[Senate Hearing 115-423]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-423
GAO REPORTS RELATING TO BROADBAND INTERNET AVAILABILITY ON TRIBAL LANDS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 3, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
34-056 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota, Chairman
TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Vice Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska JON TESTER, Montana,
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
STEVE DAINES, Montana HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
JERRY MORAN, Kansas TINA SMITH, Minnesota
JON KYL, Arizona
T. Michael Andrews, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Jennifer Romero, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 3, 2018.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 4
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 3
Statement of Senator Hoeven...................................... 1
Statement of Senator Murkowski................................... 34
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 29
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 2
Witnesses
Blackwell, Geoffrey C., Chief Strategy Officer/General Counsel,
Amerind Risk Management Corporation............................ 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Enjady, Godfrey, President, National Tribal Telecommunications
Association.................................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
Goldstein, Mark, Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S.
Government Accountability Office............................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Webre, Patrick, Chief, Consumer and Government Affairs Bureau,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Appendix
Ferree, Thomas W., Chairman/CEO, Connected Nation , prepared
statement...................................................... 43
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez
Masto to:
Geoffrey C. Blackwell........................................ 48
Mark Goldstein............................................... 57
Patrick Webre................................................ 55
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to:
Geoffrey C. Blackwell........................................ 46
Mark Goldstein............................................... 56
Patrick Webre................................................ 54
GAO REPORTS RELATING TO BROADBAND INTERNET AVAILABILITY ON TRIBAL LANDS
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Indian Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:51 p.m. in room
628, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Hoeven,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HOEVEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. Good afternoon. I call this oversight hearing
to order. We do have a vote at 3:30, and what we will plan to
do is just kind of work through that. So we will keep going, or
at least at this point we plan to keep going until we're
completed, and then we will just hand off the gavel so that we
can continue the hearing.
Today we will examine two of the three reports from the
U.S. Government Accountability Office that address broadband
internet and other telecommunications access issues on tribal
lands. All three GAO reports are in response to a July 2016
letter from Senators Barrasso, McCain, Daines, Schatz, Tester,
Cantwell, Heitkamp and Heinrich.
The first report, released September 7th, 2018, is entitled
Broadband Internet: FCC's Data Overstates Access on Tribal
Lands. Among other recommendations in this report, the GAO
recommended the FCC improve data collection methods to more
accurately measure broadband access on tribal lands.
The second report, released on September 28th, 2018, is
entitled Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural
Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding
Barriers Tribes Face. In this report, GAO recommends that the
Rural Utilities Services, RUS, within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, identify and address regulatory barriers that
impede tribal entities from obtaining Rural Utilities Service
funding for broadband deployment.
The third report, not addressed today, will involve
research and information regarding the acquisition of spectrum
by Indian tribes. I look forward to its release.
As the Committee is aware, access to broadband
communications furthers economic development, educational
opportunities and public health and safety. Unfortunately,
broadband access is lower on tribal lands than in any other
part of the United States. According to the Federal
Communications Commission, as of December 2016, 35.4 percent of
tribal residents lacked access to fixed broadband services,
compared to 7.7 percent for the rest of the U.S. population. We
must work to ensure that tribes have equal access to high-speed
internet and other advanced telecommunications infrastructure.
We look forward to exploring ways in which Congress may help
close the digital divide between Indian Country and the rest of
the Nation.
With that, I want to welcome our witnesses. Thank you for
being with us this afternoon and for your willingness to
testify. With that, I will turn to Vice Chairman Udall for his
opening comments.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven, for calling this
hearing today on the very important topic of the digital divide
in Indian Country. I want to thank all the witnesses for being
here and introduce two of them that are on the panel today.
Described by many as the cyber warrior, Geoff Blackwell was
the first tribal member to work at the Federal Communications
Commission. He now works with Indian tribes across the Country
to secure Federal funding for broadband projects.
I am also pleased to welcome Mr. Godfrey Enjady, from
Mescalero Apache. He will also testify before the Senate
Commerce Committee tomorrow about tribal broadband. Godfrey's
tireless work ethic is on display here in the Senate, and is
exactly why we have been so successful in tackling the digital
divide back home in New Mexico.
Back home, that digital divide is something tribal
communities know all too well. Eighty percent of those living
on tribal lands in New Mexico do not have access to broadband.
Just think about that for a moment. Four out of five people
without broadband access, without access to a tool that is now
a basic necessity for school, for health care, for economic
development and for public safety.
The findings of the Government Accountability Office are
troubling. They suggest that the chasm between those with
internet and those without may actually be even larger than
previously reported. Without good, reliable and verifiable
data, the FCC and the Rural Utilities Service are just flying
blind. Bad data makes for bad decisions and there are tens of
billions of Federal dollars at stake for tribal communities.
I am concerned that much of this bad data results from a
failure to include Indian tribes in the process. I have said it
before and I will say it again, tribal consultation is not just
a check the box exercise. Tribal consultation is about
government-to-government relationships, but consultation is
also about good governance. Robust consultation where the FCC
doesn't just show up and listen, but actually learns from
tribes, will make for better data, better decisions and better
outcomes for everyone.
For example, in New Mexico, the Pueblo of Pojoaque, Santa
Clara Pueblo, Tesuque Pueblo and Ohkay Owingeh joined together
to form REDINet, a community-owned broadband network. With
Federal grant funds, they were able to deploy 136 miles of
fiber optic cables. That means that folks in the area can now
connect in life-changing ways, from telemedicine to distance
learning. It also means first responders have the necessary
communications equipment, a potentially life-saving difference.
Despite the progress in some parts of Indian Country, GAO
reports that the FCC and the RUS must do far more to get
funding to tribes for shovel-ready projects.
We now have four reports from the GAO on this topic, and
another on the way. That is going to be five reports in a
little over ten years. During that time, the FCC and the RUS
sent to Indian tribes only 0.7 percent of their total Federal
funds available. You heard those numbers right: a little less
than $241 million of $34.6 billion made available.
While these GAO reports are extremely helpful, I urge my
colleagues not to fall prey to paralysis by analysis. We know
there is a digital divide. Whether it is 80 percent of the
tribal population or 40 percent of the population left without
broadband access, it is wholly unacceptable in this day and age
when the internet is an absolute necessity.
Now is the time to do something. I hope this hearing serves
as a call to action and an opportunity to find out about what
we can actually do today to start taking steps to close this
divide.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Daines.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
High-speed internet is essential to any economy or
community looking to succeed in the 21st century. I spent 12
years in the technology sector in Montana. I clearly see how
technology removes geography as a constraint.
Unfortunately, the GAO reports we are looking at today,
which, as the Chairman referenced, a bi-partisan group of my
colleagues and I, asked for detailed significant barriers to
tribes' access to broadband and the need for the Federal
Government to work with tribes more closely to change that
reality. One report finds that the Federal Communications
Commission continues to lack accurate data on broadband
availability on tribal lands, which we know has been a
longstanding challenge.
To tribes' detriment, and as the report notes, the FCC's
over-statements of access limit the agency and tribes' ability
to target broadband funding to undeserved areas. So not only
are tribal lands some of the most in need of better access to
high-speed internet service, it's like adding insult to injury
here, but the Federal Government's lack of accurate data about
availability further impedes broadband deployment on tribal
lands. This just becomes a self-perpetuating cycle.
Lack of broadband service also hinders economic growth. It
has the potential to create safety hazards. Anybody who lives
out in Montana and other rural areas knows this. You get out
your phone, you need to make an emergency, like a 911 call, and
you can't get a signal. Especially for tribes in the far
reaches of our State, where many of them currently live. For
example, during last year's crippling snowstorms, it was
difficult at times to get in contact with tribal elders at Fort
Belknap who were snowed in.
Broadband is also essential to other key aspects of civic
life on and off Indian lands, including health care, education,
two other areas where tribes need support, rather than
continued obstacles. I know the FCC has been working on
improving this arena, as Mr. Webre is going to discuss in his
testimony. I thank the agency for some of its recent steps that
are heading in the right direction.
I would urge the FCC to continue its efforts to work more
closely with tribes. If they want to be heard, sit down at the
table, have back and forth conversations, so that we more
accurately reflect broadband availability in tribal lands,
especially in Montana. And more practically, to work more
closely with tribes to support broadband deployment where it is
needed most.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to
thank you for holding the hearing, and the fact that our
colleagues sent this letter requesting these reports are so
important to us. I know we are going to hear from our witnesses
that the GAO report includes that tribal land in its coverages,
inaccurate and incomplete, and that we need to do more about
the affordability of services.
We have had our own experience being successful at actually
delivering broadband to Neah Bay to the Makah Tribe, and
working together in partnership with various resources to do
that. The fact that we were able to partner with existing
resources I think shows the fact that a lot of coordination is
needed if we are going to pull off access in some of these
areas.
So the fact that the report on broadband land reports
locations where providers could potentially provide service but
aren't, I think we need to get this data and information to
understand the difference between those. And that the GAO
criticizes the FCC for not having a process to obtain formal,
specific input, as my colleague from New Mexico mentioned, is
also important.
These are government-to-government relations. And we need
to honor them. It is one of the reasons I will be drafting a
broadband bill on Indian Country, specifically updating the
Communications Act to clarify that the FCC's mandate to promote
universal service in the advanced communications across the
Nation includes tribal lands. It will also include other
provisions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Are there any other opening statements? All right, hearing
none, we will proceed with our witnesses.
First, we have Mr. Mark Goldstein, Director, the Government
Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., then we will hear from
Mr. Patrick Webre, who is the Chief of Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.
Then Mr. Godfrey Enjady, President, National Tribal
Telecommunications Association, Mescalero, New Mexico, and then
Mr. Geoffrey Blackwell, Chief Strategy Officer and General
Counsel, Amerind Risk, Santa Ana Pueblo, New Mexico.
I want to remind witnesses that your full written testimony
will be made part of the official hearing record, so if you
will please keep your opening statements to five minutes so
that we have time for questions. We will start with you, Mr.
Goldstein.
STATEMENT OF MARK GOLDSTEIN, DIRECTOR, PHYSICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Goldstein. Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee,
good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to discuss
GAO's recent work on issues related to tribal
telecommunications.
In September, 2018, GAO issued two reports examining
challenges regarding broadband access on tribal lands. GAO
examined broadband data mapping issues as well as partnerships
and Federal funding issues. My testimony today is based on our
issued reports.
GAO's findings are as follows: The FCC collects data on
broadband availability from providers. But these data do not
accurately capture broadband access on tribal lands.
Specifically, FCC collects data on broadband availability.
These data capture where providers may have broadband
infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be
available for an entire census block if the provider could
serve at least one location in the census block. This leads to
over-statements of service for specific locations like tribal
lands.
FCC, tribal stakeholders and providers have noted that this
approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability.
Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it
also overstates broadband access, the ability to obtain service
on tribal lands.
Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several
factors such as affordability, quality and denials of service
that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent
to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband
services. Overstatements of access limit efforts to target
broadband funding and some tribal officials stated that
inaccurate data have affected their ability to plan broadband
networks, and obtain funding to address broadband gaps.
Third, FCC does not have a formal process to obtain tribal
input on the accuracy of broadband data. About half of the
tribal stakeholders GAO interviewed raised concerns that FCC
relies solely on data from providers, and most stated that FCC
should work with tribes to improve the data accuracy.
GAO identified some partnership arrangements between tribes
and other entities to increase broadband access on tribal
lands. Among the seven examples GAO identified, tribes
partnered with different types of entities, including private
broadband providers, a community access network provider, an
electric cooperative, a regional consortium, and tribally-owned
broadband providers. Almost all the partnerships improved
broadband service on tribal lands.
FCC and the Rural Utilities Service are the primary sources
of Federal funding to deploy broadband infrastructure where the
cost of providing service is high, including on tribal lands.
GAO reviewed funding for four programs, three in FCC and one
grant program in RUS, and found that in total less than 1
percent has gone directly to tribes or tribally-owned broadband
providers. GAO found that only 14 tribal entities received
Federal funding from FCC and RUS to increase broadband
deployment from 2010 to 2017.
Finally, GAO noted several barriers that the tribes face in
obtaining Federal funding for broadband. Tribes face regulatory
barriers in applying for RUS grant funding, including preparing
existing proposed network designs, demonstrating financial
sustainability of the broadband project within five years, and
obtaining matching funds. Although RUS conducts some outreach
with tribes, it has not undertaken a formal assessment to
identify and address the regulatory barriers that tribes may
face in obtaining funds for broadband.
GAO made several recommendations to the FCC regarding
broadband data mapping and a recommendation to RUS regarding
challenges that tribes face in obtaining Federal funds to
support broadband for unserved areas.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my oral statement. I am happy
to respond to questions from the Committee. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mark Goldstein, Director, Physical Infrastructure
Issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office
Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our September 2018 reports
on the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) data regarding
broadband access on tribal lands \1\ and barriers tribes face in
obtaining federal funding for broadband deployment. \2\ Broadband
infrastructure is critical for economic development, educational and
job opportunities, and public health and safety. \3\ However, residents
of tribal lands continue to have lower levels of broadband access than
other Americans. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Broadband Internet: FCC's Data Overstate Access on Tribal
Lands, GAO-18-630 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 7, 2018).
\2\ GAO, Tribal Broadband: Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural
Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers
Tribes Face, GAO-18-682 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 28, 2018). GAO also has
ongoing work related to spectrum use on tribal lands for this
Committee, which will be issued later in 2018.
\3\ Broadband service may be ``fixed''--that is, providing service
to a single location, such as a customer's home--or ``mobile,'' that
is, providing service wherever a customer has access to a mobile
wireless network, including while on the move, through a mobile device,
such as a smartphone.
\4\ For the purposes of this testimony, we use the definition of
``tribal lands'' from FCC's 2018 Broadband Deployment Report. That
report uses the following definition of tribal lands: (1) Joint Use
Areas; (2) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting
of reservation and associated off-reservation trust land; (3) legal
federally recognized American Indian area consisting of reservation
only; (4) legal federally recognized American Indian area consisting of
off-reservation trust land only; (5) Statistical American Indian area
defined for a federally recognized tribe that does not have reservation
or off-reservation trust land, specifically a Tribal Designated
Statistical Area (TDSA) or Oklahoma Tribal Statistical Area (OTSA); (6)
Alaskan Native village statistical area; and (7) Hawaiian Home Lands
established by the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act of 1921. See 33 FCC
Rcd 1660 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy-makers have noted the need for accurate information in order
to target funding to areas lacking broadband access, and FCC has
identified the need to work with tribes to ensure such information is
accurate for tribal lands. Currently, the primary source of information
regarding where broadband is and is not available is the FCC, which
collects this information from broadband providers. FCC collects this
data by requiring that fixed and mobile broadband providers report on
their broadband deployment by filing a form twice a year (Form 477).
FCC uses data from this form to determine which areas qualify for
broadband funding.
One barrier to increasing access to broadband on tribal lands is
the cost to providers of deploying infrastructure to tribal lands
located in rugged, sparsely populated areas. In an attempt to address
this and other issues, the federal government administers a number of
programs to subsidize broadband deployment in areas in which the return
on investment has not attracted private investment. For example, FCC
administers the Connect America Fund-a Universal Service Fund program-
which provides subsidies to fixed and mobile providers of
telecommunications and broadband services in rural, insular, and other
remote areas where the cost of providing service is high. To be
eligible to receive subsidies under the Connect America Fund, a
provider must be designated an eligible telecommunications carrier. In
addition, the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) has a current program and
had a prior program and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) had a prior program that provided funding to
improve broadband service in unserved or underserved areas. \5\ The RUS
and NTIA prior programs were authorized by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) to expand high-speed Internet
service in unserved areas, and there is no current funding for these
programs. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Other federal programs can also be used to fund broadband
deployment, including additional RUS programs. A list of funding
resources is available at: https://broadbandusa.ntia.doc.gov/funding-
list.
\6\ American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No.
111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 118-119 (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My statement today discusses: (1) the extent to which FCC's
approach to collecting broadband availability data accurately captures
the ability of Americans living on tribal lands to access broadband
Internet services; (2) the extent to which FCC obtains tribal input on
the data; (3) examples of partnership arrangements that tribal entities
have used to increase broadband deployment on tribal lands; and (4)
barriers that tribal entities face in obtaining federal funding for
broadband deployment. This statement is based on two reports that we
issued in September 2018. \7\ To perform the work for our report on
FCC's broadband data, we analyzed FCC's broadband availability data for
tribal lands as well as FCC's processes for collecting and using those
data. We interviewed FCC officials as well as a non-generalizable
sample of tribal and industry stakeholders and reviewed relevant FCC
rulemaking proceedings. \8\ To perform the work for our report on
tribal partnerships and barriers to federal funding, we reviewed
program documentation from FCC, RUS, and NTIA. We also interviewed FCC,
RUS, and NTIA officials and a non-generalizable sample of
representatives from tribal governments, tribally owned broadband
providers, and tribal associations. More detailed information about our
scope and methodology can be found in our reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO-18-630 and GAO-18-682.
\8\ These interviews included representatives from 25 tribal
governments or tribally owned providers, including visits to 9 tribal
lands, and 10 organizations that include tribal entities or work with
tribes on broadband issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work upon which this testimony is based was conducted in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
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. \9\ 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'' \10\ 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. \11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO-18-630
\10\ We use the term broadband availability to refer to broadband
deployment. FCC officials noted that the data collected by the Form 477
reflect broadband deployment. We use the term broadband availability
because FCC's Form 477 instructs fixed broadband providers to report
fixed broadband deployment by submitting a list of census blocks in
which the filer makes broadband connections available.
\11\ A ``typical service interval'' refers to the amount of time
between when a customer requests service, and when a provider is able
to begin providing service.
GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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. \12\ In addition, when reporting
on broadband access in tribal lands, \13\ 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. \14\ These factors include affordability, service
quality, and service denials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 6329 (2017).
\13\ In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and
Timely Fashion, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd 1660
(2018).
\14\ FCC officials we interviewed stated that FCC has not defined
the term ``broadband access,'' and noted that the use of the term may
vary across FCC documents. However, FCC and tribal stakeholders have
noted that broadband access can be affected by factors such as the
affordability and quality of the broadband services being offered and
the extent to which providers deny service to those who request it. For
example, see 2016 Broadband Progress Report 31 FCC Rcd 699 62 (2016);
FCC, National Broadband Plan; FCC, Strategic Plan 2018-2022. FCC
officials also identified the cost of deployment and regulatory
barriers as important factors when determining whether an area has
access to broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. \15\ 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. \16\
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-18-630.
\16\ FCC, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan (Mar. 16,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. \17\ 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.
\18\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In the Matter of Connect America Fund, Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd 17663 (2011).
\18\ Office of Native Affairs and Policy, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, and Wireline Competition Bureau Issue
Further Guidance on Tribal Government Engagement Obligation Provisions
of the Connect America Fund, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 8176 (2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. \19\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ GAO-18-682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. \20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ GAO-18-682.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. \21\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ According to its website, the National Congress of American
Indians is the oldest, largest, and most representative American Indian
and Alaska Native organization serving the broad interests of tribal
governments and communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
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. \22\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-104, 706,
110 Stat. 56, 153 (1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. \23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ The Broadband Opportunity Council was tasked with producing
specific recommendations to increase broadband deployment, competition,
and adoption through executive actions within the scope of agency
programs, mission, and budgets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Goldstein. Now we will hear
from Mr. Webre.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK WEBRE, CHIEF, CONSUMER AND GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS BUREAU, FEDERAL
COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Mr. Webre. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am
Patrick Webre, Chief of the FCC's Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, or CGB. CGB oversees the FCC's rulemaking
efforts regarding consumer policy issues, including disability
rights, and administers the FCC's consumer information,
education and outreach programs.
CGB also directs the FCC's collaborative partnerships with
an outreach to State, local and tribal governments and
organizations.
In 2010, the Commission established the Office of Native
Affairs and Policy, ONAP, within CGB, to develop and implement
policies for assisting Native communities and to ensure that
Native concerns and voices are considered in all relevant
Commission proceedings and initiatives. ONAP was also created
to address the troubling and persistent digital divide keeping
residents on tribal lands from accessing the benefits of
broadband.
