[Senate Hearing 114-374]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-374
THE GAO REPORT ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS: ADDITIONAL COORDINATION AND
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT NEEDED FOR HIGH SPEED INTERNET ACCESS PROGRAMS
ON TRIBAL LANDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 27, 2016
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
21-661 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
JON TESTER, Montana, Vice Chairman
JOHN McCAIN, Arizona MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
STEVE DAINES, Montana HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JERRY MORAN, Kansas
T. Michael Andrews, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Anthony Walters, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 27, 2016................................... 1
Statement of Senator Barrasso.................................... 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 37
Statement of Senator Franken..................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Statement of Senator Heitkamp.................................... 41
Statement of Senator Hoeven...................................... 31
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 35
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 2
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 3
Witnesses
Enjady, Godfrey, President, National Tribal Telecommunications
Association.................................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Goldstein, Mark, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Kitka, Julie, President, Alaska Federation of Natives............ 23
Prepared statement........................................... 24
McBride, Brandon, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture...................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Sohn, Gigi B., Counselor to the Chairman, Federal Communications
Commission..................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Appendix
Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI), prepared statement 66
Cherokee Nation, prepared statement.............................. 70
Leech Lake Telecommunications Company, LLC, prepared statement... 72
National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), prepared statement. 49
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to:
Godfrey Enjady............................................... 73
Brandon McBride.............................................. 74
Response to written questions submitted to Gigi B. Sohn by:
Hon. Steve Daines............................................ 78
Hon. Heidi Heitkamp.......................................... 77
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 75
Hon. Jon Tester.............................................. 74
THE GAO REPORT ON
TELECOMMUNICATIONS: ADDITIONAL
COORDINATION AND PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT NEEDED FOR HIGH-SPEED INTERNET ACCESS PROGRAMS ON TRIBAL
LANDS
----------
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2016
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
The Chairman. Good afternoon. I call this hearing to order.
I ask the witnesses to please take their seats.
Today we are going to examine the January 2016 Government
Accountability Office Report on Access to Broadband Service on
Tribal Lands.
Quick and effective internet access is vital for many
purposes, such as commerce, public safety, education, and
health. This Committee has received concerns from people living
in rural Indian lands, including my home State of Wyoming,
regarding unreliable internet service and significant barriers
to improving access to even basic internet services in their
communities. The Government Accountability Office report
describes how unreliable internet can be and how it can affect
business development, education and health.
In 2010, at the direction of Congress, the Federal
Communications Commission issued the National Broadband Plan to
achieve access to high-speed internet for everyone. Between
fiscal years 2010 and 2014, the Federal Government spent
approximately $33 billion on the national goal of universal
high-speed internet access. It is somewhat troubling that quite
a bit of money has been spent on this national goal and Indian
tribal governments and communities still struggle to access
internet services.
In many instances, networks cannot accommodate multiple
users on Indian lands. The GAO has highlighted one tribal
example where connection problems cause significant problems
with heavily congested networks. According to the Federal
Communications Commission, in 2016, 41 percent of the people on
tribal lands still do not have access to high-speed broadband.
This figure should be much lower.
The GAO report sheds light on why this figure may be
significantly higher than other parts of the Nation. The GAO
found that two agencies with responsibility for broadband-
related programs, the Department of Agriculture and the Federal
Communications Commission, do not coordinate well in programs,
in outreach, or in training.
In addition, the GAO found that as of December 2015, the
Federal Communications Commission has not established
performance measures or goals for broadband availability on
tribal lands. The GAO made several recommendations for
improvement, including developing goals and measures to track
progress.
We will hear today how both agencies are moving forward to
increasing broadband services for Indian communities.
With that, I would like to welcome the witnesses. We look
forward to your testimony.
Senator Tester, do you have an opening statement?
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank all the witnesses who are here today. I
look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you holding a hearing on a topic
that is vitally important to tribal communities which, quite
frankly, doesn't get enough attention, so this hearing is
important.
Telecommunications in Indian Country and, in particular,
broadband, often appears to be an afterthought, as we are
dedicating our time to other major issues in tribal
communities, things like health care, education, economic
development, public safety, among all others; all important,
but broadband is important too. We overlook that fact and the
fact that broadband plays a key component in economic
development in Indian Country.
The longer Indian Country lacks robust broadband, the
harder it is going to be for Tribes to effectively provide
crucial services needed in their communities. As these services
become more dependent on interconnectivity, Tribes will
continue to lag further and further behind.
Opportunities such as providing telemedicine services to
remote Native communities that lack doctors and reliable modes
of transportation, online resources and distant learning for
classrooms, more effective and streamlined communications for
public safety, and new markets for Native businesses who have
often been effectively shut out are all examples of the
potential broadband has to address the critical needs in tribal
communities.
We have a couple tribal witnesses here today who can speak
to this potential, and I look forward to hearing from them
about the impact it has in their communities.
I look forward to hearing from our Federal witnesses, as
well, and learning more about their efforts to increase access
and adoption of high-speed internet access across Indian
Country. Our Administration's goal of connecting everyone,
including rural and Native America, is imperative for the
welfare and security of not only tribal communities, but for
our entire Nation.
The FCC and the USDA need to listen to Tribes, they need to
sharpen their tools and find ways to get more Tribes connected.
Access to high-speed internet should not be a luxury. There is
no way that we could do our jobs here without the ability to
connect, and we can't expect Tribes to do their job either.
Thank you to all the witnesses for testifying here today
and for the work that you do in Indian Country. I look forward
to a fruitful discussion that will help us find solutions on an
issue that is becoming more and more important as we move
further into a world that relies on connectivity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Tester.
Would any other members like to make an opening statement?
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. Thank you for
calling this hearing today on what I believe is a very
important topic.
I also want to thank all the witnesses for being here. I am
especially pleased to welcome Mr. Godfrey Enjady from the
Mescalero Apache Tribe. He has made impressive progress in
tacking the digital divide facing his community in New Mexico.
Universal service investments and rural utility service loan
support has been vital to his success, so I look forward to his
testimony today on behalf of the National Tribal
Telecommunications Association.
In my home State, 80 percent of those living on tribal
lands do not have access to broadband, four out of five people
without broadband access. This is truly appalling. But the
statistics do not convey the real hardships and lost
opportunities that are a consequence of the digital divide
facing Indian Country.
Not having wireless reception can mean the difference
between life and death in an emergency. A man outside Gallup,
New Mexico missed two opportunities for a life-saving kidney
transplant because he lacked telephone service at home and
could not be contacted in time.
When FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler visited the Acomo Pueblo with
me, we stopped by the Tribe's community library. It has free
wi-fi that the librarian keeps on 24-7. That way folks without
internet at home can come to the parking lot after hours and
still get online from outside the building. That really bothers
me in the situation where we don't have that connectivity, as
Vice Chairman Tester talked about.
Our Nation's rural areas and tribal lands should not be
bypassed when broadband and wireless networks are built out
across the Nation. Although they are among the least connected,
these areas are precisely where broadband technology can help
the most, and I hope we will hear some of that from our
witnesses today.
By overcoming physical distances and geographic isolation,
broadband can help improve economic development, education, and
access to health care, so we need to do much more. This hearing
is an opportunity to identify where the FCC, the RUS, and
Congress should focus our efforts to tackle the digital divide
facing Indian Country.
Thank you so much.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Would any other Senators like to make a statement?
Senator Franken.
STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. Mr. Chairman, I will submit my opening
statement for the record. I just want to say thank you to the
witnesses and how important this is. The digital divide in
Indian Country is enormous. This is a rural electrification
issue of the 21st century.
Everyone should be wired; every kid should be able to
access high-speed broadband for educational purposes. Broadband
is a necessity in the 21st century and we have to do this. And
if we are going to attract good teachers and good doctors and
business to Indian Country, they have to have broadband.
So I will submit my official statement for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Franken follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Al Franken, U.S. Senator from Minnesota
Thank you, Chairman Barrasso, for holding this oversight hearing on
broadband issues in Indian Country, and thank you to our witnesses for
your work in this area. I look forward to hearing your perspectives on
some of the challenges involving increasing access to broadband in
Indian Country as well as some of the successes.
Access to reliable high speed Internet is critical to growing our
economy. People living in Indian Country are just as entitled to access
to broadband as those living in our cities and towns.
Unfortunately, as I travel around Minnesota, I have seen first-hand
how access to high speed Internet varies significantly depending on
where you live. This digital divide is a real problem for schools,
families, and entire communities.
Without reliable Internet, how can we expect our children to do
their homework? And how can we expect our students to be ready for the
21st century economy? That's why I've made the deployment of rural
Broadband a bipartisan priority of mine during my time in the Senate.
I'll continue to press for the build out of high-speed Internet to
every corner of our state, including our tribal communities, because
it's critical for both education and for local economies.
Thank you again to Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and to
all of our witnesses today. I look forward to hearing your testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Franken.
I want to remind the witnesses that we will include your
complete statements for the record, so please try to keep your
statements to five minutes or less so that we will have some
time for questioning. Thank you for being here today.
We will first hear from Mr. Brandon McBride, who is the
Administrator for the Rural Utilities Service for the
Department of Agriculture; then from Ms. Gigi Sohn, who is the
counselor to the Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission; Mr. Mark Goldstein, who is the Director of the
Physical Infrastructure Issues of the Government Accountability
Office; Ms. Julie Kitka, who is president of the Alaska
Federation of Natives, from Anchorage; and Mr. Godfrey Enjady,
who is the President of the National Tribal Telecommunications
Association, from New Mexico.
Welcome. Thank you very much. And if we could begin with
you, Mr. McBride.
STATEMENT OF BRANDON McBRIDE, ADMINISTRATOR, RURAL UTILITIES
SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. McBride. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and
members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to
discuss the recent Government Accountability report focusing on
improving internet access on tribal lands.
The Rural Utilities Service is one of three rural
development agencies at USDA. The Rural Housing Service offers
housing and community facilities programs; the Rural Business
and Cooperative Service offers both business development and
finance programs; and RUS makes loans and grants available to
finance rural electric, telecommunications, and rural water
infrastructure. Together, these agencies work together to help
communities build stronger economies, create jobs, and improve
the quality of life in rural America.
Our efforts at RUS to encourage broadband deployment to
rural and Native communities have helped deliver broadband
service that has improved access to health care and educational
programs, and opened the door to job opportunities. These
services help strengthen economies in American Indian, Alaskan
Native, and Native Hawaiian communities. This funding
assistance is vital and we are fully committed to improving
investment in tribal lands and underserved areas.
Thanks to the leadership of this Committee and your
colleagues in the Senate, RUS has placed special emphasis on
financing critical infrastructure services to unserved and
underserved Native communities.
Since 2009, RUS has funded broadband deployment through
five distinct programs. We are focused on the need to improve
access for Native and rural communities. These grant and loan
programs have invested over $425 million in projects serving
tribal lands, tribal organizations, American Indians, and
Alaskan Natives. RUS programs have provided internet access to
communities for the first time, supported the acquisition of
equipment needed to expand access to education and health care
services, and financed the construction of infrastructure that
has improved broadband access.
Given our history, RUS has a solid understanding of the
costs and the challenges of building out rural
telecommunications systems. We understand how critical
broadband access is and we also understand the magnitude of
work that remains to be done in rural and tribal areas.
Since the start of this Administration, RUS has expanded
outreach and service across tribal communities. To make our
programs more accessible to those serving and living in tribal
areas, RUS has implemented the Substantially Underserved Trust
Area provisions of the 2008 Farm Bill.
The SUTA rulemaking was crafted following a two-year tribal
consultation effort that involved more than 30 government-to-
government consultations. As a result, SUTA provisions provide
three tools for most RUS loan programs. These tools include
loans with interest rates as low as 2 percent, a waiver of non-
duplication restrictions, and giving highest priority to
projects in substantially underserved trust areas.
RUS is committed to using the tools at its disposal to
provide broadband access for tribal communities and we are
consisting looking for ways to improve. This GAO report makes
several recommendations to help enhance and measure the
availability and adoption of high-speed internet. One of GAO's
recommendations was that USDA and the FCC work towards better
coordination in this regard.
To address GAO's recommendation, RUS and the FCC are
currently working to closely coordinate outreach efforts to
better assist tribal areas. Included in these discussions is
the development of joint outreach materials that explain how
programs can be interrelated and how available funding options
may be leverages. Our work with the FCC has also resulted in
productive conversations about the financial and policy
implications of a changing universal service fund landscape.
RUS's work with other Federal agencies has resulted in
stronger coordination and outreach efforts that improve
broadband access and adoption in tribal areas. As a part of the
President's Broadband Opportunity Council, RUS is working with
the Department of Commerce on the Community Connectivity
Initiative. This partnership can assist communities with their
broadband self-assessment, recommendations, planning, and
implementation support.
RUS is also partnering with the Department of Interior in
planning a Tribal Broadband Summit, as well as on the FCC's
five upcoming tribal broadband workshops. All of these are
scheduled for later this year.
RUS is proud of its investments in tribal communities and
we will continue to work with the FCC to use the tools that
Congress has given us to help bring broadband to every corner
of America, including rural and tribal areas.
Thank you for your interest in USDA's Rural Utilities
Service and thank you for your support of our agency and its
mission.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McBride follows:]
Prepared Statement of Brandon McBride, Administrator, Rural Utilities
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester and Members of the
Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Government
Accountability (GAO) report entitled ``Telecommunications: Additional
Coordination and Performance Needed for High-Speed Internet Access
Programs on Tribal Lands.''
Efforts of the United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) to encourage broadband deployment to
rural and native communities have been critical in bringing broadband
to tribal areas. Our work with tribal stakeholders and other state and
federal agencies, including the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), plays a major role in financing broadband projects to deliver
quality, affordable high-speed Internet service to strengthen
economies, improve access to health care and educational programs, and
open the door to job opportunities in American Indian, Alaskan Native
and Native Hawaiian communities.
RUS is a policy, planning and lending agency of the USDA. The
agency makes loans, loan guarantees and grants available to finance
rural electric, telecommunications and water and wastewater
infrastructure. These investments are necessary to build sustainable
local and regional economies and to attract and leverage private
capital in rural and tribal areas.
RUS is one of three USDA Rural Development (RD) agencies. The Rural
Housing Service offers housing and community facilities programs. The
Rural Business and Cooperative Service offers both business development
programs and finance programs. Together, RD agencies work to help
communities build stronger economies, create jobs and improve the
quality of life in rural areas.
Nowhere is this RD assistance more vital than in America's native
communities. RD is fully committed to improving investment into tribal
lands and underserved areas. Our President, Secretary and
Undersecretary place a high priority on improving program delivery to
native communities, and our programs are designed for communities with
the greatest need. Thanks to the leadership of members of this
Committee and your colleagues in the Senate, RUS has placed special
emphasis on financing critical infrastructure services to underserved
native communities.
RD agencies have a long history of investing in tribal economies.
Since 2009, total RD investments benefitting tribal areas have exceeded
$2.9 billion. One reason for this success is because our USDA RD state
offices maintain Native American Tribal Coordinators to assist tribes
by providing technical assistance and programmatic knowledge throughout
the application process for these programs.
RD agencies and staff also work in cooperation with tribal
governments and partner with other federal agencies, including the FCC.
It is important to note that USDA's Office of Tribal Relations and RD
have participated with the FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy on
outreach efforts in Indian Country.
RUS often works directly with tribal communities. Since 2009, RUS
has provided nearly $1.5 billion for tribal areas to fund electric
utilities, water and waste water systems and telecommunications
projects, including broadband. Also since 2009, RUS Telecommunications
programs have invested over $157 million in projects serving Tribal
Lands, Tribal Organizations, American Indians, and Alaska Natives.
RUS has several standing programs which support broadband
deployment. Since 2009, USDA has awarded $6.7 billion for almost 550
projects to improve telecommunications infrastructure in rural
communities. This includes $2.9 billion through the Recovery Act to
build out more than 250 successful broadband projects already having a
positive impact in rural areas, and $77.4 million in Community Connect
grants for 74 broadband projects in rural areas that previously did not
have broadband service.
Our traditional telecommunications infrastructure loan program,
authorized in 1949, was created to ensure rural areas had access to
reliable and affordable telecommunications systems. Since 1995, RUS has
required that these networks facilitate broadband service. Through this
program, RUS has provided loans and grants to 8 of the nation's 10
tribally-owned regulated telecommunications carriers. RUS also provides
financing to non-native telecommunications service providers that offer
services to tribal communities. Since 2009, telecommunications
infrastructure funding totaling over $91 million has assisted tribal
areas.
RUS has long focused on the need to connect native and rural
communities to a broadband future. The Community Connect grant program,
which awards grants to communities with no access to broadband service,
since 2009 has provided nearly $14 million to assist tribal communities
lacking access to high-speed Internet.
RUS' Broadband Loan Program, authorized under the Farm Bill,
provides broadband network financing to build high capacity systems in
rural underserved areas. Since 2009, Farm Bill broadband loans of
nearly $10 million increased tribal connectivity to global markets, and
opened the doors to educational, health care and social services during
this same period.
Another RUS telecommunications program helping tribal areas meet
essential needs is the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grant
program. Since 2009 this program has financed nearly $43 million in
equipment to expand access to education and health care services in
tribal areas.
With a combined portfolio of over $6.7 billion in
telecommunications investments, which includes our grant programs as
well as $4.3 billion in telecom loans, RUS has a solid understanding of
the costs and the challenges of distance, density and geography to
build out rural telecommunications systems. We understand how broadband
connectivity transforms lives, enlivens communities and creates
sustainable economies that offer jobs and increase the quality of life
when these services finally arrive.
Our history shows that RUS understands the importance of
relationship with tribal elected officials, and is committed to
consulting, coordinating with, and helping American Indian, Alaska
Native and Native Hawaiian communities obtain affordable and robust
broadband services needed to attract investment capital and new
business ventures unique to native cultures.
Since the start of this Administration, RUS has worked to expand
outreach and service across tribal communities. To make its utility
loan and grant programs more accessible to those serving and residing
in tribal areas, RUS implemented the Substantially Underserved Trust
Area (SUTA) provisions of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of
2008 (2008 Farm Bill).
The SUTA rulemaking was crafted following a 2-year tribal
consultation effort that included over 33 government to government
consultations with native nations and tribal communities as well as all
relevant federal agencies and departments. These provisions include
three discretionary tools for most RUS loan programs: RUS may make
loans and guarantee loans with interest rates as low as 2 percent and
with extended repayment terms; RUS may waive non-duplication
restrictions, matching fund requirements, or credit support
requirements to facilitate construction, acquisition or improvements of
infrastructure; and RUS may give highest priority to designated
projects in substantially underserved trust areas.
Among telecommunications projects RUS has funded that benefit
tribal areas include:
$279,106 Distance Learning and Telemedicine grant to Eastern
Aleutians Tribes, Inc. in Alaska to purchase video conferencing
equipment and CPR mannequins capable of recording and
quantifying performance to improve training in local
communities.
$10.5 Million Broadband Initiatives Program loan/grant
combination to the San Carlos Apache Tribe in Arizona to
provide Fiber-to-the-Premises to five new communities, a
hospital, and several clinics.
$5.4 Million Infrastructure loan to Mescalero Apache
Telecom, Inc. to upgrade its telecommunications system and
provide fiber optic Internet to half of its service territory
in New Mexico. This loan was the first RUS Telecommunications
Program loan provided with SUTA consideration.
As noted previously, RUS has partnered with other federal agencies,
including the FCC. Most recently our extensive efforts have involved
the Connect America Fund, the FCC's reform order, which implements
Universal Service Fund (USF) reforms. RUS has a significant interest in
the reform effort, and has been engaged in a continuing and productive
dialog with the FCC about the financial and policy implications of the
changing USF landscape.
The GAO report ``Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and
Performance Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal
Lands,'' makes several recommendations to help improve and measure the
availability and adoption of high-speed Internet on tribal lands. One
of those GAO recommendations was that USDA and the FCC work towards
better coordination on improving Internet availability and adoption in
tribal communities.
To address the GAO's recommendation, USDA's RUS and the FCC are
currently working to closely coordinate outreach efforts to better
assist tribal areas in providing high-speed Internet access. Included
in these discussions will be development of joint outreach materials
that explain how programs can be interrelated, and how available
funding options may be leveraged.
Both the USDA and the FCC offer programs to improve Internet
availability and adoption on tribal lands. Examples of recent USDA
telecommunications projects specifically benefitting tribal areas
include not just broadband funding, but funding for equipment to
improve access to quality health care and educational services.
As part of the Broadband Opportunity Council (BOC) efforts RUS is
working with the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) on the Community Connectivity
Initiative. This is a partnership intended to provide communities a
broadband self-assessment, a report and recommendations, planning and
implementation support directed to developing a national community of
practice. RUS is also partnering with the Department of Interior's
(DOI) BOC recommendation in a Tribal Broadband Summit scheduled for
later this year. Earlier RUS participation with the FCC in the DOI's
Listening Session was very productive.
RUS and the FCC have participated in a number of outreach events
that each organization has held. In the future, RUS will work closely
with the FCC to develop joint outreach events focused on providing
high-speed Internet access to tribal lands.
For example, the FCC has five workshops scheduled this fiscal year.
RUS is planning to participate in these:
1. Montana: end of May
2. Seattle, Washington: late June
3. Wisconsin or Minnesota: early August
4. Arizona or New Mexico: early September
5. Oklahoma: Mid November
Providing sustainable broadband service in tribal areas can be
challenging, which is why many of these programs exist. RUS is proud of
its investments in tribal communities and will work with the FCC to use
the tools the Congress gave us to help bring broadband to every corner
of America--including rural and tribal communities.
Thank you for your interest in USDA's Rural Utilities Service and
thank you for your support of our agency and its mission.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. McBride.
Ms. Sohn.
STATEMENT OF GIGI B. SOHN, COUNSELOR TO THE CHAIRMAN, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Ms. Sohn. Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, members
of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today about the recently released GAO report on the status of
broadband on tribal lands.
While there has been incremental improvement in recent
years, residents of tribal lands continue to disproportionately
lack access to broadband. According to the FCC's 2016 Broadband
Progress Report, 41 percent of residents on tribal lands lack
access to fixed broadband services at our benchmark speed.
While this represents a 22 percent increase since 2015, this
digital divide is unacceptable.
In recognition of the persistent disparity in access to
communication services on tribal lands, the Commission's Office
of Native Affairs and Policy was created in 2010. The
Commission charged ONAP with facilitating delivery of the
benefits of modern communications infrastructure to all Native
communities. Our work with Tribal Nations is a strategic
partnership, one in which we effectuate the trust relationship
that the Commission shares with Tribal Nations.
Last year, GAO was asked to review the status of broadband
on tribal lands. GAO made four recommendations which I will
address in turn. The FCC agrees with all the recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Develop joint training and outreach with
USDA.
The Commission agrees that coordination with USDA is
vitally important. From 2012 to 2015, the two agencies
developed and implemented consultation, training, and outreach
for Tribal Nations on multiple occasions, including 15 regional
tribal consultation and training workshops. The Commission has
invited USDA to participate in all of the five regional
consultation and training workshops being planned for 2016, the
first of which will be held in Montana in late May or early
June.
At the same time, we recognize that our coordination with
USDA must be more strategic and routine. For example, staff
should meet on a regular basis to share data and funding plans
to ensure that taxpayer dollars are having the greatest impact
on tribal lands.
Recommendation 2: Develop performance goals and measures
for tribal areas for improving broadband availability to
households.
The Commission agrees on the importance of such performance
goals and measures. The Commission has established a specific
performance goal for our Connect America Fund to bring
broadband to rural insulated high-cost areas, including tribal
lands. The Commission has also adopted an outcome measure for
this goal: the number of homes, businesses, and community
anchor institutions that newly gain access to broadband service
as a result of the Connect America Fund support.
Twice a year, through its Form 477, the Commission collects
broadband availability data for each census block, including on
tribal lands. The Commission uses that data to publish
statistics on the availability of broadband service on tribal
lands and to monitor progress towards its goal of ensuring
universal availability of broadband to all Americans.
Recommendation 3: Improve the reliability of FCC data
related to institutions that receive E-rate funding by defining
``tribal'' on the program application.
The FCC agrees with the GAO about the importance of
collecting more reliable data both on schools and libraries on
tribal lands, and on schools and libraries that serve Native
students, whether on or off tribal lands. Beginning in funding
year 2017, the FCC intends to amend directions to the E-rate
application to offer guidance in applicant self-reporting of
tribal affiliation.
Recommendation 4: Develop performance goals and measures
for improving broadband availability to tribal schools and
libraries.
The Commission agrees, which is why the agency adopted
goals and measures in its 2014 First E-rate Modernization
Order. In that Order, the FCC adopted a goal of ensuring
affordable access to high-speed broadband sufficient to support
digital learning in all schools and robust connectivity in all
libraries.
The Commission adopted specific measures and targets to
determine whether we are successful in achieving that goal. In
addition, the FCC directed USAC to create a comprehensive and
efficient data reporting structure to develop information
technology tools that facilitate analysis of E-rate data and to
increase public availability of such data.
The recommendations advanced by GAO will help to improve
and measure the availability and adoption of high-speed
internet on tribal lands, which will in turn give the
Commission a deeper understanding of where and how to direct
resources. Through increased coordination with our tribal and
Federal partners, as well as this Committee, the FCC will
continue to address the persistent lack of access to broadband
services on tribal lands. Together we are committed to ensuring
that all Native communities have access to the economic,
educational, health care, and civic opportunities that
broadband enables.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sohn follows:]
Prepared Statement of Gigi B. Sohn, Counselor to the Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission
Chairman Barrasso, Vice Chairman Tester, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
recently released GAO report on the status of broadband on Tribal
lands.
The Status of Broadband on Tribal Lands
While there has been incremental improvement in recent years,
residents of Tribal lands continue to disproportionately lack access to
broadband. Beginning in 2015, the Commission defined a benchmark speed
of 25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream as necessary to support the
``advanced telecommunications capability'' that Congress identified in
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Yet, according to
the Commission's 2016 Broadband Progress Report, Tribal lands continue
to be left behind from receiving these advanced services envisioned by
Congress. For example, 41 percent of residents on Tribal lands lack
access to fixed broadband service at the benchmark speed, as compared
to 10 percent nationwide. While this figure represents a 22 percent
increase in services available on Tribal lands since the 2015 Broadband
Progress Report, the fact remains that broadband access on Tribal lands
remains far below the national average. This digital divide in Indian
Country remains unacceptable.
An example of the challenges associated with bringing broadband to
Tribal lands is the experience of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. The
Tribe's present day homeland is the Standing Rock Reservation, which
encompasses approximately 2.3 million acres on the borders of North
Dakota and South Dakota. In an effort to address the state of
communications services on the Reservation, the Standing Rock Sioux
Tribe created Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. (Standing Rock
Telecom) to provide mobile voice and data services within the entire
Reservation. As a successful bidder in the FCC's Mobility Fund Phase I
auction--resulting in $3.3 million in total assigned support and
coverage for up to 1,290 road miles on the Standing Rock Reservation--
Standing Rock Telecom has the opportunity to use universal service
Mobility Fund support to expand the critical services it is providing
on the Reservation.
Recognizing the persistent disparity in access to communications
services on Tribal lands, the Commission's Office of Native Affairs and
Policy (ONAP) was created in 2010. Acting on a recommendation in the
National Broadband Plan, the Commission charged ONAP with facilitating
delivery of the benefits of modern communications infrastructure to all
Native communities by, among other things, ensuring robust government-
to-government consultation with federally-recognized Tribal governments
and other Native organizations; working with Commissioners, Bureaus,
and Offices, as well as with other government agencies and private
organizations, to develop and implement policies for assisting Native
communities; and ensuring that Native concerns and voices are
considered in all relevant Commission proceedings and initiatives.
There is a new way of doing Tribal business at the Commission. Our work
with Tribal Nations is a strategic partnership, one in which we
effectuate and exercise the trust relationship that the Commission
shares with Tribal Nations.
