Tribal Broadband: Status of Deployment and Federal Funding Programs

Contents

• Background
• Status of Tribal Broadband
• Federal Funding for Tribal Broadband
• FCC
• High Cost/Connect America Fund Program
• Schools and Libraries (E-Rate) Program
• Lifeline Program
• Rural Health Care Program/Healthcare Connect Fund
• RUS Broadband Funding Programs
• Community Connect Grant Program
• Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program
• Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program
• Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans and Loan Guarantee Program
• Substantially Underserved Trust Areas (SUTA)
• ReConnect Program
• Stimulus Broadband Grants and Loans
• Other Federal Funding Programs
• BroadbandUSA
• Infrastructure Initiative and Broadband
• Activities in the 114^th Congress
• Legislation in the 115^th Congress
• Concluding Observations

Summary

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 Department of Commerce have begun to collect and compile data on tribal broadband deployment. The most recent data show that, as of December 31, 2017, approximately 32% of Americans living on tribal lands lacked access to broadband at speeds of at least 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. This compares unfavorably to about 6% 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 115^th Congress, bills were 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 in the 116^th Congress will likely be determined by the ongoing trajectory of overall federal funding for broadband.

---

Background

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 internet in the late 1990s, broadband technologies have been deployed primarily by the private sector throughout the United States. While the number of new broadband subscribers continues to grow, studies and data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban/suburban and high-income areas is outpacing deployment in rural and low-income areas.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

Status of Tribal Broadband

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) have begun to collect and compile data on tribal broadband deployment.⁹ According to December 2017 FCC deployment data, 32% of Americans living on tribal lands lacked access to terrestrial fixed broadband at speeds of 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload. This is an improvement over 2014 data (42.8% without broadband) and 2013 data (62.9%).¹⁰ Table 1 shows the percentages of Americans with access to fixed terrestrial broadband service with respect to tribal lands, rural areas, urban areas, and the United States as a whole.

Source: FCC, Communications Marketplace Report, p. 132.

Table 2 shows broadband availability within the various categories of tribal lands. Areas that are the most lacking in broadband service are rural Alaskan villages and rural tribal lands in the lower 48 states. Table 3 shows tribal lands with access to fixed terrestrial broadband by state.

Table 4 shows 2013-2017 fixed broadband adoption rates for tribal lands and the United States as a whole. Broadband adoption in this table reflects the percentage of households that actually subscribe to broadband service offering speeds of at least 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.

Finally, Table 5 shows that Native Americans have a lower rate of internet usage than other races and ethnicities.

The GAO September 2018 report, FCC's Broadband Internet: Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands, found that the FCC's tribal broadband data relies exclusively on provider-reported data, and overstates broadband access because the FCC considers broadband to be available for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in that census block.¹¹ GAO also found that the FCC does not collect data on factors significant to tribal broadband, such as affordability, quality, and denials of service.¹² GAO recommended that the FCC develop and implement methods, such as targeted data collection, for collecting and reporting more accurate broadband data on tribal lands; develop a formal process, including outreach and technical assistance, to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provided-submitted broadband data; and obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of the FCC's 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill their tribal engagement requirements.¹³

Federal Funding for Tribal Broadband

A precise accounting of federal funding for tribal broadband is problematic. A comprehensive listing of all federal funding programs for broadband is found in the publication, Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects, compiled by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).¹⁴ Tribal entities or projects are eligible for virtually all of these programs, but with a few exceptions,¹⁵ there are no carve-outs or dedicated funding streams specifically for tribal applicants or nontribal entities proposing to serve tribal lands. Thus, annual amounts of federal financial assistance vary depending on the number and quality of tribal-related applications received, and the number of tribal-related broadband awards made by the funding agencies. Compounding the challenge in assessing federal funding for tribal broadband, some programs may not formally track funding to tribal areas, making it difficult to come up with an accurate overall number from year to year.

