This page shows textual changes in the document between the two versions indicated in the dates above. Textual matter removed in the later version is indicated with red strikethrough and textual matter added in the later version is indicated with blue.
Tribal areas and communities continue to lag behind other areas and segments of American society with respect to broadband and telecommunications services. High poverty rates and low income levels in tribal lands—along with the fact that many tribal communities are located in remote rural areas (often with rugged terrain)—are major factors that may explain why tribal areas have comparatively poor levels of broadband access, and why providers may lack an economic incentive to serve those areas.
Until recently, data on tribal broadband deployment had been scarce. However, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)Department of Commerce have begun to collect and compile data on tribal broadband deployment. The most recent data show that, as of December 31, 20142016, approximately 4135% of Americans living on tribal lands lacked access to broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. This compares unfavorably to 10about 8% of all Americans lacking access to broadband at those speeds. Tribal areas that are the most lacking in broadband service are rural Alaskan villages and rural tribal lands in the lower 48 states.
Because the presence of robust broadband and improved digital connectivity in tribal areas could play a significant role in revitalizing many tribal communities, the federal government continues to provide some financial assistance to tribal lands for broadband deployment. The Government Accountability Office, in its 2016 report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, identified programs in two federal agencies that serve as the primary source of funding for deploying broadband infrastructure in tribal lands and communities. These federal agencies are the FCC and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Tribal entities and projects in tribal areas are eligible for virtually all federal broadband programs. With a few exceptions, however, there are no carve-outs or dedicated funding streams specifically for tribal applicants or nontribal entities proposing to serve tribal lands. Thus, annual amounts of federal financial assistance vary, depending on the number and quality of tribal-related applications received, and the number of tribal-related broadband awards subsequently made by the funding agencies.
Debate has centered on whether federal funding for tribal broadband is sufficient, and the extent to which portions of federal funds available for broadband should be specifically targeted for tribal broadband. In the 114th Congress, while there was no legislation that exclusively directed federal funding for tribal broadband, there were a number of bills that addressed federal funding for broadband generally. In the 115th Congress, H.R. 800 and H.R. 1581115th Congress, bills have been introduced to direct federal funding specifically for tribal broadband. Notwithstanding whether federal broadband funding programs target tribal lands, whether or not tribal lands will receive additional funding for broadband will likely be determined by the ongoing trajectory of overall federal funding for broadband.
Broadband—whether delivered via fiber, cable modem, copper wire, satellite, or wirelessly—is increasingly the technology underlying telecommunications services such as voice, video, and data.1 Since the initial deployment of high-speed Internetinternet in the late 1990s, broadband technologies have been deployed primarily by the private sector throughout the United States. While the number of new broadband subscribers continues to grow, studies and data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban/suburban and high-income areas is outpacing deployment in rural and low-income areas.2 In particular, tribal communities stand out as being among the most unserved or underserved populations with respect to broadband deployment.
According to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), "[b]y virtually any measure, communities on tribal lands have historically had less access to telecommunications services than any other segment of the population."3 According to Census data, about 28.3% of Native Americans live in households below the poverty level (compared to 15.5% nationally), and tribal communities often lack basic infrastructure such as water and sewer systems, and telecommunications.4
High poverty rates and low income levels in tribal lands—along with the fact that many tribal communities are located in remote rural areas (often with rugged terrain)—are major factors that explain why tribal areas have comparatively poor levels of broadband access, and why providers may lack an economic incentive to serve those areas. According to the FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP):
Understanding the complexity of the digital divide in Indian Country requires an appreciation of the unique challenges facing Tribal Nations, which include deployment, adoption, affordability, and access to spectrum, as well as lack of investment dollars and access to credit and start-up or gap financing. Barriers to the deployment of communications services include rural, remote, rugged terrain, areas that are not connected to a road system, and difficulty in obtaining rights-of-way to deploy infrastructure across some Tribal lands—all of which increase the cost of installing, maintaining, and upgrading infrastructure. Affordability of communications services is affected by often endemic levels of poverty. Because Tribal Nations cannot easily collateralize assets that are held in trust by the federal government, and cannot easily access investment dollars, the ability to obtain credit and financing is limited.5
The presence of robust broadband and improved digital connectivity in tribal areas could play a significant role in revitalizing many tribal communities. The FCC's 2010 National Broadband Plan6 identified broadband as a basic infrastructure necessary for improving economic growth, job creation, global competitiveness, and a better way of life. According to ONAP, "[t]he lack of robust communications services presents serious impediments to Tribal Nations' efforts to preserve their cultures and build their internal structures for self-governance, economic opportunity, health, education, public safety, and welfare."7
Until recently, data on tribal broadband had been scarce. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted in 2006 that "[t]he rate of Internet subscribership for Native American households on tribal lands is unknown because neither the Census Bureau nor FCC collects this data at the tribal level."8
The FCC and the Department of Commerce (Census and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) have begun to collect and compile data on tribal broadband deployment.9 The most recent data are available in the FCC's 2016 Broadband Progress2018 Broadband Deployment Report, which has data on fixed (nonwireless) broadband availability and adoption in tribal lands.10 According to the FCC, as of December 31, 20142016, approximately 4135.4% of Americans living on tribal lands11 lacked access to terrestrial fixed broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload.12 This is an improvement over 20132014 data (6342.8% without broadband) and 2012 data (68%).13
Table 1 shows the numbers and percentages of Americans without fixedwith access to fixed terrestrial broadband service with respect to tribal lands and the United States as a whole. In particular, the data show a significant gap between rural tribal lands (6835.4% of population without broadband) versus urban tribal lands (14nationwide (7.7% without broadband).