Establishment of ONAP within CGB has promoted
administrative efficiencies, management oversight and synergies
within the Bureau's intergovernmental responsibilities, while
providing a home for dedicated Commission staff with
specialized experience to serve as official Commission liaisons
for ongoing consultation, engagement and outreach to American
Indian, Alaska Native village, Hawaiian Homelands and other
Native communities.
Most importantly, the creation of ONAP has fostered
Commission dialogue and robust engagement with tribes, tribal
governments and inter-tribal organizations. It has furthered
the Commission's trust relationship with tribal nations and
demonstrated its ongoing commitment to its 2000 tribal policy
statement.
In 2018 alone, ONAP has facilitated over 90 forms of tribal
outreach and engagement. Bringing the benefits of broadband to
all Americans, and closing the digital divide, is the
Commission's top priority. The digital divide is all too real,
especially in Indian Country, with more than 35 percent of
tribal residents lacking any access to fixed broadband.
That is why the Commission has taking several recent steps
to promote USF high-cost support to these areas most in need,
so that they can enjoy the same benefits as Americans with
broadband connectivity. The Commission has long recognized the
vexing challenges associated with deploying broadband
infrastructure and providing services on tribal lands, and
believes that accurate, comprehensive data are vital to the
Commission's efforts to bridge the digital divide. That is why
the Commission has primarily relied on Form 477 data for a
limited purpose: identifying the too-many census blocks where
no internet service provider has deployed fixed broadband
infrastructure, and thus the areas that unambiguously need
Federal funding through the Connect American Fund to get
broadband.
The Commission is committed to helping those residents on
tribal lands. Efforts are underway to ensure that we collect
the best possible broadband data so that we can target support
where it is needed most. First and foremost, to unserved areas,
and next, to partially served areas. Chief among these is a
rulemaking opened last year to explore ways to collect more
granular data through Form 477 without unnecessarily burdening
those deploying broadband on tribal lands who often have few
resources to spare.
The agency sought comment on many complex issues associate
with revising its methodology. Staff are actively analyzing the
various options for providing a more precise picture of
broadband deployment on tribal lands. Relatedly, the Commission
has also been charged by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2018 to conduct an assessment and report on the availability of
broadband services in Indian Country. The Commission is further
directed to conduct a rulemaking to address the unserved areas
identified in the report. We have begun work on that effort and
will work with tribal officials and stakeholders to develop a
clear picture of broadband deployment on tribal lands and
address unserved areas.
The Commission also believes that tribal input on the
accuracy of provider-submitted data is important. The
Commission has a formal challenge process in place, for
example, regarding the Mobility Fund Two option that allows
tribes to challenge the results of the initial data collection.
While we also have informal processes in place, we agree, more
can be done to obtain tribal feedback.
To this end, earlier this year, the Commission announced
the renewal of the Native Nations Communications Task Force,
comprised of elected or appointed leaders from federally-
recognized tribal governments and senior Commission staff. The
Commission is currently selecting tribal members and hopes to
announce the membership in its first meeting shortly.
Among other things, the task force would provide the
Commission guidance on identifying barriers to broadband
deployment unique to tribal lands. We also plan to task the
task force to recommend a process for obtaining tribal input on
provider-submitted broadband data, as well as assisting the
Commission in gathering tribal feedback on the effectiveness of
the Commission's tribal engagement guidance.
Thank you again for this opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Webre follows:]
Prepared Statement of Patrick Webre, Chief, Consumer and Government
Affairs Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the recently
released GAO report on the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC's)
collection and reporting of broadband data for Tribal lands. I'm
Patrick Webre, Chief of the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau (CGB).
Before addressing the report, I'd like to provide the Committee
with a brief background on CGB and its work on Tribal matters. CGB
oversees the FCC's rulemaking efforts regarding consumer policy issues,
including disability rights, and administers the FCC's consumer
information, education, and outreach programs to enhance the public's
understanding of telecommunications matters and compliance with the
FCC's regulatory requirements. CGB also directs the FCC's collaborative
partnerships with and outreach to state, local, and Tribal governments
and organizations. CGB further manages the agency's consumer
complaints, inquiry processes, and call center operations.
In 2010, the Commission established the Office of Native Affairs
and Policy (ONAP) within CGB. In so doing, the Commission stated its
expectation that ONAP would bring ``the benefits of a modern
communications infrastructure to all Native communities by, among other
things, 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
governmental 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.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Establishment of the Office of Native Affairs and Policy in the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11104
(2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Establishment of ONAP within CGB has promoted administrative
efficiencies, management oversight, and synergies with the Bureau's
intergovernmental responsibilities, while providing a home for
dedicated Commission staff with specialized experience to serve as
official Commission liaisons for ongoing consultation, engagement and
outreach to the American Indian, Alaska Native Village, Hawaiian
Homelands, and other Native communities. Most importantly, the creation
of ONAP has fostered Commission dialogue and engagement with Tribes,
Tribal governments, and inter-Tribal organizations, furthered the
Commission's trust relationship with Tribal Nations, and demonstrated
its ongoing commitment to its 2000 Tribal Policy Statement. \2\ In 2018
alone, ONAP has already facilitated over 90 forms of Tribal outreach
and engagement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with
Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also this year, the FCC announced the renewal of the Native Nations
Communications Task Force. The Task Force will be comprised of elected
or appointed leaders from federally recognized Tribal governments and
senior Commission staff. It is intended to provide the Commission
guidance on such matters as identifying barriers to broadband
deployment unique to Tribal lands and ensuring that Tribal concerns are
considered in all Commission proceedings related to broadband and other
Commission undertakings that affect Tribal interests. \3\ The
Commission is currently selecting Tribal members and hopes to announce
its membership and first meeting in the near future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Notice, FCC Seeks Nominations for Tribal Government
Representatives to Serve on Renewed FCC Native Nations Communications
Task Force (DA 18-127) (rel. Feb. 8, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO Reports and FCC Response. The GAO released two reports on
Tribal broadband last month. The first report, titled FCC's Data
Overstate Access on Tribal Lands, examined the FCC's approach to
collecting broadband availability data and obtaining Tribal input on
the accuracy of that data for Tribal lands. This report, to which the
FCC responded, contains three recommendations for the Commission, which
I will address in this testimony. The GAO released a second report late
last week entitled Few Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities
Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding Barriers Tribes Face.
That report examined the use of partnership arrangements between Tribal
entities and other entities and contains a recommendation for the Rural
Utilities Service. The second report has no recommendations for the
Commission.
Bringing the benefits of broadband to all Americans is the
Commission's top priority. But that is not an easy task in many parts
of this country, particularly Tribal lands. The Commission has long
recognized the particular challenges associated with deploying
broadband infrastructure and providing services on Tribal lands, and
agrees with GAO that accurate, comprehensive data are vital to the
Commission's efforts to bridge the digital divide, including on Tribal
lands. The digital divide is all too real, especially in Indian
Country. That is why the Commission has primarily relied on Form 477
data for a limited purpose--identifying the too-many census blocks
where ``no'' Internet service provider has deployed fixed broadband
infrastructure, and thus the areas that unambiguously need federal
funding through the Connect America Fund to get broadband. This divide
is especially stark on Tribal lands, as GAO recognizes, with more than
35 percent of Tribal residents lacking ``any'' access to fixed
broadband.
The Commission already has efforts underway to ensure that we
collect the best possible data and is working to address each of the
three recommendations advanced by the GAO.
Methods to Collect and Report Data on Broadband Access to Specific
Tribal Lands. GAO's first recommendation is that the FCC Chairman
``develop and implement methods--such as targeted data collection--for
collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access
to specific tribal lands.'' The Commission agrees with the importance
of having access to quality data and has efforts underway to enhance
its understanding of unserved Tribal areas through better data. More
granular data will be needed in the future. As our policies help
deliver broadband to wholly unserved blocks, it will be more important
to understand availability in partially served blocks.
For this reason, the Commission last year opened a rulemaking on
this issue \4\ and remains dedicated to moving forward with this
proceeding, including exploring ways to collect more granular data
without unnecessarily burdening those who are deploying on Tribal lands
and often have few resources to spare. In that proceeding, the
Commission sought comment on a wide variety of issues related to making
the Form 477 collection as efficient and effective as possible.
Recognizing the potential benefits of increasing the granularity of
deployment data the Commission collects, the agency sought public input
on many issues associated with revising its methodology. The Commission
is currently analyzing the potential efficiencies, usefulness, and
burdens associated with various options. If an appropriate method for
such a collection can be identified, this may address many of the
concerns GAO raises in its report by providing the Commission with a
more precise picture of broadband deployment on Tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Modernizing the FCC Form 477 Data Program; Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking; WC Docket 11-10 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also relevant to GAO's first recommendation is the requirement in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 that the Commission conduct
an assessment regarding the availability of broadband services in
Indian Country and report on the results by March 23, 2019. \5\ Based
on the results of that assessment, the legislation directs the
Commission to conduct a rulemaking proceeding to address the unserved
areas identified in the report. We have begun work on that effort and
will work with Tribal officials and stakeholders to develop a clear
picture of broadband deployment on Tribal lands and address unserved
areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, H.R. 1625, 115th Cong.,
Division P, RAY BAUM'S Act, 508 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Process to Obtain Tribal Input on Provider-Submitted Broadband
Data. The report's second recommendation is that the Chairman of the
FCC ``develop a 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.'' The Commission
agrees that Tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted
broadband data is important. Indeed, the FCC currently has in place a
number of informal means by which Tribal officials and stakeholders can
raise any concerns. For example, Tribal officials can, and do, raise
concerns and questions about the data to the Commission's ONAP, which
shares them with the relevant agency bureaus.
In addition, the Commission has given Tribes a direct role in
evaluating and challenging providers' claims of service coverage in the
ongoing Mobility Fund Phase II (MF-II) proceeding. ONAP and the
Commission's Rural Broadband Auctions Task Force have cooperated on a
number of initiatives to make Tribal leaders and others aware of the
challenge process for the Mobility Fund II auction eligible areas and
the importance of participating in that process. These efforts have
included sending information in emails to the leaders and IT managers
of all 573 federally recognized Tribes; conducting outreach, including
conference calls and webinars open to all Tribes; formal presentations
at multiple inter-Tribal conferences around the country; and a session
at a July 31 Tribal workshop conducted at the Lac du Flambeau
Reservation in Wisconsin that was open to all Tribes.
The Commission agrees that, in addition to these mechanisms,
implementing a formal process for continuing Tribal engagement could
have significant value in helping the FCC understand both the extent
of, and the specific issues that drive or hinder, broadband deployment
on Tribal lands. We plan on tasking the Native Nations Communications
Task Force with recommending a process on this very issue. Our efforts
to improve Tribal engagement will include doing even more to help
Tribes participate in existing processes, through technical and other
outreach, as well as looking for additional avenues and methods for
receiving Tribal input on deployment issues.
Feedback from Tribal Officials and Providers on Providers' Tribal
Engagement Requirements. Finally, the report recommends that the FCC
Chairman ``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 to determine whether the
Commission needs to clarify its tribal engagement statement.'' We agree
that seeking additional feedback on the overall effectiveness of the
2012 Tribal Engagement Further Guidance Public Notice is desirable.
We note that ONAP solicits and receives feedback from Tribes on
whether and how providers are fulfilling the requirements of the rule,
the effectiveness of the Commission's guidance, and any problems
encountered in the engagement process. ONAP regularly includes
presentations on the Tribal engagement obligation at its Tribal
workshops, which it conducts at different locations around the country
throughout the year. Additionally, ONAP solicits and receives feedback
on the engagement requirements from Tribes and other participants at
inter-Tribal conferences and similar events. As a result of feedback
concerning the availability of compliance reporting, the Commission has
made changes to its filing requirements, and Tribal Nations will soon
be able to obtain providers' reports on their Tribal engagement efforts
directly through a Universal Service Administrative Company online
portal. We will continue to seek additional informal and formal
feedback from Tribal officials, as well as feedback from providers,
regarding the effectiveness of the guidance provided by the Commission
thus far on how providers may fulfill their Tribal engagement
requirements. We also plan on asking the Native Nations Communications
Task Force to assist the Commission in gathering Tribal feedback.
In addition to these efforts, the Commission has been taking other
important actions to help bring broadband to Tribal lands. In August,
the Commission concluded the Connect America Phase II auction to
allocate support for fixed broadband deployment to certain eligible
rural areas across the United States. Our preliminary review shows that
about 80,000 winning locations are in Tribal areas. In addition, we are
currently planning for the Tribal Mobility Fund II auction, in which a
portion of the Mobility Fund Phase II auction's $4.5 billion budget
will be dedicated to funding mobile coverage in Tribal lands. And
earlier this year, in recognition of the unique challenges carriers on
Tribal lands face, the Commission raised the limits on operational
expenditures for carriers serving these areas. It is also my
understanding that staff is considering a petition for reconsideration
from Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. related to this action which, if
granted, would bring even more support to Tribal areas.
Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and the Members of the
Committee, thank you once again for the opportunity to testify this
afternoon, and I look forward to the opportunity to answer your
questions.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Webre. Mr. Enjady?
STATEMENT OF GODFREY ENJADY, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL TRIBAL
TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Chairman Hoeven and Ranking Member
Udall, and members of the Committee. Thank you very much for
this opportunity to testify to you today.
I am Godfrey Enjady, General Manager of the Mescalero
Apache Telecom, Incorporated, MATI, located in Mescalero, New
Mexico. Today I testify as the President of the National Tribal
Telecommunications Association, NTTA, which is comprised of
nine tribally-owned and operated telecommunications companies
that provide voice, broadband and other communications services
to their communities.
Members of NTTA represent only a small portion of the 573
tribes recognized by the Federal Government today. While areas
served by NTTA members may have better broadband access than
much of Indian Country, we agree with the study's conclusion
that a vast majority of the tribal areas are lacking in or
overstating broadband coverage.
NTTA members provide services in what is considered rural
and high-cost. This situation causes the average cost permit to
substantially exceed the national average.
NTTA members have a high percentage of its consumer base
that qualifies for a life-long program, a very important
element in affordability and adoption of broadband services. We
support the adoption of an enhanced Lifeline credit for Native
communities.
The difficulties in serving remote, dispersed communities
situated in hard to serve, tough terrain areas has been
thoroughly highlighted in Congressional testimony and on the
record at the FCC and RUS. They are also highlighted in the
recent GAO study that we are discussing today.
The GAO study acknowledges many of the barriers to access
to broadband services on tribal lands. The main source of
information regarding broadband availability is the National
Broadband Map. As the GAO points out, this data has not been
updated since 2015.
NTTA members, as providers of broadband and telecom
services to their communities, report access information to the
FCC by filing a form 477. We do this twice a year. The form 477
filings are the FCC's main tool for evaluating broadband
coverage and performance throughout the United States, by using
census blocks for fixed broadband providers and shapefiles for
mobile providers. On one level, as a snapshot, it provides very
useful information. However, all parties interested in robust
broadband access need more granular and detailed information.
The reliance on census block data is inadequate.
I must emphasize a point made in the GAO study: the
collection of more granular data or information will require
more resources. Whether it be the FCC, the NTIA, or the RUS,
more funding and personnel will be needed. Congress has
recently acknowledged this by providing NTIA with some
additional funding for maps. As you know, tribes are in need of
a lot of that.
NTTA members also know that the need for more detailed
data-gathering and analysis will fall on us to provide these
services. This is something that is needed desperately by
tribes. I have first-hand experience that this takes many staff
hours and stretches our funding even further.
My company is currently working through the FCC process to
dig deeper into the data that the form 477 provides for
purposes of gathering and getting information and funding
relief regarding operational expenses. The FCC's Chairman Ajit
Pai has questioned the wisdom of operational expense caps, and
I encourage him and the rest of the Commission to continue to
work with us to get a positive outcome in this current matter.
The GAO study mentions two areas of data the FCC does not
collect: affordability and quality of service. These are two
very important aspects to the take rate of broadband service,
especially in remote tribal communities. In many instances, the
price of broadband access for many consumers is simply out of
reach. Broadband accessibility is not a luxury, it is a
necessity in today's modern world. Low quality of service,
experienced in many tribal communities, leads to frustration
and less take rate by consumers. Outages, slow speed and high
latency results in inefficiency and low productivity. This form
of data collection must be addressed.
The GAO study looks into the lack of engagement between
tribal communities and the broadband providers that serve them.
NTTA's tribally-owned and operated communications providers are
a part of their Native community. However, we do not see the
need to improvement engagement between tribal entities,
Federal, State and local governments and private business on
many far-ranging issues. NTTA agrees with the study's three
recommendations: more targeted data collection, a formal
process to obtain tribal input, and better engagement by all
involved entities.
In reference to the just-released GAO study regarding
partnerships that states 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. Thank you,
Senator Udall, for stating that earlier in his opening
statement. This illustrates the need for funds that are
targeted for use on tribal lands.
More work needs to be done by all parties interested in
this issue. We all share the worthy goal that consumers, no
matter where they live or work, need accessible, robust and
affordable broadband services to prosper and thrive in the
modern and ever-evolving world economy.
Thank you, sir, and I will be available for questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Enjady follows:]
Prepared Statement of Godfrey Enjady, President, National Tribal
Telecommunications Association
Chairman Hoeven, Ranking Member Udall and members of the Committee,
thank you for this opportunity to testify today. I am Godfrey Enjady,
General Manager of Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. (MATI) located in
Mescalero, New Mexico. Today I testify as President of the National
Tribal Telecommunications Association (NTTA), which is comprised of the
nine Tribally-owned and operated telecommunications companies that
provide voice, broadband and other communications services to their
communities. Those companies are Cheyenne River Sioux Telephone
Authority, Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc., Gila River
Telecommunications, Inc., Hopi Telecommunications, Inc., Mescalero
Apache Telecom, Inc., Saddleback Communications, San Carlos Apache
Telecommunications Utility, Inc., Tohono O'odham Utility Authority, and
Warm Springs Telecom. The Nez Perce Tribe and Sacred Wind
Communications are associate members.
Members of NTTA represent only a small portion of the 573 Tribes
recognized by the federal government. While areas served by NTTA
members may have better broadband access than much of Indian Country,
we agree with this study's conclusion that a vast majority of Tribal
areas are lacking in or overstating broadband coverage.
Mescalero Apache Telecom serves the entirety of the Mescalero
Apache Reservation located in the remote South Central Mountains of New
Mexico. Prior to MATI purchasing its service area and building its
network in 2001, 52 percent of the Mescalero Apache Tribe received no
service, and 48 percent received only basic voice service. MATI
provides services in what is considered a rural, high-cost area and
serves an average population density of two customers per square mile.
This situation causes the average cost per loop to substantially exceed
the national average. MATI, like all NTTA members, has a high
percentage of its consumer base that qualifies for the Lifeline
program, a very important element in the affordability and adoption of
broadband service. We support the adoption of an enhanced Lifeline
credit for Native communities.
I want thank members of this committee for your leadership on this
issue. I also want to thank the staff at GAO for their knowledge and
professionalism. I, along with other NTTA members, participated in
interviews with GAO. We appreciate their work.
The difficulties in serving remote, dispersed communities situated
in hard to serve, rough terrain has been thoroughly illuminated in
Congressional testimony and on the record at the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and with USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS). They
are also highlighted in the recent GAO study that we are discussing
today (GAO-18-630).
The September 2018 GAO study acknowledges many of the barriers to
access to broadband services on Tribal lands that are primarily located
in rugged, sparsely populated areas. The main source of information
regarding broadband availability is the National Broadband Map. As the
GAO points out, this data has not been updated since 2015.
NTTA members, as providers of broadband and telecommunications
services to their communities, report access information to the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) by filing a Form 477. We do this twice
a year. The Form 477 filings are the FCC's main tool for evaluating
broadband coverage and performance throughout the United States by
using census blocks for fixed broadband providers and shapefiles for
mobile providers. On one level, as a snapshot, it provides very useful
information. However, all parties interested in robust broadband access
need more granular and detailed information to decide policy issues,
subsidization and investment levels, and the use of various
technologies.
