EZ 52, 63

See also Empowerment Zone Program

F

FCC 9, 41, 48, 55, 61, 62

hearings 5

See also Federal Communications Commission

Federal Communications Commission 9

See also FCC

federally recognized Native American communities 79

focus group interviews 5

Forest Service 100

Fort Apache Reservation 17, 19, 20

G

gaming 14, 29

Garcia, Bernadine 36

gas 19

geographical information systems

See GIS

Gila River Reservation 17, 19, 20

Gilbert, Petuuche 38

GIS 4, 36, 52

grant application 34, 35

H

health care 42, 44

health clinic 23

HHS 9

See also Departmant of Health and Human Services

hierarchical model 15

Hopi

Reservation and Trust Lands 19, 20

housing 26, 45

HUD 9, 49, 51, 52, 61

See also Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

I

IHBG 51

See also Indian Housing Block Grants

IHS 33, 99

See also Indian Health Service

INA WtW 53

See also Indian and Native American Welfare-toWork Program

Indian and Native American Welfare-to-Work Program

53

Indian Art 32

Indian Community Development Block Grant Program

49

Indian Health Service 33

See also IHS

Indian Housing Block Grants 51

Indian Housing Loan Guarantee Program 49

industrial park 36

infrastructure 2

standards 64

insurance 43

intellectual property 32

rights 32

interagency

strategy 33

working groups viii

Internet 3, 4, 22, 24, 26, 32, 34, 35, 42, 50, 59, 99

cultural exchange 15

cultural resources 37

cultural sensitivity 99

penetration 22, 23

Intertribal GIS Council 54

investing 31

investment strategy vii, 48, 60

Iroquois 11

J

Job Training Partnership Act 53

See also JTPA

Joint Report to the President 48, 55

JTPA 53

See also Job Training Partnership Act

K

Koniag 13

L

Laguna Pueblo 34

Laguna Industries 34

land

area 80

configuration 80, 81

contiguous 81

discontiguous 32, 41

ownership 80
106 Index

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

LANL 34

See also Los Alamos National Laboratory

LATA 40, 62

law enforcement 21, 26

laying of hands 43

LECs 62, 100

library 23

Lifeline 61

Link-Up 61

local access transfer areas 40

local exchange carriers 44, 62, 100

long distance carriers 44

Long-Term/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

53

Los Alamos National Laboratory 34

See also LANL

Lumbee 11

M

MacDill AFB 51

magnetic resonance imaging 100

mail access 35

masterplans 2

Medicaid 43

medical health facilities 26

Medicare 43

Mescalero Apache Reservation 17

Mississippi Choctaw

Reservation and Trust Lands 17

Mountain Plains Distance Learning Partnership 59

N

NAHASDA 49

See also Native American Housing Assistance and 

Self-Determination Act

NANA 13

NASA 51, 52, 59

National Environmental Policy Act 38

National Information Infrastructure 60

See also NII

National Laboratories 5, 34, 58, 63

National Park Service 100

National Science Foundation 34, 59

See also NSF

National Telecomunication and Information Agency

See also NTIA 9

Native

Alaskan v, 42

American 9

communities 1, 3, 5

keyboard sets 45

language CD 45

libraries 99

schools 59

technology infrastructure 2

Native American Development Corporation of Montana 

and Wyoming 51

Native American Housing Assistance and SelfDetermination Act 49

Native American Technology Consortium 58

Native Technology Infrastructure Summit ix, 4, 5

Navajo 11

Nation 12, 99

Reservation 59

Reservation and Trust Lands 17, 19, 20

utility 30

negotiate contracts 33

NEPA 38

new lands 41

New Markets Initiative vii, 64

New Mexico State University v

See also NMSU

newspaper

local 20

NII 60

See also National Information Infrastructure

NMSU v, ix, 90

See also New Mexico State University

non-Native communities 35

Northern Cheyenne

Reservation and Trust Lands 17

Northern Pueblos 34

NSF 59, 62

See also National Science Foundation

NTIA 9, 10, 50, 58, 59