GAO, in its 2016 report, Challenges to Assessing and Improving Telecommunications for Native Americans on Tribal Lands, identified programs in two federal agencies that serve as the primary source of funding for deploying broadband infrastructure in tribal lands and communities: the FCC and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Subsequently, the September 2018 GAO report, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, found that few federal funds were provided to tribal entities to increase broadband deployment from 2010 to 2017. GAO found that "less than 1 percent of FCC funding and about 14 percent of RUS funding¹⁶ went directly to tribes and tribally owned providers," and that combined, "FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6 billion during that time period and tribes and tribally owned providers received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent."¹⁷ The GAO analysis excluded nontribally owned broadband providers that serve tribal areas.

FCC

The FCC has established a Universal Service Fund (USF) which provides financial support to ensure that telecommunications services are available to all Americans.¹⁸ The USF currently administers four programs: the High Cost/Connect America Fund (CAF) Program; the Schools and Libraries Program (E-Rate); the Rural Health Care Program/Health Connect Fund; and the Low Income Program (Lifeline and Link-up).¹⁹ GAO has identified three of those programs (CAF, E-Rate, and Rural Health) as subsidizing telecommunications carriers providing broadband to areas that include tribal lands. Additionally, on March 31, 2016, the FCC adopted an Order that modernized the Lifeline Program and reoriented its focus on broadband services.²⁰

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."²¹ On October 24, 2018, the FCC announced appointments to the Native Nations Communications Task Force.²²

High Cost/Connect America Fund Program

The High Cost Fund Program, which is transitioning into the Connect America Fund (CAF), provides subsidies to telecommunications providers offering broadband in rural areas. According to the 2016 GAO report, "the High Cost and Connect America Fund distributed about $20 billion in subsidies to providers between 2010 and 2014, portions of which went to providers that serve tribal lands."²³ Of the total, GAO was unable to determine the amount of funding that went to tribal lands. However, in its 2018 report, GAO reported that between 2010 and 2017, nine tribally owned providers received high cost support funding totaling $218.1 million.²⁴

In order to be eligible to receive USF support, a telecommunications provider must be designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) by the FCC.²⁵ According to GAO, the statutory requirement for ETC designation is a major barrier for tribes to obtain USF support, with only "11 tribes that have providers that are designated as ETCs and therefore would be eligible to receive CAF funding."²⁶

As part of the CAF, the FCC established a Mobility Fund which consists of two phases. Phase I of the Mobility Fund ($300 million) included $50 million for a Tribal Mobility Fund to extend wireless voice and broadband infrastructure into tribal lands. 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.²⁷ According to GAO, one tribally owned provider received support totaling $3.3 million under the Mobility Fund Phase 1, and no tribal providers have received funding under the Tribal Mobility Fund Phase 1.²⁸

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.²⁹

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."³⁰

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.³¹

Schools and Libraries (E-Rate) Program

The E-rate Program subsidizes discounts to providers offering telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections to schools and libraries. According to the 2016 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."³² Of that total, "at least $1 billion of that amount supports tribal institutions."³³

Lifeline Program

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-Up support.

On November 16, 2017, the FCC adopted an Order³⁴ "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."³⁵

Rural Health Care Program/Healthcare Connect Fund

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."³⁶ The Healthcare Connect Fund provided $52 million in 2014, "a portion of which went to tribal lands."³⁷

RUS Broadband Funding Programs

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.³⁸ Since 2010, RUS has provided a total of $6.1 billion in loans and grants to build out broadband in rural areas.³⁹ Between 2010 and 2017, RUS invested approximately $512 million in telecommunications projects serving Tribal Lands, Tribal Organizations, American Indians, and Alaska Natives.⁴⁰

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 (Farm Bill Broadband Loans), and the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program. Additionally, a new broadband loan and grant pilot program—called the ReConnect Program—was established by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (P.L. 115-141). Table 6 shows the total amounts awarded for each program and the amounts awarded to Tribal Lands, Tribal Organizations, American Indians, and Alaska Natives.

