FCC’s Data Overstate  Broadband Access on  Tribal Lands In our September 2018 report on broadband access on tribal lands, we  found that FCC collects broadband availability data from broadband  providers, but its method for collecting the data does not accurately or  completely capture broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on  tribal lands. Specifically, FCC directs fixed broadband providers to  submit a list of census blocks where service is available on their Form  477 filings. In the Form 477 instructions, FCC defines “available” as  whether the provider does—or could, within a typical service interval or  without an extraordinary commitment of resources—provide service to at  least one end-user premises in a census block. Thus, in its annual  reports and maps of fixed broadband service, FCC considers an entire  block to be served if a provider reports that it does, or could offer, service  to at least one household in the census block. As shown in figure 1,  FCC’s definition of availability leads to overstatements of fixed broadband  availability on tribal lands by: (1) counting an entire census block as  served if only one location has broadband, and (2) allowing providers to  report availability in blocks where they do not have any infrastructure  connecting homes to their networks if the providers determine they could  offer service to at least one household. FCC has noted that  overstatements of availability can be particularly problematic in rural  areas, where census blocks cover larger areas. According to FCC officials, FCC requires providers to report fixed  broadband availability where they could provide service to: (1) ensure that  it captures instances in which a provider has a network nearby but has  not installed the last connection to the homes, and (2) identify where  service is connected to homes, but homes have not subscribed. FCC  officials also told us that FCC measures availability at the census block  level because sub-census block data may be costly to collect. However,  FCC acknowledged that by requiring a provider to report where it could  provide service, it is not possible to tell whether the provider would be  unable or unwilling to take on additional subscribers in a census block it  lists as served. In addition, when reporting on broadband access in  tribal lands, FCC uses the broadband availability data described above,  and does not collect information on factors that FCC and tribal  stakeholders have stated can affect broadband access. These factors  include affordability, service quality, and service denials. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting  accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands,  FCC would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal  areas that need it the most. We recommended FCC develop and  implement methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete  data on broadband access specific to tribal lands. FCC agreed with this  recommendation and stated that it is exploring methods to collect more  granular broadband deployment data. FCC Does Not Have  a Formal Process to  Obtain Tribal Input on  its Broadband Data As we reported in September 2018, FCC does not have a formal process  to obtain input from tribes on the accuracy of the data and tribal  stakeholders can face difficulties obtaining information from providers.  FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan noted the need for the federal  government to improve the quality of data regarding broadband on tribal  lands and recommended that FCC work with tribes to ensure that any  information collected is accurate and useful. Although the Plan also  noted that tribal representatives should have the opportunity to review  mapping data and offer supplemental data or corrections, FCC lacks a  formal process to obtain tribal input on its broadband data. FCC officials  told us that they address questions and concerns regarding providers’  coverage claims submitted to FCC’s Office of Native Affairs and Policy.  However, about half of the tribal representatives we spoke to stated that  they were not aware of the Form 477 data or corresponding maps, or  raised concerns about a lack of outreach from FCC to inform tribes about  the data. Most of the tribal stakeholders we interviewed told us that FCC  should work more directly with tribes to obtain information from them to  improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband deployment data for tribal  lands. These stakeholders identified several ways in which FCC could  work with tribes on this issue, including onsite visits, increased outreach  and technical training, and opportunities for tribes to collect their own data  or submit feedback regarding the accuracy of FCC’s data. FCC’s National Broadband Plan also noted the importance of supporting  tribal efforts to build technical expertise with respect to broadband issues.  A few of the stakeholders we interviewed noted that tribes have faced  difficulties when they attempt to challenge FCC’s broadband availability  data. For example, in 2013, all of the tribal entities that challenged FCC’s  data on mobile service availability were unsuccessful in increasing the  number of eligible areas. A few tribal stakeholders provided varying  reasons for this, one of which was the need for more technical expertise  to help the tribes meet FCC’s requirements regarding the information  needed to support a challenge. Because FCC lacks a formal process to  obtain tribal input on its broadband data, FCC is missing an important  source of information regarding areas in which the data may overstate  broadband service on tribal lands. By establishing a process to obtain input from tribal governments on the  accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data as recommended in the  National Broadband Plan, FCC could help tribes develop and share  locally-specific information on broadband access and improve FCC’s data  for tribal lands. However, the success of such an effort may rely on the  tribes’ knowledge of, and technical ability to participate in, the process.  