Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands
Published: 2016-01-29T00:00:00

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. However, in 2015, FCC reported that the lack of service in tribal areas presents impediments. GAO was asked to review the status of high-speed Internet on tribal lands. The report 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. GAO visited or interviewed officials from a non-generalizable sample of 21 tribal entities and 6 service providers selected to provide diversity in size, location, and poverty levels. 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: Although all 21 tribes GAO interviewed have some access to high-speed Internet, tribes and providers GAO interviewed cited barriers to increasing access. For example, high poverty rates and the high costs of connecting remote tribal villages to core Internet networks—called middle-mile infrastructure—limit high-speed Internet availability and adoption on tribal lands (see fig.). 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 in that they 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. This could result in an inefficient use of federal resources and missed opportunities for resource leveraging between FCC and USDA.
FCC has placed special emphasis on improving Internet access on tribal lands following the issuance of the National Broadband Plan, 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. Without these goals and measures FCC cannot assess the impact of its efforts. The National Broadband Map includes data on Internet availability on tribal lands that could allow FCC to establish baseline measures for Internet availability on tribal lands. Further, FCC also lacks performance goals and measures for 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 not set any performance goals for the program's impact on tribal institutions. Nor has FCC defined “tribal” on the E-rate application. Without such information, it will be difficult to accurately track progress in making broadband available in tribal institutions.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that FCC (1) develop joint training and outreach with USDA; (2) develop performance goals and measures for tribal areas for improving broadband availability to households; (3) develop performance goals and measures for improving broadband availability to tribal 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: Increasingly, high-speed Internet service is viewed as a critical  component of the nation’s physical infrastructure and a driver of economic  growth. High-speed Internet access provides a number of social and  economic benefits including essential communications service for e- commerce, telemedicine, online courses, and other educational tools. 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. However, in 2012, the Federal  Communications Commission’s (FCC) Office of Native Affairs and Policy  reported that the lack of service in rural and tribal lands presents  impediments to efforts of tribal nations to build their internal structures for  self-governance, economic opportunity, education, public safety, and  cultural preservation.
The communications infrastructure that supports Internet access is, by  and large, built and operated by private industry. However, 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).
In January 2015, FCC reported that Americans living in rural areas and  on tribal lands disproportionately lack access to high-speed Internet.  FCC’s data indicate 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. You asked us to review the availability of  high-speed Internet access on tribal lands. This 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 determine perspectives of selected tribes and providers on the  importance of high-speed Internet access and any barriers to increasing  this access on tribal lands, we reviewed relevant literature and  interviewed officials from 18 tribal governments in the continental United  States, 3 Alaska Native regions, and 6 service providers operating on  tribal lands. For the three Alaska Native regions, we visited villages within  each region and spoke with officials from the Regional Corporation,  regional nonprofit, Village Corporation, tribal government, and city  government.  To identify tribes to interview, we reviewed the types and  amounts of assistance provided by FCC and USDA between fiscal years  2010 and 2014 and Bureau of the Census (Census) 2013 data regarding  population and poverty rates. We selected tribes to have a range of  population, poverty rates, and locations, both remote and closer to urban  areas. For reporting purposes, we developed the following series of  indefinite quantifiers to describe the tribal responses from the 21 tribal  entities we interviewed.
5 of the 21 is described as “a few”;
5 to 9 is described as “some”;
10 to 12  is described as “about half”;
13 to 16 is described as “many”; and
17 or more is described as “most”.
We selected service providers to interview using initial tribal interviews  and FCC data for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 to identify providers that  serve tribal lands and receive federal subsidies or loans to do so. These  interviews are not generalizable to all tribes or all service providers.  Furthermore, we 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.
To determine the level of interrelation and coordination between federal  programs at FCC and USDA that promote high-speed Internet access on  tribal lands, we reviewed FCC and USDA program funding and guidance  materials for fiscal year 2010 through 2014, interviewed FCC and USDA  officials, and interviewed tribal officials from the selected 21 tribal  governments or Alaska Native regions and six service providers operating  on tribal lands. These interviews are not generalizable to all tribes or all  service providers. 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.
