Broadband Internet: FCC's Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands

Broadband furthers economic development, educational attainment, and public health and safety; however, residents of tribal lands have lower levels of broadband access relative to the U.S. population. Congress has prioritized identifying and targeting funds to unserved areas. FCC uses data from broadband providers to develop maps and reports depicting broadband availability in the United States, with specific information on tribal lands. GAO was asked to review FCC's efforts to collect broadband data for tribal lands.

This report examines the extent to which: (1) FCC's approach to collecting broadband data accurately captures broadband access on tribal lands and (2) FCC obtains tribal input on the data. GAO interviewed stakeholders from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned providers, and visited nine tribal lands. The selected tribes varied geographically and in levels of broadband availability, among other characteristics. GAO also reviewed FCC's rulemakings on broadband data and interviewed other tribal stakeholders, FCC officials, and 13 non-tribal broadband providers selected to include a diversity of technologies. Provider and tribal interviews were based on non-generalizable samples.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) collects data on broadband availability from providers, but these data do not accurately or completely capture broadband access on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC collects data on broadband availability; these data capture where providers may have broadband infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be “available” for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. This leads to overstatements of service for specific locations like tribal lands (see figure). FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on tribal lands.

Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors—such as affordability, quality, and denials of service—that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband services. FCC provides broadband funding for unserved areas based on its broadband data. Overstatements of access limit FCC's and tribal stakeholders' abilities to target broadband funding to such areas. For example, some tribal officials stated that inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan their own broadband networks and obtain funding to address broadband gaps on their lands. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal areas that need it the most and to more accurately assess FCC's progress toward its goal of increasing all Americans' access to affordable broadband.

FCC does not have a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data. In the National Broadband Plan , FCC highlighted the need for a targeted approach to improve broadband availability data for tribal lands. As outlined in the plan, such an approach would include working with tribes to ensure that information is accurate and useful. About half of the tribal stakeholders GAO interviewed raised concerns that FCC relies solely on data from providers, and most stated FCC should work with tribes to improve the accuracy of FCC's data. Establishing a formal process to obtain input from tribal governments on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data could help improve the accuracy of FCC's broadband data for tribal lands.

GAO is making three recommendations to FCC, including that it collect and report data that accurately measure tribal broadband access as well as develop a process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of the data. FCC agreed with the recommendations.

Broadband infrastructure is critical for economic development,  educational and job opportunities, and public health and safety. In 2016,  we reported that tribal lands are generally in remote and rugged areas  and that broadband access can help residents develop online  businesses, access telemedicine services, and use online educational  tools. However, residents of tribal lands have lower levels of broadband  access than residents of non-tribal lands; a reflection of what is often  called the “digital divide,” or disparate levels of broadband access among  different socioeconomic, racial, or rural groups. According to the Federal  Communications Commission (FCC), as of December 2016, 35.4 percent  of Americans residing on tribal lands lacked access to fixed broadband  services, compared to 7.7 percent of all Americans. FCC has reported  that the lack of service in tribal lands presents impediments to the efforts  of tribal nations related to self-governance, economic opportunity,  education, public safety, and cultural preservation.

One barrier to increasing access to broadband on tribal lands is the cost  of deploying infrastructure to tribal lands located in rugged, sparsely  populated areas. In an attempt to address this and other issues, the  federal and some state governments have administered a number of  programs to incentivize companies to build broadband infrastructure in  unserved and underserved areas. In addition, policy makers have noted  the need for accurate information in order to target these programs to the  areas lacking access, and FCC has identified the need to work with tribes  to ensure such data are accurate for tribal lands. However, in 2016 we  reported that tribal and federal officials had concerns that the federal map  of broadband availability at the time (the National Broadband Map) did not  accurately depict broadband availability on tribal lands.

The federal government has not updated the National Broadband Map  since April 2015, with the last update containing data as of June 30,  2014. Currently, the primary source of information regarding where broadband is and is not available is the FCC, which collects this  information from broadband providers. You asked us to review FCC’s  efforts to collect broadband data for tribal lands. This report examines:  the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband  availability data accurately captures the ability of Americans living on  tribal lands to access broadband Internet services, and  the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy of  provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands.

To address both objectives, we analyzed FCC’s December 2016—the  most recent data at the time of our review—fixed and mobile broadband- availability data for federally recognized tribal lands. Providers currently  report this information to FCC by filing a Form 477, twice a year. We also  used 2010 U.S. Census data to identify census blocks on tribal lands. To  assess the reliability of FCC and Census data, we reviewed a previous  GAO reliability assessment and performed additional work, such as  electronic testing of the data and interviews with agency officials. Based  on the results of our analysis, we determined the data to be reliable for  our purposes, which were to (1) inform our selection of tribal governments  and providers for interviews and visits and (2) develop maps of fixed and  mobile broadband availability for the 9 tribal lands we selected for visits,  in order to obtain tribal representatives’ feedback on the accuracy of the  data. For both objectives, we also reviewed FCC documents regarding  the Form 477 process and interviewed FCC officials as well as  stakeholders representing tribal governments and broadband providers.  These interviews included representatives from 25 tribal governments or  tribally owned providers, including visits to 9 tribal lands. When we  selected these tribes, we considered variation in location, level of  broadband deployment according to FCC, land mass, and population size  and density. The results of our interviews are not generalizable to all tribal  governments or tribally owned broadband providers. In addition to tribal  governments and tribally owned providers, we interviewed six  organizations that include tribal entities and four stakeholders who work  with tribes on broadband issues. For reporting purposes, we developed  the following series of indefinite quantifiers to describe the tribal  responses from the 35 entities representing tribal stakeholders we  interviewed.

Further, to obtain industry perspectives, we reviewed public comments  submitted by providers and industry associations in relevant FCC  rulemaking proceedings and interviewed 10 non-tribally owned fixed and  mobile broadband providers and three industry associations. We selected  providers to reflect a range of carrier size, as well as the technologies  used to provide broadband service. In addition, we interviewed  representatives from other government entities, as well as private  companies that collect and report broadband data. The results of these  interviews are not generalizable. A full list of the stakeholders we  interviewed can be found in appendix I.

