Tribal Broadband: FCC Should Undertake Efforts to Better Promote Tribal Access to Spectrum
Released: 2018-11-14T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2018, FCC estimated that 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands lack broadband service compared to 8 percent of Americans overall. Broadband service can be delivered through wireless technologies using radio frequency spectrum. According to FCC, increasing tribal access to spectrum would help expand broadband service on tribal lands. GAO was asked to review spectrum use by tribal entities—tribal governments and tribally owned telecommunications providers.

This report examines (1) tribal entities' ability to obtain and access spectrum to provide broadband services and the reported barriers that may exist, and (2) the extent to which FCC promotes and supports tribal efforts to obtain and access spectrum. GAO interviewed 16 tribal entities that were using wireless technologies. Selected entities varied geographically, among other characteristics. GAO analyzed FCC's license and auction data as of September 2018, reviewed FCC's rulemakings on spectrum for broadband services, and interviewed other tribal and industry stakeholders and FCC officials. The information presented is not generalizable to all tribes or industry participants.

section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The tribal entities GAO contacted cited various barriers to obtaining spectrum licenses in bands that can be used to provide broadband services. According to its analysis of data from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), GAO identified 18 tribal entities that held active spectrum licenses in such bands. For example, of these 18 tribal entities, 4 obtained licenses through secondary market transactions—that is, they bought or leased the license from another provider, and 2 obtained a license through an FCC spectrum auction. Licensed spectrum is generally preferred because it offers better quality of service compared to unlicensed spectrum; however, almost all of the tribal entities GAO contacted said that they are accessing unlicensed spectrum to provide Internet service. They identified barriers to obtaining licensed spectrum through auctions and secondary market transactions, barriers such as high costs and, in the case of secondary market transactions, a lack of information on who holds licenses over tribal lands. Because most spectrum allocated for commercial use has already been assigned, the secondary market is one of very few avenues available to tribal entities that would like to access licensed spectrum.

FCC has taken steps to promote and support tribal access to spectrum. For example, FCC issued proposed rulemakings in 2011 and 2018 that sought comment on tribal-specific proposals, such as establishing tribal-licensing priorities and initiating processes to transfer unused spectrum licenses to tribal entities. However, FCC has not finalized these rules and is in the process of responding to comments to the 2018 rulemaking. Also, while FCC has made additional spectrum available for broadband use in recent years, tribal stakeholders cited limitations with the spectrum FCC has made available. For example, FCC allows broadband providers to operate in unused television broadcast bands on an unlicensed basis. While stakeholders GAO interviewed cited some advantages of these bands, such as being useful to reach remote customers, they also noted technical and cost limitations that reduced the potential to improve tribal access to spectrum. FCC stated that it is implementing spectrum initiatives and recognizes the importance of promoting a robust secondary market to improve communications throughout the United States, including tribal lands. However, GAO found that FCC has not collected data related to tribal access to spectrum, analyzed unused licensed spectrum that exists over tribal lands, or made data available to tribal entities in an accessible and easy manner that could be beneficial in their efforts to obtain spectrum licenses from other providers. By collecting data on the extent that tribal entities are obtaining and accessing spectrum, FCC could better understand tribal spectrum issues and use this information as it implements ongoing spectrum initiatives. Further, given that the secondary market is one of few ways for tribal entities to access licensed spectrum to be able to provide Internet service, FCC could promote a more robust secondary market by analyzing unused licensed spectrum over tribal lands and using that information to inform FCC's oversight of the secondary market. Additionally, by making information available on who holds spectrum licenses over tribal lands, FCC could remove a barrier tribes may face in attempting to obtain spectrum through the secondary market.

section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: FCC should (1) collect data on tribal access to spectrum; (2) analyze unused licensed spectrum over tribal lands; and (3) make information available in a more accessible manner that would promote tribes' ability to purchase or lease spectrum licenses over their lands from other providers. FCC agreed with the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Broadband service is viewed as vital to economic growth and improved  quality of life across the country. In 2018, the Federal Communications  Commission (FCC) reported that an estimated 35 percent of Americans  living on tribal lands lack access to broadband services, compared to 8  percent of all Americans. Furthermore, the gap in broadband access  between rural areas and rural tribal lands is even larger. In particular,  FCC reported in 2018 that nearly 60 percent of Americans living on rural  tribal lands nationwide lack broadband access, compared to about 31  percent of rural Americans overall. We have previously reported that  tribal lands can have challenging terrain and low population densities that  increase the cost and reduce business incentives for high-speed Internet  deployment. According to FCC, this lack of service on tribal lands could  impede efforts by Indian tribes to achieve self-governance and promote  economic opportunity, education, public safety, and cultural preservation.  Broadband service can be delivered through wireless technologies using  radio frequency spectrum. According to FCC, wireless technologies are  cost-effective for some remote and sparsely populated areas compared to  wireline broadband technologies, such as buried fiber optic or copper  cables, which can be costly to install where there is challenging terrain.

According to FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan, some tribes have  successfully used wireless technologies to deliver Internet access, and  increasing tribal access to and use of spectrum would create additional  opportunities to expand broadband service on tribal lands. Congress has  delegated responsibility for regulating commercial and other nonfederal  spectrum use to FCC, and as part of its responsibilities, FCC assigns  spectrum licenses through auctions and other mechanisms; oversees  secondary market transactions, such as leasing a spectrum license; and  promulgates regulations for the use of licensed and unlicensed  spectrum. FCC has asserted that its authority to regulate nonfederal  spectrum use applies to the spectrum over tribal lands. In FCC’s 2000  policy statement on establishing its relationship with tribes, FCC stated  that it recognizes that the federal government has a fiduciary  responsibility in its dealings with tribes and has a longstanding policy of  promoting tribal self-sufficiency and economic development. As a result,  FCC has recognized its own general responsibility to tribes.

You asked us to review issues related to spectrum use by tribal entities— tribal governments and telecommunications providers owned by tribes.  This report examines (1) tribal entities’ ability to obtain and access  spectrum to provide broadband services on tribal lands and the reported  barriers that may exist, and (2) the extent to which FCC promotes and  supports tribal efforts to obtain and access spectrum for broadband  services.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant statutes and  regulations, FCC documents, including FCC’s Statement of Policy on  Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian  Tribes, the National Broadband Plan, FCC’s current strategic plan,  and academic and government publications identified through a literature  search of spectrum-related issues on tribal lands.