Table 1. Percentage of Americans Withoutwith Access to Fixed Terrestrial Broadband
(at Minimum Speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps)
Population |
Percentage of Population |
||
United States |
|
10% |
|
- Rural Areas |
|
39% |
|
- Urban Areas |
|
4% |
|
Tribal Lands |
|
41% |
|
- Rural Areas |
|
68% |
|
- Urban Areas |
|
14% |
Source: FCC, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, p. 34.
United States
Rural Areas
Urban Areas
Tribal Lands
Source: FCC, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, p. 22.
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
81 .2%
83 .6%
89 .4%
89 .6%
92 .3%
45 .7%
47 .6%
60 .4%
60 .7%
69 .3%
89 .7%
92 .3%
96 .4%
96 .5%
97 .9%
32 .2%
37 .1%
57 .2%
57 .8%
64 .6%
Table 2. Percentage of Population on Tribal Lands WithoutWith Access to Fixed Broadband
(25 Mbps/3 Mbps)
Population |
Percentage of Population
|
2014
|
2015 2016 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All Tribal Lands |
|
35.5%
|
56.2% 57.0% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Rural Areas |
|
14.1%
|
29.5% 30.1% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Urban Areas |
|
57.9%
|
84.5% 85.6% |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alaskan Villages |
|
49% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Rural Areas |
| 28.2% 44.4% 42.7% 51.5% - Rural Areas 0.1% 13.1% 25.8% 23.7% 36.2% - Urban Areas 0.1% 54.9% 77.4% 76.7% 79.0% Hawaiian Home Lands 89.8% 90.6% 96.9% 88.9% 88.6% - Rural Areas 50.9% 45.0% 83.0% 43.9% 43.5% - Urban Areas 96.9% 99.4% 99.8% 98.0% 98.0% Lower 48 States 19.9% 30.0% 38.8% 41.5% 44.6% - Rural Areas 8.1% 18.9% 25.8% 28.4% 31.6% - Urban Areas 43.0% 51.9% 64.8% 67.8% 71.2% Tribal Statistical Areas 34.6% 37.8% 64.2% 64.5% 73.0% - Rural Areas 7.4% 11.2% 32.1% 32.0% 47.6% - Urban Areas 56.1% 58.8% 89.7% 90.3% 93.3% Source: FCC, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, p. 28. (as of December 31, 2016) Total Population Population with Access Percentage of Population with Access Tribal Lands
64.6% Alaskan Villages
55.4% Hawaiian Homelands
88.6% Lower 48 States
46.2% Alabama
31.1% Alaska
0% Arizona
8.2% California
52.1% Colorado
11.8% Connecticut
99.2% Florida
69.2% Idaho
17.0% Iowa
35.2% Kansas
9.5% Louisiana
12.5% | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Urban Areas |
|
15% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hawaiian Home Lands |
|
1% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Rural Areas |
|
7% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Urban Areas |
|
0% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States |
|
58% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Rural Areas |
|
72% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Urban Areas |
|
33% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tribal Statistical Areas |
|
34% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Rural Areas |
|
66% |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- Urban Areas |
|
10% |
Source: FCC, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, p. 35.
