Tribal Internet Access: Increased Federal Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed
Published: 2016-04-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: High-speed Internet service is viewed as a critical component of the nation's infrastructure and an economic driver, particularly to remote tribal communities. This testimony examines: (1) perspectives of tribes and providers on high-speed Internet access and barriers to increasing this access; (2) the level of interrelation and coordination between federal programs that promote high-speed Internet access on tribal lands; and (3) existing data and performance measures related to high-speed Internet on tribal lands. This statement is based on GAO's January 2016 report (GAO-16-222). For this report, GAO visited or interviewed officials from a non-generalizable sample of 21 tribal entities and 6 service providers. GAO also reviewed FCC and USDA fiscal year 2010 through 2014 program data, funding, and materials and interviewed federal officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In January 2016, GAO found that, although all 21 tribes GAO interviewed have some access to high-speed Internet, barriers to increasing access remain. Tribal officials and Internet providers said that high poverty rates among tribes and the high costs of connecting remote tribal villages to core Internet networks limit high-speed Internet availability and access. About half of the tribes GAO interviewed also said that the lack of sufficient administrative and technical expertise among tribal members limits their efforts to increase high-speed Internet access.
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Universal Service Fund subsidy programs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities Service grant programs are interrelated. The programs seek to increase high-speed Internet access in underserved areas, including tribal lands. GAO's previous work on overlap, duplication, and fragmentation has shown that interagency coordination on interrelated programs can help ensure efficient use of resources and effective programs. However, FCC and USDA do not coordinate to develop joint outreach and training, which could result in inefficient use of federal resources and missed opportunities for resource leveraging. For example, USDA and FCC held separate training events in the Pacific Northwest Region in 2015 when a joint event could have saved limited training funds and reduced costs.
FCC has placed special emphasis on improving Internet access on tribal lands following the issuance of the National Broadband Plan in 2010, which called for greater efforts to make broadband available on tribal lands. However, FCC has not developed performance goals and measures for improving high-speed Internet availability to households on tribal lands. FCC could establish baseline measures to track its progress by using, for example, the National Broadband Map which includes data on Internet availability on tribal lands. FCC also lacks both reliable data on high-speed Internet access and performance goals and measures for high-speed Internet access by tribal institutions—such as schools and libraries. Specifically, FCC's E-rate program provides funds to ensure that schools and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies, but FCC has neither defined “tribal” on its E-rate application nor set any performance goals for the program's impact on tribal institutions. Without these goals and measures FCC cannot assess the impact of its efforts.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: In January 2016, GAO recommended that FCC take the following actions in tribal areas: (1) develop joint training and outreach with USDA; (2) develop performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to households; (3) develop performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to schools and libraries; and (4) improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining “tribal” on the program application. FCC agreed with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the state of broadband access  and adoption on tribal lands as well as the government programs that  promote access and adoption on tribal lands. High-speed Internet service  is viewed as a critical component of the nation’s physical infrastructure  and a driver of economic growth. The Internet is particularly useful to  tribal communities—which are generally located in remote, rural  locations—as access to it offers new opportunities for growth,  productivity, and innovation. According to 2013 Census estimates, more  than 640,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives reside on tribal  lands. There are more than 300 Indian tribes in the continental United  States and more than 200 federally recognized Alaska Native Villages.  Native Americans are among the most economically distressed groups in  the United States and, according to the Census’ 2014 American  Community Survey (ACS), about 28.3 percent live in households with  incomes below the federal poverty level—compared to 15.5 percent for  the U.S. population as a whole. In addition, Federal Communications  Commission (FCC) data indicates that, as of December 2013, high-speed  Internet was available to 37 percent of households on tribal lands— compared to 47 percent of U.S. households in rural areas and 92 percent  of U.S. households in urban areas.
The communications infrastructure that supports Internet access is, by  and large, built and operated by private industry. Advances in technology,  attained through the use of fiber optics and new wireless technologies  have allowed providers to offer high-speed Internet that supports new  services and applications such as streaming video. In 2010, FCC stated  that every household and business in America should have access to  affordable advanced telecommunication service with a speed of at least 4  megabits per second (Mbps) download and at least 1 Mbps upload and  that this target should be re-set every four years. In January 2015, FCC  adopted a speed benchmark at download speeds of at least 25 Mbps and  upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps.