To determine what data and FCC performance goals and measures, if  any, 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.  We also reviewed Census’ American Community Survey 5-year  data on population, poverty rates, and telecommunication access; and  interviewed FCC and Census officials. We determined that FCC and  Census data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes by interviewing  FCC and Census officials on their data collection and validation efforts.  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. Appendix I contains a more detailed discussion of our objectives,  scope, and methodology. Appendix II provides a list of the Native  American Tribes, including Alaska Native Villages; Internet service  providers; and other organizations we interviewed.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2015 to January  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: According to 2013 Census estimates, more than 640,000 American  Indians and Alaska Natives reside on tribal lands.  The federal  government has recognized many American Indian tribes and Alaska  Native Villages as distinct, independent political communities with  inherent sovereignty. Tribal lands vary in size, demographics, and  location. The smallest are less than one square mile, and the largest, the  Navajo Nation, is more than 24,000 square miles. Most tribal lands are in  remote, rural locations, but some are located near urban areas.  There  are more than 300 Indian tribes in the continental United States and more  than 200 Alaska Native Villages that are federally recognized. The tribal  government has the option of forming entities that manage tribal affairs  including schools, housing, health, and economic enterprises.  Additionally, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 directed the  establishment of 12 regional corporations representing geographic  regions of the entire state to, among other things, resolve long-standing  aboriginal land claims and foster economic development in Alaska.   These corporations distribute land and monetary benefits to Alaska  Natives to provide a fair and just settlement of aboriginal land claims in  Alaska. The regional corporations have corresponding nonprofit  organizations that provide social services to the villages.  Figure 1 shows  tribal lands in the United States according to the 2010 Census, and the  Alaska Native regions.
Native Americans are among the most economically distressed groups in  the United States.  According to the Census’ 2014 American Community  Survey (ACS), about 28.3 percent of Native Americans 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, ACS data shows that  residents of tribal lands often lack basic infrastructure, such as water and  sewer systems, and telecommunications services. We reported in 2006  that tribal officials and government agencies said that conditions on tribal  lands have made successful economic development more difficult than in  other parts of the country because the high cost and small markets  associated with investment on tribal lands deter business investment.  We  found that this was particularly true for businesses such as Internet  providers that must build out infrastructure to serve tribal lands.
Customers generally subscribe to Internet through a fixed or mobile  device. In-home fixed Internet plans are often sold as a monthly  subscription by cable television or telephone companies. Consumers can  connect a variety of devices to in-home fixed networks through a wired or  wireless connection.  Service is provided via different types of technology.  Service from cable television companies is generally provided through the  same coaxial cables that deliver television programming. Service from  telephone companies is generally provided through traditional copper  telephone lines—commonly referred to as digital subscriber line (DSL)  service—or fiber-optic lines, which convert electrical signals carrying data  into light and send the light through glass fibers. In areas where none of  these wired connections exist, some carriers offer fixed wireless devices  for home use. Advances in technology, such as the use of fiber optics and  new wireless technologies have allowed providers to offer increasingly  faster high-speed Internet that supports new services and applications  such as streaming video.  Only these faster speeds attained through fiber  and other new technologies are considered high-speed Internet. 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 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.  Generally, only cable or fiber can deliver this  level of broadband service to consumers’ homes.
Mobile service is provided through cell tower coverage with data  transmitted over the radio spectrum.  Traditionally, mobile service  providers sold access to the Internet as an option to mobile telephone  service plans. A number of devices may connect to mobile high-speed  networks, such as smart phones, tablets, and mobile devices that enable  laptops to connect to a wireless service.
The federal government has recognized the difficulties of providing  services on tribal lands, and has maintained several ongoing programs to  increase Internet availability and access in unserved areas.  The USDA’s  Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and FCC are responsible for several  programs designed to improve the nation’s telecommunications  infrastructure.  RUS’s programs focus on rural telecommunications  development, while FCC’s programs under the Universal Service Fund  (USF) 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.  All of these programs, which are  discussed in more detail later in this report, seek to expand high-speed  Internet access and can benefit tribal lands and their populations.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)  authorized other, one-time federal programs such as the Broadband  Initiatives Program and the Broadband Technologies Opportunities  Program to expand high-speed Internet access in unserved areas,  including on tribal lands.  The Recovery Act also directed FCC to develop  a national broadband plan to ensure every American had access to high- speed Internet service.  In March 2010, FCC issued the National  Broadband Plan that included a centralized vision for achieving  affordability and maximizing use of high-speed Internet to advance  community development, health care delivery, education, job creation,  and other national purposes.  With regard to tribal lands, the Plan  recommended that the Commission increase its commitment to  government-to-government consultation with tribal leaders and consider  increasing tribal representation in telecommunications planning.  In July  2010, FCC announced the creation of the Office of Native Affairs and  Policy.  The office was tasked to promote the deployment and adoption of  communication services and technologies throughout tribal lands and  native communities, by, among other things, ensuring the recommended  consultation with tribal governments and native organizations.  Officials  from the Office of Native Affairs and Policy said that the office has helped  to facilitate, draft, analyze, and advise on policy issues affecting Native  communities as part of FCC’s decision-making process.
section_title: Selected Tribes and Providers Identified Opportunities and Barriers Related to Increasing High- Speed Internet Access
subsections: section_title: Selected Tribes Identified the Importance of Internet to Their Communities and All Selected Tribes Had Some Internet Service
paragraphs: Tribal officials we interviewed 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. For example, a resident of an Alaska Native Village  operates a tour company and stated that the booking, communication,  and advertising of the business are completely reliant on a satellite  Internet connection. However, the unreliable Internet service quality  made booking customers and working with online tourism companies  challenging.