To obtain information on tribal entities’ ability to obtain and access  spectrum, we identified tribal entities that have applied to participate in  FCC’s spectrum auctions or that have obtained spectrum licenses for  frequency bands that can be used for broadband services by analyzing  FCC data on (1) the participants in all relevant auctions, and (2) spectrum  license holders that were active as of September 6, 2018—the date that  FCC downloaded this data for our review. To identify tribal entities in  these data, we reviewed the list of federally recognized tribes and  identified search terms related to these tribes. We then identified partial  matches between the identified search terms and the FCC data on  auction applicants and license holders, and manually reviewed these  matches based on information from interviews, Internet research, and  professional judgment. Because tribal entities may have applied to  participate in a spectrum auction or may hold spectrum licenses under  names that did not include the search terms we identified based on the  names of federally recognized tribes, there may be additional tribal  entities that we did not include in our analysis. We also analyzed FCC’s  license data to determine how tribal entities obtained these licenses,  including through an FCC auction, administrative assignment, or a  secondary market transaction. To assess the reliability of FCC’s data, we  manually reviewed the data and interviewed FCC officials. Based on the  results of our analysis, we determined the data to be reliable for our  purpose to describe the extent that tribal entities have participated in  auctions and obtained spectrum licenses; however, our analysis does not  capture the extent that tribal entities may have obtained a license that is  no longer active. In addition, we obtained stakeholder views on the  barriers that tribal entities may face in obtaining spectrum licenses by  interviewing 24 tribal entities, 3 tribal associations, 7 private providers that  deliver Internet services over tribal lands, 3 industry associations that  represent rural and urban telecommunications providers, 3 regional  consortia, 3 companies that work with tribal entities, and 1 academic  group. Of the 24 tribal entities we selected to interview, 16 were using  wireless technologies to provide Internet service. We selected tribal  entities to have variation in geographic location, level of broadband  deployment, population size and density, and urban or rural distinction.  We selected other stakeholders to represent a range of views and those  with experience working with Indian tribes and broadband service. The  views presented in our report are not generalizable to those of all  stakeholders.

To determine the extent that FCC promotes and supports tribal entities’  efforts to obtain and access spectrum, we reviewed relevant FCC  rulemaking proceedings. We summarized stakeholder perspectives on  these rulemakings by interviewing the tribal entities, tribal associations,  regional consortia, industry associations, and private providers noted  above, and by reviewing public comments submitted by private providers,  industry and tribal associations, and tribal governments and providers.

We identified FCC’s efforts to provide tribal entities with spectrum-related  assistance and communications by interviewing FCC officials and  reviewing documentation, such as presentations provided at FCC-led  tribal training workshops, e-mail communications with tribal entities, and  public notices related to spectrum use over tribal lands. We also  interviewed FCC officials on the information that they collect, analyze,  and report related to tribal use of spectrum and reviewed related  documentation, including the FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy’s  2012 Annual Report and FCC’s license and auction data. We compared  FCC’s efforts to increase tribal entities’ abilities to obtain and access  spectrum against recommendations made in FCC’s National Broadband  Plan, FCC’s current strategic plan, and Standards for Internal Control  in the Federal Government related to using quality information.  Appendix I describes our scope and methodology in greater detail.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to November  2018 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: The federal government has recognized 573 Indian tribes as distinct,  independent political communities with certain powers of sovereignty and  self-government, including some power to manage the use of their  territory and resources and control economic activity within their  jurisdiction. Some tribal lands include reservations—land set aside by  treaty or other agreement with the United States, executive order, or  federal statute or administrative action for the residence or use of an Indian tribe. Some tribal lands include parcels with different ownership;  for example, parcels may be held in trust by the federal government for  the benefit of a tribe or an individual tribal citizen. Trust and restricted  lands can affect a tribe’s ability to use their land as collateral to obtain a  loan. Tribal lands vary in size, demographics, and location. For example,  the smallest in size are less than one square mile, and the largest, the  Navajo Nation, is more than 24,000 square miles (the size of West  Virginia). Tribal land locations can range from extremely remote, rural  locations to urban areas. Indian tribes may form governments and  subsidiaries to help manage tribal affairs including schools, housing,  health, and economic enterprises.

Internet access in the United States is generally privately financed.  Broadband providers build infrastructure and sell broadband services to  individual consumers. We previously reported that tribal lands can have  conditions that increase the cost of broadband deployment, such as  remote areas with challenging terrain, which increases construction costs,  as well as relatively low population densities and incomes that make it  difficult to recoup deployment costs. These conditions may make it less  likely that a service provider will build or maintain a network. Some tribal  governments provide Internet access to their members, through an  information-technology or utility department, and others have created  their own telecommunications companies to provide services. FCC has  reported that in many instances, tribal governments must build and pay  for their own communications infrastructure to ensure Internet access will  be “delivered across Indian Country.”

The term “broadband” commonly refers to Internet access that is high  speed and provides an “always-on” connection, so users do not have to  reestablish a connection each time they access the Internet.  Telecommunications providers use a range of technologies to provide  broadband service, including cable, fiber, satellite, and wireless. Wireless  broadband connects users to the Internet using spectrum to transmit data  between the customer’s location and the service provider’s facility, and  can be transmitted using fixed wireless and mobile technologies, as  shown in figure 1.

Fixed wireless broadband technologies establish an Internet connection  between fixed points, such as from a radio or antenna that may be  mounted on a tower, to a stationary wireless device located at a home.  This technology generally requires a direct line of sight, and can be  delivered two ways: (1) as a point-to-point transmission—between two  fixed points—or (2) as a point-to-multipoint transmission—from one point  to multiple users. Mobile wireless broadband technologies also establish  a connection to the Internet that requires the installation of antennas, but  this technology provides connectivity to customers wherever they are  covered by service, including while on the move, such as with a cell  phone.

Spectrum is the resource that makes wireless broadband connections  possible. Spectrum frequency bands each have different characteristics  that result in different levels of ability to cover distances, penetrate  physical objects, and carry large amounts of information. For example,  lower frequency bands are able to transmit signals that travel greater  distances, thus requiring the use of fewer antennas, and are able to  penetrate solid objects. Higher frequency bands are able to transmit more  data, but are more easily obstructed.

FCC administers spectrum for nonfederal users—such as state, local  government, and commercial entities—through a system of frequency  allocation and assignment. Allocation involves segmenting the radio  spectrum into bands of frequencies designated for use by particular types  of radio services or classes of users, such as commercial and nonfederal  broadband services. Examples of some of the frequency bands that can  be used by commercial and nonfederal entities for broadband services  are shown in figure 2. Appendix II presents a full list of the auctioned  licensed frequency bands that FCC told us could be used to provide  broadband services.

The frequency bands that can be used for broadband services are either  licensed or unlicensed. For licensed spectrum, FCC can assign licenses  through auctions, in which prospective users bid for the exclusive rights to  transmit on a specific frequency band within geographic areas, ensuring  that interference does not occur. License holders may sell or lease their  license, in whole or in part, to another provider, a process that is known  as a secondary market transaction, with FCC’s approval. FCC requires  license holders to meet specified buildout requirements within a specified  amount of time or face penalties, typically termination of all or part of the  license. These buildout requirements are designed to ensure that  licensees put spectrum to use within a specific period rather than let it sit  idle and vary based on the type of license.