FCC Initiatives to Bridge the Digital Divide in Indian Country
In the last eighteen months, the Commission has modernized two
universal service programs that hold the potential to help bridge the
digital divide in Indian Country. The first of these programs is the E-
rate program, which is the country's largest educational technology
program. In June 2014, at the invitation of Senator Udall, Chairman
Wheeler traveled to the Pueblo of Acoma in New Mexico, meeting with
then-Governor Vallo and other senior Tribal officials to discuss the
state of connectivity on the Pueblo. During this trip, Chairman Wheeler
and Senator Udall visited the Acoma Learning Center, the Pueblo of
Acoma's Tribal library, where they discussed the library's connectivity
challenges and its experiences with the E-rate program. Later that
year, the Commission adopted two Orders that comprehensively modernized
the E-rate program by setting specific, ambitious goals for the
broadband capacity delivered to schools and libraries, refocusing
funding rules for Wi-Fi and fiber deployment, and increasing the E-rate
cap to meet the program's connectivity goals. To ensure that Tribal
schools and libraries such as the Acoma Learning Center are able to
participate effectively in the program, the FCC directed the Universal
Service Administrative Company to create an USAC Tribal liaison to
assist with Tribal-specific outreach and training.
Last month, the Commission adopted an Order to modernize a second
universal service program, the Lifeline program. For more than 30
years, the Lifeline program has helped tens of millions of low-income
Americans afford basic phone service. Recognizing the unique and dire
economic circumstances many Tribal Nations face, the Commission
provides enhanced levels of Lifeline support of up to $34.25 per month
to low-income residents of Tribal lands. Not surprisingly, Lifeline is
an extremely important program to low-income residents on Tribal lands.
Yet, before last month's vote, Lifeline support was limited to basic
telephone service. Under the new modernized rules, low-income residents
of Tribal lands will soon be able to apply up to $34.25 per month
toward the cost of broadband service. This change will significantly
reduce the cost of broadband for low-income Tribal residents while also
incentivizing businesses to deploy broadband infrastructure on Tribal
lands.
Yet, we recognize that our work is far from finished. For example,
the Commission recently adopted a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
seeking comment on measures to increase broadband deployment on Tribal
lands served by rate-of-return carriers. Chairman Wheeler publicly
committed to bringing forward a proposal addressing this challenge
before the end of the year.
Broadband technology is critical for Tribal communities to
participate in the 21st century economy and to advance community
development, health delivery, and education. We can, and will, do
better.
GAO Report and FCC Response
In its engagement letter, GAO outlined three primary issues or
objectives: (1) what data exist related to access to telecommunications
services on Tribal lands and how might that data be improved; (2) what
public and private sector programs exist to promote access to
telecommunications on Tribal lands, and what actions could be taken to
reduce barriers to access; and (3) what challenges exist to increasing
telecommunications services on Tribal lands, and what actions could be
taken to reduce barriers to access.
The GAO report, entitled ``Additional Coordination and Performance
Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Programs on Tribal Lands,''
was released on February 3, 2016. The report examines: (1) perspectives
of selected Tribes and providers on the importance of high-speed
Internet access for Tribes and any barriers to increasing this access
on Tribal lands; (2) the level of interrelation and coordination
between federal programs at the Commission and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) that promote high-speed Internet access on Tribal
lands; and (3) existing data and Commission performance goals and
measures related to access to high-speed Internet service on Tribal
lands and for Tribal institutions.
The report contains four recommendations for the Commission, and
the agency was given an opportunity to review the draft report and
respond in writing to the recommendations prior to its release. A
letter from the Chiefs of the Wireline Competition Bureau and the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, agreeing with each of the
recommendations, is contained in the report as Appendix III. In
addition, Chairman Wheeler reported in writing to Congress on further
efforts by the Commission in response to GAO's recommendations within
60 days of release of the report (March 31, 2016).
As discussed below, the Commission has executed, or is
prioritizing, a broad range of initiatives to help improve and measure
the availability and adoption of high-speed Internet on Tribal lands.
But we recognize at the same time that there is much more to be done.
The Commission is committed to facilitating the expansion of 21st
century communications to Tribal Nations across the United States.
Recommendation 1: GAO recommends that the Commission develop joint
training and outreach with USDA whenever feasible to help improve
Internet availability and adoption on Tribal lands.
The Commission agrees with GAO that coordination with USDA is
important and desirable in these areas. In fact, the Commission has
partnered with USDA on multiple occasions since 2012 to cooperatively
develop and implement consultation, training, and outreach for Tribal
Nations. For example, from 2012 through 2015, staff from USDA
headquarters in Washington, DC and USDA regional offices across the
country have presented and participated at many of the Commission's
fifteen (15) interactive 2\1/2\ day regional Tribal consultation and
training workshops across Indian Country. USDA has provided information
to workshop attendees on programs including Community Connect Grants,
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grants, and the Computers for
Learning Program. Most recently, in September 2015, a representative
from USDA presented on the Computers for Learning Program at the FCC
Tribal Broadband, Telecom, and Broadcast Consultation and Training
Workshop in Rapid City, South Dakota. All of this information and
training provided by our colleagues at USDA has complemented
information that the Commission has provided on, for example, the four
universal service programs and the Tribal Priority in broadcast radio.
Moreover, the Commission has invited USDA to participate in each of
the five regional Tribal consultation and training workshops being
planned for 2016. The first of those workshops will be held in late May
or early June in Montana. This workshop comes on the heels of a meeting
last fall between Chairman Wheeler and the leaders of the Tribal
Nations in Montana in which Chairman Wheeler committed to greater
consultation and coordination. The remaining four consultation and
training workshops are in the process of being scheduled and will take
place in Oklahoma and in the Great Lakes, Southwest, and Pacific
Northwest regions of Indian Country. The Commission is committed to
working with our Tribal partners and with USDA to ensure that the 2016
Tribal consultation and training workshops, as well as those in future
years, provide as comprehensive and coordinated an approach as
possible.
While joint participation with USDA in consultations and training
workshops is a good start, we recognize that our coordination with USDA
must be more strategic and routine. For example, staff should meet on a
regular basis to share data and funding plans. This will help ensure
that RUS loans and Connect America Fund dollars are having the greatest
impact on tribal lands. Commission staff has begun working
collaboratively with USDA staff to this end.
Recommendation 2: GAO recommends that the Commission develop
performance goals and measures using, for example, data supporting the
National Broadband Map, to track progress on achieving its strategic
objective of making broadband Internet available to households on
Tribal lands.
The Commission agrees with GAO on the importance of such
performance goals and measures. In fact, the Commission has performance
goals and tools in place that can be used to track progress in meeting
this strategic objective, and the available data shows that the
Commission is already making progress.
With respect to performance goals, the Commission's strategic goal
of maximizing broadband availability on Tribal lands is fulfilled in
part through its universal service programs established pursuant to its
obligations under Section 254 of the Communications Act and Section 706
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. In its 2011 order initiating
reform of the universal service high-cost program, for example, the
Commission stated that its Section 254 obligations ensured universal
availability of broadband networks to all Americans, including those
living on Tribal lands. To that end, the Commission has established a
performance goal for the high-cost subsidy program of bringing
broadband at speeds of at least 10 Mbps downstream/1 Mbps upstream to
high-cost areas, including Tribal lands. The Commission has also
adopted an outcome measure for this goal: the number of homes,
businesses, and community anchor institutions that newly gain access to
broadband service as a result of high-cost/Connect America Fund
support.
With respect to performance measures, the Commission collects and
publishes data regarding progress towards its strategic objective of
maximizing broadband availability on Tribal lands and overall. Twice a
year, through its Form 477, the Commission collects broadband
availability data for each census block across the country, including
those on Tribal lands. The Commission uses that data both to publish
statistics on the availability of broadband service on Tribal lands in
its annual broadband progress report, and to monitor progress towards
its universal service goals of ensuring universal availability of
broadband networks to all Americans and promoting broadband adoption.
In fact, in its 2016 Broadband Progress Report, the Commission
quantified the increasing numbers of subscribers on Tribal lands that
have access to broadband capable networks and that are adopting
broadband, indicating progress towards its strategic objective. The
2016 Broadband Progress Report was adopted and released just prior to
release of GAO's report and, therefore, the most recent broadband data
is not reflected in the GAO report.
Later this year, the Commission will begin collecting geocoded
location information regarding new broadband deployment from the larger
incumbent carriers that receive Connect America Fund Phase II support,
and it recently adopted a similar reporting requirement for the smaller
rate-of-return carriers, which will be implemented in 2017. This
information will be updated annually, which will enable us to track
progress in making broadband available to Tribal lands over time.
Recommendation 3: GAO recommends that the Commission improve the
reliability of FCC data related to institutions that receive E-rate
funding by defining ``Tribal'' on the program application.
The Commission agrees with GAO on the need for clarity and will
work with the Universal Service Administrative Company to provide
guidance to applicants about the term ``Tribal'' on E-rate
applications. Today, applicants check a box and self-identify as Tribal
without any guidance as to what that term encompasses. Commission rules
do not define ``Tribal'' for purposes of the E-rate program, nor is
there any additional discount under the rules for Tribal schools and
libraries. The Commission does agree, however, on the importance of
collecting data both on schools and libraries on Tribal lands and on
schools and libraries serving Native students, whether on or off Tribal
lands. Beginning in funding year 2017, therefore, the Commission
intends to amend directions to the E-rate application to offer guidance
in applicants' self-reporting of Tribal affiliation.
Recommendation 4: GAO recommends that the Commission develop
performance goals and measures to track progress on achieving its
strategic objective of ensuring that all Tribal schools and libraries
have affordable access to modern broadband technologies.
The Commission agrees with GAO on the importance of goals and
measures to track progress on achieving strategic goals, which is why
the agency adopted goals and measures in its 2014 First E-rate
Modernization Order. In that Order, the Commission adopted three goals
for the E-rate program: (1) ensuring affordable access to high-speed
broadband sufficient to support digital learning in schools and robust
connectivity for all libraries; (2) maximizing the cost-effectiveness
of spending for E-rate supported purchases; and (3) making the E-rate
application process and other processes fast, simple, and efficient.
For each of these goals, the Commission adopted associated performance
measures and targets to determine whether we are successfully achieving
these goals. These performance measures and targets encompass all
schools and libraries, including Tribal schools and libraries.
Further, as part of the development of a robust performance
management system, the Commission directed USAC to take a number of
important steps: to create a comprehensive and efficient data reporting
structure; to develop information technology tools that facilitate
analysis of all program data; and to increase public availability of
such data. The Commission intended these actions to increase
transparency and enable beneficiaries and other stakeholders to assess
progress by schools and libraries in obtaining access to high-speed
broadband connectivity.
Conclusion
The lack of access to broadband services over Tribal lands
continues to prevent residents of Tribal lands from accessing
information and services critical to our 21st century economy.
Community-oriented and truly effective deployment of communications
technologies within Indian Country, therefore, are critical. New
commercial, educational, and health care opportunities, as well as
social stability and quality of life issues, can be significantly
improved through broadband. When implemented in concert, the
recommendations advanced by GAO will help to improve and measure the
availability and adoption of high-speed Internet on Tribal lands,
giving the Commission a deeper understanding of where and how to direct
resources. Through increased coordination among our Tribal and federal
partners, the Commission will continue to address the persistent lack
of access to broadband services on Tribal lands. Together, we are
committed to bringing advanced communications services to Tribal lands,
and we look forward to working with this committee to make broadband a
reality for all Native communities.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify this afternoon. I
look forward to answering your questions.
The Chairman. Thank you so much, Ms. Sohn.
Mr. Goldstein.
STATEMENT OF MARK GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
GAO's recent work examining telecommunications issues on tribal
lands. High-speed internet service is viewed as a critical
component of the Nation's infrastructure and an economic
driver, particularly to remote tribal communities.
My testimony examines perspectives of Tribes and providers
of high-speed internet access and barriers to increasing this
access, the level in coordination between Federal programs that
promote high-speed access, and existing data performance
measures related to high-speed internet on tribal lands. My
statement is based on our January 2016 report on this issue.
Based on a recent report, GAO found that although all 21
Tribes that GAO interviewed have some access to high-speed
internet, barriers to access remain. Tribal officials and
internet providers said that high poverty rates among Tribes
and the high cost of connecting remote tribal villages to core
internet networks limit high-speed internet availability and
access. About half of the Tribes we interviewed also said that
the lack of sufficient administrative and technical expertise
among tribal members limits their efforts to increase high-
speed internet access.
We also found that the Federal Communications Commission's
Universal Service Fund subsidy programs and the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service grant programs are
interrelated. The programs seek to increase high-speed internet
access in unserved areas, including tribal lands. Our previous
work on overlap, duplication, and fragmentation has shown that
interagency coordination on programs can help ensure efficient
use of resources and effective programs.
However, FCC and USDA do not coordinate to develop joint
outreach and training, which could result in efficient use of
Federal resources and missed opportunities for resource
leveraging. For example, USDA and FCC held separate training
events in the Pacific Northwest Region in 2015 when a joint
event could have saved limited training funds, reduced costs,
and allowed for better coordination among all parties.
Finally, we found that FCC has placed special emphasis on
improving internet access on tribal lands following the
issuance of the National Broadband Plan in 2010, which called
for greater efforts to make broadband available on tribal
lands. However, FCC has not developed performance goals and
measures for improving high-speed internet availability to
households on tribal lands.
FCC could establish baseline measures to track their
progress by using the National Broadband Map, which includes
some data on internet availability on tribal lands. FCC also
lacks reliable data on high-speed internet access and
performance goals and measures for high-speed internet access
by tribal institutions such as schools and libraries.
Specifically, FCC's E-rate program provides funds to ensure
that schools and libraries have affordable access to modern
broadband technologies, but FCC has neither defined ``tribal''
on its E-rate application nor set any performance goals for the
program's impact on tribal institutions. Without these goals
and measures, FCC cannot assess the impact of its efforts.
In January 2016, GAO recommended that FCC take the
following actions on tribal areas: one, to develop joint
training and outreach with USDA; two, to develop performance
goals and measures for improving broadband availability to
households; three, develop broadband measures for improved
broadband availability to schools and libraries; and, four, to
improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions
that receive E-rate funding by defining ``tribal'' in the
program application. FCC has agreed with all these
recommendations.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That concludes my statement. I
would be happy to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
tribal internet access: increased federal coordination and performance
measurement needed
Why GAO Did This Study
High-speed Internet service is viewed as a critical component of
the nation's infrastructure and an economic driver, particularly to
remote tribal communities. This testimony examines: (1) perspectives of
tribes and providers on high-speed Internet access and barriers to
increasing this access; (2) the level of interrelation and coordination
between federal programs that promote high-speed Internet access on
tribal lands; and (3) existing data and performance measures related to
high-speed Internet on tribal lands. This statement is based on GAO's
January 2016 report (GAO-16-222). For this report, GAO visited or
interviewed officials from a non-generalizable sample of 21 tribal
entities and 6 service providers. GAO also reviewed FCC and USDA fiscal
year 2010 through 2014 program data, funding, and materials and
interviewed federal officials.
What GAO Recommended
In January 2016, GAO recommended that FCC take the following
actions in tribal areas: (1) develop joint training and outreach with
USDA; (2) develop performance goals and measures for improving
broadband availability to households; (3) develop performance goals and
measures for improving broadband availability to schools and libraries;
and (4) improve the reliability of FCC data related to institutions
that receive E-rate funding by defining ``tribal'' on the program
application. FCC agreed with the recommendations.
What GAO Found
In January 2016, GAO found that, although all 21 tribes GAO
interviewed have some access to high-speed Internet, barriers to
increasing access remain. Tribal officials and Internet providers said
that high poverty rates among tribes and the high costs of connecting
remote tribal villages to core Internet networks limit high-speed
Internet availability and access. About half of the tribes GAO
interviewed also said that the lack of sufficient administrative and
technical expertise among tribal members limits their efforts to
increase high-speed Internet access.
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Universal Service
Fund subsidy programs and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Rural Utilities Service grant programs are interrelated. The programs
seek to increase high-speed Internet access in underserved areas,
including tribal lands. GAO's previous work on overlap, duplication,
and fragmentation has shown that interagency coordination on
interrelated programs can help ensure efficient use of resources and
effective programs. However, FCC and USDA do not coordinate to develop
joint outreach and training, which could result in inefficient use of
federal resources and missed opportunities for resource leveraging. For
example, USDA and FCC held separate training events in the Pacific
Northwest Region in 2015 when a joint event could have saved limited
training funds and reduced costs.
FCC has placed special emphasis on improving Internet access on
tribal lands following the issuance of the National Broadband Plan in
2010, which called for greater efforts to make broadband available on
tribal lands. However, FCC has not developed performance goals and
measures for improving high-speed Internet availability to households
on tribal lands. FCC could establish baseline measures to track its
progress by using, for example, the National Broadband Map which
includes data on Internet availability on tribal lands. FCC also lacks
both reliable data on high-speed Internet access and performance goals
and measures for high-speed Internet access by tribal institutions--
such as schools and libraries. Specifically, FCC's E-rate program
provides funds to ensure that schools and libraries have affordable
access to modern broadband technologies, but FCC has neither defined
``tribal'' on its E-rate application nor set any performance goals for
the program's impact on tribal institutions. Without these goals and
measures FCC cannot assess the impact of its efforts.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of the
Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the state of broadband
access and adoption on tribal lands as well as the government programs
that promote access and adoption on tribal lands. High-speed Internet
service is viewed as a critical component of the nation's physical
infrastructure and a driver of economic growth. The Internet is
particularly useful to tribal communities--which are generally located
in remote, rural locations--as access to it offers new opportunities
for growth, productivity, and innovation. According to 2013 Census
estimates, more than 640,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives reside
on tribal lands. \1\ There are more than 300 Indian tribes in the
continental United States and more than 200 federally recognized Alaska
Native Villages. Native Americans are among the most economically
distressed groups in the United States and, according to the Census'
2014 American Community Survey (ACS), about 28.3 percent live in
households with incomes below the federal poverty level--compared to
15.5 percent for the U.S. population as a whole. In addition, Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) data indicates that, as of December
2013, high-speed Internet was available to 37 percent of households on
tribal lands--compared to 47 percent of U.S. households in rural areas
and 92 percent of U.S. households in urban areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For this testimony, GAO has defined tribal lands as lands that
include any federally recognized Indian tribe's reservation, off-
reservation trust lands, pueblo, or colony, and Alaska Native regions
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, Pub.
L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971) (codified as amended at 43 U.S.C.
1601 et seq.). Tribal lands do not include Oklahoma Tribal
Statistical Areas (OTSA), and the population figure of 640,000 does not
include the 401,000 Native Americans living on OTSAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The communications infrastructure that supports Internet access is,
by and large, built and operated by private industry. Advances in
technology, attained through the use of fiber optics and new wireless
technologies have allowed providers to offer high-speed Internet that
supports new services and applications such as streaming video. In
2010, FCC stated that every household and business in America should
have access to affordable advanced telecommunication service with a
speed of at least 4 megabits per second (Mbps) download and at least 1
Mbps upload and that this target should be re-set every four years. In
January 2015, FCC adopted a speed benchmark at download speeds of at
least 25 Mbps and upload speeds of at least 3 Mbps.
From fiscal years 2010 to 2014, the federal government provided
over $33 billion in assistance to telecommunications service providers
and municipalities to build or improve networks in order to further the
national goal of universal high-speed Internet access. The federal
government has provided this funding through the FCC's Universal
Service Fund (USF) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Rural Utilities Service (RUS). RUS's programs focus on rural
telecommunications development, while USF's programs focus on providing
support for areas where the cost of providing services is high, as well
as for low-income consumers, schools, libraries, and rural health care
facilities.
My statement today is based on our January 2016 report (GAO-16-222)
on tribal high-speed Internet access. \2\ My statement, like the
report, examines (1) perspectives of selected tribes and providers on
the importance of high-speed Internet access for tribes and any
barriers to increasing this access on tribal lands; (2) the level of
interrelation and coordination between federal programs at FCC and USDA
that promote high-speed Internet access on tribal lands; and (3)
existing data and FCC performance goals and measures related to access
to high-speed Internet service on tribal lands and for tribal
institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ GAO, Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and
Performance Measurement Needed for High-speed Internet Access Programs
on Tribal Lands, GAO-16-222, (Washington D.C.: January 29, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To conduct this work for our January 2016 report, we interviewed
officials from 18 tribal governments covering 10 of the continental
states,Alaska Native regions, and 6 service providers
operating on tribal lands. \3\ We also identified and interviewed
industry stakeholders such as research groups and telecommunications
associations on their views regarding the barriers to increasing high-
speed Internet access to broadband on tribal lands. In addition, we
evaluated USF and RUS program coordination based on criteria for
implementing interrelated programs developed in previous GAO work on
fragmentation, overlap, duplication, and interagency coordination
within the federal government. \4\ Finally, to determine what data and
FCC performance goals and measures exist related to access to high-
speed Internet service on tribal lands and to tribal institutions, we
analyzed fiscal year 2010 through 2014 data from USF programs providing
assistance, reviewed applications and the guidance materials for those
programs, and the agencies' performance reports. Finally, we reviewed
performance goals and measures for USF programs according to criteria
established in the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, as
amended \5\ and in federal standards for internal control. \6\ More
detailed information on our scope and methodology for that work can be
found in the issued report. We conducted the work on which this
statement is based in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
\3\ For reporting purposes, we developed the following series of
indefinite quantifiers to describe the tribal responses from the 21
tribal entities we interviewed: 5 of the 21 is described as ``a few'';
5 to 9 is described as ``some''; 10 to 12 is described as ``about
half''; 13 to 16 is described as ``many''; and 17 or more is described
as ``most''.
\4\ GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and
Management Guide, GAO-15-49SP, (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015); GAO,
Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-
106, (Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000); and GAO, Managing for Results:
Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative
Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022, (Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2012).
\5\ Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993) as amended by
GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352 (2010).
\6\ GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selected Tribes and Providers Identified Opportunities and Barriers
Related to Increasing High-Speed Internet Access
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.
Rugged Terrain, High Poverty, and a Lack of Capacity Were the Most
Cited Barriers to Increasing Access to High Speed Internet in
Tribal Areas
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.
Interrelated Federal Programs Promoting High-Speed Internet Access on
Tribal Lands Are Not Always Well Coordinated
FCC and USDA High-Speed Internet Programs are Interrelated
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.
Table 1: FCC and RUS Programs That Provide High-Speed Internet Services
to Areas that Include Tribal Lands
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FCC Programs Description Recent funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Connect America CAF provides subsidies The High Cost and CAF
Fund (CAF)--Formerly to Internet providers distributed about $20
the High Cost Program to supplement their billion in subsidies
operating costs for to providers between
providing high-speed 2010 and 2014,
Internet in unserved portions of which
or high-cost areas. went to providers
that serve tribal
lands.
The USF Schools and E-rate provides E-rate provided about
Library Support discounts to eligible $13 billion in
Program (E-rate) schools and libraries discounts to schools
on telecommunications and libraries between
services, Internet 2010 and 2014,
access, and internal portions of which
connections. went to schools and
libraries on tribal
lands.
Healthcare Connect Fund HCCF provides HCCF provided about
(HCCF) assistance to ensure $52 million to
eligible rural health healthcare facilities
care providers have in fiscal year 2014,
access to high-speed a portion of which
Internet services. went to tribal lands.
Assistance may be
provided to a service
provider that serves
tribal lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUS Programs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distance Learning and The Distance Learning The Distance Learning
Telemedicine program and Telemedicine and Telemedicine
program provides program provided
grants to rural about $128 million in
communities to acquire grants and loans
technologies that use between 2010 and
the Internet to link 2014, almost $3
educational and million of which went
medical professionals to tribal lands.
with people living in
rural areas.
Community Connect The Community Connect The Community Connect
Program Program provides Program provided
grants to rural about $53 million in
communities to provide grants between 2010
high-speed Internet and 2014, almost $3
service to unserved million of which went
areas. to tribal lands.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of FCC and USDA data. GAO-16-504T
Outreach and Training Efforts for Interrelated FCC and USDA Programs
Are Not Always Well Coordinated
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. \7\ Agencies can
enhance and sustain their coordinated efforts by engaging in key
practices, such as establishing compatible policies and procedures
through official agreements. \8\ Agencies can also develop means to
operate across agency boundaries, including leveraging resources across
agencies for joint activities such as training and outreach. \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency
Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106, (Washington, D.C.: March 29, 2000).
\8\ GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022, (Washington, D.C.:
September 27, 2012).
\9\ GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and
Management Guide, GAO-15-49SP, (Washington, D.C.: April 14, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Federal Government is Gathering Data, but FCC Lacks Performance Goals
and Measures for the Internet on Tribal Lands
The Federal Government is Gathering Data on Internet Availability and
Adoption in Households on Tribal Lands
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. \10\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ GAO, Telecommunications: Challenges to Assessing and Improving
Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, GAO-06-189
(Washington, D.C.: January 11, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data on Internet Availability in Households 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. \11\ If a service provider reported any
availability of high-speed Internet in a Census block, the entire block
was counted as served. This could create misrepresentations of service
in rural areas, which generally constitute large Census blocks. Because
much of tribal land is rural, the reported broadband service is shown
to be greater than the actual service available on tribal lands,
according to NTIA officials. Some tribal officials agreed that certain
areas on the Broadband Map were inaccurate. For example, the map showed
the Lac du Flambeau reservation in Wisconsin as covered because two
providers reported that they provide Internet service on the
reservation. However, according to tribal officials, the National
Broadband Map exaggerated the level of service on their reservation
making them unable to compete for some USF and RUS programs despite
their efforts to document coverage problems to correct the map. One
provider indicated that in rural areas, it is more difficult to get
accurate data because in some cases addresses are not used, making it
difficult to link service to a census block. However, in the future,
this provider indicated that it planned to utilize GPS information to
provide more accurate data. Five of the six providers we interviewed
said that the reliability of the National Broadband Map has improved
over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Census blocks are the basis for all geographic boundaries for
which the Census Bureau tabulates data. Census blocks are statistical
areas bounded by visible features such as roads, streams, and railroad
tracks, and by nonvisible boundaries such as property lines, city,
township, school district, county limits, and short line-of-sight
extensions of roads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data on Internet Adoption by Households on Tribal Lands
In 2008, Congress passed the Broadband Data Improvement Act, \12\
which required the Bureau of the Census to collect information from
residential households, including those on tribal lands. Census
captured three aspects of Internet adoption: (1) whether a computer is
owned or used at the residence, (2) if the household subscribes to
Internet service, and if so, (3) whether that service is dial-up or a
high-speed connection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Pub. L. No. 110-385, 122 Stat. 4096 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Census began collecting the required data on Internet adoption
beginning with the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS). According to
Census officials, five years of ACS data must be collected to provide
data for areas with smaller populations. Census officials said that
this data will be available in late 2018 and will provide an estimate
for Internet adoption nationwide, including the first estimates for
hard to reach populations such as Native Americans.
FCC Has Not Established Performance Goals and Measures for Internet
Availability or Adoption on Tribal Lands
Agency performance measurement is the ongoing monitoring and
reporting of program accomplishments, particularly towards pre-
established goals. Performance measurement allows organizations to
track progress in achieving their goals and provides information to
identify gaps in program performance and plan any needed improvements.
The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 requires annual performance plans to
include performance measures to show the progress the agency is making
in achieving its goals. Further, we have identified best practices in
articulating goals that include:
showing baseline and trend data for past performance, and
identifying projected target levels for performance for
multi-year goals. \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ GAO, Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices that Can
Improve Usefulness to Decision-makers, GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69, (Washington,
D.C.: February 1999). While the Government Performance and Results Act
is applicable to the department or agency level, performance goals and
measures are important management tools applicable to all levels of an
agency, including the program, project, or activity level, consistent
with leading practices and internal controls related to performance
monitoring.