I must emphasize a point made in the GAO study--the collection of
more granular information will require more resources. Whether it be
the Federal Communications Commission, the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) or the USDA's Rural Utilities
Service, more funding and personnel will be needed. Congress has
recently acknowledged this by providing NTIA with some additional funds
for mapping. NTTA members also know that the need for more detailed
data gathering and analysis will fall on us to provide. I have
firsthand experience that this takes many staff hours and stretches our
funding even further. In response to an Order released by the
Commission earlier this year, my company is currently working through
the FCC process to dig deeper into the data than the Form 477 provides
for the purpose of getting funding relief regarding operational
expenses (which are currently capped). FCC Chairman Ajit Pai has
questioned the wisdom of the operational expense caps and I encourage
him and the rest of the Commission to continue to work with us to get a
positive outcome in this current matter.
The GAO study mentions two areas of data the FCC does not collect,
affordability and quality of service. These are two very important
aspects to the take rate of broadband service, especially in remote
Tribal communities. In many instances, the price for broadband access
for many consumers is simply out of reach. Broadband accessibility is
not a luxury; it is a necessity in today's modern world. Low quality of
service, experienced in many Tribal communities, leads to frustration
and less take rate by consumers. Outages, slow speeds and high latency
results in inefficiency and lower productivity. This form of data
collection must be addressed.
The FCC is considering proposals to modify the Form 477 data
collection. NTTA encourages the Commission to work quickly to formulate
a final rule.
The GAO study looks into the lack of engagement between Tribal
communities and the broadband providers that serve them. That is not a
problem in the communities served by NTTA members. NTTA's Tribally-
owned and operated communications providers are a part of their Native
community. However, we do see the need to improve engagement between
Tribal entities, federal, state and local governments, and private
businesses on many far ranging issues (rights-of-way, easements, pole
and tower siting, etc.).
NTTA agrees with the study's three recommendations: more targeted
data collection, a formal process to obtain Tribal input (including
outreach and technical assistance), and better engagement by all
involved entities.
In reference to the just released GAO study (GAO-18-682) regarding
partnerships, NTTA wants to stress the information on page 16 of the
document--''Specifically, from 2010 to 2017, we found that less than 1
percent of FCC funding and about 14 percent of RUS funding went
directly to tribes and tribally owned providers. Combined, FCC and RUS
funding totaled $34.6 billion during that time period and tribes and
tribally owned providers received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent.''
This illustrates the need for funds that are targeted for use on Tribal
lands.
More work needs to be done by all parties interested in this issue.
We all share the worthy goal that consumers, no matter where they live
or work, need accessible, robust and affordable broadband services to
prosper and thrive in the modern and ever evolving world economy.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Blackwell.
STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY C. BLACKWELL, CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER/
GENERAL COUNSEL, AMERIND RISK MANAGEMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Blackwell. Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall and
members of the Committee, [greeting in Native tongue], and
thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the
recently-released GAO reports.
As you know, I testified before this Committee twice, as
the first chief of the FCC's Office of Native Affairs and
Policy. Having returned to work in Indian Country, it is my
honor to appear again today in the spirit of the trust
relationship.
AMERIND is located on the Pueblo of Santa Ana, and it is a
32-year old tribally-owned and federally-chartered Section 17
corporation. AMERIND is one of the few multi-tribal financial
institutions. We support economic opportunity across Indian
Country by protecting tribal housing, tribal governments,
businesses, and work forces. We even provide cyber security
protection.
With the vision of tribes protecting tribes, AMERIND
protects almost $14 billion in tribal properties. We serve
hundreds of tribes, and we know Indian Country. Because we know
a vast majority of Indian Country lacks broadband, almost three
years ago our board of directors created AMERIND Critical
Infrastructure, our division that provides strategic planning
for tribal broadband deployment, subsidy grant and loan
application management, and regulatory compliance.
In the context of these GAO studies, I am here today with
thoughts on three topics: tribal broadband data, tribal
government engagement and broadband partnerships. First, the
data. Developing data-driven solutions has long been the mantra
of government to solve the digital divide. With this in mind
and in the context of these GAO reports, the FCC's most recent
numbers are alarming in how they overstate the levels of
broadband on tribal lands. The accuracy of the data is
questionable and does not reflect reality.
Furthermore, the manner in which deployment is measured is
not based on actual deployment, but on potential deployment,
which is meaningless if it cannot be achieved. And broadband
deployment on tribal lands is affected by additional factors
not currently taken into account, such as affordability.
I have been fortunate to set foot in over 200 Indian
reservations, many Alaska Native villages and many Hawaiian
Homesteads. My experience tells me that the data is not the
reality. While there have been incremental and important
improvements, we still have much work to do.
Polices and rules should not be created in a vacuum, but
must be rooted in the real world experience and analysis.
Indian Country stands ready to work with the FCC to determine a
process that will collect and clarify the data, and create a
reliable path forward for mapping legislative and regulatory
solutions.
Second, tribal government engagement. The best approach to
developing comprehensive broadband solutions is to work
together to remove barriers and build models with tribal
nations that engage their core community and anchor
institutions. Data will paint a picture, but the parties need
to genuinely discuss what is happening on the ground.
It was upon this foundation that the FCC adopted a tribal
government engagement obligation in 2011. However, it has not
met its intended potential. Tribal leaders relay that the data
that carriers provide is often heavily redacted or comes with
the unforeseen requirement of a non-disclosure agreement. As a
result, tribes do not have the opportunity afforded them in the
rules to review data about their own lands before it is used to
make decisions regarding Federal funding and policy priorities.
Several years of data and experience is now available, and
Indian Country is ready to work with the FCC to evaluate
compliance and develop best practices. This will require a deep
commitment to substantive consultation with tribal nations. The
FCC's Office of Native Affairs and Policy is the vehicle
designed to drive this effort to bring the parties together,
evaluate challenges and needs, and help develop regulatory
solutions.
Third, broadband partnerships in Indian Country. Regulatory
solutions that have seen success in the past two decades have
necessarily created more recalcitrant streams of the digital
divide, where those regulations have not driven deployment. The
thesis here is simple: put more of those precious dollars where
they are truly needed, and make them more effective. We should
stop doing things that are antithetical.
Many tribal nations recognize that they may be the only
ones willing to take on the debt to bring partnerships and
robust broadband to their communities. There are few but
important examples of tribally-provided networks, including
tribal telcos, wireless networks and the two tribally-owned
fiber networks in New Mexico that provide hope, a foundation
and potential models upon which to build.
In conclusion, the pervasive lack of broadband access
prevents residents of tribal lands from accessing information
and services critical in the 21st century. The FCC is obligated
to open the door for every citizen to become part of the
digital future of our Country, and to ensure that tribal
nations enjoy a secure and enduring place in that future.
Tribal nations need digital equity, and want to work together
as trust partners to make broadband deployment a reality.
Because however precious Federal funds are targeted, rules are
developed and definitions are created, they must be rooted in
the reality of Indian Country.
Mvto, thank you, and I look forward to whatever questions
you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Blackwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Geoffrey C. Blackwell, Chief Strategy Officer/
General Counsel, Amerind Risk Management Corporation
Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify today about the recently
released GAO reports on the state of broadband on Tribal lands.
As you know, I testified before this Committee twice during my
tenure as the founding Chief of the Federal Communications Commission's
(FCC) Office of Native Affairs and Policy. Having returned to work in
Indian Country, it is my pleasure to appear before you again today. I
am here again in the spirit of the unique trust relationship that
Tribal Nations share with the United States federal government, and
again from the Tribal side of that important relationship.
I work as the Chief Strategy Officer and General Counsel of AMERIND
Risk Management Corporation (``AMERIND Risk''). AMERIND Risk, located
on the Pueblo of Santa Ana, is a federally chartered and Tribally-owned
corporation, organized and incorporated by the United States Department
of Interior under Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act, 25
U.S.C. 5124, as amended, and has certain powers, privileges, and
immunities granted by that statute.
AMERIND was created in 1986 to address the housing crisis and the
inability of Tribal Nations to secure insurance for their housing on
the open market. Today, AMERIND Risk does business across seven
business lines, with hundreds of Tribes and Tribal businesses, in 38
states. AMERIND Risk generates and supports economic development across
Indian Country by offering insurance products for Tribal housing,
Tribal governments and businesses, and Tribal workers compensation, for
example, and living up to its motto of Tribes Protecting Tribes.
AMERIND Risk now protects almost $14 billion in Tribal physical
infrastructures--homes, headquarters buildings, and other structures. A
vast majority of these structures are on the wrong side of the digital
divide. So, almost three years ago, in an effort both to diversify
business and to ``give back'' to Indian Country, the AMERIND Risk Board
of Directors created AMERIND Critical Infrastructure (``ACI''). With
ACI's motto of Tribes Bringing Tribes Broadband, this groundbreaking
division provides a wide range of services across Indian Country,
including strategic planning for sovereign Tribal broadband deployment;
broadband subsidy, grant, and loan application management; regulatory
management and compliance; and social impact funding.
AMERIND Risk is also making investments in Indian Country. In 2018,
our Board of Directors made a multi-million dollar loan to the First
Nations Oweesta Corporation (``Oweesta'') for Tribal projects. The
Board's investment will allow Oweesta to leverage larger amounts of
lending capital for Native Community Development Financial
Institutions, or CDFIs. Our intention with this investment is to see it
magnified many times to fund housing and all manners of infrastructure
in Indian Country.
I also serve as Chairman of the Board of Directors of Native Public
Media; Co-Chair of the National Congress of American Indians' (NCAI)
Economic, Finance and Community Development Committee; Co-Chair of
NCAI's Telecommunications and Technology Subcommittee; and Vice
Chairman of the Board of Directors of Arizona State University's
American Indian Policy Institute.
While there has been incremental improvement in recent years,
residents of Tribal lands continue to disproportionately lack access to
broadband. Beginning in 2015, the FCC defined a benchmark speed of 25
Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream (25/3) as necessary to support the
``advanced telecommunications capability'' that Congress identified in
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Yet, according to
the Commission's 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, \1\ released in
February, Tribal lands continue to be left far behind from receiving
these advanced services envisioned by Congress. For example, 36 percent
of residents on Tribal lands lack access to fixed broadband service at
the benchmark speed of 25/3, as compared to 7 percent nationwide. And
the disparity grows even more striking on Tribal lands in rural areas,
where 59 percent of residents lack access to what has become the high-
speed Internet lifeblood of our 21st century economy, educational
opportunities, health care, and public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, GN
Docket No. 17-199, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, 33 FCC Rcd 1660
(2018) (2018 Broadband Deployment Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A more detailed breakdown of the FCC's most recent data on the
state of broadband access in different regions of Indian Country is
provided below.
Deployment (Ten Thousands) on Tribal Lands with Access to Fixed Terrestrial 25 Mbps/3 Mbps Services and Mobile
LTE with a Speed of 5 Mbps/1 Mbps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Pop. 2013 Pop. 2014 Pop. 2015 Pop. 2016 Pop.
and % and % and % and % and %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Tribal Lands 111.653--28. 138.505--35. 221.177--56. 225.788--57. 254.954--63.
8% 5% 2% 0% 9%
Rural Areas 14.228--7.2 28.306--14.1 59.658--29.5 61.377--30.1 84.452--40.9
Urban Areas 97.425--51.5 110.198--57. 161.519--84. 164.412--85. 170.502--88.
9 5 6 5
Alaskan Villages 0.022--0.1% 7.126--28.2% 11.329--44.4 11.027--42.7 13.483--51.5
% % %
Rural Areas 0.013--0.1 2.113--13.1 4.214--25.8 3.920--23.7 6.096--36.2
Urban Areas 0.010--0.1 5.013--54.9 7.115--77.4 7.107--76.7 7.387--79.0
Hawaiian Homelands 2.850--89.8% 2.924--90.6% 3.169--96.9% 2.955--88.9% 2.961--88.6%
Rural Areas 0.250--50.9 0.235--45.0 0.455--83.0 0.246--43.9 0.250--43.5
Urban Areas 2.600--96.9 2.688--99.4 2.715--99.8 2.709--98.0 2.711--98.0
Lower 48 States 21.111--19.9 32.069--30.0 41.861--38.8 45.187--41.5 49.278--44.6
% % % % %
Rural Areas 5.680--8.1 13.364--18.9 18.512--25.8 20.668--28.4 23.360--31.6
Urban Areas 15.432--43.0 18.705--51.9 23.349--64.8 24.519--67.8 25.918--71.2
Tribal Statistical Areas 87.669--34.6 96.386--37.8 164.818--64. 166.619--64. 189.232--73.
% % 2% 5% 0%
Rural Areas 8.285--7.4 12.594--11.2 36.477--32.1 36.542--32.0 54.746--47.6
Urban Areas 79.384--56.1 83.793--58.8 128.341--89. 130.077--90. 134.486--93.
7 3 3
Pop. Evaluated 387.603--100 390.508--100 393.310--100 396.401--100 399.114--100
% % % % %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 2018 Broadband Deployment Report, Table 5
While these numbers are alarming, taking into account the most
recent GAO study on the matter, they grossly overstate the levels of
broadband access on Tribal lands. The accuracy and reliability of the
data itself is questionable. The FCC Form 477 data, from which these
statistics were generated, is carrier-reported data that receives some
review by the FCC and no review by Tribal governments. Moreover, the
manner in which deployment is measured is not necessarily based on
actual deployment but, in many instances, on potential deployment. That
potential is meaningless if it cannot be achieved, and the achievement
of broadband deployment on Tribal lands is importantly related to
additional factors not currently taken into account. This current
approach results in a skewed and overstated depiction of broadband
deployment in Indian Country.
And these statistics paint only part of the picture--behind them
lurks a stark reality. In my life and career, I have been fortunate to
set foot on over 200 federal Indian reservations nationwide, on dozens
of Alaska Native Villages, and on Hawai'ian Homesteads throughout the
Hawai'ian Islands--and my experiences are that the data simply does not
reflect the reality. A potential service offering to as little as one
household within a census block or tract does not equate to deployment,
and therefore does not reflect the reality of the digital divide in
Indian Country. Plain and simple. The data must be improved and Tribal
Nations are more than willing to help.
Tribal lands continue to suffer from the historical negative
impacts of how, when, and where they were created. Aspects of this
history resulted in an endemic lack of critical infrastructures, which
persists today. In fact, almost no critical infrastructure has come to
Tribal lands without federal investment, oversight, and regulation.
Broadband opportunities can do much to overcome this negative history
by bringing health care, education, jobs, and the opportunities of hope
to Indian Country. But broadband must be available, accessible, and
affordable to meet its promise.
It was in the context of the persistent disparity in communications
services on Tribal lands that GAO initiated a series of engagements on
the persistent challenges facing broadband deployment across Indian
Country. The first GAO report, entitled ``Broadband Internet: FCC's
Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands,'' was released on September 7,
2018, and examines issues associated with carrier-provided data
measuring broadband access on Tribal lands and its impact on broadband
deployment across Indian Country. The second GAO report, entitled ``Few
Partnerships Exist and the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify
and Address and Funding Barriers Tribes Face,'' was released on
September 28th and examines the use of partnership arrangements between
Tribal entities--Tribal governments and telecommunications providers
owned by Tribes--and other entities, and their impact on broadband
funding and deployment across Indian Country.
Broadband Deployment Data on Tribal Lands
Again, the current FCC data on broadband availability on Tribal
lands does not reflect the reality of Indian Country. While there has
been incremental improvement in broadband access in Indian Country, we
still have much to do. Indian Country stands ready to help all those
that will be involved in a process that will collect and clarify the
data, and create a reliable path forward for mapping legislative,
regulatory, and on the ground projects. Data driven solutions have been
the mantra of governments--federal, state, and Tribal--throughout the
enduring lifespan of the digital divide.
This is as true today as it was in 2011, when this Committee
articulated this same concern and when I had the privilege of
testifying before you in my previous role as Chief of the FCC's Office
of Native Affairs and Policy. I relayed at that time that a major
concern of Tribal leaders involved the accurate measurement of the
actual state of broadband availability on Tribal lands--specifically,
the depth and accuracy of the data on the state of services on their
lands. I described the 2011 Native American Summit in Salt Lake City,
during which my staff and I witnessed representatives of the Goshute
Confederated Tribes explain to the Utah broadband mapping manager that
the gross overestimation of wireless broadband coverage on the Goshute
Reservation actually precluded the Tribe from applying for federal
grants and loans for a Tribal project that would address their lack of
services.
And this was not an isolated incident, but rather stands as but one
example of many about which I learned first-hand during my tenure at
the FCC and continue to learn now that I have returned to work in
Indian Country. This is a cycle that can--and must--be changed if the
goal of universal broadband across Tribal lands is to be realized.
Comprehensive Tribal-specific, quantifiable, accurate, and reliable
data is the predicate upon which investment--be it federal, Tribal,
state, or private--depends. And it is also the foundation upon which
universal broadband deployment across Tribal lands will be realized.
How will this be accomplished? As this Committee understands so
well, there is no ``one size fits all'' approach in Indian Country.
Rather, ``one size fits none'' is a more accurate characterization,
which is why data specific to individual Tribal lands is so very
critical. And, as reflected in GAO's Tribal broadband data
recommendations, this will require both a dedicated process to collect
broadband data specific to Tribal lands and a dedicated process to
substantively involve Tribal Nations in the review of carrier-reported
data. These processes are two sides of the same coin and, in many ways,
interrelated. That is, both processes share the same goal--the
collection of comprehensive and accurate data reflecting the actual
state of broadband on Tribal lands. They are also inherent in the FCC's
trust relationship with Tribal Nations and are a critical component of
the agency's 2000 Tribal Policy Statement. \2\ And both processes will
require substantive Tribal government involvement and the full support,
cooperation, and partnership of the federal government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Establishing a Government-to-Government Relationship with
Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, 16 FCC Rcd 4078 (2000) (Tribal Policy
Statement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not an easy task--but bridging the digital divide in Indian
Country has certainly proven to be far from an easy task. Partnerships,
policies, and rules are not created in a vacuum, but instead are rooted
in real world experience and analysis. Indian Country stands ready to
work in partnership with the FCC to determine the best approaches, the
best vehicles, and the most culturally appropriate ways in which to
collect this critical data.
And there is something important here to understand about the data,
to ensure that it is meaningful. Data on the digital divide in Indian
Country must take into account everything--every condition--that
contributes to it. In addition to the census blocks that take into
account remoteness or terrain, Indian Country data must also account
for the factors that contribute to adoption, such as affordability and
availability. The thesis here is simple--get more broadband deployment
where it is needed. Make resources effective and available, so that
broadband offerings are affordable and available. We all need to
coordinate on things that comport with that thesis--and stop doing
things that are antithetical.
I would like to share with you two examples of comprehensive
quantitative and qualitative Tribal broadband studies produced in
recent years. Both studies focused on deployment (accessibility) and
adoption (uses) of broadband in Indian Country. The first study,
released in 2009, is entitled ``New Media, Technology and Internet Use:
Qualitative and Quantitative Analyses'' and was produced by Native
Public Media and the New America Foundation. \3\ It was the first study
of its kind, and contained groundbreaking data on the state of
broadband in Indian County. The second study, due to be released
shortly, is entitled ``Tribal Technology Assessment: The State of
Internet Service on Tribal Lands'' and is produced by the American
Indian Policy Institute of Arizona State University. \4\ This is an
update on the 2009 study, and both studies are Tribal-centric and
contain compelling data on the deployment and adoption of broadband in
Tribal communities. Both studies confirm that quantifiable, accurate,
and reliable Tribal-specific broadband data can be collected, compiled,
and analyzed--in other words, it can be done. Improving Indian
Country's broadband data can be done, and it must be done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ TRACI L. MORRIS, NATIVE PUBLIC MEDIA, & SASCHA D. MEINRATH, NEW
AMERICA FOUNDATION, NEW MEDIA, TECHNOLOGY AND INTERNET USE IN INDIAN
COUNTRY (2009) (NPM/NAF New Media Study).