Population Without Access |
% of Population on Tribal Lands |
||||||
All Tribal Lands |
|
41% |
|||||
Tribal Lands in the Lower 48 States and an Alaskan Reservation |
|
58% |
|||||
Alabama |
|
67% |
|||||
Alaska |
|
100% |
|||||
Arizona |
|
95% |
|||||
California |
|
51% |
|||||
Colorado |
|
87% |
|||||
Connecticut |
|
36% |
|||||
Florida |
|
51% |
|||||
Idaho |
|
95% |
|||||
Iowa |
|
13% |
|||||
Kansas |
|
100% |
|||||
Louisiana |
|
95% |
|||||
Maine |
1,627 |
|
|
||||
Massachusetts |
|
|
|||||
Michigan |
|
|
|||||
Minnesota |
|
|
|||||
Mississippi |
|
|
|||||
Montana |
|
|
|||||
Nebraska |
|
|
|||||
Nevada |
|
|
|||||
New Mexico |
|
|
|||||
New York |
|
|
|||||
North Carolina |
|
|
|||||
North Dakota |
|
|
|||||
Oklahoma |
|
|
|||||
Oregon |
|
|
|||||
South Dakota |
|
32% | |||||
Texas
|
33.3%
|
South Carolina
|
|
|
|||
Utah
|
|
|
|||||
Washington |
|
13% | |||||
Wisconsin
|
74.8%
|
Utah
|
|
|
|||
Wyoming
|
|
|
|||||
Tribal Statistical Areas |
|
|
|||||
California |
|
2% | |||||
New York
|
51.6%
|
Tribal Statistical Areas
|
|
|
|||
Oklahoma |
|
34% | |||||
Washington
|
99.7%
|
New York
|
|
|
|||
Alaskan Villages
|
|
|
|||||
Hawaiian Home Lands |
|
|
Source: FCC, 2016 Broadband Progress2018 Broadband Deployment Report, pp. 72-7377-78.
Finally, Table 4 shows 2012-20142016 fixed broadband adoption rates for tribal lands and the United States as a whole. Broadband adoption in this table reflects the percentage of households that actually subscribe to broadband service offering speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. While broadband adoption in tribal lands has risen significantly since 2012, it should be noted that adoption rates in tribal lands declined by 5% between 2013 and 2014.
Table 4. FixedOverall Broadband Adoption Rates, 2012-2014
(25 Mbps/3 Mbps)
2014 |
2013 |
2012
|
2015 2016 |
|||||||
United States |
|
29.7% |
48.3% |
|||||||
- Non-Urban Core Areas |
|
28.5% |
43.5% |
|||||||
- Urban Core Areas |
|
30.4% |
11% | |||||||
Tribal Lands |
28% |
33% |
51.5% 56.9% Tribal Lands 6.5% 31.9% 28.5% 31.7% |
|||||||
- Non-Urban Core Areas |
|
|
37.1% |
|||||||
- Urban Core Areas |
|
|
|
Source: FCC, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, p. 46.
(percentage of age 3+ civilian persons)
Total U.S.
White
African American
Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native
Internet Use (any location)
77.7%
80.2%
73.4%
72.1%
62.7%
Internet Use at Home
71.9%
75.2%
65.3%
64.5%
51.5%
Source: Digital Nation Data Explorer, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, November 2017 data.
A precise accounting of federal funding for tribal broadband is problematic. A comprehensive listing of all federal funding programs for broadband is found in the publication, Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects, compiled by NTIA.14the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).12 Tribal entities or projects are eligible for virtually all of these programs, but with a few exceptions,1513 there are no carve-outs or dedicated funding streams specifically for tribal applicants or nontribal entities proposing to serve tribal lands. Thus, annual amounts of federal financial assistance vary depending on the number and quality of tribal-related applications received, and the number of tribal-related broadband awards made by the funding agencies. Compounding the challenge in assessing federal funding for tribal broadband, some programs may not formally track funding to tribal areas, making it difficult to come up with an accurate overall number from year to year.
The Government Accountability Office, in its 2016 report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, identified programs in two federal agencies that serve as the primary source of funding for deploying broadband infrastructure in tribal lands and communities. These federal agencies are the FCC and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The FCC has established a Universal Service Fund (USF) which provides financial support to ensure that telecommunications services are available to all Americans.1614 The USF currently administers four programs: the High Cost/Connect America Fund Program; the Schools and Libraries Program (E-Rate); the Rural Health Care Program/Health Connect Fund; and the Low Income Program (Lifeline and Link-up).15.17 In its report, GAO identified three of those programs as subsidizing telecommunications carriers providing broadband to areas that include tribal lands. Additionally, on March 31, 2016, the FCC adopted an Order that modernizesmodernized the Lifeline Program and reorientsreoriented its focus on broadband services.18
On February 8, 2018, the FCC, through its Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP), announced it was seeking applications for membership on a renewed FCC Native Nations Communications Task Force. The renewed Task Force's mission will be to make recommendations to the FCC on communications-related issues that affect tribal interests. The issues to be considered by the Task Force "may include, but are not limited to: (i) executing the Commission's Tribal Consultation policy; (ii) identifying barriers to broadband deployment that are unique to Tribal lands; (iii) ensuring Tribal concerns are considered in all Commission proceedings related to broadband and other Commission undertakings that affect Tribal interests regarding communications services and facilities."17
The High Cost Fund Program, which is transitioning into the Connect America Fund (CAF), provides subsidies to telecommunications providers offering broadband in rural areas. According to GAO, "the High Cost and Connect America Fund distributed about $20 billion in subsidies to providers between 2010 and 2014, portions of which went to providers that serve tribal lands."1918 Of the total, GAO was unable to determine the amount of funding that went to tribal lands.