Making high-speed Internet, including broadband Internet, available
to all Americans is FCC's stated long-term objective, but we found in
January 2016 that FCC has not set goals to demonstrate or measure
progress toward achieving it. The National Broadband Map is currently
the best tool for setting goals and measuring progress toward
increasing the availability of high-speed Internet on tribal lands. Map
data are widely used by FCC to describe the availability of broadband
nationwide. For example, FCC uses data gathered for the National
Broadband Map in its annual Broadband Progress report provided to
Congress as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Pub. L. No. 104-104, 706, 110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To improve performance management, we recommended in our January
2016 report that FCC develop performance goals and measures using, for
example, data from the National Broadband Map, to track progress on
achieving its strategic goal of making broadband Internet available to
households on tribal lands, and FCC agreed with our recommendation.
Data Collected Does Not Allow FCC to Measure Outcomes of its E-rate
Program for Tribal Institutions
Although Census is gathering baseline information on household
Internet adoption, and the National Broadband Map provides data on
high-speed Internet availability across the country, we found that FCC
lacks the specific information it needs to measure the outcomes of its
E-rate program at tribal schools and libraries. The E-rate program
provides assistance to schools, school districts, and libraries to
obtain telecommunications technology, including high-speed Internet. E-
rate does not specifically target tribal schools and libraries,
although some are eligible and receive benefits. Since 2010, E-rate has
committed more than $13 billion in service provider customer fees to
schools and libraries, and according to data provided by FCC, at least
$1 billion of that amount supports tribal institutions.
FCC's E-rate program has a stated goal of ensuring that all schools
and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband technologies.
Communicating what an agency intends to achieve and its programs for
doing so are fundamental aims of performance management and required
under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Specifically the act requires
an agency to have measurable, quantifiable, outcome-oriented goals for
major functions and operations, an annual performance plan consistent
with FCC's strategic plan and a means to communicate the outcomes of
its efforts. However, FCC has not set any quantifiable goals and
performance measures for its E-rate efforts to extend high-speed
Internet in schools and libraries nationwide or on tribal lands.
According to federal internal control standards, government
managers should ensure there are adequate means of obtaining
information from external stakeholders that may have a significant
impact on the agency meeting its goals. To that end, FCC collects
information on E-rate recipients nationwide through questions on its
application for E-rate assistance. Several different types of
institutions on tribal lands can qualify for E-rate funding, including
schools operated by the tribe or Bureau of Indian Education, private
schools operating on a reservation, and public school districts that
serve the reservation. \15\ On FCC's E-rate application, applicants
receiving service may self-identify as tribal, but in this instance,
the application provides no definition of ``tribal.'' We found that not
all schools and libraries on tribal lands identify themselves as such
during the application process. FCC provided us with information on E-
rate recipients between 2010 and 2014 that self-identified as tribal,
and the amounts committed to those recipients. These data may
understate the amount of funds supporting schools on tribal lands.
Specifically, we identified more than 60 additional school districts,
private schools, and public libraries on the lands of the 21 tribes we
studied that received E-rate assistance but were not included in FCC's
information on tribal recipients. Consequently, FCC does not have
accurate information on the number of federally recognized tribes,
including Alaska Native villages, receiving E-rate support, or the
amount being provided to them. Without more precise information and
direction from FCC, the extent to which E-rate assistance is provided
to tribal institutions cannot be reliably determined, nor can FCC rely
on the information to develop quantifiable goals and performance
measures for improving high-speed Internet access in tribal schools or
libraries. It is important to understand how these programs affect
tribal institutions because FCC has made improving high-speed Internet
access in tribal institutions a priority following the National
Broadband Plan, with the establishment of the Office of Native Affairs
and Policy in 2010, and its current Strategic Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of
1975 (ISDEA), Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1975), as amended, directs the U.S.
Department of the Interior, at the request of a tribe, to contract with
Indian tribes or tribal organizations to carry out the services and
programs the federal government provides to Indians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address these concerns, in January 2016, we recommended that
FCC:
improve the reliability of data related to institutions
receiving E-rate funding by defining ``tribal'' on the program
application. FCC agreed with our recommendation and intends to
provide guidance to applicants in fiscal year 2017.
develop performance goals and measures to track progress on
achieving its strategic objective of ensuring that all tribal
schools and libraries have affordable access to modern
broadband technologies. FCC also agreed with this
recommendation, indicating that goals and performance measures,
among other things, will substantially improve the
accessibility of modern broadband technologies for tribal
schools and libraries.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and Members of the
Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
The Chairman. Thank you so very much for your testimony.
Ms. Kitka.
STATEMENT OF JULIE KITKA, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FEDERATION OF
NATIVES
Ms. Kitka. Good afternoon. My name is Julie Kitka and I
have the honor of serving as President of the Alaska Federation
of Natives, which is the largest statewide Native organization
serving the Native people in the State. I have submitted
written testimony and ask that it, in its entirety, be included
into the record.
For brevity, I want to basically highlight a couple things.
One, Alaska Natives are very interested in helping ourselves.
We are very interested in public-private partnerships to
accomplish goals. We know that it is extremely difficult to get
the resources that we need to do everything that we need to,
but we really urge that there is consideration by this
Committee to try to help us locate those resources that we need
to pull in private capital in this whole area of
telecommunications.
In my testimony I used one example of the New Markets Tax
Credits. As an example, in Alaska, when we look at how that was
used, that helped expand broadband in the State by
incentivizing private companies in order to produce that. If
you look at the New Market Tax Credits, which the inception was
2000 and there were 836 different competitive awards over $40.5
billion in credit authority that was allowed, in the last two
funding cycles of that, not one Native Community Development
Financial Institute received any resources.
The current round that is going on in resources, in which
they were projecting to award $3.5 billion in new New Market
Tax Credits, most of the people in Alaska didn't even apply for
it because they didn't view that as an area that would be
productive. We received word yesterday that they are looking at
combining the award cycle in the New Market Credits. Instead of
awarding $3.5 billion, they are going to combine and do $7
billion.
Again, it is a missed opportunity for Native people that
create these community financial institutions that are trying
to leverage in private capital into this, and use the example
in the history of that $40 billion that has been awarded, the
Congress so smartly set up, we are probably, since its
inception, received $109 million in tax credits that we could
leverage with private sector funding. Wyoming, for example, Mr.
Chairman, I think has only received $3 million in its whole
inception. Montana, same thing. Just miniscule amounts.
I really urge this Committee to take on this issue to allow
Native people to help ourselves using these tax credit systems
on that that we can go and we can match up with private sector
partners, that we can help fund these things that we need. We
cannot be left behind in the digital divide. Everything from
our businesses that do government contracting, many of our
villages are really doing a lot of work trying to build up the
capacity to compete in the Federal marketplace.
There isn't a chance in heck that they can compete if they
don't have high-speed internet in order to do work on behalf of
the government, let alone our schools, our education. From the
Alaska Native perspective, which I am sure is similar with many
of the other Native populations, over half of our population
are very young, and if we don't create the opportunity for the
young people growing up on that, again, their life
opportunities are going to be shrunk.
So I really urge you to focus on the financing sector of
this. We support the recommendations in the GAO report, but we
think that the big elephant in the room is the lack of
resources to do it. And we do think that these tax credits is
one of those funding mechanisms with some targeted attention,
and we hope that that could occur in this year or, at the very
least, set it up for next year. Again, it is helping us help
ourselves.
We also think, taking a look at the Universal Service Fund
for schools and libraries, a minor tweak for expansion for Head
Start, GED programs, and online computer college classes on
that would reach out to greater areas on that. And then also
the need to create a special program in the BIA to lower the
cost of broadband for Tribal and Native serving institutions we
think is helpful.
I would be glad to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kitka follows:]
Prepared Statement of Julie Kitka, President, Alaska Federation of
Natives
Good afternoon. My name is Julie Kitka, and I serve as the
President of the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). AFN is the largest
statewide Alaska Native organization in Alaska. Our membership includes
over 130,000 Alaska Natives and their institutions set up to serve our
people. AFN's membership includes federally recognized tribes, regional
tribal consortiums, regional non-profit organizations, and Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) village and regional corporations.
Bottom Line recommendations:
Restore funding for RUS grant programs for broadband
deployment and target that money for deployment on tribal lands
as defined by the FCC.
Expand the USF Schools and Libraries program to include Head
Start, GED programs, and online college courses.
Create a new program within BIA to lower the cost of
broadband for tribal and Native serving institutions, funded in
part through the USF program.
Set aside ten percent of the New Market Tax Credit program
for projects benefitting Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians for ten years, with half that amount being dedicated
to broadband deployment.
Background
AFN's broad mission includes supporting sustainable economies in
our Native villages and towns; and increasing economic opportunity for
our people. In so many ways we are still marginalized and the
investment climate in our rural communities is terrible for solid
economic development and growth. Federal policies can change this.
High-level Congressional interest and focused efforts can help us
overcome the barriers and create an investment climate of real economic
growth and innovation. A changed investment climate, which supports
more public-private partnerships and creates real incentives for
private investment of capital, can change the economic forecast for
rural Alaska and the futures of Alaska Native peoples. With a young,
growing Native population, we must continually remove the barriers to
creating life opportunities, which are taken for granted in urban areas
all across the country. We need efforts to lift our Native people out
of poverty and stagnation. This is especially critical in a time of
economic and fiscal crisis in the State of Alaska due to low oil prices
and reduced oil output, when the rural areas of Alaska will see
dramatically reduced state support.
Only 35 years ago, the majority of Alaska's 200 plus Native
villages did not have the most basic telephone service available. We've
come a long way since then. Through the combination of private
investment and federal support programs, including the Universal
Service program enacted by Congress in 1996, telecommunications service
to many Alaska Native communities has drastically improved. But,
challenges remain before all Alaska Natives have the communications
services necessary to access the economic opportunities found elsewhere
in the country, while maintaining their culture and way of life on
their own land. Ongoing federal support will be necessary to achieve
that goal. Thus, while AFN supports the recommendations in the GAO
Report, we believe there is an elephant in the room that must be
addressed if we are to make meaningful progress in bringing American
Indian and Alaska Native communities the same kinds of innovative
services that other Americans enjoy. It all comes down to money.
Because many of us live in remote locations, unconnected by roads,
deploying broadband infrastructure to Alaska Native lands is often cost
prohibitive. The prospect of recovering costs is further diminished by
the fact that, commonly, Alaska Natives are sparsely disbursed
throughout a wide geographic area, significantly increasing costs of
deployment per household; additionally, there are very few large
commercial customers, so-called anchor institutions, able to provide
economic stability. In many Alaska Native communities, wages are low
and unemployment rates and costs of living are so high, resulting in
local economies that alone are unable to support the private investment
necessary to effect meaningful change. Without federal incentives,
companies simply can't invest in Indian country.
Federal programs are available, but they are not always targeted in
a way that is helpful to tribal areas. Congress enacted the Universal
Service Fund to ensure telecommunications services are affordable for
rural schools and libraries, for health care facilities, and for
Alaskans living in high cost areas. The theory behind the program was
that rural and poor communities should not be debilitated by the
disparity in prices that exist for basic telephone service between
rural communities and their urban counterparts. And those programs have
helped make the business case necessary for private investment in
infrastructure on Tribal Lands. The Lifeline Program, another component
of Universal Service, provides funding so that low income individuals
have access to a basic level of service, important for securing
employment and safety.
Lifeline is a demonstrable success in Alaska, with telephone
subscribership among low-income households increasing from 62 percent
\1\ in 1984 to 91 percent \2\ in 2014. And we commend the FCC for
recently expanding the Lifeline program to include support for
broadband, in the hopes that it will have similar effects on broadband
subscribership. Lifeline has been especially useful on Tribal Lands,
where residents receive an enhanced subsidy in part because of the
typically lower incomes and the typically higher costs of providing
service to tribal lands. But there are those at the FCC and on the Hill
seriously discussing the abolishment of this important subsidy. We ask
this Committee to express its continued support for this enhanced
tribal supplement and ask that no changes be made in the appropriations
process without first consulting the Indian Affairs Committee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Industry Analysis Division, Common Carrier Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission, Telephone Penetration by Income by State at
10, Table 2 (March 2000) available at https://transition.fcc.gov/
Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IADpntris99.pdf.
\2\ Federal and State Staff for the Federal-State Joint Board on
Universal Service, Federal Communications Commission, Universal Service
Monitoring Report at 50, Table 6.8 (2014) available at https://
apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-330829A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the Universal Service Fund, the Stimulus Bill
adopted in the midst of the financial crisis in 2009 grant and loan
money for broadband to both the Department of Agriculture's Rural
Utility Service (RUS) and to a new program housed at the Department of
Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration.
The RUS program provided private sector companies with loan and grant
packages that enabled the deployment of broadband to dozens of Native
villages, giving them for the first time, not only access to broadband,
but also cell phone service. Thousands of Alaska Natives now have state
of the art service because of these programs.
Unfortunately, the RUS grant money ran out long ago. The Alaska
Federation of Natives recommends that grant funding be restored to the
RUS broadband program and targeted to address the unique needs of un-
served and under-served Native communities. The President should
request funding in the Department of Agriculture budget that will be
delivered to Congress in February, hopefully with the strong
encouragement of this Committee. The Congressional budget and the
Agriculture Appropriations bill should also include funding to restore
these grant funds, in this appropriation cycle if possible, or commit
to this in next years process.
While IHS clinics and hospitals, as well as schools and libraries,
are eligible for broadband support, a number of other Indian programs
are not eligible for USF operating subsidies. For example, Kawarek, the
non-profit regional tribal consortium providing services in the Bering
Straits coastal region, including Nome and the surrounding 19 villages,
reports that even when Head Start operates within a school that
receives USF Schools and Libraries funding, it is not allowed to use
the Internet in the building without the school risking its USF
eligibility. Likewise, students who need to take an online GED test or
want to take college classes online, cannot use the school's Internet
connections. The Schools and Libraries program should be expanded to
include Head Start programs operated by tribes as well as online GED
and college courses taken by students who have dropped out or graduated
from high school.
In addition, the Committee should consider establishing a
telecommunications grant program within the BIA to support tribal
organizations or other Native serving institutions such as Native
corporations and Native non-profits which provide services ranging from
housing to domestic violence counseling to village public safety
activities.
Another federal program that has been extremely successful in
promoting deployment of broadband in Alaska is the New Market Tax
Credit Program. It provides tax credits to private companies who invest
in minority and disadvantaged communities. In Alaska, this program has
been used to leverage private investment in order to build healthcare
facilities and to deploy broadband to the most remote Native
communities.
AFN recommends the Committee introduced legislation to set aside
ten percent of the New Market Tax Credit program for projects
benefitting Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiians communities
with half of that amount dedicated to deploy broadband. Over ten years,
this would provide $3.5 billion in tax credits, which in turn would
leverage an additional $7 billion in private investment for a total of
$10 billion. If half of that was allocated to build out broadband to
Indian communities, it would bring Native people not only into the 21st
century but would open up a range of economic opportunities, would
improve education and health care, and would give us the same kinds of
opportunities that other Americans enjoy.
In summary AFN has four recommendations:
Restore funding for RUS grant programs for broadband
deployment and target that money for deployment on tribal lands
as defined by the FCC.
Expand the USF Schools and Libraries program to include Head
Start, GED programs, and online college courses.
Create a new program within BIA to lower the cost of
broadband for tribal and Native serving institutions, funded in
part through the USF program.
Set aside ten percent of the New Market Tax Credit program
for projects benefitting Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native
Hawaiians for ten years, with half that amount being dedicated
to broadband deployment.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Kitka. We appreciate
your traveling all the way from Alaska to be with us.
Mr. Enjady.
STATEMENT OF GODFREY ENJADY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRIBAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, and members of
the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify as
President of the National Tribal Telephone Association. I am
Godfrey Enjady, General Manager of Mescalero Apache Telecom,
Incorporated, located in Mescalero, New Mexico. I also serve as
Chairman of NTTA's Tribal Affairs Committee and serve on the
FCC's Native Nations Broadband Task Force.
NTTA is comprised of nine tribally-owned and operated
telecommunications companies that provide voice, broadband, and
other communications services to their communities. I would
like to thank the members of Congress that requested the study
and the GAO for its examination of these issues. Thank you.
The report concludes that access to internet on tribal land
varies, but challenges to access and adoption remain. The high
costs of infrastructure buildout on tribal lands, which tend to
be remote and rugged terrain, work in tandem with tribal member
poverty to create a barrier to high-speed internet expansion on
tribal lands. Even though the GAO's purpose was not to provide
recommendations as how to increase broadband availability and
adoption in tribal areas, it does highlight some of the
challenges being faced today.
The GAO report demonstrates that providers serving tribal
areas face many unique challenges in bringing broadband
services to Native Americans. The GAO correctly notes that
broadband is vital in tribal areas for education, economic
development, and health care. Most tribal areas consist of some
of the highest cost to serve areas in the United States, which
in turn increases the infrastructure costs. Therefore, in
addition to challenges to availability, broadband providers in
tribal areas also face significant affordability and adoption
challenges.
The issues raised in the study comes as no surprise to
those of us that work in this arena. The problems in serving
remote, sparsely populated communities has been thoroughly
discussed in congressional testimony and on the record at the
FCC and with RUS.
Access to capital is also a major roadblock to network
growth and viability. Since tribally-owned carriers cannot
collateralize trust lands, RUS is our only lender, and I
appreciate the work that they have done for us over there.
The study points out that there needs to be better
coordination between the FCC and RUS. We all agree that RUS has
done a great job, especially on the SUTA portion. We are one of
the first recipients of SUTA, and that was part of the 2008
Farm Bill. Thank you. RUS loans and USF support go hand-in-
hand. Reliable and predictable cash flow is required to get any
sort of loan, including RUS loans.
The study notes that the National Broadband Plan, in
numerous instances, outlines the need for greater efforts to
make broadband available on tribal lands. The study points to
the lack of FCC development on broadband performance goals and
measurements on tribal lands. Once again, NTTA agrees.
While highlighting challenges faced in bringing viable and
affordable broadband services to tribal communities, the GAO
study also made some recommendations which include training,
mapping, data collection, and performance goals and measures.
NTTA concurs with these recommendations; however, they do not
go far enough.
Middle mile costs for NTTA members is extremely high and
this is very problematic in bringing affordable, robust
broadband services to Indian Country. This high cost to reach
the outside internet world inhibits the broadband take-rate,
thus putting a real damper on consumer adoption.
The arbitrary budget cap that has been stablished for the
Universal Service Fund high-cost program does not allow for
adequate funds to build and maintain the broadband networks
that are demanded by regulators, policymakers, and consumers
alike. Networks require a viable and predictable funding
source. An examination and reform of the USF contribution
regime is long overdue and may eliminate any need for the
arbitrary budget cap.
On June 19th of last year, NTTA went on record at the FCC
with a proposal to adopt a Tribal Broadband Factor. This Factor
is part of a reform of the USF for rate-of-return carriers. The
TBF targets support on tribal lands and has specific
obligations for any carrier, tribally owned or not, that uses
the program. We call on the FCC to adopt the TBF in a timely
manner. Further, NTTA requests that members of the Committee
weigh in with the FCC to act on the TBF and work to bring
stability and predictability to USF support for tribal
communities.
As noted in the report, adoption of available broadband
services by Native Americans is also challenging due to the
poverty rates on tribal lands. The Federal Lifeline program is
critical in allowing many Native Americans to subscribe to
voice services with the addition of broadband service to the
Federal Lifeline program. NTTA has advocated for an increase to
the Tribal Lifeline credit in order to recognize the higher
costs of retail broadband services.
NTTA also believes that the letter of credit required by
lenders, including RUS, has become burdensome and has, in many
instances, become a roadblock to getting needed financing. In
addition, NTTA believes the irrevocable letter of credit
required to participate in the FCC's reverse auctions prevents
NTTA members from using that program. This issue must be
addressed.
Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my appreciation to the
members of this Committee and to your staff, and thank you to
Senator Udall, too, on my behalf. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Enjady follows:]
Prepared Statement of Godfrey Enjady, President, National Tribal
Telecommunications Association
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester and members of the
committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify as
President of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association
(NTTA). I am Godfrey Enjady, General Manager of Mescalero
Apache Telecom, Inc. (MATI) located in Mescalero, New Mexico. I
also serve as Chairman of NTCA's Tribal Affairs Committee and
am on the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Native
Nation's Broadband Task Force.
NTTA is comprised of the nine Tribally owned and operated
telecommunications companies that provide voice, broadband and
other communications services to their communities. Those
companies are Cheyenne River Sioux Telephone Authority (SD),
Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ), Gila River
Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ), Hopi Telecommunications, Inc.
(AZ), Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. (NM), Saddleback
Communications (AZ), San Carlos Apache Telecommunications
Utility, Inc. (AZ), Tohono O'odham Utility Authority (AZ), and
Warm Springs Telecom (OR).
Mescalero Apache Telecom serves the entirety of the
Mescalero Apache Reservation located in the remote South
Central Mountains of New Mexico. Prior to MATI purchasing its
service area and building its network in 2001, 52 percent of
the Mescalero Apache Tribe received no service, and 48 percent
received only basic voice service. Nearly 100 percent of the
Tribe now has access to some level of broadband service. MATI
provides services in what is considered a rural, high-cost area
and serves an average population density of two customers per
square mile. This situation causes the average cost per line to
substantially exceed the national average. In addition, 90
percent of the Tribe is eligible for Lifeline Support, compared
to the national average of 21.8 percent.
First of all, I would like to thank the Members of Congress
that requested this study and the Government Accountability
Office for its examination of these issues. The report
concludes that ``access to Internet on tribal lands varies but
challenges to access and adoption remain. The high costs of
infrastructure buildout on tribal lands, which tend to be
remote and rugged terrain, work in tandem with tribal member
poverty to create a barrier to high-speed Internet expansion on
tribal lands.'' The GAO goes on to recommend some joint
outreach and training efforts between the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and that the FCC develop some performance
goals and measures related to broadband availability and
adoption. Even though the GAO's purpose was not to provide
recommendations as how to increase broadband availability and
adoption in Tribal areas, it does highlight some of the
challenges being faced today.
The GAO Report demonstrates that providers serving Tribal
areas face many unique challenges in bringing broadband
services to Native Americans. The GAO correctly notes that
broadband is vital in Tribal areas for education, economic
development, and health care, not unlike the rest of the
country. Most Tribal areas consist of some of the highest cost
to serve areas in the United States, which in turn increases
the infrastructure costs. In addition, according to the GAO
Report, ``Native Americans are among the most economically
distressed groups in the United States. According to the
Census' 2014 American Community Survey (ACS), about 28.3
percent of Native Americans live in households with incomes
below the federal poverty level--compared to 15.5 percent for
the U.S. population as a whole.'' Therefore, in addition to
availability challenges, broadband providers in Tribal areas
also face significant affordability and adoption challenges.
That being said, the issues raised in the study come as no
surprise to those of us that work in this arena. The problems
in serving remote, dispersed communities situated in hard to
serve, rough terrain has been thoroughly illuminated in
Congressional testimony and on the record at the FCC, and with
USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS). For example, the FCC's
National Broadband Plan (NBP) states ``Tribes need
substantially greater financial support than is presently
available to them, and accelerating Tribal broadband deployment
will require increased funding.'' In addition, the FCC's Office
of Native Affairs and Policy said in 2012 that ``the lack of
communications services in Indian country--be it high speed
Internet or broadband, traditional wireline phone service,
mobile service, radio broadcast, or TV broadcast service--is
well known.'' Finally, the FCC itself, in the landmark USF
Transformation Order, stated ``Tribally-owned and operated
carriers serve cyclically impoverished communities with a
historical lack of critical infrastructure.'' The GAO's most
recent report serves to reinforce these statements, as does the
fact that NTTA members exist solely due to the lack of
communications service historically available on their
respective reservations.
Recent FCC Broadband Progress Reports demonstrate the
substantial digital divide that exists between Tribal areas and
the rest of the United States. For example, the latest (2016)
report, while noting some progress in the availability of 25
mbps (down)/3 mbps (up) fixed broadband services, makes the
Tribal gap painfully clear:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Population Population Without
access to 25/3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States 33.982 10%
Rural Areas 23.430 39%
Urban Areas 10.552 4%
Tribal Lands 1.574 41%
Rural Areas 1.291 68%
Urban Areas 0.283 14%
U.S. Territories 2.628 66%
Rural Areas 1.078 98%
Urban Areas 1.550 54%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Access to capital is also a major roadblock to network
growth and viability. Because most Tribally owned carriers
cannot collateralize their assets, RUS is our only lender and I
appreciate the work that they do. Last year, my company
received the first RUS loan under the 2008 Farm Bill's
Sustainably Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision. The GAO
study points out that there needs to be better coordination and
communication between the FCC and RUS. NTTA agrees. RUS loans
and FCC Universal Service Fund (USF) support go hand-in-hand.
Reliable and predictable cash flow is required to get any sort
of loan, including RUS loans.
The study notes that the National Broadband Plan, in
numerous instances, outlines the need for greater efforts to be
made to make broadband available on Tribal lands. The study
points to the lack of FCC development of broadband performance
goals and measurements on Tribal lands. Once again, NTTA
agrees.
The study details the short falls of the E-rate program in
Tribal communities. Better coordination and performance goals
are needed. However, in some instances, there are other
complications. The Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) operates
the schools on my reservation and they have a nation-wide
contract with a large communications carrier that prohibits me
from serving area schools. This is inefficient and blocks MATI
from E-rate funding. I understand that there are Senators
examining ways for the E-rate program to better support not
just schools and libraries, but also Boys and Girls Clubs, and
other institutions serving youth. NTTA applauds these efforts.
While highlighting some challenges faced in bringing viable
and affordable broadband services to Tribal communities, the
GAO study also made some recommendations which include
training, mapping, data collection, and performance goals and
measurements. NTTA has no objections to these recommendations.
However, they do not go far enough.
Middle mile costs for NTTA members is extremely high and
this is very problematic in bringing affordable, robust
broadband services to Indian country. This high cost to reach
the outside Internet world inhibits the broadband take-rate,
thus putting a real damper on consumer growth.
The arbitrary budget cap that has been established for the
Universal Service Fund high-cost program does not allow for
adequate funds to build and maintain the broadband networks
that are demanded by regulators, policy makers and consumers.
There continues to be a debate about broadband capacities and
speeds, no matter what the platform of delivery. Fiber optic
networks as the anchor, with the compliment of wireless and
satellite technologies, delivers the most rewarding Internet
experience to consumers. And that network requires a viable and
predictable funding source, especially in areas that are
remote, sparsely populated and hard to serve. An examination
and reform of the USF contribution regime is long over-due, and
may eliminate any need for the arbitrary budget cap.
On June 19 of last year, NTTA went on record at the FCC
with a proposal to adopt a Tribal Broadband Factor (TBF) as
part of the reform of the long term USF for rate-of-return
carriers currently being considered by the Commission. The TBF
includes a multiplier for targeted support on Tribal lands, and
has specific obligations for any carrier, tribally owned or
not, that uses the program. The proposal is straightforward and
easily understood, and is narrowly-tailored to address the
specific need to promote broadband while causing very little
impact on the overall USF mechanism. We call on the FCC to
adopt the TBF in a timely manner. Further, NTTA requests that
members of this committee weigh-in with the FCC to act on the
TBF and work to bring stability and predictability to USF
support for Tribal communities.
As noted in the GAO report, adoption of available broadband
services by Native Americans is also challenging due, in large
part, to the poverty rates in Tribal lands. The federal
Lifeline program, which provides direct credits to low-income
consumers, has helped in allowing many Native Americans to
subscribe to voice services. The FCC recognized the importance
of Lifeline services in Tribal areas when it adopted an
``enhanced'' Lifeline credit for low-income consumers that
calls for as much as $25 in monthly service credits. However,
with the addition of broadband services to the federal Lifeline
program, NTTA has advocated for an increase to the Tribal
Lifeline credit in order to recognize the higher costs of
retail broadband service. While the FCC has adopted an order
addressing this and other Lifeline issues, the text of the
order has yet to be released, and thus NTTA does not know
whether the Commission accepted NTTA's proposed increase to the
Tribal Lifeline credit or not.