See also National Telecomunication and 

Information Agency

O

Office of Native American Programs 49

Oglala Sioux Tribe 63

Pine Ridge 50

ONAP 49

own and operate 31, 40

ownership 80

P

pager 22, 23

Panel of Experts 32, 40

Papago Reservation 19, 20

patient 42

privacy 44
107

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

records 44

penetration 16, 17, 22

Pine Ridge 11, 52

Reservation and Trust Lands 17, 19, 20

Pine Ridge Reservation 63

pipes 32

big 100

planning 4, 13, 24, 25, 26, 35, 49, 52, 54, 57, 58, 64

assistance 52

population

count 80

growth 13

strata 80

trends 13

poverty rate 14

President Clinton v, 1, 23, 55, 56, 60

private

enterprises 45

utilities 40

private sector 47

Public Telecommunications Facilities Program 59

Pueblo Indians 11

R

radio 20

railroad easement 38

Regional Corporations 13

renewable resources 96

Reservations 10

right-of-way 5, 38, 57, 58, 97

acquisitions 38

cultural perspective 41

flow-chart 39

tribal consent 40

roads 15, 21, 26, 32, 36, 45, 97

Round II EZ/EC 52

rural addressing 62

Rural Housing Service 58

Rural Utility Service 33

See also RUS

RUS 33, 50, 62

See also Rural Utility Service

S

Salt River Reservation 19, 20

San Carlos Reservation 17, 19, 20

Sandia National Laboratories 34, 58

See also SNL

SBA 34, 51, 64

See also Small Business Administration

Schools 2000 99

Sealaska 13

Secretary of the Interior 41

Section 184 49

sewage 26

sewer 15, 18

Sioux 11

Small Business Administration 34

See also SBA

SNL 34

See also Sandia National Laboratories

sovereignty viii, 40, 41, 56

disputes 40

Standing Rock Reservation 17

state government 40

strategic planning v, 25, 35, 54, 64

survey 10, 82

methodology 79

T

T-1 33, 100

tax incentive 25

technology infrastructure 2, 3, 4, 29, 32

advanced 15, 22, 26

assessment 1

basic 15

emand 10

plan 25

supply 15

survey ix, 6

Technology Innovation Challenge Grant 58

technology plan 35

technology training plan 25

telecommunication

plan 25

telecommunications 5, 15, 16, 33

infrastructure 2, 60

negotiate contracts 40

plan 25

services 32

Telecommunications Act of 1996 23, 60, 61

Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure 

Assistance Program 50

See also TIIAP

teleconferencing 43

telemedicine 4, 42, 62, 100

barriers 42

cultural sensitivity 44, 63

delivery 42

EKG 42

electo-cardiograms 42
108 Index

• 

• 

• 

•

•

•

encryption 44, 63

ethnic profiles 44

ethnomedical 44

hardware 43, 44

licensing 43

MRI 100

obstacles 42

reimbursable 43

software 43, 44

tactile interaction 42

tele-examination 100

tele-examining rooms 43, 62

uplink charges 43

X-ray 42

telephone 15, 16, 21, 26

cellular 22, 23

penetration 3, 16, 17, 22, 30, 42

television

cable 22, 23

satellite 22, 23

terrain 32

TIIAP 50, 54

See also Telecommunications and Information 

Infrastructure Assistance Program

Title VI 49

total land area 82

training/skills programs 63

train-the-trainer 100

Tribal Colleges 53, 57, 58, 60, 64

Tribal Housing Activities Loan Guarantee Program 49

tribal liaison office 49

tribes

federally recognized 10

most populous 10

trust lands 10

U

underemployment 31

unemployment 14

rate 14

universal access 99

Universal Service 54, 55

Universal Service Funds 55, 61

See also USF

USDA 33, 52

See also Department of Agriculture

USF 99

benchmark models 62

See also Universal Service Funds

utilities 5, 26, 45, 97

infrastructure 58

V

village elders 44

W

waste water 20, 21, 22, 26, 30, 50, 57, 95, 96, 97

water 15, 18, 21, 26, 36, 50, 57, 95, 96, 97

Web pages 36

website 6, 101

Welfare-to-Work Program 53

White Mountain Apache Tribe of Arizona 50

WIA 53

See also Workforce Investment Act

workforce development and training 53

Workforce Investment Act 53

See also WIA

Y

Y2K 33