In addition, to identify the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting  broadband data accurately captures Americans’ ability to access  broadband Internet services on tribal lands, we identified factors that  affect broadband access by interviewing tribal stakeholders, as described  above, and reviewing FCC documents and previous GAO work. We also  reviewed relevant statutes and FCC’s proceedings, plans, and broadband  deployment and progress reports. We compared the Form 477 process  to FCC’s strategic goals and to factors affecting broadband access to  determine the extent to which the Form 477 collects information on those  factors and aligns with FCC’s goals. We further evaluated this information  against the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as  enhanced by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) and  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

To determine the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy  of provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands, we reviewed FCC’s  policies for working with tribal governments and interviewed tribal  stakeholders, among other entities. We compared this information to  recommendations from FCC’s National Broadband Plan, and Standards  for Internal Control in the Federal Government. For additional details on  our scope and methodology, see appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from June 2017 to September 2018  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government has recognized 573 Indian tribes as distinct,  independent political communities with tribal sovereignty. There are  different categories of tribal lands, with differing implications with respect  to ownership and administration. Reservations are defined geographic  areas with established boundaries recognized by the United States.  Tribal lands vary in size, demographics, and location. For example, those  lands smallest in size are less than one square mile, and the largest, the  Navajo Nation, is more than 24,000 square miles (the size of West  Virginia). Tribal land locations can range from extremely remote, rural  locations to urban areas. Figure 1 shows tribal lands in the United States  according to the 2010 Census.

The term “broadband” commonly refers to Internet access that is high  speed and provides an “always-on” connection, so users do not have to  reestablish a connection each time they access the Internet. Broadband  service may be “fixed”—that is, providing service to a single location,  such as a customer’s home—or “mobile,” that is, providing service  wherever a customer has access to a mobile wireless network, including  while on the move, through a mobile device, such as a smartphone. Fixed  and mobile broadband providers deploy and maintain infrastructure to  connect consumers to the Internet.

Providers offer fixed Internet service through a number of technologies,  such as copper phone lines, fiber-optic lines, coaxial cables, wireless  antennas, satellites, or a mix of technologies (see fig. 2). To install fixed  or wireless infrastructure, providers must obtain permits from government  entities with jurisdiction over the land or permission from public utilities to  deploy infrastructure on existing utility poles.

The federal government has emphasized the importance of ensuring  Americans have access to broadband, and a number of agencies,  including FCC, currently provide funding to subsidize broadband  deployment in areas in which the return on investment has not attracted  private investment. The Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the  Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifies that consumers in “rural,  insular, and high-cost areas” should have access to telecommunication  services and rates that are “reasonably comparable” to consumers in  urban areas. To achieve this goal, FCC administers the High-Cost  program, which provides subsidies to providers of phone service in rural,  insular, and other remote areas.

In 2011, FCC launched a series of reforms to its High-Cost program,  including adding support for broadband services, and created the  Connect America Fund, which provides subsidies to fixed and mobile  providers of telecommunications and broadband services in rural, insular,  and other remote areas where the costs of providing service is high. To  be eligible for Universal Service Fund support from FCC, a provider must  be designated an Eligible Telecommunications Carrier by the appropriate  state or by FCC and must meet certain service obligations. The Connect  America Fund has distributed approximately $4.5 billion per year, and has  separate funding mechanisms targeted to specific goals. For example,  there are funds for fixed-phone and broadband service and funds for  mobile service, including a Tribal Mobility Fund (Phase 1) that awarded  nearly $50 million in 2014 for the provision of 3G and 4G service to  unserved tribal areas.

In addition to FCC, a number of other agencies provide funding for  broadband deployment in unserved or underserved areas. For example,  the United States Department of Agriculture’s Community Connect  Program, which provides grants to rural communities to provide high- speed Internet service to unserved areas.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)  mandated the development of a nationwide map of broadband  availability. To implement the act, the National Telecommunications &  Information Administration (NTIA)—an agency within the Department of  Commerce—established a grant program to enable U.S. states and  territories to collect state-level broadband mapping data. NTIA used these  data to launch the National Broadband Map (www.broadbandmap.gov) in  February 2011. As the funding for the NTIA’s program came to an end in  2014, NTIA stopped collecting data to update the map and, according to  FCC officials, created a memorandum of understanding with FCC through  which FCC agreed to maintain public access to the last version of the  map. FCC issued rules in 2013 to begin collecting broadband deployment  data, in addition to the broadband subscription data it had collected from  providers since 2000. FCC sought, but did not receive, $3 million to  update the National Broadband Map in its fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year  2016 budgets. In 2018, Congress directed FCC to develop a report by  March 23, 2019, evaluating broadband coverage in certain tribal lands (to  include an assessment of areas that have adequate broadband coverage,  as well as an assessment of unserved areas), and to complete a  proceeding to address unserved areas by September 23, 2020.  Currently, FCC requires broadband providers to report on their broadband  deployment by filing a form twice a year (Form 477).

Fixed broadband providers submit a list of the census blocks in which  their broadband service is available, and mobile providers submit “shapefiles”—a geospatial depiction of the  coverage area, which FCC refers to as “polygons”—of their coverage  areas.

FCC uses providers’ 477 data to develop a statutorily mandated annual  report on advanced telecommunications capability. In addition, in 2016,  FCC began publishing its own maps of broadband deployment, using the  information from providers’ Form 477 filings. In February 2018, FCC  launched an updated map of fixed broadband deployment  (https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/). This map allows users to search for  broadband deployment by address and provides summary-level statistics  regarding broadband deployment in specific tribal lands (see fig. 3).  According to FCC officials, this new map format will support more  frequent data updates.

FCC also provides national maps of mobile LTE coverage; these maps do  not allow users to access data at the same level of granularity as the  maps of fixed broadband (see fig. 4).

FCC Collects Data on Broadband Availability but Lacks Accurate and Complete Data on Broadband Access on Tribal Lands

FCC collects and uses data that capture broadband availability to  measure broadband access on tribal lands, leading to overstatements of  broadband access on tribal lands. Specifically, FCC’s method of  collecting mobile and fixed broadband data from providers (the Form 477)  does not accurately or completely capture broadband access on tribal  lands because it (1) captures nationwide broadband availability data— areas where providers may have broadband infrastructure—but does so  in a way that leads to overstatements of availability, and (2) does not  capture information on factors that FCC and tribal stakeholders have  stated can affect broadband access on tribal lands, such as affordability,  service quality, and denials of service. Nonetheless, FCC uses its Form  477 broadband availability data in annual broadband deployment reports  to measure the percentage of Americans living on tribal lands with or  without access to broadband, and to measure progress toward FCC’s  strategic goal of increasing all Americans’ access to affordable  broadband. By using broadband availability data to measure broadband  access on tribal lands, FCC overstates broadband access on tribal lands.