Other issues that the NTTA would like to examine in the
future are the access and economic rights of spectrum over
Tribal lands, and the establishment of a USF Tribal Broadband
Fund.
NTTA also believes that the letter of credit required by
lenders, including RUS, has become burdensome and has, in many
instances, become a roadblock to getting needed financing. In
addition, NTTA believes the irrevocable letter of credit
required to participate in the FCC's reverse auctions prevents
NTTA members from using that program. This issue must be
addressed.
Finally, NTTA would like to acknowledge the efforts by the
staff at the FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy to bring
a voice to native peoples at the Commission. However, this
effort may not be enough. Congress should examine the
establishment of a Native American Bureau at the FCC that has
specific authority to provide support for broadband networks in
Tribal communities.
Mr. Chairman, I want to extend my appreciation to members
of this committee and your staff. Much more work needs to be
done on infrastructure growth in Tribal areas, most importantly
in the area of broadband deployment.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony to
you, as well as to everyone on the panel.
We will now start with a round of five-minute questions,
starting with Senator Hoeven.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all
the witnesses being here today and I would like to start with
Mr. Enjady.
In 2012, an FCC report notes that in North Dakota, my
State, 79 percent of tribal areas do not have access to
broadband services that meet the FCC speed benchmark. You
talked about the high cost. So my first question goes to are
there legal or regulatory roadblocks that make it difficult to
provide affordable broadband in Indian Country?
Mr. Enjady. Senator, that is a very broad question that
could take a long time to really answer, but I do really
appreciate that question. It is tough, especially for myself,
starting a telephone company in New Mexico. It is one thing
that I started at the very beginning. I worked for a company
named CONTEL GTE, which is Verizon.
I had to go back to the Tribe. I went back to the Tribe and
worked for them. And in building this company it was one thing
to get through the regulators of the State. Once you have that
ETC status, then you go on to the FCC and get your ETCs there.
Once you establish that and be able to buy the area from a
local provider like Windstream or any of the bigger
CenturyLinks now, most of the areas in North Dakota might be
provided by that. NTCA is a good example of one that represents
a lot of the smaller companies that do provide services to
Indian Country in those areas. It is a barrier right now that
is a tough one to break.
There are not any new tribal telephone companies lately.
There are only nine of us, the oldest one being Cheyenne River
Sioux in South Dakota. There are no tribally-owned telephone
companies in North Dakota. And I do believe that there are
providers that are co-ops that do provide those services.
Senator Hoeven. So now Microsoft and Verizon have both
announced some programs that partner with private entities to
provide internet services for more Native American students, so
that is one area where some of the larger companies are looking
for partnerships. Sounds to me like you feel there is a need
for those kind of partnerships. Can you talk about how we
accomplish that to bring more of this internet connection into
Indian Country?
Mr. Enjady. Those are great programs. The problem there is
the sustainability of it, something that needs to be paid for
as it keeps moving on. A lot of these computers that I know the
Gates Foundation left computers on Navajo Nation, a lot of them
are out of date and broken down. I don't know, it is just a
one-time influx of money that needs to be sustained some way,
somehow.
The FCC has established a great program for companies like
ours to sustain and receive funding for our capital
expenditures and operating capital to be able to provide these
services over the years, and that is one of the greater return
reforms that is happening right now that is going to be for the
next 10 years. So that is key, sustainability.
Senator Hoeven. Right. And it seems to me that we need more
of these partnerships with entrepreneurs like yourself and with
companies that are willing to go on the reservation. And
whether it is setting up the broadband internet, computers in
schools, all of the above, we have to find ways to create some
partnerships to do that.
Mr. Enjady. I welcome any of them that come to New Mexico
to help our other tribal members there in New Mexico.
Senator Hoeven. I want to shift to Mr. Goldstein. In your
study, does the GAO have some recommendations on how we foster
that, those partnerships?
Mr. Goldstein. Senator, we didn't really focus on that in
this report; however, we did in a previous report, and we found
that, unfortunately, the kinds of barriers that we are talking
about today existed years ago as well. We simply did not find
very many examples where private companies were willing to
partner on the reservation for many of the reasons we have
talked about today, not just the amount of funding that that it
would take, but as well the sustainability that the gentleman
was just talking about.
Senator Hoeven. That is what I mean. What is your
recommendation on how to create these partnerships to get the
larger companies to come in to get the public-private
partnerships? How do we get that going, how do you do it?
Mr. Goldstein. It is not something we have looked at,
unfortunately. It is something that we could, hopefully, try to
do in the future, but to this date this report, sir, was really
on some of the barriers to the existing conditions, not so much
on how public-private partnerships could be developed.
Senator Hoeven. Did you find barriers at the State level
that Mr. Enjady referred to?
Mr. Goldstein. I am sorry, sir?
Senator Hoeven. Did you find some of the same barriers at
the State level that Mr. Enjady referred to?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes. The kinds of barriers we saw were
everything from long distances, rural terrain, poverty, a lack
of expertise, administrative and technical, to form some of the
ETCs. And then even when the ETCs were formed, there were
additional kinds of challenges and barriers related to them
being able to get spectrum for their use. Sometimes it was
already encumbered by other providers who weren't interested in
relinquishing it. There are a number of regulatory and legal
barriers that you referred to that exist throughout Indian
Country.
Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to Mr. Enjady for that answer there.
I would like to ask my first question to Ms. Sohn. Section
254 of the Communications Act charges the Commission with
ensuring that consumers in all regions of the Nation have
access to telecommunications and information services that are
``reasonably comparable to those in urban areas.'' The latest
FCC data show that 96 percent of Americans in urban areas have
broadband access. This compares to just 59 percent of those on
tribal lands.
Given this gap, has the FCC failed to live up to its duties
under Section 254 of the Communications Act?
Ms. Sohn. Thank you, Senator Udall. Without a doubt, we
could do a lot better. And we want to work with you and we want
to work with our partners in the Federal Government to try to
close that gap. I think I was quite clear in my opening
statement that the digital divide that we have today is
unacceptable, and we can be doing a lot more.
I would like to actually address one of the things that Mr.
Enjady talked about, and that was the Tribal Broadband Factor.
In fact, we are looking right now, we have a further notice of
proposed rulemaking that is seeking comment not only on the
Tribal Broadband Factor proposal that NTTA put out, but on any
other reforms that might promote broadband deployment for rate-
of-return carrier lands.
So we really, really want to move forward with getting more
broadband out there and we are looking at many ways of doing
it. We are actually moving forward with this further notice of
proposed rulemaking and Chairman Wheeler has said that he will
act on a proposal before the end of the year.
Senator Udall. In 2010, the FCC chairman, Julius
Genachowski, stood up an agency, the Office of Native Affairs
and Policy, or ONAP. This tribal liaison office is vital, I
think, for ensuring that robust tribal consultation occurs and
you have better input from the Tribes on important FCC actions
that impact them.
So I am very disappointed by that the FCC did not provide
ONAP even the modest $300,000 in funding that Congress directed
for tribal consultation in fiscal year 2015. Will you assure me
that the FCC will not repeat this mistake for the current
fiscal year?
Ms. Sohn. Sir, we will not repeat that mistake, yes. I will
give you that assurance.
Senator Udall. That is good. That is good. And how much
funding for ONAP and tribal consultation is the FCC's fiscal
year 2017 budget request?
Ms. Sohn. Well, we do have overages. As you mentioned, we
did not spend all the money. We spent most of the money in
fiscal year 2014. We did not spend most of the money, probably
about half, in fiscal year 2015.
But I want to take a step back and look at the reason that
you appropriated that money to ONAP. That was to ensure that
ONAP went out and did government-to-government consultations
with the tribal communities, did trainings, did workshops on
broadband and spectrum and broadcast, and they did that. They
did 33 in 2014; they did 39 in 2015.
So in the year where we only spent half the money, they
actually did more consultations than in the year where they
almost spent all the money. So the goal of appropriating that
money is being accomplished.
In the first four months of 2016, there have already been
20 consultations, and there is going to be a lot more. We will
probably exceed the 39 by the end of this year. So we will
spend the money. We are planning on it. But, more importantly,
the goal that you set out when you gave ONAP that money has
been accomplished, and I hope the Tribes, and I do believe the
Tribes do appreciate the effort that ONAP has made. It is a
critical part of our agency.
Senator Udall. But the real answer to the question is that
in 2017 your budget request is zero, and I don't think that is
the way we should be headed.
Just a quick question to Mr. Enjady. My understanding is
that the Tribal Broadband Factor proposal before the FCC would
direct $25 million per year to accelerate broadband deployment
on tribal lands. This amount is offset by savings elsewhere in
the Connect America Fund. Could you elaborate on how the Tribal
Broadband Factor would help telcos deploy service to
underserved and unserved areas?
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Senator Udall, I appreciate that
question. The way things go, funding is going down either way.
That is one thing that is happening to Indian Tribes,
especially when it comes to running our telephone companies. I
am one of nine tribally-owned telephone companies in the Nation
right now. We are facing a lot of decreased funding in order to
build our networks, operation caps that are put on top of us,
capex caps that might becoming here soon. These are some of the
things that are tough.
So TBF was formed in order to offset that. A lot of that
notion obviously can tell that it is hard to provide services
on Indian reservations. We do not have sidewalks like anywhere
else, like in America, like where we have a fund where we build
roads and whatever else. I live on a dirt road myself; it is
going up a hill. How do we get services up there? I have to
string it up where the REA guys put up their telephone lines.
These are some of the real life things that are happening
on reservations. We don't have improved services like this, so
we don't have mapping, GIS mapping that is very accurate at
times. I would like to have a lot of those things, and it takes
funding to do that. So those are some of the things that we are
looking at and hopefully TBF can bridge that gap for us here in
the future.
Senator Udall. Thank you for your good work.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Ms. Kitka, for being here, making the long
trip. You are not a stranger to this Committee and we
appreciate the contributions that you provide on behalf of
Alaska Natives throughout our State.
I want to focus a little bit about your suggestion that we
need to expand the universal service schools and libraries
program to include Head Start, GED programs, and online college
courses. It strikes me, as I go around the State, you go out to
some of these very small villages and the school is the only
place that has access to internet.
Well, the school is not open on the weekend; the school is
not open at night; and the school is not open during the
summer. And in most of our small villages we don't have
libraries.
So what happens on the weekend, at night, and during the
summer? Where is the access for not only the children, but if
you don't have a public library, there is no access in these
communities.
Am I over-exaggerating or overstating the case?
Ms. Kitka. No. I think you are exactly right. I think that
there is a lack of access to many of our residents in our
villages, especially our small villages, and that is part of
the reason why we want the schools and library program
expanded, because even if they provide that for the GED or
other things, they are actually in violation; and common sense
is that doesn't make sense.
But also there really is a need for the BIA to set up a
special program to lower the cost on that. In some of the
villages we have the school with the program, you have a tribal
entity providing social services, things for children on that
that don't qualify for the lower rate, so they are paying
double the amount. So we need to lower those costs in the other
areas.
Senator Murkowski. One of the things that I hear as I am
going around, also, is in many of our schools we have a Head
Start program within the school itself, and yet you have this
firewall here where the Head Start program cannot avail itself
of the capabilities that the school has, which makes no sense
to me. You would think that we ought to be able to resolve
that.
Ms. Sohn?
Ms. Sohn. Senator Murkowski, my understanding is that Head
Start, if they do hold classes in an E-rate school, they are
permitted to use that connectivity unless the State says
otherwise. And USAC actually has a list on its Web site of
States that permit Head Start and GED classes to use when they
use the facilities of a school. So it actually goes State by
State, it is not an overarching rule against it.
Senator Murkowski. That would be something to look into,
then, if you have a situation where, if you have job training,
GED, or Head Start and the States can make that determination.
Let me ask about your recommendation with regard to the New
Market Tax Credit program and effectively setting aside 10
percent of New Market Tax Credits for projects that would
benefit Alaska Natives and American Indians with a focus
specifically to the Broadband, because I think you have
identified what our biggest impediment is.
Everybody recognizes that we need to have this broadband
access. The real question is, okay, how do you make it happen?
Where does the financing come from? So the idea of greater
public-private partnerships I think is something worth
considering.
As you know, we have not fared well in the State, but,
again, if there were a greater opportunity to be competitive
with a carve-out that would focus on an area where we have
extraordinary need when it comes to our ability to access
broadband amongst our Native American and Alaska Native
communities, the question to you in terms of how far we have
gotten with this proposal of kind this 10 percent carve-out or
set-aside, is this something that you have been working with
NCAI on? Where are we in just moving the idea forward?
Ms. Kitka. Well, we have had discussions with the White
House. As many people know, President Obama traveled to Alaska
at the end of August of last year and early September and saw
some of the great needs in our State and made some commitments
of some critical things that needed to be taken care of by the
Federal Government. The whole issue of focused New Market Tax
Credits as one way to tackle some of those commitments of the
national imperative in the Arctic on that was something that
they were very interested in talking about. We have had
conversations with the New Markets program manager within
Treasury. We do think that there is an interest and a
willingness to use that program to expand and meet the needs.
That is why we put it forward as far as a set-aside that
includes half of that set-aside for telecommunications and half
of it for other things such as other infrastructure needs. We
have tremendous infrastructure needs and we believe that the
Congress really needs to make that a national priority next
year, when new administration and a new session of Congress on
that, and include Native Americans' infrastructure needs and
telecommunications needed in that.
In the interim, I think what is an immediate question mark
to us is what they are doing in combining the $3.5 billion to
do the $7 billion. And if that goes on, it is a huge lost
opportunity for Native Americans in that whole cycle. We
understand we don't want to slow down what they are doing, but
if there is a way that they could carve out in that $7 billion
some portion of it for Alaska Natives and Native Americans on
that for us to have an opening to put together proposals in
there for broadband and other infrastructures, that is
something that could be done this year.
I really urge the Committee to develop legislation that is
totally focused on Native American needs on infrastructure with
a focus on broadband and consider either in the appropriations
process or in the omnibus bill this year, but really tackle
that. It is a lost opportunity for Native Americans not being
able to access that.
Senator Murkowski. I appreciate you leading on this and
look forward to working with you and the Committee on this.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, on the
docket we had a bill that Senator Tester and I sponsored,
trying to take a lot of the mystery out of Indian school
funding and where things are, and I guess my question to you,
Ms. Sohn, is similar when it comes to broadband and exactly
what the FCC does.
Do we need better metrics to measure the deployment of
broadband in Indian Country? I know that you maintain a
broadband map of the U.S. and what speeds in wireless are
available, but are those maps coordinating with Indian Country?
Is there a better way to review these?
Are there implementing issues about data sharing across
agencies? What do we need to do? What kind of metrics do you
currently use and what else do we need to do so that we get a
crisp and clear picture of this challenge?
Ms. Sohn. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. So we do have
performance goals and we have outcome goals. Whether we have
specific metrics, not so much; and we could do a lot better in
that regard. But we have speed goals both for schools and
libraries and also for high-cost areas; we have outcome
measures in high-cost areas, the number of new schools and
libraries and homes and businesses that get connected.
Senator Cantwell. On tribal land? Are you talking in
general?
Ms. Sohn. In general.
Senator Cantwell. Okay. I am asking what kind of metrics
you have on tribal land.
Ms. Sohn. We don't have specific metrics for tribal lands.
And one of the reasons for that is that tribal lands, as you
know, are very, very different. There are tribal lands in the
suburbs and there are tribal lands in the bottom of the Grand
Canyon. So we are concerned that if you have one-size-fits-all
metrics for tribal lands, it may actually do some of the lands
a disservice.
Be that as it may, I think we still would like to work with
the GAO and work with you to figure out whether some metrics
make sense.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I don't know any problem that I
have ever solved without measuring it first and getting a good
understanding of what we think the problem is. And I know every
member up here I am sure has Indian Country within their States
and wants it to be a vibrant economic development area, and
everybody, as the panelist just did an articulate job of
saying, it is a key tool to economic development.
So I guess what I think is always challenging for us is to
get a clear and crisp picture of exactly where these programs
are reaching and where they are not reaching, because we just
keeping talking and talking about how there are these available
programs, and then we don't even know what they are actually
accomplishing.
So I guess, I don't know, Mr. McBride, do you have a kind
of metrics that you are using? Is there any challenge with
coordinating data between agencies that we need to clear up?
Mr. McBride. Actually, thank you for the question. Congress
actually helped us with this with some direction in the 2014
Farm Bill. One provision of the Farm Bill required us to share
reporting on our loans with the FCC, and we are working with
them to share data that we have so they can update broadband
maps.
We also are required to include unserved populations in our
Farm Bill loan program, and that information is posted online
when an applicant submits an application so the public can see
which areas would be served. And we do have that unserved
requirement within the Farm Bill, so we are trying to target
our resources to unserved areas.
Senator Cantwell. Ms. Sohn?
Ms. Sohn. I think I would like to clarify what I said
before. So we do measure deployment all over the Country and on
tribal lands. We ask the carriers to submit twice a year on
their Form 477 where they deploy broadband. And we do need to
share that data more with USDA so we can have greater impact
for our funding. We need to share funding plans, we need to
share data without a doubt. But we do measure deployment.
Let me talk about the broadband map for a moment.
Senator Cantwell. So, on that point, do you know what
percentage of Indian Country has access to broadband services?
Ms. Sohn. Yes. Fifty-nine percent. So 41 percent does not,
by our benchmark.
Senator Cantwell. Fifty-nine percent of Indian Country has
broadband service?
Ms. Sohn. According to our latest broadband progress
report.
Senator Cantwell. You mean some coverage or you mean 59
percent of tribal land has broadband access?
Ms. Sohn. Fifty-nine percent. So 41 percent of tribal lands
do not have access to our benchmark speed. But if I could just
address the broadband map for a moment, because we have never
actually updated the broadband map because we have never gotten
the resources to do so. So what we do is we have created our
own interactive map and we update that pursuant to our
broadband progress report.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Goldstein, did you want to add
something here?
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Senator. Just briefly. To the
extent that the broadband map is accurate, I think those
numbers are fine. The problem with the broadband map is that in
many places, the way it is being measured is not terribly
accurate, it is being done with a very large cudgel, if you
will, because it is being done by census block; and out in a
lot of Indian Country, as you know, census blocks are very
large.
Senator Cantwell. So the Colville Reservation in Washington
might be one census block.
Mr. Goldstein. It could be one citizen, even, one small
portion of a census block and the rest of that census block
does not have access. And the problem particularly out in
Indian Country is we talk to a number of Tribes in which they
tried to protest the accuracy because they were being denied
funding because they, according to the map, had broadband, when
in fact they did not.
So that is still a problem that is not fully rectified. It
is getting better slowly, but in the meantime we are not that
certain how accurate it is.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I definitely think we need to talk
about what data we can collect to get the accurate picture. We
are not going to solve this problem unless we have an accurate
assessment of what the problem exists today. That somehow there
is 59 percent of Indian Country, I don't know if anybody up
here on the dais thinks that 59 percent of anything in their
State has broadband access. I don't think there is 59 percent
in my State, and we are a pretty wired State. But hopefully I
am wrong, but let's get data and measurements and work together
on it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. I just want to tack on to what she said,
and that is that there is a cellular map that shows Montana
fully covered for cellular service. It is total BS, and I can
tell you what BS means, but it is total wrong. So I just want
to confirm what Maria just said.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. In Montana, that is buffalo, the BS thing
is buffalo something.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. Well, we have gotten into a good thing
here, which is how we measure, because the 41 percent, I don't
know what that means. Ms. Sohn, you said we don't have metrics
and then toward the end you said we do have metrics; and that
seems imprecise testimony to me. That is just me. So we heard a
figure, 96 in urban settings.
But I don't know what 41 percent means in a tribal area.
Does that mean that let's say you have a huge reservation and
there is connectivity at the school. What percentage of the
people are counted as having connectivity, then? How is that
figured out? How is that calculated?
Ms. Sohn. So we calculate connectivity by census block. We
do not use a broadband map because we agree that there are
inaccuracies, but we do measure by the census block. And if
there is service at our benchmark speed at the census block,
then we do count that as served.
Senator Franken. Okay, I don't know what that means, then,
again. So let's say a census block has the only connectivity is
at the school, okay? What does that mean in terms of the
percentage of people who have access to internet broadband.
Ms. Sohn. Well, it means it is not the most accurate way to
measure and, unfortunately, we have been advised by our counsel
that going much more granular than that could have some privacy
implications. I mean, without a doubt, our data is not perfect,
although our staff does spend a lot of time trying to verify
the data.
Senator Franken. Okay, I just want to know what 41 percent
means, because it is a number that is thrown around all the
time, right? And I know why you said there is 59 percent
connectivity, because 59 and 41 equal 100.
Ms. Sohn. Right.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Sohn. So 41 percent of the census blocks in tribal
lands do not have connectivity, do not have connectivity at our
benchmark speed of 10:1.
Senator Franken. Yes. And I am trying to figure out what
that means. Do you understand that?
Ms. Sohn. Yes, I do.
Senator Franken. Okay. So let's say there is a big
reservation, and let's say they have two schools they are so
big, and both schools have broadband that is fast enough to
qualify. What if you live 40 miles from the school? Do you have
connectivity?
Ms. Sohn. Not necessarily, no. I mean, 477--let me just
clarify.
Senator Franken. Are you counted as having connectivity?
Ms. Sohn. No.
Senator Franken. No.
Ms. Sohn. The 477 data does not go to schools and
libraries, okay? It goes to individual households.
Senator Franken. Okay.
Ms. Sohn. The schools and libraries, that is separate.
Senator Franken. So it is individual households. So that
helps me now. Okay, so I understand that a little bit better.
Some of us have become more reliant on mobile devices to access
the internet, and we are going to have a spectrum auction,
right? What is the FCC doing to ensure that tribal communities
have access to that very finite, of course, resource?
Ms. Sohn. Well, there is a tribal lands bidding credit that
is available to both the tribal carriers and carriers that want
to serve tribal lands. So, in other words, it is a 25 percent
bidding credit.
Senator Franken. Bidding?
Ms. Sohn. Bidding credit, yes.
Senator Franken. Okay, a bidding credit.
Ms. Sohn. It is a bidding credit that essentially gives
them a leg up in obtaining spectrum in the incentive auction.
Senator Franken. Okay. Well, that is good to know.
Ms. Kitka, thank you for your testimony. You say that money
is the elephant in the room. I think it is. Are there any other
elephants in this room that anybody would like to identify?
Ms. Kitka. I was going to respond to the Chairman's
question about what can be done to further partnerships,
public-private partnerships on this. I think that we can ask
the Administration, either the current President or the next
president, to convene a high level kind of a matching party, if
you will, with Native American leaders and business leaders on
that and the private sector on that.
Part of the partnership is the lack of opportunity for
introduction and meeting people on that. If there was an
opportunity where you had a chance to meet your counterparts in
the telecom world on that, I think that there could be a lot of
creative partnerships furthered that don't necessarily cost
money; it is just a matter of pulling people together. So that
is a suggestion I had.
Senator Franken. Okay.
Mr. Enjady?
Mr. Enjady. I would like to answer that question. The parts
that you are asking about, the schools there actually under the
E-rate program, which is not quite part of some of the regular
providers that provide services there, so for like my
reservation, on the Mescalero Apache Reservation, we have an E-
rate program which we are qualified to provide services to that
school.
But because of the BIE, Bureau of Indian Education, they
have a national contract with Verizon to provide those
services, so I cannot compete against them because they are
under a national contract because they provide those services.
So I, as a local provider, cannot provide that service.
Now, if we look at the rest of the reservation like in
Mescalero, at one point we were at like 54 percent no service.
But because the Tribe took the initiative to build out its
telecom company, we are up to about 98 percent. So we are doing
very well at the copper line level.
Now, we have different forms or ways to get to the house
from our offices. We can do it over copper or we can do it over
fiber optic cable, which is glass. We can send lasers down that
line and get all the broadband that we need.
So I am in that transition point right now, which I was
fortunate enough to receive a SUTA loan from RUS and be able to
provide those services. So we are going to start attempting
doing that pretty quickly. Hopefully in the next six months we
will start laying the first fiber lines to the home. So with
that we should get up to 2 gigabytes of connectivity to every
home on our reservation. Those are some of the things, the
accomplishments that we are going to do.
Now, if we can do that in all reservations across the
Nation, that would give us 100 percent coverage or close to it,
depending if they are wired or not.
Senator Franken. That is what we need.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Franken.
Senator Heitkamp.
STATEMENT OF HON. HEIDI HEITKAMP,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
Senator Heitkamp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just kind of to clarify, I think that when we hear 59
percent, what we assume that means is that every person who is
within that territory that you have identified as having access
could in fact connect at the speeds that you measure. Is that
what 59 percent means?
Ms. Sohn. Unfortunately, I can't say that it does.
Senator Heitkamp. I think that is a problem, because that
number is unreliable. So we are kind of down to that doesn't
mean anything to me. So I need to know what the current
condition is.
I held a meeting on this in North Dakota and I can tell you
that the issue that Senator Franken just raised, which is the
cellular issue, I had people talking about typing a paper,
putting it on their cell phone, then driving out to the highest
point in the reservation and holding their cell phone up and
hoping that that paper transmitted to the professor at UND.
Standing out there on the high hill, because so many people in
this demographic area or this census block, they connect
wirelessly.
They are fairly mobile. We have a huge problem with Indian
housing, so they don't have a home that is consistent for a lot
of them; they move around. Their only connection to the
internet is on a cell phone or on a mobile device. So we have
to figure out how we fashion a solution for the population that
exists and make sure that we are not building fiber to places
where no one is going to use it. They need cell towers. So we
have to figure out with RUS what is the direct need that folks
have.
And we have done a pretty good job, actually, in providing
broadband access in North Dakota, even in Indian Country. North
Dakota is one of the most connected rural States in the Union
because of the great help of RUS. But we still have gaps in
coverage. I can't stress upon everyone enough the need to
collaborate all the Federal information, whether it is BIE,
whether it is Indian health, whether it is RUS, whether it is
FCC, to find out what the needs actually are.
Because having this kind of communication support into the
future is absolutely essential. It is essential for education
and it is essential for life and death, and I will tell you
why. Because we can't recruit a health care workforce in Indian
health facilities in North Dakota; we have to rely on
telemedicine. And if we don't have reliable backbone in
telemedicine, we don't have health care, especially in the area
of behavior and mental health.
So my question, Mr. McBride, is really, what more can be
done and, compared to the applications that you get, how much
unfilled need is there in Indian Country as it relates to
support from RUS?
Mr. McBride. Well, thank you for the question. With regard
to unmet needs in Indian Country, we are reliant on folks
coming in and making application. And certainly with the SUTA
provisions we try to look at those applications and give those
priority as we are working through the stack of applications
that we have. Our goal is to make sure that we are meeting the
most underserved areas, and certainly tribal areas are included
in that.
But one of the things that we have also tried to do, to the
point that you were just making with regard to coordination,
under the Broadband Opportunity Council, we are trying to work
across agencies to make sure that we are leveraging resources
that we do have; not requesting new money, but finding ways to
use the programs and resources that we have already been given
to expand access.
Senator Heitkamp. Well, in many cases isn't it true that
RUS does do public-private partnerships? I mean, you are
partnering with the rural telecoms in providing a lot of this
service or with some of the Indian-owned telecommunications
companies.
Mr. McBride. Yes, ma'am. And as you are probably aware,
Secretary Vilsack has the Rural Opportunity Initiative where we
have been trying to work with the private sector to leverage
our resources with theirs to meet the infrastructure needs in
rural areas.
Senator Heitkamp. I think one of the most critical things
that can come out of this hearing is an understanding that we
are frustrated by the lack of data. We are frustrated that we
don't know where the gaps are and we don't know how to fill
those gaps. And we are frustrated that everybody doesn't seem
to be kind of in the same space, trying to solve the problem
working together.