\4\ TRACI MORRIS & BRIAN HOWARD, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, AMERICAN
INDIAN POLICY INSTITUTE, TRIBAL TECHOLONGY ASSESSMENT: THE STATE OF
INTERNET SERVICES ON TRIBAL LANDS (release pending) (Tribal Technology
Assessment).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC's Tribal Government Engagement Obligation
As I stated when I testified before this Committee in 2011, Tribal
engagement is a critical component of broadband deployment. That
concept is as true today as it was in 2011. The best approach to
developing and coordinating well thought-out solutions is to work
together to identify and remove barriers to solutions and build models
with Tribal Nations that engage their core community or anchor
institutions. As Tribes govern with a unique understanding of their
communities, their vested and active involvement is critically
important to finding lasting solutions in their communities. Tribal
Nations need to be at the center of those solutions, whether it is
through self-provisioning or through other new ``Tribal-centric''
methods of engagement and deployment with industry, public, or private
partners. These models must respect the cultural values and sovereign
priorities of Tribal Nations and be infused with the local knowledge
that will lead to better opportunities for successful deployment in
Tribal communities.
It was upon this foundation that the FCC adopted a Tribal
government engagement obligation in 2011, as part of the reform of the
universal service High-Cost program and the transition to the Connect
America Fund (CAF). \5\ The FCC agreed with commenters that engagement
between Tribal governments and communications providers is vitally
important to the successful deployment and provision of service on
Tribal lands. The FCC therefore required, at a minimum, that eligible
telecommunications carriers (``ETC'') demonstrate on an annual basis
that they have meaningfully engaged with Tribal governments in their
universal service supported areas, and that such discussions must
include, at a minimum:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 26 FCC Rcd
17663,17868-69, para. 637 (2011) (USF/ICC Transformation Order), aff'd
sub nom. In re: FCC 11-161, 753 F.3d 1015 (10th Cir. 2014).
A needs assessment and deployment planning with a focus on
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tribal community anchor institutions;
Feasibility and sustainability planning;
Marketing services in a culturally sensitive manner;
Rights of way processes, land use permitting, facilities
siting, and environmental and cultural preservation processes;
and
Compliance with Tribal business and licensing requirements.
In addition, also in the context of High-Cost/CAF reform, the FCC
required ETCs to provide a wide range of data on telecommunications and
broadband services and deployment to the FCC, state commissions, the
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), and Tribal
governments.
It is fair to say that the Tribal government engagement obligation
has not lived up to its intended potential. While some providers have
taken the obligation seriously, many more have viewed it as a ``check
the box'' requirement for the receipt of millions of dollars in
universal service funding. Both during and since my tenure at the FCC,
Tribal leaders have relayed innumerable situations in which they simply
receive a template letter once a year from their providers as their
sole effort to comply with the Tribal government engagement obligation.
Perhaps even more disturbing, Tribal leaders have relayed that the
data ETCs are required to provide to them annually more often than not
is heavily redacted and, as a result, unintelligible. This is data
about service on their own Tribal lands. In other instances, Tribal
leaders are presented with non-disclosure agreements with the demand
that they be signed if the Tribes want access to their own broadband
data. There is no provision in the FCC's rules that allows these
practices, yet they continue nonetheless. As a result, not only do
Tribes not have the opportunity to substantively review data before it
is used to make decisions with respect to federal funding and policy
priorities, they are, in many instances, not even given the opportunity
afforded them in the FCC's rules to review data about service on their
own lands.
Now that several years' worth of data and experience is available,
it is time to seriously evaluate compliance and develop best practices
going forward. These processes will require substantive consultation
with Tribal Nations pursuant to the FCC's trust relationship with
Tribes. They will also require a deep commitment from all parties
involved, including providers, Tribal Nations, inter-Tribal
organizations, and the FCC--all with the shared goal of making
broadband universally available across Indian Country.
Partnerships
Regulatory investment solutions that have seen incremental success
in the past two decades have also created more recalcitrant strains of
the digital divide in areas where those regulatory solutions have not
driven deployment and adoption. Many Tribal Nations recognize the
reality that they are part of the solution not only for achieving good
data on broadband access, but also part of the solution in Tribally-
driven projects that will bring connectivity to their communities. In
an environment where few outside and non-Tribal entities are willing to
make the investment and confront the potential debts of deploying on
Tribal lands, Tribes themselves are confronting the challenges and
opportunities of becoming their own providers--in whatever form that
may take.
Tribal Nations are having to analyze the ``ownership economics'' of
their own projects that would bring broadband to their own corners of
Indian Country. Those who are willing to take on the challenge and face
the debts as de facto providers of last resort need help. They need all
of our help. It is high time that everyone involved in this challenge
acknowledge this reality and the potential of Tribal projects developed
by Tribal Nations.
AMERIND is located on the Pueblo of Santa Ana, in north central New
Mexico about 30 miles from Albuquerque, the state's largest city. We
only received broadband service within the last couple of years when a
water project nearby brought fiber down the road adjacent to our
building. This is an all too common occurrence on Tribal lands, and is
exacerbated in the most remote parts of Indian Country. Often the
incumbent's fiber is just across the road from Tribal lands--or is even
running across Tribal lands--and yet the incumbent will not provide
service to the Tribe.
This is the very situation facing many of the Tribes in New Mexico.
Knowing that there was strength in numbers and that incumbents and
other providers would never provide the level of service that the
Tribes both wanted and needed, two separate consortia formed to
leverage the federal E-rate program and finally bring broadband to
Tribal schools and libraries on six Pueblos. With the expertise,
guidance, and advocacy of the ACI team, the two Tribal consortia
secured almost $8 million in federal E-rate subsidy dollars to bring
Tribally-owned fiber networks to their Pueblo communities.
Together, the Middle Rio Grande E-rate Consortium--comprised of the
Santa Ana, San Felipe, Santo Domingo, and Cochiti Pueblos--and the
Jemez-Zia E-rate Consortium--comprised of the Jemez and Zia Pueblos--
built 60 miles of Tribally owned and controlled fiber at a 95 percent
discount afforded by the E-rate program. These networks are now
providing a dramatic increase in broadband speeds (from 3 Mbps to 100
Mbps and beyond) and an equally dramatic decrease in cost (from over
$100 per megabit per month to less than $7 per megabit per month)--all
for the benefit of Tribal schools and libraries. Both networks were
``lit,'' or operational, in the summer of 2018.
These two first of their kind Tribal projects represent what can be
done to bring broadband to communities in Indian Country through
effective partnerships. Such efforts are few and far between now, but
these partnerships provide hope, a foundation, and a potential model
upon which to build.
In conclusion, the ubiquitous lack of access to broadband services
over Tribal lands continues to create a divide preventing residents of
Tribal lands from accessing information and services critical to our
21st century economy. Community-oriented and truly effective deployment
of communications technologies within Indian Country, however, has the
potential to level the negative social, cultural, and economic impacts
that history has caused Tribal Nations to endure. New commercial,
educational, and health care opportunities, as well as social stability
and quality of life issues, can genuinely be improved through
broadband. And most importantly, extending broadband across Indian
Country will achieve a more equal opportunity for all Americans--
opening the door for every citizen to become a part of the digital
future of our country and ensuring that Tribal Nations enjoy a secure
and enduring place in that future.
The FCC is obligated to undertake this effort pursuant to its
mandate in the Communications Act that ``access to advanced
telecommunications and advanced services should be provided to all
regions of the Nation.'' They are also obligated to undertake this
effort pursuant to the trust relationship and trust responsibility they
share with Tribal Nations. They owe this effort to consumers
nationwide, who pay for the universal service subsidy programs. But
most of all, they owe it to Tribal Nations, who have waited so very
long for digital equity and stand ready to work together as equal
partners, pursuant to their trust relationship with the federal
government, to finally make it a reality. Because, however precious
federal funds are targeted, rules are developed, and definitions are
created, they must be rooted in the reality of Indian Country.
Mvto, and thank you again for the opportunity to testify this
afternoon. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chairman. I would like to thank all our witnesses. I
will start with the first five-minute round of questions.
Director Goldstein, in both reports, the GAO recommends
improvements to data collection. For example, the GAO suggests
the Chairman of the FCC develop a formal process to obtain
tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband
data and provide outreach and technical assistance to help
tribes participate in that evaluation.
Can you talk to us about how this lack of information has
had a negative impact on the tribal communities?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In our discussion with
providers as well as the tribes, we found that the lack of, and
FCC agrees to some extent as well, that the lack of data has
several implications that are negative for tribal lands. The
first is, of course, that there is no assurance that there is
any accuracy or completeness in the information itself, that
maps tribal broadband. So it is impossible to know with any
assurance whether tribes have full access to broadband.
In our discussions with tribes to complete these reports,
almost every single tribe we talked with said that the FCC data
and the maps did not at all reflect what they believe the
experience and reality to be on their land. This is equally
important, not just to understand progress being made in Indian
Country to improve broadband and to close the digital divide,
it is also important because much of the funding that comes
from the Federal Government, from the FCC and RUS and others,
is based on the accuracy of these maps and whether or not there
are funds that would be made available. Those are based in
large part on these maps as well, and tribes have found that
they cannot get funding in many instances, because the data is
inaccurate and therefore, their ability to obtain funding is
rejected.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Webre, the GAO report on
mapping and data questions shows that the FCC's method for
collecting data collection results is an overstatement of
broadband service and access in both rural and tribal
communities. This inaccuracy prevents the Commission from
directing Federal funding opportunities to places that need it
most. So how does the FCC plan to revise the process to collect
more accurate and detailed data?
Mr. Webre. Thank you, Senator. We understand that there is
room for improvement. We have an ongoing proceeding that's
currently ongoing, it's been going on for a year now. Chairman
Pai announced it last year, in an attempt to get better, more
accurate data, more comprehensive data, so that we can do a
better job of funding areas that are truly unserved.
There are some technical issues that we would have to
overcome to get more granular data, sub-census raw data, incur
some technical issues that we have to work through. There are
also some burdens, additional burdens that may be put on the
providers who are providing this service, some of whom are very
small providers and who have limited resources.
So we have to take all of those things into account. But
the Chairman is very focused on this proceeding, and also on
the fact that we do need better data.
The Chairman. And that includes engagement with tribal
government?
Mr. Webre. Absolutely. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Enjady, as a provider how would the
National Tribal Telecommunications Association modify the
provider data collection process to obtain more detailed
broadband access data? So how do we make sure we get that
better data?
Mr. Enjady. Well, obviously we are going through a
proceeding at the FCC on some op-ex relief. So we have been
going out into the field and actually taking the data itself.
So we have done it by ourselves, we are hoping through the
process that the FCC eventually will come up with a process to
do this, so that in the future, we hope, working together with
the FCC, they can actually see exactly how this data is
collected and how it works for us.
It is something that tribes do need, especially more
funding for these areas, to make sure tribe get online.
Obviously you need to get it for Social Security, you need to
get in, and they say, go to the web. Well, some of these guys
don't know any of this stuff. But they do need more access, and
hopefully we can do that with the FCC. I am sure, the office of
ONAP and everybody else over there have been great to work
with. So I want to make sure that, Chairman Pai, too, has been
very good to work with us. Hopefully they can support us in
Indian Country.
The Chairman. Thank you. Vice Chairman Udall?
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just, a
quick aside. Today I received a letter from Chairman Pai, and I
would like to extend a quick thank you to the Chairman and his
staff for responding to my request to fix issues in the tribal
operations expense order that harmed both MATI and Sacred
Winds' ability to serve their communities. Today the Chairman
responded to these, directed to staff, to provide relief to
these carriers.
Mr. Webre, the FCC issued guidance in 2012 about tribal
engagement. The GAO reports that that guidance is now stale. In
fact, the GAO observed the ``The FCC has limited information
regarding whether its tribal engagement requirement is
fulfilling its intended purpose.'' When can we expect the FCC
to update its 2012 guidance on what tribal engagement should
include?
Mr. Webre. Thank you for the question, Senator. On an
informal basis, the Commission, through ONAP, has received
feedback from tribes on how the engagement obligation has been
going over the years. We understand that is not enough. We do
share that internally with other members of the Commission,
other bureaus and offices, to let them know what we are
hearing, the feedback we are hearing.
But we do understand we need to do more. Earlier this year,
the Chairman announced the reconstitution of the Native Nations
Communications Task Force. This, we think, will be an excellent
topic for them to handle, for them to discuss. Then as we go
forward, we will look at ways that we can put best practices in
or something to update that guidance, that as you mentioned,
was first instituted in 2012.
Senator Udall. Do you have a timeline for us?
Mr. Webre. Well, we're hoping to announce the membership of
the Native Nations Communications Task Force in a week or so.
So we will also announce a date of their first meeting, and we
expect that to be one of the topics of their first meeting.
Senator Udall. And I expect your intention is to try to
really get this updated so that we know what we are dealing
with.
Mr. Webre. Absolutely. We would like to get the feedback
from them first, make sure we understand what the issues are,
and then socialize what can be done with them to better improve
the process.
Senator Udall. Mr. Enjady, your written testimony
highlights the importance of tribal consultation, and tribal
partnerships to shrink the digital divided in Indian Country.
You also noted the need to improve engagement between tribal
entities, Federal, State, local governments and private
businesses regarding various issues such as water rights of
way, easements and so on. Can you provide recommendations on
how to improve the consultation process between all entities?
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Senator Udall, Vice Chairman.
Recommendations, I think New Mexico, the State PRC and us, and
everybody else, has shown a good example of how we can work
together and provide best services for New Mexico. We were one
of the first providers in New Mexico to be able to do that. I
want to thank some of the commissioners from New Mexico that
have really helped us in this area.
Engagement with tribes and allowing us to voluntarily come
to them and ask them, can you help us to be able to start this
process of providing services to our tribal nation, and that
was one of the things that really helped us a lot. And your
help in New Mexico has been monumental in getting this started
here for a lot of places.
Examples for this can be seen through New Mexico and to all
the other tribal players, as well as in other areas, where
there are a lot of tribal carriers providing these types of
services. I think, if we can get some movement in the future
from ILECs, Tribal Nations and with ONAP, that we are working
together, one thing that we are working together on is
hopefully a conference down in Mescalero to save, to keep the
tires of the telecom, see how we provide these services. I
think that can be a shining example, especially if we can get
more people out in the field to be able to see exactly what
rough terrain that we provide these services in, how we need
four-wheel drive just to get up some of these mountains and
peaks to provide these services through microwave or fiber
optic.
So these are some of the things that we can look at, and
hopefully we can recommend that. Just going out into the field
and being able to see this first-hand, then you can see the
examples of what's really happening out in Indian Country.
Thank you, sir.
Senator Udall. [Presiding] Mr. Enjady, I think you ae
absolutely right, seeing it first-hand is tremendously
important. I am going to come back to the rest of the panel on
this same question about recommendations, but I am going to ask
Senator Schatz to take his turn at this point. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Ranking Member Udall.
Mr. Webre, how do you think the FCC is doing mapping
generally and on mapping in tribal lands? In plain English, how
do you think you are doing?
Mr. Webre. I think there is certainly room for improvement,
Senator, and I think that is what we are doing in the ongoing
proceeding. We are looking to make improvements on the
availability of data and the accuracy of data and the
comprehensiveness of the data.
Senator Schatz. I want to make one observation. I listened
very carefully to your five minutes of testimony. I know this
space. It is true, that sometimes Senators only pay passing
attention to testimony and just wait for their turn to talk. I
listened to every word you said. And I don't understand what
you said. And I don't hear a sense of urgency at all as it
relates to this issue.
What I don't understand, specifically, is why the burden is
on tribal governments, and why, outside of tribal lands, the
burden is on individual communities and municipalities to say,
these maps are wrong. Why is it not the Federal Communication
Commission's job, plenty of funding, and plenty of expertise--
to get it right the first time. As opposed to saying, here are
maps, and you may avail yourselves of an appeals process. And,
well, I am on a tribal government, or on a county some place,
and I am supposed to go back to the FCC, fill out forms, get
smart on broadband mapping and the burden of proof is on the
people not covered, not on the Federal Communications
Commission.
So tell me why the burden shouldn't be on you to get it
right the first time?
Mr. Webre. Well, I believe the burden is on us to get it
right.
Senator Schatz. Are you getting it right the first time?
Mr. Webre. With regard to the----
Senator Schatz. Are you getting it right the first time?
Mr. Webre. We are attempting to get it right. We know we
can do better. And that is why we have an ongoing proceeding.
Senator Schatz. Yes or no question. Are you getting it
right the first time?
Mr. Webre. Yes, we--no, we are not getting it right in the
way that we would like, but we are working on getting it right
by this open proceeding.
Senator Schatz. But the way you talk right now is, what is
maddening for communities who are not covered. Because you are
acting as though the question is some kind of compliance with a
rule or statute or a process. And I respect rules, statutes and
processes. But if you're sitting there and you look at a map
and you know your community, I looked at Senator Udall, I was
sitting next to Senators Tester and Heitkamp, who say, I can
look at this map and tell you off the top of my head how flawed
this map is.
So it is not just that there is some kind of corner or
topographic idiosyncrasy or whatever it may be that you can't
get a cell tower or you can't get broadband. It is not that. It
is that on its face these maps are ridiculous.
And to the extent that it is a problem generally, and you
know it is, it is a huge problem on tribal land. And then I was
also struck by what you said, that you don't want to overburden
the providers, you are going to overburden the providers in
collecting the data. And you want to open up a challenge
process. And this goes back to whose job is this. Whose job is
this? I am asking you a question.
Mr. Webre. It is certainly the FCC's job to find out where
it is, where deployment is needed. And we do have to take that
into account. We have to take into account various things,
including burdens that would be placed on providers, as well as
technical challenges with getting more granular data.
Senator Schatz. When I heard Mr. Goldstein's testimony from
GAO, I hadn't looked at the fact that he was from GAO. And it
was such a takedown of the way you guys operate, that I was
actually shocked that it was GAO, because FCC overstates
broadband access on tribal lands, does not have a formal
process to obtain tribal input and broadband data, few tribal
broadband partnerships exist and tribes face barriers to obtain
Federal funding for broadband deployment.
Then I hear from you, and I am not sure that you answered
any one of those questions, other than, we are entering into a
proceeding. So can you tell us, and we have 36 seconds left, I
would just like to hear, first of all, for the record, how you
are going to deal with all of this on a timeframe that makes a
regular person living in tribal lands satisfied that you
understand how urgent this is. That is for the record.
But in the remaining 20 seconds, can I just at least hear
from you that you feel, as an agency, a sense of urgency?
Mr. Webre. I agree, we do as an agency feel a sense of
urgency. As you may know, this proceeding is taking place in
the Wireline Competition Bureau. I am the Chief of the Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau. So I don't have the expertise
in order to provide you with a valid response.
But I can certainly go back to the Commission, and we can
have a more fulsome answer for you.
Senator Schatz. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Senator Schatz, if you want to get a full
answer from your question, that would be fine.
Senator Schatz. I don't think I am going to get a full
answer, but I appreciate that. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Okay, thank you. I couldn't agree with
Senator Schatz more, Mr. Webre, I think it is important that
you take these questions back and you answer them seriously,
and you indicate to all the folks who are interested here that
you really intend to solve this. I think the GAO has laid it
out in a pretty dramatic way.
The FCC's process of data collection is skewed. We don't
have any doubt about that, do we, Mr. Goldstein? I mean, it is
a skewed process?
Mr. Goldstein. That is correct, sir. Two years ago when I
appeared before the Committee, I mentioned that we believe that
that was the case, and these reports certainly show that it is
so.
Senator Udall. This is one where the industry controls the
data, and has all the power. And when tribes do challenge the
data, it is costly, it is time-consuming, and Indian Tribes
don't often win.
Mr. Goldstein. They almost never win, sir. In fact, from
our information, they do not.
Senator Udall. Your report mentions needing a formal tribal
engagement process that allows for meaningful tribal input as
part of the FCC's data collection. Can you expand on that
suggestion and what you think ought to be happening?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, sir. I think it is a three-pronged
process. I think that the FCC does need to be more involved in
understanding exactly where the maps are not accurate. They do
not verify the information that is provided by providers. They
do some logic checks and the like to see if previous 477
submissions are similar to what they have now and make sure
there are no large gaps.