As part of the CAF, the FCC established a Mobility Fund which consists of two phases. Phase I of the Mobility Fund ($300 million) includesincluded $50 million for a Tribal Mobility Fund to extend wireless voice and broadband infrastructure into tribal lands. On February 28, 2014, the FCC announced completion of the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase I auction, with five wireless providers becoming eligible to receive a total of up to approximately $50 million in one-time support. Since July 2014, $16.6 million in initial disbursements have been made.2019 Phase II of the Mobility Fund ($453 million per year for 10 years) will designate up to an estimated $34 million of annual support for deploying wireless mobile broadband service on eligible tribal lands.21
On March 27, 2018, the FCC adopted a Report and Order that will "increase the amount of operating costs that carriers that predominantly serve Tribal lands can recover from the universal service fund (USF) in recognition that they are likely to have higher costs than carriers not serving Tribal lands. This action will provide additional funding to these carriers to provide both voice and broadband services to their customers."21
Also, on March 14, 2018, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking asking for comment on its proposal to incorporate a Tribal Broadband Factor into the CAF model.22
The E-rate Program subsidizes discounts to providers offering telecommunications services, Internetinternet access, and internal connections to schools and libraries. According to the GAO report, "the E-rate program provided about $13 billion in discounts to schools and libraries between 2010 and 2014, portions of which went to schools and libraries on tribal lands."2223 Of that total, "at least $1 billion of that amount supports tribal institutions."23
The Lifeline Program provides a subsidy to providers serving low-income households, thereby eliminating or significantly reducing the monthly cost to low-income households for telecommunications service. While traditionally geared toward subsidizing telephone service, a March 31, 2016, FCC Order transitions Lifeline toward subsidizing broadband service. While low-income nontribal households are eligible for a $9.25 per month subsidy, low-income households in tribal areas are eligible for a subsidy of $34.25 per month plus a one-time initiation of service discount of up to $100 for Link On November 16, 2017, the FCC adopted an Order25 "limiting enhanced Tribal Lifeline support—$25 monthly in addition to the standard $9.25 per household—to facilities-based providers," and "limiting enhanced Tribal support to rural areas and eliminating enhanced support in urban areas, where the additional $25 a month is not required to make service affordable or to promote deployment."26 -Up support.
Up support.
The Rural Health Care Support Mechanism provides discounts to rural care providers for broadband connectivity. According to GAO, "[a]lthough the Healthcare Connect Fund does not specifically target tribal institutions, assistance may be provided to a service provider (or group of providers) that serve tribal lands."2427 The Healthcare Connect Fund provided $52 million in 2014, "a portion of which went to tribal lands."25
The Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture maintains a portfolio of telecommunications programs to finance broadband deployment and infrastructure in rural areas.2629 This portfolio consists of over $6.7 billion in telecommunications investments, which includes grant programs as well as $4.3 billion in telecommunications loans. According to RUS, "since 2009, RUS Telecommunications programs have invested over $157 million in projects serving Tribal Lands, Tribal Organizations, American Indians, and Alaska Natives."2730
RUS broadband programs include the Community Connect Grant Program, the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program, the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program, and the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program.