So I hope that going into the future, when you go back to
collaborate and you do it in consultation with the people who
are actually being served, so you are not building fiber where
nobody is going to use fiber, when you could build cell phone
towers where people could actually get access, that we actually
begin to close the gap, because this will create economic
hardship and a lack of economic development for generations to
come if we don't fix this problem, and that is a place where,
in all of our States, we desperately need an economic
opportunity.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Heitkamp.
Senator Tester.
Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your courtesy of going last. I appreciate that.
Thank you for your testimony, folks.
This is for you, Mr. McBride. One of the barriers that GAO
identified was a lack of tribal members who have necessary
technical and bureaucratic expertise to navigate the
application process and to interact with prospective providers.
What is the agency doing to support Tribes' administrative and
technical capacity?
Mr. McBride. Thank you for the question. I actually grew up
in a rural community in Arkansas with a small town mayor who
had an executive assistant and needed a lot of help trying to
identify the different opportunities, so I am sensitive to the
issue that you have raised.
We try to do outreach with all rural communities, in
particular tribal, and we are also fortunate to have State
offices with State directors and program folks on the ground
who can go and meet with people in their communities and talk
to them about their needs and the opportunities under rural
development to meet those.
Senator Tester. Good. We have talked about money, and this
is for you again, Mr. McBride. Other than money, what is the
biggest obstacle to the deployment of high-speed internet?
Mr. McBride. A lot of it is simply the difficulty of
building out. The terrain can be tough. Those who are looking
to provide service in the hardest to reach areas have to deal
with different permitting, different issues at the local and
State level. So there is a lot of work that goes into putting
together a successful project aside from just finding the
funding.
Senator Tester. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Sohn, Chairman Wheeler was out in Montana last fall and
hosted a roundtable with Native American Tribes from Montana
and talked about the barriers to improving internet access, and
it was a very successful visit.
I certainly appreciate the Chairman's time because it
really was beneficial to me and to the Tribes. The Chairman
promised to the Tribes that he was going to send a team of
folks to Montana. I think that is going to happen very, very
soon, and I hope to be there when they show up to spend a few
days consulting with the Montana Tribes. Could you talk about
the value of face-to-face consultations and what the success
has been for the FCC in this?
Ms. Sohn. ONAP has worked tirelessly to build
relationships, government-to-government relationships with the
Tribes and honor our fiduciary duty, our trust relationship
with the Tribes to ensure self-sufficiency and economic
development. As I mentioned before to Senator Udall, in 2014 we
had 33 such consultations, 39 in 2015. We have already had 20
in the first four months here.
So the value is enormous. It is not only consultation, it
is not only input from the Tribes as to what our policies
should be and how we can be helpful, but it is also training;
it is digital literacy training, it is technical training. So
it is a wide variety and it is very much an interactive
partnership between our agency and the Tribes.
Senator Tester. Okay.
Mr. McBride. this is back to you. It was brought to our
attention that BIE-operated schools cannot access USDA
broadband funding because of statutory provisions about
interagency funding. Is that true?
Mr. McBride. I am not aware of the issue that you have
raised. I would be happy to look at the specific concern. I
know that there might be an issue if you were using Federal
funds to match other Federal funds or something of that nature,
but if it is a partnership through distance learning, for
example, I wouldn't be aware of the concern.
Senator Tester. Could you do me a favor? And we might be
able to save you some footsteps. Get hold of my staff and check
into this.
Mr. McBride. Absolutely.
Senator Tester. Because as it is written here it doesn't
make a lot of sense to me. Okay?
Mr. McBride. Absolutely.
Senator Tester. I don't think it makes a lot of sense to
you either.
Mr. Enjady, one of the obstacles we have seen in getting
agencies and telecom groups to recognize the unique rights of
the way in Indian Country, it has been a challenge, trust,
responsibilities, plus sovereignty and all that. It is a
sensitive topic, but we have seen some big projects fall
through the cracks because of issues about right-of-ways that
just stretch out too long and it got too late.
I was talking to a rural telephone cooperative that does
much of the broadband in Eastern Montana and they were saying
they were having a hard time getting right-of-ways across
Indian Country to be able to provide Native Americans with
broadband.
I just want to get your perspective on this. Is this an
issue we should be paying some attention to as a Committee or,
if it is a problem, how do we solve it?
Mr. Enjady. It is a huge problem. Right now I just went
through that same problem with a tower lease with Verizon. We
submitted it to the BIA. It took two years for them to approve
it. In the meantime, Verizon was sitting there. They were
paying their lease agreement, but it was a two-year agreement
and it took two years to get it, and the first day of their
lease commenced when BIA finally signed off on it, so they
actually got four years for actually two years.
Like I said, that was difficult to try to do it. I am not
sure if there are enough people to really take care of the
situation. Putting it back in the Tribe's hand might be one way
of doing this, where we are able to do the realty part of this.
That could be one way. I am not sure. That is an area that is
very sensitive.
I know how I would do it myself. I would just do it and
take care of it, then, here, write it down and take care of it
for us, because, like I said, Indian Tribes, when my president
asked me to provide services, I do it; and we have to try to do
it the best way, and we will ask BIA to forgive us afterwards.
Senator Tester. Yes. Well, I am on a co-op. I get my
telephone and my electricity from a co-op. I get my internet
service from the co-op, and I can just tell you it is a
sensitive issue, okay, but part of my getting access to the
internet and telephone and power lines is that I give them a
right-of-way. I give them a right-of-way. I don't get one damn
nickel for it other than the fact that if I didn't give them
the right-of-way I wouldn't get the service, and I need that
service to run my business and be successful.
I would love to be able to work with you and other folks
moving forward to try to get this issue tapped down because
there has to be a solution for this. I think in Indian Country,
where the economy and especially a lot of the large land-based
Tribes, where it is expensive to lay cable, lay fiber, it is
critical if we are going to get them out of poverty. I think it
is just critical. If we don't do it, we are going to be
fighting an uphill battle.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator.
Mr. Enjady, just following up. We talked a lot about if you
couldn't get it done, you would do it yourself and ask
forgiveness later. It is interesting. The FCC has dedicated
itself, it says, to having robust consultation with Indian
Tribes. I would just like you to comment a little bit about
their current policies for communicating along this robust
consultation. Is it working? Are there things that could be
done better?
Mr. Enjady. Tribal engagement is one thing that the FCC has
tried to do very well. When Geoffrey Blackwell was there,
consultation was very good. I cannot cite the fact that the FCC
is trying to do the best they can in that arena. They have done
a very good job in that they have had numerous listening
sessions across the Country. The last one I was in was last
year, when we were in Phoenix. They invited quite a few tribal
folks and they did do a very good job.
The part is that Tribes have a lack of knowledge in what
telecoms really are. It is a very, very complicated arena. It
is something that obviously you can see that we have had the
toughest time just trying to figure out what the percentages
are of what is served and not served only because it is so
complicated.
It is not easy anymore. The 1996 Telecommunications Act
said that we will provide services all across the land, and
that is something that sure needs to be done, and I hold the
FCC's feet to that for some of the things that we, as
providers, want to do throughout our whole reservation.
As a part for all of Indian Country, some of the big
carriers take care of that, like Windstream, CenturyLink. I am
not sure exactly where they are. I mean, they are a for-profit
business; they are publically owned and they do have shares, so
their shareholders come first, and I am not sure where Indian
Country fits into that picture yet. That is something that I am
sure the FCC is addressing, but, as a whole, there are a lot of
problems out there.
When Senator Heitkamp said that wireless might be the way,
that is true, it could be the way, but obviously we have to
build fiber optic networks to get to those towers in order to
provide the high bandwidths that they need just so you can use
your smart cellphone to be able to get on the internet and do
what you need to do. You still need fiber optic cables to
deliver the huge amounts of data, and wireless cannot do that
right now at this time.
The Chairman. Following up on that, Ms. Sohn, we were
talking about the issues of 41 percent, 59 percent, what does
it all mean, and could you just flip the numbers, in terms of
actual service. According to the GAO, between 2010 and 2014,
about $33 billion has been spent on universal high-speed
internet access. The FCC has implemented several programs to
aid in ensuring that all people have access. When do you expect
that all tribal communities that want access to broadband might
have access to broadband?
Ms. Sohn. Well, I am reticent to make a prediction. All I
can say is that that is our goal and we are working hard to
make that happen. Can our data be better? Absolutely. I do want
to mention, though, just to say that the FCC didn't start
collecting this data until 2014.
So before that it was the NTIA and the States doing it
together. So we are kind of like a toddler in that regard and
we need to do a better job, without a doubt. We may well need
Congress's help in order to collect more granular data.
The Chairman. I want to just follow up a little bit on that
because we hear about the worry that when you look at the
national broadband map it can exaggerate service in local
areas, and that was the comment you heard from many members of
this Committee today. So if a service provider provides
availability to a portion of a census block unit, that whole
census block may be counted. We understand that, we have that
agreement.
This leads to a misconception sometimes that providers are
providing to a larger area than may actually be delivered. So
that is, like you said, like a toddler just trying to learn. I
wonder is there some enticement for carriers to purposefully
overstate their coverage of an area in terms of either
additional payments, additional incentives that they can say,
yeah, we have covered this? Are there incentives out there,
inducements that would help explain to us why they may want to
overstate what is actually covered?
Ms. Sohn. Well, I don't want to speak for the carriers, but
I will say this. If they do overstate their coverage, the
Tribes have two options: number one, the carriers that serve
tribal lands must engage with the Tribes, and that is a place
where the Tribes can deal with the carriers' overstatement
there; or they can come to us, they can come to ONAP. So we
will enforce those kinds of overstatements. But I really don't
want to get into what the carriers were thinking.
The Chairman. So, Mr. Goldstein, one of the recommendations
has to develop performance goals and measurements to track
progress to achieve, including tribal lands. The FCC stated in
the response to the GAO report the agency already had
performance measures for in-home access. Are there further
actions that the FCC should be taking?
Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Chairman, the kinds of performance
measures that the FCC has are not, as Ms. Sohn said, related to
tribal lands, they are very broad in nature; they cover rural
areas generally, the Nation in general. They are for in-home
access, as well as for the E-rate program.
With E-rate program itself, I would add that this is a
program that has been around for many, many years, and unlike,
like Ms. Sohn said, where they are just getting involved in
terms of trying to understand data for in-home access, in the
E-rate program we have been writing reports for more than a
decade which have criticized the FCC's inability to develop
performance measures in that program. So the fact that they
still don't have them for Tribes, even though they have in the
last couple years developed them more broadly, is of some
concern.
The Chairman. You had also focused in the report on the
Department of Agriculture, the FCC. Other agencies like the
Department of Commerce, the Department of the Interior are
mentioned in the report, but they are not really included in
the report's recommendations. Anything you would like to add
about the Department of Commerce or the Department of the
Interior?
Mr. Goldstein. We have written a number of reports in the
last couple of years taking a look at the Recovery Act programs
of BIP and BTOP and the like, and we have made recommendations,
sadly, that are very similar to the ones we made here today
regarding a lack of performance measures. Too many of these
kinds of programs where we are spending billions of dollars,
the money is being sent out the door without any adequate
oversight of exactly what it is being used for and, even before
that, what the goals are that the agencies are trying to
achieve and how they are going to measure when they are
achieved.
So, therefore, it is difficult to determine what is being
achieved, what kind of overlap might exist, how money might be
targeted better, things like that. So without these kinds of
measures in all of these programs, we don't get as much
progress as we probably could.
The Chairman. And, Mr. McBride, the Community Connect
grants were part of the $33 billion spent improving access to
universal high-speed internet access. The Community Connect
grants were awarded to rural communities, including tribal
communities, to provide high-speed internet service. The GAO
report states that between 2010 and 2014 $53 billion, as we
have talked about, had been spent. Of that, approximately $3
million was awarded to tribal lands, by my math in this. Is
there a dedicated stream of funding for tribal broadband and is
it something that needs to come from Congress?
Mr. McBride. Tribal areas are prioritized under Community
Connect and DLT. I am not sure which statistics you are
referencing. Since 2009 we have funded $77 million in Community
Connect grants, and $14 million of that has been targeted to
tribal areas. Last year we were able to fund five projects and
four of them were to tribal areas. So we are trying to target
them.
The Chairman. There are a number of examples of interagency
issues between tribal carriers that they face. I don't know if
rural utility services have a way to help tribal communication
carriers when interagency issues arise between, say, the rural
utility service, the FCC, other Federal agencies. Do mechanisms
exist?
Mr. McBride. Certainly for our borrowers, if there are
issues, we are happy to work with them and coordinate with
other agencies and help in any way we can to facilitate
conversations that help them achieve their goals.
The Chairman. Well, I want to thank all of you for your
testimony today. We appreciate your taking the time to answer
the questions, to be patient as the questions continued.
The hearing record is going to remain open for the next two
weeks. There is a possibility you may receive written questions
from some of the members who thought of additional questions
after your testimony or who weren't able to be here. But I want
to thank all of you for being here.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI)
Introduction
The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest and
largest representative organization of American Indian and Alaska
Native tribal governments. NCAI represents the broad interests of
tribes and their citizens to promote the advancement of tribal
sovereignty and self-determination. On April 27, 2016, the Senate
Committee on Indian Affairs held a hearing on, ``The GAO Report on,
`Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance
Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal
Lands'''. The hearing focused a report released by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) on February 3, 2016, which highlighted
programmatic and interagency issues to deploy telecommunications
services on tribal lands. The report determined that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) did not coordinate well in telecommunications programs,
outreach, and training to tribes. In addition to the need for joint
outreach and training efforts between the FCC and USDA, the GAO
recommended that the FCC develop performance goals and measures to
track progress on Internet availability in households on tribal lands;
improve reliability of data regarding institutions receiving funds
under the Schools and Libraries (E-rate) Program by defining ``tribal''
on the program application; and develop performance goals and measures
to ensure tribal schools and libraries receive affordable Internet
services.
While the focus of the Hearing was on the findings and
recommendations highlighted in the GAO report, a number of issues were
also raised including requests for legislative action to increase
access to private capital and regulatory action to preserve the
Universal Service Fund (USF) for carriers serving tribal lands. A
number of Committee Members also raised concerns over how the FCC
collects information for broadband availability on tribal lands, and
how reliable that information is since carriers self-report U.S. Census
blocks they receive USF support for. GAO also acknowledged that certain
inaccuracies with different maps illustrating broadband availability on
tribal lands have prevented some tribes from accessing federal funding
for broadband projects. The FCC responded that it could not collect
granular level data on tribal lands because it could have privacy
implications and recommended that Congress look at what actions to take
regarding the issue.
NCAI respectfully submits this testimony for the record of the
Senate Committee on Indian Affairs hearing on, ``The GAO Report on,
`Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance
Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal
Lands'''.
Telecommunications In Indian Country
The primary law governing our telecommunications sector is the 1934
Communications Act, which was last amended in 1996 due to early and
rapid advances in wireless and cable technologies. Section 254(b) of
the 1996 Telecommunications Act established six universal service
principles to meet the goals of providing affordable and quality
telecommunications services across the country. In order to reach these
universal service objectives the 1996 Telecommunications Act created
the Universal Service Fund (USF), and required carriers providing
interstate telecommunications services to contribute a fee to the fund
to support telecommunications deployment across the country.
In the 2000 U.S. Census, it was estimated that less than ten
percent of tribal lands had access to the Internet, and that less than
69 percent of tribal households had access to basic landline telephone
service. During the following decade tribal leaders and organizations
like NCAI held numerous meetings with the FCC. These meetings sought to
educate the FCC on ways it could change its regulatory priorities to be
more inclusive and receptive to telecommunications deployment on tribal
lands. However, change came slowly as tribes quickly found challenges
with navigating the complex regulatory framework of the FCC.
Additionally, the constant release of technical and lengthy policy
changes stretched tribal budgets for advocacy efforts. It is during
this period that tribes advocated for the creation of a tribal office
at the FCC that could directly consult with tribal nations and act as a
channel to receive tribal input. After a decade of these discussions
the FCC created the Office of Native Affairs and Policy in 2010, and
since then consultation and engagement with tribal nations has reached
heightened levels.
While the FCC has released numerous regulations over the past 15
years to bridge the ``Digital Divide'' in Indian Country many tribal
lands across the country are still lacking access to modern
communications technologies and services. Many tribes have received
first-time connections to the Internet through the Indian Healthcare
Service, or other federal programs that have connected tribal schools,
public safety facilities, and government buildings. However,
residential service remains an area of challenge as the drive of
``market forces'' have not connected the majority of tribal lands.
Additionally, services such as those provided through IHS and other
federal programs often operate within closed networks to ensure
appropriate bandwidth is available for the services they need to
provide. While a majority of tribes have established IT networks to
connect facilities on tribal lands, just ten of the 567 federally-
recognized tribes have established telecom companies to provide
residential phone and Internet services.
Tribal Lands Continue to Remain the Most Disconnected Areas of the
Country
As aforementioned, for well over a decade tribes and the federal
government have referenced a 2000 Census finding that less than ten
percent of tribal lands have access to the Internet. That same data
also proclaimed that less than 69 percent have access to analog
wireline telephone networks. Today there are conflicting reports
regarding broadband availability and adoption in Indian Country between
the FCC, Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Census, thereby making it
difficult to determine where targeted funding for tribal lands is
needed.
According to the FCC's 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 41 percent
of residents on tribal lands lack access to advanced telecommunications
services, compared to 10 percent of the overall U.S. population as
highlighted below:
Americans Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications Capability
(Millions)\1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Population Without Population Without
Access Access
------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States 33.982 10%
Rural Areas 23.43 39%
Urban Areas 10.552 4%
Tribal Lands (Overall) 1.574 41%
Rural Areas 1.291 68%
Urban Areas 0.283 14%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
See Federal Communications Commission. 2016 Broadband Progress Report.
Jan. 29, 2016. FCC 16-6. Table 1. Pg. 34. Available at http://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0129/FCC-16-
6A1.pdf.
These statistics are based on the FCC's current speed benchmark of
terrestrial services provided at speeds of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps
upload (25 Mbps/3 Mbps), which the FCC determined was required to use
high-quality video, data, voice, and other broadband applications in a
household with multiple users. This data is further disaggregated
below:
Tribal Lands Without Access to Fixed Advanced Telecommunications
Capability\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of
Population Population
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal Lands 1,573,925 41%
Rural Areas 1,291,330 68%
Urban Areas 282,595 14%
Alaskan Villages 128,638 49%
Rural Areas 113,706 70%
Urban Areas 14,932 15%
Hawaiian Home Lands 367 1%
Rural Areas 307 7%
Urban Areas 60 0%
Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 588,324 58%
States
Rural Areas 469,818 72%
Urban Areas 118,506 33%
Tribal Statistical Areas 856,596 34%
Rural Areas 707,499 66%
Urban Areas 149,097 10%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Id. Table 2. Pg. 35.
The FCC explained that this information is collected biannually
when carriers receiving USF support report Census block service data on
FCC Form 477. Numerous Members of the Committee asked questions
regarding the collection of this information, and specifically how this
information can be used to identify which areas of tribal lands lack
access to broadband service. In response the FCC raised concerns with
the collection of more granular level data as it could have privacy
implications and that it may take an act of Congress to mandate such
collection of data. Nonetheless, GAO noted issues with data collection
and specifically referenced that inaccuracies with the National
Broadband Map have precluded some tribes from accessing federal funding
for telecommunications projects on tribal lands.
Additionally, the National Telecommunications & Information
Administration (NTIA) collects data on broadband Internet adoption. A
study conducted by NTIA was released in 2013 and found that broadband
adoption rates among urban American Indians and Alaska Natives hovers
around 60 percent, while a 33 percent broadband adoption rate for rural
tribal households ranked the lowest among all ethnic groups. The survey
also found rural American Indian and Alaska Native groups had the
lowest computer ownership rates compared to their urban counterparts.
It is also important to note that NTIA and the FCC's definition of
``broadband'' high-speed Internet in 2013 was 3 Mbps/768 Kbps.
Finally, 2013 Census American Community Survey (ACS) data similarly
found that American Indians and Alaska Natives overall, have higher
rates of computer ownership and broadband Internet subscription rates
compared to those residing on reservation and trust lands. However,
according to the overall 2013 Census ACS data, American Indians and
Alaska Natives overall continue to have the lowest broadband Internet
subscription rates and the highest group without an Internet
subscription when compared to other ethnicities. It was difficult to
ascertain what the Census defined as `broadband' high-speed Internet,
but it is assumed that it would have coincided with the FCC's
definition of 4 Mbps/1 Mbps during this time period.
3 Reporting overall American Indian/Alaska Native Alone (AIAN):
2,439,080. Reporting on Reservation and Trust Lands: 559,491.
While all these data collection efforts over the years have
demonstrated increases in broadband availability, computer ownership,
and broadband adoption rates, there are still significant deficiencies
in other areas. For instance, there are no reliable sources of data for
wireless services and pricing on tribal lands. The Native Nations
Broadband Map was meant to provide an ideal snapshot of a broad range
of wireline and wireless services on tribal lands but it has failed to
fulfill these goals. Much of the data that is used to populate the map
is collected either through telecom carriers self-reporting areas they
serve and the types of service(s) they offer, or through data
collection efforts through state agencies or third-party contractors.
Originally the National Broadband Map initiative was created
through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5)
and offered grants through the State Broadband Initiative Program for
the purposes of collecting telecommunications data. However, there was
a major oversight in the legislation as the grants awarded were
directed to the 50 states, five territories, the District of Columbia,
or their designees-thereby effectively excluding direct tribal
eligibility for data collection on tribal lands. \4\ While state
agencies, or their contracted designees, were expected to collect data
on tribal lands some tribes refused to share data or allow outside
entities onto tribal lands to collect this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See BroadbandUSA: Connecting America's Communities. State
Broadband Initiative. Available at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/SBDD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to a 2012 U.S. Department of Commerce Performance
Progress Report, the Gila River Indian Community of Arizona, and their
tribally-owned and operated telecommunications carrier refused to share
information with the State of Arizona and the National
Telecommunications & Information Administration. \5\ Although the
Report didn't specify the reasons for the Gila River Indian Community's
refusal to participate in the data collection efforts, similar
instances of tribes refusing to share their data or information with
outside entities can be found in other areas. Data collection and
retention has more recently been held as an exercise of tribal
sovereignty since many tribes have historic and deep-seated issues with
sensitive information being exploited by non-tribal individuals or
entities. A key example of this infringement dates back to the early
anthropological and archaeological publishing of religious and cultural
practices, or seizing of sacred cultural items by non-tribal
researchers. Nevertheless, Congress must empower tribes to collect this
information for their own uses and purposes. Enabling tribes to
determine how they collect this information, either through
partnerships or through their own efforts, will advance tribal
sovereignty and self-determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See U.S. Department of Commerce, Performance Progress Report.
Arizona--Government Information Technology Agency. February 24, 2012.
Available at http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/grantees/04-50-
m09045geom-proparizona_department_of_administration_-
_adoa_ppr2012_q1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress Should Fund and Elevate the FCC Office of Native Affairs and
Policy
In recognition of the disparate levels of telecommunications
service on tribal lands the FCC established its Office of Native
Affairs and Policy (FCC-ONAP) to provide technical assistance and
engage in government-to-government consultation with tribal nations.
The office was created without dedicated funding and it was not until
passage of the FY 2014 Omnibus that FCC-ONAP received $300,000 to
support its tribal consultation and training directives. FCC-ONAP did
not receive a Congressional appropriation in the FY 2016 budget and the
FCC has not requested funding in its Annual FY Budget Requests to
Congress since FY 2014. NCAI has previously advocated that Congress and
the FCC authorize and appropriate a dedicated annual budget of $500,000
for FCC-ONAP to facilitate meaningful and productive consultations with
tribal governments and to support the office in hiring additional
staff. It came as a surprise to learn that the FCC has previously
failed to fully use the $300,000 appropriated by Congress in recent
years.
While the FCC testified that they have been holding increased
consultations with tribes without fully expending their consultation
budget, it was not specified how and where those consultations were
taking place. If these consultations were being conducted when a tribe
visits the FCC offices to discuss an issue or rulemaking, then that is
very different than the FCC actually visiting Indian Country or holding
its regional consultations, trainings, and workshops. Additionally,
funds should be used to hire additional staff and other
telecommunications experts to provide technical assistance to tribes.
The FCC and Congress should also elevate the FCC-ONAP as a stand-
alone office. The FCC has already established a procedural framework
for stand-alone offices, such as the Office of General Counsel and
Office of Engineering and Technology to name a couple. These offices
were created to directly advise the FCC Chair and Commissioners as
specific subject matter experts. When FCCONAP was established it was
place under the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau with the intent
to report to, and work directly with the FCC Chair, Commissioners, and
across the Bureaus and Offices at the Commission. Elevating FCC-ONAP to
operate as a stand-alone office will ensure that it has the unfettered
access needed to address tribal concerns and advise the FCC Chair,
Commissioners, and the Commission's Bureaus and Offices on all tribal
matters.
Preserve High Cost Subsidies for Broadband Deployment: Adoption of a
Tribal Broadband Factor in the High Cost Fund
Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ensures that all
Americans, regardless of where they live, will have access to
communications services at reasonable and affordable rates. The
Universal Service Fund (USF) has provided financial support to
telecommunications companies providing service to rural and insular
areas, where the cost of providing service to consumers could not
otherwise be achieved at affordable rates. The FCC has established
rules to provide this support through various mechanisms including High
Cost Loop Support (HCLS) and the National Average Cost Per Loop Support
(NACPLS), which both provide critical ongoing capital and operating
support to price cap and rate of return telecommunications companies.
However, regulatory changes at the FCC have not always taken into
consideration the depth of telecommunications services needed in rural
and tribal lands. For instance, as part of its ongoing USF/ICC
Transformation Order, in June 2014 the FCC initiated a Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) to seek comment on reforms to the HCLS
mechanism. The FNPRM proposed reforms to the HCLS mechanism, which
included a proposal to freeze the NACPLS--a reform that was estimated
to drastically reduce support for approximately half of all tribal and
nontribal providers serving tribal lands.
In response to the FNPRM proposals, in September 2014 Alexicon
Consulting submitted a white paper that analyzed what effects the
proposed NACPLS freeze would have on carriers receiving HCLS. \6\ Using
available data from the National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA)
for the reporting years 2010 through 2012, the White Paper recalculated
the HCLS for over 600 study areas based on the NACPLS freeze and
adjusted HCLS recovery percentage proposals put forward by the FCC. The
data illustrated potential decreases in HCLS support for a number of
the tribally-owned and operated telecommunications providers and non-
tribal carriers serving tribal lands. \7\ On November 14, 2014, the
Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) submitted a Staff Report on the
impact of the FCC's proposed reforms to the HCLS mechanism. \8\ The
Staff Report showed an increase in the number of study areas receiving
support and a projected ``zero'' for study areas losing all HCLS
compared to a proposal submitted by NTCA. However, the overall data set
compiled by the WCB staff also illustrated that nine of the ten
tribally-owned and operated telecommunications providers would receive
decreases in their HCLS support of an estimated $865,000 under the FCC
proposals. \9\ Despite these findings by the WCB Staff Report, and
analysis submitted for the record, on December 18, 2014 the FCC
released a Report & Order in which it adopted its proposed reforms to
HCLS on an interim basis, while indicating that it intended to act on
long-term reform in 2015. \10\ The FCC also adopted its proposals to
freeze the NACPLS absent any consultation with affected tribes to
determine how it would affect HCLS and other USF High Cost support
mechanisms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See Federal Communications Commission. Alexicon Consulting,
``White Paper: Adjusting Recovery Percentages to Cap Total High Cost
Loop Support''. Sept. 19, 2014. Available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/
document/view?id=7522902861
\7\ Id., App. B-E.
\8\ See Federal Communications Commission. Letter for the Record
from Mark Walker, Legal Advisor to the Chief of the Wireline
Competition Bureau, to FCC Secretary Marlene H. Dortch, WC Docket Nos.