Thus, we recommended FCC develop a formal process to obtain tribal  input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes  outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the  process. FCC agreed with this recommendation and stated that it will  work with stakeholders to explore options for implementing such a  process. Finally, some tribes face challenges accessing data from providers. In  2011, FCC required that providers receiving funds to serve tribal lands  meaningfully engage with the tribes and discuss broadband deployment  planning. In 2012, FCC issued guidance on meeting this requirement  and stated that the guidance would evolve over time based on the  feedback of both tribal governments and broadband providers.  However, FCC has taken limited steps to obtain such feedback and has  not updated the guidance. About half of the tribal stakeholders we  interviewed raised concerns about difficulties accessing information from  providers regarding broadband deployment on their tribe’s lands (which  providers may consider proprietary), and some providers told us that they  attempt to engage with tribes, but the level of responsiveness they  receive from tribes varies. Thus, we recommended, and FCC agreed, that  FCC obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers to determine  whether it needs to clarify its tribal engagement guidance. Few Tribal Broadband  Partnerships Exist In our September 2018 report on tribal partnerships, we found that  partnership arrangements between tribes and other entities to increase  broadband deployment on tribal lands are not widespread. Because of  the greater costs associated with deploying broadband on unserved tribal  lands that are generally rural, with possibly rugged terrain, there may be  little to no private sector incentive to deploy broadband or enter into a  partnership arrangement to do so. The partnership examples we  identified were ones that obtained federal funding under past programs  funded by the Recovery Act. Among these examples, tribes partnered  with several different types of entities, including private providers, a  community access network provider, an electric cooperative, a regional  consortium, and tribally owned providers. Tribes Face Barriers  to Obtain Federal  Funding for  Broadband  Deployment We also reported in September 2018 that FCC and RUS are the primary  sources of federal funding to deploy broadband infrastructure in rural and  remote areas where the cost of providing service is high, including tribal  lands. Based on our review of the funding provided by four federal  programs targeted to increase deployment in unserved areas, very little  has gone directly to tribes or to tribally owned broadband providers.  Specifically, we found that from 2010 to 2017, less than 1 percent of FCC  funding and about 14 percent of RUS funding went directly to tribes and  tribally owned providers. Combined, FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6  billion during that time period and tribes and tribally owned providers  received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent. FCC’s 2010 National Broadband Plan stated that tribes needed  substantially greater financial support than was available to them at the  time and that accelerating tribal broadband deployment would require  increased funding. Furthermore, the National Congress of American  Indians expressed concerns that the needs for federally funded  broadband projects are greater on tribal lands but tribes do not receive  the appropriate share of federal funding aimed at increasing broadband  deployment. Several of the tribes we visited told us they were trying to  deploy broadband infrastructure or offer service because the private  providers were not building out on their lands. Through our analysis, we found that from 2010 to 2017, 14 tribal entities  received federal funding from FCC and RUS to increase broadband  deployment (see fig. 2). The tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned broadband  providers we interviewed cited several barriers that tribes may face when  seeking federal funding for broadband deployment. The two primary  barriers these interviewees cited were (1) the statutory requirement for  the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation and (2) grant  application requirements. Regarding the statutory requirement for ETC  designation, FCC officials told us there were 11 tribes that have providers  designated as ETCs and therefore would be eligible to receive support  from FCC’s Connect America Fund (CAF)—the largest source of federal  funding for broadband deployment in unserved and underserved areas.  Although FCC adopted rules in 2011 to create CAF and modernize the  program so that it could support broadband capable networks, FCC  officials told us that most ETCs are the telephone companies that were in  existence when the Telecommunications Act of 1996 was enacted into  law. According to FCC officials, FCC has explored whether it has  authority to allow non-ETC providers to receive CAF support payments  but determined that the statute is clear that only ETCs can receive  program support. Between 2012 and 2017, FCC officials said FCC  received nine ETC applications, four of which were from tribally owned  providers. Of those four, only one tribally owned provider was designated  as an ETC. According to representatives from a tribal association we contacted, FCC  has provided ETCs with billions of dollars to deploy service to unserved  areas, but FCC’s efforts have not always been successful in the hardest  to reach areas, particularly tribal lands. The representatives stated that  FCC’s competitive market approach does not work where competition  cannot be supported and that there needs to be a different approach.  