From fiscal years 2010 to 2014, the federal government provided over  $33 billion in assistance to telecommunications service providers and  municipalities to build or improve networks in order to further the national  goal of universal high-speed Internet access. The federal government has  provided this funding through the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF)  and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Utilities Service  (RUS). RUS’s programs focus on rural telecommunications development,  while USF’s programs focus on providing support for areas where the  cost of providing services is high, as well as for low-income consumers,  schools, libraries, and rural health care facilities.
My statement today is based on our January 2016 report (GAO-16-222)  on tribal high-speed Internet access.  My statement, like the report,  examines (1) perspectives of selected tribes and providers on the  importance of high-speed Internet access for tribes and any barriers to  increasing this access on tribal lands; (2) the level of interrelation and  coordination between federal programs at FCC and USDA that promote  high-speed Internet access on tribal lands; and (3) existing data and FCC  performance goals and measures related to access to high-speed  Internet service on tribal lands and for tribal institutions.
To conduct this work for our January 2016 report, we interviewed officials  from 18 tribal governments covering 10 of the continental states, 3 Alaska  Native regions, and 6 service providers operating on tribal lands. We  also identified and interviewed industry stakeholders such as research  groups and telecommunications associations on their views regarding the  barriers to increasing high-speed Internet access to broadband on tribal  lands. In addition, we evaluated USF and RUS program coordination  based on criteria for implementing interrelated programs developed in  previous GAO work on fragmentation, overlap, duplication, and  interagency coordination within the federal government. Finally, to  determine what data and FCC performance goals and measures exist  related to access to high-speed Internet service on tribal lands and to  tribal institutions, we analyzed fiscal year 2010 through 2014 data from  USF programs providing assistance, reviewed applications and the  guidance materials for those programs, and the agencies’ performance  reports. Finally, we reviewed performance goals and measures for USF  programs according to criteria established in the Government  Performance and Results Act of 1993, as amended and in federal  standards for internal control. More detailed information on our scope  and methodology for that work can be found in the issued report. We  conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Selected Tribes and Providers Identified Opportunities and Barriers Related to Increasing High- Speed Internet Access
paragraphs: Tribal officials we interviewed for our January 2016 report said they place  a high priority on institutional and personal Internet access because of the  numerous benefits, including the following:
Economic Development: Officials from most tribes said high-speed  Internet is essential for economic development such as finding  employment or establishing online businesses. FCC also found that  community access to Internet services is critical in facilitating job  placement, career advancement, and other uses that help to stimulate  economic activity.
Education: Officials from many tribes stated that high-speed Internet  access at schools supports educational success. For example, access  can allow students to conduct online testing or to watch online  lectures.
Health: About half of the tribes said that high-speed Internet access to  support telemedicine was important to the tribe, particularly in rural or  remote areas.
Officials from all 21 tribes we interviewed said that Internet service  existed on at least some of their lands at varying connection speeds,  ranging from less than 1 Mbps to over 25 Mbps. Some of the tribes we  interviewed had at least some fiber optic high-speed Internet connections  while others had slower copper lines, only mobile service, or only satellite  service. Many of the tribal lands where we held interviews had some level  of mobile Internet service but only a few had 4G mobile high-speed  Internet services. Others had no mobile service. Further, officials from  about half of the tribes we interviewed described important limitations to  their Internet services, including higher than usual costs, small data  allocations, slow download speeds, and unreliable connections.
section_title: Rugged Terrain, High Poverty, and a Lack of Capacity Were the Most Cited Barriers to Increasing Access to High Speed Internet in Tribal Areas
paragraphs: In January 2016, we found that the barriers to improvements in high- speed Internet service on tribal lands are interrelated. The rugged terrain  and rural location as well as tribal members’ limited ability to pay for high- speed Internet service were tribes’ and private providers’ most commonly  cited impediments. Many tribal officials and all six providers we  interviewed said these barriers can deter private investment in  infrastructure needed to connect remote towns and villages to a service  provider’s core network—known as the middle-mile. Middle-mile  infrastructure may include burying fiber optic or copper cables, stringing  cable on existing poles, or erecting towers for wireless microwave links,  which relay wireless Internet connections from tower to tower through  radio spectrum. Tribal lands, located far from urban areas, may not have  the middle-mile infrastructure necessary for providers to deploy high- speed Internet.
