Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face

In 2018, FCC estimated that 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands lack broadband service compared to 8 percent of Americans overall. Various federal programs support increasing broadband deployment in unserved areas, including tribal lands. Tribes can form partnerships with private sector companies and others to deploy broadband infrastructure on tribal lands. GAO was asked to provide information on these partnerships.

This report discusses (1) examples and outcomes of tribal partnership arrangements, (2) the amount of federal funding provided to tribal entities for broadband deployment, and (3) stakeholder-identified barriers that tribes face in obtaining federal funding and the extent to which federal agencies have addressed those barriers. GAO identified partnerships by reviewing federally funded broadband projects that included a partnership component; analyzed federal funding dedicated to broadband deployment; interviewed agency and tribal government officials, tribal associations, tribally owned broadband providers, and industry stakeholders; and assessed RUS's efforts to address the regulatory funding barriers tribes may face. The information presented is illustrative and is not generalizable to all tribes or all partnerships.

GAO identified some partnership arrangements between tribes and other entities to increase broadband access on tribal lands. Among the seven examples GAO identified, tribes partnered with different types of entities including private broadband providers, a community access network provider, an electric cooperative, a regional consortium, and tribally owned broadband providers. According to the tribes participating in the partnerships, almost all of the partnerships improved broadband service on tribal lands.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) are the primary sources of federal funding to deploy broadband infrastructure where the cost of providing service is high, including on tribal lands. GAO reviewed funding for four programs, three in FCC and one grant program in RUS, and found that in total, less than 1 percent has gone directly to tribes or to tribally owned broadband providers to expand broadband service. GAO found that 14 tribal entities received federal funding from FCC and RUS to increase broadband deployment for 2010–2017.

The tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned broadband providers GAO contacted cited several barriers tribes face in obtaining federal funding to deploy broadband service on tribal lands. For example, they said tribes face regulatory barriers in applying for RUS's grant funding, including (1) preparing existing and proposed network design, (2) demonstrating financial sustainability of the broadband project within 5 years, and (3) obtaining matching funds. An interagency council recently recommended that federal agencies identify and address regulatory barriers that may unduly impede broadband deployment. Although RUS conducts some outreach with tribes, it has not undertaken a formal assessment to identify and address the regulatory barriers that tribes may face in obtaining RUS's funding for broadband deployment. RUS officials told GAO that they do not have the resources to do so. Nevertheless, lacking such an assessment, tribes may continue to face regulatory barriers in obtaining RUS funding for broadband deployment on their lands. By identifying and addressing any regulatory barriers that impede tribal entities' access to RUS funding, RUS could help tribes obtain funding to expand broadband deployment on tribal lands.

GAO recommends that RUS identify and address regulatory barriers that impede tribal entities from obtaining RUS funding for broadband deployment. RUS neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation.

Broadband service provides users with many opportunities to improve  communications, including enhancements in e-commerce, telemedicine,  and education tools. In 2018, the Federal Communications Commission  (FCC) estimated that 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands lack  broadband service, compared to 8 percent of Americans overall.  According to FCC, the gap in broadband access between rural areas and  rural tribal lands is even larger. Further, when including mobile broadband  service, FCC reported that nearly 60 percent of Americans living in rural  tribal lands nationwide lack broadband access, compared to about 31  percent of rural Americans overall. This large difference is due, in part, to  the relatively high proportion of tribal lands that are located in rural areas  with rugged terrain and low population density, which decreases business  incentives to invest in broadband infrastructure in these areas. According  to FCC, this lack of service on tribal lands could impede efforts by Indian  tribes to achieve self-governance and promote economic opportunity,  education, public safety, and cultural preservation.

Currently, the federal government has programs that support increasing  broadband deployment in rural and unserved areas (including tribal  lands). Most notably, Congress has tasked FCC with encouraging the  deployment of advanced telecommunications capability in a reasonable  and timely fashion to all Americans, including those in rural areas and on  tribal lands. To accomplish this requirement, FCC is responsible for  implementing Universal Service Fund programs, one of which, the  Connect America Fund, provides approximately $4.5 billion annually to  support broadband service in underserved and unserved areas. The  Rural Utilities Service (RUS), a component agency of the U.S.  Department of Agriculture, also has the Community Connect Program  that provides grant funding to improve broadband service. Tribes as well  as partnerships between tribes and other entities may apply for such  funding in order to expand service on tribal lands.

You asked us to examine several issues related to broadband access on  tribal lands, including the use of partnership arrangements between tribal  entities—that is, tribal governments and telecommunications providers  owned by tribes—and other entities. This is the second report we are  issuing in response to your request. This report discusses (1) examples  of partnership arrangements that tribal entities have used to increase  broadband deployment on tribal lands and the outcomes of those  partnerships, (2) the amount of funding provided to tribal entities for  broadband deployment from key federal programs, and (3) stakeholder- identified barriers that tribal entities face in obtaining federal funding for  broadband deployment and the extent to which federal agencies have  taken action to address those barriers. In this report, we use the term  “partnerships” to refer to when an Indian tribe works with another entity to  design, build, or operate infrastructure assets to improve or enhance  broadband access.