FCC Collects Broadband Availability Data, but Its Collection Method Leads to Overstatement of Availability on Tribal Lands

FCC’s Form 477, its primary method of collecting nationwide broadband  data, collects information on broadband availability, which identifies  where providers have broadband infrastructure and could potentially  provide broadband services but not where consumers can actually  access those services. Moreover, the Form 477’s mobile broadband data- collection methods are not standardized, and its fixed broadband data- collection methods are not sufficiently granular to provide information  about broadband availability on tribal lands.

FCC’s Form 477 requires mobile broadband providers to report their  coverage areas by submitting geospatial data depicting the areas in  which consumers could expect to receive the minimum advertised  speed. FCC has previously noted the importance of collecting nationally  standardized, uniform broadband data from providers to assess  broadband availability and allow for easy comparison across providers.  However, the Form 477 does not require that providers use a  standardized method with defined technical parameters (such as signal  strength, or amount of interference) when determining their coverage  area, resulting in data that cannot be meaningfully compared across  providers, according to FCC. To map their coverage areas, providers may  use predictive models based on different measurement methods and a  variety of factors known to affect mobile broadband service such as  topography, tree cover, and buildings, among other factors.

Providers and tribal stakeholders have expressed concern with the  accuracy of FCC’s mobile broadband data, and FCC has acknowledged  concerns that the lack of a standardized method resulted in data that  were unreliable for the purposes of determining mobile broadband  coverage for specific geographic areas, such as tribal lands. About half of  the tribal government representatives we interviewed told us that they  believe FCC’s data overstate mobile LTE broadband availability on their  lands. For example, a few representatives expressed concerns with the  accuracy of the mobile data in areas with varied terrain, such as  mountains and valleys. In comments to FCC, broadband providers have  also raised concerns regarding the accuracy of the mobile coverage data  generated by the Form 477 for the purposes of identifying areas eligible  for funding through FCC’s Mobility Fund Phase II program, which  provides federal funding to increase mobile broadband services in  unserved areas. In 2017, in response to such concerns, FCC reversed  its prior decision to use the Form 477 data to identify specific areas  eligible for federal funding through the Mobility Fund Phase II program.  Instead, FCC undertook a one-time special data collection, for which it  required providers to measure their coverage based on a common set of  standards, in order to better identify unserved areas that would be  presumptively eligible for funding. FCC plans to allow parties, including  tribal governments, to challenge the data where they believe the data  overstate mobile broadband coverage through August, 2018.  Additionally, in an August 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC  requested comment on potential changes to modernize its Form 477 data  collection, including whether it should require all providers to use a  standardized method when submitting mobile coverage data on the form.  FCC officials told us that they do not have a timeline for the development  of a final rule, and as of August 2018, FCC had not yet issued a final rule  on modernizing the Form 477.

The Form 477 collects fixed broadband data that are not sufficiently  granular to accurately depict broadband availability on tribal lands.  Specifically, FCC directs fixed broadband providers to submit a list of  census blocks where service is available on the Form 477. FCC defines  “available” as whether the provider does—or could, within a typical  service interval or without an extraordinary commitment of resources— provide service to at least one end-user premises in a census block.  Thus, in its annual reports and maps of fixed broadband service, FCC  considers an entire block to be served if a provider reports that it does, or  could offer, service to at least one household in the census block. FCC  does not define a typical service interval or an extraordinary commitment  of resources in its Form 477 instructions. However, FCC officials stated  that providers should not report service in areas in which major  construction would be required to provide service. A few providers told us  that the lack of clear guidance from FCC regarding how to determine  where broadband is available has led different providers to interpret the  Form 477 directions in different ways, which can affect the accuracy and  consistency of reporting from provider to provider. For example, in a filing  with FCC, one provider stated that it had misapplied the definition of  “available” and, as a result, overstated the availability of its services by  almost 3,000 census blocks.  As shown in figure 5, FCC’s definition of  availability leads to overstatements of fixed broadband availability on  tribal lands by: (1) counting an entire census block as served if only one  location has broadband, and (2) allowing providers to report availability in  blocks where they do not have any infrastructure connecting homes to  their networks if the providers determine they could offer service to at  least one household. Almost all the providers and private companies, and  most of the representatives of tribal governments and organizations we  spoke with told us that due to these issues, FCC’s definition of availability  results in data that overstate broadband availability.

According to FCC officials, FCC requires providers to report fixed  broadband availability where they could provide service within a “typical  service interval” and without “an extraordinary commitment of resources”  in order to: (1) ensure that it captures instances in which a provider has a  network nearby but has not installed the last connection to the homes,  and (2) identify where service is connected to homes, but homes have not  subscribed. FCC officials also told us that FCC measures availability at  the census block level because sub-census block data may be costly to  collect. In 2013, FCC considered collecting more granular nationwide  data on broadband deployment but decided against collecting these data  because it determined that the burden would outweigh the benefit.

However, FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that FCC’s  approach leads to overstatements of availability. For example, in its 2017  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on modernizing the Form 477 data  collection, FCC acknowledged that by requiring a provider to report where  it could provide service, it is impossible to tell whether the provider would  be unable or unwilling to take on additional subscribers in a census block  it lists as served. According to FCC, this limits the value of the data to  inform FCC policies. In addition, several providers and tribal stakeholders  we interviewed said that some “digital subscriber line” (DSL) and fixed  wireless providers may overstate their service areas on the Form 477  because they may not take into account technological or terrain  limitations that would affect their ability to actually provide service. FCC  has also recognized that by measuring availability at the census block  level, not every person will have access to broadband in a block that the  data show as served, and FCC has noted that in rural areas, such as  tribal lands, census blocks can be large and providers may only deploy  service to a portion of the census block. A few representatives for tribal  governments and organizations noted that the use of census blocks may  uniquely overstate broadband availability on tribal lands when census  blocks contain both tribal and non-tribal areas, because availability in the  non-tribal portion of the block can result in the tribal area of the census  block also being counted as served.