Community Connect Grant Program

The Community Connect Program⁴¹ 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 GAO, between 2010 and 2017, four tribal entities received $13.5 million in Community Connect grants, comprising 11% of the total grant recipients over that period.⁴²

In its 2018 report, GAO found that meeting application requirements was a barrier to tribes receiving Community Connect grants. Specific regulatory requirements that made it difficult for tribes to receive grant funding included preparing existing and proposed network design; demonstrating financial sustainability within five years; and obtaining matching funds.⁴³ GAO recommended that "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."⁴⁴

Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program

Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) grants⁴⁵ 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. Broadband facilities (if owned by the applicant) are also eligible. Federally recognized tribes are eligible to apply for DLT grants.

Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program

The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (also known as the Farm Bill Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program)⁴⁶ provides loans 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.

Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans and Loan Guarantee Program

The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program⁴⁷ 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.

Substantially Underserved Trust Areas (SUTA)

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.⁴⁸ 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,⁴⁹ matching fund requirements, or credit support requirements⁵⁰ 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. Recent examples of Telecommunications Infrastructure loans financed using SUTA are Mescalero Apache Telecommunications (NM): $5.4 million (FY2015) and Sacred Wind Communications (NM): $13.8 million (FY2016).

ReConnect 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, specifically those rural areas where at least 90% of the households to be served by a project do not have sufficient access to broadband, defined as 10 Mbps downstream, and 1 Mbps upstream.

On December 14, 2018, RUS released the Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) and solicitation of applications for the new pilot broadband loan and grant program, which is named the "ReConnect Program."⁵¹As set forth in the statute, at least 90% of the households to be served by a project receiving a loan or grant under the pilot program shall be in a rural area without sufficient access to broadband at a minimum speed of 10 Mbps/1 Mbps. RUS defines "sufficient access to broadband" as any rural area that has fixed, terrestrial broadband service delivering at least 10 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream. Mobile and satellite service will not be considered in making the determination that households in the proposed funded service area do not have sufficient access to broadband.

Approximately $560 million has been set aside for funding opportunities under the FOA, with additional budget authority available for a reserve which may be used for additional loans or grants. While there are no specific carve-outs for projects serving tribal areas, the FOA addresses tribal broadband in the following ways:

• Entities eligible for awards include "an Indian tribe (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450b)). (Other eligible entities are: states or local governments, U.S. territories, non-profit entities, for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, and cooperative or mutual organizations.)
• If service is being proposed on tribal land, a certification is required from the proper tribal official that they are in support of the project and will allow construction to take place on tribal land. If no certification is provided, then this area will be ineligible for funding.
• With respect to ranking applications by priority, for applications where at least 50% of the geographical area of the proposed funded service area is to provide service on tribal lands, 5 points shall be awarded. (Up to 150 priority points can be awarded, taking account of such factors as rurality, state broadband activity, and number of critical community facilities served.)

The ReConnect Program consists of three funding categories:

100% loan

Up to $200 million is available.

The maximum amount that can be requested is $50 million.

Interest rate is set at a fixed 2%.

Eligible areas are where 90% of households do not have sufficient access to broadband at 10 Mbps/1 Mbps.

Applicants must propose to build a network capable of providing service to every premise in the proposed funded service area at a minimum speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.

Applications accepted on a rolling basis through June 28, 2019.

50% loan/50% grant combination

Up to $200 million is available.

The maximum amount that can be requested is $25 million for the loan and $25 million for the grant. Loan and grant amounts will always be equal.

Interest rate for the loan will be set at the Treasury rate.

Eligible areas are where 90% of households do not have sufficient access to broadband at 10 Mbps/1 Mbps.

Applicants must propose to build a network capable of providing service to every premise in the proposed funded service area at a minimum speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps

Applications accepted on a rolling basis through May 29, 2019.