To address these objectives, we reviewed the Communications Act of  1934, as amended, the National Broadband Plan, and relevant literature  identified through a literature search of tribal partnerships for broadband  deployment. In addition, we reviewed documentation and interviewed  officials from FCC, RUS, and the Department of Commerce’s National  Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

To identify examples of tribal broadband partnerships for our review, we  first interviewed agency officials, tribes, private providers, and tribal  associations to determine if they were aware of any partnerships focused  on broadband deployment on tribal lands. We then identified any  broadband projects with a tribal partnership component by reviewing  financial information from 2010 to 2017 for the following federal programs:  (1) FCC’s Universal Service Fund high-cost program and Connect  America Fund (including the Mobility Fund Phase I (Auction 901) and  Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I (Auction 902)); (2) RUS’s Community  Connect Grant Program; (3) RUS’s Broadband Initiatives Program; and  (4) NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. While there  may be other tribal partnerships that exist, through these efforts we found  seven tribal partnership examples that we discuss in this report. The  identified tribal broadband partnerships are intended to be illustrative  examples and, accordingly, are not generalizable to others that may exist.

To determine the amount of funding from key federal programs provided  to tribal entities for broadband deployment, we first identified the federal  programs that provide broadband funding from NTIA’s Guide to Federal  Funding of Broadband Projects. The guide lists 17 federal programs that  fund broadband infrastructure. Of those federal programs, we focused our  review on four programs—three in FCC and one grant program in RUS— selected because they provide the most directly relevant funding for  broadband deployment in unserved areas, which includes tribal lands.  We compiled total funding data for these four federal programs and the  amount of funding provided to tribes and tribal entities for broadband  deployment projects for 2010 to 2017. We took steps to assess the  reliability of the data, such as cross-checking the data, following up with  agency officials, and reviewing documentation, and found the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of summarizing total funding and the  amount provided to tribes and tribal entities. Because we relied upon titles  or names of grant recipients to identify those grants awarded to tribes and  tribally owned providers, our analysis may not include some grants  awarded to broadband providers that deploy infrastructure to larger  service areas that may also include tribal lands.

We obtained stakeholder views on barriers that tribal entities face in  obtaining federal funding and federal government efforts to address those  barriers by interviewing FCC and RUS officials and 17 tribal government  officials, 9 tribally owned broadband providers, and 5 tribal associations.  We selected tribal governments to interview to include variation in  geographic location, level of broadband deployment, and population  density. We visited six tribes in Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington  State. We also interviewed other stakeholders selected to represent a  range of views and those with experience working with Indian tribes and  broadband service. These stakeholders included 10 private broadband  providers and associations; 2 regional consortium; 2 community access  providers; an academic institution; and a cooperative. The views obtained  from the interviews are not generalizable to all tribes, all broadband  providers, or all industry stakeholders. We reviewed a report from the  Broadband Opportunity Council recommending that agencies identify and  address regulatory barriers that may unduly impede broadband  deployment and assessed RUS’s efforts to address the regulatory  barriers tribes may face in attempting to obtain RUS funding for  broadband deployment. Appendix I describes our scope and  methodology in greater detail.

We conducted this performance audit from September 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 inherent powers of a limited  sovereignty, which has never been extinguished. These tribes can vary  significantly in regard to tribal size, population, and ownership status of  land. For instance, some tribal lands include reservations—land set aside  by treaty, federal law, or executive order for the residence or use of an  Indian tribe. Some tribal lands include parcels with different ownership;  parcels may be held in trust by the federal government for the benefit of a  tribe or an individual tribal citizen. Trust and restricted lands can affect a  tribe’s ability to use their land as collateral to obtain a loan. In addition,  the size of a tribe’s land base can range from less than one square mile  to more than 24,000 square miles (the size of West Virginia). Some tribes  are located in extremely remote, rural locations and others are located in  urban areas.

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  providers deploy and maintain infrastructure to connect consumers to the  Internet and provide Internet service through a number of technologies.  Broadband 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. Figure 1 illustrates some of the options for broadband deployment  infrastructure. To install this 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 and RUS, currently provide funding to subsidize  broadband deployment in areas in which the return on investment has not  attracted private investment. FCC funds a number of programs through  the Universal Service Fund, which may increase broadband deployment  on tribal lands. One program is the high-cost program (renamed the  Connect America Fund (CAF) in 2011), which provides financial support  to both wireline and wireless telecommunications carriers that provide  telecommunications services (referred to as providers in this report) to  supplement their operating costs to serve consumers in rural or remote  areas, where the cost of providing service is high. From 2010 to 2017, a  total of $34.5 billion in annual and standalone Universal Service Fund  high-cost support was disbursed to providers, as follows:  In total, the high-cost program and Connect America Fund provided  $34.1 billion from 2010 to 2017 in financial support to providers,  consisting of annual disbursements between $3.7 and $5 billion.

The Mobility Fund Phase I provided $300 million in 2012 in one-time  support to providers to expand broadband service in areas where  service was not available, including tribal lands.

The Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I provided $49.8 million in 2014 in  one-time support to providers to deploy broadband service to  unserved tribal lands.

To be eligible to receive for Universal Service Fund program support, a  provider must be designated an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) by the appropriate state or by FCC. Under FCC rules, which many state  programs mirror, ETCs must meet certain service obligations as  described below: provide a 5-year plan showing how program support will be used to  improve its coverage, service quality, or capacity in each service area  where it seeks designation; demonstrate its ability to remain functional in emergency situations; demonstrate that it will satisfy consumer protection and service quality offer local usage plans comparable to those offered by the incumbent  carrier in the areas for which it seeks designation; and acknowledge that it may be required to provide equal access to other  providers within the service area if all other ETCs in the designated  service area relinquish their designations.