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, according to officials from two tribes we interviewed. In  addition, officials from some tribes said that students who had access  at school, but not at home were disadvantaged compared to their  peers who had access at home.
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 of the tribes we interviewed also 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 the others had slower copper lines, only mobile  service, or only satellite service. Moreover, while many of the tribal lands  where we held interviews had some level of mobile Internet service, only  a few tribal lands had 4G mobile high-speed Internet services and a few  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. For example, officials from  the Quileute tribe said that connection problems caused by heavily  congested networks forced them to upload the required reports to federal  grant websites after regular business hours.
section_title: Selected Tribes and Providers Said that Rugged and Remote Terrain are Barriers for Increasing Internet Access on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: The interrelated barriers of rugged terrain and rural location characteristic  of many tribal lands, as well as tribal members’ limited ability to pay for  high-speed Internet service were tribes’ and private providers’ most  commonly cited impediments to improvements in high-speed Internet  service. FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy reported in 2012 that  rural, remote, and rugged terrain increase the cost of installing,  maintaining, and upgrading Internet infrastructure. It also reported that  affordability of these services among tribal members is affected by often  endemic levels of poverty, as discussed later in this report.  Internet  providers said that 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. Figure 2, below, illustrates some of the options for  middle-mile Internet service delivery deployment infrastructure.
Many tribal officials and all six providers we interviewed listed rugged  terrain and the rural location of many tribal lands as challenges to  deploying this infrastructure to tribal lands. Tribal lands located far from  urban areas may not have middle-mile infrastructure necessary for high- speed Internet deployment to their lands. More specifically, interviewees  discussed the remoteness or distance from existing high-speed Internet  networks in urban and suburban centers; the vastness of reservation  lands; low population density; rugged terrain characteristics such as hills,  forests, mesas, and rocks; and, in some places, a lack of basic services  such as roads, addresses, and commercial power. Figure 3 from the  remote village of Beaver, Alaska, which is not connected to a road  network and is only accessible by plane, illustrates some of these  characteristics. The building shown is connected only via satellite,  because there is no fixed or wireless Internet service in Beaver.   Residents of Beaver told us that satellite Internet is a poor substitute for  land-based middle-mile infrastructure because it is slower, less reliable,  includes restrictive caps on data usage, and suffers from regular blackout  periods.
The terrain and lack of basic services tend to increase the cost of building  and maintaining the middle-mile infrastructure, compared to costs in  urban settings. For example, the Lac du Flambeau and Menominee tribes  in Wisconsin live on reservations with dense, tall forests, and microwave  towers must be tall enough—sometimes as high as 250 feet—in order to  transmit the high-speed Internet signal above the tree canopy, according  to tribal officials. Additionally, Alaska’s permafrost and seasonal thaw  makes it difficult to lay fiber optic cables, according to service provider  officials. Finally, one provider in the Southwest United States said it has  only been able to deploy limited service on the Navajo Nation land  because it spans more than 24,000 square miles, and many of the remote  areas are not served by commercial power.
section_title: Selected Tribes and Providers Said that Poverty Constrains Internet Adoption on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: The limited financial resources available to tribal households were also  cited by tribal officials and providers we interviewed 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, as is common for tribal  lands. Figure 4 below shows the poverty rates for the 21 tribes we  interviewed.
For example, the Menominee reservation and Pueblo of Laguna each  have poverty rates of 35-36 percent according to Census’ 2013 American  Community Survey, which collects demographic, social, economic and  housing data. For the Rosebud Sioux, the poverty rate is 47 percent.  Officials from the Menominee tribe said tribal households still cannot  afford Internet service. For the Pueblo of Laguna, tribal officials reported  that residents often choose mobile Internet options because they cannot  afford separate phone and Internet service. Officials from the  Confederated Tribes of Salish and Kootenai said that when tribal  households can afford Internet, they can afford only the slowest download  speeds available.