FCC has also assigned licenses administratively in two frequency bands  that can be used for broadband services. Specifically, prior to 1996 FCC  assigned geographic licenses for exclusive use in the Educational  Broadband Service (2496-2690 megahertz (MHz)), and from 2005 to  2015, FCC assigned non-exclusive nationwide licenses in the 3650-3700  MHz band, where use of the band may be shared by other license  holders. FCC also authorizes the use of some spectrum for broadband  services without a license on a non-exclusive basis. With unlicensed  spectrum, an unlimited number of users can share frequencies using  wireless equipment certified by FCC, such as wireless microphones, baby  monitors, and garage door openers. In contrast to users of licensed  spectrum, unlicensed users have no regulatory protection from  interference by other licensed or unlicensed users in the bands. If  multiple users are operating simultaneously on the same frequency band,  the transmissions may be susceptible to interference, which reduces the  quality of service.

FCC’s rulemaking process includes multiple steps as outlined by law with  opportunities for the public to participate during each step. In general,  FCC initiates a rulemaking in response to statutes, petitions for  rulemaking, or its own initiative, and releases a Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking (NPRM) to propose new rules or to change existing rules.  Any interested person may submit comments as part of the public record  through electronic filings and meetings with FCC officials. Following  internal analysis of the public record, FCC staff may propose actions for  consideration for a vote, such as adopting final rules, amending existing  rules, or stating that there will be no changes. All of FCC’s sitting  commissioners vote on these items.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 directed FCC to  develop a plan to ensure every American had access to high-speed  Internet. In March 2010, an FCC task force issued the National  Broadband Plan that included a centralized vision for achieving  affordability and maximizing use of high-speed Internet. The plan made  many recommendations to FCC, including that FCC should take into  account the unique spectrum needs of tribal communities when  implementing spectrum policies and evaluate its policies and rules to  address obstacles to spectrum access by tribal communities. With regard  to tribal lands, the plan recommended that FCC increase its commitment  to government-to-government consultation with tribal leaders and  consider increasing tribal representation in telecommunications planning.  FCC established the Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) in July  2010 to promote the deployment and adoption of communication services  and technologies to all native communities, by, among other things,  ensuring consultation with tribal governments pursuant to FCC policy.

section_title: Selected Tribal Entities Reported Barriers to Obtaining Licensed Spectrum
subsections: section_title: Few Tribal Entities Have Obtained Spectrum Licenses, Although Representatives from Selected Tribal Entities Emphasized the Importance of Licensed Spectrum
paragraphs: Through our analysis of FCC license data as of September 2018, we  identified 18 tribal entities that held active spectrum licenses in bands that  can be used to provide broadband services. Because tribal entities may  hold licenses using entity names that do not include the search terms we  identified in our review of the list of tribes in the Federal Register, there  may be additional tribal entities that we have not identified. We found that  most of the tribal entities obtained the licenses through FCC  administrative assignment rather than through an FCC spectrum auction  or secondary market transaction.

Thirteen of the tribal entities we identified in FCC’s license data held  administratively assigned licenses, and these licenses are subject to  certain limitations and were only available to applicants for limited time  periods. Eleven of these administratively assigned licenses are non- exclusive nationwide licenses in the 3.65 GHz frequency band (3550- 3700 MHz) and were available between 2005 and 2015, when FCC  issued a new rule for this band and stopped accepting new applications  for these licenses. Two of the tribal entities we identified held  administratively assigned Educational Broadband Service licenses in the  2.5 GHz frequency band (2496-2690 MHz). These licenses allow for the  transmission of educational materials by accredited educational  institutions and government organizations, including tribes, engaged in  formal education and require that licensees use the spectrum for  educational purposes for a certain amount of time each week. Both of  these tribal entities obtained these licenses after the last filing window  closed in 1996 through a waiver and special temporary authority permit.

Four tribal entities we identified in FCC’s license data held a total of 13  active licenses obtained through secondary market transactions, such as  leases and sales of portions of partitioned licenses. Of these 13  secondary market transactions, 2 involved nationwide providers.

Two of the tribal entities we identified held active licenses in bands  available for broadband deployment that they obtained through an FCC  spectrum auction. One of these tribal entities won with a winning bid of  over $800,000 in a 2015 auction, and the other won two licenses with  winning bids of under $50,000 in a 2002 auction. This second tribal entity  also qualified for but did not win a 2003 auction. In addition to these two  tribal entities, we identified the following four tribal entities that had  applied to participate in auctions with varying results but did not hold  active licenses in frequency bands available for broadband deployment  as of September 2018:

Two tribal entities each won a single spectrum license. The first won  its license, which has since expired, in 2000, and the second won its  license, which it has since been transferred to a nationwide provider  through a secondary market transaction, in 2003. The first tribal entity  also applied but did not qualify to participate in a 2001 auction.

One tribal entity qualified to participate but did not win in a 2003  auction, and another tribal entity applied but did not qualify to  participate in a 2008 auction.

In addition, representatives from 2 of the 16 tribal entities we interviewed  that were using wireless technologies told us that they use licensed  spectrum that is owned by a private provider through a partnership  relationship. We have previously reported that some tribes have formed  partnership arrangements with other entities to increase broadband  access on tribal lands.

Most (14 of 16) of the tribal entities we contacted that were using wireless  technologies told us that they are accessing various unlicensed bands,  such as the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, to provide service.  Representatives from eight of these tribal entities reported using only  unlicensed spectrum for their fixed wireless networks. Representatives  from 13 tribal entities told us that unlicensed spectrum had the advantage  of being free, and representatives from one tribal entity told us that the  equipment needed to access these spectrum bands is less expensive  than equipment for accessing other spectrum bands. Representatives  from some tribal entities reported success in using unlicensed spectrum  in certain circumstances. For example, one tribal entity reported using  unlicensed spectrum for homes in remote areas where the only potential  signal degradation is from trees as well as to set up local hot spots that  can serve 5 to 10 users at a time. Another tribal entity reported using  primarily unlicensed spectrum to carry signals to end users together with  non-exclusive licensed spectrum (3.65 GHz band) for locations where  there is congestion in the unlicensed bands.

However, representatives from the tribal entities we contacted that were  using wireless technologies emphasized the advantages of licensed  spectrum and discussed their experiences with the limitations of  unlicensed spectrum. As described earlier, exclusive-use spectrum  licenses protect license holders from interference from other users,  whereas unlicensed spectrum provides no protection against interference.  Representatives from 13 of 16 tribal entities identified the fact that  unlicensed spectrum is available at no cost as an advantage of this type  of spectrum. However, representatives from 15 of the 16 tribal entities  identified limitations associated with unlicensed spectrum, such as  interference, as described in table 1.

