The Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) approach to awarding providers for Tribal broadband expansion under the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) has been making things complicated for Tribal nations, asserted the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) in a report issued this week.
RDOF is cited in the study as an example of federal policy failure in this complex issue concerning the digital divide existing among Native nations.
After years of inattention from both the broadband marketplace and the federal government, many Tribal communities have been compelled to address their broadband issues independently by forming their own provider entities. Now, they face outside providers having been awarded funding to make connections on Tribal lands.
According to the report, “Native Nations and Federal Telecom Policy Failures: Lessons from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund,” these outside providers frequently conflict with Tribal nations’ objectives. This is due to poor program design (RDOF does not require formal Tribal consent or consultation), misinformation (the rules regarding duplicative funding on Tribal lands are complex), and unproductive attitudes from non-Tribal broadband providers aiming to build on reservations.
Indeed, there is a vast disparity in broadband availability, speeds, and cost between Tribal and non-Tribal areas. Households in Tribal areas are 24% less likely to have access to broadband and experience internet speeds that are 75% slower. They also pay 11% more for basic internet service. The data is from a 2022 study on Tribal broadband by the Center for Indian Country Development at the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
Another study, from the Government Accountability Office, showed that 18% of those living on Tribal lands have no broadband internet availability, compared with 4% in non-Tribal areas.
In one of several cases highlighted in the ILSR report, a Tribal broadband provider was notified that a major fiber internet provider was set to begin a buildout to a handful of locations on the reservation, which in fact represented an overbuild.
Not only had this non-Tribal provider received federal funding to build broadband infrastructure on Tribal lands without Tribal consent, it also had ignored federal Tribal engagement requirements. The Tribe’s concerns were disregarded by the non-Tribal provider, yet the latter indicated that they planned to move ahead with the build anyway.
Deeply concerning was that the RDOF award would potentially disqualify the Tribe from eligibility for other federal or state grant programs — a competitive disadvantage for the Tribal provider. In this particular case, “the Tribe was ultimately able to secure a Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program grant under NTIA rules that required Tribal consent and the RDOF bidder indicated its willingness to withdraw if they were not penalized,” the report said.
The FCC has yet to adopt the approach of some other recent federal broadband programs, which do require providers to secure Tribal consent before receiving funds. The report emphasizes the need for this requirement.
The report explained that while elsewhere across the country, RDOF awards make locations ineligible for BEAD funding, NTIA has made an exception for Tribal lands. In many states, however, the burden of proof is on the Tribe’s shoulders.
“For many years, the FCC has doled out the largest share of money, especially to rural areas, but the
Commission’s policies on Tribal consultation have often resulted in broken promises, frustration, and bureaucratic hurdles for already time-strapped Tribes looking to close the digital divide on their lands,” summarized the report’s author, Jessica Auer.
Learn more about Tribal broadband expansion at Telecompetitor’s Tribal coverage page.