In addition to FCC’s funding, RUS has a current program and had a prior  program and NTIA had a prior program that provided funding to improve  broadband service in unserved or underserved areas. The RUS and  NTIA prior programs were authorized by the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to expand high-speed Internet  service in unserved areas, and there is no current funding for these  programs.

RUS’s Community Connect program currently provides grants to rural  communities to provide high-speed Internet service to unserved  areas. The Community Connect program is significantly smaller than  FCC’s programs, with $95.2 million awarded to 36 recipients from  2010 to 2017. The purpose of the RUS Community Connect  program is to provide financial assistance to eligible applicants that  will provide broadband service that fosters economic growth and  delivers enhanced educational, healthcare, and public-safety benefits.  In addition, RUS previously administered the Broadband Initiatives  Program (BIP), authorized by the Recovery Act to expand high-speed  Internet service in unserved areas. BIP funding included $2.2 billion  dedicated to deploy broadband infrastructure. Through the program,  RUS funded a total of 247 infrastructure projects with the requirement  that all projects be fully completed by June 30, 2015. In addition to the  infrastructure awards, 12 technical assistance grants went to tribal  communities to develop regional plans to provide broadband service  in rural areas that remain critically unserved.

NTIA administered a prior program also authorized by the Recovery  Act called the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP).  NTIA made available $3.1 billion in BTOP funding to deploy  broadband infrastructure. Through the program, NTIA awarded a total  of 116 infrastructure grants with the requirement that all projects be  fully complete within 5 years of the award date.

Selected Tribes Partnered with Various Entities to Increase Broadband Deployment and Outcomes Varied

Although we identified some partnership arrangements between tribes  and other entities to increase broadband deployment on tribal lands using  prior authorized funding, based on our review, these arrangements are  not being used under currently available programs. As previously noted,  there are greater costs associated with deploying broadband on unserved  tribal lands because the unserved areas are generally rural, with possibly  rugged terrain, and have low population densities. Because of these  greater costs, there may be little to no private sector incentive to deploy  broadband or enter into a partnership arrangement to do so.

During our review, we did not find any partnership arrangements that  leveraged currently available federal funding from FCC’s CAF or RUS’s  Community Connect Program. The seven partnership examples we  identified were ones that obtained federal funding under past programs,  namely BIP and BTOP that were funded by the Recovery Act. Among  these examples, tribes partnered with several different types of entities  that were eligible to receive federal grants, including (1) private providers;  (2) a community access network provider; (3) an electric cooperative; (4)  a regional consortium; and (5) tribally owned telecommunications  companies (which we will refer to as tribally owned providers). These  types of arrangements are explained below. Outcomes of these  partnership arrangements varied, as reported by tribal officials and other  stakeholders we interviewed, but these stakeholders did not always agree  on the outcomes.

Private providers can partner with a tribe to deploy broadband  infrastructure on tribal lands. We found two instances in which a tribe  partnered with private providers to improve broadband service.

Pine Telephone Company and Choctaw Nation. With the land the  tribe has jurisdiction over covering over 10 counties across 12,000  square miles in Oklahoma, the Choctaw Nation’s lands encompasses  about 15 percent of the State of Oklahoma’s total area—an area  larger than the entire state of Maryland. According to the Oklahoma  Department of Transportation, the Choctaw Nation is the largest  employer in the southeastern Oklahoma region and its businesses are  key contributors to the state’s economy. However, a tribal official told  us that the tribal government has struggled to meet the tribe’s  broadband needs. According to the Choctaw Nation official, Pine  Telephone Company (Pine), a privately owned company, has a  history of partnering with the Choctaw Nation. In 2010, Pine received  a BTOP grant of $9.5 million to deploy broadband infrastructure to  underserved areas of Southeastern Oklahoma, including Choctaw  Nation lands.

According to tribal officials and representatives from Pine, the  partnership enabled tribal government agencies and buildings— including public schools, public safety agencies, fire and police  departments, and a health clinic—to get broadband service. The  partnership also improved broadband service for the Choctaw Nation.  Additionally, Pine had been proactive in partnering with the Choctaw  Nation to secure federal grants and assist with land use and rights-of- way issues, according to a tribal official. Pine representatives told us  that partnering with the Choctaw Nation had been beneficial based on  their common interest to increase broadband service to the area.

Inland Cellular, First Step, and Nez Perce. The Nez Perce Tribe’s  reservation consists of 750,000 acres located in north central Idaho.  Tribal officials told us that the terrain on the reservation makes  broadband deployment challenging because it has very large hills and  deep valleys; additionally the reservation is sparsely populated. Tribal  officials told us that prior to 2010, there was no broadband service  available on the Nez Perce reservation. In 2010, the tribe received a  BTOP grant of $1.6 million for the Nez Perce Broadband  Enhancement Project; the project was completed in 2013. The tribe  used that federal grant to deploy 216 miles of broadband (wireless)  infrastructure across its reservation to provide broadband service in  four northern Idaho counties. As part of the project, the tribe partnered  with two private providers, Inland Cellular and First Step, to expand  broadband service on the reservation. The tribe used BTOP funding  for infrastructure buildout in areas in need of connectivity, while Inland  Cellular and First Step focused their efforts on infrastructure buildout  in more populated areas.