Tribal associations, an academic group, a tribal consortium, and FCC  have all highlighted the importance of exclusive-use licensed spectrum for  tribal entities. Specifically, both a tribal association and an academic  group we contacted discussed interference and other challenges of  unlicensed spectrum. Representatives from one tribal association pointed  out that unlicensed spectrum might not be available in the future if it is  allocated for other purposes. Representatives from a tribal consortium we  contacted told us that they are already using all of the available  unlicensed spectrum for providing Internet access and that they cannot  expand service without encountering interference and capacity limitations.  Lastly, ONAP reported in 2012 that unlicensed spectrum is not an option  across all tribal lands and that tribal access to robust licensed spectrum is  a critical need.

Representatives from the stakeholders we interviewed told us that there  are also non-technological benefits for tribal entities to obtain greater  access to licensed spectrum. For example:

Enhanced ability to deliver additional Internet service.

Representatives from one of the tribal associations, an academic  group, and six of the tribal entities said that increased access to  licensed spectrum would enable them to deliver their own Internet  services and bridge service gaps, thus improving Internet access to  their members. For example, representatives from three of these tribal  entities said that such access would enable them to deploy in areas  where providers that currently hold licenses were not willing to deliver  services. In addition, representatives from another tribal entity said  that having access to licensed spectrum is one factor that would  enable the tribe to establish its own telecommunications company.

Ability to sell or lease spectrum for profit. Representatives from  one tribal association, an academic group, and two tribal entities told  us that holding spectrum licenses would enable tribal governments to  sell or lease their licenses. For example, we heard from one of these  tribal entities that it was able to sell portions of its license that did not  cover tribal lands and to use the profits from the sale to invest in its  own network infrastructure.

Opportunities for federal funding. Access to licensed spectrum may  also provide tribal entities with more opportunity to obtain federal  funding, specifically through two Universal Service Fund programs— the Mobility Fund and the Tribal Mobility Fund. These programs  provide funding to broadband service providers to expand service in  areas where it is not available, including tribal lands. However, service  providers must hold, lease, or show they have access to licensed  spectrum to participate in these programs, among other  requirements. For example, the National Congress of American  Indians stated that two tribal entities submitted applications to  participate in the Mobility Fund program but were not eligible to  participate in part because they did not hold a spectrum license.  Moreover, representatives from two of the tribal entities we  interviewed told us that they considered applying for one of these  programs but realized they were ineligible because they did not have  access to licensed spectrum.

Furthermore, representatives from one of the tribal associations, an  academic group, and seven of the tribal entities told us that having  access to licensed spectrum would enable tribes to exercise their rights to  sovereignty and self-determination. Representatives from three of the  tribal entities we contacted said that they view spectrum as a natural  resource that should be managed by the tribe. FCC officials, however,  told us that spectrum is not considered a reserved right under treaties  with Indian tribes, as it is not explicitly stated. In addition, representatives  from four of the tribal entities told us that having access to licensed  spectrum would ensure that spectrum is being used in a way that aligns  with tribal goals and community needs, further supporting their rights to  self-determination.

section_title: Representatives from Selected Tribal Entities Reported Cost and Other Barriers to Accessing Licensed Spectrum
paragraphs: Representatives from the tribal entities we contacted identified several  barriers to accessing licensed spectrum through spectrum auctions and  secondary market transactions. Regarding spectrum auctions,  representatives from tribal entities that provide wireless Internet service  most frequently (13 of 16) indicated that spectrum licenses are too  expensive for tribal entities. For example, over 60 percent (983 of 1,611)  of the winning bids from a 2015 spectrum auction, including bids for  spectrum over non-tribal lands, were over $1 million. Representatives  from one tribal entity explained that auction licenses are often too  expensive for tribal entities because these licenses cover large  geographic areas that may include non-tribal urban areas as well as rural  tribal areas. Moreover, representatives from eight tribal entities stated that  they are unable to obtain financing to participate in auctions because  tribal governments cannot use tribal lands as collateral to obtain loans. In  addition, representatives from eight tribal entities mentioned that  participating in spectrum auctions requires auction-specific expertise that  tribal entities may not have.

Tribal entities also face barriers obtaining spectrum through secondary  market transactions. Most of the spectrum allocated for commercial use  has already been assigned through spectrum auctions and other  mechanisms to private providers, including licensees that may not be  providing service on tribal lands. In a single geographic area, several frequency bands could be used to deploy broadband services, as shown  in figure 2, and licenses for these various frequency bands may be held  by different providers. There may be tribal areas where providers hold  licenses for bands but are not using the spectrum to provide Internet  access. In other tribal areas, services may be offered using one or two of  the spectrum licenses with the other licenses in the area remaining fallow  and inaccessible to tribal entities. All three of the tribal associations we  contacted confirmed that there are unused spectrum licenses over tribal  lands, and representatives from a nationwide provider indicated that they  only deploy services if there is a business case to support doing so.  Accordingly, the secondary market is one of few avenues available to  tribal entities that would like to access licensed spectrum. However,  representatives from tribal entities we contacted identified the following  challenges related to participating in the secondary market:

Lack of willing sellers. Representatives from eight of the tribal  entities, one of the tribal representative groups, and an industry  association we contacted indicated that spectrum license holders are  often unwilling to participate in secondary market transactions, citing a  variety of reasons. For example, representatives from one tribal entity  stated that large carriers have no business incentive to negotiate  secondary market agreements with tribal entities and that tribal  entities do not have the resources to make such transactions  sufficiently lucrative for license holders. Representatives from another  tribal entity stated that license holders may lack knowledge about the  areas covered by their licenses, including tribal areas, and therefore  may be unwilling to consider secondary market transactions.  Representatives from a tribal representative group told us that license  holders may be unwilling to consider secondary market transactions  with tribal entities because spectrum is a valuable resource that may  become even more valuable over time, and a representative from an  industry association indicated that transaction costs such as legal fees  outweigh any potential income from such transactions. None of the  private providers we contacted reported entering into a secondary  market transaction with tribal entities, but one of these providers  stated that it had never been approached by a tribal entity interested  in a secondary market transaction and was unaware of challenges  that are unique to tribal entities.

License holders unknown. Representatives from eight of the tribal  entities we contacted stated that it is difficult to determine who holds  spectrum licenses. For example, two tribal entities had to hire  consultants to identify who held licenses for spectrum over the tribes’  lands, and another tribal entity relied on the expertise of its non-tribal  partner to identify the license holders.

Unaware of secondary market transactions. Representatives from  six of the tribal entities we contacted were unaware of the possibility  of accessing licensed spectrum through a secondary market  transaction prior to our contacting them.