FCC is considering requiring providers to report whether they are willing  and able to serve additional customers in a census block and collecting  sub-census block data in its 2017 proposed rulemaking on modernizing  the Form 477. About one-third of the parties that commented on FCC’s  proposals were not in favor of FCC collecting these more granular data  on the Form 477, stating that the data would be less accurate and more  burdensome for providers to collect and report, among other reasons, and  questioned whether more detailed information on nationwide broadband  availability is necessary. We heard similar concerns from a few of the  providers and trade associations we interviewed. However, about one- third of the parties that commented on FCC’s proposals were in favor of  collecting more granular data, stating that such data would be more  useful for policymakers and more accurate. Additionally, a few tribally owned and non-tribal providers we interviewed told us that providers  already maintain data for business purposes that would allow them to  report more granular information on broadband availability. One  stakeholder we spoke with pointed out that, as the federal government  and states work to ensure the last remaining unserved areas—rural, low- population density areas including tribal lands—have service, sub- census-block-level data are needed to ensure that governments are  making wise and accurate investments.

FCC Does Not Collect Data on Several Factors That Affect Broadband Access on Tribal Lands

FCC does not collect information on several factors that FCC and tribal  stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access. FCC and tribal  stakeholders have noted that broadband access can be affected by  factors such as the affordability and quality of the broadband services  being offered, and the extent to which providers deny service to those  who request it. By collecting and using data on factors that can affect  broadband access, FCC would have more complete information on the  extent to which Americans living on tribal lands have access to  broadband Internet services.

Affordability: FCC has noted that affordability of broadband services  can affect broadband access but does not collect information on the  cost of broadband service on tribal lands on the Form 477. For  example, in the National Broadband Plan, FCC cited affordable  access to robust broadband service as a long-term goal, and in its  Strategic Plan 2018–2022, FCC acknowledged that affordability is an  important factor affecting broadband access and a key driver of the  digital divide. Moreover, most of the representatives of tribal  governments and organizations we spoke to told us that the  affordability of broadband services is an important factor for  understanding whether or not people on tribal lands could realistically  access broadband services. Tribal government officials from one  tribe we spoke with told us that residents on their lands cannot access  broadband because it is too costly. For example, a provider that  advertises services on the tribe’s land charges $130 per month for  broadband services, approximately one-and-a-half times the average  rate providers charge for comparable services in urban areas,  according to FCC (see fig. 6).

In the 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, FCC acknowledged that  affordability can influence a consumer’s decision on whether to purchase  broadband, but FCC did not consider cost in its assessment of broadband  access on tribal lands, stating that pricing does not go to the  congressional requirement to assess deployment and availability in  conducting its inquiry as required by Congress under section 706 of the  Telecommunications Act and also citing a lack of reliable comprehensive  data on this issue. In addition, FCC officials we interviewed  acknowledged that while broadband service may be technically available,  it may be prohibitively expensive for some, which may make availability  alone an incomplete indicator of broadband access.

Quality of Service: In the Telecommunications Act of 1996 Congress  recognized the importance of service quality by defining advanced  telecommunications capability as any technology that enables users  to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video  telecommunications. In keeping with this legislation, FCC has  consistently set thresholds for speeds that qualify as broadband  services and has stated that “latency” and consistency of service  figure prominently into whether a broadband service is able to provide  advanced capabilities and thus whether users can access high-quality  telecommunications. Likewise, almost all of the representatives for  tribal governments or organizations we interviewed told us that quality  of service is a key component of access to broadband and that routine  outages, slow speeds, and high latency keep people on tribal lands  from consistently accessing the Internet. Most tribal stakeholders and  a few providers we interviewed told us that factors such as terrain,  weather, and type of technology can all affect the quality of service an  end user receives and, ultimately, the subscribers’ ability to access  the Internet (see fig. 7). For example, some representatives of tribal  governments and organizations told us issues like oversubscription— when a provider signs up more customers than its equipment can  handle—and outdated or limited infrastructure result in low-quality  services that cannot support advanced and, in some cases, basic  functions.

Though FCC uses the Form 477 to collect some data on advertised  speeds from providers, FCC does not collect data on actual speeds,  service outages, and latency on the form. In its 2018 Broadband  Deployment Report, FCC stated that it did not consider FCC data on  actual speed, latency, or consistency of service when evaluating  broadband access due to the lack of appropriate data. FCC noted that the  lack of Form 477 data on actual speeds in particular constrained  evaluation of mobile broadband access.

Service Denials: FCC has recognized that information on denials of  service is pertinent to understanding actual broadband access but  does not collect data on service denials in the Form 477. Specifically,  in the National Broadband Plan, FCC recommended that FCC collect  data to determine whether broadband service is being denied to  potential residential customers based on the income of the residents  in a particular geographic area. Some representatives of the tribal  governments or organizations told us that that they were aware of a  provider denying service to residents of tribal lands, despite the  provider reporting broadband availability on at least a portion of those  lands, according to our analysis of the Form 477 data. These  representatives told us that they believed service was denied because  of disputes with the tribal government, low demand for service, or the  high costs of extending services to the home on tribal lands. Some  representatives of tribal governments or organizations we spoke with  also told us that providers may have denied service because their  equipment was at capacity and could not accommodate new users  (see fig. 8).

For example, on three of the tribal lands we visited, we observed fiber  optic cable located close to government and residential structures that did  not have broadband access via fiber. According to tribal government  officials, despite the physical proximity of the fiber optic cable, the tribal  government and residents could not access it because the provider was  not offering service or was unwilling or unable to build to the structures. A  few providers we interviewed stated that they may not provide services to  individuals who request them because of high-costs, administrative  barriers, or technical limitations. However, FCC does not collect data on  service denials on the Form 477.

FCC Uses Broadband Availability Data to Measure Broadband Access on Tribal Lands, Overstating Access on Tribal Lands

In its Strategic Plan 2018–2022 and the National Broadband Plan, FCC  identified increasing all Americans’ access to affordable broadband as a  long-term, strategic goal. Congress has similarly directed FCC to  develop policies and programs aimed at increasing access to affordable  broadband in all regions of the United States, including tribal lands, and  required FCC to report annually on its progress. According to the  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), as enhanced by the  GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), agencies should use  accurate and reliable data to measure progress toward achieving their  goals. Additionally, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government state that agencies should use quality information— information that is complete, appropriate, and reliable—to inform  decision-making processes and evaluate the agency’s performance in  achieving goals. According to these standards, agencies should also  communicate quality information externally to achieve the agency’s goals.