Some tribes we interviewed said they are served by a single provider, and  officials from five of those tribes reported their provider charging what  they described as high prices for limited service. In Bethel, Napaskiak,  and Oscarville, Alaska, residents reported that while they had Internet  access through a regional service provider, this provider’s services had  low data allocations that subscribers routinely exceeded and paid  penalties as a result. Moreover, officials from Bethel said that applicants  for tribal housing assistance with outstanding debt of more than five  percent of their income from unpaid mobile Internet bills were ineligible for  this assistance. Also according to these officials, when an Internet  customer had an outstanding bill, the local provider would shut off their  phone. The customer had to pay back this outstanding balance before  they could get their phone turned back on and qualify for housing  assistance. In the housing application round for Bethel that occurred just  before our June 2015 visit, 13 of 38 applicants were rejected due to their  delinquent Internet bills, according to data provided by the tribe. Tribal  officials said that this was typical, and that it can take up to a year to pay  off these bills due to the limited income opportunities in the region.
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. Officials from another Internet provider  said that high poverty had led tribal customers’ accounts to fall into  delinquency and be subsequently disconnected from service. According  to some of the tribes we interviewed, limited finances led many tribal  households to opt out of purchasing service or not being able to keep up  payments for service they did purchase.
section_title: About Half of Tribes Reported That They Lack the Capacity to Apply for Federal funds or Design High-Speed Internet Networks
paragraphs: About half of the tribes we interviewed told us that a lack of tribal  members with sufficient bureaucratic and technical expertise is a 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. Officials of the Ute tribe, for example, described  submitting application paperwork for federal funding several times before  being accepted because of multiple federal officials asking for different  edits. Some tribes reported spending resources on outside consultants to  handle the application process. For example, the Mississippi Choctaw  told us they hired a full-time grant writer to manage their E-rate  application when they had difficulty applying for E-rate on their own.   The consultant confirmed that there is a steep learning curve to the  process and not all tribes would have the money or time to have a  member overcome the learning curve while fulfilling other tribal  responsibilities. Further, according to officials, Unalakleet’s regional  school district contracts out the E-rate application process to a consultant  for $22,000 annually. The district receives about $5 million in E-rate  funding annually to subsidize its schools’ high-speed Internet connection.  Additionally, Lac du Flambeau officials said they spent funds on lawyers,  consultants, and engineers who they had hired to assist them in applying  for federal funding.
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. In addition, Salish and Kootenai officials  recounted a meeting with several providers as part of a federal assistance  application requirement. The officials said that none of the tribal officials  understood the providers’ plans and as a result were not able to represent  the tribe’s best interests. Further, officials from the Pueblo of Laguna  highlighted that they will need ongoing investment in employee training to  ensure that their knowledge keeps pace with technological developments  and infrastructure upgrades.
The National Broadband Plan recognized the challenges of administrative  and technical capacity and recommended that FCC and Congress  support technical training and capacity development on tribal lands, such  as by considering additional funding for tribal leaders to participate in  FCC training at no cost. In the early 2000s, FCC held a number of Indian  Telecommunications Initiatives Regional Workshops and Roundtables. In  fiscal year 2012, the 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. Recently, the Office held seven  training workshops in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 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: FCC and USDA implement mutually supportive interrelated high-speed  Internet access programs that offer assistance to tribes and the providers  that serve tribal lands. FCC’s and USDA’s programs have similar goals to  increase access to Internet on tribal lands and they both offer funding to  either tribal entities or service providers to achieve this goal of increased  access. Further, both FCC and USDA programs have eligibility  requirements based on the need of an area as well as deployment  requirements.  Tribes sometimes qualify for benefits from more than one  of these programs, either directly or through private-sector Internet  providers. 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.
The FCC has programs that provide subsidies or discounts to improve  telecommunications services, including services on tribal lands.  These  programs have a longstanding goal of making communications services  available “so far as possible to all the people of the United States.”  The  Telecommunications Act of 1996 extended the scope of federal universal  service to support and make advanced telecommunications services  available to eligible public and nonprofit elementary and secondary  schools, libraries, and nonprofit rural health care providers at discounted  rates.  Today, the goals of these programs include increasing access to  Internet service for all consumers at reasonable and affordable rates.   Three universal service programs subsidize telecommunications carriers  that provide high-speed Internet and other telecommunications services  to areas that include tribal lands:
The Connect America Fund (CAF)—formerly the High Cost  Program—was established to extend high-speed Internet service to  those areas that lack service, while preserving voice service.  CAF  provides subsidies to Internet providers to supplement their operating  costs for providing high-speed Internet in unserved or high-cost areas.  In total, the High Cost and Connect America Fund distributed about  $20 billion in subsidies to providers between 2010 and 2014, portions  of which went to providers that serve tribal lands.
The USF Schools and Library Support Program, also known as E- rate, provides discounts to eligible schools and libraries on  telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal  connections. In total, the E-rate program provided about $13 billion in  discounts to schools and libraries between 2010 and 2014, portions of  which went to schools and libraries on tribal lands.
