Fast, affordable Internet access for all.
New Report: Native Nations and Federal Telecom Policy Failures: Lessons from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
A new report published today by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) reveals how the sovereignty of Tribal Nations and their own efforts to solve connectivity challenges on Tribal lands can be undermined by the poor design and maze of bureaucracy associated with some federal broadband programs.
The report – Native Nations and Federal Telecom Policy Failures: Lessons from the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund [pdf] – begins with a startling example of how one Tribe learned about the plans of a major fiber Internet provider to serve “a handful of locations in the heart of the Tribal Reservation.”
Authored by Dr. Jessica Auer, Tribal Broadband Policy Analyst with ILSR’s Community Broadband Networks initiative, the report captures the pernicious consequences of a program that was supposed to help bring high-speed Internet service to rural communities who lacked access:
A non-Tribal telecommunications company had received federal funding to build broadband infrastructure on Tribal lands without consent, had appeared to shirk required federal Tribal engagement requirements, had ignored the Tribe’s attempt to raise concerns about it, and now seemed to be expecting to dictate what would happen next.
While the report begins with a real-life example of how Tribal nations now working to build their own broadband networks can be blindsided by bureaucratic neglect and non-Tribal ISPs, it goes on to detail why the FCC’s approach to broadband funding has fostered tension between providers and Tribal ISPs, and why RDOF has earned a particularly bad reputation among many Tribes.
“Some recent federal broadband programs do actually require ISPs to secure Tribal consent prior to receiving funds,” Auer says. “But, the FCC still has not adopted this approach. The problems outlined in this report reinforce the need for such a requirement.”
In addition to illustrating how the FCC’s approach “sets the stage for conflict” and is “not a recipe for productive relationships” with Tribal governments, the report also examines how RDOF impacts the roll-out of the federal government’s major broadband infrastructure funding program known as BEAD (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment), which is being administered by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).
While elsewhere across the country RDOF awards make locations ineligible for BEAD funding, NTIA has excepted Tribal lands. Unfortunately, Auer shows, in many states the burden of proof has once again been put on Tribal shoulders.
NTIA’s decision not to recognize enforceable ([RDOF)] commitments without Tribal consent can be a helpful corrective for Tribes who might otherwise be eligible for BEAD funding, though it looks like it may take another big effort to make it a reality.
In the meantime, residents in Indian Country continue to be stranded on the wrong side of the digital divide.