Tribal officials and providers we interviewed also cited limited financial  resources as a barrier to high-speed Internet access. Of the 21 tribes we  interviewed, many reported poverty and affordability as drivers of low  subscribership to existing Internet services or as a barrier to broadening  the availability of services. Poverty rates among the tribes we interviewed  varied, but many were well above the 2014 national average of 15.5  percent. Two of the providers we interviewed discussed non-payment  among tribal households as a disincentive to Internet service provision.  One provider said that the customers it serves on tribal lands had non- payment rates double that of other customer groups, and that these rates  often follow seasonal employment patterns.
About half of the tribes we interviewed told us that a lack of tribal  members with sufficient bureaucratic and technical expertise was a  common barrier to increasing high-speed Internet access on tribal lands.  Tribal officials said that tribal members do not always have the  bureaucratic expertise required to apply for federal funds, which can lead  to mistakes or the need to hire consultants. A lack of technical expertise  also affects tribes’ ability to interact with private-sector Internet providers.  For the seven tribes we interviewed that either had a tribally-owned  provider or were in the process of establishing one, three of them said  that the lack of expertise in the tribe was a challenge to establishing a  tribally-owned telecommunications provider for high-speed Internet  deployment. To address this, in the early 2000s, FCC held a number of  Indian telecommunications initiatives, regional workshops, and  roundtables. In fiscal year 2012, the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and  Policy consulted with about 200 tribal nations, many during six separate  one- to three-day telecommunications training and consultation sessions  on tribal lands. These included the Native Learning Labs, where  attendees could, for example, learn about data the FCC has available on  spectrum licensing and USF programs, among other things. The Office  held seven training workshops in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and plans  to offer more in fiscal year 2016. The goal of this new series of sessions  is to provide tribal officials with information about funding opportunities  and policy changes with respect to high-speed Internet, USF programs,  and spectrum issues.
section_title: Interrelated Federal Programs Promoting High-Speed Internet Access on Tribal Lands Are Not Always Well Coordinated
subsections: section_title: FCC and USDA High- Speed Internet Programs are Interrelated
paragraphs: In January 2016, we found that FCC and USDA implement mutually  supportive, interrelated high-speed Internet access programs that offer  funding to either tribal entities or service providers to achieve the goal of  increased access. Tribal officials we interviewed said that both FCC’s and  USDA’s programs were important for the expansion of high-speed  Internet service on their lands. Tribes sometimes qualify for benefits from  more than one of these programs, either directly or through private-sector  Internet providers. Eligibility requirements are based on the need of an  area as well as deployment requirements. Table 1 identifies three  universal service programs that subsidize telecommunications carriers  and services to areas that include tribal lands and two RUS grant  programs.
section_title: Outreach and Training Efforts for Interrelated FCC and USDA Programs Are Not Always Well Coordinated
paragraphs: While FCC and USDA programs that promote high-speed Internet access  on tribal lands are interrelated, we found that they are not always well  coordinated. Our body of work has shown that interagency coordination  can help agencies with interrelated programs ensure efficient use of  resources and effective programs. Agencies can enhance and sustain  their coordinated efforts by engaging in key practices, such as  establishing compatible policies and procedures through official  agreements. Agencies can also develop means to operate across  agency boundaries, including leveraging resources across agencies for  joint activities such as training and outreach.
One area lacking coordination between FCC and USDA is their outreach  and technical assistance efforts. FCC and USDA independently conduct  outreach and training efforts for related programs promoting Internet  access. For example, while FCC officials said they invite USDA officials to  FCC training workshops and are sometimes invited to USDA training  workshops, they said that they do not coordinate to develop joint outreach  or training events. Synchronizing these activities could be a resource- saving mechanism, which could result in a more efficient use of limited  federal resources, an opportunity for resource leveraging between the two  agencies and a cost-savings to the tribes attending training events. For  example, USDA held a training event in Washington State in fiscal year  2015 and FCC hosted a training event in Oregon the same year. The two  agencies could have planned a joint training event in the Pacific  Northwest Region—each contributing to the cost of the event—that would  have reduced the cost burdens for tribes. Tribal members with limited  budgets would not have had to travel twice or choose between the two  training events. Better coordination on conferences, as feasible, could  help FCC and USDA reach a broader audience and increase the value of  their outreach to tribes.