The Healthcare Connect Fund provides assistance to ensure eligible  rural health care providers have access to high-speed Internet  services and supports the formation of regional health care provider  networks.  Although the Healthcare Connect Fund does not  specifically target tribal institutions, assistance may be provided to a  service provider (or group of providers) that serve tribal lands. The  Healthcare Connect Fund started in 2014 and provided about $52  million to healthcare facilities in fiscal year 2014, a portion of which  went to tribal lands. For example, tribal officials said that the  Healthcare Connect Fund helped fund telemedicine carts that access  high-speed Internet connections to send patient data including  pictures and X-rays to regional hospitals to reduce costs, (see figure  5).
In addition to general programs that include tribal beneficiaries, FCC has  also implemented efforts designed specifically to address concerns of  Tribal and Native Communities.  For example, in 2000 FCC began its  Tribal Lands Bidding Credit Program to provide incentives to wireless  providers to deploy wireless services on tribal lands.  FCC is authorized  to auction radiofrequency spectrum to be used for wireless services in the  United States.  Under the Tribal Lands Bidding Credit program, FCC  grants bidding credits to a winning bidder in a spectrum auction if the  bidder deploys facilities and provides telecommunications services to  qualifying tribal lands.  In total, the program has awarded credits to 53  licensees that have pledged to deploy facilities and provide  telecommunications services on 13 tribal lands.
More recently, in 2012 when FCC made reforms to universal service, it  created the Mobility Fund under the Connect America Fund.  Phase I of  the Mobility Fund, which began in fiscal year 2012, provided $300 million  of one-time support to extend the availability of wireless voice and high- speed Internet networks in areas where they were not available, including  tribal lands.  It also established a separate, one-time Tribal Mobility fund,  which awarded $50 million in fiscal year 2014.  Phase II of the Mobility  fund will have a budget of $500 million, of which $100 million is  designated as support for tribal lands.  FCC has not set a date for the  awarding of these funds.
According to some tribes and five of the six service providers we  interviewed, FCC’s USF subsidies have helped expand high-speed  Internet throughout tribal lands for tribal institutions, such as schools,  libraries, and clinics. Further, building out the Internet service delivery  infrastructure for schools and clinics with USF support allows service  providers to begin offering household access in remote areas as well,  according to two providers we interviewed. For example, one service  provider said that Internet service would not exist in the majority of Alaska  without USF’s E-rate and Healthcare Connect Fund programs. FCC’s  programs made Internet service possible in the remote villages of  Napaskiak and Oscarville, Alaska. These villages were only accessible by  boat or plane and did not have roads or running water, but they did have  Internet. According to officials, the best connections in both villages were  in the USF supported schools and clinics, and officials from the regional  school district serving the two villages said students rely on the high- speed Internet networks and the schools hope to use e-books since flying  textbooks to rural Alaska is expensive.  Figure 6 depicts the microwave  tower in Oscarville, Alaska, which completes the middle-mile wireless  signal that it conveys to the school, clinic, and households in the village.
RUS programs also provide support to improve rural telecommunications  infrastructure—including high-speed Internet—through grants, loans, and  loan guarantees. RUS programs seek to extend high-speed Internet  access in rural communities, where it is least likely to be commercially  available, but where it can improve the quality of life, education,  healthcare, and community development. Eligible participants in RUS  programs can include federally recognized tribes.  Assistance from RUS  can be used to build out new or improve existing telecommunication  infrastructure in rural areas, which include many of the tribal lands,  through two programs:
The Distance Learning and Telemedicine program provides grants to  rural communities to acquire technologies that use the Internet to link  educational and medical professionals with people living in rural  areas. In total, the Distance Learning and Telemedicine program  provided about $128 million in grants and loans between 2010 and  2014, almost $3 million of which went to tribal lands.
The Community Connect Program provides grants to rural  communities to provide high-speed Internet service to unserved  areas. In total, the Community Connect Program provided about $53  million in grants between 2010 and 2014, almost $3 million of which  went to tribal lands.