100% grant

Up to $200 million is available.

The maximum amount that can be requested is $25 million.

Applicants must provide a matching contribution equal to 25% of the cost of the overall project.

Eligible areas are where 100% of households do not have sufficient access to broadband at 10 Mbps/1 Mbps.

Applicants must propose to build a network capable of providing service to every premise in the proposed funded service area at a minimum speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.

Applications accepted on a rolling basis through April 29, 2019.

According to RUS, the online application portal will be open in late February. More information on the ReConnect Program is available at https://reconnect.usda.gov.

Stimulus Broadband Grants and Loans

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).⁵² In 2009 and 2010, NTIA awarded funding for 233 projects and RUS awarded funding for 297 broadband infrastructure projects.⁵³ 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.⁵⁴ Out of a total of $2.9 billion awarded for BIP, $179.2 million was awarded to projects serving Tribal Lands, Tribal Organizations, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. According to NTIA, six tribal authorities received BTOP grants and at least 65 BTOP projects will directly benefit tribal communities.⁵⁵

The September 2018 GAO report, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, looked at partnership arrangements between tribes and other entities to increase broadband deployment on tribal lands. GAO found that while it could find no partnerships leveraged from funding by current federal grant programs (CAF or Community Connect), there were seven partnerships identified that had been funded by BIP or BTOP.⁵⁶

Other Federal Funding Programs

Aside from the programs listed above, the NTIA report, Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects, cites several other federal funding programs as specific 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:

• Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG)—"The ICDBG program provides funds to eligible grantees for housing rehabilitation, land acquisition, community facilities, infrastructure construction and economic development activities that benefit primarily low- and moderate-income persons."⁵⁷
• Indian Housing Block Grant (IHBG)—"Eligible activities include housing development, assistance to housing developed under the Indian Housing Program, housing services to eligible families and individuals, crime prevention, safety and model activities that provide creative approaches to solving affordable housing problems."⁵⁸ There is also a Native Hawaiian Housing Block Grant program.
• Tribal Housing Activities Loan Guarantee Program (Title VI)—the program "assists IHBG recipients (borrowers) who want to finance eligible affordable housing activities but are unable to secure financing without the assistance of a federal guarantee."⁵⁹

Another 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.⁶⁰

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.

BroadbandUSA

While 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.⁶¹ 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.⁶²

Infrastructure Initiative and Broadband

On February 12, 2018, the Trump Administration released its Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America.⁶³ 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 114^th Congress

On 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 114^th 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.⁶⁴

Legislation in the 115^th Congress

The 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:

• H.R. 800 (Huffman), introduced on February 1, 2017, as the New Deal Rural Broadband Act of 2017, includes a provision (§4) that would have established a Tribal Broadband Assistance Program. The Department of Agriculture would have been authorized to make grants, loans, or loan guarantees to entities to (1) plan, construct, acquire, or improve facilities or equipment for the purpose of providing broadband service on tribal lands; (2) provide broadband service on tribal lands; (3) develop among tribal members technical expertise related to broadband service; and (4) improve the adoption of broadband service by individuals on tribal lands. The bill would have authorized $25 million for each of fiscal years 2017 through 2022. Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Natural Resources and Energy and Commerce.
• H.R. 1581 (Ruiz), introduced on March 16, 2017, as the Tribal Digital Access Act of 2017, would have amended the Communications Act of 1934 to add access to telecommunications and information services in Indian country and areas with high populations of Indian people to the universal service principle relating to access to such services in rural, insular, and high cost areas. Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• H.R. 3268 (Aderholt), the FY2018 Agriculture Appropriations bill, funds Community Connect grants and broadband loans, and is accompanied by the House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 115-232 ), which 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.