10-90 and 14-58. Nov. 24, 2014. Available at https://
prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/112514fcc.pdf.
\9\ Id.
\10\ See Federal Communications Commission. HCLS Reform Report and
Order, WC Docket Nos. 10-90, 14-58, 14-192. Dec. 18, 2014. FCC 14-190.
paragraph 100, pg. 36. Available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/
attachmatch/FCC-14-190A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal consultation followed the FCC's decision, and after a year
the FCC initiated a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to solicit
input on the development of a Tribal Broadband Factor (TBF) within the
USF High Cost Fund. \11\ This rulemaking is still ongoing, but NCAI
does support the establishment of a TBF within the High Cost Fund to
maintain or provide increased USF subsidies to support the deployment
and maintenance of telecommunications infrastructure in Indian Country.
This proceeding, however, has highlighted the need for prior and
informed consultation with tribal nations since it took a year for the
FCC to develop these proposals after deciding to freeze NACPLS support.
As aforementioned the FCC has stated it did not expend its tribal
consultation budget in recent years, which is troubling given the
issues that were raised as a result of the HCLS/NACPLS proceeding.
Moving forward the FCC must develop rules that will provide parity for
carriers that require ongoing capital and operating support to connect
tribal lands to broadband services. Ongoing reforms to the universal
service High Cost program must take into consideration how regulatory
and financial changes could adversely affect tribal carriers and those
serving tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See Federal Communications Commission. Report and Order, Order
and Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 14-58, and CC Docket No. 01-92.
FCC 16-33. Released March 30, 2016. Available at http://
transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2016/db0504/FCC-16-
33A1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress and the FCC Should Recognize Tribal Authority to Designate
Libraries on Tribal Lands
In June 2013, President Obama announced the ConnectED initiative to
connect 99 percent of America's students to high-speed broadband and
services by 2018. Shortly after this announcement, the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) initiated rulemakings to modernize its
$2 billion Schools and Libraries program (E-rate)--the federal
government's largest educational technology program. In the Final Order
adopted by the FCC in August 2014, many tribal concerns were addressed,
such as the need for training on various programmatic aspects of the E-
rate program and the need for a Tribal Liaison at the Universal Service
Administrative Company. However, the Final Order missed taking action
on several key recommendations to increase tribal participation in the
program. Additionally, the Final Order focused on prioritizing funding
to support Wi-Fi deployment, which does not address the critical need
for new hardline, and in many cases first-time, connections to the
nation's schools and libraries.
Congress should enact statutory changes to enable tribal authority
to designate what constitutes a ``library'' on tribal lands. Tribal
`libraries' are usually located in multi-service buildings that provide
programs and services to tribal members, which may not constitute a
formal `stand-alone' library or necessarily be attached to a primary or
secondary education institution. When the 1996 Telecommunications Act
passed it recognized the Library Services and Construction Act, which
provided tribes the ability to designate their own libraries. However,
just months after passage of the '96 Telecom Act, the LSCA was
rescinded and replaced by the Library Services and Technology Act
(LSTA). Under the LSTA tribes must receive approval from a State
Library Administrative Agency to designate a ``library'' as eligible
for receiving funds for various library functions-including eligibility
for participation in the E-rate program. The FCC should include this
recommendation in their reports to Congress to support the need to
amend the LSTA, or remove the requirement that tribal libraries be
eligible for LSTA under state programs and instead restore them to
being treated as agencies of sovereign tribal nations. NCAI's
membership also adopted Resolution #ANC-14-049, ``Support for the
Creation of a `Tribal Priority' in E-rate Funding for Tribal Libraries
and Schools'' (enclosed), which called for the FCC to exercise
forbearance on any laws or regulations that would prevent tribal
libraries from accessing E-rate funds.
Increase Tribal Nation Access to Spectrum Licenses
As the demand for commercial mobile services increases the federal
government is working to free up more spectrum to support and expand
wireless networks nationwide. However, due to previous auctions of
spectrum licenses by the FCC many non-tribal telecommunications
providers hold spectrum licenses over tribal lands but don't
necessarily serve all tribal lands within a license area. In past and
present circumstances tribes are unable to participate in spectrum
auctions due to the vast amount of capital the telecommunications
industry leverages to bid on these licenses. This has resulted in a
comprehensive spectrum grab by industry without any new deployment or
improvements to existing networks supporting wireless services over
tribal lands. As the government continues to free up government held
spectrum for commercial mobile use, tribes must receive a priority to
licenses over tribal lands.
On March 3, 2011, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), WT Docket No. 11-40, in
the Matter of Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by
Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands. \12\ This
was a major step in further recognizing disparate spectrum access
issues experienced by tribal nations. However, since the FCC adopted
this NPRM, there has been no action to initiate a next phase of
rulemaking in WT Docket No. 11-40. In the WT 11-40 NPRM, the FCC
recognized proposals in the National Broadband Plan (NBP) to extend a
tribal licensing priority to commercial wireless spectrum.
Recommendations from the NBP called for the development of rules for
re-licensing unused spectrum to tribes and encouraging the use of
secondary markets to facilitate broadband deployment to unserved or
underserved tribal areas. \13\ However, the inactivity and dormancy
that has been the subject of WT 11-40 has stifled the promise of
increasing tribal access to commercial wireless spectrum licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of
Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by Promoting
Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands. Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. WT Docket No. 11-40. Available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/
comment/view?id=6016822908.
\3\ See Federal Communications Commission. In the Matter of
Improving Communications Services for native Nations by Promoting
Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands. Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. WT Docket No. 11-40. Paragraph 12, page 6. Available at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6016822908.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress should urge that the FCC initiate a next phase of
rulemaking on WT 11-40 to increase tribal nation access to spectrum
licenses. Due to regulatory changes and implementations since the
release of WT 11-40, the FCC should revisit the proposals included in
the rulemaking and request further comments to reflect the current
state of telecommunications both regulatory and technologywise. The FCC
should also implement a ``Tribal Priority'' in the rules inclusive of
commercial mobile radio services, and wireless spectrum that can be
utilized to deploy critical important and robust broadband services.
Regulatory rules should also strengthen the structure of negotiations
with existing licensed companies and strengthen the ability of tribal
nations to initiate and participate in these negotiations. Access to
currently licensed spectrum is absolutely necessary as many communities
and tribal nations have never received the full benefit of services
that could and should be provided on these licenses. Adoption and
utilization of broadband services cannot occur until these services are
available on tribal lands.
Finally, the FCC should adopt rules that ensure there is good
faith, responsiveness, and continuity in negotiations between tribal
nations and service providers. As part of the fiduciary trust
responsibility that exists between the federal government and tribal
nations, it is critical that the FCC act in accordance with the best
interest of tribes. While NCAI supports FCC initiatives to ensure that
industry entities must ``meaningfully engage'' with tribal governments,
the FCC should remain involved in these negotiations to ensure tribes
are receiving fair treatment and deployment of broadband infrastructure
is occurring in accordance with tribal sovereignty and community needs.
NCAI's membership has also adopted a number of Resolutions calling upon
the FCC to adopt regulations that would increase access to spectrum
licenses including Resolution #MKE-11- 007, ``In Support of a Tribal
Priority for the Utilization of Spectrum on Tribal Lands (enclosed);
Resolution #SAC-12-034, ``Promoting Tribal Nation Access and Use of
Spectrum for Communications Service'' (enclosed); and Resolution #SD-
15-037, ``Urging the Federal Communications Commission to Improve
Access to Spectrum Licenses for Tribal Lands'' (enclosed).
Congress and the FCC Should Establish a Stand-Alone Tribal Broadband
Fund
One of the recommendations from the National Broadband Plan (NBP)
that Congress or the FCC has yet to consider is the establishment of a
Tribal Broadband Fund. Chapter 8.4 of the NBP provides recommendations
to Congress that would provide additional financing solutions beyond
USDA RUS programs and USF support:
Recommendation 8.18 Congress should consider establishing a
Tribal Broadband Fund to support sustainable broadband
deployment and adoption in Tribal lands, and all federal
agencies that upgrade connectivity on Tribal lands should
coordinate such upgrades with Tribal governments and the Tribal
Broadband Fund grant-making process. \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See the National Broadband Plan. Chapter 8.4: Other Government
Actions to Promote Availability. Mar. 17, 2010. Page 152. Available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/national-broadband-
plan.pdf.
The NBP specified that the creation of a Tribal Broadband Fund
would provide grant funding to bring high-capacity broadband services
to tribal anchor institutions; conduct feasibility studies, planning
and infrastructure deployment; and provide business plan development,
implementation, and digital literacy training. \15\ In recognition of
the low access and adoption rates prevalent on tribal lands, the NBP
also recommended that a portion of the Tribal Broadband Fund would
provide targeted grant funding for Internet access and adoption
programs. \16\ While many discussion draft bills have been circulated
regarding the creation of a Tribal Broadband Fund, no bill has been
formally introduced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id.
\16\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress Should Establish a Tribal Seat on the Federal-State Joint
Board on Universal Service
The Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service provides
recommendations on how to implement and provide critical USF
investments. On June 11, 2010, NCAI sent a letter to Congressman Jay
Inslee in support of legislative changes to Section 410 of the
Communications Act (enclosed). In that letter, NCAI referenced
recommendations from the National Broadband Plan citing, ``. .
.Congress should consider amending the Communications Act to establish
a Tribal seat on the USF Joint Board.'' \17\ During the 111th Congress
legislation was introduced on December 16, 2010 to provide amendments
to Sections 254(a) and 410(c) of the Communications Act to create a
tribal seat on the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. \18\
Following the bill's introduction, NCAI's membership adopted Resolution
#MKE-11-005, ``In support of Tribal Positions on Universal Service
Reform'' (enclosed). To the extent that Congress determines the
continued use of other Federal-State Joint Boards, tribal interests and
representation must be included.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See the National Broadband Plan. Chapter 9.7: Coordinating
with Tribes on Broadband Issues. Page 184. Released March 17, 2010.
Available at http://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/
national-broadband-plan.pdf.
\18\ See H.R. 6530, To amend the Communications Act of 1934 to
establish a position for a representative of Indian Tribes on the Joint
Board overseeing the implementation of universal service, and for other
purposes. 111th Congress, 2nd Session. Introduced December 16, 2010.
Available at https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/hr6530.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attachments
The National Congress of American Indians_Resolution #ANC-14-049
title: support for the creation of a ``tribal priority'' in e-rate
funding for tribal libraries and schools
WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American
Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the
Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for
ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our
Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements
with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we
are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to
enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian
people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the
health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish
and submit the following resolution; and
WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was
established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization
of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and
WHEREAS, the tribal communities in the U.S. have the lowest
broadband deployment and adoption rates of any group of Americans, and
often rely on tribal libraries and school computer labs to obtain
access to the Internet; and
WHEREAS, the Universal Service Fund (USF) E-Rate program has
provided more than $2.25 billion in support each year for schools and
public libraries, and today 61 percent of the nation's public libraries
benefit from E-Rate discounts, and more than 95 percent offer free
public Internet access, up from only 28 percent in 1996; and
WHEREAS, recent studies by the Association of Tribal Archives,
Libraries & Museums (ATALM) found that 10 percent of tribal libraries
do not offer Internet access, 38 percent are the only source of free
public Internet access in their communities, and only 17 percent of
tribal libraries have ever applied for E-Rate discounts, with 15
percent actually receiving E-rate funds; and
WHEREAS, the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Education
(BIE) reported 130 to 140 BIE schools applying for and receiving E-rate
funds over the last nine years--out of a total 183 BIE entities.
However, of the E-rate funds committed for these BIE schools over the
past nine years, only 60 percent was actually spent. Furthermore, many
eligible BIE schools did not apply because they did not meet the 80
percent threshold to receive a discount. These statistics illustrate
persistent gaps in E-rate adoption among BIE schools that are similarly
prevalent in other Native-serving institutions due to their
geographical isolation and inability to meet Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC) guidelines; and
WHEREAS, E-rate funding is critically important to the development
and maintenance of Internet-based services to tribal schools and
libraries, and without a 90 percent discount rate tribal schools and
libraries are detrimentally impacted through reduction in teachers and
student programs creating further distress in the most economically
challenged tribal communities; and
WHEREAS, NCAI Resolution REN-13-064 called on the FCC to place the
highest priority on tribal schools and libraries in efforts to
modernize the E-Rate Program as part of the President's ConnectED
initiative; and
WHEREAS, the definition of Tribal Schools From the National Indian
Education Association is as follows:
TRIBAL PRIORITY ELIGIBILTY FOR E-RATE FUNDS
LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES
(1) Where Indian children eligible under Section 7117 of the
No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107-110) [20 U.S.C. 7427]
are served by local education agencies located on, or adjacent
or contiguous to, an Indian reservation, any other lands held
in trust by the United States for Indians, or former Indian
reservations in Oklahoma, such local education agencies and
Indian tribes shall be eligible and have priority for funds
distributed under the Universal Service Fund (USF) E-Rate
program for any fiscal year.
(2) If one or more Indian tribes represent Indian children
eligible under section 7117, the Indian tribe that represents a
majority of the eligible Indian children shall have priority to
receive such funds under the Universal Service Fund (USF) E-
Rate program for any fiscal year.
BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION
(1) A school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education,
including a school operated under a contract or grant with the
Bureau of Indian Education, or a consortium of such schools
shall have priority to receive such funds under the Universal
Service Fund (USF) E-Rate program for any fiscal year.; or
(2) a school funded by the Bureau of Indian Education in
consortium with an Indian tribe, institution of higher
education, tribal organization or community organization, shall
have the same eligibility for and be given the same
consideration as a local educational agency with regard to such
program.
TRIBAL PRIORITY SPECIAL RULE
(1) If an eligible local educational agency or school funded
by the Bureau of Indian Education that is otherwise eligible
for funds but does not apply for such funds, an Indian tribe
that represents not less than \1/2\ of the eligible Indian
children who are served by such eligible entity may apply for
such funds; and
(2) The Universal Service Fund (USF) E-Rate program shall
treat each Indian tribe or consortium of Indian tribes applying
for funds as if such Indian tribe or such consortium were a
local educational agency, except that any such tribe or
consortium is not subject to section 7114(c)(4), section
7118(c), or section 7119 of the No Child Left Behind Act
(Public Law 107-110) [20 U.S.C. 7427]; and
WHEREAS, 85 percent of tribal libraries do not receive E-Rate
funding due to eligibility restrictions, lack of awareness, and
application complexities, and current statutory eligibility
requirements make the majority of tribal libraries ineligible for E-
rate participation; and
WHEREAS, according to ATALM, tribal libraries receive less than $3
per capita per year in contrast to public libraries which receive an
average of $45 per capita per year, and the majority of Tribal
libraries often do not receive services or state certification from
state library agencies and are thus not eligible for Library Services
and Technology Act funding, which FCC rules currently require; and
WHEREAS, the FCC has a trust obligation to Indian Country and to
meet that obligation a `Tribal Priority' to E-Rate should be developed
for tribal libraries and schools to provide these institutions with
targeted funding for digital broadband services, so they do not fall
further behind mainstream America in terms of digital access, adoption,
and applications.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that NCAI calls on the FCC and its
Office of Native Affairs and Policy (FCC-ONAP) to increase awareness
and remove tribal-specific barriers by: (1) Conduct outreach to tribal
libraries and schools, especially those having not participated in the
E-rate program previously; (2) Provide tribal specific training modules
for the E-Rate program; (3) Attend national and regional tribal
meetings where tribal school and library administrators are present;
(4) Develop educational materials that will be part of the FCC-ONAP's
Native Learning Lab and provide these materials directly to tribes via
web portal or physical hard copy; (5) Provide assistance to tribal
school and library awardees to comply with E-rate regulations; (6)
Ensure accessibility to tribes during critical times of the annual
funding cycle to answer questions and provide additional assistance as
needed; and (7) grant forbearance from all applicable laws precluding
tribal library participation in E-rate; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FCC consult with tribal nations to
accelerate deployment of high-capacity broadband to tribal libraries
and schools by creating a `Tribal Priority' so they can better serve
tribal citizens by qualifying these institutions for both Priority 1
and Priority 2 E-Rate funding; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FCC create new eligibility
criteria that more effectively targets tribal communities for E-rate
funds, such as those proposed by the `Tribal Commenters' filing (WC 13-
184) to the FCC on April 7, 2014; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FCC preserve the 90 percent
funding E-rate for tribal schools and libraries and re-instate Priority
2 funding for tribal communities; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of
NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the
2014 Mid-Year Session of the National Congress of American Indians,
held at the Dena'ina Civic & Convention Center, June 8-11, 2014 in
Anchorage, Alaska, with a quorum present.
The National Congress of American Indians_Resolution # MKE-11-007
title: in support of a tribal priority for the utilization of spectrum
on tribal lands
WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American
Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the
Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for
ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our
Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements
with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we
are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to
enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian
people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the
health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish
and submit the following resolution; and
WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was
established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization
of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and
WHEREAS, the 1996 Telecommunications Act provides for
telecommunications infrastructure and information technology to be
developed and utilized in a manner that meets the social, civic,
economic, educational, and cultural needs of American Indians and
Alaska Natives; and
WHEREAS, while competitive market forces have spurred robust
wireless communications services in many areas, connectivity on tribal
lands remains at significantly lower levels necessitating robust
`tribal centric' build out comparable to the national average; and
WHEREAS, NCAI supports the establishment of a tribal priority,
similar to the current 307(b) tribal priority for broadcast licenses,
for the licensing of fixed and mobile wireless telecommunications
services, and ensuring its availability to qualifying tribal entities
that provide service to unserved or underserved tribal lands, when such
lands are within the geographic area covered by an unallocated Wireless
Radio Services license; and
WHEREAS, NCAI supports increased ``tribal-centric'' build out
requirements for carriers, including tribally operated providers of
first resort or tribal joint ventures based on consultation with
tribes; and
WHEREAS, NCAI supports a tribal licensing priority for tribal
governments, tribal consortia, and entities that are more than 50
percent owned and controlled by a tribe(s). This is consistent with FCC
rules governing the tribal priority in the broadcast radio licensing
context, and the legal foundation for providing opportunities to tribes
for access to spectrum is based on the federal government's trust
relationship with tribal governments; and
WHEREAS, tribal governments, residents, and first responders have
critical communications needs that remain unmet; carriers maintain a
stronghold on wireless telecommunications licenses and have failed to
meet these tribal needs.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, the NCAI strongly supports FCC rule
modifications requiring carriers to immediately engage with tribal
governments and either divest themselves of their FCC licenses over
tribal areas or provide services to tribal lands within on an mutually
agreed deployment schedule; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the NCAI urges the FCC to support tribal
efforts to use spectrum services and allocations on tribal lands should
be managed in deliberated consultation with tribal governments on
deployment of services, rights of way, business and tribal regulatory
permissions, and tribal governments should be a part of the licensing
approval and renewal process for non-tribal licenses; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the FCC must provide as much and
sufficient spectrum to meet the public needs of Native communities. As
a matter of sovereignty and trust responsibility, such vital spectrum
should be provided free to Native communities. Tribal service areas
should be a single service area for the entire community. If there
needs to be payment for spectrum licensing, then Native governments
should be given the priority to serve themselves with reserve costs
calibrated (and thus, the first right of refusal for license
ownership); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges all spectrum policy
impacting Native communities be deliberated in consultation with tribal
governments; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI urges termination of the
existing tribal bidding credit program and any reformed tribal bidding
credit or tribal priority program must have the two key components: (1)
such program or priority must result in tribes actually attaining
licensing in their communities; and, (2) that every Native community
and tribal government be able to use spectrum over their lands or
communities for public interest needs; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI supports the establishment of
a Tribal Priority for licensing Wireless Radio Services, thereby
expanding the current tribal radio broadcast licensing priority and
creating opportunities for access to unlicensed or unallocated Wireless
Radio Services licenses to increase access to communications services;
and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI supports ensuring that this
new tribal priority be available to qualifying tribal entities for
spectrum access, and a qualifying tribal entity for these purposes
would be an entity designated by the tribal government(s) having
jurisdiction over particular tribal land for which the spectrum access
is sought, or the tribal government(s) for a tribe residing in a single
identifiable geographic unserved area; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the NCAI supports the FCC requiring new
licensees to consult with tribal governments for deployment of services
over tribal lands and to build or divest a geographic area covering
unserved or underserved Tribal lands within its license area within
three years of receipt of a construction permit from the FCC, thereby
promoting the availability of services to residents in the affected
tribal areas within a reasonable length of time and to compel current
licensees to immediately consult with tribal governments and either
divest themselves of their FCC licenses over tribal areas or provide
services to tribal lands within a mutually agreed deployment schedule;
and,
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of
NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the
2011 Mid-Year Session of the National Congress of American Indians,
held at the Frontier Airlines Center in Milwaukee, WI on June 13-16,
2011, with a quorum present.
The National Congress of American Indians--Resolution #SAC-12-034
title: promoting tribal nation access and use of spectrum for
communications services
WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American
Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the
Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for
ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our
Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements
with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we
are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to
enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian
people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the
health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish
and submit the following resolution; and
WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was
established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization
of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and
WHEREAS, approximately 90 percent of Native Americans living in
Indian Country do not have access to Internet connectivity and the
economic, cultural and human significance of that fact cannot be
underestimated; and
WHEREAS, connecting Indian Country to broadband with the rest of
the world can reverse centuries of neglect and isolation and enable
Tribal Nations to shape the future health and welfare of their
communities with critical communications infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, broadband has the potential to assist Native American
people in securing their rightful place in a world economy of ideas and
opportunities; and
WHEREAS, access to currently licensed spectrum is absolutely
necessary as many communities and entire Tribal Nations have not seen
the full benefit of the services that could and should be provided on
these licenses; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Office of
Native Affairs and Policy (FCC-ONAP) is well positioned and respected
throughout Indian Country to consult and coordinate with Tribal Nations
as the FCC acts on important proceedings that impact Tribal Nations;
and
WHEREAS, with the creation of the Tribal Mobility Fund together
with the Connect America Fund provisions requiring engagement with
Tribal Nations on many important broadband deployment issues, Tribal
Nations are still waiting for the promulgation of important rules to
increase tribal access to spectrum; and
WHEREAS, the attached letter dated July 19, 2012, NCAI President
Jefferson Keel filed a letter to the FCC under WT Docket No. 11-40,
highlighting critical issues for the FCC to act to increase tribal
access to commercial wireless spectrum.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that in order to fully understand the
true availability of communications service on tribal lands, the FCC
must, as a threshold matter, consult with Tribal governments to ensure
Tribes are receiving good faith, responsive, fair treatment and
deployment of broadband infrastructure in accordance with tribal
sovereignty; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI reaffirms Resolutions MKE-11-007
and LNK-12-007, and calls for the FCC to implement a Tribal Priority in
the rules inclusive of commercial mobile radio services and wireless
spectrum that can be used to deploy critical important and robust
broadband services; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI, by our membership, adopts the
comments made in the attached letter from NCAI President Jefferson Keel
to the FCC; and BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be
the policy of NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent
resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the
2012 Annual Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held
at the Sacramento Convention Center from October 21-26, 2012 in
Sacramento, California, with a quorum present.
July 19, 2012
The Honorable Julius Genachowski,
Chairman,
Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, DC.
RE: Emphasizing the Importance of a Tribal Priority to
Spectrum Licenses (Improving Communication Services for
Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum
Over Tribal Lands, WT Docket No. 11-40) Dear Chairman
Genachowski,
On behalf of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), I
would like to extend to you my gratitude for speaking with NCAI's Board
during our 2012 Executive Council Winter Session in early March. At
that time I expressed how important and critical the need throughout
Indian Country is for fully licensed wireless spectrum. As your
Commission has acknowledged, wireless services are sorely lacking in
many parts of Indian Country. In many places, wireless services are not
a matter of convenience, but a matter of necessity, and often life or
death.
NCAI appreciated the Commission launching the Spectrum for Tribal
Lands Rulemaking. Tribal Nations need access to spectrum that was
licensed long ago to companies that have failed to build out to
communities on Tribal Lands. Much needed rule changes will serve tribal
needs in these least connected regions of the country.
It is not only a matter of need but also a matter of efficiency in
the use of this important resource, and especially in those many
instances where the spectrum is not being used for the benefit of our
communities. Having a wireless license is not the same as ownership of
property, and such licenses should be utilized by those who are willing
and able to deploy wireless services for the public good.
FCC Docket No. 11-40--In the Matter of Improving Communications and
Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal Lands
NCAI and Native Public Media (NPM) submitted joint reply comments
under WT Docket No. 11-40, ``Improving Communication Services for
Native Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over Tribal
Lands'' on June 20, 2011.(i) In the joint reply comments, NCAI and NPM
highlighted a variety of measures the FCC could take to promote the
deployment of wireless services over Tribal Lands, which included:
1) Expanding the Tribal Priority to advanced wireless services;
2) Establishing a build or divest process for spectrum use over
Tribal Lands;
3) Establishing a formal and mandatory negotiation process
between both current and future licensees and Tribal
governments;
4) The inclusion of a demonstration of service requirement as
part of any Tribal-lands safe harbor;
5) Significant modification of the Tribal Lands Bidding Credit;
and
6) The adoption of well defined eligibility criteria for Tribes
to obtain spectrum, as set forth in the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking.(ii)
I respectfully submit this letter to reemphasize certain
requirements for success that were previously addressed in NCAI's and
NPM's joint reply comments to Docket No. 11-40. It has been well over a
year since the FCC released its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on this
issue, and many tribes across the country are still waiting for the
promulgation of these important rules to increase tribal access to
spectrum.
Reemphasizing the Need to Increase Tribal Access to Spectrum
With the creation of the Tribal Mobility Fund together with the
Connect America Fund provisions requiring engagement with Tribal
Nations on many important broadband deployment issues, many pieces are
in place to address the Digital Divide in Indian Country. Now is the
time to put the most important piece in place--Spectrum priority.
With this in mind, I urgently encourage you to take the next steps
and promulgate rules that the FCC has proposed to create new
opportunities for Tribal Nations to access spectrum. Specifically, I
urge you to take immediate action to:
1. Implement a Tribal Priority in the rules inclusive of
commercial mobile radio services, and wireless spectrum that
can be utilized to deploy critical important and robust
broadband services. We look forward to future licensing actions
or auction opportunities to license areas that support tribal
lands and governmental priorities.
2. Create rules that strengthen the structure of negotiations
with existing licensed companies, and strengthen the ability of
Tribal Nations to initiate and participate in these
negotiations. Access to currently licensed spectrum is
absolutely necessary as many communities, and indeed entire
Tribal Nations, have never seen the full benefit of the
services that could and should be provided on these licenses.
Adoption and utilization of broadband services cannot occur
until these services are available on tribal lands.
3. Ensure that there is good faith, responsiveness, and
continuity in negotiations. As part of the fiduciary trust
responsibility that exists between the federal government and
Tribal Nations, it is critical that the FCC act in accordance
with the best interest of tribes. While NCAI supports FCC
initiatives to ensure that industry entities must `meaningfully
engage' with tribal governments, the FCC should remain involved
in these negotiations to ensure tribes are receiving fair
treatment and deployment of broadband infrastructure is
occurring in accordance with tribal sovereignty, FCC
expectations, and community needs.
4. Minimize the ability of parties to present ultimatums in
negotiations, and one-sided demands. In accordance with
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with
Tribal Governments'',(iii) and President Obama's recent
Executive Order, ``Accelerating Broadband Infrastructure
Deployment'',iv the FCC should develop and implement mechanisms
for tribal recourse when and if negotiations with industry
entities deteriorate.
5. Create opportunities for these negotiations to recognize the
unique geography, economies, and multiple-use needs of many
Tribal Nations. Coordinated efforts between tribes, their
respective governments, and industry entities are essential to
bridging the Digital Divide in Indian Country. Planning and
feasibility studies for infrastructure deployment should take
into consideration the needs of the community. The recent
Connect America Fund ``Tribal Engagement Provisions'' provide a
foundation for this to occur by requiring eligible
telecommunications carriers (ETCs) to meaningfully engage with
tribal governments in their service areas. NCAI supports these
provisions and encourages the FCC to enforce these provisions
on ETCs serving tribal lands.
