Tribal officials we interviewed for our January 2016 report said they place a high priority on institutional and personal Internet access because of the numerous benefits, including the following: Economic Development: Officials from most tribes said high-speed Internet is essential for economic development such as finding employment or establishing online businesses. FCC also found that community access to Internet services is critical in facilitating job placement, career advancement, and other uses that help to stimulate economic activity. Education: Officials from many tribes stated that high-speed Internet access at schools supports educational success. For example, access can allow students to conduct online testing or to watch online lectures. Health: About half of the tribes said that high-speed Internet access to support telemedicine was important to the tribe, particularly in rural or remote areas. Officials from all 21 tribes we interviewed said that Internet service existed on at least some of their lands at varying connection speeds, ranging from less than 1 Mbps to over 25 Mbps. Some of the tribes we interviewed had at least some fiber optic high-speed Internet connections while others had slower copper lines, only mobile service, or only satellite service. Many of the tribal lands where we held interviews had some level of mobile Internet service but only a few had 4G mobile high-speed Internet services. Others had no mobile service. Further, officials from about half of the tribes we interviewed described important limitations to their Internet services, including higher than usual costs, small data allocations, slow download speeds, and unreliable connections. In January 2016, we found that the barriers to improvements in high- speed Internet service on tribal lands are interrelated. The rugged terrain and rural location as well as tribal members’ limited ability to pay for high- speed Internet service were tribes’ and private providers’ most commonly cited impediments. Many tribal officials and all six providers we interviewed said these barriers can deter private investment in infrastructure needed to connect remote towns and villages to a service provider’s core network—known as the middle-mile. Middle-mile infrastructure may include burying fiber optic or copper cables, stringing cable on existing poles, or erecting towers for wireless microwave links, which relay wireless Internet connections from tower to tower through radio spectrum. Tribal lands, located far from urban areas, may not have the middle-mile infrastructure necessary for providers to deploy high- speed Internet. Tribal officials and providers we interviewed also cited limited financial resources as a barrier to high-speed Internet access. Of the 21 tribes we interviewed, many reported poverty and affordability as drivers of low subscribership to existing Internet services or as a barrier to broadening the availability of services. Poverty rates among the tribes we interviewed varied, but many were well above the 2014 national average of 15.5 percent. Two of the providers we interviewed discussed non-payment among tribal households as a disincentive to Internet service provision. One provider said that the customers it serves on tribal lands had non- payment rates double that of other customer groups, and that these rates often follow seasonal employment patterns. About half of the tribes we interviewed told us that a lack of tribal members with sufficient bureaucratic and technical expertise was a common barrier to increasing high-speed Internet access on tribal lands. Tribal officials said that tribal members do not always have the bureaucratic expertise required to apply for federal funds, which can lead to mistakes or the need to hire consultants. A lack of technical expertise also affects tribes’ ability to interact with private-sector Internet providers. For the seven tribes we interviewed that either had a tribally-owned provider or were in the process of establishing one, three of them said that the lack of expertise in the tribe was a challenge to establishing a tribally-owned telecommunications provider for high-speed Internet deployment. To address this, in the early 2000s, FCC held a number of Indian telecommunications initiatives, regional workshops, and roundtables. In fiscal year 2012, the FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy consulted with about 200 tribal nations, many during six separate one- to three-day telecommunications training and consultation sessions on tribal lands. These included the Native Learning Labs, where attendees could, for example, learn about data the FCC has available on spectrum licensing and USF programs, among other things. The Office held seven training workshops in fiscal years 2014 and 2015, and plans to offer more in fiscal year 2016. The goal of this new series of sessions is to provide tribal officials with information about funding opportunities and policy changes with respect to high-speed Internet, USF programs, and spectrum issues. In January 2016, we found that FCC and USDA implement mutually supportive, interrelated high-speed Internet access programs that offer funding to either tribal entities or service providers to achieve the goal of increased access. Tribal officials we interviewed said that both FCC’s and USDA’s programs were important for the expansion of high-speed Internet service on their lands. Tribes sometimes qualify for benefits from more than one of these programs, either directly or through private-sector Internet providers. Eligibility requirements are based on the need of an area as well as deployment requirements. Table 