• H.R. 4506 (Torres), introduced on November 30, 2017, as the Jobs for Tribes Act, would have directed GAO to conduct a study assessing a range of federal programs (including broadband and telecommunications programs) available to assist Indian communities with business and economic development. Referred to the Committees on Natural Resources; Foreign Affairs; and Education and the Workforce.
• H.R. 5007 (Ruiz), introduced on February 13, 2018, would have directed the FCC to submit to Congress a report evaluating broadband coverage in Indian country and on land held by a Native Corporation and to complete a proceeding to address the unserved areas identified in the report. Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• H.R. 5172 (O'Halleran), introduced on March 6, 2018, would have assisted Indian tribes in maintaining, expanding, and deploying broadband systems. Referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
• H.R. 5961 (Aderholt), introduced on May 24, 2018, as the FY2019 Agriculture Appropriations bill, funds Community Connect grants and broadband loans, and is accompanied by the House Appropriations Committee report (H.Rept. 115-706), which 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.

• S. 1116 (Hoeven), introduced on May 11, 2017, as the Indian Community Economic Enhancement Act of 2017, would have directed GAO to conduct a study assessing a range of federal programs (including broadband and telecommunications programs) available to assist Indian communities with business and economic development. Referred to the Committee on Senate Indian Affairs; reported by Committee on October 17, 2017 (S.Rept. 115-174).
• S. 2205 (Heinrich), introduced on December 7, 2017, as the Tribal Connect Act of 2017, would have improved access by Indian tribes to support from the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support program (E-rate) of the Federal Communications Commission. Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs.

Concluding Observations

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, the federal government has pursued other policies relevant to tribal broadband. These include mechanisms for effective coordination and consultation with tribes on broadband issues,⁶⁵ spectrum policies to promote wireless broadband deployment on tribal lands,⁶⁶ addressing permitting and environmental review issues for deploying broadband infrastructure on tribal lands,⁶⁷ and rights-of-way policies to enable broadband infrastructure deployment on public lands.⁶⁸ On January 31, 2017, FCC Chairman Ajit Pai announced the formation of a Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee, which is 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.⁶⁹

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."⁷⁰ 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 enacted by Congress that would specifically establish a Tribal Broadband Fund.

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.⁷¹ In the 116^th 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