Additionally, a new Broadband Loan and Grant Pilot Program was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141).The Community Connect Program2831 provides grant money to applicants proposing to provide broadband on a "community-oriented connectivity" basis to currently unserved rural areas. Federally- recognized tribes are eligible to apply for Community Connect grants. According to RUS, Community Connect has provided a total of $77.4 million in grants since 2009. Of that amount, the program "has provided nearly $14 million to assist tribal communities lacking access to high-speed Internet."2932
Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grants3033 serve as initial capital assets for equipment (e.g., video conferencing equipment, computers) that operate via telecommunications to rural end-users of telemedicine and distance learning. Federally-Broadband facilities (if owned by the applicant) are also eligible. Federally recognized tribes are eligible to apply for DLT grants. According to RUS, since 2009, DLT "has financed nearly $43 million in equipment to expand access to education and health care services in tribal areas."3134
The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (also known as the Farm Bill Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program)3235 provides loans and loan guarantees for the costs of construction, improvement, or acquisition of facilities and equipment needed to provide broadband service in eligible rural areas. Indian tribes or tribal organizations are eligible to apply. According to RUS, since 2009, "nearly $10 million" has been used to increase tribal connectivity.3336
The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program3437 provides loans and loan guarantees for the construction, maintenance, improvement, and expansion of telephone service and broadband in rural areas. The program was first authorized in 1949 to finance rural telephone service. Since 1995, RUS has required that networks funded by this program offer broadband service as well. Federally recognized tribes are eligible for these loans and loan guarantees. According to RUS, since 2009, "telecommunications infrastructure funding totaling over $91 million has assisted tribal areas."35
The 2008 Farm Bill directed USDA to establish an initiative to identify and improve the availability of loan programs for communities in substantially underserved trust areas.3639 Section 6105 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-234) authorized RUS to make loans and guarantee loans with interest rates as low as 2% and with extended repayment terms; waive nonduplication restrictions,3740 matching fund requirements, or credit support requirements3841 to facilitate construction, acquisition, or improvements of infrastructure; and give highest priority to designated projects in substantially underserved trust areas. The Final Rule, developed in consultation with tribal communities and governments, was released on June 13, 2012 (7 C.F.R. 1700 Subpart D). The SUTA rules apply to the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program; the rule does not apply to the Community Connect Grant Program or the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141) appropriated $600 million to RUS to "conduct a new broadband loan and grant pilot program." Projects in rural areas without sufficient access to broadband are eligible. According to USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue, the $600 million in appropriated funding for the new pilot grant and loan combination program will "provide broadband to under-served rural and tribal areas" and "leverage nearly $1 billion in total new rural broadband projects."42
Broadband provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) provided a total of $6.9 billion for broadband grants, loans, and loan/grant combinations. The total consisted of $4.4 billion to NTIA/DOC for a newly established Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP grants) and $2.5 billion to the RUS/USDA Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP grants, loans, and grant/loan combinations).3943 In 2009 and 2010, NTIA awarded funding for 233 projects and RUS awarded funding for 297 broadband infrastructure projects.4044 Virtually all projects are now completed and closed; no new funding is available.
While there was no set-aside for tribal broadband, a number of ARRA broadband awards were made to tribal entities or providers serving tribal lands. According to RUS, awarded BIP projects overlapped with 31 tribal lands, and nine awards were made to Indian Tribes.4145 According to NTIA, six tribal authorities received BTOP grants and at least 65 BTOP projects will directly benefit tribal communities.42
Aside from the programs listed above, the NTIA report, Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects, cites several other federal funding programs as relevantspecific to tribal broadband.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contains an Office of Native American Programs (ONAP). According to NTIA, ONAP has three programs that could potentially be used to fund broadband projects:
49Another broadband-related source of funding specifically targeted to Native Americans is the Native American and Native Hawaiian Library Services Grant programs at the Office of Library Services, Institute of Museum and Library Services. Programs include Native American Library Services Basic Grants, Native American Library Services Enhancement Grants, and Native Hawaiian Library Services Grants.47
On September 21, 2015, the Obama Administration released the Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendations.48 The interagency Broadband Opportunity Council (BOC) was created by the March 23, 2015, Presidential Memorandum, "Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training." Specifically, the council was tasked to produce recommendations to increase broadband deployment, competition, and adoption through executive actions within the scope of existing federal agency programs, missions, and budgets without additional appropriated funding.
BOC recommendations encompassed such measures as making broadband projects eligible for funding from other existing federal grant and loan programs; modifying agency rules and regulations in order to maximize broadband-related uses of federal assets such as highways and federal lands; upgrading public dissemination of broadband information, data, and best practices; and researching new broadband technologies and applications.
On January 13, 2017, the Obama Administration released the Broadband Opportunities Council Agencies' Progress Report.49 One of the recommendations is to "Address Broadband Challenges on Tribal Lands." As part of this recommendation and others, the BOC reported the following action items:
Meanwhile, as part of ConnectED, an initiative designed to connect schools and libraries to the digital age, the FCC's E-rate program provided broadband, WiFi, and telecommunications funding to 245 tribal schools serving over 60,000 students and 31 tribal libraries during the last funding year.55
Several bills were introduced into the 114th Congress that sought to address tribal broadband:
An additional source of federal funding potentially available for tribal broadband is the Economic Development Assistance programs at the Economic Development Administration (EDA) in the Department of Commerce. For example, in September 2017, EDA announced an Economic Adjustment Assistance project award of $144,000 to the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in Pendleton, OR, to support the development of a broadband fiber optics network near Pendleton to be located on the Umatilla Reservation.