Accordingly, secondary market transactions involving tribal entities are  rare. As discussed above, our analysis of FCC license data identified four  tribal entities that have successfully accessed licensed spectrum in this  manner. Regarding one of these tribal entities’ experiences with the  secondary market, the tribal representative we contacted stated that an  Indian-owned telecommunications consulting company was pivotal in  identifying the license holder and facilitating the transaction and that the  transaction would not have happened without the consulting company.  Representatives from this company told us that they conducted an  analysis to identify unused spectrum licenses over the tribe’s land. The  company identified three providers holding such licenses, but only one of  those providers was willing to participate in a secondary market  transaction. Representatives from another of the tribal entities that  accessed licensed spectrum through the secondary market told us that  they relied on the expertise of their non-tribal partner to facilitate these  transactions.

section_title: FCC Has Some Efforts to Enhance Tribal Access to Spectrum, but FCC Does Not Collect or Communicate Key Information to Tribal Entities
subsections: section_title: FCC Has Taken Steps to Promote and Support Tribal Entities’ Ability to Obtain Spectrum, However These Efforts Are Not Likely to Address Tribal Spectrum Needs
paragraphs: We found that FCC has taken the following actions to increase tribal  access to and use of spectrum: (1) initiated proposed rulemakings on  promoting tribal access to spectrum, (2) adopted rules to increase  spectrum available for broadband use, and (3) conducted outreach and  training for tribal entities on spectrum-related issues.
subsections: section_title: Initiated Proposed Rulemakings on Promoting Tribal Access to Spectrum
paragraphs: FCC issued two NPRMs—one in March 2011 and one in May 2018—that  included policy options intended to enhance tribal access to spectrum. At  the time of our report, FCC had not adopted new rules or taken further  action on the 2011 rulemaking, and FCC had not taken further actions  since the comments period ended on September 7, 2018, on the May  2018 rulemaking. According to FCC officials, the 2011 NPRM  addressed several recommendations made in the National Broadband  Plan to promote the greater use of spectrum over tribal lands. Among  other things, the 2011 NPRM sought comments on three proposals to  create new spectrum access opportunities for tribal entities (see fig. 3).  FCC officials told us that they have reviewed public comments to the  proposed rulemaking, but have no current plans to take further actions.

We reviewed the public comments FCC received that pertained to the  three proposals, which included comments from tribal associations, tribal  governments, rural and nationwide industry associations, and tribal and  private providers. Based on our analysis of the comments that included  positions on the proposal for a tribal licensing priority, eight  stakeholders—including industry associations, private providers, and a  tribal government—were supportive of this proposal. However, we found  that stakeholder views differed on implementing good faith negotiations and on the build-or-divest processes. In general, the tribal stakeholders  indicated that they were supportive of these proposals, while the industry  associations and private providers were not. In addition to reviewing the  public comments, we asked representatives from the tribal and industry  associations and private providers that we interviewed about their views  of these proposals. Representatives from the three tribal associations  and two rural industry associations were generally supportive of all three  of the proposals, while representatives from one of the private providers  that we interviewed told us they did not support any of the three  proposals, because, for example, they said that there are more effective  ways to increase broadband service over tribal lands. Representatives  from another private provider said that they supported the tribal priority  process but did not indicate their views on the other two proposals.  Representatives from six tribal entities and a representative from a tribal  consortium told us that these types of proposals would help them obtain  spectrum.

In May 2018, FCC issued an NPRM that sought comments on  establishing a tribal priority window for tribal nations located in rural areas  as part of a process to re-license the Educational Broadband Service  spectrum band. As described above, FCC originally allocated this band  to qualifying educational institutions and government organizations for the  transmission of educational materials. While FCC permitted licensees to  lease their excess capacity to commercial providers, FCC reported that  significant portions of this band were not being used, primarily in rural  areas. In an effort to make additional spectrum available for broadband  use, FCC issued this NPRM seeking comments on options to promote the  use of this spectrum over tribal lands. One of the options included  implementing a local priority filing window so that tribal entities could get  access to unassigned spectrum prior to an FCC auction. In a June 2018  order, FCC extended the comment deadline for the NPRM to August 8,  2018, partly in response to a request for a deadline extension. As a result,  FCC also extended the deadline to respond to those comments to  September 7, 2018. Because FCC was in the process of responding to  these comments at the time of our review, we did not analyze these  comments.

section_title: Adopted Rules to Allocate Additional Spectrum for Broadband Use
paragraphs: FCC has made additional unlicensed and licensed spectrum available for  broadband use and has implemented rules that according to FCC, may  make it easier for rural providers to obtain licenses. However, these  efforts were not targeted to tribal entities, and according to ONAP’s 2012  report, allocating additional unlicensed spectrum may not be a technically  feasible solution for all tribal entities, and such spectrum may not have  the necessary capacity to handle an increase in users. In addition,  representatives from the tribal associations and entities we contacted told  us that there are limitations to the extent that these efforts can address  the spectrum needs of tribal entities. In particular, they discussed the  effect of FCC’s changes to the rules on the use of TV white space  spectrum and the Citizens Broadband Radio Service spectrum:

TV white space spectrum: In 2010, FCC made additional unlicensed  spectrum available for broadband use by allowing providers to  operate in the TV bands at locations where those frequencies were  not in use, known as TV white space, but none of the tribal entities  we interviewed was using this spectrum. A representative from a tribal  consortium said that it used TV white space spectrum, and  representatives from three of the tribal entities said that they were  considering using it in the future because TV white space spectrum  can better pass through some environmental barriers, such as trees,  reaching more remote customers. However, representatives from five  tribal entities, one tribal consortium, one academic group, and three  companies that we interviewed told us about several limitations to the  use of TV white space spectrum. For example:  limited bandwidth capacity, which causes lower speeds, high  latency, and limits the number of households that can be served; equipment needed to access TV whitespace spectrum is  expensive and less available;  the spectrum may not always be available; and  similar to other unlicensed frequency bands, as described above,  there is potential for interference and difficulty to pass through  extreme terrain.

Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) Spectrum: In 2015, FCC  made additional licensed spectrum available for broadband use when  it issued a new rule for the 3.65 GHz frequency band (3550-3700  MHz). However the tribal entities who held licenses in this band  indicated there are limitations to their ability to use this band and their  future use of this spectrum remains unknown. As described earlier,  FCC had allocated non-exclusive nationwide licenses in this band. In  the 2015 rule, FCC created the CBRS, increased the amount of  spectrum allocated for commercial broadband use, and implemented  a new licensing scheme. This three-tier priority licensing scheme for  spectrum sharing included auctioning exclusive-use geographic  licenses and allowing non-exclusive use of the band where a license  holder is not operating, an approach that is intended to provide a low- cost entry point for users, but will have no protections from  interference. Representatives from four of the five tribal entities that  we contacted that held licenses in this band said that there were  technical advantages to using it, such as the ability for a signal to  pass through dense forests. However, representatives from two tribal  entities said that the high cost of the equipment needed to access this  spectrum prevented them from either using the frequency band  extensively or at all. In addition, representatives from two tribal entities  said that they were not sure about their ability to access this band in  the future given the changes made in FCC’s 2015 rulemaking.  FCC’s 2015 rule also created small-sized and shorter-termed  licenses, which FCC stated would decrease the costs of obtaining a  license and help rural providers access it. However, FCC issued an  NPRM in 2017 that sought comments on suggested changes to  CBRS, including increasing the geographic area covered by licenses  and lengthening the license term. In October 2018, FCC adopted  rules that, among other changes, increased the license area from  census tracks to counties and extended the license term from 3 to 10  years, which FCC officials told us were modest changes made to  accomplish FCC’s goals of creating incentives for investment,  including in urban and rural areas, encouraging efficient spectrum  use, and promoting robust network deployments.