However, FCC has used its Form 477 data, which do not accurately or  completely measure broadband access on tribal lands, as its primary  source to evaluate progress toward FCC’s strategic goal of increasing  broadband access and to develop maps and reports intended to depict  broadband access on tribal lands. For example, in its 2018 Broadband  Deployment Report, FCC found that 64.6 percent of Americans residing  on tribal lands have access to fixed broadband services. By using these  data, FCC has overstated the extent to which Americans living on tribal  lands can actually access broadband Internet services and FCC’s  progress toward increasing broadband access. As a result, the digital  divide may appear less significant as a national challenge, and FCC and  tribal stakeholders working to target broadband funding to unserved or  underserved tribal lands will be limited in their ability to make informed  decisions. This increases the risk that residents living on tribal lands will  continue to lack broadband access. Some tribal officials stated that  inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan their own broadband  networks and obtain federal broadband funding, and most of the tribal  stakeholders we interviewed identified a pressing need for accurate data  on the gaps in broadband access on tribal lands in order to ensure that  tribes can qualify for federal funding and to effectively target the areas  that need it most. For example, representatives for one tribal government  that is providing broadband services said the government will not be able  to use a federal grant to build broadband infrastructure in areas of their  reservation that lack access, because the Form 477 data overstate actual  access on the tribe’s land. As more than three quarters of the tribal  governments we spoke to are working to provide broadband services on  their lands in some capacity, overstating broadband access on tribal  lands could affect the ability of a number of tribes to access federal  funding to increase broadband access on their lands.

As previously discussed, FCC is considering proposals to modify its Form  477 data collection as part of a 2017 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, but  FCC officials told us that the Commission does not have a timeline for  issuance of a final rule. While some of FCC’s proposals could help  address some of the limitations identified above by, for example,  collecting more granular nationwide broadband availability data, FCC has  not addressed specifically the collection of more accurate and complete  data on broadband access for tribal lands in this proceeding. FCC has  identified the need to improve broadband data for tribal lands in particular,  and as previously noted, in 2018 Congress directed FCC to develop a  report evaluating broadband coverage in certain tribal lands and initiate a  proceeding to address the unserved areas identified in the report. FCC  officials told us that FCC has not determined how it will address this  requirement, but it is currently considering its options, including potentially  addressing the requirement as part of its ongoing proposed rulemaking  on modernizing the Form 477 data collection. An evaluation of broadband  coverage on tribal lands that relies on the current Form 477 data would  be subject to the limitations described above, including the overstatement  of broadband access on tribal lands.

Additionally, FCC has demonstrated that it is possible in some  circumstances to collect more granular data when such data collection is  targeted to a specific need or area. For example, in 2017 FCC began  requiring certain providers that receive funding through the Connect  America Fund to report the latitude and longitude of locations where  broadband is available, and FCC has noted that these more granular data  are extremely useful to the Commission, especially for rural areas where  census blocks can be quite large. A few large providers and trade  associations similarly stated in public comments on FCC’s proposed  rulemaking to modernize the Form 477 process that FCC should target its  collection of more granular broadband data to areas where the data are  most likely to be overstated—specifically, large, rural census blocks with  low population densities, such as those on tribal lands. Additionally, as  discussed above, FCC undertook a one-time special data collection for  Mobility Fund II to ensure that the mobile broadband data it collected  would be reliable for the intended use. By developing and implementing  methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on  broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be able to better  identify tribal areas without access to broadband and to target federal  broadband funding to the tribal areas most in need.

FCC Does Not Have a Formal Process to Obtain Tribal Input on Its Broadband Data, and Tribal Stakeholders Reported a Lack of Provider Engagement

FCC Does Not Have a Formal Process to Obtain Tribal Input on Its Broadband Data

FCC uses data submitted by broadband providers via the Form 477  process to develop maps and datasets depicting broadband services  nationwide, and in specific locations, such as tribal lands, but does not  have a formal process to obtain input from tribes on the accuracy of the  broadband data. FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan noted the need for  the federal government to improve the quality of data regarding  broadband on tribal lands and recommended that FCC work with tribes to  ensure that any information collected is accurate and useful. It also noted  that tribal representatives should have the opportunity to review mapping  data about tribal lands and offer supplemental data or corrections.  Similarly, federal internal control standards note the need for federal  agencies to communicate with external entities, such as tribal  governments, and to enable these entities to provide quality information  to the agency that will help it achieve its objectives. FCC officials told us  that they address questions and concerns regarding provider coverage  claims submitted to the Office of Native Affairs and Policy, which will work  with tribal governments to help them identify inaccurate broadband data  for tribal lands, and share tribal questions and concerns with the  appropriate FCC bureaus. However, FCC does not have a formal  process for tribes (or other governmental entities) to provide input to  ensure that the broadband data FCC collects through the 477 process, or  the resulting maps that FCC creates to depict broadband on tribal lands,  are accurate. Similarly, FCC does not use other methods to verify provider-submitted Form 477 data on tribal lands against other sources of  information, such as on-site tests or data collected by other agencies.

When discussing the lack of a formal process for tribal representatives or  other governmental entities to provide feedback on the accuracy of the  477 broadband data, FCC officials noted that if consumers and local  officials have information on individual locations that lack broadband  service, such information does not indicate that the entire census block  lacks broadband service. Additionally, FCC officials noted that providers  attest to the accuracy of the data and that FCC staff validate the data by  conducting internal checks to identify possible errors, such as unlikely  changes in a providers’ coverage area, and may follow-up with a provider  to discuss such changes. However, these checks do not include soliciting  input from tribes.

About half of the tribal stakeholders we spoke to raised concerns that  FCC’s broadband deployment data rely solely on unverified information  submitted by providers. Additionally, most tribal stakeholders we  interviewed told us that consistent with the recommendations in the  National Broadband Plan, FCC should work directly with tribes to obtain  information from them to improve the accuracy of its broadband  deployment data for tribal lands. These stakeholders identified several  ways in which FCC could work with tribes on this issue, including:  conducting on-site visits with tribal stakeholders to observe the extent  to which broadband infrastructure and services are present;  conducting outreach and technical assistance for tribal stakeholders  to raise awareness and use of FCC’s broadband data; and providing opportunities for the tribes to collect their own data or submit  feedback regarding the accuracy of FCC’s data.