BroadbandUSAWhile not providing funding, BroadbandUSA at the NTIA offers one-to-one technical assistance to communities (including tribal communities) seeking to plan and implement broadband initiatives.51 BroadbandUSA also organizes regional events and workshops bringing together broadband stakeholders and publishes guides and tools (including toolkits for local and tribal governments) that can serve as resources for communities seeking to launch broadband initiatives.52
Infrastructure Initiative and BroadbandOn February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration released its Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America.53 The plan does not dedicate any funding exclusively for broadband, but does include rural broadband among the types of infrastructure projects that would be eligible for funding. Proposed funding streams include $50 billion for a Rural Infrastructure Program, $20 billion for a Transformative Projects Program, $14 billion for expanding existing federal credit programs that address infrastructure, and $6 billion for expanding the scope of Public Activity Bonds (PABs). It will be up to Congress to determine the extent to which the Administration infrastructure proposal will be implemented, and how an infrastructure initiative will be legislated.
Activities in the 114th CongressOn April 27, 2016, an amendment to S. 2644 (the FCC Authorization Act of 2016) offered by Senator Cantwell and adopted by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, would have directed the FCC to develop metrics to measure the impact of universal service support on tribal lands and would have required the FCC to prepare a biennial report to Congress on the impact of universal service support on tribes and tribal lands. S. 2644 was reported by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on September 20, 2016 (S.Rept. 114-355) but was not enacted by the 114th Congress.
Meanwhile, on April 27, 2016, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the GAO report, Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands. Testimony was heard from the RUS, FCC, GAO, and private witnesses.54
Legislation in the 115th CongressThe Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141) appropriated $600 million to RUS to conduct a new broadband loan and grant pilot program. While no funding was specifically set aside for tribal broadband, projects in rural tribal areas would be eligible for funding. Also in P.L. 115-141, Section 508 of Division P required the FCC to submit a report to Congress evaluating broadband coverage in Indian country and on land held by a Native Corporation pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, with the FCC required to complete a proceeding to address the unserved areas identified in the report.
Other introduced legislation specifically related to tribal broadband includes the following:
Tribal Communities.—The Committee notes that tribal communities continue to struggle with gaining access to broadband service. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide a report that identifies the specific challenges Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) have in gaining access to broadband service and provide a plan for addressing these challenges, including how the Community Connect program can assist ITOs.
Meanwhile, on April 27, 2016, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs held an oversight hearing on the GAO report, Telecommunications: Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands. Testimony was heard from the RUS, FCC, GAO, and private witnesses.63
Bills have been introduced into the 115th Congress that seek to direct federal funding specifically for tribal broadband. To date, these are as follows:
With respect to broadband and telecommunications access and adoption, tribal areas and communities continue to lag behind other areas and segments of American society. Many contend that without federal assistance, tribal lands will continue to be on the wrong side of the digital divide. At issue is what role the federal government can play to most effectively and efficiently support broadband deployment on tribal lands.
Aside from providing funding for broadband deployment, other approaches are available to the federal government for supportingthe federal government has pursued other policies relevant to tribal broadband. These include mechanisms for effective coordination and consultation with tribes on broadband issues,6455 spectrum policies to promote wireless broadband deployment on tribal lands,6556 addressing permitting and environmental review issues for deploying broadband infrastructure on tribal lands,6657 and rights-of-way policies to enable broadband infrastructure deployment on public lands.6758 On January 31, 2017, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced the formation of a Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, which will provideis developing advice and recommendations to the FCC on how to accelerate the deployment of broadband by reducing and/or removing regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment.68
Regarding funding, debate has centered on whether federal funding for tribal broadband is sufficient, and the extent to which portions of federal funds available for broadband generally should be specifically targeted for tribal broadband. The 2010 National Broadband Plan (NBP) found that "[t]ribes need substantially greater financial support than is presently available to them, and accelerating tribal broadband deployment will require increased funding."6960 The NBP recommended that Congress establish a Tribal Broadband Fund, which would be administered by NTIA in consultation with the FCC and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. To date, no legislation has been introduced inenacted by Congress that would specifically establish a Tribal Broadband Fund.70
Currently, the largest overall source of federal funding for telecommunications services is the FCC's Universal Service Fund programs. As these programs transition toward a broadband-centric orientation (e.g., the Connect America Fund), the issue for tribal broadband is how this transition will affect broadband funding to tribal lands, and to what extent these programs might be configured toward addressing the relatively low levels of broadband deployment and adoption in tribal lands.7161 In the 114th Congress, while there was no legislation that exclusively directed federal funding for tribal broadband, there were a number of bills that sought to address federal funding for broadband generally.72 In the 115th Congress, notwithstanding whether federal broadband funding programs target tribal lands, whether or not tribal lands will receive additional funding for broadband will likely be determined by the ongoing trajectory of overall federal funding for broadband.