section_title: Conducted Outreach and Training for Tribal Entities on Spectrum-Related Issues
paragraphs: FCC’s ONAP conducts training, consultation, and outreach to tribal  entities on spectrum-related issues. For example, ONAP officials told us  that they have conducted 21 training and consultation workshops for tribal  entities on broadband and telecom since 2012, where spectrum has been  discussed in general in the introduction and has been addressed  specifically in separate sessions in some of the workshops. These  officials also told us that they communicate with tribal entities prior to  when FCC holds auctions or when implementing regulatory actions or  policies that will affect tribal governments and spectrum over their lands.  While representatives from 9 of the 16 tribal entities using wireless  technologies told us that they had received some outreach on spectrum- related issues from FCC, representatives from 2 of these entities said that  they had not. In addition, ONAP issued a report in 2012 to provide FCC  with a review of its work with tribal governments and organizations,  including information on its tribal broadband efforts, priorities, and tribal  consultations. Among other things, the report included case-study  information on tribal entities’ efforts to access spectrum. Although the  report stated that this would be the first of such annual reporting, this is  the only report that ONAP has issued on tribal issues. According to ONAP  officials, ONAP has not published subsequent reports because it provides  FCC with information on its work with tribal governments and  organizations, including spectrum-related matters, through more frequent  informal briefings and regular updates.

section_title: FCC Does Not Collect Key Information Related to Spectrum over Tribal Lands or Communicate It to Tribal Entities
paragraphs: FCC has not consistently collected information related to tribal access to  spectrum. For example, FCC does not collect data on whether holders of  spectrum licenses or auction applicants are tribal entities even though it  collects self-reported data on licensee type, such as corporation and  government entity. To obtain this information, FCC could include an  option for the licensee type, along with the other options, in applications  for future licenses and auctions that allows an applicant to identify as a  tribal government or tribally owned entity. FCC officials told us that they  use information on licensee type to determine eligibility for a license.  Because eligibility is not based on whether the applicant is a tribal entity,  FCC officials said this information is not needed. However, without this  information, FCC does not have a comprehensive understanding of the  extent that tribal entities are attempting to obtain or access licensed  spectrum or have been successful at obtaining and accessing it.

Additionally, FCC does not analyze information on unused licensed  spectrum that exists over tribal lands, even though FCC has  information—broadband availability data from providers and information  on geographic areas covered by spectrum licenses—that could be used  for such analysis. As we described earlier, representatives from all three  of the tribal associations we contacted reported that there are unused  spectrum licenses over tribal lands that could present opportunities  through the secondary market for tribal entities to obtain spectrum. When  we asked FCC officials why they do not analyze the extent that unused  spectrum licenses exists over tribal lands, they told us that the spectrum  data noted above is not specific enough to allow for a license by license  analysis of unused spectrum. For example, they said that broadband  availability data from providers is aggregated across wide spectrum  bands to minimize reporting burdens on the wireless industry, and the  data are not sufficiently detailed to identify which spectrum blocks and  licenses are being used in particular areas. However, FCC could use this  data to conduct, at a minimum, high-level analysis that would result in  useful information on the extent to which unused spectrum exists over  tribal lands. In addition, FCC officials told us that they evaluate the  effectiveness of FCC’s secondary markets policies, which FCC views as  a mechanism to promote the increased use of unused spectrum licenses,  but this approach does not include an analysis of unused spectrum  licenses as part of these efforts. As a result, FCC’s evaluations of the  secondary market may not accurately reflect how these policies affect  tribal access to spectrum. Because the secondary market is one of few  ways for tribal entities to access licensed spectrum, an analysis of unused  licensed spectrum that exists over tribal lands would enable FCC to better  promote a robust secondary market that provides additional opportunities  for tribes to access spectrum.

FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan stated that ongoing measurement  of spectrum utilization should be developed to better understand how  spectrum resources are being used because some studies indicated that  spectrum goes unused in many places much of the time. The plan also  stated that any spectrum utilization studies that FCC conducts should  identify tribal lands as distinct entities. In FCC’s February 2018 strategic  plan, FCC stated that it will implement ongoing initiatives that will assist in  spectrum policy planning and decision making, promote a robust  secondary market in spectrum, and improve communications services in  all areas of the United States, including tribal areas. Additionally,  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  agencies should use quality information, including information that is  complete, to inform the decision-making processes.

FCC also does not make information on spectrum-license holders  available in an easy or accessible manner; such information could be  beneficial to the tribes in their efforts to obtain spectrum in the secondary  market. As described earlier, the secondary market is a significant  mechanism for tribal entities to obtain spectrum licenses, but  representatives from the tribal entities we interviewed reported challenges  related to participating in the secondary market, such as not knowing  whom to contact should they wish to engage in a secondary market  transaction to obtain a spectrum license. In July 2014, FCC stopped  updating its spectrum dashboard, which provided the public with a way to  identify who holds licenses in what areas, including features that allowed  users to identify spectrum allocated and assigned in tribal lands. ONAP  stated in its 2012 report that this feature represented the first step for  individual tribal entities to reach out to licensees and seek leasing,  partnership, or other arrangements that could ultimately result in the  provision of service over tribal lands. FCC officials told us that the public  may view electronic records of all wireless spectrum licenses in FCC’s  Universal Licensing System, using a wide range of license and  geographic parameters, such as licensee names, radio services,  spectrum bands, and geographic locations. However, we attempted to  navigate the Universal Licensing System to determine spectrum-license  holders for specific tribal lands using geographic parameters, but we were  unable to successfully do so because the system is so difficult to use.  Furthermore, as described above, representatives from eight of the tribal  entities that we contacted stated that it is difficult to determine who holds  spectrum licenses. When we asked FCC officials why they do not  communicate information to tribes about spectrum-related transactions  over tribal lands, FCC officials also told us that they issue public notices  on applications for all proposed spectrum transactions and on the winning  bidders of all auctions, but they have not made it a practice to reach out  directly to tribes to make them aware of when providers have obtained  spectrum licenses that cover tribal lands.