According to Nez Perce and Inland Cellular officials, the partnership  resulted in broadband service being provided to previously  underserved rural communities and 17 community institutions,  including schools and public safety organizations. Because the  partners each own towers on the reservation, the officials told us they  could collocate equipment on each other’s towers, an approach that  resulted in more reliable service. Further, Nez Perce officials and  Inland Cellular representatives told us that their partnership was  complementary, in that Inland Cellular offered voice services and the  tribe’s enterprise offered data services.

Community access network providers are typically owned and operated  by public entities rather than by a private corporation. All profits are  reinvested to operate, maintain, and expand the community network.  Community access networks focus on building broadband infrastructure  that allows multiple Internet service providers to offer their services to  customers. For example, rather than having one choice for Internet  service, community access network providers will allow several service  providers to compete for customers.

Northwest Open Access Network (NoaNet). NoaNet, a utility network  that offers communities access to broadband infrastructure, has  deployed infrastructure in rural areas of Washington State, including  on tribal lands. NoaNet received two BTOP grants in 2010—one grant  for $84 million and the other for $54 million—to enhance existing  infrastructure and improve broadband service in unserved areas.  NoaNet representatives told us that over the course of several years,  NoaNet deployed 2,300 miles of fiber-optic cable across tribal lands in  Washington State and partnered with several Indian tribes and  nations, including the Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel  Reservation, Lower Elwha Tribal Community, and Yakama Nation, to  deploy broadband infrastructure. For example, NoaNet  representatives told us they partnered with Yakama Nation and  exchanged a NoaNet-owned asset for access to a power source and  the right to install fiber-optic lines on Yakama tribal land.

According to NoaNet representatives, NoaNet’s infrastructure buildout  improved broadband services and created new economic  development opportunities for several tribes in Washington State. For  example, they said NoaNet collaborated with Yakama Nation  Networks—a wireless network and tribal enterprise serving the tribe— to provide faster broadband service to the reservation. Further, the  NoaNet representatives said the availability of broadband service  created new technical jobs with professional growth opportunities on  the reservation. NoaNet representatives added that NoaNet enabled  high-speed Internet service to the Makah Tribe’s health clinic,  government offices, school, and library, where they previously had no  Internet service at all. Moreover, they told us that partnerships are  beneficial in helping tribes gain telecommunications experience.  Similarly, according to a tribal representative from Jamestown  S’Klallam Tribe, NoaNet’s infrastructure buildout helped the tribe  obtain broadband services for its library and also helped create  economic opportunities for the tribe.

Rural electric cooperative networks typically serve areas that have low  population density where traditional providers do not want to serve  because of limited opportunities for financial return on investment.

Kit Carson Electric Cooperative and Taos Pueblo. Kit Carson Electric  Cooperative (KCEC) is a member-owned, nonprofit electric  distribution cooperative that operates a fiber-optic broadband network.  In 2010, KCEC received $64 million in grant funding from RUS’s BIP  to create a 2,400-mile broadband network in northern New Mexico  and provide broadband service to businesses and homes, including  those on the Taos Pueblo and Picuris Pueblo.

In an August 2016 presentation to the New Mexico state legislature,  KCEC stated that that the project connected tribal members and  community institutions, created job opportunities, and improved public  safety by improving emergency communications services. According  to Taos Pueblo officials, the impetus to work with KCEC was to  improve broadband service to meet immediate economic, education,  health service, and public safety needs of the tribe. However, based  on our meetings with both KCEC representatives and Taos Pueblo  officials they have different perspectives about the success of this  partnership at delivering broadband service to the tribe. For example,  KCEC representatives told us that the cooperative constructed the  fiber-optic network and connected the government buildings and  homes of Taos Pueblo and Picuris Pueblo members as promised, and  that KCEC has responded to service interruptions when they occurred  on tribal lands. On the other hand Taos Pueblo officials told us, that  KCEC did not deploy broadband infrastructure to enable service to all  homes and buildings on tribal lands as the tribe had expected.  Similarly, KCEC representatives told us that they worked regularly  with the Taos and Picuris tribal governments and had good  relationships with them; they noted that they meet with tribal  leadership every quarter to maintain effective communications and  address any issues. In contrast, according to Taos Pueblo officials,  KCEC did not solicit tribal input when building out the fiber-optic  network, and only met with Taos Pueblo officials about once a year  and did not follow up on the issues the tribe raised. Further, according  to KCEC representatives, in its federal funding application, KCEC  made a commitment that the Taos and Picuris tribal lands would be  the first areas targeted for building out the network, and the  representatives said that KCEC completed 100 percent of the  construction and connected the tribal governments as promised. Taos  Pueblo officials, however, said that their tribe was the last to receive  service and that KCEC did not complete the broadband construction,  including service to the homes of some of its members, because  KCEC exhausted its BIP funding.

We have previously reported that regional consortium, which are typically  formed by groups to undertake an enterprise beyond the resources of any  one member, can sponsor regional networks that focus on building  broadband networks and providing broadband services to schools,  medical providers, public safety agencies, and other community  institutions.

North Central New Mexico Economic Development District. Located in  northern New Mexico, the Pueblo of Pojoaque, Santa Clara Pueblo,  Tesuque Pueblo, and Ohkay Owingeh partnered with local  governments to establish the North Central New Mexico Economic  Development District (the District), a regional consortium, to address  the socio-economic needs of its members. In 2008, regional planners  and government officials identified broadband as the region’s number- one infrastructure priority because rural north central New Mexico  relied significantly on dial-up Internet service and lacked affordable  service to small businesses, libraries, schools, and other community  institutions. In 2010, the District received a BTOP grant of $10.6  million to build a community-owned broadband network, known as  REDI Net. The District sought the BTOP grant to improve rural  healthcare services, make public and higher education more  accessible, and improve local government services, like public safety.  REDI Net’s construction included upgrading existing infrastructure and  deploying 136 miles of new fiber-optic cable across the region and on  pueblo lands to replace low-performing dial-up service with faster,  more affordable broadband service.