Author Contact Information
1. |
The term "broadband" is typically used interchangeably with "high speed |
||||
2. |
See for example Federal Communications Commission, 2018 |
||||
3. |
Federal Communications Commission, "In the Matter of Extending Wireless Telecommunications Services to Tribal Lands," Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 99-266, FCC 00-209, Adopted June 8, 2000, p. 5, available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/fc000209.pdf. |
||||
4. |
Government Accountability Office, Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, GAO-16-222, January 2016, p. 5, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/674906.pdf. |
||||
5. |
Federal Communications Commission, Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report, released March 19, 2013, p.7, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/cgb/onap/ONAP-AnnualReport03-19-2013.pdf. |
||||
6. |
Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, March 2010, 360 pages, available at https://transition.fcc.gov/national-broadband-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf. |
||||
7. |
FCC, Office of Native Affairs and Policy, 2012 Annual Report, p. 6. |
||||
8. |
Government Accountability Office, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, GAO-06-189, January 2006, p.4, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/250/248920.pdf. |
||||
9. |
According to GAO, the Census Bureau began collecting |
||||
10. |
Broadband availability refers to whether or not broadband service is offered, while broadband adoption refers to the extent to which American households actually subscribe to and use broadband. |
||||
11. |
| ||||
12. |
| ||||
13. |
FCC, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, p. 39. |
||||
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, BroadbandUSA: Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects, |
|||||
Most notably, the Tribal Mobility Fund, which is part of the FCC's Universal Service/Connect America Fund. |
|||||
For more information on the USF, see CRS Report RL30719, |
|||||
The Low Income Program (which includes the Lifeline and Link-Up programs) has traditionally subsidized telephone service for low-income residents, including those in tribal lands. For more information, see CRS Report R44487, Federal Lifeline Program: Frequently Asked Questions, by [author name scrubbed]. |
|||||
FCC, "In the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization," Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, WC Docket No. 11-42, FCC 16-38, adopted March 31, 2016, released April 27, 2016, 224 |
|||||
|
18.
FCC, Public Notice, "FCC Seeks Nominations for Tribal Government Representatives to Serve on Renewed FCC Native Nations Communications Task Force," February 8, 2018, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-18-127A1.pdf. |
GAO, Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, p. 17. |
|||
|
|||||
FCC, "In the Matter of Connect America Fund Universal Service Reform—Mobility Fund," Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 10-90, FCC 17-11, adopted February 23, 2017, released March 7, 2017, pp. 13-17, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-17-11A1.pdf. |
|||||
|
FCC, "In the Matter of Connect America Fund," Report and Order, WC Docket No. 10-90, FCC 18-37, adopted March 27, 2018, released April 5, 2018, 19 pages, available at https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2018/db0405/FCC-18-37A1.pdf. 22.
|
|
FCC, "In the Matter of Connect America Fund," Report and Order, Third Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 10-90, FCC 18-29, adopted March 14, 2018, released March 23, 2018, paragraph 120, p. 47, available at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/032360174101/FCC-18-29A1.pdf. |
GAO, Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, p. 17. |
|
Ibid., p. 27. |
|||||
Ibid., p. 17. | |||||
26.
|
|
FCC, FCC News Release, "FCC Takes Major Steps to Transform Lifeline Program for Low-Income Americans," November 16, 2017, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-347792A1.pdf. 27.