FCC’s National Broadband Plan notes the importance of supporting tribal  efforts to build technical expertise with respect to broadband issues, and  federal internal control standards state that federal agencies should  obtain quality information from external entities. Officials we interviewed  in FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy told us that they provide some  outreach and technical assistance to tribal officials at regional and  national workshops, and FCC officials stated that they conducted specific  outreach to tribal entities regarding the Mobility Fund Phase II challenge  process, while, about half of the tribal representatives we spoke to  stated that they were not aware of the Form 477 data or corresponding  maps, or raised concerns about a lack of outreach from FCC to inform  tribes about the data. Some tribal stakeholders stated that if FCC were to  solicit tribal input as part of its verification of the broadband data and  maps, technical training and assistance could help tribes use and provide  feedback on the data, or improve the collection and submission of their  own data. A few of the stakeholders we interviewed noted that tribes can  face difficulties when they attempt to challenge FCC’s broadband  availability data. For example, in 2013, prior to the auction that distributed  Tribal Mobility Fund Phase 1 support, FCC allowed interested parties to  challenge FCC’s preliminary determinations regarding which census  blocks lacked 3G or better service and would be eligible for support in the  auctions. However, all of the tribal entities that challenged the accuracy  of FCC’s data were unsuccessful in increasing the number of eligible  areas. According to FCC officials, the tribal entities did not provide  sufficient or sufficiently verifiable information to support their challenges.  A few tribal stakeholders provided varying reasons for this, one of which  was the need for more technical expertise to help the tribe meet FCC’s  requirements.

Because FCC lacks a formal process to obtain tribal input on its  broadband data, FCC is missing an important source of information  regarding areas in which the data may overstate broadband service on  tribal lands. Tribal stakeholders are able to provide a first-hand  perspective on the extent to which service is available within their lands  and the extent to which factors like affordability, service quality, and  service denials affect residents’ ability to access broadband. FCC plans to  award nearly $2 billion in support from the Connect America Fund to  areas that it has identified as lacking broadband, including tribal lands.  Any inaccuracies in its broadband data could affect FCC’s funding  decisions and the ability of tribal lands to access broadband in the  future. Additionally, in its 2017 report on tribal infrastructure, the  National Congress of American Indians stressed the importance of  including tribal governments in a leadership role with respect to collecting  data on local infrastructure needs. Specifically, it stressed the need for  the federal government to invest in tribal data systems and researchers to  generate useful, locally specific data that can inform the development and  implementation of infrastructure development projects and assess the  effectiveness of those projects over time. By establishing a process to  obtain input from tribal governments on the accuracy of provider- submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical  assistance, as recommended in the National Broadband Plan, FCC could  help tribes develop and share locally specific information on broadband  access, which would in turn improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband  data for tribal lands. The success of such an effort may rely on the tribes’  knowledge of, and technical ability to participate in, the process.

Half of the Tribal Stakeholders We Interviewed Reported a Lack of Provider Engagement

When discussing the need to improve data regarding broadband on tribal  lands, FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended that FCC  develop a process for tribes to receive information from providers about  broadband services on tribal lands. In 2011, FCC required that Eligible  Telecommunications Carriers (providers receiving Universal Service  Funds from FCC) serving tribal lands meaningfully engage with tribes  regarding communications services (including broadband). Specifically,  the providers must file an annual report documenting that this  engagement included a discussion of, among other things, a needs  assessment and deployment planning for communications services,  including broadband. FCC’s 2012 guidance on fulfilling the engagement  obligations, which FCC officials confirmed is still in effect, noted that the  stated goal of the engagement requirement was to benefit tribal  government leaders, providers, and consumers by fostering a dialogue  between tribal governments and providers that would lead to improved  services on tribal lands. The guidance further noted that the tribal  engagement process “cannot be viewed as simply another ‘check the  box’ requirement by either party,” and states that a provider should  “demonstrate repeated good faith efforts to meaningfully engage with the  tribal government.” Finally, FCC noted in its 2012 guidance that the  guidance would evolve over time based on the feedback of both tribal  governments and broadband providers and that FCC would develop  further guidance and best practices. This approach is consistent with  federal internal control standards, which call for agencies to communicate  with, and obtain quality information from, external parties.

About half of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed raised concerns about  difficulties accessing information from providers regarding broadband  deployment on their tribe’s lands, a key part of the provider engagement  process, according to FCC’s guidance. For example, a representative  from one tribe stated that a provider declined his requests to meet more  than once a year to discuss the provider’s deployment of broadband  services on the tribe’s land. A representative from another tribal  government stated that some providers are very focused and transparent  about their broadband plans and work with the tribe, while other providers  treat tribal engagement as a “box to check” and send the tribe broadband  deployment information that is not useful because it is redacted. Similarly,  some tribal stakeholders stated that providers heavily redacted  deployment information (which providers may consider proprietary) or  required the tribe sign non-disclosure agreements to access deployment  data. According to one tribal stakeholder, these non-disclosure  agreements could possibly require tribes to waive tribal sovereign  immunity in order to view the data.

Some of the industry stakeholders we interviewed stated that they  attempt to engage with tribes but the level of responsiveness from tribes  varies. For example, some stakeholders stated that they send letters and  do not hear back from tribes. One stakeholder stated that they make  repeated attempts to contact tribes when they do not hear back after their  initial contact, while another stated that a provider meets regularly with  some tribes.

Although FCC stated in its 2012 guidance that it would update the tribal  engagement guidance and develop best practices based on feedback  from tribal governments and broadband providers, it has taken limited  steps to obtain such feedback from providers and tribal governments to  determine whether its guidance is enabling meaningful tribal engagement.  Additionally, FCC has not updated the guidance or issued best  practices. Thus, FCC has limited information regarding whether its tribal  engagement requirement is fulfilling its intended purpose. FCC officials  we interviewed said that the Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP)  provided information and, in some cases, held training sessions about the  tribal engagement obligation during workshops with tribal representatives,  and encouraged representatives to contact ONAP with any concerns.  ONAP officials also noted that they handle complaints from tribes  regarding a lack of provider engagement and reach out to providers to  address tribal concerns. ONAP officials stated that they have had internal  discussions about whether the guidance is clear or needs revision, but  this has not gone beyond internal discussions. A few of the tribal  stakeholders provided examples of the benefits of providers engaging  with tribes to ensure tribal representatives have access to information  regarding broadband availability on their lands. For example, one  representative stated that this information could help the tribes plan  deployments by focusing on areas that they know the provider does not  plan to serve. Another representative stated that tribal engagement could  help improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband maps. By obtaining  feedback from both tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness  of FCC’s tribal engagement guidance to determine whether changes are  needed, FCC would be better positioned to ensure that tribal  governments and providers are sharing information in a manner that will  lead to improved services on tribal lands.