But it is really left up to the provider to, as you said,
sir, to be able to provide information. The FCC pretty much
takes it at face value. Tribes really do not have an
opportunity to submit information to that process. And when
they do try to challenge the information, they are rarely, if
ever, successful.
Senator Udall. You said three parts, right?
Mr. Goldstein. Being the FCC, the providers and the tribes.
They all need to work more closely. There does need to be a
more formal process to engage all the groups. It may be that
some kind of, there is a discussion about proceedings, but
proceedings take years to, typically, for FCC, to complete. I'm
saying there is no time frame or time limit, goals to when this
particular proceeding is to be completed.
Senator Udall. Yes. And Mr. Webre, there is no doubt that
the maps are not accurate?
Mr. Webre. We feel that the maps are accurate in that they
show where it is clear that there is no broadband availability,
in those census blocks. So we know it is clear in that regard.
We know we can do better on the other part of it, where there
is partial deployment in census blocks.
Senator Udall. Mr. Enjady and Mr. Blackwell, what are the
two most important components necessary for the FCC to develop
a successful formal tribal engagement process?
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Senator Udall. One of those
processes would be to designate a, find a person that actually
will engage the company that they're getting data from, or
working with some of the larger companies. I know one time when
they sent a letter, it goes to a tribal nation and they check
off a box and it is done. But nothing comes back, because
sometimes the tribes are kind of wondering exactly what is
going on there.
I know a lot of tribes, we were just at an NTTA meeting
Monday. I was talking to the folks at REDINet, and I said, have
you guys seen any tribal engagement, were you asked these
questions? Have you seen that at Pojoaque, have you seen that
at San I, or any of these other pueblos there? And they said
no, we haven't really seen it. That shows to me clearly that
the companies that are larger are just throwing a letter, and
if they get word back, it's check the box, we made engagement.
And that is true, that is something that we talked about
yesterday in Pojoaque, at our NTTA meeting. So these are some
of the issues that we need to do a little bit better job, some
kind of self-certification from the tribes, showing that there
was engagement, showing a letter saying that the tribes are
working together.
I think more communication is needed. Instead of just
checking a box, we need to be able to talk, just like we are
today, to make things be made aware. I know some people are
trying to do the best they can, but like I said, at times like
we are, we are short-staffed, less funding means less smaller
companies. We are not able to do all these things. With
Lifeline and all these other issues, we have become social
workers. We have had to go out and hunt these guys down.
And it helps me out to get these Lifeline people, get them
on Lifeline to get more customers, to be able to provide the
broadband services. But it is just--we are small, so we are
trying to do the best we can. And I hope that clarifies a
little bit of what the tribes need to be able to get to do
this.
Senator Udall. I think it does. I think you are talking
about a really meaningful step and meaningful engagement with
the tribe for the provider to try to really understand what is
going on on the ground.
Mr. Blackwell?
Mr. Blackwell. Thank you for the question. If I may, I
would like to take some time to be able to supplement the
record and follow up.
Senator Udall. Please do.
Mr. Blackwell. But off the top of my head, there are two
things that jump immediately to mind. The first is, as a part
of an overall effort to dedicate a tribal budget, a
consultation budget at the FCC for these efforts. That would be
sort of an overarching thought. More granular at this point in
time, I think clarification, the need for the raw data. Tribal
nations need the raw data, so clarify that there shouldn't be
redactions, or NDAs that need to be signed.
Beyond that, I do believe that there is, to create a
mechanism within the FCC, so that the data, as it comes and can
be analyzed by the FCC, to create sort of a map of issues on a
tribe-by-tribe, region-by-region basis. I testified that the
digital divide now is very different from 20 years ago. Where
things have worked, it has necessarily created greater
challenges in other areas.
So if there are issues here that have to do with terrain or
affordability, or if there are issues here that have to do with
spectrum opportunities and other things, that the Commission
can have the tools to start addressing those at a granular
level. Thank you.
Senator Udall. And when you say the tribes need the raw
data, Mr. Enjady, do you agree with that?
Mr. Enjady. It does. But when they get the raw data, is
there anybody at the tribe that can decipher this information?
What does it really mean to them? What do we need?
All they know is that tribes need better broadband
services. And it is up to everybody else to hopefully help them
with that. That is why we are in trust. I mean, we have been in
trust for so long. So these are some of the things that we need
help with.
I, myself, fortunately, was able to go and work for the
larger phone companies. I came up through the ranks and I was
able to leave the company and come back to the tribe and help
them out. I used to work for a large corporation that gave me
the skills I needed to be able to build a telephone company for
our tribe. And that is one thing that, there is not a lot of me
out there. If you look at it, there is only nine recognized
telephone companies in the United States. There are 573
recognized tribes. All of them should have telephone companies,
but they don't.
So it is a hard thing, it is very difficult. There are a
lot of barriers in the way that keep tribes from having the
broadband service they need. It is something that needs to be
developed, and I think if we work with the tribes together, I
think we can help them out. I think the FCC, if we work with
them together, I think they can understand both of us and how
we can provide information.
One thing I was always told when I worked with the phone
company, we are a communication company, but we are the worst
at communicating with each other. And that has been true, it is
tough. Thank you, sir.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Mr. Goldstein, did you have a
comment on the raw data? I saw you nodding your head, about the
tribes being entitled to get the raw data?
Mr. Goldstein. I do think, as Mr. Enjady said, that some
tribes would be able to, I think effectively use that
information. Some may not. They may not have all the resources
and skills they would need. I think it is incumbent, however,
on the providers, to engage with the tribes on a more regular
basis, not just checking a box. Some of them we have found
almost never meet with the tribes and are not really willing to
not just engage with them but even to provide services where
they said they were going to provide them. And tribes are
understandingly frustrated by that.
Senator Udall. Yes. The first question I asked earlier had
to do with tribal consultation and it being very important to
shrinking the digital divide. I really only focused on one
witness, so I want to expand that to the rest of the panel.
Does anyone else have any other recommendations on how to
improve the consultation process, the tribal consultation? Mr.
Blackwell?
Mr. Blackwell. Mr. Vice Chairman, as a former regulatory
attorney, I love this stuff. Godfrey is right, it is complex.
So one of the key recommendations I would make is that as a
predicate to consultation that there be trainings, that
generally that before the Commission asks a question that the
Commission get out into the field and explain the rules,
explain the processes. I know the Commission has had success in
this before.
The other recommendation that I would make is something
else that the Commission has done before, is get the senior
leadership from the bureaus, the decision makers, face to face
with tribal leaders. That is something the Commission has done
before with its task force and we look forward to seeing that
again. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Great. Mr. Webre, do those sound reasonable
to you, reasonable suggestions?
Mr. Webre. Yes, I do think that sounds reasonable, Senator.
And we do, just to let you know, ONAP does have very close
relationships with tribal members, as Mr. Enjady had mentioned
before. We reach out to them on a regular basis. They have our
direct phone numbers and our email addresses. Any time they
have questions for us, we are happy to answer them.
We also go out into the field a lot during the course of a
year. We do tribal workshops, where we explain the tribal
engagement obligation to the tribes. Also, if they are
interested in becoming eligible to become telecommunications
carriers, we can also provide training on how to do that. We
are always looking for ways to help the tribes.
Senator Udall. Thank you.
Senator Murkowski, if you are ready, I am happy to have you
go.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize to
our panel of witnesses, I watched you, Mr. Goldstein and you,
Mr. Webre, on the TV, so I got some of it. But I didn't receive
the benefit from you.
But I want to thank you and the Chairman for having this
hearing today. It is so incredibly important, as we know. As I
travel out to rural Alaska and visit with kids, it is really
great, everyone has a cell phone. But you know what, I would
venture to say that not only the vast majority but maybe 95
percent of those kids are not on any plan. It is their camera.
But their ability to really utilize the technology that other
children around the Country might have access to is limited.
I think about the direct impact on how you educate a child.
Our State has moved to a testing system where you do your tests
online. I think it was Sand Point, out in the Aleutians, remote
fishing village out there. And mostly, probably Aleut families.
System can't maintain itself during the time of testing, the
system crashes. So okay, we are just going to test one grade at
a time. System still crashes. What they ended up doing, one kid
at a time takes the standardized exam until they get through
every one in the school.
The impact for us on access to health care, as you know, in
Alaska, we have been extremely innovative when it comes to
tele-health. And we make up for the lack of providers in these
rural communities with our tele-health carts. You can have a
community health aide on the line with somebody in Anchorage,
and it is all beautiful, it is all fabulous, except when you
need it most and everything freezes. When I was out in Unalaska
and they were demonstrating to me the new infrastructure that
they have, they said, we have everything except for the piece
that connects it all together.
So you don't have reliable health care. You don't have
reliable education. I was out in the Bering Straits region, and
we were out in the community of Savoonga, out on St. Lawrence
Island. There is a lot of maritime traffic that we are seeing,
as more and more ships are coming through the straits, as we
are seeing ice freed up. Shipping has increased by nearly 60
percent in the last eight years.
But what happens is you don't have the ability to
communicate with these vessels that are coming through, who are
trying to basically ensure that there is ship to shore
communications. In the meantime, what you have are walrus
hunters, hunters who are out in a 20-foot skiff in open water,
and you have some big vessel, some big tanker bearing down on
you. If you don't know what is coming and what is going, some
of the hunting groups are literally forced to call someone on
land. They have their sat phone in the boat, they call someone
on land and then that person calls a vessel tracking service
provider to find the contact information for the ship before
they can directly communicate with that vessel to let them
know, you have whalers in the area, you have walrus hunters in
the area. So we are talking about some life and death
situations.
Let me ask my question, now that I have consumed
practically my full five minutes. And I think this is for you,
Mr. Webre, with the FCC. Satellite technology, capable of
download and upload speeds, but what we are seeing, the latency
is still too high for deployment and use of critical technology
that is needed out in many of these villages. Latency over the
satellite connections, which is what most of our rural villages
use, is four times higher than the maximum threshold standards
that are defined by the International Telecommunications Union.
So the question is, whether or not the FCC is looking at
revising this official broadband definition, and include the
latency and packet loss as a broadband benchmark, versus just
upload, download speeds. I guess the broader question, what do
you intend to do to address the latency issue?
Mr. Webre. Senator, thank you for the question. It is a
very important one. Unfortunately, as Chief of the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, that is not within my area of
expertise.
Senator Murkowski. Who would do that, then?
Mr. Webre. It depends on the technology. It could be our
Wireless Competition Bureau. It could be our Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau. It could be our Wireline Competition
Bureau, or it could be our International Bureau if it deals
with satellite service.
Senator Murkowski. I think it is a conversation we would
certainly like to know, understand a little bit better. Because
again, we have some issues there where we are not quite sure
what may be coming. So if we can have some discussion, I think
that would be helpful.
Mr. Webre. Absolutely.
Senator Murkowski. And Mr. Chairman, this may have already
been asked and answered, and I apologize. But when, and I think
Mr. Goldstein, I will direct this to you, you had stated in
your testimony that one of the barriers to increasing access on
tribal lands is the cost of providers that are deploying
infrastructure onto tribal lands and that there are a number of
Federal programs that subsidize broadband deployment in these
areas.
But you have expressed concern that the return on
investment hasn't attracted that private investment. We
certainly see that. Any suggestions that you can provide in
terms of what more can be done to encourage these public-
private partnerships for the broadband deployment? We have some
things that are going on in Alaska that we are excited about,
but access to capital is a challenge.
Mr. Goldstein. Thank you, Senator. I think it is no
coincidence that all of the partnerships that we identified,
and there were only seven that we were able to identify, there
may be others out there. But we looked at grants and all the
Federal funds to try and discern what the partnerships were.
All of the partnerships that we found, the funds that they
received came from ARRA, the Recovery Act funds. They did not
come from current funds.
So I think you are right in saying that this is an issue of
capital, and the amount of funding that is going to Indian
Country may not be sufficient to entice providers. As we
indicated earlier in our testimony, of all the funds that are
provided by the FCC and by RUS, just a very small fraction of
those funds have actually gone to tribal lands.
Senator Murkowski. It just seems like it's such a challenge
because in so many of these areas, you're remote, so you are
truly, in Alaska, we are literally at the end of the line. Of
course, we know how expensive that is.
But the areas that you're serving, the population base is
so small. So how is that attractive to anybody from an
investment perspective? So you recognize the challenge but you
don't have a super-duper great answers on how we can attract
it.
Mr. Goldstein. I would probably be in a different line of
business if I knew that.
Senator Murkowski. Yes, we all would.
[Laughter.]
Senator Murkowski. I thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have well-
consumed my time. I appreciate the Committee working on these
issues, because it does make a big difference in terms of how
we can help to provide opportunities around Indian Country. If
you are not in the same field, it is really pretty tough to
play the game. So thank you, sir.
Senator Udall. You are absolutely right.
Mr. Webre, are you happy to take her question back to the
proper bureau and get an answer for us on the one she asked?
Mr. Webre. Yes, Senator, I would be happy to do that.
Senator Udall. That would be great.
Mr. Webre. And if I could make a distinction, a point.
Senator Udall. Yes, please do.
Mr. Webre. We have heard today about the GAO's second
report on partnerships and how less than 1 percent of the FCC's
funding has gone to tribes. I think what that really means is
less than 1 percent of the funding has gone to tribally-owned
entities. There are plenty of privately-owned entities that
aren't affiliated with the tribes that are serving broadband in
these tribal communities.
So I do think that number is much higher. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Will you get us a proper answer under the
criteria you are laying out?
Mr. Webre. We can certainly look into that data for you,
sir, yes.
Senator Udall. Senator Murkowski, if you have any
additional questions, please, go ahead.
Senator Murkowski. I was just looking at some of the
information that I have here. It says that, as you mentioned,
GAO found that less than 1 percent of FCC funding, 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 .7 percent.
So I think it does speak to the real challenge that we face
here.
Mr. Webre. To be clear, again, that is tribally-owned.
Senator Murkowski. Tribally-owned, right.
Mr. Webre. There are plenty of private providers who are
out there providing service.
As a matter of fact, the Connect America Fund Phase Two
option just took place and the preliminary numbers are in. Over
80,000 of those bidders, 80,000 tribal areas, will be covered
by Connect America Fund Two funding. And some are going to be
serviced by tribally-owned entities, and we will work with them
to get ETC status, so they can provide those broadband
deployment funds to their areas.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Enjady had something.
Mr. Enjady. One thing I wanted to add to that, on the
portion of funding that you are talking about, especially grant
money, there is a lot of money out there for grants and the
ARRA is one of the things that you guys talked about.
But the biggest thing that I have seen come back to us from
our NTTA members is that when they took that ARRA money they
lost a lot of their sustainable funding come from the FCC. So
that's the biggest thing is, once you build it, you have to
maintain it. Most tribes don't have that ability to do that.
The high cost fund is one of the mechanisms that was used to
provide funding for that to keep sustainability moving forward.
But a lot of that has been reduced, and we have a hard cap
on us, for small ILECs like us. There is also a budget control
mechanism that is involved in that, that keeps us from getting
all the funds that we need. There has been a catch-up fund that
the FCC has instituted to kind of get us caught up. But moving
forward, that still has to be in play for us to be able to
provide the services that we need. We build these networks, but
we have to maintain it, make sure the fiber is maintained.
Today I had a fiber cut in Mescalero. So I have to roll people
out there, have to get things fixed. These are some of the
things that we have to pay for as we keep moving forward. We
hope they will keep that funding up and cumulative for us who
use it and take the needs that we need out of it.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, for your
excellent engagement here.
Among the many obstacles to closing the digital divide in
Indian Country is the FCC's Eligible Telecommunications
Carrier, or ETC designation. Tribes must receive this
designation to be eligible for FCC funds. Mr. Goldstein, the
GAO report makes clear that ETC designation is not just a
burden, but has prevented many tribes from acquiring FCC
funding.
Would you say the requirement of being designated an ETC is
having a disparate impact on tribes to receive more Federal
funding?
Mr. Goldstein. Yes, Senator, it is. And I know that FCC has
looked at this issue in the past, to try to determine whether
they could provide tribes with this kind of a distinction, and
if you could provide universal service funds without it. They
pretty much found that they could not. So this is really a
statutory impediment in many ways. It may be something that
Congress wants to look at over time to see if the 1996 Act
perhaps could be changed so that there would be more tribes
that could be involved in this way.
Senator Udall. And as a policy matter, do you think that
might be a good idea?
Mr. Goldstein. I think that Congress should look at it. We
have not actually made it as a specific recommendation in terms
of doing the work. But I do think that we are looking at a
fairly antiquated process at this point. The 1996 Act really,
it was mainly telephone companies that got the ETC
designations. And of course, today, the high-cost program now
involves broadband. So the landscape has changed radically
since the Act was passed.
Senator Udall. Mr. Webre, how can the FCC improve the
process for tribes applying to become an ETC?
Mr. Webre. We always, through ONAP, work with the tribes,
if they are interested in becoming eligible telecommunications
carriers. We have a training program, we do outreach to them.
We go out into the tribal areas and do workshops. So we talk
about how you can become an ETC.
What Mr. Goldstein said is correct, it is a statutory
obligation. There are rules that we can't really change in
order to help the tribes become ETCs. So that is kind of where
we are in the process.
Senator Udall. Now, for the overall panel, what practical
recommendations are needed to help tribes access this Federal
funding? I don't know if, Mr. Enjady, or Mr. Blackwell, you
want to weigh in?
Mr. Enjady. I couldn't hear that.
Senator Udall. What practical recommendations are needed to
help tribes access this Federal funding, the Federal funding
that comes through the ETC?
Mr. Enjady. Mescalero Apache Telecom is probably one of the
last tribal telecoms to become an ETC. And that was back in
2001. Other than that, I don't think there's any other tribal
nations that have applied formally, like I did. I think there
are two right now that are pending. One is the Warm Springs
Tribe, and they are trying to become an ILEC with ETC.
Now, there are certain levels of the ETC, if you didn't
know that. There is one that is a competitive ETC, CETC and a
regular ETC. That keeps you from getting the funding that you
need for your area.
This is the sustainability portion that I was talking about
earlier. This is what keeps the funding coming to us to be able
to provide the services in the rural areas. Because we have no
customers out there. For every mile of cable that we throw out
there, or fiber, it costs us anywhere from $40,000 to $60,000 a
mile. And with that in place, and I have two customers on that
mile, how long will it take me to recover that funding?
So there is a mechanism at the FCC that helps me borrow
that money and be able to get the money back, that return on
investment, the ROI. So it is very difficult. So we need to be
able to get the funding needed for us.
But again, CETC, you don't get all that funding, and you
don't get the full funding. But with the new CAFE II funding,
that is a ten-year program, that funding will be made available
even if you are just a CETC or ETC, it doesn't matter. So that
is a process that is happening right now. I am sure there is a
few of our providers that have gotten awards for that. So we
are looking to see how that is going to work out.
Senator Udall. Mr. Blackwell, any thoughts on this?
Mr. Blackwell. Yes. This is a very important area of the
regulations. It was one of the first areas I really dove into
in 2000, when I first went to work at the FCC. In fact, I
worked on Godfrey's and MATI's ETC designation.
Recently, the Commission has done ETC designations, in the
last 10 years, Hopi Telecom, Standing Rock, Navajo Tribal
Utility Authority Wireless. But as far as practical
considerations, as long as the applications are complete, I
think one could ask for a streamlined process at the FCC. There
are many priorities at the FCC. One could ask the FCC to make
this a top priority, ETCs on tribal lands, and ask the
Commission to dedicate staff to the effort. The Bureau is very
busy at all times, the Wire and Competition Bureau.
Perhaps another thought is developing a template for ETC
designations, almost as a technical training method.
But I do want to make a point, I want to be respectful of
your time. My experience tells me I need to be bold here. I do
agree with what Mr. Goldstein said, there is a statutory
question here. We are talking about access to, Godfrey
mentioned the high-cost fund. Well, the high-cost fund, for 20
years, has been pumping $4 billion into this situation, and we
have only come this far.