|
|
GAO, Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, p. 17. |
Ibid. |
See CRS Report RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA's Rural Utilities Service, by [author name scrubbed]. |
|||||
Testimony of RUS Administrator Brandon McBride before the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, April 27, 2016, p. 2, available at http://www.indian.senate.gov/sites/default/files/4.27.16%20Brandon%20McBride%20Testimony.pdf. |
|||||
For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/community-connect-grants. |
|||||
Testimony of RUS Administrator Brandon McBride, p. 3. |
|||||
For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/distance-learning-telemedicine-grants. |
|||||
Testimony of RUS Administrator Brandon McBride, p. 3. |
|||||
For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/farm-bill-broadband-loans-loan-guarantees. |
|||||
Testimony of RUS Administrator Brandon McBride, p. 3. |
|||||
For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/telecommunications-infrastructure-loans-loan-guarantees. |
|||||
Testimony of RUS Administrator Brandon McBride, p. 3. |
|||||
For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/initiatives/substantially-underserved-trust-area-suta. |
|||||
Nonduplication generally means a restriction on financing projects for services in a geographic area where reasonably adequate service already exists as defined by the applicable program. |
|||||
Credit support means equity, cash requirements, letters of credit, and other financial commitments provided in support of a loan or loan guarantee. |
|||||
|
43.
USDA, "Secretary Perdue Applauds Broadband Investment Included in Omnibus," Press Release, March 23, 2018, available at https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/23/secretary-perdue-applauds-broadband-investment-included-omnibus. |
For information on |
|||
A small portion of these project awards were ultimately rescinded; see ibid. |
|||||
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Broadband Initiatives Program, Awards Report, Advancing Broadband: A Foundation for Strong Rural Communities, January 2011, p. 3, available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/reports/RBBreportV5ForWeb.pdf. |
|||||
Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, The Broadband Technology Opportunities Program: Expanding Broadband Access and Adoption in Communities Across America, Overview of Grant Awards, December 14, 2010, p. 16, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/NTIA_Report_on_BTOP_12142010.pdf. |
|||||
BroadbandUSA: Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects, p. 24. As an example, in 2005 the Coquille Tribe of Oregon received an ICDBG grant of $421,354 for broadband infrastructure deployment (see https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/broadband_fed_funding_guide.pdf, p. 18).
48 | |||||
44. |
Ibid., p. 18. |
||||
45. |
Ibid., p. 17. |
||||
46. |
Ibid., p. 18. |
||||
47. |
Ibid., pp. 21-22. |
||||
48. |
Department of Commerce and Department of Agriculture, Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendations, August 20, 2015, available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/broadband_opportunity_council_report_final.pdf. |
||||
49. |
Department of Commerce and Department of Agriculture, Broadband Opportunity Council Agencies' Progress Report, January 2017, 38 pages, available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/broadband_opportunity_council_agencies_progress_report_jan2017.pdf. |
||||
50. |
|
||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
See |
|||||
|
54The White House, Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America, released February 12, 2018, 53 pages, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/INFRASTRUCTURE-211.pdf. |
Broadband Opportunity Council Agencies' Progress Report, pp. 19-20. |
|||
56. |
Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendations, p. 22. |
||||
57. |
Broadband Opportunity Council Agencies' Progress Report, p. 21. |
||||
58. |
Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendation, p. 24. |
||||
59. |
Broadband Opportunity Council Agencies' Progress Report, p. 20. |
||||
60. |
Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendation, p. 15. |
||||
61. |
See http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=BroadbandGuidance.pdf. |
||||
62. |
Broadband Opportunity Council Agencies' Progress Report, p. 11. |
||||
Testimony is available at http://www.indian.senate.gov/hearing/oversight-hearing-gao-report-telecommunications-additional-coordination-and-performance. |
|||||
The FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy (ONAP) was established in 2010 and was charged with "ensuring robust government-to-government consultation with Federally |
|||||
See, for example, FCC Tribal Lands Bidding Credit Program, http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=tribal_bidding&page=1. |
|||||
See, for example, |
|||||
See FCC, "In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment: Expanding the Reach and Reducing the Cost of Broadband Deployment by Improving Policies Regarding Public Rights of Way and Wireless Facilities Siting," Notice of Inquiry, WC Docket No. 11-59, FCC 11-51, April 7, 2011. Also see FCC, "In the Matter of Acceleration of Broadband Deployment by Improving Wireless Facilities Siting Policies," Report and Order, FCC 14-153, October 21, 2014. |
|||||
See https://www.fcc.gov/broadband-deployment-advisory-committee. |
|||||
Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, p. 152. |
|||||
70. |
Ibid. |
||||
See, for example, the proposal of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association for a "Tribal Broadband Factor" as part of USF reform. National Tribal Telecommunications Association, Ex Parte Communication to the FCC, In the Matter of Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90; NTTA Proposal for a Tribal Broadband Factor, June 19, 2015, available at https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/62215ntta.pdf. There is also concern that parts of the CAF transition could reduce tribal broadband funding; see NTTA Ex Parte comments filed on February 23, 2016, available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=60001516284. |
|||||
72. |
See CRS Report RL30719, Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. |