According to the project’s progress report submitted to NTIA, the  partnership enabled broadband infrastructure to be deployed across  the four participating lands and connect 110 community institutions.  The project’s description stated that REDI Net was being used to  deliver telemedicine services, distance-learning applications, and  critical communications for emergency first-responders. According to  REDI Net representatives, in 2017, REDI Net became a standalone  organization, separate from the District, and currently charges a  monthly fee for the pueblos to use the broadband network. A REDI  Net representative told us that the biggest outcome of the partnership  has been the improved relationships and collaboration among the  Pueblo of Pojoaque, Santa Clara Pueblo, Tesuque Pueblo, and  Ohkay Owingeh and other local municipalities.

Some tribes have created their own telecommunications companies to  provide broadband access to their communities. Based on the examples  we identified, a tribe may create its own telecommunications or  broadband company or a tribe may partner with an existing tribal  enterprise such as an electrical utility to provide broadband services.

Navajo Nation and Navajo Tribal Utility Authority. The Navajo  Nation—which spans across Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah—  partners with a tribally owned entity, the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority  (NTUA), to provide broadband service to residents and households.  According to a NTUA representative, the Navajo Nation has diverse,  challenging terrain—which includes canyons, valleys, timber forest,  desert, and mountains—making it difficult to provide broadband  service to tribal residents. In 2010, NTUA received a BTOP grant of  $32 million to deploy broadband infrastructure covering 15,000 square  miles across the three states. According to the project’s progress  report submitted to NTIA, by 2013, NTUA leveraged BTOP funding to  deploy 570 miles of fiber-optic cable and 775 miles of wireless  infrastructure resulting in a total of 1,345 new network miles.

According to NTUA representatives, the partnership between the  Navajo Nation and NTUA increased broadband deployment on the  nation and created new opportunities for NTUA to partner with other  private providers to further expand broadband services. For example,  NTUA representatives said NTUA partnered with a private broadband  provider, Commnet, to deploy wireless broadband infrastructure that  enabled tribal citizens to receive 4G LTE service. NTUA and  Commnet representatives told us NTUA’s relationship with Navajo  Nation represented an attractive business opportunity for Commnet  because of NTUA’s established rights-of-ways on the Navajo Nation’s  tribal lands.

Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe and Mohawk Networks. The Saint Regis  Mohawk Tribe, located in the northern region of New York, received a  $10.5 million BIP grant in 2010 to complete a large broadband project  expanding access to unserved areas. According to tribal officials and  Mohawk Networks representatives, the tribe completed a $15 million  broadband infrastructure project laying 68 miles of fiber and  connecting 1,500 tribal households and community institutions. Upon  completion of the BIP broadband project, the tribal officials said the  tribe launched its tribally owned broadband provider, Mohawk  Networks, LLC in 2015, to respond to tribal residents’ need for  reliable, cost-effective broadband service. Tribal officials said Mohawk  Networks currently provides high-speed Internet to tribal homes and  businesses.

According to tribal officials, in addition to providing broadband service  to tribal residents for the first time, the partnership between Saint  Regis Mohawk Tribe and its tribally owned broadband provider  created new jobs and opportunities to expand broadband services.  For example, the officials said the partnership resulted in the creation  of a tribal subsidiary, North Country Broadband Services, Inc., to  deploy wireless infrastructure to neighboring counties, thus generating  new revenue for Mohawk Networks.

Few Federal Funds Were Provided to Tribal Entities to Increase Broadband Deployment from 2010 to 2017

FCC and RUS are the primary sources of federal funding to deploy  broadband infrastructure in rural and remote areas where the cost of  providing service is high, including tribal lands. Based on our review of  the funding provided by four federal programs targeted to increase  deployment in unserved areas, very little has gone directly to tribes or to  tribally owned broadband providers. Specifically, from 2010 to 2017, we  found that less than 1 percent of FCC funding and about 14 percent of  RUS funding went directly to tribes and tribally owned providers.  Combined, FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6 billion during that time  period and tribes and tribally owned providers received $235 million, or  about 0.7 percent.

While the majority of the funding from the four programs we reviewed  from both agencies is provided to deploy broadband to rural, unserved, or  underserved areas, only one source of funding, FCC’s Tribal Mobility  Fund Phase I, is dedicated specifically to deploying broadband on tribal  lands.

The National Broadband Plan stated in 2010 that tribes needed  substantially greater financial support than was available to them at the  time and that accelerating tribal broadband deployment would require  increased funding. Furthermore, the National Congress of American  Indians expressed concerns that the needs for federally funded  broadband projects are greater on tribal lands but tribes do not receive  the appropriate share of federal funding aimed at increasing broadband  deployment.

Through our analysis we found that 14 tribal entities received federal  funding from FCC and RUS to increase broadband deployment from  2010-2017 (see fig. 2). Of the four main programs we reviewed, tribes  and tribally owned providers received the following funds:

Connect America Fund: Nine tribally owned providers received high- cost support funding totaling $218.1 million.

Mobility Fund Phase I: One tribally owned provider received support  totaling $3.3 million.

Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I: No tribal providers received funding.

RUS Community Connect Grants: Four tribal entities received $13.5  million.

Stakeholders Cited Barriers for Tribes to Obtain Federal Funding and Federal Agencies Have Taken Few Actions to Address the Barriers

The tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned broadband  providers we interviewed cited several barriers that tribes may face when  seeking federal funding for broadband deployment. The two primary  barriers these interviewees cited were (1) the statutory requirement for  ETC designation and (2) grant application requirements.

Statutory Requirement for ETC Designation

FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF) is the largest source of federal  funding for broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas;  however, very few tribes are currently eligible for this source of funding.  At the time of our review, FCC officials told us there were 11 tribes that  have providers that are designated as ETCs and therefore would be  eligible to receive CAF funding. Although FCC adopted rules in 2011 to  create CAF and modernize the program so that it could support  broadband capable networks, FCC officials told us that most ETCs are  the telephone companies that were in existence when Congress passed  the Telecommunications Act of 1996. According to FCC officials, FCC  has explored whether it has authority to allow non-ETC providers to  receive CAF support payments but determined that the statute is clear  that only ETCs can receive program support. Between 2012 and 2017,  FCC officials said FCC received nine ETC applications, four of which  were from tribally owned providers. Of those four, only one tribally owned  provider was designated an ETC. Three tribes we contacted said they  would like the opportunity to receive CAF support to deploy broadband on  tribal lands, but they realize they are not eligible to receive funding unless  they have the ETC designation. Moreover, officials from two tribes and a  tribal association stated that while they want to provide broadband  services in their communities, they did not seek the ETC designation  because of the ETC service obligations described above.

The Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe applied for ETC status in 2013. We met  with tribal officials who told us that the tribe was providing broadband  service in its community through its own, tribally chartered  telecommunications company and at the time of our visit, they had been  waiting several years for a decision from FCC on their ETC application.  The tribal officials told us that if FCC did not make a decision soon, the  tribal government would need to shut down the broadband network, as  the tribe’s original decision to fund the network assumed there would be a  CAF subsidy to help defray the costs. The Leech Lake reservation is rural  with low population density and is surrounded by the Chippewa National  Forest. Subsequent to our meeting with the tribe in November 2017, the  tribe withdrew its application in March 2018, noting that it was ceasing its  attempt to run its telecommunications company specifically “due to  inaction” by FCC.

According to representatives from a tribal association we contacted, FCC  has provided ETCs with billions of dollars to deploy service to unserved  areas through the Universal Service Fund programs, but FCC’s efforts  have not always been successful in the hardest to reach areas,  particularly tribal lands. The representatives noted that FCC’s competitive  market approach does not work where competition cannot be supported  and that there needs to be a different approach. Similarly, tribal officials  from Idaho told us that rural service providers are able to operate due to  CAF support, but the tribe is not eligible to receive those subsidies.  Officials said although the provider in their area has received millions of  dollars in CAF subsidies, it has not deployed broadband on the tribal  lands. Other tribal officials from Washington State told us that although  private providers received CAF subsidies to deploy broadband service to  their reservation, the private providers told the tribe it would be years  before they offer service on tribal lands.

In 2014, FCC conducted its Rural Broadband Experiment to open up  eligibility for CAF funding to non-ETC providers. FCC made $100 million  available for the experiment and applicants included a diverse group of  entities, including competitive providers, electric utilities, wireless Internet  service providers, and others. However, while this experiment opened the  application process to non-ETC providers, it did not remove the ETC  requirement. CAF support awarded through this experiment was  provisional pending the broadband providers’ obtaining ETC status.  According to FCC documentation, there were 181 applicants for the  experiment, but only 16 ended up meeting all the requirements to receive  funding. None of those 16 entities was tribal.

Stakeholders we interviewed said tribes may face barriers completing  federal grant applications to obtain funding for broadband deployment. In  particular, two community access providers, five tribally owned providers,  and one regional consortium we contacted said that meeting the  application requirements was difficult. Representatives from eight of the  tribes we contacted told us that in general, the language included in the  federal grant applications is difficult to understand or the administrative  requirements of federal grants are burdensome. Another tribal  representative told us he would only recommend applying for RUS’s  Community Connect program if the tribe has an entire team of dedicated  people to manage the grant process. Some of the tribal officials we  contacted cited difficulties preparing required application materials  between the time a grant announcement was made and the submission  deadline. For example, tribal officials we contacted from New Mexico and  Oklahoma stated that the constrained time frames prevented them from  effectively preparing a comprehensive application package. In some  cases, the narrow application windows prevented the tribes from applying  at all. Furthermore, tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned  broadband providers told us that complying with the following regulatory  requirements for RUS Community Connect grants could be challenging  for tribes:

Preparing existing and proposed network design: RUS’s Community  Connect program requires applicants to submit information on the  network’s design that contains all the technical information on the  applicant’s existing (if applicable) and proposed network. The network  design is typically completed by a licensed engineer. Tribal officials in  Washington State told us that conducting analyses of existing  infrastructure and what improvements are needed can be cost- prohibitive for some tribes because it requires financial resources that  the tribe may not have before applying for the grant. Many of these  costs are related to the expense of bringing in outside experts or  consultants who are needed to perform the technical studies. Another  tribal representative told us since the tribe has no way of knowing if  the grant will be approved, spending money to complete the  application is a large risk. According to RUS officials, the Community  Connect program is not authorized to fund pre-planning activities.