This is a question of capital. And no critical
infrastructure has come to Indian Country without significant
Federal investment and oversight and regulation. So it is time
for a new authority for the Commission, a new direction, new
authorities. It is time for a tribal broadband fund. This has
been a recommendation that has been coming from the lips of
Indian Country for a decade now, and I am only reiterating what
my committee told Chairman Pai this past February.
I will see a question about ETC, and I will raise you one
tribal broadband fund.
Senator Udall. Right, thank you. Thank you for that bold
recommendation.
Mr. Enjady, your telcom is in a unique position. MATI is
not only a part of the telcom industry, but also responsible
for serving Indian lands, which means that if the FCC requires
more data, that task will fall on your shoulders.
How can the FCC both require more granular data like
latitude and longitude of service areas, but avoid imposing
such burdensome requirements that you spend all your time with
paperwork?
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Vice Chairman Udall. Thank you for
the question.
I think if we can, and I know the FCC is short-staffed in a
lot of areas. But if we can make, like Geoffrey was saying, a
template, to come out and be able to go with us, place to
place, and provide the data that we need, especially going
house to house.
Now, as you know, Indian Country is in desperate need of
housing. We have so many families, multiple families living
under one roof. So it is a big issue that is happening right
now. Do we divide those homes up? Just getting more homes in
Indian Country is tough. Our population is growing and we need
more homes.
With that comes broadband, too, being able to communicate
and do what we need to do as we provide these services. It is
difficult in this situation of getting to provide the services
that we need. I would just like to say that, please come out,
talk with us. NTTA as a whole would welcome FCC to come out and
work with us and be able to develop these templates that I talk
about, and be able to work and get the granular data that they
need.
Looking at the census block as Mr. Goldstein pointed out,
when one entity or person or home has broadband, the whole is
counted as having broadband. It is quite skewed. So we need to
go house to house, and we can provide that data right now. That
is part of the RUS mapping. Once you become, since you cannot
collateralize tribal lands and go out to a conventional bank
and get money, RUS has been our banker. So they require
different information. They have an area of coverage map that
could be probably applied to, that could be used on that side.
There are different ideas that we have that we can work
together. But we just need to get together and do it in the
first place.
Senator Udall. Yes. Mr. Blackwell, you also sit in a unique
position, having worked for the FCC and now with Indian tribes.
In your experience, what can the FCC do to make sure everyone
has the best available data?
Mr. Blackwell. Thank you very much for the question, Mr.
Vice Chairman. I think one of the first things FCC can do is
create a formal intake process. The other is really to get the
right folks in the carriers and in the tribal nations talking
to each other, the mapping folks, the IT folks, the GIS folks.
Folks who have much better technical expertise than I do in
that area, maybe the folks who do the sales and marketing and
maybe make the attorneys sit on the outside of the meeting, so
that folks can really begin to engage on what the data means.
Of course, the predicate being that tribes receive the data and
get some training on how to analyze it.
I would, if I may, I would like some time to be able to
think about the answer and follow up with you, sir.
Senator Udall. The record will be open for two weeks. For
all of these questions, you will have the opportunity to get
information in the record.
Nearly one-third of the kids in New Mexico are at risk of
falling behind in school, simply because they can't get on the
internet at home. It is past time to end the homework gap in
New Mexico and in all of Indian Country. That is why I
introduced S. 2958 earlier this year, to push the FCC to look
for more innovative solutions, like putting wi-fi on school
buses as part of its work with the E-Rate program to get
students connected.
It is also why I was alarmed to see that the two E-rate
specific recommendations from the GAO's 2016 report on tribal
broadband have not been addressed. To make sure E-Rate is
reaching students in Indian Country we need to know that the
FCC is not still using junk data to track tribal applications.
Mr. Goldstein and Mr. Webre, has the FCC made any progress
addressing these two recommendations?
Mr. Goldstein. Senator Udall, I will get back to you
specifically on that. We have not looked, we do follow up on an
annual basis and I am happy to get back to you for the record.
But one thing I would mention is we have just begun work
for the Congress. It is a mandate that was recently passed, in
which we are examining exactly what you are looking at and
talking about, which is low-income education. We have already
identified some examples where we are going to go out and take
a look at kids who are able to complete their work on school
buses and things like that. We have ongoing work in this area.
So we will hopefully shed some additional light on this.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Mr. Webre?
Mr. Webre. Yes, Senator. As a result of the GAO's open
recommendation that the FCC improve the reliability of FCCD
data related to institutions that serve E-Rate defined tribal
program applications, beginning in funding year 2017, year
after the GAO recommendation was given to us in 2016, we did
implement that recommendation. Specifically, the E-Rate forms
now include guidance about when a school or library should
identify itself as tribal. USAC has greatly enhanced its method
for collecting this information by improving the tribal
checkbox in USAC's system.
In addition, USAC's tribal liaison encourages tribal
applicants to check this box so that USAC can better understand
who is participating in the E-Rate program and provide tribal
outreach and training, and assess those outreach and training
efforts. The funding year 2017 ended in June 30th of this year,
and applicants are all still submitting their invoices. So we
haven't had a chance to look at a fulsome record yet. But we
are encouraged by this development and we look forward to
getting that information.
Senator Udall. Mr. Webre, when exactly will this Committee
see accurate data from the E-Rate program about its work in
tribal lands?
Mr. Webre. We do think within a short period of time,
Senator, once we get all the 2017 funding year invoices in.
Senator Udall. That is good. We will be looking forward to
that.
For Mr. Blackwell, would allowing more flexibility at E-
Rate for innovation, like putting wi-fi on school buses, help
address the digital divide in tribal schools faster?
Mr. Blackwell. Yes, absolutely. There are thousands of
tribal children who ride long bus rides back and forth to
school. The thing that I think of when I hear your question is,
so many places in Indian Country I have seen kids sprawled out
after hours in a parking lot next to a tribal headquarters or
tribal library trying to catch the spillover wi-fi.
If E-Rate were able to put wi-fi in buses, it would just
simply extend the classroom. I think that is a good idea. Now,
the bus driver might have to block some social media.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Blackwell. But yes, I think it is a great idea. I can't
think of a single tribal educator I have ever met that would
disagree.
Senator Udall. Great. Let me just close here by thanking
all of the witnesses. I don't think there is anything more
important in Indian Country than getting Indian Country
connected to the rest of society and the world. So this has
been a very, very important hearing. I really appreciate
Chairman Hoeven for focusing in on this and working with me on
it.
If there are no more questions for today, members also may
submit follow-up written questions for the record. The hearing
record will be open for two weeks. I want to thank the
witnesses for their time and testimony.
The hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:21, the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement of Thomas W. Ferree, Chairman/CEO, Connected Nation
summary of key points
As the single largest grantee under the SBI program,
Connected Nation (CN) managed broadband mapping and planning
projects across 12 states and 1 territory (spanning 42 percent
of the U.S. landmass).
Accurate and granular broadband mapping is one of the most
critical tools in developing sound broadband policy to close
the digital divide.
While our mapping efforts have been highly successful, the
SBI program as a whole faced a number of challenges, and the
current Form 477 data collection process is deficient in at
least five significant ways.
We believe any future broadband mapping effort must
prioritize the accuracy and granularity of broadband maps at
the street or parcel level of detail but must also prioritize
the protection of providers' proprietary and confidential
information that may be used to derive more granular coverage
footprints.
A viable and effective path forward would be for Congress to
establish a single, independent, third-party clearinghouse for
broadband data collection and mapping. This clearinghouse would
have responsibility for carrying out five (5) primary tasks:
1) Broadband data collection and analysis, working with the
service provider community through a rigorous non-disclosure
agreement framework;
2) GIS mapping of broadband availability and speeds, derived
from infrastructure and subscriber data submitted by service
providers, at the street or parcel level of detail;
3) Processing feedback submitted by consumers and other
stakeholdersto highlight areas of concern on the map-areas that
may need refinement;
4) In-field validation of the maps once they are produced,
driven primarily by the public feedback received, to ensure
continual refinement of the maps over time; and
5) Mapping where federal funding will result in network
buildout, to ensure that there is no duplication of support for
the expansion of service among the various federal programs
that invest in broadband.
Introduction
Chairman Hoeven, Vice Chairman Udall, and members of the Committee,
thank you for inviting me to share Connected Nation's insights in this
important proceeding this afternoon. My name is Tom Ferree and I serve
as Chairman and CEO for Connected Nation, a national non-profit
organization with a 17-year history of measurably improving lives and
strengthening communities through increased access to, and adoption of,
broadband and related technologies.
Headquartered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, Connected Nation's work
has impacted more than 30 states, and we served as the nation's single
largest grantee under NTIA's State Broadband Initiative (SBI) grant
program. Under SBI, we managed broadband mapping and planning projects
across 12 states and 1 territory, representing 42 percent of the U.S.
landmass, and our mapping and data validation techniques have been
widely recognized as ``best practices'' by NTIA, the FCC, and others.
Connected Nation also has a long history working at the grassroots
level in more than 600 communities through initiatives like our
Connectedsm Community Engagement Program, in which we help local
leaders build comprehensive technology action plans for their
communities. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.connectednation.org/get-connected
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our work is also extensive in tribal communities. Since 2013,
Connected Nation has traveled expansively through Indian reservations
and tribal villages from west of the Mississippi River to the
westernmost portions of the Aleutian Islands in Alaska to test,
validate, and map broadband coverage. Mobile drive testing, conducted
as part of the FCC's Mobility Fund Phase I and outside plant audits
conducted during the SBI program witnessed firsthand the challenges
facing tribes as they struggle to gain access to even the most basic
broadband service. In addition to mobile drive testing and ``in-the-
field'' infrastructure verification, we also played a key role in
completing an inventory of school connectivity assets in every school
across all 53 of Alaska's public school districts, spending numerous
hours and resources on areas with largely indigenous populations. Many
of the areas in Alaska, some only accessible by boat or plane,
dramatically illustrated how the most rural of Native Americans,
including students, are being left on the wrong side of the digital
divide.
Connected Nation's experience on the ground in these communities
has helped us develop an intimate understanding of the impact that
broadband has on rural and tribal areas, and there can be no doubt that
accurate and granular broadband mapping is one of the most critical
tools in developing sound broadband policy to close the digital divide.
Unfortunately, the existing broadband maps are inaccurate, are
overstated, and largely misrepresent available connectivity in tribal
communities today, as noted in a recent Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report released in September.
We believe strongly in the importance of accurate and granular
broadband data collection and mapping for three reasons:
1) To inform better decisionmaking on where public resources
should be invested to support broadband buildout,
2) To avoid potential overbuild situations where service may
already be available at a comparable speed and cost, and
3) To ensure accountability for the ratepayer and taxpayer
dollars once public investments have been made.
Today, we look forward to discussing the successes and lessons
learned from our experiences with broadband mapping as well as the
current Form 477 data collection process administered by the FCC. Our
intent is not to be critical, but rather to foster an understanding of
how we believe the process could be improved for the future to best
represent coverage in rural and tribal areas.
Lessons Learned from the SBI Mapping Program and the Form 477 Process
The SBI Program, which was created by the Broadband Data
Improvement Act of 2008, states the opportunity to, among other things,
establish a broadband mapping program and submit broadband data to NTIA
twice a year from 2010 through 2014. This data was used to create the
nation's first comprehensive national broadband map in 2011, which
unfortunately has not been updated since the program ended in 2014. \2\
Connected Nation was selected by 12 states and 1 territory to collect,
process, analyze, and map broadband data, while also collecting
feedback from the public on where revisions should be made. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.broadbandmap.gov/
\3\ Alaska, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nevada, Ohio, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Throughout the SBI Program, Connected Nation averaged provider
participation rates of 95 percent across our states, despite the fact
that this program was largely voluntary. This was primarily due to the
emphasis we placed on provider relationship-building, as well as our
willingness to accept information in whatever format it was available
and to assist providers who needed help. By 2014, we had established
data-sharing relationships with more than 1,200 unique broadband
service providers of all sizes, with non-disclosure agreements in place
with many of them to ensure protection of their proprietary and
confidential information.
While our mapping efforts were highly successful, the SBI program
as a whole faced a number of challenges. Since every state had its own
mapping agency or third-party partner, this meant that multiple
methodologies were employed in collecting provider information,
analyzing the data, and mapping the results. This also meant that
providers, many of whom operate in more than one state, had to juggle
not only multiple points of contact and data requests, but they had to
report their information in varying ways to satisfy those requests.
Additionally, known best practices, such as those we developed to
represent mobile and fixed wireless coverage propagation, were not
required to be adopted across all states. For example, fixed wireless
coverage in some states continued to be represented as full circles or
drastic polygons that did not reflect the true coverage on the ground.
Unfortunately, some of these inaccuracies persist even today in the
Form 477 data being submitted to the FCC.
As the SBI program transitioned to the Form 477 filing process in
October 2014, we began mapping and refining this data for state
partners that have chosen to continue their mapping programs.
Unfortunately, a number of challenges remain:
1) Form 477 requires providers to report census blocks where
they provide service. If even one household in a given block is
served, the entire block is considered as having service,
resulting in a significant overstatement of availability. This
is particularly problematic in rural areas where census blocks
can be very large--some being larger than the entire state of
Connecticut. Yet these are the areas where broadband
availability is most lacking and needs to be most accurately
defined.
2) Since some providers rely on third-party vendors to compile
Form 477 data and the filings are primarily in .csv (comma-
separated values) format, providers that do not have GIS
(geographic information system) capabilities have no way of
visualizing their service territories to ensure accuracy,
resulting in overstated or understated reporting.
3) Some known providers from the SBI years are simply missing
from the Form 477 dataset, meaning that they are likely not
filing as required.
4) Wireless coverage during the SBI years (when properly
mapped) was developed from propagation modeling based on tower
locations and signal penetration. Under Form 477, however,
wireless coverage is reported by census block just like any
other type of fixed service, indicating areas as served where
there may actually be no service for miles.
5) Missing data and inaccurate filings also may have the
effect of understating service capabilities, putting the
providers themselves at risk for overbuild, since Form 477 data
is now used to direct federal subsidies toward areas lacking
robust broadband.
A Path Forward
Taking into consideration these lessons learned, Connected Nation
would like to offer a few observations and recommendations regarding
the future of broadband mapping and how we can make sure our rural and
tribal areas are well represented. First, any future mapping effort
must prioritize the accuracy and granularity of the maps themselves to
ensure that the nation's broadband landscape is fully understood at the
street address or parcel level of detail. Census block data is not
sufficiently granular as we look to solve the broadband gap in rural
and other insular areas of the United States.
Second, that level of granularity requires the protection of
providers' proprietary and confidential information. Such protection is
needed to safeguard critical infrastructure from vandalism, sabotage,
or worse, and to preserve the confidentiality of competitively
sensitive infrastructure and subscriber information, which should
remain closely held.
Third, any future mapping effort must be premised on a uniform
reporting mechanism to eliminate inconsistencies in state-by-state
reporting. That uniformity in reporting will provide decision-makers
the high level of confidence needed to target federal funding to
broadband deployment projects and a piecemealed approach to data
collection will not achieve the end goal of a comprehensive, reliable,
and granular map.
We are aware that concerns have been raised in the past that more
granular data cannot or should not be collected, either because doing
so could present an increased burden (and unfunded mandate) on
providers, or because the collection of such data would require
government access to infrastructure and/or subscriber location data
that the government has no business possessing. We agree that these are
legitimate concerns but posit that a viable solution exists that would
yield a more granular understanding of service availability, while
protecting the confidential and proprietary nature of the data that
would be used to produce it.
As Congress considers funding and other incentives to promote
broadband deployment, we believe it should also consider establishing a
single, independent, third-party clearinghouse for broadband data
collection and mapping that is accountable to Congress, the FCC, the
public, and the provider community, and it should cover all 50 states,
the 5 inhabited U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia. This
clearinghouse would have responsibility for carrying out five (5)
primary tasks:
1) Broadband data collection and analysis, working with the
service provider community through a rigorous non-disclosure
agreement framework;
2) GIS mapping of broadband availability and speeds, derived
from infrastructure and subscriber data submitted by service
providers, at the street or parcel level of detail;
3) Processing feedback submitted by consumers and other
stakeholders to highlight areas of concern on the map-areas
that may need refinement;
4) In-field validation of the maps once they are produced,
driven primarily by the public feedback received, to ensure
continual refinement of the maps over time; and
5) Mapping where federal funding will result in network
buildout, to ensure that there is no duplication of support for
the expansion of service among the various federal programs
that invest in broadband.
To be clear, Connected Nation believes that broadband service
providers have a reasonable expectation that their proprietary and
competitively sensitive infrastructure and subscriber data should be
protected from disclosure. The good news is that the public disclosure
of such information isn't necessary to serve the public interest.
Instead, that information could be protected and analyzed by a single
non-government clearinghouse entity to derive broadband coverage and
speed capabilities without revealing the more sensitive characteristics
of any given network. Connected Nation has proven throughout its
history that a neutral, third-party aggregator of infrastructure data
can both hold that information tightly and produce accurate and
granular coverage maps from it--maps that are much more accurate than
the current Form 477 process yields.
Another important function that a clearinghouse entity should play
is on-the-ground field validation of coverage in geographic areas that
warrant additional scrutiny, as well as areas where federal dollars are
being invested to build out new infrastructure. This should involve the
deployment of network engineers to visit communities, visually inspect
infrastructure assets, conduct drive-testing of wireless networks, and
make coverage adjustments to the maps accordingly. The public should
also play an important role in providing feedback on the map, and their
feedback should be used to both engage providers in refining coverage
depictions, as well as helping to determine where field audits should
take place.
We hope that Congress will consider a clearinghouse as a path
forward to serve the public interest by informing federal
decisionmaking on infrastructure investments, ensuring accountability
for those dollars as they are spent, and protecting sensitive provider
data all at the same time. By facilitating accurate and granular
mapping, Congress can ensure that broadband on tribal lands is properly
depicted and future federal efforts to close the digital divide are
aptly targeted. We look forward to answering any questions that you may
have.
Thank you.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Geoffrey C. Blackwell
Tribal Priorities for FCC
In your testimony, you discussed the importance of FCC
understanding tribal priorities on the ground level. You discussed a
dedicated tribal budget and accessibility to correct data to understand
the broadband access challenges in Indian Country. You also mentioned
potentially writing a letter to the FCC regarding the importance of
tribal access to broadband.
Question 1. How else can the Committee be helpful to ensure the FCC
prioritizes tribal needs and funding?
Answer. I am happy to provide a bold answer to this question. I
have been working in this arena for almost twenty years and, as I
stated in my oral testimony, what I have learned about the challenges
of the digital divide in Indian Country in those twenty years has
taught me to be bold in my proposals. I firmly believe that Congress
should create a Tribal Broadband Fund to, finally, spur infrastructure
deployment on Tribal lands and in Native communities. This is not a new
proposal, but it has new potential. The federal government and the
Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') have been supporting the
telecommunications industry with billions of dollars a year through the
Universal Service Fund programs, including the High Cost Fund (also
known as the Connect America Fund) and the Lifeline program. These
billions have only brought us this far in Indian Country. When we learn
what the actual figures are on broadband deployment in Indian Country,
after the corrections are made in response to the GAO findings on the
data being inaccurate, there will be an even greater impetus to focus
on the problem that these currents programs have not, cannot, solve.
It is time for a new program--a targeted program with bold
priorities to bring connectivity where the U.S. has not previously been
able to bring it. It is time for a Tribal Broadband Fund, a program
dedicated to actually delivering on the proverbial promise to Indian
Country. Done well, the Tribal Broadband Fund will make all the
difference and go a long way toward articulating both the federal
government's commitment to, and faith in, Indian Country.
Again, this is a not a new proposal. It was needed before, but now
its time has really come. Indian Country first coalesced around this
proposal in response to the federal calls for input on a national
broadband plan in 2009. The FCC accepted this input and first supported
this recommendation in its 2010 National Broadband Plan, when it said:
Recommendation 8.18: Congress should consider establishing a
Tribal Broadband Fund to support sustainable broadband
deployment and adoption in Tribal lands, and all agencies that
upgrade connectivity on Tribal lands should coordinate such
upgrades with Tribal governments and the Tribal Broadband Fund
grant-making process.