6. Further investigate Best Practices based on stronger rules
and experiences surrounding negotiations and tribal engagement
under the Connect America Fund. The new build out measures for
Tribal Lands should be evaluated in coordination with Tribal
Nations, and involve the carriers who are only now beginning to
address tribes within their service areas. These measures
should be tailored specifically to the needs of different
regions and address the unique aspects of tribal governments
and lands, while taking into consideration the needs of each
individual Tribal Nation.
7. Implement a ``Build or Divest'' program in the context of
close coordination and consultation between Tribal Nations and
the FCC. We recognize this is a controversial point, but until
the Commission takes action to enforce actual build out onto
tribal lands, we will not solve the specific issues in each
corner of Indian Country. Recipients of CAF funds should be
legally obligated to address these specific issues and needs.
Additionally, the concept of ``Build or Divest'' is similar to
the incentive auctions authorized by Congress in the Middle
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 as a way to
encourage the voluntary relinquishment of currently licensed
spectrum.
Implementation of Tribal Priority to Spectrum Would Benefit Tribal
Nations Today
In closing, I reiterate our offer to assist in any further outreach
efforts to tribes for the purposes of consultation and coordination
with Tribal Nations as the Commission acts in this important
proceeding. With the FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy well-
positioned and well-respected throughout Indian Country, the
Commission's presence across Indian Country is deeply appreciated and
much needed. With the many new opportunities for Tribal Nations that
the Commission has created, it is time to implement a tribal spectrum
priority and bring meaningful robust wireless services to tribal lands.
Therefore, the Commission should act now to increase access to
spectrum over tribal lands. A Tribal Priority to spectrum would enable
American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages to develop their own
robust wireless services if they so choose or to empower tribes to
develop their own regulatory authorities to engage with industry
officials in the planning and deployment of robust wireless services.
Sincerely,
Jefferson Keel
President, National Congress of American Indians
(i) See Joint Reply Comments of Native Public Media and the
National Congress of American Indians. WT Docket No. 11-40.
``In the Matter of Improving Communication Services for Native
Nations by Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum Over
Tribal Lands.'' Submitted to the FCC Electronic Comment Filing
System on June 20, 2011. Posted on June 21, 2011. Available at
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7021688922.
(ii) Id.
(iii) See Executive Order No. 13175, ``Consultation and
Coordination with Tribal Governments. 65 Federal Register 218.
November 9, 2000. Available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-
2000-11-09/pdf/00-29003.pdf.
(iv) See President Obama Executive Order, ``Accelerating
Broadband Infrastructure Development''. June 14, 2012.
Available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/
06/14/executive-order-accelerating-broadband-infrastructure-
deployment.
The National Congress of American Indians--Resolution #SD-15-037
title: urging the federal communications commission to improve access
to spectrum licenses for tribal nations
WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American
Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the
Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for
ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our
Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements
with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we
are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to
enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian
people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the
health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish
and submit the following resolution; and
WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was
established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization
of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and
WHEREAS, tribal lands remain the most disconnected areas across the
country, and as the nation continues its shift to wireless based
services tribal access to spectrum licenses is absolutely critical; and
WHEREAS, tribal areas contain complex geographies where coverage
may be up to or exceed 85 percent within the more urban markets, while
residents of rural and remote regions are not covered and it is often
in these more rural/remote places where coverage is critical for
economic development, education, healthcare, and public safety; and
WHEREAS, while NCAI supports Commission efforts to encourage
competition in the marketplace tribes experience regulatory and
financial barriers preventing them from participating in commercial
wireless markets; and
WHEREAS, current licensing mechanisms aren't responsive to tribal
needs and would incentivize the deployment of telecommunications
services by smaller, more market sensitive carriers on tribal lands;
and
WHEREAS, a spectrum license assigned to a tribal nation would
incentivize the deployment of telecommunications services through
further structured financial arrangements; and
WHEREAS, in recognition of these issues, on March 3, 2011, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) initiated a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking under WT Docket No. 11-40 in the matter of ``Improving
Communications Services for Native Nations by Promoting Greater
Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands'' (WT Docket No. 11-40); and
WHEREAS, WT Docket No. 11-40 included proposals to implement a
``Tribal Priority'' to commercial mobile radio services and wireless
spectrum to deploy robust broadband services; strengthening negotiation
structures between tribes and companies holding spectrum licenses and
ensuring good faith in the negotiation process; reforms to the Tribal
Land Bidding Credit program; and whether a ``build or divest'' rule
should be exercised over licensees failing to deploy to tribal lands
within their service area; and
WHEREAS, since 2011, the FCC has not initiated any further
rulemaking on WT Docket No. 11-40, yet the Commission has continued its
implementation of the Connect America Fund to support wireless
deployment through the Mobility Fund and Tribal Mobility Fund auctions;
and WHEREAS, one of the primary and common barriers referenced by
tribes excluding their participation in the Mobility Fund and Tribal
Mobility Fund auctions is the lack of access to spectrum licenses; and
WHEREAS, since 2011, numerous tribes, tribal telecommunications
providers, and tribal organizations have submitted comments to WT
Docket No. 11-40 proclaiming support for the creation of a ``Tribal
Priority'' to spectrum licenses; and
WHEREAS, NCAI's membership adopted Resolution #SAC-12-034,
``Promoting Tribal Nation Access and Use of Spectrum for Communications
Services'' during its 2012 Annual Convention in Sacramento, CA that
urged the FCC take action on WT Docket No. 11-40; and
WHEREAS, the FCC has a legal foundation for providing tribal access
to spectrum licenses, which is in accordance with its federal trust
responsibility and the Communications Act of 1934.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of
American Indians (NCAI) reaffirms Resolution #SAC-12-034, which
supports the establishment of a ``Tribal Priority'' to spectrum
licenses, and urges the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
revisit and act upon tribal proposals in WT Docket No. 11-40, in the
matter of ``Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by
Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands'' (WT
Docket No. 11-40); and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI supports the establishment of a
structured secondary market negotiation process triggered by the tribal
nations requiring good faith and fair market value negotiations, as
well as considered reasons, as per the proposal in WT Docket No. 11-
40; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Commission's tribal government
engagement obligation provisions in the Connect American Fund and
Mobility Fund rules be applied to carriers involved in the secondary
markets agreements with tribal nations; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a tribal lands safe harbor buildout
provision in which a licensee would be deemed to have met its
construction obligations for its entire service area if it provides a
specified level of service to tribal lands within the geographic area
of its license with service levels in parity with the three most
proximate of the top 20 Metropolitan Statistical Areas; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution urges NCAI to
facilitate a coalition of tribes, tribal telecommunications providers,
tribal task forces, tribal organizations, and non-tribal entities and
associations to gather input and submit joint comments to the FCC
urging action on WT Docket No. 11-40; and
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of
NCAI until it is withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the
2015 Annual Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held
at the Town and Country Resort, San Diego, CA, October 18-23, 2015,
with a quorum present.
The National Congress of American Indians--Resolution # MKE-11-005
title: in support of tribal positions on universal service reform
WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American
Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the
Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for
ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our
Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements
with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we
are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to
enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian
people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the
health, safety and welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish
and submit the following resolution; and
WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was
established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national organization
of American Indian and Alaska Native tribal governments; and
WHEREAS, a 2006 Government Accountability Office report found that
only about 69 percent of households on tribal lands had telephone
service in 2000 compared to the national rate of 98 percent. The report
identifies four specific barriers to deployment: (1) the rural, rugged
terrain of tribal lands; (2) limited tribal resources; (3) lack of
technically trained tribal people; and, (4) rights of way issues; and
WHEREAS, the Universal Service Fund (USF) currently administers the
Link-Up, Lifeline, and High Cost programs which provide much needed
telephone discounts to qualified subscribers on tribal lands, and
ensures that all consumers have access to affordable pay rates for
telecommunications services; and
WHEREAS, in light of a limited regulatory definition of ``library''
as defined by the FCC, tribal libraries are often ineligible for `E-
rate' support as many do not qualify for state library funds, a fact
that was specifically noted by the U.S. Government Accounting Report
(GAO-06-189), in January 2006. Tribal libraries, serving as community
anchor institutions, are frequently the only access point for Internet
services in some tribal communities, and the lack of broadband services
at these institutions impedes education, individual self-determination,
social discourse and participation for tribal membership; and
WHEREAS, there needs to be a tribal seat on the USF Federal-State
Joint Board to include an American Indian/Alaskan Native representative
to make recommendations on implementing USF programs to provide
critical investments and expand telecommunications services on tribal
lands.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the federal government should
support tribal sovereignty by removing all regulatory and market
barriers, and by supporting all tribal nations' efforts to attain
parity of telecommunications service and technology with non-Native
communities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges the FCC, the President, and
Congress to not take any action on any policy that would harm tribal
efforts to serve its own communities, and that the aforementioned
should do everything within federal capacity to fund tribal efforts to
provide its own regulatory telecommunications solutions; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges the FCC, the President,`
and Congress to support the requirement for direct consultation with
tribal governments on federal policies directly impacting tribal lands
and communities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI urges the FCC, the President, and
Congress to support the requirement for regulated commercial
telecommunications entities to directly consult with tribal governments
and Native community organizations on providing full service to tribal
communities; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that NCAI recognizes the path and the model
that tribes have embarked upon to become their on regulatory
telecommunications providers to meet the needs of their communities and
these efforts should continue to be fully supported by the Connect
America Fund and by the revised Universal Service Fund; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI strongly urges the joint
support of the President, the FCC, and Congress create a tribal seat on
the USF Federal-State Joint Board to be filled by an American Indian or
Alaska Native so that tribes will have representation and effective
input regarding the overhaul and future management of the Universal
Service Fund; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the NCAI that Indian Country can
overcome the digital divide through meaningful collaboration and
consultation on USF reform through strong, engaged, and consistent
dialogue with the federal government including the FCC Office of Native
Affairs and Policy, and the Wireless Telecommunications and Wireline
Competition Bureaus; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, during the modification of the USF, and
transition to the Connect America Fund, that the USF continue to
provide the much needed support of legacy technology through the
Lifeline, Link-Up, and High Cost programs, which provide telephone
discounts to qualified subscribers on tribal lands, ensuring all
consumers have access to affordable rates for telecommunications
services; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the NCAI strongly urges Congress to
direct the FCC to permit tribal governments to determine what
constitutes a ``library'' in Indian Country so that the tribally
designated location is eligible for `E-rate' support; and BE IT FINALLY
RESOLVED, that this resolution shall be the policy of NCAI until it is
withdrawn or modified by subsequent resolution.
CERTIFICATION
The foregoing resolution was adopted by the General Assembly at the
2011 Mid-Year Session of the National Congress of American Indians,
held at the Frontier Airlines Center in Milwaukee, WI on June 13-16,
2011, with a quorum present.
______
Prepared Statement of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI)
Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Tester, Members of the Committee:
Thank you for this opportunity to offer our observations and
recommendations on improving availability and adoption of voice and
broadband communications services on Tribal lands. The plight of Indian
country's communications has been well documented for many decades now.
This most recent GAO Report simply continues to confirm our story of
unserved or underserved Tribal lands.
The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians (ATNI) was formed in
1953 by a farsighted group of tribal leaders in the Northwest dedicated
to promoting tribal sovereignty and self-determination. Today, ATNI is
a nonprofit organization comprised of American Indians/Alaska Natives
representing 57 northwest tribal governments from Oregon, Idaho,
Washington, southeast Alaska, northern California, and western Montana.
ATNI is an organization whose foundation is composed of the people
it is meant to serve--the Indian peoples. ATNI is focused on preserving
for its people and their descendants the rights secured under Indian
Treaties, Executive Orders, and the benefits to which they are entitled
under the laws and the constitution of the United States.
Our comments are primarily directed at FCC policy, rules, and
regulations. Certainly ATNI believes there is much more to be done by
the FCC in assisting tribes with the deployment of broadband
infrastructure on Tribal lands and sustaining fiber-based and wireless
services.
With that said and with that goal in mind, Sections 254 and 706 of
the 1996 Telecommunications Act were enacted by the Congress to ensure
that all Americans, regardless of where they live, have access to voice
and advanced communications services at reasonable and affordable
rates. These universal service principles have been reflected in FCC
policies and support mechanisms and have proven valuable in bringing
voice and broadband communications services to some Tribal lands.
However, although much remains to be done, we are concerned that the
Commission has lost sight of this Congressional mandate.
The GAO recommends that data collections, performance goals, and
measurements be undertaken to better understand our plight. However,
that will simply continue to prolong lack of broadband deployment on
Tribal lands and development of solutions that can be undertaken now to
begin a positive process in compliance with the goals and objectives
apparent to Congress and codified in the Telecommunications Act of 1996
twenty years ago.
Why Poor Service In Indian Country
Willing providers of communications services are not available to
serve Indian country. The economics of serving Indian country do not
justify the private sector involvement, even with FCC funding, which
currently is declining as a result of Universal Service Reform. It
appears that tribes have been left to their own means to provide
adequate service, especially in more remote reservation areas. For
tribes to provide their own communications will require better hands on
assistance from government agencies to plan, engineer, design, train,
educate, partner, and bring in private partners to construct and
operate broadband communications systems.
The existing tribally-owned communications providers (essentially
the 9 members of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association)
should be encouraged to provide regional communications platforms.
Technical resources and skills are limited to these carriers at this
time. Favorable FCC policy can facilitate sharing of broadband
technology, technical resources and skills, as well as back office and
other administrative services. Essentially by creating the possibility
of ``scope and scale'' for this nucleus of carriers, the Commission can
fulfill on its model for rural America, including Indian country.
Favorable regulatory policy must be adopted to incentivize willing
service providers.
Generally speaking, there are some very fundamental issues that
stand in the way of many ATNI tribes entering the process of applying
for funds to deploy broadband infrastructure on Tribal lands.
The lack of funds available to rural communities from
federal or state sources leave native communities with little
means for broadband development. The limited resources that are
available fund only a portion of the infrastructure necessary
to serve the entire community. For example, funds are generally
available only to provide one aspect of the broadband network
or service, e.g. middle mile, last mile, equipment, adoption,
training or ongoing monthly service fees. This creates a very
confusing and disjointed process for rural/native community
development.
The USDA Community Connect program funds are insufficient to
meet the need. For example, the total budget for the current
round of funding is only $10 million. Applications for over
$100,000 million of funds were submitted during the previous
round. Only eight organizations qualified for funds and none of
the grants went to ATNI member tribes.
In addition to the lack of available funding options,
existing grants are difficult to secure. Application processes
are complex, especially for tribes and small communities that
do not have the local technical staff needed to prepare an
application. Many funding programs require sophisticated,
expensive engineering studies or research, as well as local
matching funds to successfully develop a competitive
application. The inaccuracy of data used to determine
eligibility (i.e., National Broadband Map, Census Tract/Bloc
data) often limits applications from tribes which have the
greatest need. The federal agencies need to do a better job of
coordinating and communicating with each other so policy and
procedures do not conflict between various agencies. Everyone
has a stake in this final success.
Technical assistance from federal agencies to identify and
complete funding applications is extremely limited and does not
provide the level of help needed for many tribal and rural
communities. Obstacles arise from the inconsistency in
definitions (broadband, rural, etc.) across agencies. This
makes it even more difficult to be successful in securing
necessary funds to deploy infrastructure and provision
broadband services. Specific funds are needed to support local
and regional capacity building and training around technology.
Deals are done locally with local private/public partnerships
and a few successes are building a sustainable self-help
network.
ATNI respectfully submits that there exists a need for both
(1) capital funding via Tribal Resources and Economic Growth
Act (TREGA) legislation to construct broadband infrastructure
and (2) additional operations support via FCC USF \1\ to make
the cost of broadband services more affordable for tribal
members. If the FCC will adopt a ``Tribal Broadband Factor,''
the effect will be to increase tribal USF payments by 25
percent. This will keep the existing tribally-owned carriers in
a better position to grow and add needed infrastructure and
services. The ``TBF'' also works to the advantage of ATNI
tribal members by keeping a nucleus of tribally-owned carriers
financially viable and in place. It is our hope that one day
these carriers may assist ATNI tribes by sharing network
facilities and operating resources with ATNI members, making it
easier for us to take responsibility for our own broadband
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FCC is currently seeking comment and considering adoption
of a ``Tribal Broadband Factor'' in its proceeding to Reform USF for
Rate-of-Return Carriers. The ``TBF'' should be adopted to facilitate a
long-term deployment of broadband beyond Tribal lands served by
existing tribally-owned carriers.
In addition to the concerns identified above, the following
additional points will be discussed within these comments in more
detail. Our comments are intended to shed light on how access to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quality broadband services can be improved on ATNI member Tribal lands:
Large price cap carriers designated as incumbent Local
Exchange Carriers are responsible for underserving much of
Indian country, including ATNI Tribal lands;
Fiber/significant bandwidth capacity in the network is
required to adequately meet the broadband needs of ATNI native
communities;
Lifeline voice and broadband rates are important for ATNI
peoples, and
Quality broadband could be expanded more rapidly throughout
ATNI Tribal lands if broadband service providers had favorable
regulation that promoted sharing of infrastructure.
ATNI Tribes are Underserved by Large Price Cap Carriers
The ATNI tribal members generally reside on reservations that are
remote, sparsely populated, and high-cost to serve. The support funds
provided to large price cap carriers that serve much of Indian country
have not been used to bring fiber networks and robust broadband to
Tribal lands. \2\ Tribal lands are underserved. And, as yet, the
penalties levied by the FCC for underservice are not stiff enough to
cause these carriers to walk away from Tribal service areas, which
leave the Tribes without access to federal universal service funds
(USF).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As a contrast, NoaNet is a non-profit wholesale broadband
provider in Washington State that works through public utility
districts to connect underserved areas of the state with fiber optic
networks. The E-rate program is utilized to bring high capacity
broadband to libraries, higher education, and medical providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC National Broadband Plan released in 2010 acknowledged that
Tribal lands were underserved and more support funds would be needed to
deploy needed broadband infrastructure. Fast forward 5 years and
another report, the FCC 2015 Broadband Report, confirms that nothing
has changed to improve access to broadband services on Tribal lands.
More support funds have not been directed to these areas. In fact,
rather than address this recognized need more specifically within FCC
rules and regulation, Tribal lands continue to be subject to the same
regulatory policies and programs that apply to all of rural America.
The result is that we now have a ``rural-rural'' divide that is getting
wider in rural America between non-tribal and Tribal lands.
Providing additional funds to large price cap carriers would not
solve this problem. These large carriers are focused on maintaining or
increasing market share in urban markets and new markets, because they
represent a long-term financial incentive. Managerial resources are
committed to these lucrative markets that have the potential to
generate significant earnings for shareholders. Realistically, the
national policy to enhance competition in a communications marketplace
of converged technology has ensured that Tribal lands will remain
forever underserved by large price cap carriers.
Proposed Corrective Action: To improve the quality of broadband,
service providers must be truly interested in engaging the ATNI tribes
to identify and meet the specific communications needs of ATNI native
communities and peoples. The FCC should adopt new programs to
incentivize small rural local exchange carriers, new entrants, or the
tribes themselves to take up the challenge of providing reasonably
comparable broadband service on Tribal lands. Reformed USF programs
should provide a specific fund, a ``Tribal Broadband Fund,'' to be used
exclusively for the build-out of Tribal lands.
The FCC should also adopt new rules through a proposed rulemaking
that establishes an expedited process for the removal of an incumbent
eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) that has not demonstrated its
willingness to adequately serve an ATNI member. Rules should be
established by the FCC that allow the tribe, or another ETC designated
by the tribe, to replace the incumbent ETC and embark on a mission to
improve broadband service for the tribe. Putting in a new service
provider would allow the tribe to gain access to universal service
funds that will finally be used for the intended purpose of bringing
the benefits of broadband to the members of ATNI.
Fiber Is Necessary in the Network to Serve Native ``Anchor
Institutions''
The primary goals of ATNI are promotion of health, education,
welfare, public and personal safety, and economic and employment
opportunities for its people. From a communications network
perspective, all of these basic needs are associated with high
bandwidth requirements, i.e. Gigabit speeds. The large price cap
carriers have linked their expansion of service in rural areas to
deployment of 4G wireless networks. This is an important step in moving
out broadband to rural America, but wireless has its limitations, and
the FCC speeds that have evolved in recent years, i.e. 4/1, 10/1, and
25/3 Mbps are keyed only to robust residential application. To serve
the bandwidth need of ``anchor institutions'' a fiber connection
offering Gigabit speed is required.
The ``anchors'' are the source of quality-of-life in any community.
ATNI has formed committees within the organization to maintain a
continual focus on these the basic needs of the tribes. It has become
very apparent to ATNI that broadband brings with it the promise of
improving the tribe's ability to make significant advancement in all of
these areas. In this 21st century a robust broadband network has become
the platform for sharing information and applying new technology. To
participate in the gains resulting from the rapid development of
broadband applications, investment in fiber backbone is essential. The
large carriers have crisscrossed the nation with such networks reaching
into urban Northwest locations, including the Seattle/Puget Sound
corridor, the Spokane Inland Empire, and the Portland Metropolitan
vicinity. But none found their way to Warm Springs, Oregon, until the
Confederated Warm Springs Tribes tackled its communications needs. We
need more success stories like this one.
Proposed Corrective Action: Constructing fiber networks on Tribal
lands will require access to capital. Corporate charters of federally
recognized tribes typically contain a provision restricting the tribe
from mortgaging property. This is an obvious hurdle that prevents
borrowing of funds from banks. Thus, the USDA Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) has essentially become the only lender available to tribes. To
enable the tribes to move forward in establishing their own
telecommunications companies, RUS regulations should include specific
provisions to ensure access to and extension of low interest federal
government loans to tribes. RUS has at its discretion the ability to
use the Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provisions
incorporated within the Farm Bill to grant 2 percent loans.
Another opportunity to obtain capital funding occurred with the
recent FCC Rural Broadband Experiments. Unfortunately, the FCC bidding
rules were designed to shut out tribal bidders. Unreasonably expensive
Letters of Credit (LOC) were required from a Top 100 bank that were to
remain in place for over 10 years and offset the total amount of funds
awarded by the FCC. Tribes were unable to obtain a LOC. In addition,
start-up companies were disqualified from participating because they
could not produce 3 years of audited financial statements, a
requirement literally impossible to meet.
The FCC did not grant waivers of these requirements. One
provisionally selected company that intended to serve Tribal land was
disqualified for not meeting the above requirements, even though the 4
principles of the company had over 120 years of combined telephony and
business management experience, including building out Atlanta, Georgia
for the 1996 Olympic Games.
With the CAF II Auctions on the horizon, the FCC should utilize
bidding rules that do not shut out tribal bidders, including the 3
years audited financials and the LOC. The Tribal Bidding Credit should
remain available, since this additional incentive should help to
attract broadband providers interested in serving Tribal lands.
Deep Discount Tribal Lifeline Rates Should Apply to Both Voice and
Broadband Services
Most tribal lands are home to a high percentage of poverty level
income households. This is true for the ATNI tribes, as well.
Consequently, the affordability of voice and broadband service, if
available, is a key factor in determining the service penetration level
on Tribal lands. For example, several tribally owned telecommunications
companies report that 75-80 percent of their tribal residents qualify
for and receive Lifeline service.
Proposed Action: The FCC should not disrupt the application of its
Lifeline program for the tribes. The current poor level of voice and
broadband penetration speaks to the importance of retaining Lifeline
rates. If these discounted rates were taken away, the already
documented low subscription rates on Tribal land would undoubtedly
suffer severely.
As the FCC contemplates whether to establish, or at what level to
establish broadband Lifeline rates, it should consider the lack of
penetration and adoption levels on Tribal lands. Granted, this poor
performance is actually a function of lack of broadband infrastructure
deployment and uneducated tribal members that do not understand the
power of broadband or know how to use it. Nonetheless, the issue of
poverty level income should not be lost in an FCC rulemaking. Bringing
broadband to Indian country and pricing it at extremely discounted
rates will be necessary if penetration and adoption levels on Tribal
lands are to see reasonable movement toward nationwide averages.
Infrastructure Sharing Among Tribes Could Improve Broadband
Penetration
The communications business is becoming more complex and
sophisticated as technology convergence drives change in the industry.
The business remains highly capital intensive, as well. The result is
shorter useful lives for each generation of technology, and an
increasingly higher demand for capital to keep up with technological
innovation. A competitive communications industry, even in rural
America, amplifies the effects of technological advance. All of these
factors create a tremendous need for funding in the most high-cost to
serve areas of the nation, especially on Tribal lands.
Interestingly, as these pressures for capital mount, the FCC has
determined that budgeted USF funds should be capped annually at about
$8 billion. This puts a strain on the distribution mechanisms in place
to adequately fund service providers in rural America. There the
challenge remains to keep up the pace with the rest of America, while
support funds are frozen or declining.
Keeping up the pace is necessary for rural American communities to
survive and thrive. The socio-economic health of rural America is tied
to the level of communications advancement and adoption in urban
America. It is there that the national quality-of-life and economic
opportunity ``standards'' for communications/broadband networks are
set.
The dilemma for ATNI tribes is even more critical. The urban-rural
divide is emerging because access to communications services on Tribal
lands has not kept pace. And now when FCC policies require cost
containment and consolidation of operations, the future of broadband on
already underserved ATNI Tribal lands becomes cloudier.
Technology advance can be viewed as a blessing in this instance.
For example, soft-switch technology has opened the way for remote
management of gateways to the network. Established service providers,
including NTTA members, can use this switch technology to provide
operational support for start-up companies located in neighboring
states. Start-up companies can actually avoid the cost of a soft switch
(over $250,000) by electing to have a ``neighbor'' company perform the
service. Such a decision introduces ``scope and scale'' immediately
into the operation of a remote, start-up communications provider.
Proposed Corrective Action: An outdated FCC rule in the NECA
Interstate Access Tariff FCC No. 5 requires that outsourced switching
services be acquired from a service provider located in the same LATA.
The reason for this rule was to avoid the Interexchange Carrier (IXC)
from incurring costs to rehome its switch locations. However, in a
``greenfield'' situation, the opposite is true. The IXC is able to
avoid cost by utilizing existing connection points in the network,
rather than building out to a new switch location. This is a win-win
solution for all parties. An ATNI member stepping up to provide needed
communications services for its tribe could establish its own tribally-
owned carrier, and by agreement utilize the infrastructure and
technical expertise of one of the existing tribally-owned companies to
provide switch functionality.
The cost benefit of this arrangement extends beyond the initial
start-up of service. A start-up service provider not only avoids the
initial capital cost of a switch, but it also avoids future upgrade
costs and change out of technology. Operating costs are avoided too,
since specially trained technicians are not required in-house to
maintain a switch.
The FCC should revisit the existing tariff rules and allow rural
service providers to share infrastructure without regard to LATA
location.
Conclusion
When one considers the daunting task of deploying broadband in
rural America, the challenges only become greater for the ATNI member
tribes. If the existing universal service programs were not in place,
it is unlikely that any native communities on Tribal lands would have
the quality of communications service they have today. And what has
been accomplished is small, when compared with the need that continues
to exist today. Lack of infrastructure is the primary reason the FCC
and RUS must coordinate needed corrective action to facilitate ATNI
tribes and all of Indian country attaining a reasonable parity with the
rest of America. In addition to other steps outlined in these comments,
the Commission should create a new universal service program, a
``Tribal Broadband Fund,'' specifically and exclusively for the dual
purposes of (1) funding broadband infrastructure deployment on Tribal
lands, and (2) sustaining affordable broadband services for the
residents of native communities on Tribal lands.