1 identifies three universal service programs that subsidize telecommunications carriers and services to areas that include tribal lands and two RUS grant programs. While FCC and USDA programs that promote high-speed Internet access on tribal lands are interrelated, we found that they are not always well coordinated. Our body of work has shown that interagency coordination can help agencies with interrelated programs ensure efficient use of resources and effective programs. Agencies can enhance and sustain their coordinated efforts by engaging in key practices, such as establishing compatible policies and procedures through official agreements. Agencies can also develop means to operate across agency boundaries, including leveraging resources across agencies for joint activities such as training and outreach. One area lacking coordination between FCC and USDA is their outreach and technical assistance efforts. FCC and USDA independently conduct outreach and training efforts for related programs promoting Internet access. For example, while FCC officials said they invite USDA officials to FCC training workshops and are sometimes invited to USDA training workshops, they said that they do not coordinate to develop joint outreach or training events. Synchronizing these activities could be a resource- saving mechanism, which could result in a more efficient use of limited federal resources, an opportunity for resource leveraging between the two agencies and a cost-savings to the tribes attending training events. For example, USDA held a training event in Washington State in fiscal year 2015 and FCC hosted a training event in Oregon the same year. The two agencies could have planned a joint training event in the Pacific Northwest Region—each contributing to the cost of the event—that would have reduced the cost burdens for tribes. Tribal members with limited budgets would not have had to travel twice or choose between the two training events. Better coordination on conferences, as feasible, could help FCC and USDA reach a broader audience and increase the value of their outreach to tribes. To this end, we recommended in January 2016 that FCC develop joint outreach and training efforts with USDA whenever feasible to help improve Internet availability and adoption on tribal lands. FCC concurred with our recommendation and summarized the areas in which it coordinates with USDA and said that it will continue to work with USDA to ensure more strategic and routine coordination. For example, FCC invited USDA officials to participate in all tribal consultation and training events planned for 2016. FCC defines Internet availability as the presence of Internet service in an area, and Internet adoption as the number of people in the area subscribing to Internet service. In 2006, we found that data on the rate of availability and adoption of Internet on tribal lands was unknown because no federal survey had been designed to capture this information. We recommended that additional data be identified to help assess progress towards providing access to telecommunications, including high-speed Internet, for Native Americans living on tribal lands. Since then, as discussed in our January 2016 report, the federal government has started collecting data on Internet availability and adoption. However, as of December 2015, FCC has not identified the performance goals and measures it intends to achieve for broadband availability or adoption on tribal lands. In 2011, The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), in cooperation with FCC and the states, began publishing the National Broadband Map, an interactive website that allows users to view information on high-speed Internet availability across the United States, including on tribal lands. The data to support the National Broadband Map is collected from service providers, including those offering service to federally recognized Indian tribes, including Alaska Native villages. The National Broadband Map website provides data on Internet availability on approximately 318 federal Indian reservations and associated trust lands, including upload and download speeds for both wireline and wireless service, technology for Internet delivery, and the number of Internet service providers. While the National Broadband Map provides information about high- speed Internet availability, according to NTIA officials, the map is based on Census blocks. If a service provider reported any availability of high- speed Internet in a Census block, the entire block was counted as served. This could create misrepresentations of service in rural areas, which generally constitute large Census blocks. Because much of tribal land is rural, the reported broadband service is shown to be greater than the actual service available on tribal lands, according to NTIA officials. Some tribal officials agreed that certain areas on the Broadband Map were inaccurate. For example, the map showed the Lac du Flambeau reservation in Wisconsin as covered because two providers reported that they provide Internet service on the reservation. However, according to tribal officials, the National Broadband Map exaggerated the level of service on their reservation making them unable to compete for some USF and RUS programs despite their efforts to document coverage problems to correct the map. One provider indicated that in rural areas, it is more difficult to get accurate data because in some cases addresses are not used, making it difficult to link service to a census block. However, in the future, this provider indicated that it planned to utilize GPS information to provide more accurate data.