Acknowledging the ``unique connectivity challenges'' facing Indian
Country back in 2010, the FCC went on to explain this recommendation by
stating that support from a Tribal Broadband Fund ``would be used for a
variety of purposes, including bringing high-capacity connectivity to
Tribal headquarters or other anchor institutions, deployment planning,
infrastructure buildout, feasibility studies, technical assistance,
business plan development and implementation, digital literacy, and
outreach.''
While much progress in broadband connectivity has occurred in
Indian Country since 2010, the most recent broadband deployment
statistics on Tribal lands remain appalling. According to the GAO, the
statistics are actually worse than the reports indicate. As I stated in
my testimony, the most recent FCC data, contained in its 2018 Broadband
Deployment Report and released in February of this year, shows that
Tribal lands continue to be left far behind from receiving the advanced
services envisioned by Congress. For example, 36 percent of residents
of Tribal lands lack access to fixed broadband service at the FCC's
benchmark speed of 25 Mbps downstream/3 Mbps upstream (``25/3''), as
compared to 7 percent nationwide. And the disparity grows even more
striking on Tribal lands in rural areas, where 59 percent of residents
lack access to what has become the high-speed Internet lifeblood of our
21st century economy, educational opportunities, health care, and
public safety. And, as everyone now knows, and Tribal Nations have
always known, it's worse than that.
There are broadband success stories in Indian Country, such as the
Middle Rio Grande and Jemez and Zia E-rate consortia in our state of
New Mexico that obtained universal service E-rate funding to bring
Tribally owned fiber broadband networks to the schools and libraries of
six Pueblo communities. While these successes are to be celebrated and
will serve as a model for future E-rate consortia, such accomplishments
are, sadly, much too few and far between in Indian Country. As long as
the majority of federal broadband funding goes to incumbent carriers,
incumbent thinking, incumbent models, and incumbent apathy, the
innovation necessary to bring broadband infrastructure to many remote
and cyclically under-privileged and economically distressed Tribal
lands will lay fallow.
That is why a Tribal Broadband Fund is more necessary in 2018 than
it was when the FCC recommended its creation in 2010. Inertia is often
the greatest challenge and it is time to address it. There are those
who will oppose a Tribal Broadband Fund. Some will oppose because it is
not their idea, or they do not stand to benefit. Others will oppose
because it is simply a change from the world in which they operate.
Others will say it cannot be afforded, or it isn't necessary if some
tweaks and changes are made to the current programs. Others will
suggest yet another pilot program or commission another study. None of
that matters, especially when compared to the enormity of the problem
and the various dangers inherent in the lack of connectivity for these
communities.
What we have now simply isn't working in enough places to make a
measureable difference. Carriers and providers will find ways to adapt
and derive value in a new subsidization and build out program. Pilot
programs for broadband in Indian Country have done very little compared
to the glaring enormity of the problem. It is time to be bold. And
anyone who knows anything about the Universal Service Fund knows that
it has the resources to afford the amounts it will take to bring about
change. We are talking about a level of funding that may take many
millions, but not many billions. I know this because, in 2009, three
very active inter-Tribal organizations then involved in developing
responses to the National Broadband Plan docket also came together to
develop a potential total figure for the amount that a Tribal Broadband
Fund would need to be successful. Although the organizations chose not
to publish that figure at that time, those same organizations and the
same cadre of Tribal telecom policy analysts could easily re-engage on
the effort.
There will also be those who say that the FCC doesn't have the
authority to create a new fund among its Universal Service Fund
mechanisms. Although I personally doubt that, Congress can and should
easily clarify this question before it is even offered. The onus should
be placed upon those with the responsibility, and it should be a shared
effort with Indian Country to develop such a fund. The FCC has some of
the best regulatory communications attorneys, economists, and engineers
in government, and with Congressional oversight and paired with the
intellectual resources, research, and analysis capabilities of Indian
Country and institutions dedicated to working with Tribal Nations to
bring about a change in broadband deployment, I am confident that the
development of a Tribal Broadband Fund can be well planned out,
calibrated for operational efficiencies, properly funded, and created
with the correct targets, abilities, and measurements for successful
outcomes.
This will not be too simple or too easy a task, but it will be a
very worthy and important task. Perhaps it is most important to state
that the need for such a Tribal Broadband Fund, and its ultimate goals,
is completely congruent with the goals of Universal Service itself. A
substantial fund, targeted specifically to broadband deployment on
Tribal lands, will bring 21st century connectivity to Tribal lands and
Native communities that, but for such funding, will never see
meaningful connectivity.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Geoffrey C. Blackwell
Streamlined Application Process
Reading through the GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of
the same concerns that tribal communities have are shared by those in
rural areas more generally. Specifically, under section titled ``Grant
Application Requirements,'' the report says quote ``Representatives
from eight of the tribes we contacted told us that in general, the
language included in the federal grant applications is difficult to
understand or the administrative requirements of federal grants are
burdensome.'' This is similar to concerns I have heard from others in
both tribal and nontribal rural areas in Nevada.
Question 1. Do you believe streamlining the application processes
for broadband programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband
buildout?
Answer. Yes, I believe streamlining the application processes for
broadband programs should be one important part of a comprehensive
strategy to make broadband programs more accessible and, as a result,
to encourage broadband deployment across Indian Country and other parts
of rural America. In addition to streamlining application processes, I
believe that this comprehensive strategy should be comprised of the
following components: (1) strategic and timely review and processing of
broadband funding applications; (2) technical assistance--before,
during, and after broadband deployment; and (3) genuine and purposeful
engagement and education.
A significant data point from the past is the experience and
outcome of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The
Notice of Funds Available application strategy of certain federal
agencies in response to the mandates of the Stimulus Act, especially
when paired with a ``shovel ready'' project approach, did not help
Indian Country. Not at all. The process to deploy on Tribal lands is
simply more complicated, thus planning and technical assistance
processes in Indian Country often take longer. Often taking the time
needed to genuinely train and engage to develop good deployment plans
and business models makes all the difference. Many Tribal Nations
either already are, or have the genuine potential to become, the
economic mitochondria in their regions, and it is time for lawmakers
and regulators to recognize and engage on that potential.
Streamlining broadband funding application processes is a delicate
balance between federal agencies' fiduciary responsibilities with
respect to federal dollars and creation of a ``gotcha'' process for
applicants. Often, a simple and inadvertent mistake dooms a new,
inexperienced, or even veteran Tribal applicant to the rejection pile.
It is often difficult for federal officials in Washington, DC to
understand that those completing complex broadband applications
undertake that task in addition to their regular, full-time jobs as
Tribal planners, IT professionals, teachers, school or hospital
administrators, or a myriad of other in-house Tribal professionals.
While there have been incremental improvements over the years with some
federal broadband programs, such as the Federal Communications
Commission's (FCC) E-rate program, there is much yet to be
accomplished.
Strategic and timely review and processing of broadband funding
applications is closely related to the current challenges associated
with broadband application processes. The often extremely long and
drawn-out application review period serves as a serious impediment to
broadband deployment. Consider the FCC's E-rate program, for example.
This very valuable and successful program still has serious challenges
with timely review and approval of broadband applications for schools
and libraries. Often, applications are not approved until well into, or
at the end of, the program's funding year. The practical impact of this
process is that applicants are forced to seek a waiver from the FCC or,
in some cases, are automatically given an extra year to use the E-rate
funding--both of which result in yet another year in which those
schools and libraries continue to lack 21st century connectivity and
all of its benefits.
Compare the current experience of E-rate with that of the Stimulus
Act when, in my opinion, things simply moved too fast to be of impact
to areas that had the worst effects of the digital divide. Had the
agencies involved in the stimulus programs taken a deliberate, but
calculated, amount of time to actively engage in consultation with
Tribal Nations and other unserved communities about what projects could
be possible with the help of a gauged amount of technical assistance
and coordination, I believe a great deal more government investment in
rural and Tribal lands would have resulted. I am familiar with what it
takes to bring broadband projects together in rural and Tribal
communities. City economics don't often work. With the Stimulus Act,
``demand aggregation'' was not a part of the planning--it was speed and
impact. But the ``bang for the buck'' analysis went only so far.
Technical assistance planning that engaged these communities to
aggregate their core community institutions and other institutional
users would have presented some compelling stimulus rural projects, in
my opinion. But as it was, a majority of the actual infrastructure
funding went to incumbents in areas where there was already a measure
of broadband deployment.
There are many definable reasons as to why these areas of the
country lack service, and projects based on simple economic measures,
like population density, or on unrealistic timing, will always lack the
indicators of success in rural and Tribal communities. These are areas
where most corporations would not venture based on their own business
models, so I have consistently encouraged federal lawmakers and
regulators to envision new models and work closely with these
communities to determine sustainable models that engage on the
realities of their situations and that are based on more than simple
economic puts and takes. Many Tribal Nations, responding to the lack of
interest from for-profit companies and other outside entities, are
forced to face the reality of somehow having to deploy broadband
themselves. They have to confront the reality of their own ownership
economics and, in their environments, federal dollars are essential.
With few exceptions, no critical infrastructure has ever come robustly
to Indian Country without significant federal involvement, investment,
and oversight.
I understand that the federal government has a fiduciary
responsibility with regard to federal dollars, but a better balance
must be struck that helps both the process and the applicants.
Tribal Expertise
In the GAO report on partnerships one of the concerns mentioned is
that tribes often do not have some of the technical expertise necessary
to access some of the funding that is available. This is also a concern
that stakeholders have raised with me as one of the major problems for
getting some of this funding to where it is truly needed. The GAO notes
that the Rural Utilities Services has provided some funding for
technical assistance for applicants, funding that enabled RUS to
address some of the barriers tribes face. However, according to the
report, RUS has not adequately taken steps to identify or address the
barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant funding, including
lack of expertise.
Question 2. What can the federal government do better to bring some
technical help to tribes?
Answer. Providing specific and dedicated technical assistance
funding for outside expert entities to work with Tribal Nations is a
very important and productive step that the federal government can take
to bring technical help to Tribes in the broadband arena. And this
funding must cover all facets of broadband projects--before, during,
and after broadband deployment. Such a mechanism would help the
government ensure that federal dollars are being invested and utilized
wisely and for the long-term benefit of Tribal communities.
While technical assistance provided directly by federal government
agencies is always welcome, it cannot substitute for on the ground,
side-by-side assistance and support. Largely located in Washington, DC,
far from Tribal lands both geographically and culturally, government
staffers generally do not live daily with the remoteness and the
terrain issues that define many Tribal lands. This is not a criticism,
but it is a fact. Providing Tribes with the necessary funding to choose
those from whom they want to receive technical assistance will lead to
broadband deployment that will benefit generations to come.
Question 3. Are federal workshops helpful?
Answer. Yes, federal workshops can be helpful, if planned and
conducted properly and in partnership with Tribal Nations and
communities. When I served as Chief of the FCC's Office of Native
Affairs and Policy (ONAP), I overhauled the Commission's Tribal
training program. In 2012, my team and I identified and implemented a
paradigm that incorporated the following components: (1) consultation
with Tribal Nations; (2) responsiveness to the needs and requests of
Indian Country; (3) a targeted regional approach; (4) smaller but more
engaged and vested audiences; (5) a far more interactive approach; and
(6) a Native Learning Lab with laptop computers pre-loaded with
training modules and dedicated staff members to answer individual
questions and/or assist with regional issues. Perhaps most importantly,
our efforts to consult with Tribal Nations to elicit their input and
responses to our regulatory approaches were predicated on a measured
amount of training and technical education. Telecommunications policy
and regulations are complex areas, but are not insurmountable areas to
understand with targeted and interactive training and education
efforts. This approach was transformative to the FCC's policies and
progress on Tribal government matters, and my staff and our team from
across the FCC received accolades from remote corners of Indian
Country.
Another key element to any federal workshop or Tribal consultation
is the presence of actual decision makers on all sides. I found early
on in my federal work that, when senior decision makers and policy
experts from across the FCC actually stepped foot into Tribal workshops
in Indian Country, it not only attracted the presence of elected and
appointed senior Tribal officials, but it also engaged them in a
meaningful way that a routine training did not. It built relationships
and trust, and it informed many an effort first hand if the senior
decision maker was present. My eyes were opened many times in such
conversations, and I owe a debt of gratitude to many senior officials
from both sides of those tables for what I learned from them in those
interactions. It is imperative that Tribal workshops involve decision
makers, not only trainers or outreach staffers.
I also cannot emphasize enough the importance of an interactive
approach to any federal workshop. While presentation of materials and
information is important, it is not enough. Quite the contrary--a
shared federal/Tribal experience is necessary. The most popular segment
of the FCC's consultation and training workshops during my tenure as
Chief of ONAP was almost unanimously a panel comprised of Tribal
leaders, IT directors, and other IT professionals. This panel discussed
and debated broadband issues unique to their communities and engaged
the audience in the discussion--which was educational and informative
to both the conference participants and the FCC staff members in
attendance.
Workshops, and the materials and issues presented, also have to
remain fresh to remain relevant. Federal presenters must imagine
themselves as participants in the audience and ask, ``Why is what I'm
hearing relevant to the challenges at home?'' There are few things
worse than hearing the same material, presented in the same way, time
and time again. We also learned on numerous occasions that workshops
coordinated among several federal agencies with broadband programs--
such as the FCC, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of
Commerce--can make very effective use of the time and money of both
Tribal Nations and the federal government.
Telemedicine
In Nevada, we've recently completed the Nevada Broadband
Telemedicine Initiative. It has been a great example of a public-
private partnership, including Switch, a Nevada tech company and the
Nevada Hospital Association, as well as local and federal cooperation
to improve the rural quality of life in the state. For example, when
Desert View Hospital in Pahrump recently celebrated their connectivity
they talked about how they are able to triage mental health issues via
telemedicine without the necessary costs of transport to Las Vegas, as
an example. I am very excited about this and how these applications can
work for our native communities in Nevada, many of whom live hundreds
of miles from the nearest population center.
Question 4. Is this any unique challenges for rural tribal
communities accessing telemedicine that may differ from other remote
places?
Answer. Yes, there are unique challenges facing Tribal communities.
For example, access to broadband is much lower in Tribal rural
communities than in non-Tribal rural communities. Recognizing the GAO's
findings about the seriously inferior quality of the FCC's data, even
what appears in the most recent reports is starkly severe. According to
the FCC's most recent data, contained in its 2018 Broadband Deployment
Report, 59 percent of residents of rural Tribal lands lack access to 25
Mpbs downstream/3 Mpbs upstream (25/3) broadband service. This dire
statistic compares to another unacceptable statistic--30 percent of
residents of non-Tribal rural areas lack access to 25/3 service. Again,
according to the GAO study, this is an overstatement. It is a unique
frustration that the only data we have is inaccurate. But nevertheless,
it is clear that broadband deployment in rural parts of Indian Country
is far lower than other parts of the nation, which presents a serious
impediment to, among other things, accessing telemedicine.
In addition, the definition of ``rural area'' for purposes of
certain federal broadband funding programs exacerbates telemedicine
challenges in Indian Country. For example, the FCC's Rural Health Care
universal service subsidy program defines ``rural area'' by using U.S.
Census Bureau definitions. While perhaps making sense from Washington,
DC, the practical reality in Indian Country is that many areas not
meeting the FCC's definition of ``rural area'' are what anyone setting
foot in these areas would determine to be rural. For example, there are
several Pueblo communities in New Mexico that, while located between
Albuquerque and Santa Fe, are about as rural as you can get. Yet, these
Pueblos are deemed non-rural for purposes of the Rural Health Care
program. Terminology that is not in line with reality can itself be
termed a failure of government. The practical effect of failing to meet
the FCC's definition of ``rural area'' means that many Tribal
communities are precluded from the very subsidies that would facilitate
access to telemedicine. A more reasonable definition, rooted in the
reality of rural Tribal communities and rural America in general, would
correct this ongoing error.
Rural Spectrum
In Nevada, we have two main metropolitan areas and the rest of the
population lives in small towns and rural areas often separated by
hundreds of miles. Tribal communities in these areas are not only
separated by distance, but also by mountainous and remote terrain.
Another challenge is that this land is almost always owned by the
federal government, so we have a very unique situation in Nevada as we
try to build out broadband to some of the rural and tribal communities
that live in these areas. One of the issues that has arisen is that
wireless spectrum works differently in mountainous areas than it does
on flat land or in the city.
Question 5. What challenges that arise with getting the right
spectrum to bring fixed wireless to these areas?
Answer. This is an area where I have chosen to spend a focused
amount of time during my career, both as a federal regulator and a
Tribal representative, always as a broadband policy advocate. Spectrum
licensing and the access to spectrum is a key to unlocking the immense
wireless divide that many communities in rural and Tribal regions
experience. There are numerous challenges with providing access to
spectrum and wireless coverage to Tribal and rural communities across
the country, including:
The lack of wireless services is where the biggest digital
divide is occurring. The problem is not so much a lack of
spectrum as it is a lack of access to spectrum.
Large amounts of spectrum are warehoused and not built out
by those who hold the spectrum licenses. Many Reservations have
dozens of licensees holding spectrum over their lands but those
licensees either decline to provide service or decline to
sublease the spectrum to those who would build out.
Potential sublease negotiations and discussions often fail
before they even get a chance to begin. The FCC's secondary
markets regulations are spongy. They lack due process and
procedures that make it possible for parties, including Tribal
Nations and smaller, more market sensitive carriers, to get
genuine engagement from the license holders. These regulations
do not include concrete guidelines or methods that would ensure
actual subleases, through partitioning or disaggregation of
spectrum, seeing the negotiation table, much less actual build
out. Moreover, the FCC has not acted on proposals contained in
its 2011 Spectrum Over Tribal Lands Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (``Spectrum Over Tribal Lands NPRM'') that would
augment Tribes' ability to sub-lease spectrum.
The FCC regulatory notions of build-out to rural and Tribal
lands should be overhauled and updated. Whereas wireless
services were seen 25 years ago as a luxury and never a
complete alternative option to wireline services, now wireless
services are the primary method by which mobile citizens in
rural and Tribal communities stay in touch.
The licensing areas themselves need to be overhauled to
attract and incentivize new entrants and new, more small market
based approaches. Rural and Tribal community economics are not
the economics of pure population density. More rural and Tribal
community oriented models that engage communities at many
levels, including their core community institutions, have a
chance to succeed-if provided the potential that spectrum
licensing holds. A license is a bankable asset that can bring
the ability to attract investment.
It is time to start looking to new entrants and new
incentive strategies involving spectrum because it is clear
that the larger national wireless companies will not build out
to Tribal lands and rural communities. The FCC simply cannot
incentivize carriers to go where, pursuant to their own
business models, there is no economic incentive to serve. The
FCC has tried to pay the wireless industries to build our for
over 18 years, to no significant avail. Since 2000, for
example, the Tribal Lands Bidding Credits program has not met
with success. The offer was simple--work with a Tribe and build
out to its lands to a particular level and the FCC will provide
back to you the value of what you have spent in buildout in a
credit for spectrum in the FCC's highest-bidder wins spectrum
auctions. It was a groundbreaking approach in 2000, but it has
been a failure at bringing any measurable buildout to Tribal
lands. Why? Because, while the price of spectrum has gone up so
far through any imaginable roof in the FCC's Auctions (see the
results of the FCC's Advanced Wireless Spectrum 3 auction),
Indian Country with all its challenges and relatively
impoverished low population density continues to remain an
unattractive area for the major wireless corporations. This is
especially true with such significant federal regulation. It is
time to recognize the need for new license based incentives.
As a result, Tribes have been forced to look at ownership
economics, making the difficult choice of providing service
themselves and going into debt because no one else will provide
service.
The solution to this enduring challenge and injustice is to make
spectrum available and accessible to those who will use it on Tribal
lands--smaller market sensitive companies, including most importantly,
Tribal Nations themselves. Giving Tribal Nations spectrum, and
empowering the opportunities of smaller market sensitive business
models, is a necessary next step.