______
Prepared Statement of the Cherokee Nation
On behalf of the Cherokee Nation, we write regarding the oversight
hearing held on April 27, 2016. The Committee considered a GAO Report
entitled ``Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance
Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal
Lands.'' We greatly appreciate the Committee's attention to matters of
accessing the Internet in Indian country.
Cherokee Nation is headquartered in Tahlequah, located in northeast
Oklahoma. Our tribe is the largest federally recognized American Indian
tribe with more than 330,000 citizens. Nearly 75,000 of those citizens
reside in rural communities within our jurisdictional boundaries across
northeast Oklahoma. Similar to the many tribal governments across the
Unites States, Cherokee Nation provides the basic needs of life like
housing, food, and employment for many citizens who are impoverished in
our communities.
Increasing Internet access through federal programs designated
specifically for Internet is critical in Oklahoma. The map used to
describe tribal lands in the report does not show Cherokee Nation and
many other tribes that exist in Oklahoma that do not have exterior
boundaries, but are included as a footnote under the Census term
Oklahoma Statistical Areas. Services provided through USDA's Rural
Utility Service (RUS) and FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF) to the 39
Oklahoma tribes remain very helpful to our citizens and facilities.
The recommendations raised in the GAO report are valuable to
improving the success of Internet deployment in Indian country. As
stated by Sen. Franken (D-MN), growing Internet availability in the
21st Century's rural infrastructure is akin to expanding the telephone
network in the 20th Century. Internet is imperative to being
competitive in research, education, commerce, and healthcare. Internet
access for all is achievable.
Below are Cherokee Nation's comments regarding the recommendations
provided in the GAO Report 16-222 and in response to discussion during
the hearing.
1. The GAO proscribes greater coordination in outreach and
programming efforts between the FCC's Office of Native American
Policy/Universal Administrative Service Company tribal liaisons
and USDA's Rural Utility Service offices as each programing
effort often overlaps and where one program may not provide the
right solution for a tribe, as products slightly differ. We
agree such coordination will disseminate information in a more
efficient manner during visits to Indian country and benefit
tribes.
2. The GAO Report 16-222 recommends improving the National
Broadband Map and data points used to show Internet deployment.
Much discussion was provided during the hearing in building out
the metrics of assessing access and deployment beyond large
census blocks and instead using more meaningful metrics. The
Cherokee Nation recommends further developing such metric tools
for assessment and that the metadata disclose the amount of
federal funding spent on areas in Indian country for Internet
adoption and deployment.
3. The GAO Report 16-222 recommends creating measurable goals
to increase adoption as key to all programing success. During
the oversight hearing, discussion about this recommendation
reverted to gaining a better understanding of our current
status. Visionary goals will leverage improved metric tools in
order to create a better assessment and an accurate benchmark.
In creating these goals, Cherokee Nation hopes continued
consultations or potential advisory committees are supportive
of dialogue and representative of tribal nations that result in
communication between tribes and the federal agencies
overseeing programs that deploy and provide Internet. Realistic
goals that meet the needs of tribes are critical to develop
together, rather than one-sided strategies filled with
assumptions and errors. Items to keep in mind while developing
goals include, but are not limited to, finding sustainable
funding mechanisms, providing room for tribal
telecommunications company development, continuing the
availability of spectrum in Indian country, and providing cost
benefit analysis of technologies prior to deployment and
construction.
4. Lastly, the GAO report recommends defining ``Tribal
Programs'' in the Schools and Libraries Program, commonly known
as the E-Rate application. Cherokee Nation agrees this would be
beneficial. We recently submitted an E-Rate application this
past month.
Thank you for accepting our comments on behalf of Cherokee Nation
to be included in the record for the oversight hearing held on April
27, 2016, entitled ``The GAO Report on, Telecommunications: Additional
Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet
Access Programs on Tribal Lands.'' We greatly appreciate your attention
to matters of accessing the Internet in Indian country.
Wado (Thank you).
______
Prepared Statement of the Leech Lake Telecommunications Company, LLC
Under tribal corporate code, the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
established its own telecommunications company in 2013. The Leech Lake
Telecommunications Company launched its fixed wireless broadband
services to citizens in the tribal lands of the LLBO in February of
2015. The broadband needs in the tribal lands of the Leech Lake Band of
Ojibwe (LLBO) were not met by local ILEC/CLEC telecommunication
carriers. The Leech Lake Telecommunication Company provides wireless
fixed broadband services because it is the most cost efficient means to
rapidly deploy broadband services to all areas of the tribal lands.
Lack of broadband in LLBO tribal lands still exist and are
extraordinary:
1) Distance learning is nearly non-existent.
2) Where fiber exists, the costs are out of reach for low-
income households. Poverty in LLBO lands is displayed by 53.8
percent of households below poverty level (American Community
Survey 2007-2011) and reside in extremely rural locations.
3) A trespass dispute between the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe
and a local telecommunication company has resulted in the
withholding of broadband services to Band members in tribal
lands since 2008.
4) Broadband services do not exist in 9 of 15 of the Bands'
communities today (See table 1)
5) Health factors for elderly and ill are high with distance
to get to medical care are great.
6) Unaffordable broadband has stifled economic growth with
small businesses in LLBO tribal lands.
Table 1--LLBO tribal lands Pop. Housing Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population Housing Unit
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cass Lake 3885 1904
2. S. Lake 308 278
3. Inger 466 430
4. CutFoot 238 168
5. Ball Club 746 276
6. Bena 339 230
7. Kego Lake 954 1326
8. Onigum 2685 2071
9. Tower Hill/OakPt. 1278 987
10. Noopiming 140 97
11. Mission/BuckLake 837 399
12. Prescott 316 113
13. Federal Dam 133 150
14. Boy River 191 156
15. Sugar Point 172 185
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12688 8770
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most communities are small (less than 500 residents) and isolated.
The tribal council headquarters are located in Cass Lake, which is also
home to the Leech Lake Tribal College, Cass Lake Service Unit-Indian
Health Service hospital/outpatient clinic, and headquarters of the
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, and the Chippewa National Forest.
Conclusion
The Federal Communications Commission Office of Native Affairs and
Policy 2012 Annual Report stated ``The lack of communications services
in Indian Country--be it high speed Internet or ``broadband'' ,
traditional wireline phone service, mobile service, radio broadcast, or
TV broadcast services--is well known. As the Commission has observed
previously, ``[b]y virtually any measure, communities on tribal lands
have historically had less access to telecommunications services than
any other segment of the population.'' (Extending Wireless
Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands, WT Docket No. 99-266,
Report and Order Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd
11794, 11798 (2000). The 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.''
(Improving Communications Services for Native Nations, CG Docket No.
11-451, Notice of Inquiry, 26 FC Rcd 2672, 2673 at para. 1 (2011)
(Native Nations NOI).
The economic value that broadband will bring to the tribal lands is
great. Job creation is expected with home-based businesses, local
service establishments, telemarketing centers, increased heath care
options, and an arts cooperative.
The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe seeks grants each year to expand its
fixed wireless telecommunications and with this testimony seeks an
Indian set-aside with the legislature's broadband plan.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Godfrey Enjady
Question. Have tribes contacted you about the inaccuracies of the
National Broadband Map? What have their concerns been?
Answer.
Background
The National Broadband Map was originally instituted via the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration's (NTIA) State
Broadband Initiative (SBI). The SBI program ended with the June 2014
data collection, at which time the FCC assumed responsibility through
its Form 477 data collection program. I will refer to the FCC's
administration through the Form 477 data collection program for the
remainder of this response.
The FCC's revised Form 477 program (done so in order to assume
responsibility for the National Broadband Map) is an imperfect
mechanism. For Indian Country, the flaws are even more pronounced due
to the general lack of reliable data, such as roads, street addresses,
and housing information. In turn, while carriers providing broadband
services and reporting on Form 477 may be reporting data as best they
can, the inherent limitations of the data available. As a result, the
broadband mapping results reflected for Indian Country are sometimes
substantially inaccurate.
Compounding the problems with the Form 477 data is the FCC's
increased reliance on the produced data. Recently, the FCC has adopted
rules and procedures in the areas of universal service reform, Lifeline
program reform, and other areas that rely upon Form 477 data and that
assume, by virtue of reporting carrier's attestation, that the data is
accurate. Thus, it is in all stakeholders' interests to ensure the Form
477 data is as accurate as possible.
Inaccuracies in Tribal Areas
In general, Tribes, especially those with their own
telecommunications providers, are aware of the Form 477 limitations.
For example, in a proceeding to determine if small carriers were
completely overlapped with unsubsidized (by federal USF support)
competition, Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc. (FMTI), a carrier
owned and operated by the Fort Mojave Tribe in Arizona, found numerous
flaws related to the Form 477 data relied upon by the Commission.
Tribal entities also agree with statements regarding the
limitations and inaccuracies of the Form 477 data, such as stated by
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Organization in comments related to the
FCC''s 100 percent overlap determination process:
``. . .reliance on Form 477 deployment data, which formed the
foundation of determinations of 100 percent competitive overlap
identified in the Public Notice, is all but certain to lead to
``false positives'' in identifying unsubsidized competition.
Indeed, comments filed by purported unsubsidized competitors in
response to the Public Notice shine a spotlight on the limits
of Form 477 deployment data. For example, at least one
commenter attempts to dodge the very question of whether they
serve specific locations, effectively reaffirming nothing more
than that they serve ``in the area'' as stated on their Forms
477.''
In conclusion, I believe that in order to put Form 477 data to uses
adopted by the FCC in Tribal areas, much work needs to be done, and
opportunities for adjustment must be provided. If this is not done,
then we risk making the broadband connectivity problem in Tribal areas
much worse due to reliance on inaccurate data.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Brandon McBride
Question. To date the primary extent of coordination between the
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) and the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) has been through joint workshops. Do you believe that simply
having the RUS present at the FCC's workshops is enough to be
considered meaningful interagency cooperation? How will the RUS better
coordinate with the FCC in the future to minimize duplication of funds
and efforts and maximize results for broadband deployment in Indian
County?
Answer. RUS agrees that participating in workshops with the FCC, in
a vacuum, is not meaningful interagency cooperation. However, it is a
step in the right direction. RUS staff participated in the FCC Tribal
Broadband, Telecom and Broadcast Training and Consultation workshop in
Great Falls, MT on May 31st through June 2nd, 2016. Not only did the
workshop provide the opportunity to share RUS program information
regarding our telecom and broadband programs, but just importantly the
workshop closed with a consultation and listening session to hear the
concerns and recommendations of Tribal leaders and Tribal telecom
professionals. This type of direct input from the Tribes will inform
future collaboration between the FCC and RUS. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture Office of Tribal Relations Programs (OTR) and RUS will
continue to build on the traditional partnering activities with the
FCC's Wireline Competition Bureau and will open new lines of
communications with Tribal leaders, stakeholders, providers and
residents in Tribal areas who benefit every day from RUS and FCC
programs. RUS staff are planning on participating in additional FCC
Tribal workshops later this year in Washington, Wisconsin and Arizona.
In addition, great progress has resulted from the ongoing work as
part of the Broadband Opportunities Council, which includes the
Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications Information
Administration and RUS, as the two lead agencies, along with the
Department of the Interior, the FCC, and FirstNet, is currently working
with tribal leaders to develop a Tribal Broadband Summit designed to
build on the work that has been completed to date. This summit will
culminate in a collaborative effort with tribal representatives to
develop a blueprint for broadband deployment and use.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Gigi Sohn
Question 1. As laid out in your 2011 Transformation Order creating
the Connect America Fund, do you believe that all high-cost support for
the deployment of middle mile and last mile facilities should be tied
to specific obligations? If so, should the obligations for publicly-
financed middle mile facilities address the adequacy of capacity,
affordability, or competitive access to the facilities?
Answer. The Commission has taken significant steps to continue the
implementation of the landmark reforms to the federal universal service
high-cost program unanimously adopted by the Commission in 2011. A core
component of the 2011 reforms was the creation of the Connect America
Fund to preserve and advance voice and robust broadband services in
high-cost areas of the nation that the marketplace would not otherwise
serve. With each step, the Commission has adopted defined obligations
of carriers to deploy broadband-capable facilities. Service providers
may use support to construct the facilities required for them to meet
their deployment obligations, including using support for improved
backhaul and middle mile. However, while recipients of high-cost
support may invest in middle mile to bolster their last-mile offerings,
this support is not directly linked to specific obligations regarding
middle-mile offerings. The Commission's overarching goal is to preserve
and enhance the provision of broadband service to consumers in rural
and high-cost areas.
Question 2. According to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, low-
income and rural consumers, and those in high-cost areas, should have
access to telecommunications services which are comparable to the
services and rates in urban areas. What steps are you taking to ensure
that tribal lands are receiving the necessary support to receive
comparable services and rates, particularly where there is little
competition and public money is being used to build out?
Answer. The Commission is committed to facilitating the expansion
of 21st century communications to Tribal Nations across the United
States.
In the last two years, the Commission has modernized two universal
service programs that hold the potential to help bridge the digital
divide in Indian Country. The first of these programs is the E-rate
program, which is the country's largest educational technology program.
The E-rate program provides discounts for the cost of broadband
services to eligible elementary and secondary schools and libraries. In
order to ensure all schools and libraries can afford broadband
services, the highest discount rates are provided to schools and
libraries in high poverty areas, including schools and libraries in
high poverty Tribal areas. In 2014, the Commission took decisive steps
to modernize our E-rate system and refocus it on the broadband
connectivity needs of 21st Century schools and libraries. As a part of
those reforms, the Commission directed Universal Service Administrative
Company (USAC) to designate an E-rate Tribal liaison and to conduct E-
rate trainings tailored to the unique needs of Tribal applicants.
Commission staff work closely with the Tribal liaison to enhance
awareness of the program and to provide assistance in navigating the
application process for representatives of Tribal Nations and Tribal
communities. The 2014 reforms also include an opportunity for an
additional discount for special construction charges for last-mile
facilities supporting high-speed broadband to Tribal schools and
libraries when funding is matched by states, Tribal governments, or
other federal agencies.
In March of this year, the Commission adopted an Order to modernize
a second universal service program, the Lifeline program. For more than
30 years, the Lifeline program has helped tens of millions of low-
income Americans afford basic phone service. Recognizing the unique and
dire economic circumstances many Tribal Nations face, the Commission
provides enhanced levels of Lifeline support of up to $34.25 per month
to low-income residents of Tribal lands. Not surprisingly, Lifeline is
an extremely important program to low-income residents on Tribal lands.
Yet, before last month's vote, Lifeline support was limited to basic
telephone service. Under the new modernized rules, low-income residents
of Tribal lands will soon be able to apply up to $34.25 per month
toward the cost of broadband service. This change will significantly
reduce the cost of broadband for low-income Tribal residents while also
incentivizing businesses to deploy broadband infrastructure on Tribal
lands.
In addition to the recent modernizations of the Lifeline and E-rate
programs, the Commission adopted an Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking earlier this year to modernize high-cost support
for rate-of-return carriers. In the Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, the Commission specifically sought comment on additional
reforms to further promote broadband investment and deployment on
unserved and underserved Tribal lands. Staff is currently reviewing the
record of that Further Notice and the Chairman has committed to taking
action on this important issue by the end of the year.
The Commission also has adopted initiatives to drive investment in
mobile broadband on Tribal lands. For example, in 2014 the FCC's Tribal
Mobility Fund Phase I reverse auction made up to $50 million in one-
time funding available to Tribal lands to accelerate mobile broadband
availability. In addition, both the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I and
the general Mobility Fund Phase I made a 25 percent bidding credit
available for Tribally-owned or controlled providers seeking support.
In addition, since 2000 the Commission has administered a Tribal
Land Bidding Credit program in wireless spectrum auctions. The credit
serves as a discount for a qualified winning bidder proposing to deploy
wireless facilities on a Tribal land. The Tribal Land Bidding Credit
was used by a bidder in our recent AWS-3 Auction and is available to
bidders participating in the Incentive Auction.
An important part of the Commission's work toward ensuring that
Tribal lands have access to comparable telecommunications services is
robust Consultation with Indian Country. In 2016, the Commission will
ultimately hold five regional Tribal consultation and training
workshops. Three have already been conducted, including events in Great
Falls, MT; Keshena, WI (Menominee Tribe); and Bothell, WA (Affiliated
Tribes of Northwest Indians). The United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) participates in each of these workshops. The
Commission is committed to working with our Tribal partners and with
USDA to ensure that the Commission's Tribal consultation and training
workshops, now and in the future, provide a comprehensive and
coordinated approach to drive investment into Indian Country.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Gigi Sohn
Question 1. Lack of data about broadband on tribal lands. According
to the GAO, there is a lack of data about how much money from the
universal service fund goes toward broadband access on tribal lands
specifically. How can we improve the FCC's collection of universal
service data so that we can have a better idea about how native
communities are being served by each of the four programs within the
universal service fund (Connect America Fund, Schools and Libraries (E-
Rate), Lifeline, and Rural Health Care)?
Answer. The GAO report recommended that the FCC improve the
reliability of its data related to institutions that receive E-rate
funding by defining ``Tribal'' on the E-rate program application. The
FCC agrees with this recommendation, and beginning with funding year
2017, the E-rate forms will include guidance about when a school or
library should identify itself as on Tribal lands.
While not a GAO recommendation, the Commission plans to similarly
improve the reliability of its data related to institutions that
receive Rural Healthcare (RHC) Program support. Specifically, subject
to approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, Tribal affiliation will
be tracked across all sub-programs of the RHC program--Healthcare
Connect Fund, Telecommunications Program, and Pilot Program--starting
on January 1, 2017.
In addition, the Commission will soon begin collecting in the high-
cost program specific information about the locations that are newly
served with broadband by price cap carriers and rate-of-return
carriers. Beginning this year, we will start to collect from the price
cap carriers that accepted Connect America Fund Phase II support
geocoded location information for locations that are newly served by
the carrier. This data will enable us to determine for each recipient,
how much of that support is associated with census blocks that are
categorized as Tribal lands according to the U.S. Census. Once
Paperwork Reduction Act approval from OMB is obtained, we expect to
start collecting similar information from rate-of-return carriers.
Finally, as you know, the Commission's rules provide enhanced
levels of Lifeline support of up to $34.25 per month to low-income
residents of Tribal lands. As a result, the Commission already collects
data on the disbursement of Lifeline support to residents of Tribal
lands.
Question 1a. According the FCC's 2016 Broadband Report, 41 percent
of households on tribal lands do not have broadband available to them.
Do you have data on the percentage of community institutions like
schools, libraries and health care facilities that have broadband
service available on tribal lands?
Answer. Though E-rate does not specifically earmark funds for
Tribal schools and libraries, they are eligible for the highest levels
of support available via the E-rate program based on their rural
locations and the financial needs of their students. Many schools,
libraries, and rural health care facilities serving residents of Tribal
lands are not necessarily located on Tribal lands, but nearby to Tribal
lands. As a result, developing one universal definition for ``Tribal''
is a complex and challenging task when trying to gather data on the E-
rate and Rural Healthcare support that squarely benefits those living
on Tribal lands. With that said, the FCC believes that collecting such
Tribal-specific data would help contribute to the Commission's goal of
making broadband Internet available on Tribal lands; thus, beginning
with funding year 2017, the E-rate forms will include guidance about
when a school or library should identify itself as on Tribal lands. We
look forward to improving the reliability of the data we have regarding
the E-rate program and its impact on broadband Internet availability on
Tribal lands.
With regard to the Rural Healthcare Program, as discussed above,
the program does not currently track whether healthcare providers
participating in all of its sub-programs (i.e., Healthcare Connect
Fund, Telecommunications Program, and Pilot Program) have Tribal
affiliations. Subject to approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
Tribal affiliation will be tracked across all sub-programs starting on
January 1, 2017.
Question 1b. Do you collect data on the percentage of households
that subscribe to broadband on tribal lands? If not, why not?
Answer. The Commission collects residential broadband subscription
data that allows it to estimate the broadband adoption rate on Tribal
lands. Specifically, the Commission collects data on residential
broadband subscription at the census-tract level. Broadband services
with a speed of at least 25 Mbps/3Mbps are included in this data
collection. The Commission then segments areas into Tribal lands and
non-Tribal lands groupings for purposes of estimating broadband
adoption on Tribal lands. The Commission's most recent estimate of the
broadband adoption rate on Tribal lands can be found in the 2016
Broadband Progress Report. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and
Timely Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate Such Deployment
Pursuant to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
Amended, GN docket No. 15-191, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, 31 FCC
Rcd 699, Table 10 and n. 290 (2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, as noted in the GAO Report, the Census Bureau is in
the process of collecting information about household Internet adoption
on Tribal lands. Specifically, the Broadband Data Improvement Act of
2008 requires the Bureau of the Census to collect information from
residential households, including those on Tribal lands, on Internet
adoption, if the household subscribes to Internet service, and if so,
whether that service is dial-up or a high-speed connection. This data
will provide the Commission with information about residential Internet
subscriptions (of all speeds) on Tribal lands over a long period of
time.
Question 1c. Do you collect data on the percentage of schools,
libraries and health care facilities that subscribe to broadband
service on tribal lands? If not, why not?
Answer. The Commission does not currently collect data on the
percentage of schools, libraries and health care facilities that
subscribe to broadband service on Tribal lands. However, as noted in my
earlier response in 1(B), the Commission has committed to improving the
reliability of its data related to health care facilities that receive
Rural Healthcare Program support and the reliability of its data
related to schools and libraries that receive E-rate support.
Question 2. FCC commitment to performance metrics In the study, the
GAO recommends setting goals and performance measures for broadband
deployment on tribal lands. The FCC's current goal for broadband is
``universal access for all Americans.'' What type of performance
measures could the FCC develop and use that may help improve deployment
of broadband to more households on tribal lands?
Answer. The Commission agrees with GAO about the importance of
performance goals and measures for broadband deployment on Tribal
lands. The FCC's strategic objective of maximizing broadband
availability on Tribal lands is fulfilled in part through its universal
service programs established pursuant to its obligations under Section
254 of the Communications Act, and Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. In order to meet its Section 254
obligations, in its 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order, the Commission
specifically expressed that its section 254 obligations ensured
universal availability of broadband networks to all Americans living on
Tribal lands. To that end, the Commission has established a performance
goal of bringing broadband at speeds of at least 10/1 Mbps to high-cost
areas, including Tribal lands. The Commission is in the process of
considering whether and how additional Tribal-specific performance
goals and measures could complement the existing programmatic-wide
goals.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Heidi Heitkamp to
Gigi Sohn
Question 1. The FCC measures access of advanced telecommunications
to Internet and mobile services around the country by Census block. Is
the use of Census blocks to gather data on tribal lands the most
effective way to measure tribal accessibility? At the recent Indian
Affairs Committee hearing, the use of Census block data was portrayed
as being overly expansive and uncharacteristic of actual connectivity
for individuals. What alternatives exist, if any, for ensuring quality
data collection that might be more applicable to and representative of
tribal connectivity at the local level? What barriers exist inhibiting
the FCC from using other data collection methods?
Answer. In 2013, the FCC unanimously adopted the Form 477
Modernization Order, which requires facilities-based broadband
providers to submit mobile and fixed broadband deployment data directly
to the Commission.
While the Commission previously measured mobile broadband
deployment by census block, we plan to measure deployment on a much
more granular basis in the near future. As a result of the 2013 Order,
mobile broadband and voice providers must submit shapefiles showing
their network coverage areas and certify the accuracy of their
submissions. Using this new and improved data, we are working to
identify where mobile broadband service is available within each census
block. In other words, we are utilizing our new data to produce
``actual coverage area,'' at the sub-block local level. This allows the
Commission, amongst other things, to identify local areas where, for
instance, 4G-LTE service may not be available.
With respect to fixed broadband deployment data, the Form 477
Modernization Order concluded that requiring providers to report fixed
broadband deployment data by census block appropriately balanced the
burdens of reporting this information to the Commission with the level
of granularity required by the Commission to carry out its statutory
duties. However, Commission staff continues to discuss possibilities
and proposals with providers, including those serving Tribal lands, to
develop the most accurate and granular data set possible.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Gigi Sohn
Question 1. Would you support streamlining applications for rights-
of-way on tribal land?
Answer. While the Commission supports reasonable measures to expand
broadband deployment, it is important to recognize the limits on our
jurisdiction. Access to rights-of-way on Tribal land is subject to
federal law through the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and to Tribal
law (to the extent not inconsistent with federal law). Rights-of-way
requests submitted to BIA involve an application process, and we would
support any BIA effort to streamline its processes for granting access
to rights-of-way for broadband infrastructure.
Question 2. Have you heard concerns throughout the Federal
Communications Commission's (FCC) tribal outreach that the application
process has been an impediment to completing broadband deployment
projects on tribal land?
Answer. While the 2006 GAO Report entitled ``Challenges to
Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on
Tribal Lands'' identified the process of obtaining rights-of-way as a
barrier to broadband deployment on Tribal lands, this is not an issue
that is regularly raised during FCC Tribal outreach. Nonetheless, as
addressed above, the Commission supports reasonable measures to expand
broadband deployment.
An example of this support can be seen in recent actions the FCC
has taken to facilitate wireless infrastructure deployment. In October
2014, the FCC unanimously adopted rules bringing new efficiencies to
wireless infrastructure deployment. Since then, FCC staff has continued
to work closely with our preservation partners--including Tribal
Nations, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the
National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO)--
to revise the siting review process in situations where a project has
limited potential to cause significant adverse effects. As recently as
August of 2016, the Commission, ACHP, and NCSHPO amended an agreement
between the three parties that governs the review process for
collocating small wireless facilities throughout the country, including
on Tribal lands. This amendment further simplifies the process for
deploying small cells, distributed antenna systems, and other small-
scale wireless broadband infrastructure.
Our priority is to develop policies and rules that encourage
responsible deployment. Thus, while we are committed to facilitating
infrastructure deployment to meet booming demand, we also respect the
critical role of subject matter experts, including Tribal Nations.
State, local and Tribal governments play essential roles in this
process, and we value their input.
Question 3. Has the Office of Native Affairs and Policy
successfully completed any broadband deployment projects on tribal
lands? If so, how is the FCC using those as a model to bring service to
unserved tribal lands?
Answer. The Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) does not
manage individual broadband deployment projects. In its work in Indian
Country, ONAP, as the FCC's liaison with Tribal Nations, has promoted
broadband deployment in Indian Country. To this end, FCC staff has
supported the development of cutting edge broadband deployment efforts
from Tribes and Tribal entities such as the Coeur d'Alene Tribe's Red
Spectrum Communications (Red Spectrum). Red Spectrum uses a hybrid
microwave and fiber system to provision customers both on and outside
of the Reservation. ONAP is currently working to seed ideas and lessons
learned from entities like Red Spectrum across Indian Country to help
unserved and underserved Tribes more easily find a path forward to
broadband deployment.
Question 4. The National Broadband Map is currently the FCC's best
tool for measuring broadband coverage, including on tribal lands, and
yet it is widely known to contain misleading data. When it was being
created, were you aware of the inaccuracies of the National Broadband
Map? Regardless, when did you become aware of its inaccuracies? What
steps have you taken and will you take to rectify the map's
inaccuracies?
Answer. The data underlying the National Broadband Map are no
longer the best tool for measuring broadband coverage. Those data were
collected by National Telecommunications and Information Administration
through a state block grant program. Funding for this data collection
ended in June 2014. Consequently, the data reflected on the Broadband
Map is now two years out of date.
Recognizing the need to improve our mobile broadband coverage data,
the Commission adopted an Order in 2013 that required mobile wireless
data collection from one of the most reliable sources available-the
mobile wireless carriers themselves. As a result, the Commission is now
collecting coverage data directly from wireless carriers through the
Commission's Form 477. Each carrier that submits data must certify to
its accuracy. We expect the data wireless carriers provide through
these submissions to be more accurate than our previous data because it
comes directly from the entity that is deploying the wireless
facilities. We are in the relatively early stages of collecting this
new coverage data from wireless carriers through the revised FCC Form
477, and Commission staff are currently analyzing these filings.
[all]