Officials from some tribes, three of which operate tribally owned service  providers, said that USDA RUS grant and loan programs or RUS stimulus  funding efforts through the Recovery Act were important in the expansion  of Internet throughout tribal lands for tribal institutions. In addition, officials  from one Internet provider in Alaska said that RUS funding was important  for allowing them to build high-speed Internet infrastructure in rural areas,  including Native Villages.
section_title: Outreach and Training Efforts for Interrelated Programs Are Not Always Well Coordinated
paragraphs: FCC’s and USDA’s programs that promote high-speed Internet access in  tribal lands are interrelated in that they all seek to increase this access in  areas that include tribal lands.  For example, FCC’s Health Care Connect  and USDA’s Distance Learning and Telemedicine programs both seek to  assist clinics connect to the Internet, including those on tribal lands.  These programs 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 when planning visits to tribes or  conference attendance. Synchronizing these activities could be a  resource-saving mechanism.  However, both FCC and USDA  independently conduct outreach and training efforts for related programs  promoting Internet access.  For example, FCC was authorized to spend  up to $300,000 on tribal consultation and training in fiscal year 2015.  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.  This could result in an inefficient use of limited federal resources  and missed opportunities for resource leveraging between the two  agencies and cost-savings to the tribes attending training events. For  example, while USDA held a training event in Washington State in fiscal  year 2015, 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 and each contributed towards the costs of the event  while reducing the cost burdens for tribes, who would not have had to  travel twice or choose between the two training events given limited  budgets. Officials from one tribe said that multiple federal programs  offering similar grants were confusing and that a federal one-stop-shop  for outreach and training would help them better target the right programs  for their situation. Officials from a different tribe said that the tribe benefits  from FCC programs but not USDA programs, in part, because tribal  officials did not have a strong understanding of the USDA programs that  might benefit their community’s Internet access. Better coordination on  conferences, as feasible, could help FCC and USDA reach a broader  audience and increase the value of their outreach to tribes.
section_title: Federal Government is Gathering Data, but FCC Lacks Performance Goals and Measures for the Internet on Tribal Lands The Federal Government is Gathering Data on Internet Availability and Adoption in Households on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: In 2006, we found that the rate of Internet access 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, the federal government has started collecting data  on Internet availability and access on tribal lands.
subsections: section_title: FCC Has Not Established Performance Goals and Measures for Internet Availability to or Adoption in Households on Tribal Lands
paragraphs: FCC has made an important distinction between Internet availability and  Internet adoption. Availability relates to the presence of Internet Service in  an area, and adoption relates to people in the area subscribing to the  Internet service.  FCC’s strategic plan for fiscal years 2015-2018 includes  a strategic goal related to Internet availability and ensuring that “all  Americans can take advantage of the service…without artificial  impediments.”  This goal has a strategic objective to “maximize the  availability of broadband Internet to all—including low income Americans,  those in rural areas and tribal lands, and individuals with disabilities.”  As  we reported in June 2015, this represented a change from the previous  strategic plan, which included a strategic objective to “maximize”  broadband adoption with a related performance goal to “support and  facilitate” broadband adoption. Noting that the change in the strategic  plan from adoption to availability made it unclear as to which was the  priority, we recommended that FCC revise its strategic plan to more  clearly state if addressing adoption is a major function of the Commission  and, if so, specify what outcomes they intend to achieve.  In response,  FCC commented that broadband adoption remains a significant focus.   However, as of December 2015, FCC has not identified the performance  goals and measures it intends to achieve for broadband availability or  adoption.
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 (among others):
Showing baseline and trend data for past performance and  Identifying projected target levels for performance for multi-year  goals.
The National Broadband Map is the most detailed source of Internet  availability on tribal lands and the reliability of the data is improving.   Providers are updating information and incorporating GPS information to  correct inaccuracies, and FCC has a formal process for the public to  report complaints. Map data are widely used by FCC currently 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.  Data supporting the National  Broadband Map could be used, for example, to establish a baseline of  high-speed Internet availability nationwide and on tribal lands.  Making  high-speed Internet, including broadband Internet, available to all  Americans is FCC’s stated goal, but FCC has not set goals to  demonstrate or measure progress toward achieving it.  While the National  Broadband Map does have some weaknesses, it provides the best  current tool for setting goals and measuring progress toward increasing  the availability of high-speed Internet on tribal lands.
section_title: Data Collected Does Not Allow FCC to Measure the 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, FCC lacks information to measure  the outcomes of its E-rate program at tribal schools and libraries.  FCC’s  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, and at  least $1 billion of that amount supports tribal institutions.
FCC’s strategic plan sets forth an objective for the E-rate program to  ensure 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.  Under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010,  an agency is expected to communicate the outcomes of its efforts.   Specifically the act requires the agency to have outcome oriented goals  for major functions and operations and an annual performance plan  consistent with that strategic plan with measurable, quantifiable  performance goals.  Similarly, Federal Internal Control Standards state  that operational and financial data are needed to determine whether or  not an agency is meeting its strategic and annual performance goals.   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 more specific performance measures for the  same institutions on tribal lands.