FCC has collected data and developed maps and reports depicting  broadband on tribal lands and has noted the lower levels of broadband  access on tribal lands, in comparison to other areas. However, limitations  in FCC’s existing process for collecting and reporting broadband data  have led FCC to overstate broadband access on tribal lands. By taking  steps to address these limitations and to collect data that more accurately  and completely depict broadband access on tribal lands, FCC would have  greater assurance that it is making progress on reducing the digital divide  on tribal lands and targeting broadband funding to tribal lands most in  need. Without taking these steps, FCC increases the risk that residents  living on tribal lands will continue to lack broadband access.

Compounding the limitations in FCC’s data collection process is FCC’s  lack of a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider- submitted broadband data for tribal lands. By developing a process to  solicit tribal input and ensuring that tribes know about the process and are  equipped with the technical skills and abilities necessary to provide this  information, FCC would be better able to ensure the accuracy of its  broadband data for tribal lands. Moreover, FCC would be able to obtain  firsthand, locally specific information on broadband access that could  inform FCC’s policies and funding decisions and help FCC achieve its  goal of increasing broadband access for all Americans, including those  living on tribal lands. Finally, by obtaining feedback from providers and  tribal stakeholders on the effectiveness of FCC’s tribal engagement  guidance, FCC would be better positioned to assess whether its guidance  is helping providers meet requirements and ultimately whether providers’  engagement is fulling its intended purpose of fostering a dialogue  between tribal governments and providers that would lead to improved  services on tribal lands.

We are making the following three recommendations to the Chairman of  the Federal Communications Commission.

The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should  develop and implement methods—such as a targeted data  collection—for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on  broadband access specific to tribal lands. (Recommendation 1)

The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should  develop a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of  provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and  technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process.  (Recommendation 2)

The Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission should  obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the  effectiveness of FCC’s 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill  their tribal engagement requirements to determine whether FCC  needs to clarify the agency’s tribal engagement statement.  (Recommendation 3)

We provided a draft of this report to FCC for review and comment. In  written comments provided by FCC (reproduced in appendix III), FCC  agreed with our findings and recommendations. In its written comments,  FCC described efforts, some of which are already under way, that it felt  would address each recommendation and stated its intent to build upon  those efforts. For example, FCC explained that it is exploring methods to  collect more granular broadband deployment data and noted the need to  balance the burden on Form 477 filers. FCC also noted that it is starting  work to address a statutorily-required evaluation of broadband coverage  on certain tribal lands. We agree that increasing the granularity of  deployment data is helpful in addressing data accuracy issues, but we  also note that it is important to collect data related to factors that affect  broadband access on tribal lands.

FCC also described informal efforts to collect tribal feedback on providers’  broadband data and stated it would explore options for a formal process  to collect feedback. Regarding our recommendation related to providers’  engagement efforts, FCC outlined its existing methods by which tribal  stakeholders can provide feedback on providers’ engagement efforts and  agreed that seeking additional feedback from tribal stakeholders and  providers would be desirable. We agree that improving feedback in these  ways could help FCC determine whether it needs to clarify its tribal  engagement statement. FCC also provided technical comments, which  we incorporated as appropriate.

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

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: List of Interviewees Representatives from tribal governments or tribally owned broadband providers  Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma (OK)

Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation (WA)

Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa (MN)

Gila River Telecommunications, Inc. (AZ)

Navajo Tribal Utility Authority (AZ, NM, UT)

Red Spectrum Communications (Coeur d’Alene Tribe (ID))

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Networks, LLC (NY)

San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc. (AZ)

Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association - Tribal Digital Village Network (CA)

Spokane Tribe of Indians and Spokane Tribe Telecom Exchange (WA)

Standing Rock Telecommunications, Inc. (ND, SD)

Warm Springs Telecommunications Co. (OR)

Yurok Tribe and Yurok Connect (CA)  Representatives from tribal associations/consortiums that include tribes  Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians  Middle Rio Grande Pueblo Consortium  National Congress of American Indians  Native American Finance Officers Association (NAFOA)

REDINet  Representatives from companies/academic groups that work with tribes  AMERIND Risk  Arizona State University, American Indian Policy Institute and School of Public Affairs   Turtle Island Communications  Representatives from providers/trade associations (non-tribally owned)  AT&T  Representatives from companies that collect broadband data  Alexicon  Connected Nation  Government Agencies (non-tribal)  Census Bureau  U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service  Department of Interior’s Bureau of Indian Affairs  National Telecommunications and Information Administration  Minnesota Office of Broadband Development  One broadband provider we interviewed did not want to be included in this appendix.

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report discusses the extent to which: (1) the Federal  Communications Commission’s (FCC) approach to collecting broadband  availability data accurately captures the ability of Americans living on  tribal lands to access broadband Internet services and (2) FCC obtains  tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data for  tribal lands.

To address both objectives, we analyzed FCC’s December 2016 fixed  and mobile broadband availability data—the most recent data at the time  of our review—to identify the speeds, technologies, and availability  providers reported for federally recognized tribal lands. Providers  currently report this information to FCC by filing a “Form 477,” twice a  year. We also used 2010 U.S. Census data to identify census blocks  completely or partially on tribal lands. To assess the reliability of FCC’s  data and 2010 U.S. Census data, we reviewed a previous GAO reliability  assessment, and for FCC’s data we conducted electronic testing and  analysis of the data, reviewed FCC guidance and documentation, and  interviewed FCC officials. Based on the results of our analysis, we  determined the data to be reliable for our purposes, which were: (1) to  inform our selection of tribal governments and providers for interviews  and visits, as described below, and (2) to develop maps depicting fixed  and mobile broadband availability for the nine tribal lands we selected for  visits, in order to obtain tribal representatives’ feedback on the data.  Specifically, we mapped;  fixed broadband data according to speed and technology, and mobile data for long-term evolution (LTE) services by provider for  each tribal land.