Demonstrating financial sustainability within 5 years: The RUS  Community Connect grant application requires a “financial forecast”  that includes the applicant’s existing operations and the proposed  project and must be supported by a detailed narrative that explains  the methodology and assumptions used to develop the projections,  including the number of subscribers projected to take the applicant’s  service. The financial forecast must cover at least 5 years, and it is  used by RUS to determine whether the proposed project is financially  sustainable. However, tribal officials from Idaho told us that it is not  feasible for tribes to show financial sustainability (a return on  investment) in 5 years in high cost areas. They noted that a period of  15 years may be needed to produce a return on investment in those  areas, and this requirement prevents tribes from qualifying for  Community Connect grants.

Obtaining matching funds required to apply for federal grants: RUS’s  Community Connect program requires grant applicants to provide  matching funds of at least 15 percent from non-federal sources and  does not accept in-kind contributions of goods or services. The  matching fund requirement can be difficult for some tribes to obtain.  For example, officials from RUS and the tribal entities we contacted  told us that tribes often times do not have the upfront cash to meet the  matching requirement. According to a tribal association we contacted,  obtaining credit is a serious problem for some tribes. In general, tribes  cannot collateralize tribal property, and therefore often times are  unable to get bank loans for infrastructure projects.

The National Broadband Plan recommended that federal agencies  facilitate tribal access to broadband funding opportunities. Furthermore,  recognizing the need to reduce barriers to expand broadband  deployment, the Broadband Opportunity Council, established in March  2015, issued a report stating that federal agencies should use all  available and appropriate authorities to identify and address regulatory  barriers that may unduly impede either broadband deployment or the  infrastructure to augment broadband deployment. RUS officials said  they have held a number of external training and outreach events, such  as workshops and seminars, with tribes over the past 5 years to provide  information about RUS’s broadband programs. For example, in April  2018, before the 2018 Community Connect grant’s application deadline,  RUS hosted a webinar on various requirements for grant applications.  RUS officials told us that RUS’s outreach efforts generally focus on  specific programs and instructing potential applicants on program  requirements and how to complete application packages.

However, beyond these outreach efforts, RUS officials said they have not  undertaken a formal assessment to identify and address the regulatory  barriers that tribes may face in obtaining RUS funding for broadband  deployment. When we asked RUS officials about the feasibility of doing  so, they said that they have limited resources and multiple competing  priorities for those resources. RUS officials also noted that BIP authorized  and provided funding for technical assistance for applicants, funding that  enabled RUS to address some of the barriers tribes face. Nevertheless,  lacking such an assessment, tribes may continue to face the regulatory  barriers described above in obtaining RUS funding for broadband  deployment on their lands. According to the National Broadband Plan,  local entities (including tribal, state, regional, and local governments)  decide to offer broadband services when no providers exist that meet  local needs, and local entities do so after trying to work with established  carriers to meet local needs. Several of the tribes we visited told us they  were trying to deploy broadband infrastructure or offer service because  the private providers were not building out on their lands. For example,  one tribe stressed that unlike private providers, they would prioritize tribal  areas needing broadband service, but they need federal funding to do so.

An estimated 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands lack  broadband service, which could hinder tribal efforts to promote self- governance, economic opportunity, education, public safety, and cultural  preservation. However, little federal funding aimed at increasing  broadband service actually goes to tribal entities, even though the  National Broadband Plan stressed that tribes needed substantially greater  financial support and recommended that federal agencies facilitate tribal  access to broadband funding opportunities. Tribes may face barriers in  obtaining federal funds to deploy broadband, and the Broadband  Opportunity Council recognized the need for federal agencies to reduce  the barriers that are impeding broadband deployment. However, RUS has  not taken steps to identify or address the barriers tribes face when  applying for RUS grant funding. By identifying and addressing any  regulatory barriers that impede tribal entities’ access to RUS funding,  RUS could help tribes obtain funding to expand broadband deployment  on tribal lands.

The Secretary of Agriculture should direct the Administrator of RUS to  undertake an assessment to identify any regulatory barriers that may  unduly impede efforts by tribes to obtain RUS federal grant funds for  broadband deployment on tribal lands and implement any steps  necessary to address the identified barriers. (Recommendation 1)

We provided a draft of this report to FCC, RUS, and NTIA for comment.  FCC and RUS provided technical comments, which we incorporated as  appropriate; NTIA did not have any comments. A Department of  Agriculture official indicated in an e-mail message that RUS neither  agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation. RUS’s technical  comments noted that RUS has and will continue to work with tribes to  facilitate broadband deployment, whether tribes have the desire and  capacity to provide the service or whether another provider is able to  bring that service to tribal areas.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Chairman of FCC, the Secretary of Agriculture, the  Secretary of Commerce, 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 II.

This report discusses (1) examples of partnership arrangements that  tribal entities have used to increase broadband deployment on tribal lands  and the outcomes of those partnerships, (2) the amount of funding  provided to tribal entities for broadband deployment from key federal  programs, and (3) stakeholder-identified barriers that tribal entities face in  obtaining federal funding for broadband deployment and the extent to  which federal agencies have taken action to address those barriers.

To address these objectives, we reviewed relevant federal statutes,  including the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Federal  Communications Commission’s (FCC) regulations, orders, and policy  statements including FCC’s Statement of Policy on Establishing a  Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes. In addition,  we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from FCC, including  officials from the Office of Native Affairs and Policy; U.S. Department of  Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS); U.S. Department of  Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information  Administration (NTIA); and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban  Development’s Office of Native American Programs.