FCC has noted the additional difficulties that tribal entities have in  securing high-speed Internet on their lands, and directed efforts to  address these difficulties in the E-rate Modernization Orders in 2014.   According to federal internal control standards, management should  ensure there are adequate means of obtaining information from external  stakeholders that may have a significant impact on the agency meeting its  goals.  FCC collects information on E-rate recipients nationwide through  questions on its application for E-rate assistance, including the type of  organization requesting funding and the types of institutions served, such  as public, private, tribal, or Head Start, among others. 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, as well as public school districts that  serve the reservation.  FCC’s E-rate application provides for applicants  to self-identify whether recipients of service on the application are tribal,  but in this instance, 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.  FCC officials stated that they do not provide a definition  because the increased formality might give applicants the incorrect  impression that being a “tribal” institution has an effect on funding  decisions.  However, because FCC does not provide a definition for tribal  in its E-rate application, it is unclear what level of tribal involvement or  participation in an institution would cause it to be considered “tribal” on an  application.  For example, applicants may be unsure if a public school  district, a private school, or public library that serves the general public on  a reservation should indicate it is a tribal recipient on an application even  if most students or patrons are tribal members. Further, according to FCC  officials, it would be appropriate for such institutions to identify as tribal.   Consequently, FCC does not have accurate information on the number of  federally recognized tribes or 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Access to Internet on tribal lands varies but challenges to access and  adoption remain.  The high costs of infrastructure buildout on tribal lands,  which tend to be remote and rugged terrain, work in tandem with tribal  member poverty to create a barrier to high-speed Internet expansion on  tribal lands. In addition, about half of the tribes we interviewed told us that  the lack of tribal members with sufficient bureaucratic and technical  expertise is a barrier to increasing high-speed access on tribal lands.  FCC’s USF subsidy program and USDA’s RUS grant and loan programs  seek to increase high-speed Internet access in underserved areas,  including tribal lands, by assisting in building infrastructure and  purchasing equipment as well as by paying for the ongoing operation of  this infrastructure and equipment. While these programs have been  important to improving high-speed Internet access on tribal lands, their  efforts to further increase high-speed Internet on tribal lands could be  limited by a lack of interagency coordination on training and outreach.  Officials from one tribe said that multiple federal programs offering similar  grants were confusing and officials from another tribe said that they  accessed FCC programs but lacked a strong understanding of the USDA  programs designed to increase Internet access. Through better  coordination where feasible on joint training efforts to build tribal  administrative and technical capacity, FCC and USDA could better  ensure that their programs are efficient and remain mutually supportive  and accessible to tribal governments.
Despite the importance of FCC and USDA programs for expanding high- speed Internet on tribal lands, FCC has not established performance  goals and measures related to improving Internet availability.  However,  data on broadband availability is readily available through the National  Broadband Map to measure progress on efforts to improve broadband  availability.  Further, FCC’s subsidy programs also seek to increase high- speed Internet access on tribal lands, but the E-rate program lacks  reliable data specific to institutions on tribal lands as well as goals and  performance measures to track the outcomes of efforts on tribal lands.   Not defining “tribal” in the E-rate application makes it difficult to measure  the program’s impact on tribal lands as not all E-rate recipients serving  these areas self-identify as tribal.  Gathering such data is important for  FCC because The National Broadband Plan has placed a special  emphasis on improving access on tribal lands, and internal control  standards call for management to be provided with data to determine  whether or not it is meeting goals.  Without such information, it will be  difficult for FCC to determine the extent to which FCC is achieving its  goals.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help improve and measure the availability and adoption of high-speed  Internet on tribal lands, we recommend that the Chairman of the Federal  Communications Commission take the following four actions:
Develop joint outreach and training efforts with USDA whenever  feasible to help improve Internet availability and adoption on tribal  lands;
Develop performance goals and measures using, for example, data  supporting the National Broadband Map, to track progress on  achieving its strategic objective of making broadband Internet  available to households on tribal lands;  Improve the reliability of FCC data related institutions that receive E- Rate funding by defining “tribal” on the program application; and
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.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided copies of the draft report to the Federal Communications  Commission, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, The U.S. Department of  the Interior, and the U.S. Department of Commerce for comment prior to  finalizing the report. We received technical comments that we  incorporated as appropriate.  We received written comments from FCC,  which are reproduced in appendix III.  FCC concurred with our  recommendations and noted that it has efforts under way to address  them. Regarding our recommendation for greater coordination on training  and outreach, FCC 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. Regarding our recommendation to  develop performance goals and measures for making broadband Internet  available to households on tribal lands, FCC summarized its efforts to  track broadband deployment on tribal lands.  Regarding our  recommendation to improve data reliability by defining “tribal” on the E- rate funding application, FCC said that it plans to include guidance for E- rate applicants to self-report as tribal if they serve tribal populations  beginning in fiscal year 2017. Regarding our recommendation to develop  performance goals and measures to track tribal schools and libraries  access to broadband, FCC said that its goal is to provide all schools and  libraries with broadband Internet, including tribal schools and libraries and  that its efforts will substantially improve the accessibility of modern  broadband technologies for tribal schools and libraries.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 5 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to FCC, USDA, and other  interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on  GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me 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 report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: You asked us to review the availability of broadband access on tribal  lands.  This report examines (1) perspectives of selected tribes and  providers on the importance of Internet access for tribes and any barriers  to increasing access to Internet 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 Internet service on tribal lands and for tribal institutions.