To this end, we recommended in January 2016 that FCC develop joint  outreach and training efforts with USDA whenever feasible to help  improve Internet availability and adoption on tribal lands. FCC concurred  with our recommendation and summarized the areas in which it  coordinates with USDA and said that it will continue to work with USDA to  ensure more strategic and routine coordination. For example, FCC invited  USDA officials to participate in all tribal consultation and training events  planned for 2016.
section_title: Federal Government is Gathering Data, but FCC Lacks Performance Goals and Measures for the Internet on Tribal Lands
subsections: section_title: The Federal Government is Gathering Data on Internet Availability and Adoption in Households on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: FCC defines Internet availability as the presence of Internet service in an  area, and Internet adoption as the number of people in the area  subscribing to Internet service. In 2006, we found that data on the rate of  availability and adoption of Internet on tribal lands was unknown because  no federal survey had been designed to capture this information. We  recommended that additional data be identified to help assess progress  towards providing access to telecommunications, including high-speed  Internet, for Native Americans living on tribal lands. Since then, as  discussed in our January 2016 report, the federal government has started  collecting data on Internet availability and adoption. However, as of  December 2015, FCC has not identified the performance goals and  measures it intends to achieve for broadband availability or adoption on  tribal lands.
subsections: section_title: Data on Internet Availability in Households on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: In 2011, The National Telecommunications and Information  Administration (NTIA), in cooperation with FCC and the states, began  publishing the National Broadband Map, an interactive website that allows  users to view information on high-speed Internet availability across the  United States, including on tribal lands. The data to support the National  Broadband Map is collected from service providers, including those  offering service to federally recognized Indian tribes, including Alaska  Native villages. The National Broadband Map website provides data on  Internet availability on approximately 318 federal Indian reservations and  associated trust lands, including upload and download speeds for both  wireline and wireless service, technology for Internet delivery, and the  number of Internet service providers.
While the National Broadband Map provides information about high- speed Internet availability, according to NTIA officials, the map is based  on Census blocks. If a service provider reported any availability of high- speed Internet in a Census block, the entire block was counted as served.  This could create misrepresentations of service in rural areas, which  generally constitute large Census blocks. Because much of tribal land is  rural, the reported broadband service is shown to be greater than the  actual service available on tribal lands, according to NTIA officials. Some  tribal officials agreed that certain areas on the Broadband Map were  inaccurate. For example, the map showed the Lac du Flambeau  reservation in Wisconsin as covered because two providers reported that  they provide Internet service on the reservation. However, according to  tribal officials, the National Broadband Map exaggerated the level of  service on their reservation making them unable to compete for some  USF and RUS programs despite their efforts to document coverage  problems to correct the map. One provider indicated that in rural areas, it  is more difficult to get accurate data because in some cases addresses  are not used, making it difficult to link service to a census block. However,  in the future, this provider indicated that it planned to utilize GPS  information to provide more accurate data. Five of the six providers we  interviewed said that the reliability of the National Broadband Map has  improved over time.
section_title: Data on Internet Adoption by Households on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: In 2008, Congress passed the Broadband Data Improvement Act,   which required the Bureau of the Census to collect information from  residential households, including those on tribal lands. Census captured  three aspects of Internet adoption: 1) whether a computer is owned or  used at the residence, 2) if the household subscribes to Internet service,  and if so, 3) whether that service is dial-up or a high-speed connection.
Census began collecting the required data on Internet adoption beginning  with the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS). According to Census  officials, five years of ACS data must be collected to provide data for  areas with smaller populations. Census officials said that this data will be  available in late 2018 and will provide an estimate for Internet adoption  nationwide, including the first estimates for hard to reach populations  such as Native Americans.
section_title: FCC Has Not Established Performance Goals and Measures for Internet Availability or Adoption on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: Agency performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and  reporting of program accomplishments, particularly towards pre- established goals. Performance measurement allows organizations to  track progress in achieving their goals and provides information to identify  gaps in program performance and plan any needed improvements. The  GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires annual performance plans to  include performance measures to show the progress the agency is  making in achieving its goals. Further, we have identified best practices in  articulating goals that include:  showing baseline and trend data for past performance, and  identifying projected target levels for performance for multi-year  goals.