The FCC is rightly proud of its elaborate and largely successful
wireless licensing framework. I shared in that pride for a significant
portion of my career. But Indian Country and rural America were largely
an afterthought in that framework. And when it comes to the effects of
regulatory mechanisms, that framework has not led to better build out
in Indian Country. In many communities, it is beyond laughable as to
how bad the service is--it is actually dangerous. It is time to do
something new and different.
In 2011, over 7 years ago, the FCC unanimously launched the
Spectrum Over Tribal Lands NPRM. The FCC has yet to take any action on
this NPRM but, among many proposals, there are multiple that are still
quite relevant and viable. Among these, the FCC proposed a Tribal
priority (similar in concept to the priority in has had in effect for
the same time period for full-power commercial radio licenses) that
would be made available only for unserved or underserved Tribal lands
for qualifying Tribal entities, designated as such by the relevant
Tribal government. For such Tribal lands within a geographic area
covered by an unassigned license, the FCC sought comment on a proposal
that a Tribal priority would permit a qualifying Tribal entity to
proceed in licensing without proceeding to competitive bidding. This
would greatly reduce the cost of initiating and providing service on
Tribal lands. The rationale for this approach is the same for both
full-power commercial radio licenses and wireless spectrum licenses
because, in both situations, Tribes have a governmental responsibility
for, among other things, public safety. Consider the wild fires in
California and other western states, and the continuing critical and
unmet need for interoperable communications across Tribal lands and
rural America becomes even more dire.
The inability to access spectrum held under existing spectrum
licenses via secondary markets negotiations processes, as discussed
above, also continues to plague Tribal Nations. In its 2011 Spectrum
Over Tribal Lands NPRM, the FCC sought comment on a Tribal proposal for
the creation of a formal negotiation process through which a Tribe that
had been refused good faith negotiations regarding a secondary markets
transaction within a wireless licensee's geographic area of license
could require the licensee to enter into such negotiations. This
approach would prevent Tribes from being foreclosed from access to
existing, unused spectrum over their lands. If the FCC will not take
the next steps, any steps, it is time for Congress to act to shake
loose new thinking, or shake loose new action on these still highly
viable options.
Congress and the FCC hold in their hands the solution to many of
these spectrum challenges facing Tribal lands and rural America in the
form of an open rulemaking proceeding. For all of the reasons discussed
above, Congress should direct the FCC to take action on its 2011
Spectrum Over Tribal Lands NPRM to effectuate the Tribal Priority and
the new secondary markets mechanisms.
Question 6. What challenges arise with getting infrastructure built
on federal lands?
Answer. This is a difficult question to answer. Or rather, the
answer could be so long and complex so as to recall memories of an old
encyclopedia. As Tribal lands are federal lands, a large portion of my
other answers are relevant here. However, in simple terms, there are
two major areas in my experience that come immediately to mind among
the many challenges. The first is having effective and reliable
processes for the use of the federal lands, such as leaseholds, rights-
of way, easements, and other such methods of legally deploying
communications infrastructures. It goes without saying that these legal
property law processes should be respected and followed, but it is
important to note here that I have either witnessed or learned about
the presence of communications infrastructure on dozens of Indian
reservations that lack the proper federal authorization. It was
saddening to see dark fiber on a reservation that was never known about
or lighted because it was laid without the proper right-of-way. These
processes must be prioritized for communications infrastructure.
Federal land management agencies must engage a new element of their
personas and recognize they have a responsibility to play a role in the
deployment of broadband nationwide. Leaseholds and rights-of-way must
be properly valued. Federal lands should be appropriately and properly
made available to deployment, rather than stand as obstacles.
A related major area that comes immediately to mind is the
coordination of efforts when federal lands are used. It could be a very
good idea to re-convene federal interagency task force or working group
efforts, but these should involve practice level experts who will
contribute, not figureheads. Collocations of wireless infrastructures
on federal towers should be made available, if not actually marketed.
When trenches are dug for placement of infrastructure into the ground,
the famous ``dig once'' ideology should be recognized and other
deployments should be included as appropriate, as possible. ``Dig
once'' is a simple concept, but can be challenging in practice.
Environmental and cultural preservation regulation as they apply to
communications infrastructures is an area where I have spent a large
amount of time. This is a complex and often-controversial arena. First,
I believe one cannot turn one's back on the historic and cultural
heritage of our communities. Reviews should be budgeted and accounted
for in planning and programmatic funding. Secondly, I think the
controversies should be placed in the hands of the experts, with the
mandate to find middle ground. In the face of complexity and challenges
to the environmental and cultural preservation review processes, there
is an alarming trend to juxtapose those requirements against the goals
of deployment and development.
In my opinion, this is a mistake. These are areas of governmental
priorities that should not be balanced against each other. Instead, as
much as possible, they should be harmonized. Connectivity should not
come at the price of environmental and cultural preservation impacts.
And while there are places that are simply too sacred to see a tower
placed in their midst, or fiber trenched through, the cultural
preservation process should be cognizant of the need and place that
connectivity occupies in society. One must acknowledge a history of
impact and loss of cultural resources and sites of religious and
cultural significance in Indian Country. If Tribal preservation
officials are leery of industries, it is not for no reason at all.
These are areas where lawmakers and regulators should engage with
experts, avoid the hyperbole in arguments, and avoid simply making
rough policy cuts based on the outlier cases or the radical opposing
viewpoints held by certain of those in industry and the preservation
community. Lawmakers and regulators should seek to find the common
ground, uphold the law, call out parties that offend or take advantage
of the system, and reward those who participate or coordinate in the
deployment of infrastructure that maximizes the potential for
deployment and minimizes the potential for cultural preservation
impacts.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Patrick Webre
Tribal E-Rate Timeline
During the hearing, I mentioned that two E-Rate specific
recommendations from the 2016 GAO Report on tribal broadband have not
been addressed. When I asked about the progress on addressing those two
recommendations, you replied that the FCC implemented the first
recommendation; the program forms now contain guidance on what
qualifies as ``tribal.'' You also stated the USAC's tribal liaison
encourages tribal applicants to identify themselves as tribal so it can
track who is participating in the E-Rate Program, leading to more
accurate data.
Question 1. What else has the FCC done to ensure further progress
in addressing these two recommendations from the 2016 GAO report on
tribal broadband?
Answer. The Commission implemented the first recommendation from
the 2016 GAO Report (GAO-16-222) (i.e., to provide guidance on what
qualifies as ``Tribal'' on E-Rate program forms) in funding year 2017.
Specifically, the E-Rate program forms now include guidance about when
a school or library should identify itself as ``Tribal,'' and the
Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) has greatly enhanced
its method for collecting this information by improving the Tribal
``check box'' in its system.
Regarding the second recommendation, the FCC has directed USAC to
improve its IT systems for purposes of data collection and reporting
about the E-Rate program, and USAC has made substantial progress in
this area. For example, in November 2017, USAC rolled out its OpenData
platform, which makes E-Rate program data-including data on Tribal
schools and libraries-available to the public. It's available at
https://opendata.usac.org/. We anticipate this data will be more
informative as schools and libraries follow the new guidance on how
they can identify themselves as ``Tribal,'' and we expect this data
will help the Commission assess its progress in ensuring that all
Tribal schools and libraries have affordable access to broadband.
Question 2. When will we see accurate data from the E-Rate program
in tribal lands?
Answer. The Commission remains committed to ensuring that all
Tribal schools and libraries have affordable access to modern broadband
technologies. To ensure that we have accurate data on all Tribal
applicants within the E-Rate program, USAC's Tribal liaison encourages
Tribal applicants to check the ``Tribal'' box on E-Rate applications so
that USAC can better understand who is participating in the E-Rate
program, provide relevant Tribal outreach and training, and assess the
effectiveness of those outreach and training efforts. Educational
efforts have included conducting monthly conference calls with Tribal
applicants and multiple Tribal-specific training sessions on an annual
basis; coordinating with Tribal organizations such as the Bureau of
Indian Education, the Association of Tribal Archives, Libraries and
Museums, the National Indian Education Association, the National
Congress of American Indians, Native Public Media, and the Alaska
Tribal Administrators Association; maintaining and updating a Tribal-
specific reference webpage on USAC's website; and distributing
newsletters tailored to the needs of Tribal applicants. To this end,
USAC's Tribal liaison, in coordination with the Commission's Office of
Native Affairs and Policy and Wireline Competition Bureau, has made
significant strides in engaging Tribal governments and communities,
explaining the relevance of the E-Rate program to eligible Tribal
schools and libraries, and helping eligible Tribal schools and
libraries successfully participate in the E-Rate program.
Challenge Process for Form 477 Data Collection
During the hearing, I mentioned the process for challenging data
collected using Form 477. When Tribes challenge the data, Tribes endure
a costly appeals process and often are unsuccessful. Tribes also report
that this process is skewed in that the Industry controls the reporting
of data.
Question 3. How many Tribes have appealed the data collected from
Form 477?
Answer. The Commission uses FCC Form 477 to collect voice and
broadband data from all facilities-based providers of mobile and fixed
telecommunication providers. This data is used to produce reports of
the state of voice and broadband coverage in the United States, as well
as appropriately inform FCC policy decisions. As recognized in the
current Form 477 rulemaking (FCC 17-103), the FCC currently collects
information at the census block level, and the Commission is currently
considering the best ways to improve the level of detail the Commission
collects while appropriately balancing the costs and burdens on the
companies submitting the information.
The semi-annual Form 477 collection currently does not have a
formal challenge process as the collection is designed for providers of
voice and broadband service to report where they can reasonably provide
service upon a request from a customer. This data is then used to
produce the various maps and reports the Commission provides on the
state of voice and broadband service in the United States. When this
data is used to inform the Commission's funding and policy decisions,
the Commission appropriately considers the limitations of the Form 477
data. This has resulted in multiple formal challenge processes for
Commission funding.
For example, in both the A-CAM (DA 16-842) and CAF II (DA 15-383)
proceedings the Commission instituted a formal challenge process to the
areas determined eligible by the models and Form 477 data. No Tribes or
Tribal carriers participated in these challenge processes.
Although the Mobility Fund Phase II auction does not rely on Form
477 data (but instead separately submitted, standardized mobile
broadband data), the Commission opened a window for challenges that
lasted through November 26, 2018. Sixteen Tribal governments
participated in the MF II challenge process (DA 18-1225).
In the Commission's April 2018 Tribal Opex Order, the Commission
gave relief to carriers serving Tribal lands, but limited that relief
to carriers that had not yet deployed 10/1 Mbps service to 90 percent
or more of the housing units on the Tribal lands in its study area.
Mescalero Apache Telecom Inc. has filed a petition challenging the Form
477 used to find that Mescalero Apache had more the 90 percent
deployment.
Question 4. How many Tribes were successful?
Answer. With respect to MF II challenge process, on December 7,
2018, Chairman Pai announced that the FCC has launched an investigation
into whether one or more major carriers violated the MF-II reverse
auction's mapping rules and submitted incorrect coverage maps. The
Commission has suspended the next step of the challenge process--the
opening of a response window--pending the conclusion of this
investigation.
With respect to the petition filed by Mescalero Apache Telecom
Inc., on December 20, 2018, the Commission adopted an order granting
relief to the carrier.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Patrick Webre
Streamlined Applications Process
Reading through the GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of
the same concerns that tribal communities have are shared by those in
rural areas more generally. Specifically, under section titled ``Grant
Application Requirements,'' the report says quote ``Representatives
from eight of the tribes we contacted told us that in general, the
language included in the federal grant applications is difficult to
understand or the administrative requirements of federal grants are
burdensome.'' This is similar to concerns I have heard from others in
both tribal and nontribal rural areas in Nevada.
Question 1. Do you believe streamlining the applications processes
for broadband programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband
buildout?
Answer. Yes. In all of the Commission's rulemakings devoted to
broadband buildout, the Commission focuses on how to best reduce
regulatory burdens while ensuring consumer protections.
RUS and E-Rate
Looking at the recent GAO Report on partnerships on tribal lands,
there is a focus on ways RUS could help tribes obtain funding to expand
broadband deployment on their lands--including through RUS's grant
program. I understand that there are 60,000 mostly rural K-12 Native
students who attend federally-supported schools that do not have the
broadband infrastructure required for digital learning in the
classroom.
Question 2. Are any of you aware if there are ways that RUS grant
programs could be leveraged to provide the matching funds for the FCC's
E-Rate program in order to connect these students?
Answer. Yes. In the E-Rate program, the Commission will match, on a
dollar-per-dollar basis, up to an additional 10 percent of funds for
high-speed connection construction, so long as the connection meets the
Commission's connectivity targets of at least 100 Mbps per 1,000
students and staff (users) in the short term and 1 Gbps Internet access
per 1,000 users in the longer term as set forth in the 2014 First E-
Rate Order (FCC 14-99). Thus, if an E-Rate eligible Tribal school
received RUS grant funding to construct a high-speed broadband
connection, the Commission would provide additional funding to match,
on a dollar-per-dollar basis, up to 10 percent of the high-speed
broadband connection construction costs, so long as the project
provided broadband that meets the Commission's connectivity targets.
Rural Spectrum
In Nevada we have two main metropolitan areas and the rest of the
population lives in small towns and rural areas often separated by
hundreds of miles. Tribal communities in these areas are not only
separated by distance but also mountainous and remote terrain. Another
challenge is that this land is almost always owned by the federal
government, so we have a very unique situation in Nevada as we try to
build out broadband to some of the rural and tribal communities that
live in these areas. One of the issues that has arisen is that wireless
spectrum works differently in mountainous areas than it does on flat
land or in a city.
Question 3. What challenges arise with getting the right spectrum
to bring fixed wireless to these areas?
Answer. The Commission has worked diligently to make available
additional spectrum for use in rural and tribal areas to reduce the
cost of providing service. For example, through the broadcast incentive
auction, we have repurposed 84 MHz of spectrum from the broadcast TV
band to be used for advanced wireless use nationwide. The Commission
also recently started an auction of 1.55 gigahertz of spectrum in the
24 and 28 GHz bands that will be essential to 5G deployment and other
advanced services, and is working to facilitate an auction of the Upper
37, 39, and 47 GHz bands to further support these types of services.
Furthermore, the Commission sought comment on opening a new local
priority filing window for rural Tribal Nations in the 2.5 GHz spectrum
band. Such a window would allow rural Tribal Nations an opportunity to
access 2.5 GHz spectrum to address the educational and communications
needs of their communities and residents on rural Tribal lands,
including the deployment of advanced wireless services in areas that
currently lack such service.
Question 4. What challenges arise with getting infrastructure built
on federal lands?
Answer. The FCC generally has no direct role in land management
agencies' decisions concerning infrastructure deployment on federal
lands, but we have taken important steps to support government-wide
efforts to reduce barriers to infrastructure investment and deployment.
The FCC participated in an interagency working group formed in 2016 to
streamline federal agencies' review, pursuant to the National Historic
Preservation Act, of the effects of proposed communications deployments
on historic properties. That working group's efforts culminated on May
24, 2017, with the Advisory Committee on Historic Preservation's
issuance of a Program Comment that authorizes federal agencies to
accelerate their processes for identifying and considering the effects
of communications infrastructure projects on historic properties, and
to exempt certain undertakings from historic-preservation review under
specified conditions. And on January 24, 2018, the Broadband Deployment
Advisory Committee (BDAC), voted to adopt the report of its Working
Group on Streamlining Federal Siting, which recommended that all
federal land-management agencies be directed to harmonize their
application forms, fees, and procedures for environmental and historic
preservation review, communicate more clearly with applicants during
the review process, and prioritize their consideration of broadband
siting applications such that all review be completed within 60 days.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Tom Udall to
Mark Goldstein
Tribal E-Rate Timeline
During the hearing, I mentioned that two E-Rate specific
recommendations from the 2016 GAO Report on tribal broadband have not
been addressed. When I asked about the progress on addressing those two
recommendations, you replied that you will get back to me on this and
that the GAO does follow up on an annual basis.
Question 1. Is GAO aware of any FCC progress in addressing these
two recommendations from the 2016 GAO report on tribal broadband?
Answer. The two open recommendations are from GAO-16-222 and state
that FCC should (1) improve the reliability of FCC data related to
institutions that receive E-Rate funding by defining ``tribal'' on the
program application, and (2) develop performance goals and measures to
track progress on achieving its strategic objective of ensuring that
all tribal schools and libraries have affordable access to modern
broadband technologies. On October 24, 2018, we requested an update
from FCC on the status of its efforts to implement these
recommendations. An FCC official told us that our request was being
reviewed by subject matter experts; however, FCC was not able to
provide us with the requested information in time to be included in
this response before the hearing record is closed. We will continue to
actively work with FCC on the steps it is taking to implement these
recommendations and will update the status on our website as
appropriate.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Mark Goldstein
Streamlined Application Process
Reading through the GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of
the same concerns that tribal communities have are shared by those in
rural areas more generally. Specifically, under section titled ``Grant
Application Requirements,'' the report says quote ``Representatives
from eight of the tribes we contacted told us that in general, the
language included in the federal grant applications is difficult to
understand or the administrative requirements of federal grants are
burdensome.'' This is similar to concerns I have heard from others in
both tribal and nontribal rural areas in Nevada.
Question 1. Do you believe streamlining the application processes
for broadband programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband
buildout?
Answer. While we have not conducted any recent work necessary to
answer this question, our work has shown that completing federal grant
applications to obtain funding for broadband deployment can be
challenging for tribes. As we stated in our September 2018 report,
tribal officials we interviewed told us the grant application process
for broadband infrastructure may be resource-intensive and time-
sensitive, thus putting an administrative and financial burden on
tribes. For example, some of the tribal officials we contacted cited
difficulties preparing requirement application materials between the
time a grant announcement was made and the submission deadline.
Further, tribal officials we contacted from New Mexico and Oklahoma
told us the constrained timeframes prevented them from effectively
preparing a comprehensive application package.
Tribal Expertise
In the GAO report on partnerships one of the concerns mentioned is
that tribes often do not have some of the technical expertise necessary
to access some of the funding that is available. This is also a concern
that stakeholders have raised with me as one of the major problems for
getting some of this funding to where it is truly needed. The GAO notes
that the Rural Utilities Services has provided some funding for
technical assistance for applicants, funding that enabled RUS to
address some of the barriers tribes face. However, according to the
report, RUS has not adequately taken steps to identify or address the
barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant funding, including
lack of expertise.
Question 2. What can the federal government do better to bring some
technical help to tribes?
Answer. Dedicated funding and technical assistance grants have
helped some tribes acquire the technical expertise they need to access
broadband infrastructure funding. For example, RUS previously
administered the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP), authorized by the
Recovery Act in 2009 \1\ to expand high-speed Internet service in
unserved areas. In addition to providing funding to deploy broadband
infrastructure, BIP included funds specifically for technical
assistance. In our September 2018 report, we noted that 12 technical
assistance grants went to tribal communities to develop regional plans
to provide broadband service in rural areas that remain critically
unserved. During the course of our review, RUS officials told us that
RUS would need dedicated funding, such as that authorized by BIP, to
provide technical assistance for tribes. The RUS officials believe that
such technical assistance would help tribes overcome some of the
barriers that they face in applying for RUS grants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 118-119 (2009).
Question 3. Are federal workshops helpful?
Answer. During the course of our review, RUS officials told us they
have held a number of external training and outreach events, such as
workshops and seminars, with tribes over the past 5 years to provide
information about RUS's broadband programs. For example, in April 2018,
before the 2018 Community Connect grant's application deadline, RUS
hosted a webinar on various requirements for grant applications. RUS
officials told us that RUS's outreach efforts generally focus on
specific programs and instructing potential applicants on program
requirements and how to complete application packages. Although GAO did
not conduct a formal review of the effectiveness of these workshops and
outreach events, RUS officials told us they strive to make outreach
efforts interactive so that there is two-way communication between the
agency and tribes. In addition to workshops, RUS officials said they
reach tribes through direct contact, telephone calls, emails, and joint
outreach with FCC.