We used those maps during our visits to discuss the accuracy of the data  with representatives for each tribal government or tribally owned provider.  Though we analyzed all up and download speeds that providers reported  in the Form 477, for the purposes of this report we defined “broadband”  as fixed Internet service reaching at least 25 megabits per second (Mbps)  download and 3 Mbps upload speeds, in accordance with FCC’s  advanced telecommunications capability benchmark in its 2018  Broadband Deployment Report. We also report on the availability of  mobile broadband, which, for the purposes of this report, does not have a  speed threshold and refers to long-term evolution (LTE) services.

To address both objectives and obtain tribal government representatives’  feedback on the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for their lands, we  interviewed representatives from 25 tribal governments or tribally owned  providers, including visits to 9 tribal lands. We considered a range of  factors when we selected tribal governments and tribally owned providers  for interviews, including our analysis of Form 477 data, recommendations  from tribal, industry, or government stakeholders regarding tribal and non- tribal representatives familiar with broadband data issues, and  demographic and geographic characteristics, among others. For example,  we considered demographic characteristics such as unemployment rate  from the 2011– 2015 American Community Survey data, and geographic  characteristics such as rurality from the United States Department of  Agriculture (USDA) Rural-Urban Commuting Area Codes data. The tribes  included in our review vary with respect to location, level of broadband  availability according to FCC, land mass, and population size and density.  The results of our interviews are not generalizable to all tribal  governments or tribally owned broadband providers. In addition to tribal  governments and tribally owned providers, we interviewed six tribal  organizations and four stakeholders who work with tribes on broadband  issues. For reporting purposes, we developed the following series of  indefinite quantifiers to describe the tribal responses from the 35 entities  representing tribal stakeholders we interviewed:

A full list of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed can be found in  appendix I.

Further, to obtain industry perspectives, we reviewed public comments  submitted by providers and industry associations in FCC’s ongoing 2017  Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Modernizing the Form 477 Data  Program. We also interviewed 10 non-tribally owned fixed and mobile  broadband providers and three industry associations to understand  providers’ views on the Form 477 and how providers interact with tribal  governments. When selecting providers for interviews, we included  providers that reported serving the lands of tribal governments we  interviewed and selected providers that varied in the percentage of tribal  lands they reported serving. The providers we interviewed represent  large, nationwide carriers as well as small, local carriers, and offer  broadband via a variety of technologies, including fiber optics, digital  subscriber line (DSL), fixed wireless, and mobile LTE. The results of our  interviews with providers are not generalizable to all broadband providers.  In addition, to address both objectives, we interviewed representatives  from other government entities, as well as private companies that collect  and report broadband data. A full list of the industry stakeholders we  interviewed can be found in appendix I.

To identify the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband  availability data reflects the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to  actually access broadband Internet services, we reviewed documentation  of the Form 477 process, including submission guidance, and FCC’s  proposals and public comments in its 2017 Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking on Modernizing the Form 477 Data Program and Mobility  Fund Phase II proceedings. We also interviewed FCC officials, industry  stakeholders, and tribally owned broadband providers to understand  FCC’s current process for collecting broadband data. To understand the  purpose of the Form 477 data collection process and FCC’s strategic  goals, we reviewed relevant statutes, and FCC documents, including  FCC’s Strategic Plan 2018––2022, the National Broadband Plan, and  FCC’s broadband deployment and progress reports. Given the  importance placed on broadband access in these documents, we  interviewed tribal stakeholders, as described above and reviewed FCC  documents to identify factors affecting the ability of Americans living on  tribal lands to access broadband Internet services. We also reviewed  previous GAO work that identified barriers to broadband access on tribal  lands. We compared the Form 477 process to FCC’s strategic goals and  to factors affecting broadband access to determine the extent to which  the Form 477 was designed to collect information on those factors and to  meet FCC’s goals. We further evaluated this information against the  Government Performance and Results Act, as enhanced by the GPRA  Modernization Act of 2010 and Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government. We also reviewed documentation for other FCC  data collection programs, including the Measuring Broadband America  program and the Urban Rate Survey, to determine the extent to which  FCC collected data on factors affecting broadband access outside of the  Form 477 process.

To determine the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the accuracy  of provider-submitted broadband data for tribal lands, we interviewed  FCC officials and analyzed FCC documents regarding the collection procedures for the Form 477 data and FCC’s policies for working with  tribal governments, as well as Connect America Fund documents  regarding requirements for providers to share information with tribal  governments. We also reviewed documents on past FCC Universal  Service Fund processes to challenge broadband data and identified prior  instances in which tribal governments or tribally owned providers  challenged FCC’s broadband data and the outcomes of those challenges.  Additionally, we interviewed tribal stakeholders, as described above, to  understand the extent to which: (1) FCC involves tribal governments and  other stakeholders in the validation of Form 477 broadband data, (2) tribal  governments can access broadband data from FCC or providers, and (3)  FCC’s Form 477 data accurately reflected broadband access on their  lands. For the nine tribal lands we visited, we asked tribal governments or  tribally owned providers to identify where the data do or do not accurately  reflect broadband access on maps of FCC’s data. Further, to identify how  providers complied with FCC’s tribal engagement requirement and obtain  their perspectives, we interviewed providers and industry associations.  We compared FCC’s data validation procedures and tribal stakeholders’  feedback on the process to FCC’s policies for working with tribal  governments, FCC recommendations from the National Broadband Plan  and Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. We also  interviewed and received written comments from officials from other  federal agencies that have broadband programs, including USDA Rural  Utilities Service, the National Telecommunications and Information  Administration (NTIA), and others, in addition to a state agency and three  private companies that collect and report broadband data to understand  how other entities collect and validate broadband data.

Appendix III: Comments from the Federal Communications Commission

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, Keith Cunningham (Assistant  Director); Crystal Huggins (Analyst in Charge); Katherine Blair; Lilia  Chaidez; Camilo Flores; Adam Gomez; Serena Lo; Jeffery Malcolm; John  Mingus; Joshua Ormond; Jay Spaan; James Sweetman, Jr.; Elaine  Vaurio; and Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.

The Federal Communications Commission collects data on where broadband (high-speed) Internet access is available in the U.S. This access aids economic growth and education.

Residents of tribal lands have lower levels of broadband Internet access relative to the U.S. as a whole, but the digital divide may be greater than currently thought. FCC data overstated tribes' broadband availability and access to broadband service. These overstatements limit FCC and tribal users' ability to target broadband funding to tribal lands.

We made three recommendations to FCC to improve the accuracy of its broadband data and better engage tribes.