Making high-speed Internet, including broadband Internet, available to all  Americans is FCC’s stated long-term objective, but we found in January  2016 that FCC has not set goals to demonstrate or measure progress  toward achieving it. The National Broadband Map is currently the best  tool for setting goals and measuring progress toward increasing the  availability of high-speed Internet on tribal lands. Map data are widely  used by FCC to describe the availability of broadband nationwide. For  example, FCC uses data gathered for the National Broadband Map in its  annual Broadband Progress report provided to Congress as required by  the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
To improve performance management, we recommended in our January  2016 report that FCC develop performance goals and measures using,  for example, data from the National Broadband Map, to track progress on  achieving its strategic goal of making broadband internet available to  households on tribal lands, and FCC agreed with our recommendation.
section_title: Data Collected Does Not Allow FCC to Measure Outcomes of its E-rate Program for Tribal Institutions
paragraphs: Although Census is gathering baseline information on household Internet  adoption, and the National Broadband Map provides data on high-speed  Internet availability across the country, we found that FCC lacks the  specific information it needs to measure the outcomes of its E-rate  program at tribal schools and libraries. The E-rate program provides  assistance to schools, school districts, and libraries to obtain  telecommunications technology, including high-speed Internet. E-rate  does not specifically target tribal schools and libraries, although some are  eligible and receive benefits. Since 2010, E-rate has committed more  than $13 billion in service provider customer fees to schools and libraries,  and according to data provided by FCC, at least $1 billion of that amount  supports tribal institutions.
FCC’s E-rate program has a stated goal of ensuring that all schools and  libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies.  Communicating what an agency intends to achieve and its programs for  doing so are fundamental aims of performance management and required  under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Specifically the act requires  an agency to have measurable, quantifiable, outcome-oriented goals for  major functions and operations, an annual performance plan consistent  with FCC’s strategic plan and a means to communicate the outcomes of  its efforts. However, FCC has not set any quantifiable goals and  performance measures for its E-rate efforts to extend high-speed Internet  in schools and libraries nationwide or on tribal lands.
According to federal internal control standards, government managers  should ensure there are adequate means of obtaining information from  external stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency  meeting its goals. To that end, FCC collects information on E-rate  recipients nationwide through questions on its application for E-rate  assistance. Several different types of institutions on tribal lands can  qualify for E-rate funding, including schools operated by the tribe or  Bureau of Indian Education, private schools operating on a reservation,  and public school districts that serve the reservation. On FCC’s E-rate  application, applicants receiving service may self-identify as tribal, but in  this instance, the application provides no definition of “tribal.” We found  that not all schools and libraries on tribal lands identify themselves as  such during the application process. FCC provided us with information on  E-rate recipients between 2010 and 2014 that self-identified as tribal, and  the amounts committed to those recipients. These data may understate  the amount of funds supporting schools on tribal lands. Specifically, we  identified more than 60 additional school districts, private schools, and  public libraries on the lands of the 21 tribes we studied that received E- rate assistance but were not included in FCC’s information on tribal  recipients. Consequently, FCC does not have accurate information on the  number of federally recognized tribes, including Alaska Native villages,  receiving E-rate support, or the amount being provided to them. Without  more precise information and direction from FCC, the extent to which E- rate assistance is provided to tribal institutions cannot be reliably  determined, nor can FCC rely on the information to develop quantifiable  goals and performance measures for improving high-speed Internet  access in tribal schools or libraries. It is important to understand how  these programs affect tribal institutions because FCC has made  improving high-speed Internet access in tribal institutions a priority  following the National Broadband Plan, with the establishment of the  Office of Native Affairs and Policy in 2010, and its current Strategic Plan.
To address these concerns, in January 2016, we recommended that  FCC:  improve the reliability of data related to institutions receiving E-rate  funding by defining “tribal” on the program application. FCC agreed  with our recommendation and intends to provide guidance to  applicants in fiscal year 2017. develop performance goals and measures to track progress on  achieving its strategic objective of ensuring that all tribal schools and  libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies.  FCC also agreed with this recommendation, indicating that goals and  performance measures, among other things, will substantially improve  the accessibility of modern broadband technologies for tribal schools  and libraries.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of the  Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony or the related  report, please contact Mark Goldstein, at (202) 512-6670 or  GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this  statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony  include Keith Cunningham, Assistant Director; Christopher Jones; Sarah  Jones; Cheryl Peterson; Carl Ramirez; Cynthia Saunders; and Michelle  Weathers.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.