Similarly, tribal officials from Idaho told us that although the provider in  their area has received millions of dollars in CAF subsidies, it has not  deployed broadband on the tribal lands. Other tribal officials from Idaho  told us that although private providers received CAF subsidies to deploy  broadband service to their reservation, the private providers told the tribe  it would be years before they offer service on tribal lands. Additionally, the tribal officials, tribal associations, and tribally owned  broadband providers we interviewed said tribes may face barriers  completing federal grant applications to obtain funding for broadband  deployment. For example, they said tribes face regulatory barriers in  applying for RUS’s grant funding, including preparing existing and  proposed network design, demonstrating financial sustainability of the  broadband project within 5 years, and obtaining matching funds. The National Broadband Plan recommended that federal agencies  facilitate tribal access to broadband funding opportunities. Furthermore,  recognizing the need to reduce barriers to expand broadband  deployment, the Broadband Opportunity Council, established in March  2015, issued a memorandum stating that federal agencies should use all  available and appropriate authorities to identify and address regulatory  barriers that may unduly impede either broadband deployment or the  infrastructure to augment broadband deployment. However, according  to RUS officials, RUS has not taken steps to identify or address the  barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant funding due to limited  resources and multiple competing priorities for those resources. We  recommended that RUS identify any regulatory barriers that may unduly  impede efforts by tribes to obtain RUS grant funds for broadband  deployment on tribal lands and implement any steps necessary to  address the identified barriers. By doing so, RUS could help tribes obtain  funding to expand broadband deployment on tribal lands. RUS neither  agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee,  this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to  any questions that you may have. GAO Contact and  Staff  Acknowledgments If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues at (202)  512-2834 or GoldsteinM@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. GAO staff who made key contributions to this testimony  are Rose Almoguera, Katherine Blair, Keith Cunningham, Crystal  Huggins, Sally Moino, and Tina Paek. Other staff who made contributions  to the reports cited in this testimony are identified in the source product. This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
This testimony summarizes the information contained in two GAO reports: Broadband Internet: FCC’s Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands , ( GAO-18-630 ) and Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face ( GAO-18-682 ). Specifically, it addresses (1) the extent to which FCC’s approach to collecting broadband availability data accurately captures broadband access on tribal lands, (2) the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on the data, (3) partnerships tribes have formed with entities to deploy broadband infrastructure on tribal lands, and (4) barriers tribes face in obtaining federal funding. For these reports, GAO analyzed FCC and RUS data, and interviewed agency officials as well as a non-generalizable sample of stakeholders representing tribes and broadband providers. The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) approach to collecting data on broadband availability causes it to overstate broadband access—the ability to obtain service—on tribal lands. In FCC’s approach, broadband is considered to be “available” for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access on tribal lands. By developing and implementing methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands, FCC would be better able to target federal broadband funding to tribal areas that need it the most. FCC does not have a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data. Most of the tribal stakeholders GAO interviewed stated FCC should work more directly with tribes to improve the accuracy of FCC’s data. Establishing a formal process to obtain input from tribal governments could help improve the accuracy of FCC’s broadband data for tribal lands. Tribes have formed partnerships with different types of entities to deploy broadband infrastructure on tribal lands, but such partnerships are not widespread. The partnerships GAO identified included private providers, a community access network provider, an electric cooperative, a regional consortium, and tribally owned broadband providers. GAO reviewed four federal programs to deploy broadband services and found that from 2010 to 2017, less than 1 percent of funding has gone directly to tribes or tribally owned providers. The tribal entities GAO contacted cited barriers to obtaining funds from the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) grant funding, such as preparing network design, demonstrating financial sustainability of the broadband project within 5 years, and obtaining matching funds required to apply for federal grants. However, according to RUS officials, RUS has not taken steps to identify or address the barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant funding due to limited resources and multiple competing priorities for those resources. By identifying and addressing regulatory barriers that may impede tribal entities’ access to RUS funding, RUS could help tribes obtain funding to expand broadband deployment on tribal lands.