To gather information on partnership arrangements that tribes have  entered to increase broadband deployment on tribal lands and their  outcomes, we conducted a review of relevant published literature that  included government reports, industry articles, and publications from  associations, non-profits, and public policy research organizations.  Although we were not able to identify an industry-accepted definition of partnerships, we used the term partnerships to refer to instances in which  a tribal nation or tribal government works with another entity to design,  build, or operate infrastructure assets, or other capital assets to improve  or enhance broadband service. This also included partnerships between  a tribe and its tribally owned broadband provider. To identify examples of  tribal broadband partnerships for our review, we first interviewed agency  officials, tribes, private providers, and other stakeholders such as tribal  associations. We also identified broadband projects with a tribal  partnership component by reviewing reports from 2010 to 2017 for the  following federal programs: (1) FCC’s Universal Service Fund high-cost  program and Connect America Fund (including the Mobility Fund Phase I  (Auction 901) and Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I (Auction 902)); (2) RUS’s  Community Connect Program; (3) RUS’s Broadband Initiatives Program;  and (4) NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program. While  there may be other tribal partnership examples that exist, through these  efforts we identified seven broadband projects with a tribal partnership  component completed within the last 5 years (2013 to 2017). We  interviewed tribal leaders and officials from the seven tribes that were  involved in the selected partnerships, and visited six tribes in Idaho, New  Mexico, and Washington State. When meeting with tribal leaders and  officials, we used the same semi-structured interview questions for all  tribes; however, tribal officials may not have answered all questions.  Because we limited our review to these seven selected partnership  examples, our findings are not generalizable.

To determine the amount of funding from key federal programs provided  to tribal entities for broadband deployment, we first identified the federal  programs that provide broadband funding from NTIA’s Guide to Federal  Funding of Broadband Projects. The guide lists 17 federal programs that  fund broadband infrastructure. Of those federal programs, we focused our  review on four programs, three in FCC and one grant program in RUS,  selected because they provide the most directly relevant funding for  broadband deployment in unserved areas, which includes tribal lands. We  first identified federal agencies and programs that provide grants or loans  to tribal and non-tribal entities to buildout broadband infrastructure on  tribal lands including: FCC, RUS, U.S. Department of Commerce  Economic Development Administration (EDA), and NTIA. We interviewed  federal agency officials to identify any additional federal programs that  provided funding in the last 7 years. We excluded federal loan programs  because they may require letters of credit and or assets as collateral,  which is often not a feasible option for tribes given land ownership issues.  We also considered but excluded those federal programs that are not  directly related to broadband expansion and deployment, such as the  Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Choice Neighborhoods  Program, whose primary purpose is housing related. We compiled total  funding data for these four federal programs and the amount of funding  provided to tribes and tribal entities for broadband deployment projects for  2010 to 2017. We took steps to assess the reliability of the data—such as  cross-checking the data, following up with agency officials, and reviewing  documentation—and found the data were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of summarizing total funding and the amount provided to tribes  and tribal entities. Because we relied upon titles or names of grant  recipients to identify those grants awarded to tribes and tribally owned  providers, our analysis may not include some grants awarded to  broadband providers that deploy infrastructure to larger service areas that  may also include tribal lands.

To determine stakeholder-identified barriers that tribal entities face in  obtaining federal funding for broadband deployment and federal  government efforts to address those barriers, we interviewed FCC and  RUS officials and the tribal government officials, tribally owned broadband  providers, and tribal associations listed in table 1. We interviewed  representatives from 17 tribes in different locations with varying  population sizes and levels of broadband deployment. Additionally, we  interviewed officials from 9 tribally owned and 7 private broadband  providers operating on tribal lands. We selected these broadband  providers to interview because they received federal support to serve on  tribal lands or because they were a designated eligible  telecommunications carrier (ETC) serving tribal interests. Furthermore,  we identified and interviewed industry stakeholders such as research  groups and telecommunications associations on their views regarding  barriers to obtaining federal program assistance for broadband  deployment on tribal lands. These stakeholders were selected based on  their exposure to broadband issues on tribal lands such as representing  tribally owned broadband providers. The views obtained from these  interviews are not generalizable to all tribes, all broadband providers, or  all industry stakeholders. We also reviewed a report from the Broadband  Opportunity Council directing agencies to identify and address regulatory  barriers that may unduly impede broadband deployment and assessed  RUS’s efforts to address the regulatory barriers tribes may face in  attempting to obtain RUS funding for broadband deployment. For a  complete list of entities we interviewed see table 1.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

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

In addition to the contact named above, Sally Moino (Assistant Director);  Tina Paek (Analyst in Charge); Rose Almoguera; Sharon Dyer; Hannah  Laufe; Serena Lo; Cheryl Peterson; Malika Rice; Amy Rosewarne; Jay  Spaan; James Sweetman, Jr.; Hai Tran; and Jade Winfree made key  contributions to this report.

About 35% of Americans living on tribal lands lack access to broadband service. This can limit tribes' economic opportunity, education, public safety, and more.

Tribes can partner with private broadband providers, regional consortiums, and others to increase access, but such partnerships are rare. Tribes can also apply for federal funding for broadband projects, but often have trouble meeting requirements such as completing feasibility studies or getting matching funds.

We recommended that the Rural Utilities Service, which provides broadband funding, identify barriers to funding access and help tribes overcome them.