Footnotes

1.	The term "broadband" is typically used interchangeably with "high speed internet" or "advanced telecommunications." Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) defined advanced telecommunications capability as "high-speed, switched, broadband telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video telecommunications using any technology."
2.	See for example Federal Communications Commission, Communications Marketplace Report, GN Docket No. 18-231, FCC 18-181, adopted December 12, 2018, released December 26, 2018, available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-18-181A1.pdf. Also see John B. Horrigan and Maeve Duggan, Pew Research Center, Home Broadband 2015, December 21, 2015, available at http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/12/Broadband-adoption-full.pdf.
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 internet adoption data beginning in 2013. Five years of these data are required to accurately profile areas with small populations. Data will be released in late 2018, and will contain an estimate for internet adoption in Native American populations. See GAO, Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, p. 25.
10.	FCC, Consolidated Market Report, p. 132.
11.	Government Accountability Office, Broadband Internet: Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands,, GAO-18-630, September 2018, pp. 14-20, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694386.pdf.
12.	Ibid., pp. 20-24.
13.	Ibid., p. 35.
14.	U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, BroadbandUSA: Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects, June 2017, 44 p., available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/sites/default/files/resource-files/ntia_guidetofedfunding_062317.pdf. Additionally, an online search tool is available at https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-list.
15.	Most notably, the Tribal Mobility Fund, which is part of the FCC's Universal Service/Connect America Fund.
16.	GAO only considered Community Connect grants in its report. RUS broadband loan programs were excluded from consideration because GAO determined that loan programs are often not a feasible option for tribes.
17.	Government Accountability Office, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, GAO-18-682, September 2018, p.16, available at https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/694810.pdf. The GAO data does not include non-tribal recipients that provide service in tribal areas.
18.	For more information on the USF, see CRS Report RL30719, Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
19.	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].
20.	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 pages., available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-16-38A1.pdf.
21.	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.
22.	FCC, Public Notice, "Chairman Pai Announced New Appointments to the Native Nations Communications Task Force," October 24, 2018, available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-1083A1.pdf.
23.	GAO, Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, p. 17.
24.	GAO, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, p. 17.
25.	An ETC must meet various criteria with respect to its service and capabilities. See GAO, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, p. 8.
26.	Ibid., pp. 18-19.
27.	Federal Communications Commission, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, FCC 16-6, released January 29, 2016, p. 55, available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-2016-broadband-progress-report.
28.	GAO, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, p. 17.
29.	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.
30.	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.
31.	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.
32.	GAO, Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, p. 17.
33.	Ibid., p. 27.
34.	See https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-action-transform-lifeline-program-low-income-americans.
35.	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.
36.	GAO, Additional Coordination and Performance Measurement Needed for High-Speed Internet Access Programs on Tribal Lands, p. 17.
37.	Ibid.
38.	See CRS Report RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA's Rural Utilities Service, by [author name scrubbed].
39.	Andrew Hayes, General Field Representative, USDA Rural Development, Introduction to the USDA and Overview of Rural Utilities Service Programs, power point presentation to the National Association of Regional Councils' 52 Annual Conference, Orlando, FL, June 4, 2018, p. 30, available at http://narc.org/wp-content/uploads/Mon_5-7_1015-1130_Broadband_USDA_Hayes.pdf
40.	Ibid., p. 31.
41.	For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/community-connect-grants.
42.	GAO, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, pp. 17-18.
43.	Ibid., pp. 20-21.
44.	Ibid., p. 23.
45.	For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/distance-learning-telemedicine-grants.
46.	For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/farm-bill-broadband-loans-loan-guarantees.
47.	For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/telecommunications-infrastructure-loans-loan-guarantees.
48.	For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/about-rd/initiatives/substantially-underserved-trust-area-suta.
49.	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.
50.	Credit support means equity, cash requirements, letters of credit, and other financial commitments provided in support of a loan or loan guarantee.
51.	U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, "Broadband Pilot Program," Federal Register, vol. 83, no. 240, December 14, 2018, pp. 64315-64325, available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-14/pdf/2018-27038.pdf
52.	For information on broadband stimulus programs, see CRS Report R41775, Background and Issues for Congressional Oversight of ARRA Broadband Awards, by [author name scrubbed].
53.	A small portion of these project awards were ultimately rescinded; see ibid., p. 5.
54.	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.
55.	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.
56.	GAO, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face, p. 9.
57.	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).
58.	Ibid., p. 25.
59.	Ibid., p. 26.
60.	Ibid., pp. 35-36.
61.	For more information on the types of technical assistance BroadbandUSA offers, see http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/technical_assistance.
62.	See http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/publications.
63.	The 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.
64.	Testimony is available at http://www.indian.senate.gov/hearing/oversight-hearing-gao-report-telecommunications-additional-coordination-and-performance.
65.	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 recognized tribal governments and other native organizations; working with Commissioners, Bureaus, and Offices, as well as with other government agencies and private organizations, to develop and implement policies for assisting native communities; and ensuring that Native concerns and voices are considered in all relevant Commission proceedings and initiatives." FCC, In the Matter of Establishment of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy in the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Order, FCC 10-141, released August 12, 2010, p. 1, available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-141A1.pdf. Subsequently in 2011, the FCC-Native Nations Broadband Task Force was established, see https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-14-1558A1.pdf.
66.	See, for example, FCC Tribal Lands Bidding Credit Program, http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/default.htm?job=tribal_bidding&page=1.
67.	See, for example, https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-acts-speed-deployment-next-gen-wireless-infrastructure-0. Also see https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-streamlines-requirements-utility-pole-replacements-0.
68.	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.
69.	See https://www.fcc.gov/broadband-deployment-advisory-committee.
70.	Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, p. 152.
71.	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.