Broadband—whether delivered via fiber, cable modem, copper wire, satellite, or wirelessly—is increasingly the technology underlying telecommunications services such as voice, video, and data. Since the initial deployment of high-speed internet in the late 1990s, broadband technologies have been deployed primarily by the private sector throughout the United States. While the number of new broadband subscribers continues to grow, studies and data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban/suburban and high-income areas is outpacing deployment in rural and low-income areas. In particular, tribal communities stand out as being among the most unserved or underserved populations with respect to broadband deployment. According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), "[b]y virtually any measure, communities on tribal lands have historically had less access to telecommunications services than any other segment of the population." According to Census data, about 28.3% of Native Americans live in households below the poverty level (compared to 15.5% nationally), and tribal communities often lack basic infrastructure such as water and sewer systems, and telecommunications. High poverty rates and low income levels in tribal lands—along with the fact that many tribal communities are located in remote rural areas (often with rugged terrain)—are major factors that explain why tribal areas have comparatively poor levels of broadband access, and why providers may lack an economic incentive to serve those areas. According to the FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP): Understanding the complexity of the digital divide in Indian Country requires an appreciation of the unique challenges facing Tribal Nations, which include deployment, adoption, affordability, and access to spectrum, as well as lack of investment dollars and access to credit and start-up or gap financing. Barriers to the deployment of communications services include rural, remote, rugged terrain, areas that are not connected to a road system, and difficulty in obtaining rights-of-way to deploy infrastructure across some Tribal lands—all of which increase the cost of installing, maintaining, and upgrading infrastructure. Affordability of communications services is affected by often endemic levels of poverty. Because Tribal Nations cannot easily collateralize assets that are held in trust by the federal government, and cannot easily access investment dollars, the ability to obtain credit and financing is limited. The presence of robust broadband and improved digital connectivity in tribal areas could play a significant role in revitalizing many tribal communities. The FCC's 2010 National Broadband Plan identified broadband as a basic infrastructure necessary for improving economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness, and a better way of life. According to ONAP, "[t]he lack of robust communications services presents serious impediments to Tribal Nations' efforts to preserve their cultures and build their internal structures for self-governance, economic opportunity, health, education, public safety, and welfare." Until recently, data on tribal broadband had been scarce. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in 2006 that "[t]he rate of Internet subscribership for Native American households on tribal lands is unknown because neither the Census Bureau nor FCC collects this data at the tribal level." The FCC and the Department of Commerce (Census and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration) have begun to collect and compile data on tribal broadband deployment. According to December 2017 FCC deployment data, 32% of Americans living on tribal lands lacked access to terrestrial fixed broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. This is an improvement over 2014 data (42.8% without broadband) and 2013 data (62.9%). Table 1 shows the percentages of Americans with access to fixed terrestrial broadband service with respect to tribal lands, rural areas, urban areas, and the United States as a whole. Source: FCC, Communications Marketplace Report, p. 132. Table 2 shows broadband availability within the various categories of tribal lands. Areas that are the most lacking in broadband service are rural Alaskan villages and rural tribal lands in the lower 48 states. Table 3 shows tribal lands with access to fixed terrestrial broadband by state. Table 4 shows 2013-2017 fixed broadband adoption rates for tribal lands and the United States as a whole. Broadband adoption in this table reflects the percentage of households that actually subscribe to broadband service offering speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. Finally, Table 5 shows that Native Americans have a lower rate of internet usage than other races and ethnicities. The GAO September 2018 report, FCC's Broadband Internet: Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands , found that the FCC's tribal broadband data relies exclusively on provider-reported data, and overstates broadband access because the FCC considers broadband to be available for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in that census block. GAO also found that the FCC does not collect data on factors significant to tribal broadband, such as affordability, quality, and denials of service. GAO recommended that the FCC develop and implement methods, such as targeted data collection, for collecting and reporting more accurate broadband data on tribal lands; develop a formal process, including outreach and technical assistance, to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provided-submitted broadband data; and obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of the FCC's 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill their tribal engagement requirements. A precise accounting of federal funding for tribal broadband is problematic. A comprehensive listing of all federal funding programs for broadband is found in the publication, Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects , compiled by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Tribal entities or projects are eligible for virtually all of these programs, but with a few exceptions, there are no carve-outs or dedicated funding streams specifically for tribal applicants or nontribal entities proposing to serve tribal lands. Thus, annual amounts of federal financial assistance vary depending on the number and quality of tribal-related applications received, and the number of tribal-related broadband awards made by the funding agencies. Compounding the challenge in assessing federal funding for tribal broadband, some programs may not formally track funding to tribal areas, making it difficult to come up with an accurate overall number from year to year. GAO, in its 2016 report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands , identified programs in two federal agencies that serve as the primary source of funding for deploying broadband infrastructure in tribal lands and communities: the FCC and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Subsequently, the September 2018 GAO report, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face , found that few federal funds were provided to tribal entities to increase broadband deployment from 2010 to 2017. GAO found that "less than 1 percent of FCC funding and about 14 percent of RUS funding went directly to tribes and tribally owned providers," and that combined, "FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6 billion during that time period and tribes and tribally owned providers received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent." The GAO analysis excluded nontribally owned broadband providers that serve tribal areas. The FCC has established a Universal Service Fund (USF) which provides financial support to ensure that telecommunications services are available to all Americans. The USF currently administers four programs: the High Cost/Connect America Fund (CAF) Program; the Schools and Libraries Program (E-Rate); the Rural Health Care Program/Health Connect Fund; and the Low Income Program (Lifeline and Link-up). GAO has identified three of those programs (CAF, E-Rate, and Rural Health) as subsidizing telecommunications carriers providing broadband to areas that include tribal lands. Additionally, on March 31, 2016, the FCC adopted an Order that modernized the Lifeline Program and reoriented its focus on broadband services. On February 8, 2018, the FCC, through its Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP), announced it was seeking applications for membership on a renewed FCC Native Nations Communications Task Force. The renewed Task Force's mission will be to make recommendations to the FCC on communications-related issues that affect tribal interests. The issues to be considered by the Task Force "may include, but are not limited to: (i) executing the Commission's Tribal Consultation policy; (ii) identifying barriers to broadband deployment that are unique to Tribal lands; (iii) ensuring Tribal concerns are considered in all Commission proceedings related to broadband and other Commission undertakings that affect Tribal interests regarding communications services and facilities." On October 24, 2018, the FCC announced appointments to the Native Nations Communications Task Force. The High Cost Fund Program, which is transitioning into the Connect America Fund (CAF), provides subsidies to telecommunications providers offering broadband in rural areas. According to the 2016 GAO report, "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." Of the total, GAO was unable to determine the amount of funding that went to tribal lands. However, in its 2018 report, GAO reported that between 2010 and 2017, nine tribally owned providers received high cost support funding totaling $218.1 million. In order to be eligible to receive USF support, a telecommunications provider must be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) by the FCC. According to GAO, the statutory requirement for ETC designation is a major barrier for tribes to obtain USF support, with only "11 tribes that have providers that are designated as ETCs and therefore would be eligible to receive CAF funding." As part of the CAF, the FCC established a Mobility Fund which consists of two phases. Phase I of the Mobility Fund ($300 million) included $50 million for a Tribal Mobility Fund to extend wireless voice and broadband infrastructure into tribal lands.