The National Broadband Plan stated that FCC should make data  available that would promote a robust secondary market for spectrum  licenses, such as information on how and to whom spectrum is allocated  on tribal lands. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government state the need for federal agencies to communicate with  external entities and to enable these entities to provide quality information  to the agency that will help it achieve its objectives. Tribal governments  are an example of such external entities. The ability of tribal governments to make informed spectrum planning decisions and to participate in  secondary market transactions is diminished without information from  FCC on the spectrum transactions that occur over tribal lands. Providing  this information in a manner that is accessible and easy for tribal entities  to obtain could enable them to enter into leasing, partnership, or other  arrangements to obtain spectrum.

section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Broadband service on tribal lands continues to lag behind the rest of the  country, especially on rural tribal lands, which could hinder tribal efforts to  promote self-governance, economic opportunity, education, public safety,  and cultural preservation. FCC has reported that wireless technologies  that access spectrum to deliver broadband services are cost-effective for  remote and sparsely populated areas, such as tribal lands. However,  FCC’s efforts to promote and support tribal entities’ access to spectrum  have done little to increase tribal use of spectrum, as only very few tribes  are accessing spectrum to be able to provide Internet service.  Additionally, FCC lacks information that could help inform its decision- making processes related to spectrum policy planning, which is intended  to improve communications services in all areas of the United States,  including tribal lands. By collecting data on the extent that tribal entities  are obtaining and accessing spectrum, FCC could better understand tribal  spectrum issues and use this information as it implements ongoing  spectrum initiatives. Furthermore, the secondary market is one of few  ways for tribal entities to access licensed spectrum to be able to provide  Internet service, and FCC has recognized the importance of promoting a  robust secondary market. FCC could promote a more robust secondary  market by analyzing data to better understand how much unused licensed  spectrum exists over tribal lands and using that information to promulgate  regulations and to evaluate how FCC policies affect tribal participation in  the secondary market. Additionally, by making information on who holds  spectrum licenses over tribal lands more accessible and easy to  understand, FCC could remove a barrier tribes may face in attempting to  obtain spectrum through the secondary market.

section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We are making the following three recommendations to the Chairman of  FCC.

The Chairman of FCC should collect data on the extent that tribal  entities are obtaining and accessing spectrum and use this  information as FCC implements ongoing spectrum initiatives.  (Recommendation 1)

The Chairman of FCC should analyze data to better understand the  extent that unused spectrum licenses exist over tribal lands, such as  by analyzing the data for a sample of tribal lands, and as appropriate  use this information to inform its oversight of the secondary market.  (Recommendation 2)

The Chairman of FCC should make information on spectrum-license  holders more accessible and easy to understand for interested  parties, including tribal entities, to promote their ability to purchase or  lease spectrum licenses from other providers. (Recommendation 3)

section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to FCC for comment. In its comments,  reproduced in appendix III, FCC agreed with the recommendations. FCC  also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Chairman of FCC, and other interested parties. In  addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 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 key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.

section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report examines (1) what is known about the ability of tribal entities  to obtain and access spectrum to provide broadband services on tribal  lands and the reported barriers that may exist; and (2) the extent to which  the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) promotes and supports  tribal entities’ ability to obtain and access spectrum for broadband  services.

To address both objectives, we reviewed relevant statutes and  regulations and FCC documents, including FCC’s Statement of Policy on  Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian  Tribes, the National Broadband Plan, and FCC’s current strategic plan.  We interviewed FCC officials and representatives from 3 tribal  associations, 7 private providers that deliver Internet services over tribal  lands, 3 industry associations that represent rural and urban  telecommunications providers, 3 regional consortia, 3 companies that  work with tribal entities, and 1 academic group. In addition, we selected  24 tribal entities—13 Indian tribes and nations and 11 tribally owned  providers—to interview.

To identify tribal entities that were using wireless technologies, we  obtained recommendations from stakeholders, reviewed data on relevant  federal grants, such as the Broadband Technology Opportunities  Program, and conducted Internet research. We then selected 16 tribal  entities considering (1) stakeholder suggestions, (2) population, (3)  population density, and (4) urban or rural designation. We visited 7 of  these tribes in Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington State. The views  represented in our report are not generalizable to those of all  stakeholders. See table 2 for a complete listing of the entities we  interviewed. We also conducted a literature review to identify relevant  academic, government, and media publications that were published  between January 1, 2013, and January 11, 2018, that discuss the  importance of and options to enhance tribal access to spectrum.

To identify tribal entities that applied to participate in spectrum auctions or  that held active spectrum licenses in bands that can be used to provide  broadband service, we analyzed (1) FCC data on entities that applied to  participate in auctions for spectrum in these bands and (2) FCC data on  spectrum licenses in these bands that were active as of September 6,  2018. We also analyzed FCC license data, together with license  information publicly available through FCC’s Universal Licensing System,  to determine whether the tribal entities that held active licenses obtained  those licenses through an FCC spectrum auction, administrative  assignment, or the secondary market. We then reviewed the list of  federally recognized tribes in the Federal Register and identified search  terms related to these tribes. For example, we identified the following  search terms based on the federally recognized tribe, Yurok Tribe of the  Yurok Reservation, California, “Reservation, Tribe, and Yurok.” We then  used the identified search terms to search for tribal entities in FCC’s data  on auction participants and spectrum license holders. We manually  reviewed these matches to identify tribal entities based on information  from interviews, Internet research, and professional judgment. Because  tribal entities may have applied to participate in spectrum auctions or may  hold spectrum licenses under names not associated with their tribes,  there may be additional tribal entities that we were unable to identify.  Through interviews with FCC officials and review of related  documentation, we determined that the license and auction participant  data are sufficiently reliable for our purpose of identifying some tribal  entities that have applied to participate in a spectrum auction or held  active spectrum licenses as of September 2018. However, our analysis  does not capture the extent that tribal entities may have obtained a  license that is no longer active. To identify tribal entities that used  unlicensed spectrum to deliver unlicensed service, we interviewed the  tribal entities identified above. In addition, we obtained stakeholder views  on the advantages and disadvantages of using unlicensed and licensed  frequency bands and any barriers that tribal entities face in obtaining  spectrum licenses by interviewing the selected stakeholders noted above.