To determine perspectives of selected tribes and providers on the  importance of high-speed Internet and any barriers to increasing access  to high-speed Internet on tribal lands, we reviewed relevant literature and  interviewed officials from 18 tribal governments in the continental United  States and 3 Alaska Native regions. For the three Alaska Native regions  we interviewed, we visited villages within the region and spoke with  officials from the Regional Corporation, regional nonprofit, Village  Corporation, tribal government, and city government. Five of the 21 total  tribes we interviewed operate their own Internet providers and two were  considering forming a tribally-owned provider. We selected tribes to  interview using FCC and USDA data from fiscal years 2010 through 2014  and Bureau of the Census (Census) 2013 demographic data such as  population and poverty rates. We selected tribes to include a range of  population, poverty rates and locations. We used the same semi- structured interview questions for all tribes. While we used the same  questions, tribal officials may not have answered them in the same way.  Additionally, we interviewed officials from six service providers operating  on tribal lands. We selected service providers to interview using FCC  High Cost Support data for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 and initial  tribal interviews to identify providers that serve tribal lands and receive  federal subsidies to do so. Furthermore, we identified and interviewed  industry stakeholders such as research groups and telecommunications  associations on their views regarding the barrier to increasing access to  broadband on tribal lands. These stakeholders were selected based on  their exposure to issues on tribal lands such as representing tribally  owned service providers. These interviews are not generalizable to all  tribes, all service providers or all industry stakeholders.
To analyze the information we collected on barriers and potential  solutions in our interviews, we identified themes and trends based on a  literature review of recent FCC and research organization publications  and preliminary interviews and developed a set of codes. After agreeing  on the coding strategy and rules for the appropriate use of each code,  one reviewer coded each carrier, tribal, and stakeholder interview using  the agreed codes.  Another team member then reviewed the coding for  reasonable adherence to the strategy and rules. We then tallied coded  responses and analyzed the themes identified through our interviews to  determine the most prevalent challenges and solutions identified by our  interviewees. For reporting purposes, we developed a series of indefinite  quantifiers to describe the tribal responses from the 21 total tribal entities  we interviewed that agreed with statements made in the report.  Less  than 5 of the 21 is “a few”, 5 to 9 is “some”, 10 to 12 is “about half”, 13 to  16 is “many”, and 17 or more is “most”.
To determine the level of interrelation and coordination between federal  programs at FCC and USDA that promote high-speed Internet access on  tribal lands, we reviewed FCC and USDA program guidance materials  and program funding for fiscal years 2010 through 2014, interviewed FCC  and USDA officials, and interviewed tribal officials from the selected 21  tribal governments or Alaska Native regions and 6 service providers  about the federal government programs in which they participated. We  evaluated USF and RUS program coordination based on criteria  developed in previous GAO work.  First, we identified programs to  examine. We selected FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) and USDA’s  Rural Utilities Service (RUS) due to the high number of programs and the  substantial appropriations amounts involved. Second, we gathered  background information on these programs and identified relationships  among the programs. Third, we identified areas of coordination and  possible gaps in coordination. Finally, we communicated these options to  FCC and USDA officials to determine the feasibility of our proposed  recommendations.
To determine what data and FCC performance goals and measures exist  related to access to high-speed Internet service on tribal lands and for  tribal institutions, we analyzed fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2014  USF data from FCC for tribal grantees or use on tribal lands; reviewed  USF program applications and guidance materials; reviewed Bureau of  Census five year data on telecommunication access from the American  Community Survey; and interviewed FCC and Census officials. We  determined that FCC and Census data were sufficiently reliable for our  purposes by interviewing FCC and Census officials on their data  collection and validation efforts. 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.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2015 to January  2016 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.  We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: List of Tribes, Alaska Native Entities, Internet Service Providers, and Other Groups GAO Interviewed
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham, Assistant  Director; Christopher Jones; Sarah Jones; Jeffery Malcolm; Josh  Ormond; Cheryl Peterson; Carl Ramirez; Cynthia Saunders; Michelle  Weathers; and Sarah Williamson made key contributions to this report.