To determine the extent to which FCC promotes and supports tribal  entities’ efforts to obtain and access spectrum, first, we reviewed FCC’s  proposals in its ongoing 2011 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In the  Matter of Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by  Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands and its  ongoing 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In the Matter of  Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band. We summarized public comments  submitted, as of August 2018, by private and tribal providers, rural and  nationwide industry associations, tribal associations, and tribal  governments on FCC’s 2011 proposed rulemaking. We did not analyze  comments on FCC’s 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking because FCC  was in the process of responding to these comments at the time of our  review. Second, we reviewed rules that FCC officials identified that  increased the availability of unlicensed and licensed frequency bands for  broadband use and that may be particularly useful for tribal entities.  These rules included FCC’s 2010 and 2012 rules related to TV white  space spectrum and its 2015 rule and 2017 Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking related to the Citizens Broadband Radio Services (CBRS)  spectrum. We identified tribal entities that had been using CBRS  frequency bands by reviewing FCC licensed data and TV white space  frequency bands through interviews with tribal entities and regional  consortia. Third, we identified FCC’s outreach activities to provide tribal  entities with assistance on spectrum-related issues by interviewing FCC  officials and reviewing documentation on the content of FCC-led trainings  and workshops, e-mail correspondences, and related publications, such as public notices. Lastly, we interviewed FCC officials on the information  that they collect, analyze, and report related to tribal use of spectrum and  reviewed related documentation, including FCC’s Office of Native Affairs  and Policy 2012 Annual Report and FCC’s license and auction data. We  interviewed stakeholders, as noted above, and summarized their views of  FCC efforts. We also compared FCC’s efforts against FCC’s 2018-2022  strategic plan, recommendations made in FCC’s National Broadband  Plan, and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  related to using quality information.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to November  2018 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: Auctioned Licensed Spectrum Available for Commercial Broadband Services
paragraphs: We identified the spectrum frequency bands that the Federal  Communications Commission (FCC) has made available for commercial  broadband services and that FCC assigns licenses through auctions.  Table 3 describes these licenses, including the number and date of  related auctions.

section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission

section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sally Moino (Assistant Director),  Anne Doré (Analyst in Charge), Enyinnaya David Aja, Katherine Blair,  Stephen Brown, Camilo Flores, Georgeann Higgins, John Mingus, Josh  Ormond, Frank Rusco, Rebecca Rygg, Jay Spaan, Andrew Stavisky,  James Sweetman, Jr., Hai Tran, and Michelle Weathers made key  contributions to this report.

Fast facts: Broadband Internet service is essential to many aspects of modern life, so it's important to make sure everyone has access. Yet tribal lands, especially in rural areas, are still underserved.

In such areas, wireless broadband can help keep people connected. However, the Federal Communications Commission has done little to promote and support tribes' access to radio frequency spectrum that can be used for such wireless service.

We made 3 recommendations to the FCC to help improve tribes' access.

Question-summary annotations: questions: question: Why is licensed spectrum preferred?
answer: Licensed spectrum is generally preferred because it offers better quality of service compared to unlicensed spectrum; however, almost all of the tribal entities GAO contacted said that they are accessing unlicensed spectrum to provide Internet service.

question: What barriers do tribal entities face in obtaining licensed spectrum?
answer: The tribal entities GAO contacted cited various barriers to obtaining spectrum licenses in bands that can be used to provide broadband services. They identified barriers to obtaining licensed spectrum through auctions and secondary market transactions, barriers such as high costs and, in the case of secondary market transactions, a lack of information on who holds licenses over tribal lands.
child_questions: question: Despite barriers, how have some entities obtained licensed spectrum?
answer: For example, of these 18 tribal entities, 4 obtained licenses through secondary market transactions—that is, they bought or leased the license from another provider, and 2 obtained a license through an FCC spectrum auction.

question: Why is secondary market one of the few avenues available to tribal entities that would like to access licensed spectrum?
answer: Because most spectrum allocated for commercial use has already been assigned, the secondary market is one of very few avenues available to tribal entities that would like to access licensed spectrum.
child_questions: question: To what extent did the identified tribal entities seek secondary market transactions?
answer: For example, of these 18 tribal entities, 4 obtained licenses through secondary market transactions—that is, they bought or leased the license from another provider, and 2 obtained a license through an FCC spectrum auction.

questions: question: What has FCC done to promote and support tribal access to spectrum?
answer: For example, FCC issued proposed rulemakings in 2011 and 2018 that sought comment on tribal-specific proposals, such as establishing tribal-licensing priorities and initiating processes to transfer unused spectrum licenses to tribal entities.
child_questions: question: What does FCC still need to do?
answer: However, FCC has not finalized these rules and is in the process of responding to comments to the 2018 rulemaking.

question: What are the advantages and disadvantages of the bands FCC has allowed broadband providers to operate in?
answer: While stakeholders GAO interviewed cited some advantages of these bands, such as being useful to reach remote customers, they also noted technical and cost limitations that reduced the potential to improve tribal access to spectrum.

question: What did GAO find about FCC regarding tribal use of spectrum?
answer: However, GAO found that FCC has not collected data related to tribal access to spectrum, analyzed unused licensed spectrum that exists over tribal lands, or made data available to tribal entities in an accessible and easy manner that could be beneficial in their efforts to obtain spectrum licenses from other providers.

question: How could FCC better understand tribal spectrum issues?
answer: By collecting data on the extent that tribal entities are obtaining and accessing spectrum, FCC could better understand tribal spectrum issues and use this information as it implements ongoing spectrum initiatives.
child_questions: question: How could FCC promote a more robust secondary market?
answer: Further, given that the secondary market is one of few ways for tribal entities to access licensed spectrum to be able to provide Internet service, FCC could promote a more robust secondary market by analyzing unused licensed spectrum over tribal lands and using that information to inform FCC's oversight of the secondary market.

question: How could FCC remove barriers tribes face?
answer: Additionally, by making information available on who holds spectrum licenses over tribal lands, FCC could remove a barrier tribes may face in attempting to obtain spectrum through the secondary market.

question: What did the FCC state regarding promoting a robust secondary market throughout the U.S., including tribal lands?
answer: FCC stated that it is implementing spectrum initiatives and recognizes the importance of promoting a robust secondary market to improve communications throughout the United States, including tribal lands.

questions: question: How do percentages of Americans on tribal lands and Americans overall that lack broadband service compare?
answer: In 2018, FCC estimated that 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands lack broadband service compared to 8 percent of Americans overall.

question: How can broadband service be delivered?
answer: Broadband service can be delivered through wireless technologies using radio frequency spectrum.

question: What would be the result of increasing tribal access to spectrum?
answer: According to FCC, increasing tribal access to spectrum would help expand broadband service on tribal lands.
child_questions: question: Given this information, what was GAO asked to review?
answer: GAO was asked to review spectrum use by tribal entities—tribal governments and tribally owned telecommunications providers.

questions: question: What does this report examine?
answer: This report examines (1) tribal entities' ability to obtain and access spectrum to provide broadband services and the reported barriers that may exist, and (2) the extent to which FCC promotes and supports tribal efforts to obtain and access spectrum.
child_questions: question: What did GAO analyze for this report?
answer: GAO analyzed FCC's license and auction data as of September 2018, reviewed FCC's rulemakings on spectrum for broadband services, and interviewed other tribal and industry stakeholders and FCC officials.

question: How did GAO get information for this report?
answer: GAO interviewed 16 tribal entities that were using wireless technologies. Selected entities varied geographically, among other characteristics. GAO analyzed FCC's license and auction data as of September 2018, reviewed FCC's rulemakings on spectrum for broadband services, and interviewed other tribal and industry stakeholders and FCC officials.